I was watching a PBS program about illegitimate children of kings in England back in the day.
They made no mention of the illegitimate offspring of queens, though. I know that at least some queens did have lovers, so what would have been done had a child been born of a queen’s affair?
Peace,
mangeorge
The queen would have been executed for treason if it was found out (at least in England, and probably elsewhere). The very fact of having an affair was a treasonable offense because it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the crown.
There were some exceptions; the book Sleeping with the Queen discusses some cases where the queens became pregnant by a lover, but it was exceedingly rare (and, of course, dangerous). The exceptions often were cases where the King wasn’t interested in sex, and tolerated the queen’s lover.
Edward II’s wife Isabella was almost certainly unfaithful to him, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that she bore children to anyone else while married to him. I have a hazy memory of a later king of England or Britain’s children being suspected not to be of his loins, but I’ll have to re-read some books to see if I can find a reference.
Paul I of Russia was quite possibly illegitimate.
To this day it’s still high treason for a queen-consort to commit adultery (same goes for the heir apparent’s wife), but neither she or her lover are still liable for the death penalty (not since 1998). Now that only applies to a queen-consort, naturally a queen-regnant (like Elizabeth II) cannot commit treason against herself. Isabella II of Spain’s husband, Francis, was gay and isn’t believed to have sired any of her children. Never the less he was still legally their father and they technically they weren’t illegitimate. Is there any precedent for an unmarried female monarch having children? The only one I can think off is Cleopatra VII and Julius Caesar.
Up until the era of paternity tests, I would imagine that any bastard children born to queens were usually assumed to be the children of the king, provided the queen was reasonably sneaky in her affair.
Henry VIII accused at least one (or more?) of his wives of being unfaithful to him during marriage, but most historians consider these claims to be mere pretexts for execution, leaving him free to marry again.
There has been recurring gossip that now-Prince Harry is not the child of both Charles and Diana, although the rumored father has denied being such. The resemblance is certainly striking: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2273498.stm
Henry VIII - now there was a real royal bastard!
Rumours have circulated for years that Edinburgh is not the biological father of two of the four children of the present Queen of England.
I’ve no idea whether there is any foundation to those rumours, but it seems more than possible that at some stage in the past queens did bear children to men who were not their husbands.
There is however a strong legal presumption that the husband of a married woman is the father of her child, notwithstanding any circumstances which might suggest otherwise. This presumption is not irrebuttable, but where we are dealing with a queen generally nobody has any interest in trying to rebut it. So the parentage of a queen’s children is never questioned.
Well, bastard he might have been, but William I was actually known as “William the Bastard” (since he actually was one in the sense of being born out of wedlock).
I guess over here a royal bastard would be like a total asshole. That is pretty much what ol’ Hank was, according to PBS and movies I’ve seen.
And the famous “Emory the Ape” beatles song.
I have always suspected that in times past it was dependent on the health and sex of the (presumed) heir.
If he was healthy - he was good. If female; bad.
But maybe I watch too much PBS.
Even during his lifetime, and afterwards, King Edward IV of England, one of the best kings ever, was widely considered to be illegitimate - the son of a humble longbowman named Blaybourne, who supposedly shot one of his arrows between the legs of Cecily Neville while her husband, the Duke of York, was away on a military campaign, fathering Edward. One sign of Edward’s illegitimacy, to those who believed it, was the fact that he was much taller and more handsome than his father or either of his brothers (in fact, at 6’4" he was the tallest British monarch ever.) Another was that his birth was hushed up and his baptism was a very small and private affair, compared to that of his brothers. To this day there are people claiming the English throne based on this allegation of Edward’s bastardy.
I thought that the blood test done on Harry when he entered the British Army & was posted to Afghanistan proved this to be untrue.
And I don’t see any ‘striking’ resemblance in those photos.
Blood tests have been proposed but never agreed to, from what I’ve read. And although those photos might not seem similar to you, I’ve seen others that were. Just sayin’.
No, Catherine Howard clearly was having an affair with Thomas Culpepper. Whether they slept together is unclear, but her closeness to him, as well as her appointing people to high positions in response to their keeping quiet about the affair, was enough to raise the type of questions that were treasonous.
A reigning queen who had an illegitimate child would not cause question to the line of descent. Any of her children would be a legitimate descendant of that line. However, a queen consort’s child out of wedlock would not be a legitimate descendant, since it would not be a child of the reigning king.
Anne Boleyn was probably not unfaithful to Henry, but was accused of sleeping with a whole pile of men. Several of them, including her brother, were put to death with her. Given what Anne wen through to become queen, most people think the charges were false.
Katherine Howard, as RealityChuck pointed out, probably did cross the line with Thomas Culpepper. Tragic, really - she was very young, 16 or 17, and Henry was an old fat man at the time. Of all the queens, she seems to me to be the most naive and she died for it.
Very true. In fact, according to family tradition, my earliest paternal ancestor was one William, Castellan of Pontefract, who seems to have come out of nowhere to a fairly high rank, and who was allegedly the illegitimate son of John who was himself the illegitimate son of Richard III. (At one point in my thirties I closely resembled the most famous portrait of Richard III in terms of facial physiognomy.)
Well speaking as a Brit I’d thought I’d heard every loony toons rumour or smear attempt on the Royals buts that a totally new one on me and a quick vox pop with my friends,a completely new one on them as well.
Could have been a bit tricky for Liz given the amount of security,personal staff and media attention she comes under twenty four hours a day every day.
Diana was caught out very soon after her wedding sneaking out of her apartments when she thought that her police minders were asleep and visiting a single mans apartment in Chelsea where she spent the night with the lights out before returning early morning before the servants were up.
Unfortunately her BGs weren’t asleep,followed her discreetly,parked outside the gentlemans flat for the night,tailed her back home and logged the incident.
So things DO happen.
I agree. Eyes, nose, mouth and face shape are all different. Both have red hair, but so does Harry’s Uncle Charles, Diana’s brother Earl Spencer. The Earl is the man I see the resemblance to, not James Hewitt. Look at their eyes, eyebrows and noses - Harry’s got the same bridge as Charles.
In my experience, people can’t tell people with red hair apart. I know that sounds stupid, but my father, ex-husband and daughter all have red hair and people keep seeing “resemblances” between them that don’t exist. It’s like they can’t see past the hair colour.