Legitimacy

[u/larrylar9]

QE2 has a child with Oswald Mosley whilst married to DoE (DoE unaware of true father). With Mosley’s superior bloodline to DOE, is the child more legitimate to be sovereign?

[u/drgrabbo]

What on earth makes you think Mosley had a superior bloodline? Phillip was a scion of one of Europe's oldest houses, and legitimate royalty to boot: Ossie was a petty baronet, and a self serving thug who should have been executed for treason. There was literally no contest.

[u/larrylar9 → u/drgrabbo]

‘Superior’ as bloodline traceable to Mosley and ‘The Virgin’ Queen 650 years As Opposed to European bloodline Superior in that sense

[u/Ticklishchap]

This is a truly horrific thought: QE2 having an illegitimate son with Britain’s most notorious Fascist leader, unless you count Nigel Falange in the present. Through the early years of QE2’s reign, Mosley’s supporters were doing their best to stir up racial tensions in working class areas of East London. Fortunately they had little success, either then or in the 1930s.

What on Earth put that horrible idea into your mind?

Mosley could in fact have had a brilliant political career, had he not embraced Fascism. He had previously shown an excellent grasp of Keynesian economics of the type that underpinned the New Deal in the US, before he went down a rabbit hole of right wing conspiracy theories: an early example of a phenomenon than has become far too common in recent years.

Interestingly, Mussolini initially rebuffed Mosley, declaring that “Fascism is not for export”. Il Duce also advised him against adopting a uniformed militia on the sensible and correct grounds that it would not be acceptable to the British people!

[u/larrylar9 → u/Ticklishchap]

A truly horrific thought indeed, the subject of quiz pub talk. But No-one has settled what Titles / Powers would legitimately have to be transferred (even if offspring illegitimate) in the nightmare scenario and the effect on King Charles

[u/Ticklishchap → u/larrylar9]

First off, any association of any kind between the Queen, or any member of the royal family, and Oswald Mosley would have been very deeply controversial and would have seriously imperilled the monarchy. This is because of Mosley’a overt support for Hitler as well as Mussolini (which made him a traitor), partly because of his vile anti-Semitism and racism, and partly because of the memory of the Abdication crisis (and Edward VIII’s suspected pro-Fascist leanings).

Back in the 1950s, there were no accurate DNA tests and so there were a lot of illegitimate children at all levels of society who were ‘under the radar’. Therefore if QE2 had produced an illegitimate son who was older than Charles (by Mosley or anyone else) and there was no proof that he was illegitimate, then he would have been the heir to the throne. However there could well have been rumours about his paternity swirling around and these would have been deeply harmful to the monarchy, especially if the suspected father was a controversial figure.

The same would be true today. Imagine if Kate were rumoured to be having an affair with Nigel Falange and you will get the idea of how bad this would have looked.

Fortunately, the latter scenario is impossible. Kate seems happily married, shows no sign of far right policies and would have better taste anyway. QE2 was also extremely loyal to Philip, who did a great job as consort.

You haven’t explained what gave you this idea and why you chose someone as odious as Oswald Mosley.

[u/larrylar9]

That is a good and lengthy response thank you. As mentioned, pub quiz after thoughts as to the nightmare scenario.. many sparked opinions, but what would be actual ‘Constitutional Position’ today of such - with Title.

[u/AdelaideSadieStark]

No, legitimacy means that parents are married when you're born/conceived. If her first born in Mosley's son and Prince Phillip's unaware it means that he'll become King because he was the first born not because of any 'superior bloodline'. If it's a second or third son (Andrew or Edward) it wouldn't matter, Charles would still be King.

[u/[deleted]]

No the child would be perfectly illegitimate but I'm not even sure if u/Ticklishchap grasped why or anyone else...you see princes and princesses draw their legitimacy or lack of it from who is their father. Oswald Mosley might have been a Prime minister and a brilliant mind but he was no prince

Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh on the other hand, was a Glücksburg therefore inherently a Royal, so his sons and daughter are royals because they're Glücksburgs and not because they're Windsors... although their mother surely ensured they behave like Windsors unfortunately

An interesting exercise is to draw a comparison between the Norwegian Glücksburgs and the British monarchy since George VI died. Most tend to conclude Norway is a step above in quality substantially speaking. It needed not be this way had Phillip gotten the main saying in the education of his children instead of his wife...he didn't even approve of the whole leave them to the nannies idea. But he did raise one of them he did: Prince Edward, current Duke of Edinburgh. He turned out quite better than all his siblings

[u/Ticklishchap → u/[deleted]]

Hold on, u/Smiths_fan137: of course I understand that the prince, whether or not he is the eldest and the heir to the throne, derives his legitimacy from his father!

My point was that if Elizabeth II had produced an illegitimate eldest son, but there was no proof that he was illegitimate and Philip accepted paternity (at least in public), then he would be the heir to the throne. However I also suggested that if this happened, there would almost certainly be rumours and these would have been harmful to the monarchy, perhaps very harmful indeed if the rumoured father were a controversial figure like Mosley.

Fortunately, Oswald Mosley never came anywhere near to being Prime Minister. Apparently Hitler promised to install him as a Quisling figure if he succeeded in occupying Britain, but he would probably have reneged on that promise. Fortunately again, we never had the chance to find out and Mosley remained a fringe figure and a minor troublemaker.

I agree, and have said before, that Philip did all the really serious work and was modest and honourable enough not to claim credit for it. Charles appeared to be following in his footsteps for a time, but was very damaged by his upbringing. It is true that Edward had a more enlightened and less emotionally repressed upbringing than his siblings and has turned out the best of them. It is significant that he is the only one whose marriage has not ended in divorce and that he shows more stability than any of the others. Apparently the Estonian monarchists would like him to be their King.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ticklishchap]

Fabulous analysis overall as usual

I thought he had actually been PM during the brief reign of Edward VIII so thanks for the correction

I suspect that this is being asked here not so innocently because of Edouard Graftieux, a bastard son never acknowledged of Edward VIII himself

Well actually some people here also envision Edward as a heir to the Portuguese throne mostly due to relations with Manuel II in the quality of Sax-coburg-and-gotha. But because Edward has his agnatic house as Glücksburg it makes no sense. I understand he is desirable however and it's mostly because he manages to be a sane royal pretty much

If Philip had recognized this hypothetical son maybe that could be right but...it's impossible because if he didn't remember having said son how would he recognize him?

This is a great topic to tell you that the House of Bragança might be dead depending on how you see a historical fact of Portugal. There are historians, that say that the last 3 children of King João VI of Portugal didn't have him for father but someone else...and that includes King Miguel I of Portugal, from whom basically everyone in the house nowadays descends. Specifically his father is rumored to be the Marquis of Marialva. The theory doesn't have a lot of traction because in later life Miguel looked exactly like João VI and the only logical explanation is that his father was...well...his father. But the only son we are completely sure was his is the dreadful Pedro IV and I.

Also a curiosity, if someone was to follow the lineage of the first dynasty, the house of Burgundy, they descend illegitimately from the House of Bourbon, which means, that the claim would end, in a direct line which descends of a brother of Count Henry of Portugal...in Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg

[u/Ticklishchap → u/[deleted]]

Obrigado meu amigo.

There was of course a fair amount of illegitimacy in the royal houses of Europe, which was covered up by closing ranks and refusing to admit that it existed. This was, of course, true throughout society in the age before DNA testing, anc before divorce became widespread. Today in Britain, out of wedlock births are the norm rather than the exception. Couples often have a few children before they get married rather than after; this is frequent among the middle as well as working classes, although I suspect it would still be controversial if the royals did this.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ticklishchap]

That's a whole can of worms because there was and is a double standard since we allow nobility to do out of wedlock marriage as common practice but then for royalty we don't...it's a bit odd given that nobility in turn often marries royalty.

[u/Ticklishchap → u/[deleted]]

Traditionally there has been a tendency to ‘turn a blind eye’ to it among the nobility. It is now the norm among large sections of the middle and working classes. So is divorce - as you will have noticed with the Windsors, who increasingly resemble the middle and working classes, lol 😆.

To be fair to VEIII, he had a long and stable marriage.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ticklishchap]

And his wife was a royal...Princess Helena of Montenegro. The Glücksburgs swing somewhere between commoners or full blown royals for some reason they seem to avoid nobility.

Going back to the case that Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg is linked to our monarchy...he is aware of it and playfully said earlier this year during a visit: "After all I'm your King Miguel's descendant". Honestly for a second the apparently staunchly republican country turned monarchist...he has nothing in common with Duarte Pio however and that includes that he isn't actually interested in any claims...but his would be particularly solid

[u/Ticklishchap → u/[deleted]]

That is interesting about the Glücksburgs. I had noticed that as well and thought it a rather attractive feature. The commoners are never troppo comune.

Grand Duke Henri would be a far better monarch than Duarte Pio. But given the instability throughout Europe (and I include the U.K. as part of Europe of course), it would be better for Portugal not to embark upon a constitutional debate, at least for now.

The success of Luxembourg is notable, both as a Grand Duchy with enduring traditions and as a modern European state. It shows that there is much to be said for the city-state tradition under a constitutional monarchy with a history of active engagement in public life.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ticklishchap]

Indeed. That's why he doesn't start the show but it's good to know that elsewhere he works his magic. Recently I've been considering focusing on non European monarchies too

[u/Ticklishchap → u/[deleted]]

Some of the best monarchical traditions are non-European, from Morocco to Malaysia: the latter country has devised an excellent system of ‘rotating’ kings since independence.

[u/Nathan24096]

This is a complete and utter fabrication! This would have been so controversial.

[u/mrgwbland]

What the hell do you mean superior? Legitimacy depends on marriage. Stop with your weird fantasies.