King and Prince?

Question

I have a hypothetical question and I'm trying to prove a point to a few people. A man is prince, he has an illegitmate child and then get married to another woman and they have a child. Even if the older one's parents weren't married at the time of his birth, wouldn't he be the rightful heir to the throne because his father is going to be king and he's the eldest?

Answer 1

It would be right for the eldest child to be the heir because he is the oldest, But that country might say that the child has to be legitmate to become the heir.

Answer 2

It depends on the laws of the country.  Some countries go with the rule of primogeniture (rule by the eldest child or eldest son).  Some countries may have rules that restrict the inheritance of the crown to legitimate children only.  For example, I believe Henry VIII had an illegitimate son that was never considered an acceptable candidate for the throne; only the children of his wives were candidates.

Also, keep in mind that nothing is certain; the prince-father may die or be killed before he can assume the throne, and if his sons are too young to rule, the crown may be passed to the other princes or princesses of his generation, and then to their children.  Alternately, a regent may be appointed to rule temporarily until the child comes of age (this delicate power blaance is rarely accepted in most modern monarchies).

Answer 3

No.  Legitmate children of a prince always take predescence over b*****d children.

Answer 4

The law in England & Wales on legitimacy was changed some years ago. The current situation is that a child is not illegitimate if there was no legal impediment to the parents getting married at the time of the child's birth.

If, before he was amrried, Charles had fathered a baby with an unmarried woman under the law of the land that child would not be illegitimate.

Answer 5

Uh...what Teresa said.  Her answer was, well, great.

Answer 6

It depends, but in most cases, the answer is no.  The first child is illegitimate and therefore (particularly if there is a legitimate child) they will not be the heir.  There have been plenty of examples of this in British history where kings have a abundances of illegitimate children who have never ascended the throne.   A prime example would be Charles II.  He had an enormous amount of "b******s", and no children with his wife and the throne passed on to his brother, who was his heir.

However, there have been cases where the illegitimate child did become king, especially in cases where there is no legitimate child.  The only example that comes to mind is William the Conqueror.  While his father was not a king, he was the Duke of Normandy.  William was his only son, and he succeded his father as Duke of Normandy.