![]() ![]() Three lusty and fertile kings, Charles II, James II and William IV, would each father a clutch of bastards. ‘Well was it for them that Henry Fitzroy his natural son … was dead, otherwise (some suspect) had he survived King Edward the Sixth, we might presently have heard of a King Henry the Ninth, so great was his father’s affection and so unlimited his power to prefer him.’ĭespite this fertile start, the golden age of royal bastards was still to come. The taint of bastardy was strong, but Thomas Fuller was of the opinion that it was only his untimely death in 1536 that denied him the crown: He was so beloved of his father, King Henry VIII, that many thought he was a candidate for the succession. The one notable royal bastard of Tudor times was Henry FitzRoy, the Duke of Richmond and Somerset. Henry VII belied his austere and devoted public image by fathering Roland de Velville, whose mother is only known as a ‘Breton lady’. It is known that King Edward IV fathered Arthur Plantagenet and made him Viscount Lisle. Records are skimpy, and it is unsurprising that writers and chroniclers did not risk royal wrath by bringing the existence of illegitimate children (and their attendant sin of adulatory) into public view. There were undoubtedly royal bastards for as long as England (or any other country) had kings. Adultery was, of course, sinful but more worryingly for the medieval monarch was the possibility of publically acknowledged bastards upsetting royal succession. There is a scarcity of records that reflects both the period and the discretion with which extramarital affairs were handled. In pre-Tudor England, royal bastards were not necessarily acknowledged or accorded the privileges their successors would enjoy. The end of the House of Stuart’s royal position also stymied a batch of royal bastards who, instead, found influence in Spain and France ![]() Long periods of female reign have ensured that male infidelities have been kept away from the royal bloodline. There are other reasons why the total number of royal bastards was relatively low. A decent number of illegitimate children died without issue or their lines became quickly extinct. With estimates of 160 royal bastards over the course of the past 900 years, their known direct descendants are relatively limited. ![]() If anything, it is surprising that there are not many more people with royal blood. Well into the twenty-first century, descendants of royal bastards occupy some of the top branches of the aristocracy, the Establishment and even Number 10. The legitimate children of kings and queens are only part of the story a surprisingly important role is played by the progeny of the illegitimate offspring of England’s monarchs. Over nearly a thousand years of royal history since the Norman Conquest, the monarchy has augmented its power, wealth and influence by marrying well and producing children. ![]() And some started dynasties that thrive to this day. Their illegitimacy barred them from succession to the Crown, but family ties ensured they would be granted titles, lands, wealth and power. What connect David Cameron, the 12 th Duke of Grafton and Diana, Princess of Wales? They are all descendants of royal bastards, the illegitimate children of kings from across the centuries. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |