Sadly, the Jerilderie farmer who was the *alleged* heir to the Plantagenet claim to the throne died in 2012. His title passed to his son Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, who lives on a different farm near Wangaratta.
Thanks - yes, I should have checked where he now lives. He had a role in the Coronation, I recollect. I think he is mentioned in one of my coronation videos. (I grew up in Shepparton, so Jerilderie and Wangaratta feel like local territory to me.)
The 14th Earl of Loudoun was strongly republican, while the 15th is constitutional monarchist. But both live(d) normal lives in slightly run down normal houses and rarely use their title. A friend from Wang knew that the 'Simon Hastings bloke' had some sort of title, but was still very surprised to see him on TV at the coronation.
I have read in several sources that at least 2 of Queen Victoria’s descendants did in fact suffer from porphyria - one of Kaiser Wilhelms sisters and more recently Prince William of Gloucester.
Edward IV was king by right of conquest. So irrelevant if he was illegitimate. Likewise his parents were only apart during his "conception" for a month. He could have been a late or early baby. Conceived before or after his father left. Babies are not always born exactly 9 months after conception.
Carried on is about the size of it. She was using someone else's moniker. She lived out revisionist history. A good history professor can tell you some things. A great one shows you where the bodies are buried so you can grapple with your politics.
The Act of Settlement was crystal clear on the succession rules. Even a child adopted by the royal family doesn't have a claim to the throne similar to an illegitimate child. The monarch must be born in the royal family and born of a legitimate royal marriage.
Wonderful presentation. As coming from a family that has folklore of descent from George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert I don't think any of us have ever claimed that our ancestor should have been the monarch but they were all loyal subjects of Queen Victoria and her lawful heirs and successors who were crowned and anointed. all of us probably have some royal ancestry in our family tree somewhere but that neither makes us royal or a claimant to the throne. Your legal explanation of this is clear and should put an end to ridiculous claims that any one else (including the so-called Jacobite heir) have any real claim to the throne. romantic speculation is one thing but legal reality another. God Save King Charles!
Absolutely fascinating - thank you! Incidentally, for ‘blood line purists’, King Charles is descended from George III - bypassing Queen Victoria (who looked exactly like her father) - through Queen Mary (consort of George V) whose mother was a granddaughter of George III.
Those royal bloodlines are quite complicated and do cross a lot. I once gave a talk to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, and one of the other speakers was quite aggressively heckled when referring to a very obscure royal line because he did not have all the connections right!
I’m an Australian Monarchist, but one thing that annoys me about Monarchists is they lose sight of the point in favour of the details of bloodlines and protocol rather than the how our (Australian) system works. Like heckling some poor person online for using HRH referring the King rather than HRM.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I hope I have this connection right, though! Unless some further late 19th/20th century ‘other side of the blanket’ hanky-panky took place, George III’s Hanoverian blood is in King Charles’s veins.
One day around the turn of the millennium, I had a few hours to spare in London after arriving at Heathrow and before catching a train down to East Sussex to attend a conference about - of all things - royal history. I was wandering around and happened upon the Masonic Temple, which was open to public tours. (I am neither a mason nor, to my knowledge, the result of a liaison between a wayward prince and a housemaid.) Visitors were sent to wait in a room with portraits and busts of previous Masonic notables. I turned and saw the bust of a gentleman who I instantly knew had to be Edward Duke of Kent because he looked like a male Queen Victoria. I checked the inscription on the base and it was indeed he. I remember thinking, in a flash, that settles it. Victoria was Kent's daughter. It was written in her face.
This video is fantastic. I remember my grandpa in the 70's/80's would tell us he knew he had royal blood in his veins. He could feel it in his waters 😆🤭. He really was the loveliest grandpa but he did have some interesting ideas! Thanks for this awesome video🙏
That's interesting, because my father also claimed he could feel things in his waters. He claimed lineage from King Brian Boru of Ireland, but I think I stopped believing this around about the age of six.
I was wondering: should a monarch be homosexual and/or refuse to marry and conceive "the traditional way", what would be the possibilities of an heir conceived in vitro? Shouldn't the parliament start legislating about "non traditional ways" of conceiving an heir? This would concern not only the royal family, but all those noble houses where the title is passed on through legitimate births. It's 2024 and it's just a question of time before a prince or a nobleman objects to his title being passed on to a relative when a "non traditional" heir could be available.
As far as I know the law has not yet caught up with these issues regarding succession to the throne, unless existing general laws in the family law field apply. But yes, one day it may need to be addressed by Parliament.
Talk of Queen Victoria not being her fathers daughter is laughable. Look at the portraits of the Duke of Kent he looks like Queen Victoria cross dressing as a man and vice-versa.
@@richardw3470 The "'But I'm the Prince Regent! My portrait hangs on every wall!' -- 'Answer that, Baldrick'" scene from Blackadder the Third refers to this.
Unrelated question but I just watched both your Harry Evans lectures for the senate and I really want to ask you a question running through my head after listening. Under Australia’s Westminster system especially with the relationship between the monarch and parliament or the monarch and their ministers although I think it extremely useful to rely on other cases with other commonwealth countries how catastrophic would it be for the high court of Australia to decide that precedents like The king Byng case or the dismissal case in Tuvalu can’t even be discussed in an Australian court because they did not occur in Australia? Once again amazing video
One always has to take into account that Australia's constitutional system is in some ways different to those in other Realms, and adjust accordingly. Precedents in other countries are useful to show us what 'might' happen in particular circumstances, what matters the decision-maker should take into consideration, what risks apply, etc. But they are really just useful thinking exercises, to which we then have to apply Australian conditions and legal rules. No court would treat these examples as in any way binding or determinative in Australia. In most cases, the issues they raise would not even be 'justiciable' (i.e. capable of determination by a court) in Australia, as they concern politics and conventions. They are more useful for politicians and vice-regal officers to get an idea of the risks of pushing the boundaries on particular matters.
I was literally just thinking of this! tbh I can see a parilment just passing a quick "just this once it doesn't matter" law if the illegitimate monarch is popular honestly I understand the republican argument that modern countries shouldn't be worried about stuff like this..yet I can't help but think the world would be blander without it. so thanks you for posting this! it's like an early birthday present . a sorta off topic question..beside the govenor general is there any regular briefing or way set up for the realm governments to keep the monarch updated.? I know its probably realm by realm government by government but the palace website used to claim that alll the realm governments sent the queen information regularly but I can't see a republican minister writing to the King regularly and not complaining. yet all of them note the monarch is "well informed" when meeting them. I'm asking because everything I've read on the subject is vague and inconsistent. I've even outright asked the Queen![I know it was a long shot but worth a try]
Yes, Queen Elizabeth was well informed. In part it came from her vice-regal representatives. Some wrote frank and detailed accounts of what was happening in the country, but others really just wrote form-letters, so it depended on the person. In addition, the Queen's Private Secretary would often develop contacts in the country, who would write detailed insider accounts or provide the views of ordinary folk about what was going on. So there would often be a network of accounts flowing into the Palace when political events occurred, which the Private Secretary would then sift and report to the Queen. Again, this would depend upon personalities. Some Private Secretaries were more proactive in developing and nurturing these contacts than others. I'm not sure what is happening now with King Charles. The only thing I've heard so far is that there is much less interest in the Realms and that communications with them have been downgraded. So it may be that he is not as well informed as his mother, but I could not say for sure.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 so there would be no official communications from any ministers ?That's what the palace website says and actually the" Australian" newspaper found letters from PMs to the monarch but the Goverment refused to release them Justin Trudeau says he keeps regular contact but that seems like a him thing (he's weirdly monarchist and coming from me that's saying a lot).Anways I just realized I rambled so am sorry for taking up your time but thank you for the excellent answer! concerning what you found about the realms
@@cesargodoy2920 There are certainly some letters from Prime Ministers, but they primarily deal with specific issues where formal advice is involved, not general political matters, and at least from Australia they are fairly infrequent. But as you say, it depends on the personality involved.
Heres a question “surrogacy & inheritance” does surrogacy count for inheritance to non regnant thrones .. Princess Benedikte of Denmarks son (Prince of Sayne-Berrel??-??????) made me wonder “Letters Patent” weren’t made with surrogacy in mind
Yes, someone else asked me that. The short answer is that I don't know. I'm not sure whether the law has caught up with these matters. Other complications might include using IVF with non-biological embryos. As I'm not an expert in family law and how the law has developed in this field, I can't give an authoritative answer, but I'd be curious to find out too.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'm not sure about the monarchy but a few years ago the UK House of Lords ruled that children born through Artificial Insemination could not inherit titles this is why when the 8th Earl of Lonsdale died in 2021 his half brother inherited his titles rather than his son
As I understand it there may be a possibility of Hemophilia arising when the father is considerably older at the time of conception. It seems that more than one science should be involved in deciding if this illness can spontaneously generate.
It seems slightly unconvincing to rely so heavily on Acts of Parliament to establish the legitimacy of a monarch, since from a legitimist standpoint a Parliament summoned by a false pretender is no Parliament, and a Bill signed by a false claimant is no Act. Of course there are the historical precedents of 1689 and 1811, but one has to rely to some extent on right of conquest or state necessity. Or else to view the Accession Council and the ceremony of Acclamation at the Coronation as having some foundational role.
You are quite right that chains of legality can become broken where, for example, a head of state flees the country and there is no power to summon a Parliament for it to legislate to establish a new head of state. That has not only happened historically (eg the flight of James II) but it has also happened a couple of times more recently in the Caribbean. In those circumstances, reliance is placed upon the doctrine of necessity to restore constitutional governance. There was sufficient concern about this issue that when Edward VIII abdicated, the British Crown lawyers advised that Edward VIII had to remain monarch long enough to assent to the bill that provided for his abdication, as there could be a problem if the new monarch were to give assent to the very bill that gave legal effect to his own status. These timing issues can get quite tricky!
So KC's ancestor was duly appointed monarch but that doesn't mean he is a blood descendant of Edward III. Something was noted in a DNA test that ruled out QEII as a descendant of KEIII which a duke related to her noted as 'explaining' something. But, personally, I think the UK, etc lucked out with a pretty smart cookie for all that she wasn't a ruler and had no real authority. Sometimes things work out for the good just thru dumb luck.
Would it be possible constitutionally and legally for Australia to change its monarchy from the House of Windsor to a different monarchy such as an indigenous monarchy? That would solve the issue of indigenous sovereignty without changing our system of government.
Great video! Do you have an opinion about the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth role that is supposedly going to be inherited by Prince William and his heirs and successors, on account of the Letters Patent issued by King Charles that made Prince William into the Prince of Wales? As it seems like there is a belief amongst British royalists that this ceremonial position is an 'electable' position that Commonwealth member states and realms are to be encouraged to nominate or vote on?
The role of 'Head of the Commonwealth' is not an inherited one. It is a matter for the countries comprising the Commonwealth to decide. Having said that, there was a lot of pressure on Commonwealth countries to choose Charles as their 'Head of the Commonwealth' and to make this decision before Queen Elizabeth II died. In the absence of any other stand-out, unifying, candidate, they agreed. But if there was an obvious hero or elder statesperson of the Commonwealth who could fill the role and hold the respect of all Commonwealth nations, then they might well be made the next 'Head of the Commonwealth' rather than the next King.
If William of Normandy who was born illegitimate was able to gain the throne, what stopped any other person who was born outside of wedlock from also becoming the monarch. Since William had set the precedence?
William gained the throne by conquest, as his popular title 'William the Conqueror' suggests. But when it comes to succession to the throne by process of law, rather than conquest, then the law requires legitimacy.
I don't want the Crown, but I would like to know what my Mom was talking about in regards to an inheritance wrapped up in a nappy placed in the tower of London..
Could you clear up a point concerning ordinary people not royalty - if a couple have a child out of wedlock that child would be illegitimate but if they later did marry what is the status of the child now?
Thank you for a very interesting discussion.❤ I look forward to more of your videos 👍(subscribed)😊 As she aged, Queen Victoria looked a lot like her legal father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn! {wink, wink} 😁 Hemophilia can arise "spontaneously" within a bloodline, Or, it may have been lurking in the Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld bloodline that Victoria inherited from her mother. I do not think enough research has been done on the various German royal houses (these houses seem to be one big soup of close and semi-close marriages) and their health problems, the same can be said for the French royal houses. We seem to have heard a lot about the Austria House of Hapsburg, the Bavarian House of Wittelsbach (insanity) as well as the House of Windsor. [sorry about the "{wink, wink }" YT's emoji are limited]
We have a man in Queensland who claims to be the first born son of Charles and Camilla. At the time of his birth (if his claim is true) he would have been illegitimate, however Charles and Camilla subsequently married with the approval of the monarch Queen Elizabeth II. The UK legitimacy act of 1926 would then seem to make him legitimate and heir (if his claim is true) upon the subsequent marriage of his biological parents. Can you comment on this situation, please.
From the standpoint since he was born during the time that Camilla & Charles aren't married then he is still illegitimate even if Charles & Camilla get married later on
I reckon making Simon Abney-Hastings King of Australia could be a good compromise between monarchists and republicans. We get to keep someone with a tie to the British monarchy as our royal, and keep an inherited, ostensibly apolitical head of state, while also gaining a head of state who is actually Australian and has Australian interests ahead of those of a foreign country.
I think of Nan Britton, the lover of Warren G. Harding -- it's sad that her daughter Elizabeth didn't want to find out after DNA testing became available before Elizabeth died in 2005 that yes, she was President Harding's daughter -- although in the same typed sentence I cannot blame her.
Anne, I would love your view on the claim that the GG is Australia’s head of state. Specifically, given that the GG is constiutionally appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch, and that the monarch is without question the UK’s HoS, doesn’t that make Australia’s (so-called) HoS inferior and subordinate to the person who is the UK’s head of state? I doubt the monarchists have thought about this. But by claiming the monarch’s appointed representative is HoS, surely they are condemning Australia as being diplomatically inferior to a foreign country. Do you agree?
As Sir Peter Cosgrove, a former Governor-General, put it, the monarch is the Head of State and the Governor-General is the representative of the monarch, who performs constitutional functions on her behalf, as well as functions and powers directly conferred upon the Governor-General by the Constitution. It is made clear in a number of places in the Constitution (eg ss 2, 61 and 68) that the Governor-General is the monarch's 'representative' in the Commonwealth. It is the monarch, therefore, rather than his or her representative, who is the head of state. (But note that as there is no reference at all to the office of 'head of state' in the Constitution - it all rather turns on how you define a 'head of state'.) During the republic debate, some monarchists decided to claim that the Governor-General was Australia's head of state so that they could blunt the slogan of 'a mate for the head of state'. They claimed that an Australian was already Australia's head of state, so there was no need to debate the matter. Many convinced themselves of this argument back then, and continue to assert it today. But if you made the same claim to a Canadian monarchist, that the Canadian Governor-General is the head of state, rather than the monarch, they would be appalled and consider it an insult and affront to the monarch. It just depends upon the political context in which you want to make these claims.
I think Illegitimate child of the monarch can inherit the throne if they conquer or overthrew the monarch who succeeded the throne but by doing so they need to establish their line and collect support from those who sat in the parliament or nobility but that would be a job and not just proving in the DNA
Change is inevitable, laws should be changed to accommodate illigimate children, who are her based on no fault of their own. The babymakers should be held accountable. Their should be no discrimination among the illigimate children, why should they be held responsible for their parents horny, bad behaviour.
I do think the law should be changed to all children for future generations. There is no such thing as illegitimate unless you believe in religon. Marriage is an agreement of two people being together.
Who did you swear your oath too..was it queen of England or was it queen of Australia..Are you following the 1901 constitution or are you following the Goth Whitlam mock up constitution..
I have left this comment here for the joy of the visual image of a 'Goth' Whitlam. As I can't remember having to swear and oath to the monarch, as I've never become a judge or a politician, this isn't a problem that I've faced. But as the monarch happens to be both King of the United Kingdom and King of Australia, as long the monarch is made to the King, that is enough.
The offspring of Henry the 8th and Charles II, could have made a huge difference to subsequent history with the Duke of Richmond and Henry Fitzroy succeeding. Bedpans and DNA eh!
Henry Fitzroy died too early, at the age of 17, so he could not make a difference. It would have been interesting to see, had he still been living at the time of Henry VIII's death, or even after the death of Edward VI, whether the option of choosing a healthy adult male might have resulted in an altered succession. Fitzroy was an interesting case, because Henry VIII recognised him officially as his son, albeit accepting his illegitimacy (unlike any of his other illegitimate children, who were not acknowledged).
There's also the classic literary trope of the royal baby swap....I'd presume, that whatever your bloodline, if a person is proclaimed monarch, and anointed and crowned in Westminster then, that's it. you're monarch. Which would lead into and even wider more unlikely question of the ability to change dynasty and have a monarch with no hereditary claim!!??
The story used to be about smuggling the baby into the birthing room in a bed warming pan! It is possible that the use of DNA for testing paternity might result in the up-ending of previous presumptions of paternity. I'm no expert in family law, and I haven't looked at recent cases on the subject. But unless the monarch was extremely unpopular and it was a handy excuse to get rid of him or her, my instinct is that Parliament would stick with the known and accepted monarch, regardless of any DNA evidence about biological legitimacy.
25 years ago when applying for British passports for my children I had to prove their father and I were married as illegitimate could not even get a British passport.
In my baby days as a lawyer, well over 50 years ago now, I did some work at a legal advice centre in Sydney. You perhaps would be surprised at the number of people who came into the centre claiming that they were the legitimate monarch, or legitimately the true heir to the monarch. They were serious in their belief and wanted to know how to go about claiming their rightful position.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I think that their answer would be that what they want or don't want does not come into it - they simply are, just as you are Constitutional Clarion.
13:45 Charlie Chuckles as King of Australia is something that, as a *staunch republican,* really RANKLES me! We should've become a Republic on 1st January, 2001, the 100th Anniversary of Australia as a nation.
There was a referendum, but it failed. The challenge is to find a model which is both popular with the people, but also politically safe and stable. So far, we haven't got there.
You are repeating old history, and ignoring the research and documents that have been revealed by a researcher that you have deliberately hidden. I suggest you take the time to read "Queen Anne Boleyn's Great Escape and Legacy" by Joseph Gregory Hallett, check out the references, and then redo your video with accurate records.!
No, Anne was crowned as a Queen consort. She held no title of sovereign. Only her child with Henry VIII could, and did, inherit the throne. Any other children that she may have had with someone else were not in the line of succession to the throne, and could not inherit it. In any case, subsequent legislation, including the Bill of Rights of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 altered the line of succession. Parliament controls the succession to the Crown.
THANKS TO SCIENCE AND DNA TESTING ; WE CAN AND WILL PROOF WHO IS THE LEGTIME HEIR TO THE CROWN OF THE UK etc..AND HEAD OF STATE TO THE STATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH REALM !
Charles III is not the king of of our Realm. Our Stone was forged in fire by our ANZAC and our Crown is Imperial, anchored to the doors of our shrine. In Steven the first we hold God King and Country.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
As a writer from a distant land, I thank you for this clear, complete, and yet concise explanation of illegitimacy and the British crown.
You are most welcome.
These lectures deserve to be part of the educational curriculum.
Is civics not part of the curriculum in Australia?
I agree.
@@MarkGovern appears not so, or it is grossly inadequate
Sadly, the Jerilderie farmer who was the *alleged* heir to the Plantagenet claim to the throne died in 2012. His title passed to his son Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun, who lives on a different farm near Wangaratta.
Thanks - yes, I should have checked where he now lives. He had a role in the Coronation, I recollect. I think he is mentioned in one of my coronation videos. (I grew up in Shepparton, so Jerilderie and Wangaratta feel like local territory to me.)
The 14th Earl of Loudoun was strongly republican, while the 15th is constitutional monarchist. But both live(d) normal lives in slightly run down normal houses and rarely use their title. A friend from Wang knew that the 'Simon Hastings bloke' had some sort of title, but was still very surprised to see him on TV at the coronation.
I have read in several sources that at least 2 of Queen Victoria’s descendants did in fact suffer from porphyria - one of Kaiser Wilhelms sisters and more recently Prince William of Gloucester.
Edward IV was king by right of conquest. So irrelevant if he was illegitimate. Likewise his parents were only apart during his "conception" for a month. He could have been a late or early baby. Conceived before or after his father left. Babies are not always born exactly 9 months after conception.
Thank you. I never knew.
Absolute fan of Elizabeth II. They can say what they want to say, but she carried on magnificently.
Now it's all fallen apart and needs to end the Monarchy of feudalism .
@@saraswatkin9226
Absolutely.
Carried on is about the size of it. She was using someone else's moniker. She lived out revisionist history. A good history professor can tell you some things. A great one shows you where the bodies are buried so you can grapple with your politics.
The Act of Settlement was crystal clear on the succession rules. Even a child adopted by the royal family doesn't have a claim to the throne similar to an illegitimate child. The monarch must be born in the royal family and born of a legitimate royal marriage.
I just love watching these videos, desptie me having nothing to do with Australia and is sitting comfortably somewhere in Thailand.
I'm filling a very small niche of interest, so am glad to provide world-wide entertainment!
Wonderful presentation. As coming from a family that has folklore of descent from George IV and Mrs Fitzherbert I don't think any of us have ever claimed that our ancestor should have been the monarch but they were all loyal subjects of Queen Victoria and her lawful heirs and successors who were crowned and anointed. all of us probably have some royal ancestry in our family tree somewhere but that neither makes us royal or a claimant to the throne. Your legal explanation of this is clear and should put an end to ridiculous claims that any one else (including the so-called Jacobite heir) have any real claim to the throne. romantic speculation is one thing but legal reality another. God Save King Charles!
I am enjoying your talks, currently working my way through the library!
Thank you !
All the best Jules 💕
Absolutely fascinating - thank you! Incidentally, for ‘blood line purists’, King Charles is descended from George III - bypassing Queen Victoria (who looked exactly like her father) - through Queen Mary (consort of George V) whose mother was a granddaughter of George III.
Those royal bloodlines are quite complicated and do cross a lot. I once gave a talk to Australians for Constitutional Monarchy, and one of the other speakers was quite aggressively heckled when referring to a very obscure royal line because he did not have all the connections right!
I’m an Australian Monarchist, but one thing that annoys me about Monarchists is they lose sight of the point in favour of the details of bloodlines and protocol rather than the how our (Australian) system works. Like heckling some poor person online for using HRH referring the King rather than HRM.
@@constitutionalclarion1901I hope I have this connection right, though! Unless some further late 19th/20th century ‘other side of the blanket’ hanky-panky took place, George III’s Hanoverian blood is in King Charles’s veins.
Also King George lll and Queen Charlotte was black or biracial and they still paint those people as white to whitewash history.
@@tropicalgardenvlogsOur Monarchs are HM not HRM
and the system in Australia follows the British system
One day around the turn of the millennium, I had a few hours to spare in London after arriving at Heathrow and before catching a train down to East Sussex to attend a conference about - of all things - royal history. I was wandering around and happened upon the Masonic Temple, which was open to public tours. (I am neither a mason nor, to my knowledge, the result of a liaison between a wayward prince and a housemaid.) Visitors were sent to wait in a room with portraits and busts of previous Masonic notables. I turned and saw the bust of a gentleman who I instantly knew had to be Edward Duke of Kent because he looked like a male Queen Victoria. I checked the inscription on the base and it was indeed he. I remember thinking, in a flash, that settles it. Victoria was Kent's daughter. It was written in her face.
Rules are important. Whether the office is hereditary, elected or appointed there must be rules or chaos results.
Great - never heard it from this perspective. So much history and (speculative fiction) has come from the suspected illegitimacy of a royal.
This video is fantastic. I remember my grandpa in the 70's/80's would tell us he knew he had royal blood in his veins. He could feel it in his waters 😆🤭. He really was the loveliest grandpa but he did have some interesting ideas! Thanks for this awesome video🙏
That's interesting, because my father also claimed he could feel things in his waters. He claimed lineage from King Brian Boru of Ireland, but I think I stopped believing this around about the age of six.
I was wondering: should a monarch be homosexual and/or refuse to marry and conceive "the traditional way", what would be the possibilities of an heir conceived in vitro?
Shouldn't the parliament start legislating about "non traditional ways" of conceiving an heir? This would concern not only the royal family, but all those noble houses where the title is passed on through legitimate births.
It's 2024 and it's just a question of time before a prince or a nobleman objects to his title being passed on to a relative when a "non traditional" heir could be available.
As far as I know the law has not yet caught up with these issues regarding succession to the throne, unless existing general laws in the family law field apply. But yes, one day it may need to be addressed by Parliament.
Talk of Queen Victoria not being her fathers daughter is laughable. Look at the portraits of the Duke of Kent he looks like Queen Victoria cross dressing as a man and vice-versa.
Portraits aren't very good evidence. They're made at the whim of the artist. Photos are another story altogether.
@@richardw3470 The "'But I'm the Prince Regent! My portrait hangs on every wall!' -- 'Answer that, Baldrick'" scene from Blackadder the Third refers to this.
I really enjoy these presentations. Thank you
You are most welcome.
Thank you, that was fascinating.
Thank you for such a well-informed, succinct and entertaining explanation
You're most welcome.
Unrelated question but I just watched both your Harry Evans lectures for the senate and I really want to ask you a question running through my head after listening. Under Australia’s Westminster system especially with the relationship between the monarch and parliament or the monarch and their ministers although I think it extremely useful to rely on other cases with other commonwealth countries how catastrophic would it be for the high court of Australia to decide that precedents like The king Byng case or the dismissal case in Tuvalu can’t even be discussed in an Australian court because they did not occur in Australia? Once again amazing video
One always has to take into account that Australia's constitutional system is in some ways different to those in other Realms, and adjust accordingly. Precedents in other countries are useful to show us what 'might' happen in particular circumstances, what matters the decision-maker should take into consideration, what risks apply, etc. But they are really just useful thinking exercises, to which we then have to apply Australian conditions and legal rules.
No court would treat these examples as in any way binding or determinative in Australia. In most cases, the issues they raise would not even be 'justiciable' (i.e. capable of determination by a court) in Australia, as they concern politics and conventions. They are more useful for politicians and vice-regal officers to get an idea of the risks of pushing the boundaries on particular matters.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thanks for the clarification :)
Fascinating again, thank you.
I was literally just thinking of this!
tbh I can see a parilment just passing a quick "just this once it doesn't matter" law if the illegitimate monarch is popular
honestly I understand the republican argument that modern countries shouldn't be worried about stuff like this..yet I can't help but think the world would be blander without it.
so thanks you for posting this! it's like an early birthday present .
a sorta off topic question..beside the govenor general is there any regular briefing or way set up for the realm governments to keep the monarch updated.?
I know its probably realm by realm government by government but the palace website used to claim that alll the realm governments sent the queen information regularly but I can't see a republican minister writing to the King regularly and not complaining. yet all of them note the monarch is "well informed" when meeting them.
I'm asking because everything I've read on the subject is vague and inconsistent. I've even outright asked the Queen![I know it was a long shot but worth a try]
Yes, Queen Elizabeth was well informed. In part it came from her vice-regal representatives. Some wrote frank and detailed accounts of what was happening in the country, but others really just wrote form-letters, so it depended on the person.
In addition, the Queen's Private Secretary would often develop contacts in the country, who would write detailed insider accounts or provide the views of ordinary folk about what was going on. So there would often be a network of accounts flowing into the Palace when political events occurred, which the Private Secretary would then sift and report to the Queen. Again, this would depend upon personalities. Some Private Secretaries were more proactive in developing and nurturing these contacts than others.
I'm not sure what is happening now with King Charles. The only thing I've heard so far is that there is much less interest in the Realms and that communications with them have been downgraded. So it may be that he is not as well informed as his mother, but I could not say for sure.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 so there would be no official communications from any ministers ?That's what the palace website says and actually the" Australian" newspaper found letters from PMs to the monarch but the Goverment refused to release them Justin Trudeau says he keeps regular contact but that seems like a him thing (he's weirdly monarchist and coming from me that's saying a lot).Anways I just realized I rambled so am sorry for taking up your time but thank you for the excellent answer! concerning what you found about the realms
@@cesargodoy2920 There are certainly some letters from Prime Ministers, but they primarily deal with specific issues where formal advice is involved, not general political matters, and at least from Australia they are fairly infrequent. But as you say, it depends on the personality involved.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 Thank you!
We the Sons and Daughters of the ANZAC of the Commonwealth of Australia are coming home, we are not going away.
Heres a question “surrogacy & inheritance” does surrogacy count for inheritance to non regnant thrones .. Princess Benedikte of Denmarks son (Prince of Sayne-Berrel??-??????) made me wonder “Letters Patent” weren’t made with surrogacy in mind
Yes, someone else asked me that. The short answer is that I don't know. I'm not sure whether the law has caught up with these matters. Other complications might include using IVF with non-biological embryos. As I'm not an expert in family law and how the law has developed in this field, I can't give an authoritative answer, but I'd be curious to find out too.
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I'm not sure about the monarchy but a few years ago the UK House of Lords ruled that children born through Artificial Insemination could not inherit titles this is why when the 8th Earl of Lonsdale died in 2021 his half brother inherited his titles rather than his son
Thanks - that's most interesting.
As I understand it there may be a possibility of Hemophilia arising when the father is considerably older at the time of conception. It seems that more than one science should be involved in deciding if this illness can spontaneously generate.
It seems slightly unconvincing to rely so heavily on Acts of Parliament to establish the legitimacy of a monarch, since from a legitimist standpoint a Parliament summoned by a false pretender is no Parliament, and a Bill signed by a false claimant is no Act. Of course there are the historical precedents of 1689 and 1811, but one has to rely to some extent on right of conquest or state necessity. Or else to view the Accession Council and the ceremony of Acclamation at the Coronation as having some foundational role.
You are quite right that chains of legality can become broken where, for example, a head of state flees the country and there is no power to summon a Parliament for it to legislate to establish a new head of state. That has not only happened historically (eg the flight of James II) but it has also happened a couple of times more recently in the Caribbean. In those circumstances, reliance is placed upon the doctrine of necessity to restore constitutional governance.
There was sufficient concern about this issue that when Edward VIII abdicated, the British Crown lawyers advised that Edward VIII had to remain monarch long enough to assent to the bill that provided for his abdication, as there could be a problem if the new monarch were to give assent to the very bill that gave legal effect to his own status. These timing issues can get quite tricky!
So KC's ancestor was duly appointed monarch but that doesn't mean he is a blood descendant of Edward III. Something was noted in a DNA test that ruled out QEII as a descendant of KEIII which a duke related to her noted as 'explaining' something. But, personally, I think the UK, etc lucked out with a pretty smart cookie for all that she wasn't a ruler and had no real authority. Sometimes things work out for the good just thru dumb luck.
Would it be possible constitutionally and legally for Australia to change its monarchy from the House of Windsor to a different monarchy such as an indigenous monarchy? That would solve the issue of indigenous sovereignty without changing our system of government.
It would require a referendum because there are ties in the Constitution at the moment between the Sovereign and the United Kingdom.
Very interesting … thank you
Great video! Do you have an opinion about the ceremonial Head of the Commonwealth role that is supposedly going to be inherited by Prince William and his heirs and successors, on account of the Letters Patent issued by King Charles that made Prince William into the Prince of Wales? As it seems like there is a belief amongst British royalists that this ceremonial position is an 'electable' position that Commonwealth member states and realms are to be encouraged to nominate or vote on?
The role of 'Head of the Commonwealth' is not an inherited one. It is a matter for the countries comprising the Commonwealth to decide. Having said that, there was a lot of pressure on Commonwealth countries to choose Charles as their 'Head of the Commonwealth' and to make this decision before Queen Elizabeth II died. In the absence of any other stand-out, unifying, candidate, they agreed.
But if there was an obvious hero or elder statesperson of the Commonwealth who could fill the role and hold the respect of all Commonwealth nations, then they might well be made the next 'Head of the Commonwealth' rather than the next King.
If William of Normandy who was born illegitimate was able to gain the throne, what stopped any other person who was born outside of wedlock from also becoming the monarch. Since William had set the precedence?
William gained the throne by conquest, as his popular title 'William the Conqueror' suggests. But when it comes to succession to the throne by process of law, rather than conquest, then the law requires legitimacy.
I don't want the Crown, but I would like to know what my Mom was talking about in regards to an inheritance wrapped up in a nappy placed in the tower of London..
Could you clear up a point concerning ordinary people not royalty - if a couple have a child out of wedlock that child would be illegitimate but if they later did marry what is the status of the child now?
I'll leave this to the family lawyers to explain. You would have to look at the law in the relevant jurisdiction.
Truly there are no illegitimate children!just illegitimate parents!
Thank you for a very interesting discussion.❤ I look forward to more of your videos 👍(subscribed)😊
As she aged, Queen Victoria looked a lot like her legal father, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn! {wink, wink} 😁
Hemophilia can arise "spontaneously" within a bloodline, Or, it may have been lurking in the Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld bloodline
that Victoria inherited from her mother. I do not think enough research has been done on the various German royal houses
(these houses seem to be one big soup of close and semi-close marriages) and their health problems, the same can be said
for the French royal houses. We seem to have heard a lot about the Austria House of Hapsburg, the Bavarian House of
Wittelsbach (insanity) as well as the House of Windsor.
[sorry about the "{wink, wink }" YT's emoji are limited]
We have a man in Queensland who claims to be the first born son of Charles and Camilla. At the time of his birth (if his claim is true) he would have been illegitimate, however Charles and Camilla subsequently married with the approval of the monarch Queen Elizabeth II. The UK legitimacy act of 1926 would then seem to make him legitimate and heir (if his claim is true) upon the subsequent marriage of his biological parents. Can you comment on this situation, please.
From the standpoint since he was born during the time that Camilla & Charles aren't married then he is still illegitimate even if Charles & Camilla get married later on
That guy is a total nut job, do you honestly think the king and queen had a child out of wedlock? Somehow I think there would be evidence lol
Camila was a catholic at the time of conception. So rules that out i
I am home and recognise Administration!
Charli boy is not my Realm’s King.
I reckon making Simon Abney-Hastings King of Australia could be a good compromise between monarchists and republicans. We get to keep someone with a tie to the British monarchy as our royal, and keep an inherited, ostensibly apolitical head of state, while also gaining a head of state who is actually Australian and has Australian interests ahead of those of a foreign country.
(this is, of course, not intended as a serious idea. Just an amusing hypothetical.)
Thanks. You wouldn't be the first to suggest the hybrid option of our own royal family - although it does rather rub up against the egalitarian ethos.
Very informative. Thank you.
You are most welcome.
I challenge you to debate Steven spiers.
I fear we would be arguing on such utterly different bases that it would be a pointless exercise.
How does this apply to surrogate children of a legitimate heir? Aren't they excluded?
Must this model be examined at the molecular level? Schroedinger's nucleus or something
I think of Nan Britton, the lover of Warren G. Harding -- it's sad that her daughter Elizabeth didn't want to find out after DNA testing became available before Elizabeth died in 2005 that yes, she was President Harding's daughter -- although in the same typed sentence I cannot blame her.
Isn't there an Aussie man who claims to be the son of the current king and queen, born before they even met?
That guy is a total nut job
Anne, I would love your view on the claim that the GG is Australia’s head of state.
Specifically, given that the GG is constiutionally appointed by, acts for, and answers to the monarch, and that the monarch is without question the UK’s HoS, doesn’t that make Australia’s (so-called) HoS inferior and subordinate to the person who is the UK’s head of state?
I doubt the monarchists have thought about this. But by claiming the monarch’s appointed representative is HoS, surely they are condemning Australia as being diplomatically inferior to a foreign country. Do you agree?
As Sir Peter Cosgrove, a former Governor-General, put it, the monarch is the Head of State and the Governor-General is the representative of the monarch, who performs constitutional functions on her behalf, as well as functions and powers directly conferred upon the Governor-General by the Constitution.
It is made clear in a number of places in the Constitution (eg ss 2, 61 and 68) that the Governor-General is the monarch's 'representative' in the Commonwealth. It is the monarch, therefore, rather than his or her representative, who is the head of state. (But note that as there is no reference at all to the office of 'head of state' in the Constitution - it all rather turns on how you define a 'head of state'.)
During the republic debate, some monarchists decided to claim that the Governor-General was Australia's head of state so that they could blunt the slogan of 'a mate for the head of state'. They claimed that an Australian was already Australia's head of state, so there was no need to debate the matter. Many convinced themselves of this argument back then, and continue to assert it today.
But if you made the same claim to a Canadian monarchist, that the Canadian Governor-General is the head of state, rather than the monarch, they would be appalled and consider it an insult and affront to the monarch. It just depends upon the political context in which you want to make these claims.
Seeing it is the King's Birthday holiday weekend coming up, I thought I would use this topic for the next Clarion - so keep an eye out for it.
Illegitimacy and Crown? Are we talking about Harry? Harry Hewitt?
And the two children he and Meghan were so keen to get into the line of succession?
Harry looks more than Charles than willie, I don't think there is any truth to that!
I think Illegitimate child of the monarch can inherit the throne if they conquer or overthrew the monarch who succeeded the throne but by doing so they need to establish their line and collect support from those who sat in the parliament or nobility but that would be a job and not just proving in the DNA
Certainly that was how it was done in the past. But hopefully there is no conquering and overthrowing these days.
Change is inevitable, laws should be changed to accommodate illigimate children, who are her based on no fault of their own. The babymakers should be held accountable. Their should be no discrimination among the illigimate children, why should they be held responsible for their parents horny, bad behaviour.
I do think the law should be changed to all children for future generations. There is no such thing as illegitimate unless you believe in religon. Marriage is an agreement of two people being together.
Thank you..
Who did you swear your oath too..was it queen of England or was it queen of Australia..Are you following the 1901 constitution or are you following the Goth Whitlam mock up constitution..
I have left this comment here for the joy of the visual image of a 'Goth' Whitlam. As I can't remember having to swear and oath to the monarch, as I've never become a judge or a politician, this isn't a problem that I've faced. But as the monarch happens to be both King of the United Kingdom and King of Australia, as long the monarch is made to the King, that is enough.
The offspring of Henry the 8th and Charles II, could have made a huge difference to subsequent history with the Duke of Richmond and Henry Fitzroy succeeding. Bedpans and DNA eh!
Henry Fitzroy died too early, at the age of 17, so he could not make a difference. It would have been interesting to see, had he still been living at the time of Henry VIII's death, or even after the death of Edward VI, whether the option of choosing a healthy adult male might have resulted in an altered succession. Fitzroy was an interesting case, because Henry VIII recognised him officially as his son, albeit accepting his illegitimacy (unlike any of his other illegitimate children, who were not acknowledged).
Thanks.
There's also the classic literary trope of the royal baby swap....I'd presume, that whatever your bloodline, if a person is proclaimed monarch, and anointed and crowned in Westminster then, that's it. you're monarch. Which would lead into and even wider more unlikely question of the ability to change dynasty and have a monarch with no hereditary claim!!??
The story used to be about smuggling the baby into the birthing room in a bed warming pan!
It is possible that the use of DNA for testing paternity might result in the up-ending of previous presumptions of paternity. I'm no expert in family law, and I haven't looked at recent cases on the subject. But unless the monarch was extremely unpopular and it was a handy excuse to get rid of him or her, my instinct is that Parliament would stick with the known and accepted monarch, regardless of any DNA evidence about biological legitimacy.
Ever hear of a Corsican, I think, named Bonaparte? Then there's Sweden. And, who was the father of Catherine the Great's son?
@@richardw3470Well most commentators at the time seemed to think Paul looked like his ostensible father.
25 years ago when applying for British passports for my children I had to prove their father and I were married as illegitimate could not even get a British passport.
That is not accurate if such a person was born in the UK.
I think I may be the one true descendant of the Romanovs. Or Napoleon.
I'm the descendant of button-makers. But I do appreciate a good quality button.
I'm the 11th cousin of the Prince of Wales but it's not really doing much for me.
👍⭐🌹💖💡
In my baby days as a lawyer, well over 50 years ago now, I did some work at a legal advice centre in Sydney. You perhaps would be surprised at the number of people who came into the centre claiming that they were the legitimate monarch, or legitimately the true heir to the monarch. They were serious in their belief and wanted to know how to go about claiming their rightful position.
Yes, it does seem a common affliction, although one really does wonder why anyone would want the job...
@@constitutionalclarion1901 I think that their answer would be that what they want or don't want does not come into it - they simply are, just as you are Constitutional Clarion.
They should update the rules to include dna. Gotta catch all the cheats and manipulators
13:45 Charlie Chuckles as King of Australia is something that, as a *staunch republican,* really RANKLES me! We should've become a Republic on 1st January, 2001, the 100th Anniversary of Australia as a nation.
republicans try not to show contempt for the democratic process challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
There was a referendum, but it failed. The challenge is to find a model which is both popular with the people, but also politically safe and stable. So far, we haven't got there.
We would’ve got there if the bastard politicians let us choose who was to be Prime Minister or president not themselves
🫷👑🇬🇧🇬🇧👑🫸
I thought everyone knew this!
You would be surprised...
You are repeating old history, and ignoring the research and documents that have been revealed by a researcher that you have deliberately hidden. I suggest you take the time to read "Queen Anne Boleyn's Great Escape and Legacy" by Joseph Gregory Hallett, check out the references, and then redo your video with accurate records.!
No, Anne was crowned as a Queen consort. She held no title of sovereign. Only her child with Henry VIII could, and did, inherit the throne. Any other children that she may have had with someone else were not in the line of succession to the throne, and could not inherit it. In any case, subsequent legislation, including the Bill of Rights of 1688 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 altered the line of succession. Parliament controls the succession to the Crown.
THANKS TO SCIENCE AND DNA TESTING ; WE CAN AND WILL PROOF WHO IS THE LEGTIME HEIR TO THE CROWN OF THE UK etc..AND HEAD OF STATE TO THE
STATES OF THE COMMONWEALTH REALM !
Charles III is not the king of of our Realm. Our Stone was forged in fire by our ANZAC and our Crown is Imperial, anchored to the doors of our shrine. In Steven the first we hold God King and Country.
From Edward IV onwards, and right up to Charlie Chuckles, *ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THOSE WHO SAT ON THE THRONE OF ENGLAND DID SO LEGITIMATELY!*
Did you watch the video?
@@SeeJayCampbell I watched "Britain's Real Monarch" and thought it was a great documentary, one in the eye for that little runt, John W. Howard!