Question: Royals and Adoption

Abby · February 05, 2006, 03:32:43 AM

Hey Everyone....Got a hypothetical question for you. I'm reading a book where the main character is adopted and searching for his biological roots and it got me wondering.... what if William (or any royal heir) and his wife are unable to conceive an heir? Could they adopt a child and that child inherit the throne or would it pass on to Harry's firstborn son?

WOW · February 05, 2006, 03:39:32 AM

It would pass to Harry and his children.

Lila the Flirt · February 05, 2006, 04:05:23 AM

:unsure: I think WOW is right. However, I've never heard this happening before. Windsor is the best person to ask. :D

Wombat · February 05, 2006, 07:01:29 AM

The adopted child would not be able to ascend the throne. As WOW said..it would pass to Harry :happy:

Naughty Girl · February 05, 2006, 07:31:15 AM

^^^ Case closed......that's exactly what i was going to say.

guysguy · February 05, 2006, 08:50:52 AM

they could always fake a pregnancy and say the adopted child is really the blood heir. or they could use a surrogate.

Lila the Flirt · February 05, 2006, 11:35:50 AM

It's very impossible for them to fake a pregnancy when paps are clamoring all over themselves for pictures.

guysguy · February 05, 2006, 11:48:40 AM

why? use those things they use in films, then have her in hospital or on bed rest.

Lila the Flirt · February 05, 2006, 11:55:59 AM

:rolleyes: I meant the pregnancy itself. With all these people selling stories to newspapers, don't you think if they even tried to fake a pregnancy, it won't come out? :rolleyes:

autumnsun · February 05, 2006, 01:09:34 PM

it would most certainly come out... and thus would embarrass the family and especially the two at the center of it. If whoever William or Harry married could not get pregnant and they wanted to adopt, I'm sure it would be an issue but not a huge one. They have the line of succession to combat a number of problems/incidents, one of them being the lack of heirs produced by a couple.

Lola · February 05, 2006, 04:34:09 PM

well, with modern medicine being so advanced these days, i would think it would be possible for them to use a surrogate mother to carry a baby if the mother was for whatever reason unable to carry the child. also, it may be possible to use donor eggs and IVF to create a embryo and then transplant it into pws wife. so it doesnt have to be a big deal if they dont have they kid the "traditional" way. one more thing, i believe that i read somewhere (and dont ask where cuz i have no idea...) that edward and sophie had to have a little extra help to get their daughter. remember, she miscarried before she got preganant the second time and louise was a premie. so there was definetly problems there. i do medical billing and coding for a fertility clinic so i have learned alot about that stuff.

Windsor · February 06, 2006, 06:14:20 PM

Lola,

It is indeed possible to use a surrogate mother to carry the baby, however such a thing would not even be considered by the Palace. If Prince William and his future wife are unable to have children and therefore an heir then the throne would be inherited by Prince Harry or his children, if Prince Harry is also unable to have children then the throne would go to the Yorks.

Jenee · February 06, 2006, 10:22:28 PM

Why wouldn't it be considered Winds?

screw_N_scott · February 07, 2006, 06:04:23 AM

thinking of modern medicine.
what if they just took someone else's child(sperm and embio) and poped it in kate.
when be giving birth

but its not there blood.
would it still been seen as there child?

Naughty Girl · February 07, 2006, 02:03:42 PM

If someone found out....HELL NO!!

Lola · February 07, 2006, 11:59:56 PM

i meant that it could be pws "little swimmers" and his wifes eggs mixed together and a family member (someone even in her family) could carry the baby. so that is a possiblity. thats what i meant. i know of one family that the one sister wanted a baby but she didnt have good eggs so she "borrowed" some from one of her sisters and the third sister carried the baby b/c the 1st wasnt able to and the second one (who donated the eggs) had been in a accident and wasnt able to carry anymore babies. so anything is possible...but i understand where you are coming from windsor. it probably wouldnt even be considered in the royal family. :rolleyes:

Toujours · February 08, 2006, 12:24:17 AM

i think that if it were a surregate mother,
they would probably accept the child or amend the rule
because by all means, the child would still be pw and his future wife's blood,
not the surregate mother's.
the surregate mother is just the vessel the baby will be carried in for 9 months, nothing more.
as far as adoption, the line would go to harry's children.
i think it would basically run with the bloodline.
im not an expert at this, but for some reason this is what makes sense...

Lola · February 08, 2006, 12:29:40 AM

thats exactly my point, smarty. if its GENETICALLY pws and his wifes baby what difference would it make if the child was carried by a surrogate? but again, it probably will never happen...at least not in OUR LIFETIME.

autumnsun · February 08, 2006, 11:35:46 AM

going by my ideals of the way tradition works in the Royal Family (esp. under Elizabeth and Philip), there is no way they would allow a surrogate mother - family or not - to carry a future heir to the throne.
it would just be out of the question, I think. I cannot see Elizabeth allowing something like that.

guysguy · February 08, 2006, 12:02:18 PM

there are rumours that the queen mum was artificially inceminated with the queen and princess margaret.

autumnsun · February 08, 2006, 12:08:46 PM

but that's quite different, isn't it? Where did you read about that, Guy? I have never heard that before. Quite interesting in the least.

I can understand that and believe it... as I'm sure no one would care if they used methods of helping the princess along to becoming pregnant... but surrogate mothers, adopted children, etc... none of those options seem likely at all.

guysguy · February 08, 2006, 12:57:36 PM

i do not know where and when the rumour started, but it is known that king george's brother the duke of windsor was not able to have children because he had a bad case of the measles when he was young. bertie was ill as well at the same time.

Lola · February 08, 2006, 04:34:54 PM

sorry, guysguy but i think you are just "yanking our chains" here. lol! :happytears: i have NEVER heard of that. besides, i dont think they (the medical field) profected that procedure until about 30+ yrs ago. at least not for humans.

Lila the Flirt · February 08, 2006, 04:48:10 PM

I've read about this a few years ago but it was a tabloid. <_<

Lola · February 08, 2006, 04:53:17 PM

well, then i guess its true then. :rolleyes: :happytears: