Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 6,769
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
I agree with you. Every son or daughter of the same father (or mother) should have identical rights. That's how things are in my country.
As stated previously, the court of appeal did not rule that every child of the same parent should have identical rights. From what has been released to the public, the ruling applies to Delphine and her children exclusively. Other illegitimate children of noble fathers continue to be ineligible for rank or title. (Illegitimate children of noble mothers technically have identical rights to their legitimate half-siblings, but that is because women are not permitted to pass on their titles in the normal course of events.)
Some 16th and 17th century monarchs merrily handed out dukedoms to their illegitimate sons, but not the title of prince or princess. Interesting decision.
King Louis XIV of France decreed that his illegitimate children would enjoy equal rank and rights of succession, but his act was highly contentious and partially repealed by his successor.
Suppose she'd been older than Philippe? What would have happened then?
That is one more reason why I cannot imagine King Philippe being pleased with the decision, though I am sure his mission to slim down the funding and titles of the royal family is the primary one.
Titles come not only from blood but also from a recognised wedding. what's the point in having titled persons if traditionnal royal rules are not to be followed after all. The mere existence of a monarchy causes inequality.
There are monarchies where illegitimate children are or were titled under the rules in force (such as Japan until 1947), but in this case it is the court which has created an inequality between Delphine and all other children in the same position.