Illegitimate monarchs

File: Enrique_II_de_Castilla.jpg (68KB, 224x316px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 224x316px

>>483683

As always, depends.

William, duke of Normandy, and later conqueror of England, was not called "the Bastard" just for the hatred of butthurted people but cause he was an illegitimate son of his father.

Henry, count of Trastamara rose agaisnt his half brother, the king Peter, and after a series of wars in the context of the HYW, defeated him and take the throne for himself, fathering a new line.

Henry V was a bastard?

File: JamesVI_L_tcm4-558904.jpg (152KB, 536x709px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 536x709px

>>483730
Alright, interesting. Anywhere I can read up more on this? Apparently just found out that the King of Scotland, James VI also became the King of England simultaneously, so does this mean that monarchs generally preferred to just find a foreign ruler instead of let an illegitimate one rule the state?

>>483739

Well, usually it became harder to bastards to became heirs once the Church ideals of marriage became more and more important. Also, the Families and later Lineages face transformations till they became closed Houses with clear sucession rules.

Edward IV was allegedly the bastard of some archer in the Rouen garrison.

File: sargon.jpg (122KB, 693x1078px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 693x1078px

he was found in a basket

>>483683
Not sure if I really understand your question, search William of Orange and see what comes up. Or Elizabeth 1, maybe Louis Napoleon

File: aaa.jpg (542KB, 1024x889px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1024x889px

>>483845
literally half the world pre 8th century BC was found in a basket or floated down the river or something :^)

>>484008
Do you think the reason we have those stories of famous people floating down rivers as kids etc. are because they're more fanciful and thus get passed down instead of the more boring truth, or was that an actual practice, to just get rid of your unwanted kid in that manner?

>>484060
well, I've read that roman women used to practice post birth abortion in their sewer systems, so there could be an argument, I don't know too much about the whole thing though...

>>483683
Being a bastard isn't the same as having illegitimate children. A child born out of wedlock is a bastard, not the father (although he could theoretically have been one aswell).

This is how I know that OP is an American.

>>483943
Louis Napoleon didn't inherit the throne from Napoleon, he was elected, coup'd that shit into a Presidential dictatorship and then an empire a few years later, there's no continuity.

>>484091
>This is how I know OP is an American
too bad you're wrong, I'm European.
>>483943
I implied if let's say a King bangs a random peasant in town and then that peasant has a child, was there an incident where that child inherited the throne?

>>483683
The Baratheon House in Game of Thrones

William the Bastard obviously.

>>484381
Alright, did he have a shitload of illegitimate children or was he the illegitimate himself? I'm looking for the latter, since I know William The Conqueror actually had a lot of children. I probably phrased my question incorrectly in the OP.

>>484390
"Bastard" means that you yourself are illegitimate, you illiterate dago. His name is practically William the Illegitimate and you're retarded.

As for your OP question, it happened all the time especially in the early middle ages; depending on the culture, any child that the father had acknowledged as his could be legitimate, and "illegitimate" only meant children not acknowledged in that case. Your assumption that the entire preceding line would have to die out before a bastard inherited is nonsense, precedence would almost invariably go directly from legitimate sons to illegitimate sons, without any shitting around with cousins or uncles.

And outside of Europe of course it was more rule than exception for kings to just have piles of kids with concubines and put their favorites on the throne after them.

Bonus round: most surnames starting with "Fitz" are bastard's names, it's the Norman word for son, cognate with French "fils", and it's what Norman nobles' sons who didn't inherit estates used for a name. (Normally landed nobles in early Norman England used their estates for names, like "Robert of Locksley" or whatever, and an estate would be divided among the surviving legitimate sons who would all then be named for their own bit.) Tons of these guys ended up winning big estates for themselves and their names stuck.

>>484517
Alright, thanks for the info. Now to cure my "stupidity" is there anywhere I could read up more on these bastards and overall medieval monarchy?

Pretty much every child who was the son of Svend the second of Denmark. He had 20 children. 19 of those were bastards and a good chunk of them ended up as king.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweyn_II_of_Denmark

>>4840083
One answer: aliens, ancient.