Hi I have only been following this site for about six months , so I don't know if prior to that time these questions have been asked and answered . I have several questions about the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings . 1.) Did King Henry I have
the most ? 2.) Does King Charles II have the most "prominent" ? 3.) Have all of the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings been identified ? (So there shouldn't be anyone in the 21st century being able to prove that they are a direct illegitimate
descendant of a certain King ?)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 6:21:20 AM UTC-8, Riley S wrote:

Hi I have only been following this site for about six months , so I don't know if prior to that time these questions have been asked and answered . I have several questions about the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings . 1.) Did King Henry I have

the most ? 2.) Does King Charles II have the most "prominent" ? 3.) Have all of the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings been identified ? (So there shouldn't be anyone in the 21st century being able to prove that they are a direct illegitimate
descendant of a certain King ?)

There is a flaw here. People are always being born, so many people, could probably *newly* trace their line back to say Henry I without anyone else having previously made this connection.

I.E. not every single descendant of Henry I has been identified I would say

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 9:21:20 AM UTC-5, Riley S wrote:

Hi I have only been following this site for about six months , so I don't know if prior to that time these questions have been asked and answered . I have several questions about the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings . 1.) Did King Henry I have

the most ? 2.) Does King Charles II have the most "prominent" ? 3.) Have all of the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings been identified ? (So there shouldn't be anyone in the 21st century being able to prove that they are a direct illegitimate
descendant of a certain King ?)

3) Absolutely not. There is no way to know what a king does on travel.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 6:21:20 AM UTC-8, Riley S wrote:

I have several questions about the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings . 1.) Did King Henry I have the most ?

That is the conclusion drawn by several scholars who have tried to catalogue such, but there it should be pointed out that this is the number of 'recognized' illegitimate children. For all we know, other kings are lower in the count, not because they
had fewer out-of-wedlock children, but because they had theirs under circumstances that did not lead to formal recognition.

2.) Does King Charles II have the most "prominent" ?

I guess it depends on how one defines prominent. Seems subjective to me. I would argue that Robert of Gloucester was the most prominent of them all, his brother was also an Earl and his sisters included a Queen, a Countess and a Duchess (back when such
titles actually meant something, rather than simply being arbitrarily invented titles conjured into existence by their father)
.

3.) Have all of the illegitimate offspring of England's Kings been identified ?

No (see above). Though it becomes progressively less likely as more records are published, it is still possible that record of a novel child has yet to be revealed. There may still be an unpublished record in some obscure archive documenting one, or a
novel convincing reinterpretation of the parentage of a known person.

(So there shouldn't be anyone in the 21st century being able to prove that they are a direct illegitimate descendant of a certain King ?)

As someone else has pointed out, there will continually be new people discovering a direct illegitimate descent because new descendants of the known lines keep being born, but it is also the case that a new connection might be discovered anywhere up and
down someone's pedigree that ends up connecting them to descents from previously-known royal progeny born out of wedlock. Just as an example, someone discovering that their ancestor in 18th-century New England was born to 'the other wife' of the father
from what was thought might then learn that the wife they now know they connect to is a descedant of immigrant Oliver Mainwaring, who has several know 'bastard lines'. One needn't discover a new royal child to discover a new line from a royal child.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 7:02:54 PM UTC-8, taf wrote:

2.) Does King Charles II have the most "prominent" ?

I guess it depends on how one defines prominent. Seems subjective
to me. I would argue that Robert of Gloucester was the most prominent
of them all,

In retrospect, maybe not - there are three pre-Conquest kings whom some have considered to have been illegitimate, Athelstan, Edward the Martyr and Harold I. The circumstances are a little different with each, in terms f the nature of the historica,l
record and its interpretation, but an illegitimate son who became king would obviously belong at the top of the list of most prominent. Curiously, none of them had known children, so the question of lines from bastards remains unchanged.

Looking outside our normal Anglocentric mindset in identifying prominent royal bastards, in Iberia, Mauregato of Asturias, Ramiro I of Aragon and Enrique II of Castile and João I of Portugal all became kings (well, sort of in Ramiro's case) and some say
the same of Vermudo II of Leon, though that is quite contentious. Also infante Sancho of Leon/Castile (Zaida's son) was nominated as his father's heir but did not outlive his father.

taf

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)