Bastards can still claim the throne

What if despite the churches wishes recognised bastards still had a right of inheritance. At least in England a POD would be at the death of Henry I as he had several recognised illegitimate sons. If one of these eg Robert of Gloucester had been recognised heir he would have had precedence over Matilda. Now of course Matilda would have had a lot to say about it and we may still get the Anarchy but with Robert instead of Srephen. The end result may still be Henry II as otl but there would still be ramifications later. Any other ideas?
 
ANother result is that England has no formal claim to the throne of France (provided other events occur as OTL). That would completely change the face of the 100-year war.

Of course, OTL Bastards could get on the throne of England (or at least one did) and that did not stop the English claim to France
 
This would be a disaster. If bastards are able to legally claim the throne, the we would likely see succession wars every time a Monarch with bastards dies. What would the point of getting married be if illegitimate children can claim their half-siblings throne? Thankfully this didn't happen in OTL.
 
This would be a disaster. If bastards are able to legally claim the throne, the we would likely see succession wars every time a Monarch with bastards dies. What would the point of getting married be if illegitimate children can claim their half-siblings throne? Thankfully this didn't happen in OTL.

How is that more of a disaster than allowing multiple legitimate sons to outlive their father?
 
How is that more of a disaster than allowing multiple legitimate sons to outlive their father?

Because there was a set order of succession. You know, first son, second son ex ex. If bastards have just as much right to the throne, and could potentially be made the heir to the throne, things get really dicey. What's to stop a King from making his oldest illegitimate son heir over his legitimate sons? Whats to stop older bastards from trying to claim the throne from their legitimate younger brothers and sisters? Essentially this runs the large risk of making a Christian version of the Ottoman free-for-all succession.
 
Because there was a set order of succession. You know, first son, second son ex ex. If bastards have just as much right to the throne, and could potentially be made the heir to the throne, things get really dicey. What's to stop a King from making his oldest illegitimate son heir over his legitimate sons? Whats to stop older bastards from trying to claim the throne from their legitimate younger brothers and sisters? Essentially this runs the large risk of making a Christian version of the Ottoman free-for-all succession.
You know, bastard children and marital infidelity are not Christian principles. And the establishment of a line of succession doesn't prevent fratricide and patricide, so I'm not seeing either why succession by bastard sons is going to be that different if the succession is clear. E.g. the first-born son son, regardless of the status of his mother, automatically becomes the heir.

In fact, having all children with legitimate rights to succession just seems like a return to the old Frankish days when kings could have multiple wives.
 
Because there was a set order of succession. You know, first son, second son ex ex. If bastards have just as much right to the throne, and could potentially be made the heir to the throne, things get really dicey. What's to stop a King from making his oldest illegitimate son heir over his legitimate sons? Whats to stop older bastards from trying to claim the throne from their legitimate younger brothers and sisters? Essentially this runs the large risk of making a Christian version of the Ottoman free-for-all succession.

"Bastards can succeed" does not mean "no set order of succession".

Let's take Henry I, since he had a pack of bastards.

Either A) Robert comes first (oldest son, regardless of legitimacy) or B) William comes first (legitimacy giving someone precedence) with any bastards following after the line of legitimate sons is exhausted.

Its just as straight forward as if you have a pack of sons from multiple sequential marriages. You just spell out who is first and who follows.

Meanwhile, as for coups - again, the same potential problem exists with younger legitimate brothers.

The Ottoman free-for-all succession was a consequence of the absence of any firmly entrenched rule on which son came first - given that, and given a system where "legitimacy" (in the sense that taking power by a coup is not kosher), and you can have bastards as acceptable heirs without any more trouble than OTL.
 
The big problem with bastards having a claim on the throne is that you never know for sure how many of them there are. Without paternity testing, any faction who wants to cook up a pretext to legitimize a coup can always produce some villiage boy, who looks kinda like the late king and was born about nine months after the king's progress passed through town.
 
I was thinking, wouldn't they just have legitimate offspring then illegitimate offspring? So, if the King has no legitimate heirs like Charles II, then his illegitimate offspring(like MMonmouth) would be the heir.
 
The big problem with bastards having a claim on the throne is that you never know for sure how many of them there are. Without paternity testing, any faction who wants to cook up a pretext to legitimize a coup can always produce some villiage boy, who looks kinda like the late king and was born about nine months after the king's progress passed through town.

Yeah. You'd have to have something where only recognized in the king's lifetime bastards counted - something like the Frankish tradition of multiple women or real but not church recognized marriages (a la the Anglo-Saxons and Norse).

Some sort of system where there's a recognizable group and not just anyone who can be given the king's hair color with dye.
 
Illegitimate children could inherit the throne when the King decided who was and was not a "legitimate" heir.

Henry VIII established this principle. It is said that had Henry Fitzroy not died (or was in the process of dying) that Henry would have considered nominating him as Heir in the First Succession Act
 
I asked because William the Bastard (aka the conquerer) acceded to the Duchy of Normandy as an illegitamate, but Henry his son could not be succeeded by Robert an illegitimate recognised son less than a century later. This was because the church had decreed so and it lead to The Anarchy just because the recognised heir Matilda was female. Why did Henry feel that he could not name Robert as his heir as William the Atheling had died in the White Ship disaster. he knew that was how his father gained the Duchy of Normandy. I agree that it is either primogeniture of birth regardless of legitimacy, or legitimates then illigitimates.
 
Top