There is the rumour - although various sources differ on the venue - that Edward Augustus, duke of Kent and his "mistress" Madame Julie de St-Laurent were married by the time they arrived in Canada in 1801. William Mackenzie Porter quotes proof (apparently) that the couple were married in a church in Quebec City. There were also supposedly seven kids born of this marriage (including two boys - Robert, born in 1792 and John/Jean born in 1794)
Now, leaving aside that said marriage would have been contracted without royal consent and Madame de St-Laurent was a papist. Would it have made all that much difference when the duke and Julie parted ways? William had ten children by Dorothea Jordan, and it was common knowledge that George IV had married a Catholic in an almost identical scenario (without royal consent - I might make a thread at some point about the rumours about George and Mrs. FitzHerbert having kids).
The duke of Kent was seemingly a good benefactor to his discarded mistresses and bastards, since his illegitimate daughter Adélaïde Victoire Auguste Dubus was to receive a pension.

Edward did request that Victoire Dubus join him in Gibraltar - and bring the child with. Unfortunately, little Adélaïde died on the sea journey there. Victoire refused to take her late sister's place as his mistress, enter Madame de St-Laurent. Victoire Dubus' nephew wrote to Queen Victoria requesting the settling of the late Victoire's outstanding annuity, which Victoria did willingly (although, this was pre-Albert IIRC).
So, what if the duke of Kent and Julie had had children. He was considering marrying to escape his debts as early as 1815/1816 (as was the duke of Clarence, so I think the traditional view of the "Great Baby Race" - i.e. that it happened solely as a result of Princess Charlotte's death - is perhaps not so accurate). Julie kicked up no fuss OTL, simply requesting Beechey's portrait of the duke. And Kent left her well-provided for. Hell, even the duchess of Kent respected Madame de St-Laurent (which is saying a lot, considering how the duchess didn't exactly get on with most of the royal family), sending her news of the duke's death via Prince Leopold and the duc d'Orléans (a personal friend of Madame de St-Laurent's) rather than leaving her to simply read about it in the papers. Would there being children (albeit illegitimate FitzKents) affect the duchess' view of Julie? Would the duke of Kent - despite his debts - maybe even refuse to leave Julie if there were kids? (Clarence left Dorothy Jordan, but AFAIK, they were never married - nor was there ever rumour of it). And would this put paid to the rumour that Victoria was illegitimate - since the duke had no other children?
Would be interested to hear what all of you think
Now, leaving aside that said marriage would have been contracted without royal consent and Madame de St-Laurent was a papist. Would it have made all that much difference when the duke and Julie parted ways? William had ten children by Dorothea Jordan, and it was common knowledge that George IV had married a Catholic in an almost identical scenario (without royal consent - I might make a thread at some point about the rumours about George and Mrs. FitzHerbert having kids).
The duke of Kent was seemingly a good benefactor to his discarded mistresses and bastards, since his illegitimate daughter Adélaïde Victoire Auguste Dubus was to receive a pension.
I love that NOT becoming an actress is considered more important than being ProtestantThe baby was placed into the care of Adelaide's sister Victoire.
Prince Edward arranged for a pension of 50 guineas a year to be paid to Victoire and Denis Dubus for the remainder of their lifetimes, regardless of whether the Prince himself or the child died. This may indicate that Adelaide had been the success of the family and was therefore the main source of income. This pension came with three conditions;
1) The child was forbidden to become an actress
2) The child would be raised in the Protestant faith
3) The child was to be given back to Edward if he requested it
Edward did request that Victoire Dubus join him in Gibraltar - and bring the child with. Unfortunately, little Adélaïde died on the sea journey there. Victoire refused to take her late sister's place as his mistress, enter Madame de St-Laurent. Victoire Dubus' nephew wrote to Queen Victoria requesting the settling of the late Victoire's outstanding annuity, which Victoria did willingly (although, this was pre-Albert IIRC).
So, what if the duke of Kent and Julie had had children. He was considering marrying to escape his debts as early as 1815/1816 (as was the duke of Clarence, so I think the traditional view of the "Great Baby Race" - i.e. that it happened solely as a result of Princess Charlotte's death - is perhaps not so accurate). Julie kicked up no fuss OTL, simply requesting Beechey's portrait of the duke. And Kent left her well-provided for. Hell, even the duchess of Kent respected Madame de St-Laurent (which is saying a lot, considering how the duchess didn't exactly get on with most of the royal family), sending her news of the duke's death via Prince Leopold and the duc d'Orléans (a personal friend of Madame de St-Laurent's) rather than leaving her to simply read about it in the papers. Would there being children (albeit illegitimate FitzKents) affect the duchess' view of Julie? Would the duke of Kent - despite his debts - maybe even refuse to leave Julie if there were kids? (Clarence left Dorothy Jordan, but AFAIK, they were never married - nor was there ever rumour of it). And would this put paid to the rumour that Victoria was illegitimate - since the duke had no other children?
Would be interested to hear what all of you think