Would the "Royal Succession" change if

[no_hypocrisy]

the man claiming to be the love child of Charles and Camilla proves that his claims are true?

Would William still be next in line for the throne?

[lapfog_1]

1. or this guy and his descendants

https://www.ccsna.org/14th-earl-of-loudoun-the-rightful-heir-dies-at-age-69#:~:text=Michael%20Edward%20Abney%2DHastings%2C%2014th,instead%20of%20Queen%20Elizabeth%20II.

[Freddie]

2. I don't think so

King William IV (?) - George III’s son - had a number of children with a girlfriend but no “proper” heir. He hastily married the requisite German princess but they were unable to produce a child that lived past infancy, so the throne went to his niece Victoria, daughter of George III’s youngest son Prince Edward, who’d died fairly young. Queen Victoria was King Charles’ 3x-great grandmother.

[LeftishBrit]

8. True

Though actually a descendent of one of William IV's illegitimate children did sort-of end up ruling Britain; it was David Cameron!

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. No - illegitimate children have never counted in the royal succession

Charles II had loads, but they didn't get considered for succession (one, the Duke of Monmouth, did try a rebellion against James II, Charles' younger brother, resulting in the last battle on English soil at Sedgemoor, but he had to fight, not just inherit). George IV was rumoured to have some, but they weren't considered for the throne.

The law controls the inheritance of the crown far more than it does for monetary inheritance for the rest of us. I haven't heard of this man, and it seems unlikely that Camilla could have given birth without it being generally known, but whenever it was supposed to have happened, it wouldn't change things.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. UK (England) doesn't bastard king much. They used "Fitz" appendage to denote them in royal cases

The word or word fragment came from the Norse French and Latin for "son of" and only occasionally denoted bastardy (which is never the fault of the child, hence I don't use "bastard" as an insult).

Its use during the period of English surname adoption led to its incorporation into patronymic surnames, and at later periods this form was adopted by English kings for the surnames given some of their recognized illegitimate children, and by Irish families when anglicizing their Gaelic patronymic surnames.

several illegitimate children of the Norman and early Angevin kings were called 'fitz Roy', "son of the king" in Anglo-Norman French, examples being Henry fitz Roy, son of Henry I, and Richard fitz Roy, son of king John.

From the Stuart era (1603–1714) and later, there was a revival of the adoption of Fitz surname forms, particularly for illegitimate children of kings, princes, or high nobility, for example Fitzroy for the children of Charles II and one of his mistresses, the Duchess of Cleveland; FitzJames, for the illegitimate children of king James II (1685–1688) and Arabella Churchill; FitzClarence for those of Duke of Clarence, later King William IV (1830–1837) by Mrs. Jordan; and FitzGeorge, for the sons born to the legally prohibited marriage of Prince George, Duke of Cambridge (1819–1904) with Sarah Fairbrother, who would refer to herself as Mrs. FitzGeorge. This practice by the late royalty gave rise to the erroneous belief that historical instances of Fitz surnames also denoted illegitimacy, which was not the case.[3]

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

[hlthe2b]

5. I haven't paid much attention to these claims. Is there DNA analysis to support the story?

[bucolic_frolic]

6. It's all an argument about who and how society is organized

The nobility fought at one time, but now it's organization by wealth.

[Sneederbunk]

7. Then there is Harry.