Heritage Album

Are the Royal Bloodlines true or could early affairs by Queens have caused mistakes in heirs.?

It seems to be a fantasy and propaganda that any Royal Bloodlines of Europe or Houses could truly trace directly back by parental lineage. Is it not much more likely and easily possible that many Queens had affairs which resulted in children who were often named the heirs of Kings but in fact were not bloodline descended from their fathers? I imagine this happened on several occasions, and the family trees of Europe are actually much more complex. It seems almost a falsity and a fantasy to claim that the true bloodlines and genealogy of the Royalty of any European country is known because of this fact that many Queens had affairs and sexual relations with other men. There is really no way of knowing without doing DNA testing on remains if found, and even then...

Public Comments

1. oh that is funny to consider. I thought it was only nowdays with the mailman and the postman but no reason why it couldn't have been in the old days too if you take a close look at prince charles he is nothing to get aroused over ... that boy is butt ugly
2. The Queens were not the only ones having affairs, Kings did too, besides so much inbreeding, I'm sure the bloodlines are mostly pure. I can't remember which Queen said she only takes on passengers when she was already with child! I guess that way she knows who's the daddy!
3. Women with power will abuse their position as quickly as men will. Your question is interesting. Watch the female responses here, they will try to purify the queens and blame the men. They say about 10% of all western children have an unknown father to them. This is a subject women find difficult to admit because it sheds light on thier collective behavior that they want to keep hidden. Example,Prince Harry (Hewitt?)
4. It is possible, but, as you say, without DNA testing, no one would know for sure. I've read that it was understood that until the heir was born, the queen would stay loyal to the king. Of course, the queen straying outside the marriage, in some cases, would have been considered treason, ie...Anne Boleyn, Catherine Howard. Interesting question.
5. I agree with you! I do not think there are any true "bluebloods" anywhere!! However, all those claiming to be have little skeletons, I am sure!
6. The only way to know for sure, would be to DNA test every royal person now alive. A bit redundant, I would say.
7. In the early 1960s around London, there was a rumor that the Queens new baby had something wrong with him. Royal babies in the past were wheeled around by their nannies and photographs taken. Shortly afterwords, the baby was seen and the rumor dissolved. Prince Andrew grew up looking nothing like his blond father - in fact he is now the dead ringer for his uncle the Duke of Portland. There was also a question mark over the Queen's mother, who resembled none of the rest of her huge family; she did not inherit the heavy eyebrows or long nose of her father, the Earl of Strathmore. The Earl was so indifferent to this baby, he played cricket for six weeks before turning up for the christening. Nobody appears to know where the Queen's mother was born.
8. anything is possible, and I do know of a number of Queens (Isabella the She-Wolf of France, Isabeau of Bavaria to name 2, plus the daughters-in-law of Philippe IV of France) who had affairs openly, so certainly some may have had quiet ones. But I think they would have been very careful, since the Queen's adultery would have been treason. The laws of the land certainly tried to ensure a man's children were his own, and Queens & Princesses were watched closely to try & make sure they were faithful. I don't know it's as bad as you seem to think, however. A number of suspicious babies are often attributed to a royal baby being born dead & a commoner substituted (the warming pan baby of James II & his 2nd wife is a lovely example). And maybe that was to defend the mother's honor. We'll never know, now will we?