What if Harry is NOT Charles' Biological Son? What are the legal implications for him and his children and his wife Meghan?
There have been a lot of rumors about Prince Harry's paternity for years. Many people have wondered if Prince Harry is really the son of calvary officer James Hewitt or whether he is the son of then Prince Charles now King Charles III.
What does it even matter one way or another? Will that change anything for his children? Will that change anything for his wife?
The Scandal
If it turns out that Harry is the son of a military officer and not the son of the current King of England, Charles III, it would clearly be a little bit scandalous. It would beg the question of how long the royal family knew this and why they never disclosed this to the British people. It would raise all sorts of questions about Prince Charles and Princess Diana's relationship. But would these be anything new? Not really. It would just be a delicious scandal to gossip about, that is all. It should not change anything from a legal perspective about Harry and his place in line to the British throne.
Legally, Charles is Harry's father no matter what a DNA test might say
No one can deny that Harry looks nothing at all like his putative father, Prince Charles now King Charles III. No one can likewise deny that Harry looks remarkably like his rumored biological father James Hewitt. But this means nothing at all. First of all, many children do not look like their biological parents so the fact that Harry does not look like Charles does not prove that he is not Charles' son. But even if a DNA test revealed, (shock horror!) that Harry is biologically NOT the son of the current sitting British monarch, still, Charles could not at this point disavow Harry's paternity.
The bottom line is that Harry was born during Charles' marriage to the late Princess Diana. As a child born in wedlock to a wife and husband, there is a legal presumption that Harry is the biological child of both his parents who were married at the time he was conceived and subsequently born and both have acted as if they are Harry's parents for Harry's entire life to date.
The law typically does not allow a man to disavow paternity for children born in wedlock. However, under certain circumstances, there might have been a narrow window of opportunity for the man to challenge paternity and demand a paternity test. That time has obviously long passed.
Because King Charles never challenged the paternity of Prince Harry but rather accepted the child as his own since birth, he would be legally estopped at this point from rescinding the paternity of Harry -- even if a DNA test at this point determined that Harry is not his biological son.
Public Policy Concerns
There are public policy concerns why in almost every jurisdiction, children born during wedlock are considered to be the children of the two spouses involved. It is in the best interest of the child to have the support (especially the financial support in minor years) of his or her parents. It is about creating a stable and predictable environment for children as they grow up. Of course, now that Harry is an adult and takes care of his own financial needs, some people may want a DNA test just to embarrass the Prince or to somehow make the argument that if he is not Charles' biological son, then his children are not entitled to royal titles. But this is nonsense. Just like Charles cannot at this point disavow paternity of Harry, he cannot disavow Harry's children. That is to say that he cannot refuse to give them royal titles, or eliminate their spot in the line of accession on the basis that Harry's DNA proves that he is the son of James Hewitt. As far as the law goes, no matter whose DNA is in Harry's body, he is still the son of King Charles III because he was conceived and born when King Charles and Princess Diana were married.
Can Charles however change the rules of who can get royal titles going forward? Can he limit titles and accession rights to children who are proven biologically to be the biological offspring of a royal (and not adopted or surrogate, for example?)? Yes, he probably could. But it would make him look very bad.
Harry's Uncanny Resemblance to James Hewitt
Harry does bear an uncanny resemblance to James Hewitt but Mr. Hewitt has said repeatedly that he met Diana, Princess of Wales after Harry was born. So this is biologically impossible. But what if he lied in order to protect the royal family and the Princess? Would they have publicly disclosed that? It is doubtful because it would have been incredibly cruel to the child then, and would still reflect badly on the royal family now. Because if indeed Princess Diana stepped out on her cheating husband and became pregnant with a baby who they all passed off as Charles', who could really fault her given his own extra-marital affair with Camilla Parker Bowles, now his Queen Consort?
No doubt the royal family knows whether Harry is biologically Charles' son. It is impossible that they did not take a lock of his hair decades ago and have a DNA test done on him. Whatever they found will be kept secret forever, probably even from Harry. But it all matters zero because, again, no matter what biology says, Harry is Charles's legal son and Harry's children (even those he adopts if he and Meghan decide to adopt) are Charles's legal grandchildren. They are entitled to all the legal rights and privileges that come from being the children and grandchildren and heirs of the British monarch, unless or until the laws and rules are changed.
Ditto for Harry's wife. She is still a princess because she married a man, who by virtue of his birth is legally recognized as a prince.
Comments
Post a Comment