This has all the makings of a paperback Dan Brown thriller you start on a flight to JFK and only get 40 pages into because you left it on your flight to JFK.
The true heir to the British crown could actually be a gay ex-Mormon from Salt Lake City, reports say.
Charles, William and George may have some competition, though the story does require a certain degree of eye squinting to see clearly.
But who doesn’t love some good royal intrigue?
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
King George III, you’ll remember from your elementary school history class, was the ruler during the time of US independence. He had a son, conveniently named King George IV, who may have had an illegal marriage around the late 1700s to a Roman Catholic woman named Maria Fitzherbert.
When the Prince rose to the throne, the marriage would have been annulled. But Fitzherbert may not have gone along with the plan so willingly, because the two more than likely had a child.
James Knight Ord the III could be the descendant of that child.
“They tried to get her to sign the back of her marriage certificate that she had no issue, that there were no children of issue from the marriage and she, of course, refused to do so,” Ord told Fox 13.
“Our family would have been the rightful heirs of the crown, but we were sent off packing,” he added.
Ord has a husband and four adopted kids, and isn’t looking to stir and actual drama with his maybe-royal blood. Plus, even if it turned out to be true, the family has long since lost its claim to the throne.
But we’re sure it makes for some juicy conversation at their family reunions.
onthemark
This is silly. “Bastards” don’t have any claim to a throne. (Even on “Game of Thrones.”) Descendants of bastards even less so.
If you want to check out the Stuart line – the Catholic descendants of (bisexual) King James I aka King James VI of Scotland, that would be the elderly Duke of Bavaria. But Elizabeth II has an equal claim.
MacAdvisor
One never “loses” a claim to a thrown until one gets the thrown.
Kangol
Um, OK. Go for it, dude. Toss those Windsors off the thrown. The odious Prince Phillip can’t go soon enough.
BTW, is there some reason Queerty’s ignoring the big news in Mississippi? A judge struck down the Mississippi G0P’s attempts to institute a law allowing discrimination against LGBTIQ people. It’s another sign we need to vote in November for people who will support us instead of people who are still working to deny us our rights and equality under the law.
Russell1947
Operative word here would be Catholic. If George’s mistress was Catholic, no doubt the child would have been raised Catholic, even if given for adoption, hence no crown, no throne. Descendants of Catholic heirs, even if the had been Mormons or Episcopalians are ruled out. Plus as the other commenter stated, illegitimacxy rules him out from the very beginning.
The MS ruling isn’t up Queerty’s ally, i.e., not a gossipy item.
Sick of the Q added to LBGT
Reasonable
If they were married, then NOT bastards, even if marriage annulled
benandy
If the “issue of bastards” and “children of Catholics” are proscribed, then how do you explain Henry the VIII? By all accounts he was of the bastard line and he was certainly raised Catholic. Nope, if all the legion of other heirs to the throne with at BETTER claim were somehow “not available” and the Brexit hadn’t destroyed the country, then Mr. Ord would be asked to convert to CofE and take a regnal name. I’d suggest James III.
kevininbuffalo
@Reasonable: The heir to the throne, by law, could not marry a Catholic. Neither could they marry without the king’s consent. On both counts there was no marriage. After the death of James II all the Stuarts in line for the throne were Catholic. They had to skip over 54 claiments to find a Protestant, a non English speaking German, George I, who founded the current dynasty. Which is really a shame because Jim would have looked good on the money!
ErikO
This is nothing new. A lot of people are related to European royalty.
Zodinsbrother
If he’s a Mormon then he’s ineligible anyway
Zodinsbrother
@ErikO:
indeed. Beyonce is a direct descendant of King Edward I
Homo Erectus
@Zodinsbrother: Supposedly, all US presidents except one (Martin Van Buren) are descendants of King John I of Magna Carta fame:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html
Since everyone has 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-greats, 32 great-great-greats, 64 great-great-great-greats etc., if you go back far enough there’s probably a connection somewhere!
dean089
If she was Roman Catholic that would have negated any claim her children might have had to the throne.
leewah
No, he is not an heir to the British throne.
The Royal Marriages Act (1772) would have required the Prince of Wales, the future George IV, to obtain King George III’s permission to marry Mrs. Fitzherbert. Any marriage without the king’s permission would have been null and void. George III never granted such permission. The private ceremony that the Prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert allegedly conducted would not have been a legal marriage, and any issue they might have produced would have been born out of wedlock.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Settlement of 1701 explicitly barred a Catholic or anyone who married a Catholic from the throne. Even if George III had granted his permission for the Prince and Mrs. Fitzherbert to marry, the Prince and his issue with Mrs. Fitzherbert automatically would have been barred from the succession. He would have become Mr. Hanover, private citizen (although the King could have thrown him some minor title to keep up appearances).
Children born outside of wedlock are generally excluded from the succession, but an Act of Parliament can reverse this. Henry VIII had his marriages to Catherine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn annulled, and his children by those queens were declared illegitimate and were removed from the line of succession; but the Third Act of Succession (1544) returned the future Mary I and Elizabeth I to the succession without removing the mark of illegitimacy. The Prince never acknowledged having had children with Mrs. Fitzherbert, and so no such Act was ever passed regarding any possible issue of theirs.
A person who is in the order of succession who has never been a Catholic but who has been an adherent of another religion, such as Mormon, may still accede to the throne if they first join in communion with the Church of England.
An heir to the throne must be an “heir of the body” of their predecessor; adopted children would be ineligible.
Sluggo2007
WOW! That story sure got the queens on this blog going!
GayEGO
If Ord is a biological child regardless of wedlock the parent should be responsible for their actions. This is definitely a case for legal experts as many laws were made to protect the rich/Royal and wealthy who commit the same acts as everyone else.
Transiteer
No, he doesn’t. And he won’t. This is just silliness written by someone who knows nothing of the subject, and is looking for attention (or is just trying to fill space).
ErikO
@GayEGO: Becoming a heir to a throne or the title of say for example the British royal family, does not work that way.
James Hart
@Russell1947: Correct. English law forbids Catholics, and his or her descendants, from ascending to the English Throne.
Rob Moore
@onthemark: Technically, he would not have been a bastard since if the story of the marriage is true, they were actually married.