Sports Calendar

The Duke of Monmouth’s life might have mirrored that of Henry Fitzoy, Duke of Richmond under Henry VIII, but for the fact that Charles II had an heir, his brother James, and didn’t need to legitimise a bastard son to fill the position. When James II duly succeeded his brother, the foolish Monmouth, believing that he was the lawful king and that the country would rise in his support, mounted a rebellion that failed miserably. He was executed, beheaded on Tower Green, by order of his uncle James. Interestingly, James II, despite being a fanatical Catholic, had been unable to maintain his own marital fidelity; he had an illegitimate daughter by his mistress Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, and two sons and a daughter by Arabella Churchill.

In the end, the king with the most bastards is neither Charles nor William. We have to go back to the 12th century to Henry I, son of William the Conqueror. Although he only had three children with his queen, Mathilda, two of whom died young, he is reputed to have had in excess of 20 bastards, the most famous of whom was Robert, Earl of Gloucester, son of Nesta, daughter of Prince Rhys of Wales. When Henry I died without a son, his daughter, the Empress Mathilda, became queen, only to enter into a lengthy civil war with her cousin, Steven of Blois, for the crown of England. There was a strong support for Robert of Gloucester but, in the event, he refused to claim the throne and put his considerable wealth, army and experience at the disposal of his half-sister Mathilda. It is largely due to him that when Steven died the throne passed to Mathilda’s son, Henry II.

From Henry I to William IV, from the 11th to the 18th century, so many of England’s kings produced children out of wedlock and many nobles families can trace their roots back to these royal bastards. It was no sin for any lady, whether she was from a noble or a humble family, to become the mistress of a King, a Prince or a Royal Duke. The rewards would be considerable. If the lady were sensible, and lucky, she could expect lands, titles, money and a compliant husband. If she had a child, most kings would be happy to acknowledge yet another example of their virility and make sure that the child received a suitably enhanced start in life. All Charles II’s bastards ended up with titles; William IV raised his FitzClarences to the rank equal to that of the children of a marquis, Lords and Ladies.

It was just unlucky for Henry VIII’s bastards that, at the time they were born, he did not have a male heir. The last thing he needed was to complicate matters with a son who was not lawful. His family had based their claim to the crown on descent from a bastard line and Henry could easily visualise some noble family allying themselves with one of his bastard sons and making a play for the throne, should he die without an heir. What Henry VIII desperately wanted was a lawful, living son, and finally he got one, Edward, Prince of Wales. He looked after the others and they would go on to serve, and annoy his children. Edward VI, Mary I and Elizabeth I knew their half-brothers and -sisters and frequently showed affection and tolerance for these siblings. Like many other royal children on both sides of the blanket, the Tudor kids were a remarkable group.

Explore Books

• Book Extracts

• Book Reviews

• Books Group

• Audio Books

Times Recommends

• The 100 Best Books of the Decade
• The Times picks the 50 best paperbacks of 2009
• The conversation: James Ellroy