Reading about someone called David Grhol fathering a 'love child' it made me wonder which famous person I'd like to be the love child of

[Supersuperleeds]

I'd say that calling Accys ' father a dummy ,might get his back up,

Lord Charles is a dummy? You've just destroyed my childhood

 

[Mrs M]

Mr M wanted Val Doonican and Sandy Shaw as his parents.
My wish was Margo and Jerry from The Good Life (so I could join the Pony Club and get driven to school). 😬🤣

 

[Ming the Merciless]

John Wayne would have liked to be my Father.

Instead of which you got Kenneth Williams

 

[raleighnut]

Instead of which you got Kenneth Williams

I thought it was Charles Hawtrey

 

[Accy cyclist]

Adam West's Batman maybe. 🤔

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Adam West's Batman maybe. 🤔

 

[Yellow Fang]

Lennon

No, he was horrible.

 

[Yellow Fang]

Leonard Cheshire. The RAF's greatest airman imo and a brilliant bloke.

 

[raleighnut]

No, he was horrible.

Talented though.

 

[Drago]

No, he was horrible.

He was, supposedly, a bell end of the first water. Talented, but only the third most talented songwriter in the Beatles and the worst musician of them all.

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

Dame Edna Everage

 

[iandg]

I am the b****** love child of Donald Sutherland and Sigourney Weaver - don't send me those negative waves man.

 

[MidnightRider]

I must admit, I hate the term "love child".
If you actually love somebody enough to deliberately produce a child with them, then you stay with them and bring the child up together.
Fathering a bastard outside your marriage or long term partnership, while intending staying with your long term partner is not IMO a "love child".

I have not read all the way to the end of this thread yet, so someone else may have mentioned this term could be quite historic and quite accurate. Some years ago I read about 'mistresses' in the later 1700's. Some were actually employed under contracts negotiated by 3rd parties, the wages for being someones lover were things like a season box at the theatre, an allowance for employing servants and buying clothes etc, a town house, coach and horses (huge cost back then, people were cheap compared to horses).
Many of these women were valued as themselves as personalities, not as just prostitutes and often received lifetime pensions from the man if he moved on in a few years or if he died, often declared in Wills. It was apparently something of a respectable arrangment for both the women and the men at the time, though the women were not accepted socially in high society events.

Part of the problem for the very well off at the time was the expectation that offspring marry well,to keep or obtain for their parental families benefit and standing, both additional money and titles. This of course meant arranged marriages or at least approved off marriages. No marrying who you loved. This was got around by having affairs with married women after they had produced an heir and spare or by keeping a lover as in the first paragraph of this reply. Both of these options could be true love experiences, relationships otherwise forbidden by the requirements of appropriate marriage.

I read of a couple, the titled man married, the woman a formal courtesan 'employed' by him. They were togeather until he died, producing multiple children (10 or so) all of which he protected and had formally educated etc. She was 42 when she carried his last child and they eventually parted due to his death, he left in his will money for his mistress and children so they would never be in want in life.
I would call all these children 'children of love'. More so than the woman his family had forced him to marry when he was young and the children of that marriage, although I believe the legitimate children were also cared for and looked after well. Divorce was not really permitted in that time, without bringing shame on all parties and often social exclusion/punishment for anyone related to the couple in question - rather like some religions 'shun' those who do not obey the rules of a relgion. Women who divored even in Victorian times lost all contact with thier children as they were automatically given to her husband, because women had very few legal rights about anything in life then. The loss of the children was an excellent way to control some women, while the husband could do as he liked.

If you look at the phrase 'love child' in an historic context, the children can be from complex and determined battles to stay with a loved but unmarried partner and children, while trying to please parents and not have siblings of the unhapplily married couple punished/socially shunned for things they were innocent of. So yes, they were truly children of deep love in some circumstances, brought up with love and care from both biological but socially not permitted to marry parents.

On odd occasions it is also known/recorded that offspring of a straying rich parent were in fact adopted into that parents marital relationship, as a 'ward' and lived and grew up with other siblings from the marriage. I think it was Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire who was one of these adopters of out of wedlock children, but its a while back since I read about her, so I could have her mixed up with someone else.

I am not saying all 'cheaters' were honourable and caring, but much valued love children definitely existed and were wanted by both parents.

 

[MidnightRider]

In modern times, I used to work with a woman who was the exact feminine version of Harry Seacombe, down the the heavy build, resounding voice and facial features. We did wonder at times.... though the time scale would not have fit.

 

[Drago]

I have not read all the way to the end of this thread yet, so someone else may have mentioned this term could be quite historic and quite accurate. Some years ago I read about 'mistresses' in the later 1700's. Some were actually employed under contracts negotiated by 3rd parties, the wages for being someones lover were things like a season box at the theatre, an allowance for employing servants and buying clothes etc, a town house, coach and horses (huge cost back then, people were cheap compared to horses).
Many of these women were valued as themselves as personalities, not as just prostitutes and often received lifetime pensions from the man if he moved on in a few years or if he died, often declared in Wills. It was apparently something of a respectable arrangment for both the women and the men at the time, though the women were not accepted socially in high society events.

Part of the problem for the very well off at the time was the expectation that offspring marry well,to keep or obtain for their parental families benefit and standing, both additional money and titles. This of course meant arranged marriages or at least approved off marriages. No marrying who you loved. This was got around by having affairs with married women after they had produced an heir and spare or by keeping a lover as in the first paragraph of this reply. Both of these options could be true love experiences, relationships otherwise forbidden by the requirements of appropriate marriage.

I read of a couple, the titled man married, the woman a formal courtesan 'employed' by him. They were togeather until he died, producing multiple children (10 or so) all of which he protected and had formally educated etc. She was 42 when she carried his last child and they eventually parted due to his death, he left in his will money for his mistress and children so they would never be in want in life.
I would call all these children 'children of love'. More so than the woman his family had forced him to marry when he was young and the children of that marriage, although I believe the legitimate children were also cared for and looked after well. Divorce was not really permitted in that time, without bringing shame on all parties and often social exclusion/punishment for anyone related to the couple in question - rather like some religions 'shun' those who do not obey the rules of a relgion. Women who divored even in Victorian times lost all contact with thier children as they were automatically given to her husband, because women had very few legal rights about anything in life then. The loss of the children was an excellent way to control some women, while the husband could do as he liked.

If you look at the phrase 'love child' in an historic context, the children can be from complex and determined battles to stay with a loved but unmarried partner and children, while trying to please parents and not have siblings of the unhapplily married couple punished/socially shunned for things they were innocent of. So yes, they were truly children of deep love in some circumstances, brought up with love and care from both biological but socially not permitted to marry parents.

On odd occasions it is also known/recorded that offspring of a straying rich parent were in fact adopted into that parents marital relationship, as a 'ward' and lived and grew up with other siblings from the marriage. I think it was Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire who was one of these adopters of out of wedlock children, but its a while back since I read about her, so I could have her mixed up with someone else.

I am not saying all 'cheaters' were honourable and caring, but much valued love children definitely existed and were wanted by both parents.

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbK8yqNzp0&pp=ygUXTG92ZSBjaGlsZCBvZiB0aGUgcXVlZW4%3D