Who of the royals will have a child in near future?

If the Royals decide to move on with the time and accept a surrogate child as a future Monarch?

• Could the British public make a mountain out of a molehill and ask for a referendum

• Answer:

  The British could ask for a referendum in response to anything they disliked enough about the monarchy to cause a large proportion of them to consider seriously abolishing it. I don't know why you think objecting to a surrogate child would be making a "mountain out of a molehill". We're talking about long centuries of tradition and history here. Why should a child who had no blood relationship to the royal family have a claim to the throne over any other British person? (Assuming that this was a child conceived with the egg and sperm of someone other than the heir and his wife. If the child were the biological offspring of the heir and his wife, then even if gestated by a surrogate, the child would have a perfectly valid claim to the throne.) And if just anyone COULD have a valid claim, if the history and tradition no longer mattered, well, that would be exactly the right moment to go the republic route. Edit: Mrs. whippy, they are perfectly free to adopt a child. The child wouldn't have a claim to the throne., but he or she would get titles. However, I'm not sure what the point of adopting a child (let alone a whole family) would be. Just to say, oh, look at us, we're being so nice to this poor orphan from a former colonial possession? I think a lot of people (many of them living in that former colonial possession) would actually find that rather offensive and condescending of them. Edit: Lady of Shalott, the problem is legitimacy. Technically speaking, if William, let us say, gave his sperm to be used in the fertilization of an egg belonging either to a surrogate or to an egg donor, the resulting child wouldn't be legitimate. William needs to be married to the child's biological mother in order for the child to be a valid heir, though the mother, of course, doesn't need to have been born royal. However, as you point out, much amazing progress has been made by reproductive science. If you British want to adjust matters legally so that William could produce a child, via surrogacy, with a woman to whom he was not married, without any questions being raised about the child's legitimacy or eligibility for the throne, that would be entirely your business. I suspect a lot of British wouldn't like it, but if the majority did, then the succession laws should be changed accordingly.