answersLogoWhite

0

King Shaka did not have any legitimate descendants. He is known to have sometimes murdered his newborn children and their pregnant mothers (while they were in utero), but it is also said that he sometimes sent these women away and did not recognize their offspring as his children in any way---meaning he did not care for them, acknowledge them, or lend them any possible heir-status to the crown. It is most likely that some Zulu individuals living today do have some of Shaka's blood, but it would be extremely difficult to find out the actual truth of this. It would basically be attributed to legend or oral tradition which can often disappear from generation to generation and can be mixed up or even fabricated. So my answer is that King Shaka probably did have children but those children would not have been recognized as his children, thereby making any possible claim to legitimacy or royalty virtually impossible.

User Avatar

Wiki User

16y ago

What else can I help you with?