View Full Version : Bigamy
Olde Crone
21-07-11, 08:10
I didn't know this - read it in the paper yesterday and it surprised me a bit....
The children of a bigamous marriage are LEGITIMATE (not illegitimate, as you would suppose) as long as one parent genuinely did not know the marriage was bigamous.
OC
That surprises me too OC.
I guess there was a marriage. lol
Did it suggest that has always been the case, or have we got to work out when the rules changed?
Olde Crone
21-07-11, 09:36
It SUGGESTED it has always been the case, but the ruling was given to the bigamous children of a current (bigamous) marriage. The second wife only discovered she was bigamously married when she tried to divorce him.
OC
The second wife only discovered she was bigamously married when she tried to divorce him.
I expect she couldn't decide whether to be pleased about that?
Margaret in Burton
21-07-11, 10:01
It SUGGESTED it has always been the case, but the ruling was given to the bigamous children of a current (bigamous) marriage. The second wife only discovered she was bigamously married when she tried to divorce him.
OC
I expect she couldn't decide whether to be pleased about that?
I suppose it saved money on the divorce, but then again she wouldn't be entitled to anything maybe.
So that would suggest there has to be some sort of ruling applied for on each individual case?
maggie_4_7
21-07-11, 11:45
So that would suggest there has to be some sort of ruling applied for on each individual case?
Yes I would think so the law says if you are not legally married the children of that union are illegitimate.
But I expect people would contest thet now because of inheritance laws and people leading double lives and the partner being unaware.
I would imagine that quite a large percentage of bigamous marriages are between couples who are both already legally married.
Olde Crone
21-07-11, 14:35
Looks like 1959 was the year this was discussed in parliament. I haven't read the whole thing yet so cannot work out whether ALL bigamous children are legitimised or only those of a union where one party to the bigamous marriage was "innocent". Someone says that ALL children are innocent so what their parents did is not their fault.....
OC
Illegitimacy is not about innocence or guilt, its about inheritance.
Olde Crone
21-07-11, 17:11
Not entirely about inheritance Nell, although I agree that's what gets laws passed, lol!
Until fairly recently, you could not enter the Civil Service if you were illegitimate, nor rise above a certain rank in the Forces or the Church. there were other more petty and local prohibitions too - I remember as a child that a certain girl was not allowed to join the Brownies because she was known to be illegitimate.......
OC
maggie_4_7
21-07-11, 19:20
I get very confused about this inheritance thing and illegitimacy. I've watched Heir Hunters like a lot of people and inheritance on a lot of their cases are about blood as well as legal.
I realise a lot, at some point in history, was put on legitimate children because of money and land and inheritance and families wanting to keep that in their control.
I have seen episodes on Heir Hunters where half siblings who were illegitimate inherit from a legitimate half sibling and vice versa in the case of the deceased dying intestate.
Is it still the case then that illegitimate children cannot inherit from their biological father if they are not named in a will even if they contest it they have no case from the outset based on being the biological child! (I'm not sure I've put this clearly) or the father dies intestate.
It seems to me that science and society has moved on a bit and the law needs to that too.
Olde Crone
21-07-11, 20:21
Maggie
the law does give the illegitimate child every chance these days and that is why it is required to reregister a child should the biological parents marry after the birth - this automatically legitimises the child (the reregistration, not the marriage).
As far as inheritance goes, if a father's name is not on a birth certificate then who is to decide whether the child was intended to inherit or not? I can see why inheritance laws want things in black and white.
OC
Does it make much difference if an illegitimate child does have the father's name on the birth certificate? A lot do of course now.
Uncle John
22-07-11, 07:58
Does it make much difference if an illegitimate child does have the father's name on the birth certificate? A lot do of course now.
It makes the difference between the father's family inheriting and not inheriting from an intestate estate. With no father's name on the birth certificate, you can only go up the mother's tree.
When I was one of the beneficiaries of an intestate estate I don't remember having to prove who I was or sign anything to say that I agreed to who the other people were, though I do remember being sent a hand drawn tree of my cousins.
And even more off topic......some years after the above I discovered another legitimate cousin who nobody knew about before. This person should have had their share of the above estate. What should happen in those circumstances?
Olde Crone
22-07-11, 08:33
Merry
Whoever administered the estate should have taken out insurance against a future claim from an unknown beneficiary.
Asa
No, it makes no difference if your father is named on your birth cert. Illegitimacy is when your parents are not married to each other. It isn't about knowing who your father is, it's about marriage and the law governing inheritance.
OC
Merry
Whoever administered the estate should have taken out insurance against a future claim from an unknown beneficiary.
Interesting, I didn't think of that. Thanks.
Now I'm intrigued.
If the estate consists of 100,000 clams and four known cousins share in it equally, receiving 25,000 clams each, and a fifth unknown cousin is later discovered, what does the insurance pay? Is the fifth cousin treated to the same 25,000 clams that the others got, or is the 100,000 figure now divided by 5 and does the "new" cousin get only 20,000 clams?
OC? :confused:
Olde Crone
22-07-11, 17:37
Janet
Well, if I was the fifth unknown cousin, I would want the same as everyone else, but I bet the insurance company would only pay out one fifth of the total estate!
In other words, I don't know.
OC
Thanks, OC. There must be plenty of precedent to look at, but it would require flushing out the relevant cases and then slogging through the legalese. I think I will let this matter rest in the realm of idle curiosity. :d
I guess I could tell my cousin about what he has missed and then let you know what happens!!
Janet it could come down to how much the person is prepared to fight and spend on the fight.
Olde Crone
23-07-11, 09:09
Kit, no, the insurance is intended to prevent a court battle. It is not possible to sue the executor of an estate, so you would have to sue each beneficiary separately in court, I think and if they've spent the lot, you wouldn't get anything.
OC
OC I was thinking someone would go to court if there was no insurance or if they didn't get as much as they wanted. But I can't see anyone wanting to go to court.
OC I was thinking someone would go to court if there was no insurance or if they didn't get as much as they wanted. But I can't see anyone wanting to go to court.
Gee Toni...the Ariels loved to go to court....lol
It's interesting that the family groups who loved to go to court and probably always thought they were 100% in the right are the very same people who appear at least to also behave in at least a dodgy, if not entirely criminal, way? (I'm thinking some of the Ariels and also some of Muggins 'relations'! lol (sorry Joan!))
The only time I know of that my lot went to court was to contest a will. I'm not sure of the details as I only know the family story but everyone got a share of the estate. It took 50 years after the man's death for this to happen. I really should get the paperwork.
It's interesting that the family groups who loved to go to court and probably always thought they were 100% in the right are the very same people who appear at least to also behave in at least a dodgy, if not entirely criminal, way? (I'm thinking some of the Ariels and also some of Muggins 'relations'! lol (sorry Joan!))
Gee.....a person could get offended...............lol
tenterfieldjulie
26-07-11, 10:10
Libby - you are telling Porkies lol ... you know how your and Joan's relies keep us enthralled ...
One has said in the past that truth is stranger with fiction and then when one studies one's ancestors, one is sure of it lol
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.