Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Marquess of Bath  (Read 71031 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
smf3000

Warned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 396

Offline Offline

Botswana Botswana

Posts: 758





Ignore
« Reply #135 on: January 09, 2017, 01:03:43 AM »

The Aristocracy have idiosyncratic inheritance rules that don't apply to rest of society and or considered unfair to rest of society eg the rule about entailing entire estate to eldest boy and sod any siblings who may be left in penury if the parent doesn't throw them some scrapes.
 That said, in this particular case, this is a second son. Even born in the usual manner, he is destined for scraps from the table

haha! 'Sod the Sibling!'

sounds like the unofficial motto of the aristocracy  Laugh bounce

Duchess of I-married-a-Duke: "And here's your inheritance Peregrine." *Duchess scrapes old chicken bones to the floor*   "Cheers darling!"  Champagne
Logged
shastadaisy

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 181

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 732





Ignore
« Reply #136 on: January 09, 2017, 01:30:20 AM »

Interesting. I suppose someday a royal or aristocratic family will be in the position to challenge the legal rights (or lack of) of a biological child of a legally married couple carried by a surrogate.
Logged
identitycrisis

Warned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 32

Offline Offline

Posts: 92





Ignore
« Reply #137 on: January 09, 2017, 02:14:04 AM »

Interesting. I suppose someday a royal or aristocratic family will be in the position to challenge the legal rights (or lack of) of a biological child of a legally married couple carried by a surrogate.
I think any push to allow children born of surrogates to inherit titles might be treated the same way the push to allow daughters to inherit has gone. Paid lip service and ultimately ignored by government because no government wants to be seen debating the rights of the aristocrats when there are so many other issues that need attention.
Logged
cordtx

Warned
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 944

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 6820





Ignore
« Reply #138 on: January 09, 2017, 02:20:01 AM »

In the US, the surrogate has no rights, from pregnancy on. But all those issues are worked out prior to the pregnancy by the couple and surrogate's lawyers.
When I worked in L&D, the surrogate didn't even get the baby bracelet, the parents did.
Logged
esther angeline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1042

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4319





Ignore
« Reply #139 on: January 09, 2017, 03:31:00 AM »

Lady Weymouth said that the reason they contracted with a surrogate in California and the baby was born in California was because that California had the strictest laws in the US , protecting the legal parents. The parents are the legal and biological child of the parents per California law.  She said they deliberately avoided his conception and birth in the UK because of the  UK laws.  I postulate they consulted with a British attorney expert in inheritance law prior to the baby being conceived, to nail all of this down in inheritance, etc.  The aristocrats play by different rules than everybody else.
Logged
Margaret

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 568

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1737





Ignore
« Reply #140 on: January 09, 2017, 03:40:00 AM »

John the elder child was born the "normal" way.  Only this one is by surrogate.  This baby has both the sperm and egg of his parents : He is the "heirs male of his body" ( his father)  as the ancient  rules commands.  Besides if nothing else, it is just like he had a baby by a second wife.

I don't think so.

Quote
Under English law, the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy is always, at birth, the surrogate mother. This is because the law says that the woman who carries a child is the legal mother. Although this law was primarily intended to benefit mothers conceiving with donor eggs, in surrogacy cases it means that the intended mother has no recognition as a parent, even if she is her child?s biological mother.

If the surrogate is married, and conceives artificially (through IVF or artificial insemination at home) the legal father at birth is usually the surrogate?s husband and this is irrespective of the biological relationships. This means that the intended father has no automatic claim to legal parenthood. This applies unless it can be shown that her husband did not consent to the surrogacy arrangement.

http://www.surrogacyuk.org/legalities

The way I read that is that child the Weymouths are his biological parents, they aren't his legal parents, so that that child isn't the "lawfully begotten heir male" of Weymouth's body. That child was legally born to the surrogate mother and either that woman's spouse or Weymouth is the legal father. Under the strict terms of peerage and surrogacy law, he was therefore born outside of wedlock (and therefore isn't "lawfully begotten"), and isn't an heir to the titles, though he can be styled as the son of a courtesy or substantive peer.

I would assume the Weymouths will apply for a parental order, which should overcome all these difficulties. 
A parental order wouldn't change the fact that the child wasn't born inside the marriage of the Weymouths. It would make them his legal parents, but it wouldn't change the facts of his birth. So far, all rulings on peerage inheritances have continued to hold that a child must be lawfully begotten, and that's akin to being born in wedlock. So it overcomes the difficulty of who his parents are, but wouldn't give him rights to inherit the peerage. (Of course, it's likely a moot point, given his older brother, but should his elder brother's line ever fail, as the peerage laws currently stand, this child's line would be skipped over).

Mere details.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Declarations can be made by the Court.  As long as there is evidence that the child is in fact the biological child of the married Weymouths, and that they were married at the time of its birth, I'm sure the rest can be covered by orders, even if the surrogate is married.  I think it should be able to be done this way, anyway, because I think this is the just outcome.

I can't imagine why there would be much, if any, resistance to a change of law to treat biological children nurtured in and born from a surrogate as different from a child nurtured in the wife's uterus.  The child is biologically that of the married aristocratic couple, not someone else's child.  The laws that provide otherwise were made to suit the convenience of aristocrats at a particular time, and can be changed to keep up to date with medicine and technology.  Judges have been "interpreting" legislation and precedent to suit changed circumstances and novel situations from time immemorial.  
Logged
Margaret

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 568

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1737





Ignore
« Reply #141 on: January 09, 2017, 03:41:18 AM »

Lady Weymouth said that the reason they contracted with a surrogate in California and the baby was born in California was because that California had the strictest laws in the US , protecting the legal parents. The parents are the legal and biological child of the parents per California law.  She said they deliberately avoided his conception and birth in the UK because of the  UK laws.  I postulate they consulted with a British attorney expert in inheritance law prior to the baby being conceived, to nail all of this down in inheritance, etc.  The aristocrats play by different rules than everybody else.

Smart move!  Grin 
Logged
RoyalMusings

Small Member
****

Reputation: 185

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 540





Ignore
« Reply #142 on: January 09, 2017, 05:59:31 AM »

Cute kid. Best wishes to all of them.
Logged
identitycrisis

Warned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 32

Offline Offline

Posts: 92





Ignore
« Reply #143 on: January 09, 2017, 06:22:35 AM »

John the elder child was born the "normal" way.  Only this one is by surrogate.  This baby has both the sperm and egg of his parents : He is the "heirs male of his body" ( his father)  as the ancient  rules commands.  Besides if nothing else, it is just like he had a baby by a second wife.

I don't think so.

Quote
Under English law, the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy is always, at birth, the surrogate mother. This is because the law says that the woman who carries a child is the legal mother. Although this law was primarily intended to benefit mothers conceiving with donor eggs, in surrogacy cases it means that the intended mother has no recognition as a parent, even if she is her child?s biological mother.

If the surrogate is married, and conceives artificially (through IVF or artificial insemination at home) the legal father at birth is usually the surrogate?s husband and this is irrespective of the biological relationships. This means that the intended father has no automatic claim to legal parenthood. This applies unless it can be shown that her husband did not consent to the surrogacy arrangement.

http://www.surrogacyuk.org/legalities

The way I read that is that child the Weymouths are his biological parents, they aren't his legal parents, so that that child isn't the "lawfully begotten heir male" of Weymouth's body. That child was legally born to the surrogate mother and either that woman's spouse or Weymouth is the legal father. Under the strict terms of peerage and surrogacy law, he was therefore born outside of wedlock (and therefore isn't "lawfully begotten"), and isn't an heir to the titles, though he can be styled as the son of a courtesy or substantive peer.

I would assume the Weymouths will apply for a parental order, which should overcome all these difficulties. 
A parental order wouldn't change the fact that the child wasn't born inside the marriage of the Weymouths. It would make them his legal parents, but it wouldn't change the facts of his birth. So far, all rulings on peerage inheritances have continued to hold that a child must be lawfully begotten, and that's akin to being born in wedlock. So it overcomes the difficulty of who his parents are, but wouldn't give him rights to inherit the peerage. (Of course, it's likely a moot point, given his older brother, but should his elder brother's line ever fail, as the peerage laws currently stand, this child's line would be skipped over).

Mere details.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Declarations can be made by the Court.  As long as there is evidence that the child is in fact the biological child of the married Weymouths, and that they were married at the time of its birth, I'm sure the rest can be covered by orders, even if the surrogate is married.  I think it should be able to be done this way, anyway, because I think this is the just outcome.

I can't imagine why there would be much, if any, resistance to a change of law to treat biological children nurtured in and born from a surrogate as different from a child nurtured in the wife's uterus.  The child is biologically that of the married aristocratic couple, not someone else's child.  The laws that provide otherwise were made to suit the convenience of aristocrats at a particular time, and can be changed to keep up to date with medicine and technology.  Judges have been "interpreting" legislation and precedent to suit changed circumstances and novel situations from time immemorial.  
Law is all about details. And thus far there is no will in England to alter peerage law for surrogacy. The same way there's no will to alter English peerage law to allow children born to parents before their marriage to inherit and there's no will to allow daughters the same inheritance rights as sons. Peerage law cannot be changed unless the legislation is passed or the monarch regrants all the titles. The second one definitely isn't going to happen and the first one is highly unlikely.
Logged
Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #144 on: January 09, 2017, 06:36:22 AM »

John the elder child was born the "normal" way.  Only this one is by surrogate.  This baby has both the sperm and egg of his parents : He is the "heirs male of his body" ( his father)  as the ancient  rules commands.  Besides if nothing else, it is just like he had a baby by a second wife.

I don't think so.

Quote
Under English law, the legal mother of a child born through surrogacy is always, at birth, the surrogate mother. This is because the law says that the woman who carries a child is the legal mother. Although this law was primarily intended to benefit mothers conceiving with donor eggs, in surrogacy cases it means that the intended mother has no recognition as a parent, even if she is her child?s biological mother.

If the surrogate is married, and conceives artificially (through IVF or artificial insemination at home) the legal father at birth is usually the surrogate?s husband and this is irrespective of the biological relationships. This means that the intended father has no automatic claim to legal parenthood. This applies unless it can be shown that her husband did not consent to the surrogacy arrangement.

http://www.surrogacyuk.org/legalities

The way I read that is that child the Weymouths are his biological parents, they aren't his legal parents, so that that child isn't the "lawfully begotten heir male" of Weymouth's body. That child was legally born to the surrogate mother and either that woman's spouse or Weymouth is the legal father. Under the strict terms of peerage and surrogacy law, he was therefore born outside of wedlock (and therefore isn't "lawfully begotten"), and isn't an heir to the titles, though he can be styled as the son of a courtesy or substantive peer.

I would assume the Weymouths will apply for a parental order, which should overcome all these difficulties. 
A parental order wouldn't change the fact that the child wasn't born inside the marriage of the Weymouths. It would make them his legal parents, but it wouldn't change the facts of his birth. So far, all rulings on peerage inheritances have continued to hold that a child must be lawfully begotten, and that's akin to being born in wedlock. So it overcomes the difficulty of who his parents are, but wouldn't give him rights to inherit the peerage. (Of course, it's likely a moot point, given his older brother, but should his elder brother's line ever fail, as the peerage laws currently stand, this child's line would be skipped over).

Mere details.  Where there's a will, there's a way.  Declarations can be made by the Court.  As long as there is evidence that the child is in fact the biological child of the married Weymouths, and that they were married at the time of its birth, I'm sure the rest can be covered by orders, even if the surrogate is married.  I think it should be able to be done this way, anyway, because I think this is the just outcome.

I can't imagine why there would be much, if any, resistance to a change of law to treat biological children nurtured in and born from a surrogate as different from a child nurtured in the wife's uterus.  The child is biologically that of the married aristocratic couple, not someone else's child.  The laws that provide otherwise were made to suit the convenience of aristocrats at a particular time, and can be changed to keep up to date with medicine and technology.  Judges have been "interpreting" legislation and precedent to suit changed circumstances and novel situations from time immemorial. 

Considering daughters can not inherit in 2016, that remains unlikely and wishful thinking on your part.

The few times daughters have inherited, they have petitioned parliament with no guarantee whatsoever that they would win despite the common sense that they should inherit and this law doesn't apply to non aristo daughters. And those cases took years to resolve without any thought by parliament to review/overhaul the law entirely. Each case is treated as new and special situation. Go figure.

As for California law vs ancient peerage BRITISH laws, a lawyer can advise the best course, but American courts/laws do not apply in Britain.

However, as this is a second son, it probably doesn't matter a great deal because even if he was born the usual way, he wasn't destined to inherit much from the Longleat estate. You could say that in that scenerio, the laws that cover him are your standard laws that cover everyone, but if by some unfortunate luck he becomes the heir, his surrogate birth becomes an issue, and only parliament can grant him his Longleat inheritance.

The law was put into place to prevent 'changelings' ie women passing off another man's child as title holder's child. In reality, situations like that have arisen, but everyone played dumb and pretended the wife's baby was her husband's baby.

And this changeling business is taken so seriously that it brought down a King, James 2, because his new baby son was accused of being a changeling, smuggled into the palace in a warming pan.



« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 06:45:22 AM by Herazeus » Logged
Margaret

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 568

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1737





Ignore
« Reply #145 on: January 09, 2017, 08:01:11 AM »

^^  The common law is constantly changing  because brave lawyers and litigants take a chance and brave judges give new interpretations to old phrases, and adapting to embrace new technology and science.  And if the common law can't effect the necessary change, parliament can.  IMO this is not the same sort of thing as making a change to allow females to inherit titles.  I don't see it as a fundamental change at all.  All it would be doing is extending the definition  to allow a couple's biological child born to them during wedlock due to their gametes uniting in a test tube rather than the woman's body, and the baby growing in a surrogate womb.  The issues of paternity and identity that applied in the time of James II don't apply now.  Parentage can easily be determined by science.  Anyway, as this is a second son, it probably - hopefully - won't become an issue for this couple and their child.  
Logged
esther angeline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1042

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 4319





Ignore
« Reply #146 on: January 09, 2017, 08:27:10 AM »

^^^^^^ Star
European courts, including UK, have upheld judgements in other family cases from US courts such as custody and marriage .  The US courts have likewise reciprocated .  Generally courts from Western democratic nations have been loathe to outright strike down reasoned judgements  without careful considerations.  From what I have read, the Weymouths took a very considered decision in where their baby was conceived/born.  I am sure they have acted on the very best British legal advice money can buy.  They are wealthy aristocrats;  no way would they put their family's succession rights in jeopardy.  As someone said up thread, where there is a will, there is a way.
Logged
getafix
Board Helper
Most Exalted Member
************

Reputation: 2938

Offline Offline

Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, British

Posts: 16962


Bye-Bye MEDiana Who!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #147 on: January 09, 2017, 09:42:53 AM »

The Aristocracy have idiosyncratic inheritance rules that don't apply to rest of society and or considered unfair to rest of society eg the rule about entailing entire estate to eldest boy and sod any siblings who may be left in penury if the parent doesn't throw them some scrapes.

Then there is the inheritance law which is probably practised more by the royals than by the rest of aristocracy. The rest of society are long past this law and have legislated for all scenerios including surrogacy and adoption.

The law summed up stresses 'of body' and 'in legal marriage'. It's not describing the title holder alone. It's also discussing the mother. In short it is saying baby should be borne of the body of female legally married to the titleholder in order to inherit.

That rules out adoption and surrogacy. Any title holder going down that road knows the resulting child is automatically not able to inherit even if the child is of the genetic material of his wife. It's a law that hasn't been updated, and each case has to petition parliament to grant them the inheritance. A surrogate child may as well come from his mistress since title holder is not married to surrogate.

That said, in this particular case, this is a second son. Even born in the usual manner, he is destined for scraps from the table as estate will be entailed to his older brother. The manner of his birth is not as important as that of his older brother. Should this second son become the heir, being born of a surrogate will become an important detail that leaves his inheritance open to challenge because of that law. I suspect he would be passed over because that's how it works.




What if the Earl ( or what ever he is) marries the surragate mother, then divorces her then re-marries the mother of his first offsprinng. would this circumvate that little clause  Thinking

Tak.

G Smiley
Logged

ANDREW DENTON: Yes. What did... When you first met, what did you see in each other? CROWN PRINCE FREDERIK: What did we see in each other? We saw... Well, it's a bit hard. It's a bit blurry, in a way, because it was just after the Olympics had started and it was one of those evenings where...
identitycrisis

Warned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 32

Offline Offline

Posts: 92





Ignore
« Reply #148 on: January 09, 2017, 02:13:17 PM »

The Aristocracy have idiosyncratic inheritance rules that don't apply to rest of society and or considered unfair to rest of society eg the rule about entailing entire estate to eldest boy and sod any siblings who may be left in penury if the parent doesn't throw them some scrapes.

Then there is the inheritance law which is probably practised more by the royals than by the rest of aristocracy. The rest of society are long past this law and have legislated for all scenerios including surrogacy and adoption.

The law summed up stresses 'of body' and 'in legal marriage'. It's not describing the title holder alone. It's also discussing the mother. In short it is saying baby should be borne of the body of female legally married to the titleholder in order to inherit.

That rules out adoption and surrogacy. Any title holder going down that road knows the resulting child is automatically not able to inherit even if the child is of the genetic material of his wife. It's a law that hasn't been updated, and each case has to petition parliament to grant them the inheritance. A surrogate child may as well come from his mistress since title holder is not married to surrogate.

That said, in this particular case, this is a second son. Even born in the usual manner, he is destined for scraps from the table as estate will be entailed to his older brother. The manner of his birth is not as important as that of his older brother. Should this second son become the heir, being born of a surrogate will become an important detail that leaves his inheritance open to challenge because of that law. I suspect he would be passed over because that's how it works.




What if the Earl ( or what ever he is) marries the surragate mother, then divorces her then re-marries the mother of his first offsprinng. would this circumvate that little clause  Thinking

Tak.

G Smiley
If he'd done that before the child was born, that should have worked. The child would have been born in wedlock. But there's nothing to indicate that he did do that, hence the issue.
Logged
identitycrisis

Warned
Baby Member
*

Reputation: 32

Offline Offline

Posts: 92





Ignore
« Reply #149 on: January 09, 2017, 02:21:24 PM »

^^  The common law is constantly changing  because brave lawyers and litigants take a chance and brave judges give new interpretations to old phrases, and adapting to embrace new technology and science.  And if the common law can't effect the necessary change, parliament can.  IMO this is not the same sort of thing as making a change to allow females to inherit titles.  I don't see it as a fundamental change at all.  All it would be doing is extending the definition  to allow a couple's biological child born to them during wedlock due to their gametes uniting in a test tube rather than the woman's body, and the baby growing in a surrogate womb.  The issues of paternity and identity that applied in the time of James II don't apply now.  Parentage can easily be determined by science.  Anyway, as this is a second son, it probably - hopefully - won't become an issue for this couple and their child.  
But is is the same thing as altering the laws to allow women to inherit. This is altering the rules of inheritance set down when a peerage was created to allow someone who would not have been eligible to inherit that peerage to now inherit it. That's what the daughters of peers are asking for parliament to do. And parliament is refusing to bother with it.

The issues of paternity do still apply from the time of James II. Science may have moved forward since then, but the rules of inheritance of the Bath peerages remain what they were when the titles were granted. Those titles are still restricted to the lawfully begotten heirs male of the body. This child is not eligible under those rules. Unless those rules are altered -- and there is nothing at all to suggest either the monarch or parliament will agree to do so -- this child remains uneligible to inherit the peerages, even though he can inherit material goods (money, art, cars, the estate, etc) if his father chooses to bequeath that to him and those goods are not held in some trust that restricts their inheritance to people who are eligible to inherit the peerages.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 02:27:20 PM by identitycrisis » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: