Talk:Legitimacy (family law)

Legitimacy vs Legality

I would like to include a chapter on Legitimacy vs Legality because these words are often used as synonims in Wikipedia. Legitimacy means things are just. Of course debateble. Legality means to have a basis in law. Laws are by their very nature Legal. Their legitimacy is sometimes disputed. For example the Apartheids Laws.........

Aixroot (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Legitimacy outside Britain

While the British and American experiences with legitimacy are of great interest, it would be desirable for legal scholars from other countries to provide information on their countries' experience. logologist|Talk 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"England and Wales"

Could someone please move this section so that it will follow the general "History" section? It seems rather idiosyncratic to be opening a general article on legitimacy with a specialized discussion of the laws obtaining in just certain parts of one United Kingdom. Nihil novi (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've moved this material into a separate, linked article on "Legitimacy law in England and Wales." I've also split the main matter of "Legitimacy (law)" into two sections, "History" and "At present," reorganizing the article's material accordingly. Nihil novi (talk) 07:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"History has shown people of illegitimate..."

I find this part rather offensive, it almost implies people born to unmarried parents have some mental or physical disability which would inhibit them making contributions to history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.70.113 (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article amounts to cruel marriage propaganda

I used the template a bit incorrectly to attract some attention here. Many of us find the language and slant of this article absolutely shocking in an encyclopedia in the year 2009 intended for the use of thousands if not millions of "illegitimate" children around the world to do their research for schoolwork etc. My, my what excellent bullying opportunites we are providing here! And what evil=authoritative influence on millions of living "illegitimate" people all over! This reads like the 19th or early 20th century. The whole tone is like a propaganda piece: "Be the child of married parents or be illegitimate!" There are no illegitimate children no matter what British law calls them (still today?). Never have been, never will be any. There are and have been extramarital children, but how interesting is that really today, except perhaps in showing how some historical persons overcame the status of being severely discriminated outcasts? Please clean up this article and remove snootiness written assumably by the comfortable British or American descendants of married couples only (at least they think they are). The real world (ref: DNA) has run away from them decades ago - as the given statistics show (enough of). Constructive suggestion, besides the urgently needed rewrite: move almost all of this to the Extramarital sex article, clean that up too so it is fully objective and truthful. Use the word "illegitimate" regarding children only to describe the word itself as an obsolete and cruel label invented by church interests and zealous lawmakers centuries ago to clamp down on and control the populations through guilt and shame. 217.209.96.250 (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not place for your/my point of view. Sources used by Wikipedia refer to legitimate and illegitimate people. We do not do our own research. We do not invent facts/knowledge. If experts refer to legitimate and illegitimate people, then we can't do otherwise. Sources used by Wikipedia refer to legitimacy. That's the most commonly used term. That term exists in law. That term is used by historians, law-experts, and everyday people. Sources used by Wikipedia say : "Elizabeth I was proclaimed illegitimate". Historians don't say: "Elizabeth I was proclaimed product of extramarital relationship". There is no place for original research and point of view on this project. Surtsicna (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are almost overwhelmingly authoritative and dictatorial, Surtsicna, when you totally condemn another editor's reasonable point of view like this. Almost. What's worse you are also mostly incorrect in this case. Arguing about things just for the sake of arguing, it seems. And with someone who obviously is a bit emotional about his reasonable opinion, which could naturally invite your courtesy and a bit of careful consideration when answering. Being nasty, especially for no reason, is a much more serious violation of Wikipedia rules than the things you hurled at me out of left field as violations, before you rounded off by telling me in effect to shut up and go away.

To reply to your issues:

1. Don't throw "experts" at people so much, is my friendly suggestion, because there are a lot of experts around, and things may change quickly and radically so that the "experts" you have thrown at people (even if you are one of them) will no longer be what consensus wants to go with. I have seen that happen at least 100 times.
2. The name of this page is "Talk". This type of page, throughout all the Wikimedia projects, is also called a "Discussion page". That means that this is the place for any opinion that any editor may wish to express that has any relationship of any kind to any part of any article that such a Talk page is attached to. We are not required to source our reasonable opinions on these pages. Often, one editor will express a reasonable and/or challenging opinion, another editor will research it and add something sourced to an article and yet another might improve an article vastly because of the reasonable opinion given on the Talk page. Success! (That's what I am hoping for here, because I do not have time right now to provide statistics e.g. on bullying, booze/drug abuse or suicide as connected to the illegitimate label.) Your severe reprimand above might have been warranted if I had made any change to the article itself, adding inappropriate material or taking things out just because of my own opinions or so-called "original research" (nobody knows exactly what that is, except that its an unenforceable rule often applied very arbitrarily).

Why don't you try to be nice instead of telling people off like this? Just write that you don't agree and give some convincing, reasonable, factual opinion of your own about the subject, not just quoting "experts" etc.! That's what a discussion page is for. It isn't for fighting with people to preserve the status quo with the only objective being to preserve the status quo.

You are so right that Elizabeth I was proclaimed illegitimate (and I covered that above - did you even read it all?), but does that mean you insist we should go on using that very demeaning term for everyone who was and is born extramarital? Wikipedia in 2009 should proclaim and declare them all to be so like Elizabeth was in 1536?

The word illegitimate means illegal, misbegotten, unsound, baseborn, irregular, improper, invalid (not valid) or at the very least less than genuine or not generally acceptable. Children? From birth? An adjective that reviles our own species (all of it, legitimate or not)!

It's just a somewhat hotsy-totsy (thereby established) way of calling someone a bastard, to get away with it.

In my opinion "illegitimate child" in any language is one of the most abominable, disgusting and loathsome expressions that people have used and still proclaim. It belongs to abominable ages and reeks of abominable human cruelty. If for any reason it is important to you that many of us human beings (too many in my opinion) continue to call some of our own human offspring (past and present) illegitimate, rather than the perfectly correct word extramarital (thus avoiding the linguistic devastation), then let's have it! Your personal reason please! This is the place for it. 217.209.96.250 (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how I offended you, but I apologize if I did! The experts I'm talking about are all the acknowledged authors, historians, etc, whose work is used to build this project. I said: "Wikipedia is not place for your/my point of view", which means that I share your point of view but we can't change the articles to reflect our point of view ;) When biographers stop using the word "illegitimate", we can follow their example. Surtsicna (talk) 23:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Many ethical writers, including reputable biographers, professionally serious journalists (I am one) and conscientious legal experts, avoid the old-fashioned term and use extramarital in every context. They are especially careful if what they are writing in any way may effect the reputations and lives of living persons or their families (this article does). Let's hope what these ethical writers are doing will spread so that your and my common opinion will be much more noticed and noticeable, and no one would even think of (or dare) write an article like this! 217.209.96.250 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. The article is about the legal and social concept of "illegitimacy," which as the article indicates is of much less significance (both legally and socially) than it once was. Do you really think that any person whose parents are unmarried is going to dissolve in tears because of our factual, dispassionate encyclopedia article? I daresay the vast majority of Wikipedia editors (including me) personally agree with you that people should not be condemned, called "bastards," etc. because their parents are unmarried. But that doesn't mean that an encyclopedia should be forbidden to have an entry on the subject. Krakatoa (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Think we can continue discussing facts without combattive sarcasms like "Oh, please" and "dissolve in tears"? Please! Since we basically agree, I mean. Who ever used "forbidden" or any such suggestion? No one that I know of did. In fact above (now in bold by me) you'll find that the article should not be forbidden, but it should move into the real world of today and much farther away from the happy-go-lucky (for some) 1950s. You obviousy haven't seen the abject human misery and suffering caused still today by this terminolgy, all over the world, or you wouldn't be sarcastic about it (I could hope). Many of us have seen way way way too much of it. An old Lutheran minister wept once in my presence over his bitter regret of having been a part of what he called "the devilish persecution of innocent newborn babies and their innocent mothers and whole branches of their families for generations". Your entry brought him to mind. Thanks! It's a very fond memory. 217.209.96.65 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think of the concept as a relic, so maybe I do underestimate the impact suffered by people today. It is remarkable how people were so cavalier for so long about referring to millions of people as "illegitimate" for the supposed sins of their parents. So thanks for making me think. Krakatoa (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am here writing because I did find this link in an article, am the child of unwed parents, and have LONG found the term ILLOGICAL and nasty and distasteful, and I intend to rebuke its use whenever possible! How can I, or any living thing, be "illegitimate"? Even a relationship, per se, cannot be "illegitimate". It is, it exists.

I find the adjective illegitimate to be very POV, and I must say I have been surprised to find it in such widespread use in Wikipedia in preference to something more neutral like out-of-wedlock. Even if lots of other people use it in other contexts, an editor has no compulsion to use the same word when a neutral equivalent will do the same job. Perhaps in some very narrow legal contexts, like perhaps once or twice in this article to illustrate a bias, but mostly I see no reason to use the word. I think it is offensive when applied to people. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree and thank you for writing this. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Historically, calling someone illegitimate was not necessarily cruel - in the household of Cosimo I de' Medici, "bastards" were treated as equals. There was a stigma attached, of course, but we're talking about a time when nearly all the population were peasants and had stigmas anyway, and the church frowned upon extramarital children. Now, however, society is more tolerant of them and we no longer brand people illegitimate. But since peoples' legitimacy in past centuries was very important to monarchical politics, I think it is important that we acknowledge the nature of their parentage and how it affected history. To do otherwise would just be lying. Also, there is no bias involved in illegitimacy of children, because we all know that some of the greatest people in history were considered "bastards". In a way, the term has an exciting, rebellious quality. I think Wikipedia is doing well in the whole legitimacy vs. illegitimacy department, and does not slander those whose parents were unmarried. The English language is full of prejudice anyway, particularly sexism, but we're able to look past this because, at the end of the day, does it really matter? :) Keep up the good work everyone. --BRCScriptor (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

This isn't in the article, so I wanted to ask: Is a child still considered illegitimate if his or her parents marry after the child is born? --24.164.87.138 (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the child is a bastard.

Actually, in many cases children were declared legitimate when this happened, especially if they belonged to noble families and could get dispensations from high powers such as the church. --BRCScriptor (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

US /UK CENTRIC Article

This article is focused on situation of specific western countries. It could be relabelled legitimacy in US and UK. Or it could continue under the same title with situations previaling in all countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.124.230.149 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add any pertinent information applicable to a broader international context. Nihil novi (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What's with all the "quotation marks"?

They make sense when introducing a definition, but most of them are "scare quotes", which aren't "appropriate" in an "encyclopedia article". DanBishop (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably many of the quotation marks could be retired. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Stigma

Having children out of wedlock still carries a significant social stigma in the US, especially among the mainstream and middle class segments of society. This should be reflected in the article.

Illegitimate children of priests

A related issue, to which the Catholic Church has begun to respond to, is the matter of illegimate children being born from illicit sexual relations involving members of the clergy. This should probably be included somehwere as an example of modern illegitimacy. [1] ADM (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

How is this modern? It's been an issue for about 1,000 years. Tobit2 (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's modern in the sense that illegitimacy in general is no longer relevant in secular legal conventions, but that it retains a social value in conservative institutions like the Roman Catholic Church, which applies the concept in certain cases of canon law, notably when it disciplines its clergy for having produced children in irregular or illicit sexual relationships. ADM (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you are pointing out the Catholic Church retains its own concept of illegitimacy that, while quite ancient, remains distinct from secular definitions and continues to evolve. Here is an idea to beef up the article- why not divide it into three parts: 1) secular laws on illegitimacy, 2) religious traditions on illegitimacy, and 3) social conventions regarding illegitimacy. I add the latter because, social stigmas continue to exist, at least in the West, and have historical importance.Tobit2 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The illicitness of the sexual relations in question have nothing to do with the issue described in this article. Sure, children of priests are (usually) illegitimate as the priest was not married to the child's mother. However, the child would be no more (or less) illegimate than that of a layman fathering a child outside of marriage. There's no additional illegitimacy because of priestly celibacy, nor any specifically Catholic law on illegitimacy. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

large gallery

There is no need to have such a large gallery of people in this article. It's unsightly and there is no reasonable justification for it. It goes against WP:GA criterea Vistium (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Children born outside marriage

In both the Norwegian wikipedias, the sister articles of this article has been termed "Children born outside marriage". Personally, I think this is a far more neutral title. Actually, in some countries, like Island and Sweden, the proportion of children born outside of marriage is actually larger than the proportion born inside marriage [2] and this is considered totally normal by the majority of the population. The term "legitimacy" sholuld definitely be changed, as it is totally outdated and reactionary in 2011. --Oddeivind (talk) 08:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes! And whenever used it should be clear that the term is obsolete today. Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that sounds valid. :) But we still should include the fact that historically people were called "illegitimate" and "bastard", and these terms should still redirect --BRCScriptor (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Famous people of illegitimate birth

"Some persons of illegitimate birth have been driven to excel in their endeavors, for good or ill, by a desire to overcome the social stigma and disadvantage that attached to illegitimacy." There is no evidence that all these people were necessarily driven to become successful or famous because they were of extra-marital birth. Suggest removal of this sentence, and keep the section purely a list of names.

--Jogjayr (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the problem, but there may be a different solution. The assertion had a supporting example, and thus more narrative coherence, when it was originally added (diff):

Some persons of illegitimate birth have been driven to excel in their endeavors, for good or ill, by a desire to overcome the social stigma and disadvantage that attached to illegitimacy. Nora Titone, in her book My Thoughts Be Bloody, recounts how the shame and ambition of the brilliant actor Junius Brutus Booth's two illegitimate actor sons, Edmund and John Wilkes Booth, spurred them to strive, as rivals, for achievement and acclaim. (citation omitted)

The paragraph was later moved into the new Famous people section. The supporting example migrated down into the list of people. And the bare unsupported driven to excel sentence remains. My own inclination would be to yank the supporting sentence back to the top. I don't feel strongly about it. M.boli (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've reunited the two pieces of text. Nihil novi (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Relevant list of modern people

Should the list of people of extramarital birth in this article really include modern people? It seems a little odd. Nowadays, and indeed the article even say so, "illegitimacy" is no longer rare, at least in Europe, and no longer regarded as an exception or a label enough for it to be relevant with a list. I am from Sweden, and almost everyone here, including myself, are "bastards", which is why this concept is simply no longer used in society what so ever. It is a concept from the past, the 19th century. To have a list of people of extramarital birth indicates that this is a label, something extraordinary and something which to value and sort people after, while in the modern western world, surely, this is no longer significant what so ever. I think the list should only include people from an age when this concept had a meaning. I do now, of course, that people might be more old-fashioned in USA than i Europe, but surely people are no longer labelled as bastards in USA either, in 2011? This is no longer the Victorian age, after all.--85.226.45.240 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it may be a norm in Sweeden now days, but in some parts of the world illegitimacy is still an issue, so list of modern people can help overcome society stigma in these places. Also, for encyclopedia purpose it would be hard to say when the concept stop have a meaning, because in many countries of the world it is still very relevant, unfortunately. Innab (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Way too many pictures

Why is the entire right column of the article a stack of illegitimate children? I mean is it really that big of a deal? there's already a list at the end of the article, isn't that enough? If there is no justification, I'll probably delete a lot of them. --75.73.176.26 (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"A picture is worth a thousand words." Illustrations give an immediate, intuitive sense of the array of notable persons who have faced the varying challenges of "illegitimacy" over the ages, in a way that mere text cannot. Nihil novi (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem, however, is that there's no header or anything that announces "here's a gallery of people who were born outside marriage." It just doesn't work graphically. I tried downloading the article as a pdf, and viewing a printable version, to see how this non-standard layout came out. Not well, I regret to say. I hope you don't mind, but I moved two images out of the ersatz gallery, and placed them by the text they illustrated, since the article is rather gray. I placed the "Family Law" infobox at the top, in order to announce the nature of the topic more clearly. I then placed the remaining images to illustrate the list of people, though regretfully deleting one, as there were just too many clustering at one point in the chronology. I saw two other option: the simplest, to create a simple image gallery (but that too would need to go with the section listing the people it illustrated); or to create a table, a more complicated matter that requires greater uniformity among list entries. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Replacing "Catholic" with "Liberal"

41.96.19.26 (talk) believes that all references to the Catholic church or Christianity should be removed and replaced with the word, "Liberal." diff I'm not sure their exact reasoning, but I figured I would start a discussion, so the community could contribute to a WP:CONSENSUS, instead of edit warring. Anyone else feel such a change is appropriate? —Josh3580_talk/hist 23:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not all Catholics or Christians would be described or self-described as "Liberals" (however that may be defined). I see no justification for substituting "Liberal" for "Catholic" or for "Christian". Nihil novi (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Extramarital births

I do not consider that the section on Extramarital births has a place in this Legitimacy article. The implication is that such children are in some sense illegitimate, which is wrong. Under the laws of most if not all western countries as they stand, there is no implication of stigma or anything other than equal status. Perhaps the material can be moved to extramarital sex, but then you have the issue of what is "marriage" in the contemporary world. Enthusiast (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree: How better, than with the "Extramarital births" section, to highlight the changes in laws and attitudes that have been taking place? If a reader concludes that extramarital births are invariably illegitimate births, then he isn't reading very carefully–or perhaps the article needs some copy-editing for clarity. To generalize, illegitimate births are extramarital, but extramarital births are not necessarily illegitimate. Nihil novi (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

15.01.15 conflict in section extramarital births "Most births to teenagers in the USA (86% in 2007) are nonmarital;" vs "In 2007, teenagers accounted for just 23% of nonmarital births, down steeply from 50% in 1970" both citing ref17 "Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States". CDC/National Center for Health Statistics. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm) May 13, 2009. Retrieved September 24, 2011. Bhug (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no conflict. What is being said is that of all teenage births, 86% were extramarital, and that of all extramarital births (for all ages) 23% were to teenage girls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.173.86 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Change of name to "Legitimacy (Family law)"

I suppose in legal studies, "Legitimacy (law)" is supposed to be refered to Legitimacy of law which is entirely vast and different subject. The present article has limited scope to family law matters and still it is unncessarilly blocking and using misleading title of a different subject. Since I am already in process of working on subject of legal legitimacy that is Legitimacy of law I will apreciate change of title for this article to "Legitimacy (Family law)"

Comments from legal fraternity will be highly apreciated.

Mahitgar (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"In fiction", "Notable people" sections

Are these sections more incidental than integral to the article..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)