FW: Re: British baronet may have fathered king Olav of Norwa

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: Re: British baronet may have fathered king Olav of Norwa

Legg inn av John Parsons » 16 okt 2004 00:15:59

P. de Loriol remarked:

The fact is , that judicially, the son is the son of the father - biology
may account for much, but the law makes the son 'de facto and de jure' the
son
of the father - so what if the bleating hordes want to make a few bucks out
of
a story that has been 'reproduced' so many times in living memory - it is
pure gossip, which does not have any scope wtihin the ambits of genealogy
let
alone sensible and mature adults.

The maxim of English law, that a married woman's child was the child *of her
husband*, existed with important qualifications. It had to be proved that
the husband had been "within the four seas," i.e., physically within England
at the time conception might reasonably be inferred to have taken place. If
it was proved that the mother's husband was not "within the four seas" at
the likely time of conception, legitimacy could not be maintained.

The newspaper story reads, in part:

'At the time when the fertilisation normally would have taken place King
Haakon was on a marine vessel in Denmark and Queen Maud was lying in
hospital in England," the author said on Thursday, as his book "The People"
was launched.'

If this is true, the legal maxim could not establish that Olav V was the son
of Haakon VII and Maud of Great Britain. (In any case, at the time of
Olav's birth, the future Haakon VII had not yet been chosen the first king
of modern Norway--he and his wife were still Prince and Princess Carl of
Denmark.)

John P.


From: PDeloriol@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: British baronet may have fathered king Olav of Norway
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:25:23 EDT


In a message dated 15/10/2004 19:15:20 GMT Daylight Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3746596.stm




Peter

Gjest

Re: FW: Re: British baronet may have fathered king Olav of N

Legg inn av Gjest » 16 okt 2004 01:11:00

THIS IS ALL OFF LIST AND complete trite - can people stick to subjects that
are of interest and NOT of the Public interest.

For All countires that adopted the Napoleonic code the legality of an heir,
irrespective of the biological father, could and can be ratified by a Notaire
or an official in whom the government gives the authority to carry out
specific legal functions on its behalf - ergo, whther the child is fathered by a
new species of gorilla in the congo, it can still be legitimately recognised as
the son of the jilted husband.

peter

Peter Stewart

Re: FW: Re: British baronet may have fathered king Olav of N

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 16 okt 2004 06:21:27

John Parsons wrote:
P. de Loriol remarked:

The fact is , that judicially, the son is the son of the father - biology
may account for much, but the law makes the son 'de facto and de jure'
the son
of the father - so what if the bleating hordes want to make a few
bucks out of
a story that has been 'reproduced' so many times in living memory -
it is
pure gossip, which does not have any scope wtihin the ambits of
genealogy let
alone sensible and mature adults.


The maxim of English law, that a married woman's child was the child *of
her husband*, existed with important qualifications. It had to be
proved that the husband had been "within the four seas," i.e.,
physically within England at the time conception might reasonably be
inferred to have taken place. If it was proved that the mother's
husband was not "within the four seas" at the likely time of conception,
legitimacy could not be maintained.

The newspaper story reads, in part:

'At the time when the fertilisation normally would have taken place King
Haakon was on a marine vessel in Denmark and Queen Maud was lying in
hospital in England," the author said on Thursday, as his book "The
People" was launched.'

If this is true, the legal maxim could not establish that Olav V was the
son of Haakon VII and Maud of Great Britain. (In any case, at the time
of Olav's birth, the future Haakon VII had not yet been chosen the first
king of modern Norway--he and his wife were still Prince and Princess
Carl of Denmark.)

I'm not sure how a maxim of English law could determine the parentage of
a Danish child just because his mother was supposed to be in one place &
his father elsewhere at roughly the time of conception.

Anyway, the greater principle followed by the Church and civil
authorities in most of Europe after the pandects of Justinian, that is
to say throughout the medieval period, was "pater vero is est quem
nuptiae demonstrant" (he that marriage indicates is the father).

Even a statement to the contrary sworn under oath by the mother wasn't
sufficient to set this aside.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»