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