Lame question about legitimacy.

If a baby is born to a single woman who is not married to the babies father, but then later on marries the father, by definition is the child still considered a bastard?

I can’t imagine that any one would care.

Legitimacy used to have legal repercussions, and still does in a few relatively obscure situations.

At least in England and Wales, if the parents of an illegitimate child marry, the child becomes legitimate from the date of the marriage.

In other jurisdictions, there may be a time limit for the parents to marry, such as a year.

That’s not the question.

It can have some quite important ones, such as eligibility for US citizenship:

Which is why [per the thread title] the question is, somewhat, lame.

But what Colibri said!

Fair 'nuff.

In Spain the child is considered legitimate if the father recognizes paternity of his own volition, no need for the parents to be married. I’m not sure what’s the exact legal terminology when paternity has been assigned by a court (such as when the supposed biodad refuses to submit to a DNA test, which is considered as proof that he’s the father… if he was sure he’s not, he’d have been yelling for the test himself).

In the U.S., it depends on what the state law is. In the state in which I am licensed to practice, there is a specific statute that defines such a thing, and it says that when unmarried parents of a child marry each other, said child is no longer illegitimate.

But they’d still be unable to succeed to any peerage (or the Crown itself), because the parents weren’t were not married at the time of birth (presumably it’s different if the mother is a widow or divorcee giving birth withing 9 months of her marriage ending). I’ll try to find a cite, but I think it’s possible for Scottish peerages to be inheirited by children born out of wedlock who’s parents later marry provide neither parent was married to somebody else at the time of birth.