# Stupid bastardry question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 8, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025 "2002-06-08T22:57:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Barking\_Spider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9dc877/32.png) [@Barking\_Spider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barking_Spider)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/1 "2002-06-08T22:57:54Z")
First off, I’m not sure where to put this question, as it doesn’t really have a definitive answer, nor is it a great debate. What I want to know is: If the parents of an “illegitimate” child get married, then is the child still illegitimate? Or, does getting married make an “illegitimate” child “legitimate” ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/2 "2002-06-08T23:04:40Z")
From Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary: > [@](#): > > Main Entry: [2]le·git·i·mate > Pronunciation: -"mAt > Function: transitive verb > Inflected Form(s): -mat·ed; -mat·ing > Date: 1531 > : to make legitimate: a (1) : to give legal status or authorization to (2) : to show or affirm to be justified b : to put (a bastard) in the state of a legitimate child before the law by legal means You’ll see that definition b has “put in the state of a legitimate child before the law by legal means.” One such legal means is marriage (legal marriage, of course!). Another such is adoption. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/3 "2002-06-08T23:07:32Z")
It depends upon the law in your state. Under common law, if your mother was married (it generally didn’t matter to whom) before the actual birth, the child was considered the legitimate child of the mother and her husband. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2002, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/4 "2002-06-08T23:46:58Z")
My understanding is that at common law, the only question was whether mum was married at the time she gave birth. If she wasn’t, then the child was illegitimate, even if the parents got married after the birth. I believe that in England, Parliament amended the common law to provide that subsequent marriage legitimated the child, for all but a few purposes (e.g. - it didn’t legitimate a child for the purposes of inheriting a title). Lots of Canadian jurisdictions have abolished the entire concept of legitimacy, and no longer attach any legal significance to it. Don’t know if that’s the case elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/5 "2002-06-09T02:11:27Z")
Speaking from experience here… (Airman and I weren’t married when I conceived) If I’d still stayed married to my (now) ex-husband, the baby would have been legally my ex’s, even though he’d have been fathered by another man. In other words, my ex would have been, for all intents and purposes, the baby’s legal father. However, most states no longer recognize the concept of legitimacy, and it certainly carries no real social stigma. If I’d given birth to the baby and Airman and I were not married, Airman would still be the baby’s legal father and still legally and financially responsible for him. If we’d married later, the act of marriage in and of itself “legitimizes” the baby, although some states do require a formal court proceeding. IANAL, and YMMV. Robin ---
**Author:** ![jiHymas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@jiHymas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jiHymas)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2002, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-bastardry-question/113025/6 "2002-06-09T04:09:32Z")
> [@](#): > > _Ermengard of Marbonne and the World of the Troubadors, Fredric L. Cheyette, 2001, ISBN 0-8014-3952-3_ > **William VIII [of Montpellier] must have learned from an early age that the survival of his dynasty depended on a male successor. From his first marriage to Eudoxia, a relative of the Byzantine emperor, however, he had but one child, a daughter Maria. Ans so he did the only thing he could: he sent Eudoxia off to a monastery and took a new wife, Agnes of Castile, who quickly gave birth to the desired sons, one after the other. > … > But it was still imperative to carefully cultivate the pope in the hope that he would legitimate the second marriage and the children that came from it, so that his eldest son, the future William IX, would succeed to the title. > … > To the request for legimation the pope in 1202 at last said no, just before William himself suddenly died** In order to cultivate the pope, William had a hand in whipping up the Albigensian crusades (which occurred in the south of France, in the Toulouse / Narbonne area). Um … your question did refer to the early 13th century, right?