Interesting - I’ll check out the pod cast. Thanks
That’s why trained lawyers don’t write wills like this.
I had only one brother and one sister, but when working on my will with a lawyer, he told me to specify their names: “to my brother Phillip I leave…”. But only first names – I had listed my sister with the first & last name she used after her marriage. The lawyer told me to take out the last name because ‘she might no longer have that married name when the will is read’. (And he was right.)
So how does that apply if the nobleman’s wife is pregnant with his son before the wedding? Obviously that heir was begotten outside the law, via premarital sex.
Could the second son contest the title, claiming that his older brother, born 3 months after the wedding, was clearly not “lawfully begotten”?
I think the “lawfully begotten” clause is not meant literally, in the sense that the marriage must have existed at the time of conception. The rule in British law was (and, to my knowledge, still is in those areas where legitimacy still matters) that a child born during the marriage of the parents is considered legitimate. This was laid down in the very first English statute, and I would suppose the rule applies also to the succession of peerages.
Of course, in the situation at question here, that wouldn’t help, because people who transition gender usually also change their first name at the same time.
And for a more plausible example, I can imagine someone, for instance, leaving their estate to be divided equally between all of their nephews, but not specifying them by name, because they come from a large family and don’t want to update their will every time a new nephew is born.
And of course, even if a sensible lawyer would be sure to remove as much ambiguity as possible, not all wills are written by sensible lawyers. A will can be legally valid even with no lawyers involved at all.
I think the book was fairly explicit that a lot of people who were supporting Dono’s claim weren’t really on board with the trans thing, but losing that parliamentary seat to the other side would have set them back on a bunch of other, more important issues - and even that wasn’t enough to win the vote, until it was proven that the other guy gunning for the Dukedom had hired goons to try to kill Dono, which outraged the old guard conservatives enough to pull their support.
Yup, which is why I said -
I just left out details, because, well, spoilers.
Anyway, back to the OP - I found this article (from 2016) that examines the details, as they pertain to the UK. Since this is one of the few societies that have primogenitor AND recognize trans status legally: because otherwise the point is moot, as has been pointed out.
It’s actually a fun read, and it mentions the case @penultima_thule brought up (briefly). Apparently, there had been another possible case in the 50s - although apparently not pursued. Anyway, give it a read if you’re interested.
It wasn’t precisely the killing (in fact, killing wasn’t part of the plan at all) that upset the old guard. It was the target of non-killing attack that struck them as dirty pool.
Sounds right to me. Must reread it again sometime soon. IIRC, the plot of the Evil Cousin to remove Dono from consideration involved a little quick-and-dirty (literally) surgery to remove proof of maleness. As Donna/Dono had only had the physical and hormonal changes done, not an overall genetic reset (which I think would have taken longer / cost more; it was implied that it WAS possible), Dono would not have been able to prove he was male, without the obvious difference in plumbing.
It definitely boiled down to politicking - some Counts wanted to award the title to Dono because they knew the other guy (Richars) was a nasty piece of work, others wanted to award it to Richars because TRADITION, and a few in Team Richars switched sides to Team Dono because Richars bungled things so badly.
A related question to the OP: how would surrogacy / donor eggs / donor sperm affect things?
If the couple had their own egg / sperm fertilized by in vitro, and carried by a host mother, what does current law say? The couple are the child’s biological parents - though in many jurisdictions, the bio parents must legally adopt the child (in others, the bio parents are put on the birth certificate initially). In general, adopted children cannot inherit (e.g. Christopher, Baron Haden-Guest, and Jamie Lee Curtis have adopted children who are not eligible to inherit the barony).
If the wife carries her own baby, but it’s fertilized by donor sperm, is that baby considered the same as if the mother had had an affair? IIRC, that would presumably have only been an issue if the husband challenged it, or there were credible witnesses testifying that the child was not the husband’s. In this particular scenario, the next person in line for the title would certainly be able to challenge the putative heir, simply by subpoenaing medical records or demanding genetic testing.
If the wife carries a baby that is the product of a donor egg but her husband’s sperm, is that treated as valid for inheritance? or is it as if the husband had an extramarital affair, and thus the child is legally a bastard and not eligible to inherit?
I tried finding out more about the effect of various modern techniques on such inheritance, and didn’t find much at all. This article (warning, pdf) does discuss it; it seems like the general gist is that anything involving donor gametes kicks Junior out of the succession, as does use of a surrogate, even when the biological parents are married.
Regarding gender change: the paper states that the person’s gender at birth is all that counts; a F-to-M (i.e. Lord Dono) is out of luck, while someone who transitions from male to female could still inherit the title. Of course, if Jane Throatwarbler-Mangrove (nee John Throatwarbler-Mangrove) had no children before transitioning, the title would eventually go to Jane’s younger brother or whomever, just as if John simply never had kids.
Agreed.
I wonder about the guy who divorced his wife because she was a man. Didn’t he know or did he just change his mind?
The Corbett v. Corbett case? Yes Arthur Corbett absolutely knew that April Ashley was trans before they got married - she had been outed by the tabloids in 1961 and they married in 1963. The marriage was actually declared null and void - it wasn’t a divorce, and as a result he avoided paying maintenance.
And if there’s a gender change, how might the will be interpreted? “I leave half my money to my daughter, Alice”… but Alice, now being male and Alexander, literally no longer exists.
I suspect a judge would interpret this situation as intended, and Alexander would get the inheritance, but a sufficiently jerkish co-heir might well contest it.