“Illegitimate” was used to identify a child who could not rightfully inherit the throne because he was not born of king’s wife (queen). In other words, in the eyes of the law, he was not a “real” son of the king. He was an inferior outcast and not worthy of any family privileges, simply the unwanted result of a meaningless tryst with some mistress.
I haven’t heard the word uttered - EVER - because it would be an insult to introduce a woman and her child by saying, “This is Frieda, and this is her illegitimate son, Frank.”
As far as I know, it’s not so much insulting - the context you describe would mean the person using it is deliberately trying to insult. More likely, it’s so antiquated and irrelevant that even bringing it up is an insult, as in “why would you even use that word”? (Much as assorted terms for coloured people are not considered polite, such as “Negro” instead of coloured.) It suggests one is trying to dredge up an old concept for no good reason… like calling cohabitating couple “living in sin…”
it is thoroughly irrelevant as birth status has not mattered for anything - nobody cares for social status, inheritance, company benefits, even AFAIK citizenship status (children of a Canadian who was born or naturalized in Canada, for example are Canadians regardless of parent’s marital status and it’s been that way for decades.)
So it’s about as relevant as objecting that the Queen’s children can’t marry commoners.
Of course, there may be different reasons for this - maybe the wife had an affair. Or maybe the husband is infertile and they utilized donor sperm for reproductive purposes. Big difference between those two in regards to relationships and social/kin issues. Which is why it’s important to be careful with paternity results.
In fact, these days, it’s possible for a woman to give birth to a child that is, from the standpoint of DNA, not a relative (donor egg/donor sperm, embryo donation, and so forth).
Of course nobody would say that, anymore than you would say that “This is Frieda, and her half-black son, Frank” or her “special needs son, Frank” or her “disabled son, Frank.”
I was seriously just asking the question because I have never heard that one should not use the term “illegitimate” when discussing children born outside of marriage. We say it in court all of the time.
I agree that any approbation should not be directed at the child, per se, but any favorable treatment to procreation inside of marriage will likely have that effect. Any those on your side said over and over and over again during the SSM debates that there was nothing wrong or inconsistent with that position by favoring marriage as a vehicle for procreation.
But has “illegitimate” had any legal significance in the last few decades?
The only thing I can think of is that if a couple are legally married, the husband is assumed to be the father in matters legal. Not sure if there are exceptions or escape clauses, never had to find out. Beyond that, as far as the child is concerned, their birth status is completely irrelevant. A father for example is liable for child support whether wed to the mother at any time or not. The child in the last few decades is entitled to inherit same whether “illegitimate” or not. And so on…
That is generally when it comes up. Usually there is a situation where a couple remain legally married but are separated. The woman gets pregnant and has a child. She lives with baby daddy for a couple of years, then they split coming to family court to divide custody.
Both parties are shocked when they find out as of right then that the father has no rights, and is not even considered the father. They will protest that she had not seen her husband for a year prior to that, etc. The process begins by a disestablishment of paternity for the husband and the establishment of paternity for the father. This generally does not create a huge issue, as all parties want it corrected, but it can be a pain in the ass.
The bigger problem is, same facts as above, but the woman has a one night stand or the baby daddy is otherwise out of the picture and cannot be located. The woman applies for public assistance and the child support bureau files a petition so that the husband has to pay child support. He will again say that he is not the father and ask for a DNA test. Unless the real father can be located, courts around here will not allow him off the hook. Judges frequently say that they will not “delegitimize” or sometimes even “bastardize” a child.
You would think that in this day and time it would be easy to locate someone with the internet and all, but when a woman says that the father was some guy named “Dave” that she met in a bar and that he said that he was from Connecticut or Massachusetts or some place like that, it is difficult. She may indeed know the actual father, but doesn’t want him around or fears violence by disclosing his name. At times, I am able to ask for a list of men that she slept with around a certain period of time, but if she leaves one off, there is simply no way to know that.
But to the point of the thread, if a married woman with the facts above comes into court and:
She wants DNA testing;
The husband wants DNA testing; and
The real father wants DNA testing,
it is not automatic that you get DNA testing. There is a best interests of the child analysis. One of the factors in that analysis is that the child will now be delegitimized and that works against establishing paternity in new guy. But if everything else is kosher, the petition will usually be granted.
Can say this has been my experience too… although I am seperated from my daughters mom… in a friendly way (or as friendly as seperations go)… but my daughter has my last name and her mom wanted it that way… it’s probably closer to 50/50 if you ask me.