[LMB] Real Life echoes fiction

M R L Dolbear m.dolbear at lineone.net
Sat Nov 28 01:17:30 GMT 2015


From: Lois McMaster Bujold
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 7:16 PM

LMB:  Not so; it could be a point of strong contention in any case where
there was some significant inheritance in play, monetary or other, or
desired status at risk or up for grabs.

LE> and some Republics still have titles (France)

LMB: It will indeed be interesting to see how the court rules.  It may have
to go to Parliament (in fact, likely will, on appeal.)  The court can't
just say DNA evidence can't count, because there are and will be
contemporary cases.  Setting a "grandfather" (heh) date, before which it
doesn't count, also seems a job for the legislature.  Letting the suit
go the the plaintiff opens up a whole barrel of worms, although, I can't
help reflecting, future job security for the British legal profession,
so that may be a draw for the judges.

Since it's not a peerage case it isn't clear that Parliament need involve 
itself at all.

And see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_case

the House of Lords {as UK Supreme Court} which ruled in 1924 that no child 
born after a marriage could be declared illegitimate merely on the testimony 
of his mother or father  Russell v. Russell [1924] AC 687 (HL)

John died in 1973 and the younger John challenged Geoffrey's right to 
inherit the Ampthill barony. In 1976, the House of Lords Committee For 
Privileges reported that the younger John had not made out his claim, so 
confirming Geoffrey as the 4th Baron Ampthill;
==


Little Egret by email (Windows Live Mail)
Michael Dolbear in Walton-on-Thames 



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list