ONTARIO-L Archives

Archiver > ONTARIO > 2008-05 > 1211990169


From: Jackie Serna <>
Subject: Re: [ONTARIO] Illegitimacy?
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:56:09 -0400
References: <000001c8c060$86a1c040$0301a8c0@SonyLaptop>


Hi Don, not sure but I do know for a fact the well-being of the child is
taken into consideration.
Seems a whole can of worms can be opened and is not as rare as one may
think.

Jackie

Don Krieger wrote:

>Thank you, Jackie.
>
>
>
>But suppose a husband runs off and marries. His new "wife" doesn't know
>anything about it. She thinks she's married, but he's a bigamist. They
>have a child. The mother puts the newly taken surname of the husband on the
>birth certificate.
>
>
>
>What happens if the bigamy is found out? What happens to the names? Are
>the wishes of the mother and the well-being of the child honored? How?
>
>
>
>Don
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jackie Serna [mailto:]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 10:16 AM
>To: ;
>Subject: Re: [ONTARIO] Illegitimacy?
>
>
>
>Wonder why we do not carry on the mother's name then. Di8d some more
>research and found this.
>
>By an English statute of 1604, upon which later English laws and laws in the
>United States have been modelled, any married person who should marry within
>England or Wales, the former husband or wife being living, became guilty of
>felony. But the statute did not extend to persons whose husband or wife
>remained continually "beyond the seas by the space of seven years", nor to a
>person "whose husband or wife shall absent him or herself the one from the
>other by the space of seven years together in any parts within his majesty's
>dominions, the one of them not knowing the other to be living within that
>time". The statute thus established an arbitrary period of absence as
>exempting from criminality a second marriage. That absence within England
>should justify the second marriage, the one marrying was required to be
>ignorant of the survival of the absent husband or wife; but respecting
>absence "beyond the seas" we are told by Blackstone, "Where either party
>hath been continually abroad for seven years whether the party in England
>hath notice of the other's being living or no" (Commentaries, Bk. IV. 164),
>there can be no felony under the statute. The statute, not otherwise
>providing and its violation being made a felony, men prosecuted thereunder
>were, according to the general law of the period, entitled to "benefit of
>clergy" (Coke, sup.), subject to which conviction under the statute was
>punishable with death. The English statute of 1861, now in force, exempts
>from punishment a second marriage only where there has been continual
>absence of seven years, and the person marrying shall not know the absent
>husband or wife "to be living within that time".
>
>A United States Statute declares guilty of polygamy every person, having a
>husband or wife living, who "in a territory or other place over which the
>United States have exclusive jurisdiction", marries another, unless thee
>shall have been absence of five years, the absent husband or wife "not known
>to be living and believed to be dead", or unless there shall have been a
>divorce or judicial annulment of the previous marriage. The punishment
>provided is a fine of not more than five hundred dollars and not more than
>five years' imprisonment.
>
>Jackie
>
>
>Don Krieger wrote:
>
>
>
>What does "legitimate" mean for the child, in legal terms. Here in
>Pennsylvania and I think for most of the states, it's my understanding that
>it's the mother's name which is the important one listed on a child's birth
>certificate. She can give a father's name or not.
>
>Bigamy though, is a real crime here. I'm not an expert on the law, but I
>think there are lots of protections built into the law for the children.
>
>Don
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [mailto:] On
>Behalf Of Jackie Serna
>Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 9:32 AM
>To:
>Subject: Re: [ONTARIO] a basic question re marriage in Ontario
>
>
>Thanks Sheila, that does make sense.
>
>Jackie
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>The marriage & children would legally be considered legitimate
>unless he was 'found out' and legal action taken.
>Sheila
>
>On May 23, 2008, at 2:08 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Fri, 23 May 2008 15:26:04 -0400
>From: Jackie Serna <mailto:> <>
>Subject: [ONTARIO] a basic question re marriage in Ontario
>To:
>Message-ID: <mailto:>
><>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
>Hi list, just a quick question and probably many opinions.
>
>If a person married in Ontario (1916) and claimed to be a bachelor
>when
>infact was
>previously married in England and no record of a divorce etc can be
>found would the
>marriage still be considered legit. Would any offspring be considerd
>illegit??
>
>Thanks
>Jackie
>
>
>
>
>
>***********
>Search Ontario Genealogy & Resources at
>http://olivetreegenealogy.com/can/ont/
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
>
>
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>***********
>Search Ontario Genealogy & Resources at
>http://olivetreegenealogy.com/can/ont/
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>***********
>Search Ontario Genealogy & Resources at
>http://olivetreegenealogy.com/can/ont/
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
>in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>***********
>Search Ontario Genealogy & Resources at http://olivetreegenealogy.com/can/ont/
>-------------------------------
>To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>
>
>


This thread: