Cupid

tlb wrote:From Wikipedia:

On 27 June 2016, Grant Bavister, Assistant Register to the Baronetage at the Ministry of Justice, entered Sir Ronald Steuart Pringle and his son Sir Norman Murray Pringle onto the Official Roll of the Baronetage, as the 9th and 10th de jure Baronets. He also removed the de facto 9th and 10th Baronets, Norman Hamilton Pringle and his son Steuart Robert Pringle, from the Roll, in accordance with the Royal Warrant of 1910. Certificates of succession to this effect were issued to Sir Norman Murray Pringle on 1 July 2016.

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I think the case that cthia is creating is even more complicated than this, and is something where science is outpacing the law. Today.

Let's start with the uncontroversial case: man and woman are married, man gives permission to use his frozen sperm to impregnate the woman. Child is legitimate heir.

Now let's say this woman does not get permission and impregnates herself anyway. I'd say it's still uncontroversial: the child is legitimate and an heir. But the woman may get in trouble for stealing the sperm (if she wasn't a co-owner anyway).

What if the man has passed away? Even assuming theft, the child itself is blameless and probably an heir, though it might be difficult to redistribute the assets if the will was executed a long time before. Note I said "an heir" not "a legitimate child," since there may still be provisions in the law about children born outside of marriage as illegitimate (bastards).

What if the woman that gets impregnated was never married to this man in the first place? How is this different from an anonymous sperm donor?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. Just asking them.

A child born where the sperm donor was not married to the mother is not legitimate for purposes of inheriting a title.

Whether or not she had permission to use the sperm, if it demonstrably occurred after the sperm donor was dead, then she was not married to the donor and so the child was illegitimate. Therefore the child cannot inherit the title under English law (Manticore is modeled in many ways on England).

ThinksMarkedly wrote:I think the case that cthia is creating is even more complicated than this, and is something where science is outpacing the law. Today.

Let's start with the uncontroversial case: man and woman are married, man gives permission to use his frozen sperm to impregnate the woman. Child is legitimate heir.

Now let's say this woman does not get permission and impregnates herself anyway. I'd say it's still uncontroversial: the child is legitimate and an heir. But the woman may get in trouble for stealing the sperm (if she wasn't a co-owner anyway).

What if the man has passed away? Even assuming theft, the child itself is blameless and probably an heir, though it might be difficult to redistribute the assets if the will was executed a long time before. Note I said "an heir" not "a legitimate child," since there may still be provisions in the law about children born outside of marriage as illegitimate (bastards).

What if the woman that gets impregnated was never married to this man in the first place? How is this different from an anonymous sperm donor?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. Just asking them.

90% of that was already covered in a conversation between Benjamin Mayhew and his Chancellor Prestwick, while everybody thought Honor was dead, and they were trying to figure out wtf to do with Harrington Steading.

Beowulf code SPECIFICALLY prohibits inheritence by a child UNLESS it's in the will before the person in question dies. Manticore already had that code as part of their own legal system and due to that conversation Grayson had started at least considering it, but knowing Mayhew by this point it is in fact law in Grayson too. Whether or not Haven or the Andermani also use it is unconfirmed but since they seem to generally follow to the Beowulf Medical Code concerning bio-genetics (and genies) we can put better odds on them also having the same laws concerning inheritance.

EoH, Ch4 wrote:"For that matter, there's another possibility entirely," Prestwick pointed out. Both of the others looked at him, and he shrugged. "I'm quite certain Lady Harrington's mother has samples of the Steadholder's genetic material, which means it would almost certainly be possible to produce a child of Lady Harrington's even at this date. Or even a direct clone, for that matter!"

"I think we'd better not start getting into those orbits," Benjamin cautioned. "Certainly not without consulting Reverend Sullivan and the Sacristy first, at any rate!" He shuddered at the mere thought of how the more conservative of his subjects might react to the Chancellor's musings. "Besides, a clone would probably only make matters worse. If I remember correctly—and I'm not certain I do, without looking it up—the Star Kingdom's legal code adheres to the Beowulf Life Sciences Code, just as the Solarian League's does."

"Which means?" Clinkscales asked, clearly intrigued by the notion.

"Which means, first of all, that it's completely illegal to use a dead individual's genetic material unless that individual's will or other legal declaration specifically authorized the use. And secondly, it means that a clone is a child of its donor parent or parents, with all the legal protections of any other sentient being, but it is not the same person, and posthumous cloning cannot be used to circumvent the normal laws of inheritance."

"You mean that if Lady Harrington had had herself cloned before her death, then her clone would legally have been her child and could have inherited her title, but that if we have her cloned now, the child couldn't inherit?" Prestwick said, and Benjamin nodded.

Obviously in this specific passage they're talking cloning but iirc this general topic was also covered again concerning tubing and legitimancy, approximately when Honor and Hamish tubed their first child and had the same overall theme. The child MUST be in Stefan's will prior to his passing or it would be unable to inherit the Earldom.

This is slightly complicated that while Grayson recognizes bastardy, that Manticore does not. Stefan could die tomorrow, Georgia pops back up Manticore within a few days or months and claims to be carrying Stefan's child. After blood confirmation it would be recognized as his child, but not his heir unless his will says otherwise, due to possibly 'stolen' sperm and other such things. Particularly since she's missing, presumed dead... to suddenly reappear AND claim pregnancy when she hasn't been even remotely near her husband in years would raise more than a few eyebrows of skepticism.

Georgia's only claim to the Young name and title is by marriage. She is not the heir to the Earldom. She is at best, the Countess Dowager. If she returned from her Anton and Cathy inflicted exile (and made it past the Ballroom) with a Young heir in her womb, she might have a claim to either be her child's Regent Sole, or to be a member of her child's Regency Council, until the child reached the age of majority.

Assuming of course that what ever venue had jurisdiction over her claims decided in her favor. Otherwise, her life expectancy after the birth of her child is measured in terms of how long it would take the Ballroom to find and activate a Striker already in Manticore, or to arrange for a Striker to travel to Manticore. I'm sure that Jeremy, for all his claims to have left the Ballroom, would not authorize the Ballroom assassination of a pregnant woman.

Fox2! wrote:I'm sure that Jeremy, for all his claims to have left the Ballroom, would not authorize the Ballroom assassination of a pregnant woman.

Except the Ballroom kinda/sorta stopped listening to Jeremy when he 'went legit' working with Torch. Not only that, but he has to officially distance himself from their actions, so if he disapproves of killing a pregnant woman regardless of how guilty she is, the rest of the Ballroom may consider a single innocent unborn child acceptable to get her specifically.


But many of their strikers also seem to be incredibly gifted pistoleers, they're on an incredibly short list who could pull off hits to Georgia's head/neck/shoulders and leaving her abdomen intact for medical professionals to emergency tube the child. Thandi heads that list, and Andrew LaFollet gets a post-humous mention for his shooting skill at Cosmos to stop Pavel Young's hired mercs in Field of Dishonor (lots of head/upper torso shots with frantic civilians running around)

Fox2! wrote:I'm sure that Jeremy, for all his claims to have left the Ballroom, would not authorize the Ballroom assassination of a pregnant woman.

Somtaaw wrote:Except the Ballroom kinda/sorta stopped listening to Jeremy when he 'went legit' working with Torch. Not only that, but he has to officially distance himself from their actions, so if he disapproves of killing a pregnant woman regardless of how guilty she is, the rest of the Ballroom may consider a single innocent unborn child acceptable to get her specifically.

There is no need for any of this, if Torch tries her and convicts her of crimes in aid of slavery. Then she is no more than the slavers or pirates, that that can be tossed out of an airlock (after any baby is tubed).

Duh, forgot about tubing. And the marksmanship of certain Strikers.

If Georgia turns up pregnant anyplace in the Grand Alliance (including the Andies), Maya, Erewhon, or Torch, and doesn't get herself under the protection of the Manticoran government at least long enough to adjudicate any inheritance claims on the part of her child, she's a dead woman walking. From either pistol shot or vacuum exposure. The same goes if her claims for the child are disapproved. Whether the Ballroom would take a shot at the Regent, or a member of a Regency Council, for a Manticoran Earldom, is left as an exercise for the Student (95 per cent confidence, .05 significance, one degree of freedom).

Even though Jeremy has "gone straight", I think his voice would still be heard in the councils of the Ballroom. Which could be ignored. Individual members who saw a target of opportunity, may not be as constrained.

Fox2! wrote:Georgia's only claim to the Young name and title is by marriage. She is not the heir to the Earldom. She is at best, the Countess Dowager. If she returned from her Anton and Cathy inflicted exile (and made it past the Ballroom) with a Young heir in her womb, she might have a claim to either be her child's Regent Sole, or to be a member of her child's Regency Council, until the child reached the age of majority.

And that's assuming that Manticore has regencies for nobles other than the Crown.

Given their lesser responsibilities it is possible that they simply let the powers of the title lie fallow until the new noble reaches their majority.
Though someone would need to be given the power to manage the estate, lands, and accounts; execute and manage contracts to that end, etc. -- all on behalf of the child. However that person(2) may not be considered a regent(s) and may not have the right to exercise things like being seated or casting votes in Lords; or any other right purely associated with the title.

Somtaaw wrote:90% of that was already covered in a conversation between Benjamin Mayhew and his Chancellor Prestwick, while everybody thought Honor was dead, and they were trying to figure out wtf to do with Harrington Steading.

Beowulf code SPECIFICALLY prohibits inheritence by a child UNLESS it's in the will before the person in question dies. Manticore already had that code as part of their own legal system and due to that conversation Grayson had started at least considering it, but knowing Mayhew by this point it is in fact law in Grayson too. Whether or not Haven or the Andermani also use it is unconfirmed but since they seem to generally follow to the Beowulf Medical Code concerning bio-genetics (and genies) we can put better odds on them also having the same laws concerning inheritance.

EoH, Ch4 wrote:"For that matter, there's another possibility entirely," Prestwick pointed out. Both of the others looked at him, and he shrugged. "I'm quite certain Lady Harrington's mother has samples of the Steadholder's genetic material, which means it would almost certainly be possible to produce a child of Lady Harrington's even at this date. Or even a direct clone, for that matter!"

"I think we'd better not start getting into those orbits," Benjamin cautioned. "Certainly not without consulting Reverend Sullivan and the Sacristy first, at any rate!" He shuddered at the mere thought of how the more conservative of his subjects might react to the Chancellor's musings. "Besides, a clone would probably only make matters worse. If I remember correctly—and I'm not certain I do, without looking it up—the Star Kingdom's legal code adheres to the Beowulf Life Sciences Code, just as the Solarian League's does."

"Which means?" Clinkscales asked, clearly intrigued by the notion.

"Which means, first of all, that it's completely illegal to use a dead individual's genetic material unless that individual's will or other legal declaration specifically authorized the use. And secondly, it means that a clone is a child of its donor parent or parents, with all the legal protections of any other sentient being, but it is not the same person, and posthumous cloning cannot be used to circumvent the normal laws of inheritance."

"You mean that if Lady Harrington had had herself cloned before her death, then her clone would legally have been her child and could have inherited her title, but that if we have her cloned now, the child couldn't inherit?" Prestwick said, and Benjamin nodded.

Obviously in this specific passage they're talking cloning but iirc this general topic was also covered again concerning tubing and legitimancy, approximately when Honor and Hamish tubed their first child and had the same overall theme. The child MUST be in Stefan's will prior to his passing or it would be unable to inherit the Earldom.

This is slightly complicated that while Grayson recognizes bastardy, that Manticore does not. Stefan could die tomorrow, Georgia pops back up Manticore within a few days or months and claims to be carrying Stefan's child. After blood confirmation it would be recognized as his child, but not his heir unless his will says otherwise, due to possibly 'stolen' sperm and other such things. Particularly since she's missing, presumed dead... to suddenly reappear AND claim pregnancy when she hasn't been even remotely near her husband in years would raise more than a few eyebrows of skepticism.

I think you're overstating this slightly. The prohibition, as your quote clearly showed, is on use a deceased person's genetic material. It's that situation where the inheritance needs to have been locked in in their will prior to death -- to ensure that they'd consented to the creation of this heir.

If the heir was already created and growing (whether in a natural womb or tubed into an artificial one) while the father was still alive, even if the birth postdates that, normal inheritance should apply because the genetic material was used before the father died; and therefore with his presumed (or possibly explicitly documented) consent. And therefore the child should NOT need to be in his will in order to inherit.
(Nor should a child who was already born need to be in the will in order to inherit -- not that I thought you were claiming that)

Now, I suspect they'd treat thawing out and implanting a previously fertilized, but then frozen, egg after the father passed the same as they would performing that fertilization post-death. Without something in the father's will there's no evidence that he'd consented to the creation/birth of this heir. The fertilized egg might have just been a contingency, or might have been left over from some previous artificial insemination attempt. (Though given the state of their medical tech they may not handle this the same way we do now; and so might not tend to end up with multiple fertilized eggs on each attempt)

Presumably they'd can also determine quite accurately when a pregnancy started -- and so it'd be pretty hard to 'backdate' it in order to try to sidestep the post-death restrictions (by pretending it was a natural insemination from just before the father died; when it was actually an artificial one from slightly after).

Jonathan_S wrote:I think you're overstating this slightly. The prohibition, as your quote clearly showed, is on use a deceased person's genetic material. It's that situation where the inheritance needs to have been locked in in their will prior to death -- to ensure that they'd consented to the creation of this heir.

If the heir was already created and growing (whether in a natural womb or tubed into an artificial one) while the father was still alive, even if the birth postdates that, normal inheritance should apply because the genetic material was used before the father died; and therefore with his presumed (or possibly explicitly documented) consent. And therefore the child should NOT need to be in his will in order to inherit.
(Nor should a child who was already born need to be in the will in order to inherit -- not that I thought you were claiming that)

Now, I suspect they'd treat thawing out and implanting a previously fertilized, but then frozen, egg after the father passed the same as they would performing that fertilization post-death. Without something in the father's will there's no evidence that he'd consented to the creation/birth of this heir. The fertilized egg might have just been a contingency, or might have been left over from some previous artificial insemination attempt. (Though given the state of their medical tech they may not handle this the same way we do now; and so might not tend to end up with multiple fertilized eggs on each attempt)

Presumably they'd can also determine quite accurately when a pregnancy started -- and so it'd be pretty hard to 'backdate' it in order to try to sidestep the post-death restrictions (by pretending it was a natural insemination from just before the father died; when it was actually an artificial one from slightly after).

It is not hard to find legal discussions in our time about frozen sperm and eggs involving the same sort of points that are in the Beowulf Code.

Jonathan_S wrote:Given their lesser responsibilities it is possible that they simply let the powers of the title lie fallow until the new noble reaches their majority.
Though someone would need to be given the power to manage the estate, lands, and accounts; execute and manage contracts to that end, etc. -- all on behalf of the child. However that person(2) may not be considered a regent(s) and may not have the right to exercise things like being seated or casting votes in Lords; or any other right purely associated with the title.

That's probably just the legal guardian. If the parents of a minor are not available (or judicially competent themselves), then there are always grandparents, uncles, or a court-appointed professional.

Quod vide Britney Spears.