I'm talking technicalities here, not matters of opinion.
2006-11-20 08:09:54 · 16 answers · asked by Mer 1 in Pregnancy & Parenting ➔ Parenting
It doesn't really matter in today's day and age, but following the defenition, technically yes Suri is a bastard.
2006-11-20 08:13:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
haha, a child who is a bastard is one without a father. They child clearly has a father that is with the woman. All these people are stupid a bastard and a *****, the term used for dogs. Is when a Father is not present in the child's life. These people have no idea
2006-11-20 09:50:21 · answer #2 · answered by fourcheeks4 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. The term was used in the "class system" way back when, due to the fact that so many "royals" and titled men had affairs which produced children. In terms of lineage, one was entitled to nothing if both parents weren't married. If they became married, then they were elegible for whatever they were in succession for. This still holds true for succession to the throne. Only a true royal can be "numbered." Had Charles and Camilla had a child, while he was married to Diana, that child would never have a chance. Now, if they were to have a child, it would be 3rd in line to the throne (unless William or Harry have their own legit child).
2006-11-20 08:22:24 · answer #3 · answered by Allison S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yep. My 3 are bastards. We got married when my youngest was 7 months. A bastard is a baby CONCEIVED out of wedlock.
And I don't think it is anything to be ashamed of. There is nothing wrong with waiting to get married until after the baby is born just to be you are getting married because you want to be married, not just because you are having a baby....Although planning the wedding with a little one under foot is much harder!
2006-11-20 08:37:53 · answer #4 · answered by Lesley C 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Ilegitimacy was a term in common use for the condition of being born of parents who were not validly married to one another; the legal term was bastardy. That status could be changed in either direction by civil law or canon law; a specific case of the former occurred with the Princes in the Tower. In some jurisdictions, marriage of an illegitimate child's parents after its birth resulted in the child's legitimation, changing the legal status to special bastardy.
2006-11-20 08:18:40 · answer #5 · answered by truly_insightful 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on your own personal beliefs (or the parents'). I think calling a child a bastard simply because his parents were not married is a cruel and stupid thing to do.
2006-11-20 08:13:44 · answer #6 · answered by red_rose6886 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Unless the parents are married when the child is born, it will be considered a bastard all it's life.
It doesn't say much for the parents either.
2006-11-20 08:18:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yeppers
2006-11-20 08:26:55 · answer #8 · answered by trinity082482 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe it is still considered a bastard because the kid was born out of wedlock.
2006-11-20 08:12:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I agree with the first answer...A child born out of wedlock is a Bastard....Even if the parents follow through with their sham marriage a year later......
2006-11-20 08:17:53 · answer #10 · answered by SALMON 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋