THYNN, Hon Henry Richard Isaac b 2016

[colinp]

From the Daily Telegraph 7 January 2017 BIRTHS - THYNN - On 30th December 2016  to Emma, Viscountess Weymouth (nee McQuiston) and Cealwin, Viscount Weymouth, a son, Henry Richard Isaac

Viscount Weymouth is the only son and heir of the 7th Marquess of Bath and Henry is his second son

[marquess]

Excellent news for the couple and the marquisate!

[dave trewick]

Born to a surrogate according to Dailymail, still in succession? 

[Pat]

An interesting question which I guess of the advances in modern medicine was always going to crop up at some stage. I would assume that in cases where only one out of a married couple is the biological parent of the child the answer is an unequivocal no as any heir has to be the legitimate issue of both but here its not so clear cut because both Lord and Lady Weymouth are young Henry`s biological parents but because of serious health issues rising out of the birth of her first son it was not safe for Lady Weymouth to have another child.

[marquess]

The question would be one of legitimacy once the issue of biological parenthood has been established.  I can see no logical grounds that could exclude the Hon. Henry, his parents are married and he is their biological issue.  On what grounds could there be a dispute as to legitimacy and succession rights?

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:57:53 AM UTC+7, colinp wrote:

[Jelena JS]

 https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/peerage-news/V7exC2GhOMU

[marquess]

This arrangement was done in California, where the law allows the donor mother to be the legal mother and the surrogate mother has no legal claim to that status. Had it been done in the UK this would not have been possible. I wonder if this will be the first of many such cases?

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:57:53 AM UTC+7, colinp wrote:

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Perhaps a landmark case in the future.

Question:  If same-sex marriage is legal in the UK, in the future, could we see the biological offspring of a gay peer/baronet  inherit a title?  

Thanks.

Brooke

On the bright side, maybe it could prevent the extinction of some peerages and baronetages.

[marquess]

I agree that a few peerages may be prevented from going into extinction via the use of surrogacy,  as to same sex unions the 'issue' from the latter would be excluded unless the new form of marriage incorporates 3 people one of which being a female,  or there is some way in which humas become asexual. 

[Dennis Cunniff]

On Jan 8, 2017, at 10:36 PM, 'marquess' via Peerage News <peerag...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

I agree that a few peerages may be prevented from going into extinction via the use of surrogacy,  as to same sex unions the 'issue' from the latter would be excluded unless the new form of marriage incorporates 3 people one of which being a female,  or there is some way in which humas become asexual. 

For yet another possibility, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_egg>.  Another would be an ovum derived from a male stem cell. It will be some time, though, before peerage law will have to confront these issues.

[Pat]

Another is gender transition. Over the last week or so there have been numerous stories in the press about a British `man` who is pregnant. He is actually a woman currently in the process of gender transition who has delayed the final stages of the process to have a child. There is no mention of whether he intends to put down `father` and not `mother` on the child`s birth certificate. I would assume that if he is able to legally put father the child would technically have no mother. Apart from any issues that might arise should the wife of a peer change sex and is able to legally registering as the child`s father there is the question of what would happen if the heir to a peerage changed sex or his older sister became his older brother.

[Peter FitzGerald]

The last issue is straightforward as it is directly addressed by the legislation:

"The fact that a person’s gender has become the acquired gender under this Act — (a) does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour ..." (Gender Recognition Act 2004, s.16).

[Jelena JS]

2017 m. sausis 8 d., sekmadienis 11:28:55 UTC+2, Pat rašė:

An interesting question which I guess of the advances in modern medicine was always going to crop up at some stage. I would assume that in cases where only one out of a married couple is the biological parent of the child the answer is an unequivocal no as any heir has to be the legitimate issue of both but here its not so clear cut because both Lord and Lady Weymouth are young Henry`s biological parents but because of serious health issues rising out of the birth of her first son it was not safe for Lady Weymouth to have another child.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

 

48 Effect of sections 33 to 47

 

(1)Where by virtue of section 33, 35, 36, 42 or 43 a person is to be treated as the mother, father or parent of a child, that person is to be treated in law as the mother, father or parent (as the case may be) of the child for all purposes.

(2)Where by virtue of section 33, 38, 41, 45 or 47 a person is not to be treated as a parent of the child, that person is to be treated in law as not being a parent of the child for any purpose.

....

(7)In relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland, nothing in the provisions of section 33(1) or sections 35 to 47, read with this section—

(a)affects the succession to any dignity or title of honour or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title, or

(b)affects the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any dignity or title of honour.

(8)In relation to Scotland—

(a)those provisions do not apply to any title, coat of arms, honour or dignity transmissible on the death of its holder or affect the succession to any such title, coat of arms or dignity or its devolution, and

(b)where the terms of any deed provide that any property or interest in property is to devolve along with a title, coat of arms, honour or dignity, nothing in those provisions is to prevent that property or interest from so devolving.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/section/48#section-48-6

 

We need a lawyer consultation

[malcolm davies]

As I read s48(7) of the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act,whilst Henry Thynn is deemed to be the son of his parents,that does not extend to the peerage titles,and he is not in remainder to them.He can still be known as Lord Henry Thynn when his father succeeds to the title as adopted  or children who were born when their parents were not married and subsequently married  are eligible to be styled as sons or daughters of a peer.(Examples are Lady Naomi Gordon Lennox(adopted),the children of the 4th Marquess of Aberdeen(adopted) and various Lascelles sons(who were born when their parents were unmarried).

[marquess]

That section 48/7 would have to be tested in a court of law, the Harwood, Aberdeen and Gordon examples are not good comparisons, as they are either not of the blood of the peers in question or they were born outside of wedlock. This is not the case with the Hon Henry, moreover section 48/7 is that it was framed in reference to the notion that a surrogate mother is the legal mother of the child, which in the Thynn case is not the case. A good lawyer would easily make a very good case against the provisions of the act.

 

1. Both parents are married within the traditional concept of that term.

 

2 The child is the biological issue of the said parents and born in wedlock.

 

3 The mother is the legal mother of the child and the surrogate mother has no legal claim over the child under Californian law, which should preclude any such claim under British law as the surrogate mother would have signed a legally binding contract under Californian law; which presumably could be sited in a UK court.

 

Usually the biggest issue in claims to peerages is legitimacy followed closely by contested parentage, none of which apply to the above.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 3:57:53 AM UTC+7, colinp wrote:

[malcolm davies]

Marquess,

                I have little doubt the surrogacy agreement will be upheld and the surrogate mother will have no rights. But that is not the point. s47(8) means that the person in remainder must be a child lawfully begotten under English law. It is not readily apparent that Henry is in that category.

On Sunday, January 8, 2017 at 7:57:53 AM UTC+11, colinp wrote: