Talk:Posthumous birth

Concerns about this article
I have several concerns about this article.


 * Does this kind of list belong in the encyclopedia? I think that the phenomenon of posthumous birth deserves an article, with particular focus on the legal aspects. Such an article also should identify some persons whose posthumous birth is itself notable. However, it is not apparent to me that there is any notability to the fact that a particular celebrity was born after his father's death. See WP:IINFO. I suggest rewriting this article as an article about the phenomenon. The article should also include discussion of (1) the ramifications of posthumous use of a deceased man's sperm and (2) the phenomenon of "posthumous birth" when a living child is delivered from the uterus of a dead woman.


 * Lack of sourcing. Entries on this list need to be sourced, particularly the entries for living people.


 * Title. The hyphen in "posthumously-born" is inappropriate. Hyphens should not be used after an adverb. Furthermore, lists such as this one do not normally include the word "notable." I'd prefer a title like "List of people born posthumously." However, because I have larger concerns about the existence and scope of this article (above), I have not yet renamed it.

--Orlady (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The title of the article is simply wrong, as best I can tell. It's impossible to be born posthumously, unless one is dead at birth.  This is about men becoming fathers posthumously.


 * Having said that, I was once told by another editor that we do not delete articles because we can't come up with good titles. Fine.  Let's delete this because it is non-notable.  I'm no expert on AfD, so I ask that someone else get rid of this pile of trivial crap. Unschool (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may think the title is wrong, but the terminology is emphatically not a Wikipedia neologism. The terms "posthumous birth," "posthumous child," "born posthumously", and "posthumously born" are well established ways of describing people who are born after the death of a parent. For examples of the use of these terms, see definitions for "posthumous birth", New Hampshire legislation on "Posthumous Child Inheritance", legal advice related to children born posthumously, or almost any history of a royal family, such as this history of Denmark royalty. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected—and more knowledgeable—for the time you took to show me this. Thank you. Unschool (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As the creator of the article and one of its main editors, allow me to respond.
 * It's good that the term "posthumously born" is acknowledged. It does indeed have very wide use.  Admittedly, to a logician it must seem absurd to be born after one's own death; but language isn't always logical, and of course it refers to the father's death, not the subject's.
 * I'm not attached to the hyphen in" posthumously-born". I do think it's a question of style rather than of right/wrong, but I'm prepared to let it go.
 * In most of these cases, the fact that the person was born posthumously is mentioned in their own WP article. If it's notable enough and non-trivial enough to appear there, why is a list of such names suddenly non-notable and trivial?
 * I'd prefer to see the word "notable" in the title, otherwise it's an open invitation to fill it with names of posthumously born non-entities.  At least, there should be a blurb explaining that the entries are reserved for people considered notable.
 * These names can all be sourced independently (speaking for the ones I've personally included), and I'm happy to gather and include such sources. -- JackofOz (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please consider the issue I raised and the suggestion that I made in the first paragraph of my first comment at the top of this page. --Orlady (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I did consider the notability issue, and my question at dot-point 3 is a response to it. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
 * I think that the phenomenon of posthumous birth deserves an article, with particular focus on the legal aspects. ... I suggest rewriting this article as an article about the phenomenon. The article should also include discussion of (1) the ramifications of posthumous use of a deceased man's sperm and (2) the phenomenon of "posthumous birth" when a living child is delivered from the uterus of a dead woman.
 * To me, that is a whole other (if not unrelated) topic, one written by and of particular interest to ethicists, the medical fraternity, the legal fraternity etc, and it does indeed deserve its own article. What I created is a list that would be of interest to those who look at things from a historical/biographical perspective.  There are hundreds of examples where we have an article on a general topic, and a separate article (or more) with lists of relevant names etc.  This one is the "list" article, and now it's someone's job to create one or more "general" articles.
 * Such an article also should identify some persons whose posthumous birth is itself notable.
 * No argument from me on that score. However, what would be the criteria, how many is "some", and what happens next?  Surely a reader who reads a short list of selected names is going to be interested in knowing who else might be in the same boat.  We'd be failing our readers by providing a few selected names but then refusing to give them any more (which is what it would amount to - Welcome to Tantalo-Wikipedia!) You know what WP's like - create a short list in the context of an article, and it will probably grow to a longer list.  But if the short list is rigorously restricted to names A-F, the corollary is that the details of the posthumous births of names G-Z... will be deemed to be no longer worthy of inclusion even in their own articles, and that would be very much a backward step.  But maybe I worry unnecessarily.  We're happy to include subjects' mother's maiden names and the names of their non-notable siblings etc etc etc, so why wouldn't the fact that they never knew their fathers because they died before the subjects were born be worthy of note?  Of course it's worthy of note.  I really can't see how we can justify one without the other.   --  JackofOz (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to the left margin because this discussion is in danger of getting too narrow to read...

When discussing "notability," it's important to be clear on what we are talking about. There are two different kinds of notability in play here. One is notability of people per WP:BIO; I think it's generally agreed that lists such as this one need to be limited to notable people (in this case, notable people who were born posthumously). As a matter of style, "notable" does not appear in the title of WP lists such as this one. Rather, some lists such as List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) state in the article that the listed people are notable for some reason other than the factor that makes them eligible for the list. Other articles such as List of HIV-positive people manage to be limited to notable people without specifying that the lists are limited in this way.

The other kind of notability is notability of the article topic. It appears to me that the topic of posthumous birth is notable, but this list of people born posthumously is not. I have participated in a bunch of WP:AfD debates on lists (including lists of people), I have rescued a few lists from deletion, I have endorsed deletion of other lists, and I have seen some lists get deleted for being non-notable. Based on that experience, I identify this article as one that would be deleted following an AfD debate, based on WP:NOT. I have not nominated it for deletion because I want you to have a chance to resolve the issues with the article without the pressure of an AfD debate.

For some of the people named on this list, such as most of the royalty and Jett Williams, the fact of their posthumous birth is an important part of their "story." For most of the other people on the list, however, I see no hint that the fact of posthumous birth creates a notable connection between these people. See the arguments made in Articles for deletion/List of people with breast implants (2nd nomination) -- snickering aside, many of the same points could be made about the posthumous births list. Like that deleted breast-implants list, this list has not established that the fact of posthumous birth creates a "notable connection" among the list members. Also see the arguments at Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (2nd nomination), which survived AfD, largely due to arguments that the wearing of bow ties establishes a notable connection among the list members. --Orlady (talk) 03:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. You seem to be saying the current list can be divided into:
 * those for whom their posthumous birth is an important part of their story, and
 * those for whom their posthumous birth is just an idle fact, with no particular relevance to their story.
 * Are you arguing that if it were confined to the people in the first category, you'd have much less of a problem with it than you do now? In which case we could probably debate endlessly about how the absence of a father (or a mother for that matter) was significant in the early formation of all these people's characters and outlooks, and thus on whatever it was that made them notable.
 * Or are you saying it should be deleted regardless? In which case, I'm not sure why you would have made the distinction referred to above.  --  JackofOz (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the emotional lives of children born posthumously, that's not a basis for an article. There is little difference between the situation of a child whose father died 3 months before the child was born and a child whose father died 3 months after. A list of people whose fathers happened to die before they were born is a trivia list, of essentially no more encyclopedic significance than a list of people with breast implants.
 * It seems to me that posthumous birth is a notable topic due to its legal ramifications, including but not limited to the matters of royal succession, inheritance/legitimacy for a child conceived with a deceased man's sperm, and unusual circumstances such as those surrounding Jett Williams' birth.

My recommendation: Beef up the introductory discussion of posthumous birth, remove the people for whom there are no royal/legal ramifications to discuss, add details to the list about each remaining listee's situation as a posthumous child, and retitle the article to become an article that includes an embedded list (not a stand-alone list).--Orlady (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support to keep the article. Is it fair to predict that this information won't be useful to someone? If the information is accurate, what's the harm? Saying that, I do have suggestions:
 * The title does contain ambiguity. Perhaps People born after their father's death might be better?
 * I would turn the article into a list in order to standardise the information. Suggested headings would be: Person, Birth date, Father, Time after father's death, Notes. I'm happy to do this if agreeable.
 * I would remove the section Mistakenly believed to have been born posthumously. This information should be moved into the relevant person's article.

 HWV 258  01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the Mistakenly believed . . . . If anybody wants to revert that removal, kindly explain why it should be here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather like this article and feel that is necessary - "posthumous child" is a term I have read for years. Robert II of Scotland ought to be included as he was delivered after his mother's death in a riding accident near Paisley Abbey (which has a website and mentions him). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * His mother died in 1317, the year after he was born. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I think not. She fell off her horse whilst heavily pregnant and died on 2nd March 1316 (or 1315/6 in old style). Robert was born that day - as her own Wikipaedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marjorie_Bruce and several books point out.Smlark (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Repurposed
I have repurposed the list of Posthumously born notable people to become Posthumous birth. More reliably sourced content is still needed, of course. --Orlady (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on this article, Orlady. --  JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles the Simple
How aboutCharles the Simple? Anhydrobiosis 00:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)


 * Definitely. I've added him.  Thanks for finding him.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fathers dying in battle
What about children who are born to women whose husbands/significant others die in combat or after a tragedy like 9/11/01? I'm sure there are more than a few of them out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.169.68 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing "Neutrality Disputed" designation
The talk page has clearly arrived at a consensus that posthumous birth, though illogically suggesting birth after one's own death, is established usage for birth after the death of a parent, usually the father. The remaining discussion concerns notability, ways to improve the article, and scope but not neutrality. Therefore I have removed the November 2013 POV flag.CharlesHBennett (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphanship
Is anyone or perhaps everyone on this list eligible to be on the List of orphans and foundlings page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.43.126 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming
The section Naming contains this statement which although it has a citation, is difficult to believe at face value:

''In the Middle Ages, it was traditional for posthumous children born in England to be given a matronymic surname instead of a patronymic one. This may in part explain why matronyms are more common in England than in other parts of Europe.''

This implicates that even if the parents had been lawfully married the child would be given the mother's family surname. The writer of the citation may have been confusing this with illegitimate children where the use of the father's surname was not generally applied.Cloptonson (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Fictional posthumous birth
I do not now have the book, but I recall from reading Thomas Thompson's novel Celebrity, later filmed as a TV series in 1984, that one of the three male central characters was born when his father had been killed in WWII. I might be wrong (memory plays tricks), but I think his birth may have been posthumous. Could someone with access to a book check this?Cloptonson (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Lothair III not posthumous - check
Lothair's father was killed on 9 June 1075 but a read of the son's wiki biography indicates he was born 'before' that date. Needs checking. Did chroniclers report Lothair's birth was subsequent to the father's death?Cloptonson (talk) 08:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

George Washington Carver
According to George Washington Carver: Scientist and Symbol (1982), Carver's father died in a log-hauling accident after he was born, rather than being murdered before his birth as it was previously stated in the list. I've taken out Carver's entry because of this, but I can reconsider if anyone has a better source.Menah the Great (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Robert Molesworth, 1st Viscount Molesworth
Could be an addition, but his date of birth is inconsistent in his article.Menah the Great (talk) 15:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Margaret O'Brien (under 20th century)
Margaret O'Brien's entitlement to appear as a notable posthumous child is open to question as her entry in this list is uncited and her wiki biography does not appear to mention her father at all. If there is citeable evidence, it should be mirrored in both that article and this.Cloptonson (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing no response nearly 3 years on, I will delete her entry for the reasons given above.Cloptonson (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Father of Ranulph Fiennes
I disagree with the uncited statement the explorer's father was killed at the Battle of Monte Cassino. He was killed on 24 November 1943 but the battle did not commence until 17 January 1944. I am therefore going to change the description of his death in line with the cited narrative given in the wiki article on Ranulph Fiennes, that he died as result of wounds by a landmine in Naples.Cloptonson (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Macduff
In the Macduff (Macbeth) article, we say:
 * After Macbeth slays the young Siward, Macduff charges into the main castle and confronts Macbeth. Although Macbeth believes that he cannot be killed by any man born of a woman, he soon learns that Macduff was "from his mother's womb / Untimely ripped" (Act V Scene 8 lines 2493/2494) — meaning that Macduff was born by caesarean section.

I don't believe that's enough information to be able to conclude the mother was dead by the time the baby was pulled out. Very likely she would have died soon thereafter, but posthumous means after death, not around the same time. Comments? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)