No, if you are looking for specific and if you need old records and some sources for your research I doubt somebody have it on hand translated into English and ready to post.
Well no, I don't need people to have it on hand, but if anybody had any sources, not just things that we have all read and accept because we've read it so often, it's more helpful.
If you are asking for the law in the old Commonwealth there were illegitimate and legitimate children without specifics.
Okay that makes some sense. Thanks for linking the books, I imagine you got this information from those sources. That's all I really wanted. Not just someone saying some opinion. Thank you!
An illegitimate child would not inherit mother's surname or status, period.
But I actually have records of that happening with people. It happened within my own family, and I have heard from others that it had happened with them. Which leads to the next thing you said...
The only way around it was vie father of a child or father of a mother because they could legally transfer their surname and their status if that was what they wanted to do.
So, based on this:
If a child of an unmarried mother was given her surname, it would be because her own father is passing it on to the child... Which would mean what for the status of the child?It seems to contradict here with what is generally said about simply "legitimate" and "illegitimate" children.
The only way around it was vie father of a child or father of a mother because they could legally transfer their surname and their status if that was what they wanted to do.
That is, from my understanding , that if an unmarried noblewoman had a child, her father could choose to pass his surname... and his noble status(?) onto his grandchild? Is that right? That doesn't seem right, I feel as if I'm misunderstanding. Sorry for double-posting.