Comments on: Presley v. Hanks (1989) [Illegitimate Daughter]

By: Cindy

Cindy — Mon, 24 Apr 2023 08:27:10 +0000

I know people that are legitimately related to Elvis that can easily prove it by any kit sold to trace your ethnicity, ancestry. If any of these wackos had a drop of Presley blood they’d be showing those DNA tests to the world. Sad that Priscilla or anyone has to waste their energy on this crap.

By: Shannon E McHenry

Shannon E McHenry — Fri, 13 Jan 2023 23:14:33 +0000

In reply to S Schmidt. yes- but when he died DNA testing was not done- so it would not be possible for it to have that meaning. I believe he did mean children that were "proven" to belong to him (as in through the court system. i do t think he meant in wedlock- but the court went with it, so...

By: preslaw

preslaw — Fri, 04 Mar 2022 22:50:57 +0000

In reply to S Schmidt.

You would certainly think so. But, thinking about it, what would an “unlawful child” be? The word “lawful” was chosen for a reason, otherwise why not just put “my children.” The court found that, based on other evidence, it was intended to mean “children born in wedlock.” Of course, in reality, no one has ever proven in court that they are Elvis’ biological child, even in this case.

By: S Schmidt

S Schmidt — Fri, 04 Mar 2022 20:32:00 +0000

I’m not an attorney but I would think “my lawful children” would mean if it is proven through DNA that a person is the child of the testor. That would mean that that person has therefore proven LAWFULLY that they are a legitimate child of the testor. The testor being wed or unwed to the child’s mother means nothing. If said child has proven through DNA then they too are a legitimate LAWFUL child of the testor and said testor has an obligation to support the said child. Judges get real please. Sex out of wed lock happens every day and yes sometimes children are produced through these actions. That child should not be punished, nor denied their rights.