[ingliz]

What's the difference from the kids' perspective?

You'd think the children would be bastards.

But

The children are legitimate in Law: so there's no difference legally, at least in Malta.

and

Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law states that children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

So there is nothing illegitimate about children of an annulled marriage in the eyes of the Church.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Godstud

You seem to be conflating divorce with fatherlessness.

Would you say that the children of the divorced woman you have married are fatherless?

[wat0n]

What's the difference from the kids' perspective?

You'd think the children would be bastards.

But

The children are legitimate in law: so there's no difference legally, at least in Malta.

and

Canon 1137 of The Code of Canon Law states that children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

So there is nothing illegitimate about children of an annulled marriage in the eyes of the Church.

At least in Chile, they counted as illegitimate children and had less rights than legitimate ones until 1998 when the 1855 distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children was repealed (divorce would then be legalized in 2004).

[AFAIK]

In the UK inheritance tax is lower if your parents are married. The terms I've heard used are legitimate, illegitimate and legitimised. I don't think you can be downgraded if your parents divorce.

[wat0n]

Indeed, because if you were born from married parents the validity of their marriage isn't affected if your parents divorce.

Under annulment, in theory the marriage was never valid and the children were thus born out of wedlock.

[Rancid]

I'm ok with divorce. If it must happen, it must happen. If people can't work their shit out, then so be it I guess.

If there are kids, hopefully the parents can work out how to raise the kids.

[ingliz]

Under annulment, in theory, the marriage was never valid and the children were thus born out of wedlock

Your 'theory' is wrong.

Under Canon Law, as long as one of them believed the wedding was valid at the time, even if it is shown to be invalid later, the children are legitimate.

A sensible position when it was a marriage contracted in violation of an impediment, condition, or defective consent but in good faith by one or both of the contracting parties.

[wat0n]

No, Your theory is wrong.

Under Canon Law, as long as one of them believed the wedding was valid at the time, even if it was shown to be invalid later, the children are legitimate.

A sensible position when it was a marriage contracted in violation of an impediment, condition, or defective consent but in good faith by one or both of the contracting parties.

It was under Chilean law, at least. Canon law may be different.

[ingliz]

It was under Chilean law

It was not.

Although Chile did not have a divorce law, a surrogate and well-institutionalized means of severing conjugal bonds was an annulment.

In Chile,

A marriage declared null produces the same civil effects as a valid marriage regarding a spouse who acts in good faith or simply in error.

The filiation [legal status] of children that has already been determined will not be altered by the nullity.

[wat0n]

It was not.

Although Chile did not have a divorce law, a surrogate and well-institutionalized means of severing conjugal bonds was an annulment.

In Chile,

A marriage declared null produces the same civil effects as a valid marriage regarding a spouse who acts in good faith or simply in error.

The filiation [legal status] of children that has already been determined will not be altered by the nullity.

What year is the law you're reading from?

As I said, filiation stopped being an issue only in 1998. Before that, from what I can tell, it depends.

From 1952-1998, the filiation of children born in the marriage was not affected unless one of the parents had been previously married. If this was the case, those children were illegitimate.

Before 1952 (under the original civil code of 1855) children born in the annulled marriage became illegitimate as the provision you cited was only introduced in 1952.

(A bastard child, I think, is in a different situation as that means his father's identity is unknown).