Nope, I can not, Renee, however, the question posed was not as to matters of intestate death.  If it had been so, my view would be very different.  Still, though, were there a question properly posed as to WHO all the children of a intestate decedent were, I believe that evidence offered by way of words spoken and actions taken by the alleged father would be admissible in proving "who" all were in that category.  Would you agree there?  And, do you suggest that identified "bastards" could not inherit during the years 1600-1800 ?    Thanks.  Paul           
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Renee Dauven 

  ....Perhaps I misunderstood the question.  I thought that we were talking 
  about the law and customs in the 1700's and not the law and customs of 
  today.  Certainly in most jurisdictions today that would probably be the 
  case.
  However, it wasn't the case then.  Then the phrase would have been 
  interpreted to mean "legally begotten" children which was accomplished 
  in only one of two ways:  by birth within marriage or by legal adoption.
  The following source is very general but it might be helpful.
  ....
  Paul, can you illustrate a case in which an alleviate child was 
  granted legal standing as an heir in an intestate estate probate?

  Renee L. Dauven







To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html