Paul Drake wrote:

> Nope, I can not, Renee, however, the question posed was not
> as to matters of intestate death.

        The question posed, as I understood it, was whether or not an
illegimate child who was not mentioned in a will could be included or
covered by the phrase "...all my children..."  The answer to that
question is "no".

 > 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?
        I'm not sure I understand the question, Paul.  In what context are you
wanting to prove "who" was a child?  If you mean for purposes of
inheritance in the time period, I would have to say "No".  The actions
of a father in any context short of marrying the mother or adoption were
not sufficient for the court to grant the legal standing of heirship to
the child.
        If you mean do such actions consistitute sufficient evidence for
genealogical purposes, I would whole-heartedly agree.

 > And, do you suggest that
> identified "bastards" could not inherit during the years 1600-1800 ?

        It is my contention that those identified or named as a devisee in a
will could indeed inherit that which the devisor wanted them to inherit.
  However, if they were not named or otherwise identified, they would
have no legal standing in any disbursement of the estate.

Renee L. Dauven

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