[log in to unmask] wrote:

> It is not true that an illegitimate child could not be an heir.

        Oh, dear.  It looks like I may have made the short answers too short!  :)
        You are right in that if such a child was named in a will, they could
indeed inherit whatever it was that the testator wanted to leave        to
them.  If I gave the impression that this was not the case, then I do
apologize.
        However, if there was no will, then the laws of intestatacy and
heirship applied, in which case an illegitimate child had no share.

> After 1785, in a case of no will (intestate) an illegitimate child
> could inherit an equal share if (1) the child had been recognized by the parent
> in some way  as being their child ;

        I have not found that to be true, although this may be more a matter of
differing laws in different jurisdictions.  Mere payment of a bastardy
bond or other type of monies for the support of an illegitimate child
were not viewed as sufficient cause for the legitimization of the
bastard child.
        As far as I know, there were only two ways for an illegitimate child to
become legitimate:  1) the subsequent marriage of the parents and 2)
legal adoption, usually requiring either court or legislative action.
In English law, the second manner was the only way recognized by law
while Roman Church law, and much of the European continent, recognized
the first also.

Renee L. Dauven

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