I've read this discussion straight through at one sitting. Like most legal questions, it's important that you stay in the right boxes. For that reason, I like Paul's careful distinction between testate (with a will) and intestate (without one). Without a will, it makes sense that, regardless of whether there was a strict legal (as opposed to equitable) bar, that illegitimate children would not inherit. There would simply be nothing from which to infer such an intent. On the other hand, a testator, again as Paul stated, has a right to name anyone as a beneficiary (subject to "policy" rules designed to protect a spouse or conventional children from being entirely cut out). So if the testator said "I bequeath my black horse and rifle to John Jones, my illegitimate son," I have no doubt but that the bequest would be honored. In that sense, it is not true that an Illegitimate child "could not" inherit. I have examples in my own line where illegitimate children were named (though not otherwise described) and appear to have peacefully taken their bequests. Certainly a will would not be "invalid" merely on that ground. But the original question appears to have posed, not a question of legal capacity to inherit, but rather a question of interpretation,i.e. would have an illegitimate child have been routinely viewed as included within in the phrase "all of my children." I suspect that in the 18th century that issue of interpretation, without more, would probably have been answered in the negative. It may have been, as Paul infers, that an illegitimate child would have had an equitable claim (with evidence of acknowledgment) that would lie in a chancery court; but the discussion so far seems not to have given a definite answer on that question. I agree with the others that this is an entertaining and useful discussion. Jack Fallin To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html