GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-04 > 0986680740


From: (Nat Taylor)
Subject: Re: Tr: Tomlinson, Elizabeth PART I
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 17:59:00 -0400
References: <01c0bdbf$de6c0c00$LocalHost@fti/62hzcyc>, <bde875674a.tim@southfrm.demon.co.uk>


In article <>,
wrote:

>In message <01c0bdbf$de6c0c00$/62hzcyc>
> (Annie Natalelli-Waloszek) wrote:
>
>>
>> Also, can you cite to me the law stating that neither illegitimate
>> children nor their children, can inherit? the detail might suffice to
>> convince me, after all...
>
>In those days I do not think there was much statute law, it was mostly
>common law and I believe that common law was the sum of the judgements
>made in various courts.
>
>Anyhow there was a very similar case in the Lybbe family at that
>time whereby an eldest son was born out of wedlock and he was denied the
>estate which went to his younger brother by about 10 years.

It's not that an illegitimate child couldn't inherit (under a will, or
whatever). It's that the 'administrator' appointed by the probate court
in case of a dispute must be an eligible heir that the law would turn to
as in an intestacy. Since an illegitimate descendant could not inherit
*except* by will or donation inter vivos, the Bagley administrator could
not be an illegitimate grandson. This supports the obviously preferred
reading of 'nepos ex matre' and makes the other *theoretically possible*
meaning (grandson via the mother) *impossible* here.

Nat Taylor

This thread: