From: geraldrm via [gen-medieval@rootsweb.com] Sent: 05 June 2016 23:09 > > I've heard that men were able to take care of their favorite illicitly- begotten children, but how did they do it when the laws gave bastards no rights of inheritance? An interesting case is where Sir Thomas Martin eventually married the children's mother and allotted them their due inheritances, but a kinsman successfully overturned the inheritances in court on the grounds that they were born bastards regardless of the father eventually marrying the mother. > http://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/martin-william > > Are you familiar with cases of bastards inheriting? How did they do it? > ------------------------------- Late medieval English law distinguished between, on the one hand, the person who inherited under the common law rules of descent, who was 'the heir', and, on the other hand, a person who was entitled to property under an entail or by virtue of a provision in a will, who was technically not an 'heir' and did not 'inherit'. Nowadays we loosely use 'heir' and 'inheritance' to describe both sets of circumstances. The late medieval law was quite clear - bastards could not inherit (in the technical sense). If a man died without having taken any special steps ensure that his property went to a bastard then the bastard could not inherit - some more distant relative would be the heir at law and would inherit. But it was also perfectly lawful for a man to make arrangements during his lifetime which would ensure that his bastard offspring inherited (in the loose colloquial sense). For example, he could transfer property to the bastard in his lifetime, or entail it on him, or transfer it to feoffees and then in his will instruct the feoffees to transfer it to the bastard. It seems that Sir Robert Martin took the necessary steps before his death to ensure that at least some of his lands should go to his three bastard sons, and it is difficult to understand how his heir at law John Gouitz was nevertheless able to inherit. I suspect the answer is that Gouvitz somehow managed to pervert the course of justice, perhaps by bribery or intimidation of officials or jurors or the influence of powerful friends - all common features of inheritance disputes in this period. Three lawsuits between two of Sir Robert Martin's sons and Gouvitz (footnoted by that HoP biography) can be found here: http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1502/aJUST1no1502fronts/IMG_2528.htm http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT4/JUST1/JUST1no1519/bJUST1no1519dorses/IMG_6546.htm In the first two Robert Martin fils successfully brings assizes of novel disseisin against Gouvitz and his own brother William concerning two landholdings in Westwood and Winterbourne Martin in Dorset - surprisingly the jury declares him to be his father's the next heir and he recovers the properties (not technically correct, as the common law did not accept that subsequent marriage could retrospectively legitimise previously born bastard children). In the third one, an assize of novel disseisin brought by Gouvitz against Richard Martyn for the manor of Brown in Somerset, Richard alleges that the jury has been packed with Gouvitz's supporters by a corrupt sheriff's deputy and successfully applies for it to be discharged and a new one arraigned (the ultimate outcome is not known). Matt Tompkins