Elaine: This one has always troubled me too but since it's a adjunct line and I couldn't even fry my own fish, I never really dug into it (not to imply that if I had I'd have the answer by now). I also got stuck on that will issue and almost convinced myself that David's having not been mentioned decided the issue. HOWEVER, I ultimatly came to think that the evidence that John and Edward WERE mentioned in the will and David was not.....was something of a non-starter. After all Giles did specifically refer to them as grandsons which seems to SUGGEST to that he might well have intended to omit the father no matter whom the father might have been. And there is no evidence that I have seen that Giles might have been "mad" at either candidate and thus purposefully omitted him from the will. I did however make something out of leaving $25 to John and $100 to Edward even if it only shows Giles was not just giving token "start out in life behests to grandsons" and that he was capable for whatever reason of showing favoritism to one or the other.....so maybe he did the same for sons-in-law. I assume you have tussled with this one also.......good luck. Maynard