male inheritance

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2005 19:04:07

I hope someone can explain something to me. I've been doing some
genealogical research and am curious why a line would allow its name to
"daughter out" when the estate could be passed to a cousin's line that
that had a male heir of the same name.

For example, when there is one male heir and a bunch of females, the
girls get little more than their dowry and the male heir gets the
estate. If carrying on the family name was so important to them that
they treated the women as insignificant, why would the family make them
heirs when no son was available EVEN IF A MALE COUSIN was available?
This seems to me contradictory. Does this seem contradictory to anyone
else?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 07 apr 2005 20:21:18

In message of 7 Apr, geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

I hope someone can explain something to me. I've been doing some
genealogical research and am curious why a line would allow its name to
"daughter out" when the estate could be passed to a cousin's line that
that had a male heir of the same name.

In early, at least, medieval times, the estates was not theirs to pass.
All estates were held of the king and it was his decision what was to
happen to it when the present tenant died.

Certainly in early feudal times, these splittings of holdings prevented
any family from becoming too powerful. The conquerors could not allow
anyone else to become a competitor. Divide and rule is an old and
valuable maxim.

Much later on, there were a few sole heiress families and this lead to
some massive aggregations of power to the hands of a few. The major
example of this was the Nevilles who accumulated two large earldoms in
one man and at least four amongst the family. The Nevilles became too
powerful and history christened the last of them as "The Kingmaker".

After that experience, the sovereigns decided that holdings could only
be inherited in the male line thus preventing such a massive aggregation
of power.

For example, when there is one male heir and a bunch of females, the
girls get little more than their dowry and the male heir gets the
estate.

By and large the sisters were no different in their endowments to the
younger brothers. And I am fairly certain that such alienation of land
had to receive the sovereign's approval. Remember the sovereign also
wanted to have a clearly defined power structure of people who ruled
their patches under his authority. If the patches were completely split
up, the various holders would not be able to afford to do what was
expected of them.. For this reason gavelkind, equal division of estates
between all children, was stopped because it meant that none had the
resources to become knights.

If carrying on the family name was so important to them that they
treated the women as insignificant, why would the family make them
heirs when no son was available EVEN IF A MALE COUSIN was available?

The family did not make them heirs, the sovereign did. Later on, when
feudalism was abolished, it was very evident that entails were set up
by the males that confined succession to male lines only.

The other thing to remember is that people did not, in early medieval
times, have the same firm attraction to names that later centuries had.
Surnames were not fixed and they regularly changed. Among the general
populace surnames were not even practiced until 1500 or so and in Wales
not even until the middle nineteenth century (this may be part of the
reason why neither half of my surname is traceable much before 1500).

This seems to me contradictory. Does this seem contradictory to anyone
else?

Not if you look at what the sovereigns were trying to achieve.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 07 apr 2005 22:23:54

I see my question was too abstract. Let me try some more concrete
details.

The family I am researching was upper gentry, very large with many
branches, and extremely proud of the name. They flourished at least 4
centuries. I have been reading their 15th and 16th centuries Wills and
am curious about why they were not consistent regarding female
inheritance. Sometimes when a line daughtered out, her husband got
everything as if he was the male heir. But in other cases the Will
directs that the estate go to a male cousin if the line daughters out.
I have not been able to discern a pattern, but it does seem
inconsistent.

I hope this makes my question clearer.

Faye Parker

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Faye Parker » 07 apr 2005 23:01:01

Some lines are Patriarchal, some matriarchal. I have heard of one where your sister's son is your successor



"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
by Lazarus Long

proud member of the IBSSG

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals

Renia

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Renia » 07 apr 2005 23:31:08

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

I see my question was too abstract. Let me try some more concrete
details.

The family I am researching was upper gentry, very large with many
branches, and extremely proud of the name. They flourished at least 4
centuries. I have been reading their 15th and 16th centuries Wills and
am curious about why they were not consistent regarding female
inheritance. Sometimes when a line daughtered out, her husband got
everything as if he was the male heir. But in other cases the Will
directs that the estate go to a male cousin if the line daughters out.
I have not been able to discern a pattern, but it does seem
inconsistent.

I hope this makes my question clearer.


It possibly has something to do with from whom the lands descended from,
whether the maternal line or the paternal line. If some of the estate
came from a wife's dowry, then that would go to the children, daughters
or no. If it was a longer-held estate, then it might bypass the children
and go to cousins, that is, descendants of the original grantee.

Renia

Leo van de Pas

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 07 apr 2005 23:41:02

Dear Gerald,
I can only think that each Will stands on its own. Each situation may have
needed a different solution. I doubt there was a pattern followed by each
person who wrote a will.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: male inheritance


I see my question was too abstract. Let me try some more concrete
details.

The family I am researching was upper gentry, very large with many
branches, and extremely proud of the name. They flourished at least 4
centuries. I have been reading their 15th and 16th centuries Wills and
am curious about why they were not consistent regarding female
inheritance. Sometimes when a line daughtered out, her husband got
everything as if he was the male heir. But in other cases the Will
directs that the estate go to a male cousin if the line daughters out.
I have not been able to discern a pattern, but it does seem
inconsistent.

I hope this makes my question clearer.


Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2005 00:22:34

Renia, that would answer one of my instances! One of the branches I
was puzzled about, for letting the estate daughter out, did indeed get
most of its estate from a major inheritance through a female. (A
lawyer married the daughter of his partner.) In his cousins' Wills,
they always made provision for their estates to go to this line if
their male heirs died out, so I was wondering why he didn't do
likewise. But your answer would explain it -- most of his estate
descended from a female in the first place. Thank you Renia, you gave
me a lot to think about.

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2005 09:09:15

The family I am researching was upper gentry, very large with many
branches, and extremely proud of the name. They flourished at least 4
centuries. I have been reading their 15th and 16th centuries Wills and

am curious about why they were not consistent regarding female
inheritance. Sometimes when a line daughtered out, her husband got
everything as if he was the male heir. But in other cases the Will
directs that the estate go to a male cousin if the line daughters out.
I have not been able to discern a pattern, but it does seem
inconsistent


An example from one of my lines, the Dudley's:

The line of the Viscount Lisle's died out with Thomas Talbot in 1470,
was inherited by his sister Elizabeth's husband Edward Grey. Their son
John Grey in turn inherited the title, he died in 1505 leaving only a
daughter Elizabeth who died in 1519 unmarried. The title was then
inherited by her aunt Elizabeth Grey, who had been married 1st to
Edmund Dudley, then to Arthur Plantagenet (bastard of Edward IV).
After Arthur's deach in 1541 I think, the Lisle title went to his
step-son John Dudley, future Duke of Northumberland.

Yes, it was not consistant, sometimes the title had to be re-created
for the daughter.

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2005 10:40:02

In a message dated 08/04/05 09:12:56 GMT Daylight Time, jonky@aol.com writes:

Yes, it was not consistant, sometimes the title had to be re-created
for the daughter.



Religion also played its part. In the late 17th my family 'lost' their lands
and inheritance due to the religious turmoil of the time. The line
daughtered out and the estates were claimed by the last daughter's husband -10 years
after she had died! After litigation her husband won purely because of the
religious turmoil of the time. The estates should have reverted back to the her
father's brother but because he was a Catholic he could not inherit. So,
that he could inherit he then changed his religion to Protestant but then James
the 2nd came to the throne and now he was denied his inheritance because he
was a 'heretic'. He just could not win either way and in the end he lost his
own inheritance and had to sell a good estate of his wife's to pay for the
Chancery case, which he lost.

He was later described as 'living in genteel povity in Lichfield' .

Rose


Rose

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2005 18:23:46

Rose's response relates to another branch of the family I'm working on.
(They were huge.) Generally, their collateral lines were strong, only
slightly less prestigious than the patriarchal line. But one line that
was begun in the early 16th century by a younger brother of a patriarch
was impoverished from day one and stayed that way even though,
numerically, they flourished in many branches of their own for
centuries. The founder of the line moved to Bosworth, Leicestershire,
where no branch of the family had ever held property. This branch does
not even appear on the family's own family trees, except for one
constructed c.1730 by a member of the branch.

I have been able to find nothing out about the earliest members of the
branch, but in later generations the family was full of protestant
rectors, one who is thought to have been nonconformist and one who was
a leading nonconformist. I can't prove it, but my instinct is that the
whole line was begun by a lollard who was promptly disinherited and the
whole branch became non-existant to the rest of the family. A few
generations after this line branched off from the patriarchal main
line, several members from the ongoing main line became Puritans and
ended up in Plymouth colony. They too would have been disinherited.

The main line from which these nonconformist lines split were firm
Catholics. In the late 16th Century three members had to live in exile
for insurrection and a fourth was executed.





Maytree4@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 08/04/05 09:12:56 GMT Daylight Time, jonky@aol.com
writes:

Yes, it was not consistant, sometimes the title had to be
re-created
for the daughter.



Religion also played its part. In the late 17th my family 'lost'
their lands
and inheritance due to the religious turmoil of the time. The line
daughtered out and the estates were claimed by the last daughter's
husband -10 years
after she had died! After litigation her husband won purely because
of the
religious turmoil of the time. The estates should have reverted back
to the her
father's brother but because he was a Catholic he could not inherit.
So,
that he could inherit he then changed his religion to Protestant but
then James
the 2nd came to the throne and now he was denied his inheritance
because he
was a 'heretic'. He just could not win either way and in the end he
lost his
own inheritance and had to sell a good estate of his wife's to pay
for the
Chancery case, which he lost.

He was later described as 'living in genteel povity in Lichfield' .

Rose


Rose

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 apr 2005 21:50:40

Gerald, if your family is in England...

Property, land (which an American calls "real property), could not be
left by will until after Henry VIII got rid of the monasteries and
handed out all the land formerly held by churches to his favorites. It
automatically went to the nearest heir, who was the eldest son. If a
property owner had no sons, the property was split evenly among his
daughters. The daughters owned it, not their husbands -- although the
husbands usually controlled it. When the daughter died, her share
passed to her eldest son. If a property owner had no legitimate
children, the property would go to his brother (or his sisters), or his
uncle or his cousin.

Titles are mostly provided by paperwork that says how a title should
pass on. Very early, there was no paperwork, and the titles were
assumed to go to the nearest heir. When paperwork began, a title would
be granted to a man and (usually) "the heirs of his body," meaning his
direct descendants. Later, it was often "the heirs male of his body,"
meaning his sons and their sons -- nothing to a female, or by way of a
female. And shortly after that, about 1400, it was decided that "heirs
of his body" really meant "heirs male of his body."

There is a difference between "male heir" and "heir male." Land and
property are not tied to each other in England, and are treated
differently.

Did you say 1700s? Try reading Sir Edward Coke's books of law, written
in the 1620s (which change things greatly from the discussion above),
followed by Sir William Blackstone, from the late 1780s. The
originals, not later interpretations.

Cece

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2005 07:32:01

Yes John Dudley, later Duke of Northumberland
was created Viscount Lisle 12 Mar 1542

The following year in 1543 he was created Lord High Admiral by the way

Will Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: jonky@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: 8 Apr 2005 01:09:15 -0700
Subject: Re: male inheritance


The family I am researching was upper gentry, very large with many
branches, and extremely proud of the name. They flourished at least 4
centuries. I have been reading their 15th and 16th centuries Wills and

am curious about why they were not consistent regarding female
inheritance. Sometimes when a line daughtered out, her husband got
everything as if he was the male heir. But in other cases the Will
directs that the estate go to a male cousin if the line daughters out.
I have not been able to discern a pattern, but it does seem
inconsistent


An example from one of my lines, the Dudley's:

The line of the Viscount Lisle's died out with Thomas Talbot in 1470,
was inherited by his sister Elizabeth's husband Edward Grey. Their son
John Grey in turn inherited the title, he died in 1505 leaving only a
daughter Elizabeth who died in 1519 unmarried. The title was then
inherited by her aunt Elizabeth Grey, who had been married 1st to
Edmund Dudley, then to Arthur Plantagenet (bastard of Edward IV).
After Arthur's deach in 1541 I think, the Lisle title went to his
step-son John Dudley, future Duke of Northumberland.

Yes, it was not consistant, sometimes the title had to be re-created
for the daughter.

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2005 18:31:47

Cece's contribution was extremely helpful and thought provoking.

It brings up another question about consistency. Why is it that males
of one's body are subject to primogeniture, but females split the
estate equally?

Gjest

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 apr 2005 19:40:58

geral...@earthlink.net wrote:
Cece's contribution was extremely helpful and thought provoking.

It brings up another question about consistency. Why is it that
males
of one's body are subject to primogeniture, but females split the
estate equally?

I have no idea. But that's the way it was, at least as far back as
Henry II, when Glanvill wrote down what he knew of English property
law. And that's the way it stayed, for centuries, until Parliament
changed things.

An example for you: the first Duke of Lancaster, second cousin of
Edward III. He had a number of earldoms too, and many pieces of
property. He had no son, only two daughters. When he died, his
daughters inherited his property, and the earldoms that were of the old
style -- "heirs of his body." They worked out that each would take
certain pieces of property (rather than splitting each individual piece
in two), and that each would take 3 of the 6 earldoms (or was it 2 of
the 4?). The dukedom paperwork said nothing about the title going to
an heir -- which made it what we now call a lifetime peerage, so it
died with him.

The elder daughter, who had married a foreigner, came back to England
to formalize the split, and died (of smallpox?) before she could start
back. The younger daughter inherited everything from her. However,
Edward III being the way he was, he figured all those titles were gone
and bestowed them all on his second (surviving) son, her husband. And
then he went one better, giving that son the title of Duke of
Lancaster. Granted, Blanche and John already had a healthy son, so it
was pretty certain that the true heir's heir would wind up with the
lot, and (as they had had a child who'd been born alive) John would
have a right to live on the lands as long as he lived -- but still!

Now, property can be given, by a living person to a living person, but
it could not be left by will. Only personalty (what an American calls
personal property) could be left by will. And not all of either one
could be left away from the heir. A married woman owned no personal
property; her husband owned her clothes and jewels. A widow got a life
interest in a third of her husband's property (or less, if arrangements
had been made) and a third of his personalty. Another third of the
personalty went to the heir, and only a third of it could be left by
will.

Cece

Stanford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: male inheritance

Legg inn av Stanford Mommaerts-Browne » 10 apr 2005 03:51:01

----- Original Message -----
From: <ceceliaarmstrong@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2005 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: male inheritance


geral...@earthlink.net wrote:
Cece's contribution was extremely helpful and thought provoking.

It brings up another question about consistency. Why is it that
males
of one's body are subject to primogeniture, but females split the
estate equally?


For the reason stated earlier. To prevent one 'heir-in-law' from inheriting
too much, and becoming too powerful.


<snip>

An example for you: the first Duke of Lancaster, second cousin of
Edward III. He had a number of earldoms too, and many pieces of
property. He had no son, only two daughters. When he died, his
daughters inherited his property, and the earldoms that were of the old
style -- "heirs of his body." They worked out that each would take
certain pieces of property (rather than splitting each individual piece
in two), and that each would take 3 of the 6 earldoms (or was it 2 of
the 4?).

A Barony was consindered 'real property', and was inheritable as such. An
Earldom was considered an office, and, therefore, indivisible.

The dukedom paperwork said nothing about the title going to
an heir -- which made it what we now call a lifetime peerage, so it
died with him.


<snip>


Blanche and John already had a healthy son, so it
was pretty certain that the true heir's

actually, the correct descriptor should be 'heir eventual'.

heir would wind up with the
lot

<snippity, snip, snip>

Cece

Gjest

Re: Male inheritance

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 apr 2005 20:20:03

Hi,

In discussing this line and its followups such as direct and collateral
descent, the rules of genetics have not really been bought into the discussion.
You are of direct descent if you are the male (female too) offspring of a man
and a woman. One half of your genes come from your father, the other half
from your mother. A sibling will also have one half of their genes from mother
and one half from the father. But look, there is no link whatsoever between
your genes and his. As a result, that sibling may have exactly the same batch
of genes that you have -- or it may have no genes the same as yours. It is
merely a matter of chance. In reality, the two siblings will have some, but
not all, of the same genes. Most of them will have approximately half of its
genes the same as yours, while the other half comes from the parents' other
half that you did not get.

When seen in this way, direct descent means simply the genes that you have,
half of which go to each of your offspring. Collateral descent implies that
related lines share some genes in common from the common ancestor, ranging
from a little to a lot in number. It is, however, shared descent.

Let me carry this on with some concepts of anthropology. In our culture,
our terms of kinship distinguish between brothers and sisters, children of our
parents, and cousins, children of our parents' siblings. Let me point out
that there are cultures in which everyone from my generation related to me is a
brother or sister, everyone related to me in my parents' generation is a mother
or father. They do not recognize cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. They only
believe in direct descent, but in a way very different from ours!

Then there are cultures that distinguish between maternal cousins and
paternal cousins. They recognize two different kinds of collateral descent.

And the ones that only recognize descent from fathers but not mothers. And
the ones who are only related to people on their mother's side of their
family, but not the father's. In this descent, called a matrilineage, one has a
father from whom one inherits -- he is the brother of one's mother. In addition,
the man who fathered you is the social father, generally a nice guy to have
fun with. He is the source of the direct descent of his sister's children.
This was bought up in the discussion. I suppose we could call this one half
direct descent?

All this leads me to suggest that we must recognize that our means of descent
are not the only ones, and that we must recognize those of other cultures as
well. A standard tree diagram for another culture may completely ignore the
most important parts of the lineage of descent. While we are interested in
the systems of Medieval and Colonial Europe in most of modern genealogy, if it
goes into some other parts of the world, it will have to be redone to meet
their needs.

Regards,
Charlie McNett

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»