Corruption of Blood

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 nov 2005 22:50:26

Attainder results in "Corruption of "Blood" -- as far as the law is
concerned, the family no longer exists. My question to the group is:
does this imply only direct lineal descendants? I have not seen
anything on this subject that makes this crucial distinction clear. It
doesn't make sense that one's cousins (of every degree) should lose
everthing because another cousin was declared an enemy of state.
However, I don't want to assume anything on this subject. Does anyone
know for certain if Corruption of Blood affected only one's lineal
descendants?

One related question: what about the rare case in which the family
patriarch is a clergyman, as was the case in Dr. John Morton, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury. If his attainder corrupted the blood,
did that affect his heirs -- even though, obviously, he could not have
any (legitimate) lineal descendants? Yes, his property could be
forfeited as punishment, depriving them of their inheritance, but could
his brothers, nephews or cousins become corrupted?

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 02 nov 2005 23:28:21

In message of 2 Nov, geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

Attainder results in "Corruption of "Blood" -- as far as the law is
concerned, the family no longer exists. My question to the group is:
does this imply only direct lineal descendants? I have not seen
anything on this subject that makes this crucial distinction clear. It
doesn't make sense that one's cousins (of every degree) should lose
everthing because another cousin was declared an enemy of state.
However, I don't want to assume anything on this subject. Does anyone
know for certain if Corruption of Blood affected only one's lineal
descendants?

As one who has at least one ancestor still under attainder, I have a
taken an interest in this.

First it was a wholly arbitrary process as the final version was an
act of parliament pased with no debate and certainly with no trial and
which could lead to the execution of the poor victim. It was a ghastly
English practice; I have not heard of it in other countries.

What it achieved was the guilt of the attainted person who was then a
non-person and all their estates and belongings reverted to the crown as
with all items where the owners had died out (fundamental to feudalism).

It further meant that any children - and only the children - then had no
parent. Effectively they were illegitimate and like all illegitimates
in those times could inherit nothing.

Usually the act of attainder was repealed some time after the victim's
death. You can see one such supplication and repeal here:

http://www.southfarm.plus.com/Murder/repeal.html

Sometimes the children would not have the attainder repealed but they
would be restored in blook so that some of the old possessions and some
honours could be restored to them. However I am as yet unclear
precisely what this meant and what their resulting status was.

One related question: what about the rare case in which the family
patriarch is a clergyman, as was the case in Dr. John Morton, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury. If his attainder corrupted the blood,
did that affect his heirs -- even though, obviously, he could not have
any (legitimate) lineal descendants? Yes, his property could be
forfeited as punishment, depriving them of their inheritance, but could
his brothers, nephews or cousins become corrupted?

He had no heirs, his property was confiscated - or should have been. But
otherwise his siblings and cousins were not affected, much as their good
reputation might be tainted by this slur on their close relative.

I look forward to corrections and elucidations on this thorny area (for
me).

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

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 03 nov 2005 06:22:01

----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Corruption of Blood


Attainder results in "Corruption of "Blood" -- as far as the law is
concerned, the family no longer exists. My question to the group is:
does this imply only direct lineal descendants? I have not seen
anything on this subject that makes this crucial distinction clear. It
doesn't make sense that one's cousins (of every degree) should lose
everthing because another cousin was declared an enemy of state.
However, I don't want to assume anything on this subject. Does anyone
know for certain if Corruption of Blood affected only one's lineal
descendants?

One related question: what about the rare case in which the family
patriarch is a clergyman, as was the case in Dr. John Morton, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury. If his attainder corrupted the blood,
did that affect his heirs -- even though, obviously, he could not have
any (legitimate) lineal descendants? Yes, his property could be
forfeited as punishment, depriving them of their inheritance, but could
his brothers, nephews or cousins become corrupted?

You are actually dealing with two separate, but very closely related
phenomena, here. Forfeiture is one thing. Yes it affects all of the heirs.
A title or property can be re-granted, but all are automatically forfeit by
the treason.
The corruption of blood affects the inheritance THROUGH the traitor. Ones
children can not inherit ones titles if one is attainted; but ones _kinder_
can, (and have done), inherit the lands and/or titles of the attainder's
spouse.

Ford

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 03 nov 2005 06:27:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Mommaerts-Browne" <FordMommaerts@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: Corruption of Blood


----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Corruption of Blood


Attainder results in "Corruption of "Blood" -- as far as the law is
concerned, the family no longer exists. My question to the group is:
does this imply only direct lineal descendants? I have not seen
anything on this subject that makes this crucial distinction clear. It
doesn't make sense that one's cousins (of every degree) should lose
everthing because another cousin was declared an enemy of state.
However, I don't want to assume anything on this subject. Does anyone
know for certain if Corruption of Blood affected only one's lineal
descendants?

One related question: what about the rare case in which the family
patriarch is a clergyman, as was the case in Dr. John Morton, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury. If his attainder corrupted the blood,
did that affect his heirs -- even though, obviously, he could not have
any (legitimate) lineal descendants? Yes, his property could be
forfeited as punishment, depriving them of their inheritance, but could
his brothers, nephews or cousins become corrupted?

You are actually dealing with two separate, but very closely related
phenomena, here. Forfeiture is one thing. Yes it affects all of the
heirs.
A title or property can be re-granted, but all are automatically forfeit
by
the treason.
The corruption of blood affects the inheritance THROUGH the traitor. Ones
children can not inherit ones titles if one is attainted; but ones
_kinder_
can, (and have done), inherit the lands and/or titles of the attainder's


My spell-checker made this 'attainder's', when I had said to leave it
'attainted's'. Sorry for any confusion.


spouse.

Ford


Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 03 nov 2005 09:50:45

In message of 3 Nov, FordMommaerts@Cox.net ("Ford Mommaerts-Browne") wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: <geraldrm@earthlink.net
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 3:50 PM
Subject: Corruption of Blood


Attainder results in "Corruption of "Blood" -- as far as the law is
concerned, the family no longer exists. My question to the group is:
does this imply only direct lineal descendants? I have not seen
anything on this subject that makes this crucial distinction clear. It
doesn't make sense that one's cousins (of every degree) should lose
everthing because another cousin was declared an enemy of state.
However, I don't want to assume anything on this subject. Does anyone
know for certain if Corruption of Blood affected only one's lineal
descendants?

One related question: what about the rare case in which the family
patriarch is a clergyman, as was the case in Dr. John Morton, the
future Archbishop of Canterbury. If his attainder corrupted the blood,
did that affect his heirs -- even though, obviously, he could not have
any (legitimate) lineal descendants? Yes, his property could be
forfeited as punishment, depriving them of their inheritance, but could
his brothers, nephews or cousins become corrupted?

You are actually dealing with two separate, but very closely related
phenomena, here. Forfeiture is one thing. Yes it affects all of the heirs.
A title or property can be re-granted, but all are automatically forfeit by
the treason.

At what stage does treason come into it? Is treason automatically
decided on by the act of attainder? Or does there have to be a trial
to establish treason?

The corruption of blood affects the inheritance THROUGH the traitor.

I would prefer not to call someone a traitor just because they have
been attainted. Some of the attainders were clearly put up jobs and
false.

One's children can not inherit ones titles if one is attainted; but
ones _kinder_ can, (and have done), inherit the lands and/or titles
of the attainted's spouse.

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

Gjest

Re: Corruption of Blood

Legg inn av Gjest » 03 nov 2005 19:13:35

"Treason never prospers, what's the reason? If it prospers, none dare
call it treason."--Sir John Harington

Obviously treason simply depends on whose in power. Dr. Morton wrote
the attainder of the Duke of York in 1459, then he was attainted when
York's son took the throne, in 1470 the Lancastrians invaded and during
their brief reign attainted their enemies, after which the Yorkists
defeated them and tore up the 1470 attainders (which are, consequently,
lost).

Last night I read a great study of attainder by JR Lander.
Unfortunately it didn't answer my question (whether corruption of blood
affects anyone except one's progeny), but I'm a lot clearer on the
process.

No, there is no trial. Usually by the time there is an attainder the
culprit is in hiding. There are two steps. First the crown declares
the man a traitor using the Great Seal. This is not official until
parliament passes an act of attainder, but almost always (according to
Lander) it simply rubber-stamps it. It sounds as if only the highest
level of peers could expect a trial on charges of treason. No doubt
many innocent people were attainted on hearsay, perhaps motivated by
the envy of enemies.

Yes, I am aware the forfeiture and corruption of blood are two separate
issues. Obviously the forfeiture of Dr. John Morton's entire estate
deprives his family of his any possibility of inheriting whether they
connived with him or not. I am less interested in their right to the
property than in their social status -- did his siblings, nephews and
cousins suffer corruption of blood as a result? (I also checked
Blackstone's law, and it did not address this specific question
either.)

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»