Talk:Gavelkind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Kent WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Kent in South East England. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | ||
|
Article Grading: WikiProject Kent tasks:
|
|||
[edit] definition
Could somebody add a short definition of what Gavelkind actually is? Having read the article I have no clue what it is or how it works, other than that it is a "peculiar system of land tenure".--216.154.205.203 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- seconded. This really needs to be translated from (what I presume are) Old English terms. --Anoma lee 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. And a statement as to its contemporary relevance would not go amiss either. 82.10.108.49 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
"This really needs to be translated from (what I presume are) Old English terms" You should look up Old English to see what it means : the Anglo-Saxon language from about 1000 years ago. What we have in this article is Modern English, and it is generally perfectly comprehensible to anyone who is reasonably literate in English. Granted, there is some unusual jargon, but if you want to learn about the details of obscure legal customs, it's probably necessary to learn a few new words. 156.34.47.123 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A Big WTF
The grammar is archaic and the writing is legalistic and not descriptive to the point of being useless as a reference.
1. A tenant can alienate his lands by feoffment at fifteen years of age."
Wow, I'm glad we got that 15 years of age in there! Or is this in comparison to some other system where the age requirement is different.
2. There is no escheat on attainder for felony, or as it is expressed in the old rhyme, The father to the bough/The son to the plough."
Apparently, they meant something along the lines of
(Unlike in other systems) if the tenant commits a crime he does _not_ lose his tenancy of the land. Note my sentence uses only the term tenant/tenancy. In a modern wiki we can go on to list all the technical terms if we want to just so we can link to them.
3. Generally the tenant could always dispose of his lands by will.
OMG, that one is nearly readable. "In his will" maybe? Need we talk legally all the time? But then is this even a "peculiar" attribute.
4. In case of intestacy the estate descends not to the eldest son but to all the sons (or, in the case of deceased sons, their representatives) in equal shares.
Oh, here's the definition; it's Collective inheritance instead of simply to the eldest son. This ought to be near the top as an important distinction. But no, the article seems to take it from some law embedding in the 4th position.
" ... are postponed to males,"
Okay, call me when she gets in, but I really don't know what time males is :-)
"... by representation they may inherit together with them."
Maybe, just maybe, some linking might help define these terms, but I'm thinking it's helpless.
5. A wife is dowable of one-half, instead of one-third of the land."
Instead? 'Instead of 1/3 as found in other parts of England/British Isles/Europe or Timbuktu?' What are we comparing to that has not been stated?
6. A widower may be tenant by courtesy, without having had any issue, of one-half,
I don't have any issues I hope she doesn't :-)
A "childess widower" maybe, but since we're talking about a women, is it not properly widow?
"An act for commuting manorial rights in respect of lands of copyhold and customary tenure contained a clause ....
All acts ... contained? Any act? Some particular act?
This whole constellation of articles are near to meaningless as 21st century encyclopedia material! Without some work to link and maybe re-state. Maybe quote the original and provide a summary/overview/translation. Otherwise, it is just humor reading.
[edit] ireland
The section "Gavelkind in Ireland" has a link which brings to another article that is a Stub. I don't think that's useful, if the page it's only a stub. Or, at least there should be a summary in the section ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.68.4 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
