Other European legal systems had similar ways of maintaining successions together, particularly in Spain and northern European countries such as Prussia. They are derived from the fideicommissum, a legal institution under Roman law. Unlike most of the English aristocracy, the Prussian Junkers supported the tail of fees and managed to restore it in 1853 after being abolished in a new constitution. In Germany and Austria, the fideikommiss family was not abolished until 1938, and in Scandinavia it existed even later – some old Swedish laws are still in force, although no new ones can be introduced. In particular for German and Austrian law of the Fideicommissa, an 862-page manual by the German jurist Philipp Knipschildt entitled Tractatus de fideicommissis nobilium familiarum – von Stammgüter (De fideicommissis on Google Books) was the reference work. This comprehensive systematization of the existing legal opinion, first published in 1654, was frequently reprinted and consulted until the 19th century. Traditionally, a royalty tail was created by a trust established in a deed, often a marriage agreement, or in a will “to A and the heirs of his body.” The crucial difference between transfer words and words that created a simple royalty (“to A and his heirs”) is that the heirs “in line” must be the children conceived by the landowner. It was also possible to have “male fee tail”, which only sons could inherit, and “female fee tail”, which only daughters could inherit; and “fee tail special,” which had another inheritance requirement that generally limited succession to some “heirs of the body” and excluded others. Countries subject to these conditions were called “involved” or “detained abroad”, with the restrictions themselves being called involvements. In pride and prejudice, the Bennets had only daughters, so inclusion was extended to the closest male relative.

In this case, Mr. Collins (a distant cousin of Mr. Bennet) emerged victorious. In English common law, fee tail or entail is a form of trust established by deed or regulation that restricts the sale or inheritance of real estate and prevents the sale, establishment by will or otherwise sold by the tenant owner, and rather has the effect of automatically transferring it automatically to an heir, which is determined by the certificate of settlement. The term fee tail comes from the medieval Latin feodum talliatum, which means “abbreviated fee (-short)” and contrasts with “simple fee” when there is no such restriction and the owner has absolute title (although subject to the allodial title of the monarch) in the property which he can inherit or otherwise sell as he wishes. Equivalent legal concepts exist or existed in many other European countries and elsewhere. The Tail fairy allowed a patriarch to maintain his lineage, surname, honor and armories[1] in the individuals of a number of powerful and wealthy male descendants. By leaving his estate intact only in the hands of an heir, in an ideally indefinite and predetermined chain of inheritance, his own wealth, power and family honor would not be divided among several male lineages, as was the case, for example, in the Napoleonic France by the application of the Napoleonic Code, which gave each child the legal right to inherit an equal share of the inheritance. where a once large family of landowners could be reduced to a number of small farmers or small farmers in a few generations. It is therefore a question of approaching the real society, which is a legal person or a person who does not die and persists and can hold unlimited wealth. In fact, as a form of trust, although individual trustees may die, substitutes are appointed and the trust itself continues to exist, ideally indefinitely.

In England, almost homogeneous inheritances were made from patriarch to patriarch, whose gentleness was often reinforced by the baptism of the eldest son and heir with his father`s Christian name for several generations, for example, the FitzWarin family, all of whom were called Fulk. Such indefinite inalienable land holdings were soon seen as limiting the optimal productive capacity of the land, which was often converted into deer parks or amusement grounds by wealthy tenants, harming the nation as a whole, and so laws were enacted against eternities that restricted maximum lives. [citation needed] Another consequence was that illegitimate children were not allowed to inherit. This created complications for many owning families, especially from the late 17th to early 19th centuries, leaving many people rich in land but heavily in debt, often due to pensions payable on the estate to the patriarch`s widow and younger children, where the patriarch was influenced by the mood of not establishing a strict concentration of all his wealth in his heir and leave his other beloved parents penniless. Often, in such cases, the grantor`s generosity left the asset in question as an unprofitable business, especially at a time when the fluctuating farm income of the estate had to provide for fixed pension amounts. These impoverished tenants were unable to use any of their land in cash or even offer ownership as collateral for a loan to pay such pensions, unless approved by a private law of parliament authorizing such a sale, which was often resorted to a costly and time-consuming mechanism. The beneficial owner (or lessee) of the property actually had only a lifetime interest in it, although an absolute right to the income he earned, the rightful owners being the trustees of the settlement, the remainder passing intact to the successor or heir in title; Any alleged inheritance of the land by the tenant was ineffective. [Citation needed] Because of the conclusion, Mrs. Bennet was rightly desperate to marry her daughters – and the richer it was, the better. Acceptable employment opportunities for women of their social class were extremely limited, so Bennet women faced misery after Mr.

Bennet`s death. There were only two ways for young women to avoid this fate: parental charity or marriage to a rich man. Maureen B. Collins (2017)[12], a law professor, cites several other authors who discuss the accuracy of Austen`s account of involvement, including Appel (2013)[13], Treitel (1984)[14], Redmond (1989)[15] and Grover (2014). [11] The loan in exchange for obtaining a mortgage on land in the fee zone was risky because his personal property was no longer entitled to the estate or income earned upon the tenant`s death. The absolute right to the income generated by the estate was automatically transferred to the parties who had no legal obligation to the lender and therefore could not enforce the interest payment for the new tenants. The largest estate that an owner could pass on to someone else was an estate for the duration of the grantor`s life. Therefore, if everything went according to plan, it was impossible for the succession of patriarchs to lose the earth, which was the idea. [Citation needed] Nobility, abdication, inheritance and questions of legality reginajeffers.blog/2017/06/30/peerage-abdication-inheritance-and-a-ton-of-questions-of-legality/ Many people confuse the practice of primogeniture (only the eldest son inherits) and the supply of land. They go hand in hand, but in Austen`s time, primogeniture was no longer the “law” of the land, but it was a “custom” deeply rooted in inheritance law.