Re: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- From: Renia <renia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2008 04:09:02 +0200
WJhonson@xxxxxxx wrote:In a message dated 11/6/2008 5:52:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, qsj5@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Moreover, you even put there in writing your take on whether the putative younger sister would be entitled to a share of the succession to the inheritance, and about how heirs of different sisters could have made pacts about the division/ compensation of rights to the succession... exchanges and trades of various rights and so forth.>>
You're talking about lands, and titles interchangeably when they are not.
The words above, are yours, not mine.
That is to say, the words above are M. Sjostrom's resume of your words.
If you are talking about inheritance, whether real or personal, whether or not it concerns a title, then the law is what governs that inheritance. For the family you are interested in, you need to refer to Scottish Law, not English Law.
If you can find a case, where a titled Scot, gave away his crown-given-title to another person (in the 17th century) *and did not require* the consent of the Crown, please post it.
The Crown is not The Law. And, as you say, a title is not the same thing as the land itself.
So, why should we need an example of a titled Scot giving away his title to another person, for the sake of this part of the discussion?
A reminder that not all European titles follow the English custom. Polish aristocrats, for example, could name whom they wished to succeed their title (but not necessarily their lands).
- Prev by Date: Re: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- Next by Date: Re: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- Previous by thread: Re: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent
- Next by thread: Re: Andrew McInnes' false Graham ascent