The recent controversy following the jaipur adoption has thrown up the question of the different succession laws which are followed and also which should we recognize. Different states follow different laws. The first Succession/adoption law is the aryan law followed by the Rajput states which states -- " You cannot adopt anyone whose mother you cannot marry" . This leaves out adoption from any female side of the family . Only children of male relatives could be adopted. This was not done in Jaipur case. The second is the dravidian law which is exact opposite . It states that your adopted son must be preferably your own progeny. This was universally followed in all maratha states . Most adoption were of either sister's or daughter's children including the current kolhapur one. So debate continues over validity of jaipur succession. Which law shall we recognize? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/

At 05:32 AM 24/01/04 -0800, you wrote: > The recent controversy following the jaipur adoption >has thrown up the question of the different succession >laws which are followed and also which should we >recognize. Different states follow different laws. >     The first Succession/adoption law is the aryan >law followed by the Rajput states which states -- >" You cannot adopt anyone whose mother you cannot >marry" . This leaves out adoption from any female side >of the family . Only children of male relatives could >be adopted. This was not done in Jaipur case. >      The second is the dravidian law which is exact >opposite . It states that your adopted son must be >preferably your own progeny. This was universally >followed in all maratha states . Most adoption were of >either sister's or daughter's children including the >current kolhapur one. >      So debate continues over validity of jaipur >succession. Which law shall we recognize? > There's still another rule or law that applies. Namely the fact that the ruler can make his own laws. Which is exactly what the M of J has done. He has given his son-in-law the title of Maharaj and has adopted his maternal grandson, flagrantly ignoring a thousand years of tradition. From a genealogical point of view I don't mind since the grandson is from the same sept as new grandfather, but its still disappointing to see. The son of Maharaj Mahendra Sinhji of Udaipur would have been a more appropriate choice IMHO. Cheers, Henry

Hello, I agree to your point of view. Y.S. Jaideepsinh of Kotharia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry Soszynski" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 1:34 PM Subject: Re: [INDIA-ROYALTY] Laws of Succession and adoption > At 05:32 AM 24/01/04 -0800, you wrote: > > The recent controversy following the jaipur adoption > >has thrown up the question of the different succession > >laws which are followed and also which should we > >recognize. Different states follow different laws. > > The first Succession/adoption law is the aryan > >law followed by the Rajput states which states -- > >" You cannot adopt anyone whose mother you cannot > >marry" . This leaves out adoption from any female side > >of the family . Only children of male relatives could > >be adopted. This was not done in Jaipur case. > > The second is the dravidian law which is exact > >opposite . It states that your adopted son must be > >preferably your own progeny. This was universally > >followed in all maratha states . Most adoption were of > >either sister's or daughter's children including the > >current kolhapur one. > > So debate continues over validity of jaipur > >succession. Which law shall we recognize? > > > There's still another rule or law that applies. Namely the fact that the ruler > can make his own laws. Which is exactly what the M of J has done. He has given > his son-in-law the title of Maharaj and has adopted his maternal grandson, > flagrantly ignoring a thousand years of tradition. From a genealogical > point of > view I don't mind since the grandson is from the same sept as new grandfather, > but its still disappointing to see. The son of Maharaj Mahendra Sinhji of > Udaipur would have been a more appropriate choice IMHO. > Cheers, > Henry > > > ============================== > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more. > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237 > >

> There's still another rule or law that applies. > Namely the fact that the ruler > can make his own laws. Which is exactly what the M > of J has done. He has given > his son-in-law the title of Maharaj and has adopted > his maternal grandson, > flagrantly ignoring a thousand years of tradition. > From a genealogical > point of > view I don't mind since the grandson is from the > same sept as new grandfather, > but its still disappointing to see. The son of > Maharaj Mahendra Sinhji of > Udaipur would have been a more appropriate choice > IMHO. > Cheers, > Henry > /// How does son of mahendra singh of mewar come into the picture? __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it! http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/