I believe it was possible to break the entail by applying to Parliament. Is this correct and when was entailment abolished in the UK? Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] thirds - the other two > In message <CLEOIFGLEIJMHKEDEPDJAEDPEBAA.woodcom@ihug.co.nz>, Chris > Bartlett <woodcom@ihug.co.nz> writes > >Hello All > > > >An interesting comment as I have an 1860 will where the eldest son > >(Richard) was not mentioned at all in his fathers will and a note > >was found on some old family records saying "Thomas meakin sold > >100 acres in Leicester to spite son Dick" In the following two > >years son Richard was granted administration of two of the family > >who died intestate. I wonder if he divided up the estate of got > >his own back. > > A father could onl;y do so much, even if he hated his son's guts. He > could sell or leave elsewhere freehold land, but he could not touch > entailed land or copyhold land with the consent of his heir. Sometimes > an eldest son is not mentioned in a will BECAUSE he will get the main > estate anyway. It does look odd when the younger ones are left sums of > money or freehold bits, and the eldest (my dear son Fred) is just told > to pay them the money, but this is because he is doing very well indeed > automatically. > Maybe Thomas bought in some freehold, and then sold it again so Dick > didn't get it. But he could not touch the bulk of the estate. And Dick > was automatically administrator to the (unmarried) brothers as next of > kin - nothing could be done about that either. > There is also no way a peer can cut off his heir even if (as with the > present Lord Blandford, the father (Duke of Marlborough) is said to > disapprove of his racketty way of life). So if you have a family story > that John would have been an Earl but he married the cook and his father > disowned him' treat it with the suspicion it deserves. Check the > convict registers closely. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >

In message of 24 Oct, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> wrote: > I believe it was possible to break the entail by applying to > Parliament. Is this correct Parliament has to be Sovereign so indeed yes. > and when was entailment abolished in the UK? In the 1920s when perpetual trusts were abolished as part of a major revision of trusts. The duke of Marlborough had to appeal to this Act when he disconnected his eldest son from succeeding to the estates. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

In message <002501c4b9a0$9f2933c0$2de4fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes >I believe it was possible to break the entail the present owner of the property (i.e., fther, who was life tenant under the entail) had to combine with his eldest son (when over 21) who was heir in remainder, and petition to break an entail. It was sad to see cases where daughters were dispossessed because there was no son (or next male heir) who would agree to this. Pride and Prejudice uses the fact of an entail to show how a family of Bennett daughters is under threat, without thinking it through, since the 'next heir' is a Mr Collins (a sister's son) who would not have taken priority/ Jane Austen knews her social classes and wrote well, but her grasp of law lacked something. -- Eve McLaughlin Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society