A question of inheritance

For those who know more about this then me.

Lets say we have a French lord in the middle ages. He has three sons. He dies and he divides his estate between the three sons. The middle son dies without issue.

Who has the better claim to his land, the eldest brother or the youngest brother?

This may be relevant to a rebooted Clavis Angliae...
emot-ssh.gif
 
Depends on the relationship of the brothers. They may share his inheritance, or the more powerful of the two might simply seize it for himself.
 
Depends on the relationship of the brothers. They may share his inheritance, or the more powerful of the two might simply seize it for himself.

This. There might be some bias to the older brother, but if the inheritance has been divided, then obviously primogeniture doesn't apply.
 
Depends on the relationship of the brothers. They may share his inheritance, or the more powerful of the two might simply seize it for himself.

I figured as much. If there are titles attached to the land, Count, Duke, etc. does it change things?

For example the Father is Count of A, B and C. Eldest is Count of A, middle Count of B, youngest Count of C.
 
I figured as much. If there are titles attached to the land, Count, Duke, etc. does it change things?

For example the Father is Count of A, B and C. Eldest is Count of A, middle Count of B, youngest Count of C.

That would probably be arbitrated by whoever their overlord is.
 
The Angevin brothers and their constant re-arrangements and re-divisions of who got what from their mother and father's inheritance are perhaps the best examples. When Henry the Young King (to whom was assigned England, Normandy, Anjou, Maine, etc) died, I'm not sure how the brothers (Geoffrey of Brittany, Richard of Aquitaine and John Lackland) divided his inheritance between them.

Mind you, their parents were still alive, so mama and papa had a big say.
 
Different context but another interesting example would be the Oldenburgs in Schleswig-Holstein, where three brothers divided incomes between each other. Middle one died childless, so eldest son of first brother and youngest uncle divided his share between them.
 
Scarecrow said:
For those who know more about this then me.

Lets say we have a French lord in the middle ages. He has three sons. He dies and he divides his estate between the three sons. The middle son dies without issue.

Who has the better claim to his land, the eldest brother or the youngest brother?

This may be relevant to a rebooted Clavis Angliae...
emot-ssh.gif

Following the rule of primogeniture, the eldest son would technically have a better claim than the youngest one. The simple reason would be because he is the eldest of the family. So, the eldest brother would have the best claim. But that's only theorical: if the younger brother has a stronger army is closer to the county than the eldest brother, then he could claim it. There might be opposition from the elder brother, but that would be for Justice to decide.

Division of inheritance between claimants wasn't customary in France: a County coudln't be splitted into Baronnies with one going to the eldest and the other to the youngest. A Duchy might have though but I'm not sure of this. The absence of such equal division is one of the reasons France didn't balkanize like the HRE/Germany did. Of course, it the Middle brother happened to be "Count of A & B", I think it was possible to have one brother inherit the title "Count of A" while the other became "Count of B".

A special case could be for Royal Apanages: technically, an apanage should be returned to the crown upon extinction of the bloodline to which it was granted. If you have the French King among the three brothers, then he will probably get the inheritance.
 
I figured as much. If there are titles attached to the land, Count, Duke, etc. does it change things?

For example the Father is Count of A, B and C. Eldest is Count of A, middle Count of B, youngest Count of C.

That would probably be arbitrated by whoever their overlord is.

It's also quite possible that the Lord may have arranged for the younger sons to be vassals of the eldest (depending on whether subenfeudation is still legal). In which case the eldest as senior of the family and overlord would likely inherit.

Following the rule of primogeniture, the eldest son would technically have a better claim than the youngest one. The simple reason would be because he is the eldest of the family. So, the eldest brother would have the best claim. But that's only theorical: if the younger brother has a stronger army is closer to the county than the eldest brother, then he could claim it. There might be opposition from the elder brother, but that would be for Justice to decide.

Division of inheritance between claimants wasn't customary in France: a County coudln't be splitted into Baronnies with one going to the eldest and the other to the youngest. A Duchy might have though but I'm not sure of this. The absence of such equal division is one of the reasons France didn't balkanize like the HRE/Germany did. Of course, it the Middle brother happened to be "Count of A & B", I think it was possible to have one brother inherit the title "Count of A" while the other became "Count of B".

A special case could be for Royal Apanages: technically, an apanage should be returned to the crown upon extinction of the bloodline to which it was granted. If you have the French King among the three brothers, then he will probably get the inheritance.

Would the eldest actually have a claim under primogeniture?
I though inheritance tended to go down the level of agnatic/cognatic seniority rather than up.
In any case IIRC the overlord would arbitrate in any dispute over succession since the lands would be held from his right.
 
For those who know more about this then me.

Lets say we have a French lord in the middle ages. He has three sons. He dies and he divides his estate between the three sons. The middle son dies without issue.

Who has the better claim to his land, the eldest brother or the youngest brother?

This may be relevant to a rebooted Clavis Angliae...
emot-ssh.gif

All depends of the coutume of the lordship of the middle son.
Furthermore, i will suppose, due to the Clavis Angliae TL, you're talking about classical MA.

Let's say it's a french land, the eldest have a better claim while the youngest could pretend nevertheless to rule.
Maybe an arbitrage would be the more peaceful solution, a war the bloodiest. Technically you have all the options between.

If it's a occitan land, you have far more options, critically this one : the sharing, not of the land, but of the profits and gains that the land gave.
The two brother would choose a unic representative for gestion.
It's quite the solution that make Andorra exist today.
 
I know that under primogeniture rules (specifically, late-medieval and modern English rules of noble inheritance), inheritance first goes downstream to the senior surviving descendant of the guy who just died (for example, when the 3rd Duke of Earl dies, the Dukedom passes to the 3rd Duke's senior descendant). If the 3rd Duke has no surviving heirs of his body (i.e. he has no kids or all his descendants predecease him, leaving his branch of the family extinct), then the title reverts to the 2nd Duke of Earl and (since the 2nd Duke is already dead, or there wouldn't be a 3rd Duke) it's immediately inherited by the senior surviving descendant of the 2nd Duke (e.g. the 3rd Duke's younger brother). If the 2nd Duke also has no surviving descendants, the title reverts to the 1st Duke and passes to the 1st Duke's current heir. And if the 1st Duke has no surviving descendants, the title reverts back to whoever created the title and granted it to the 1st Duke (usually the King -- the title "reverts to the Crown").

Extending the same principle to early-medieval divided inheritance: suppose the father (Alfred) was Count of A, B, and C and passed the County of A to the eldest son (Bill), the County of B to the second son (Bob), and the Count of C to the youngest son (Brian). If Bob dies without issue before Bill and Brian, then the County of B reverts to the late Alfred, and then is divided, negotiated over, or fought over by Bill and Brian.

However, if Alfred were Duke of D (comprising the future Counties of A, B, and C) and during his lifetime creates Bill Count of A, Bob Count of B, and Brian Count of C, and on his deathbed leaves the senior title Duke of D to Bill, then when Bob dies the County of B reverts to the Duke of D, since Bob's the first Count of B and has no heirs of his body.

Of course, rules of inheritance were fuzzier in those days. In either case, if Bob named either Bill or Brian, or even someone who wasn't part of the family but who had the confidence of Bob's vassals and retainers, as his heir in default of heirs of his body, then that would probably stick. Likewise, if Bill, or Brian, or the King, or anyone else with a plausible pretext came in with enough military and political support, they'd probably be able to make a claim of their own stick.
 
Thanks Maniakes, that's explained it in a clear fashion. Look like my initial thoughts were right.

I know that under primogeniture rules (specifically, late-medieval and modern English rules of noble inheritance), inheritance first goes downstream to the senior surviving descendant of the guy who just died (for example, when the 3rd Duke of Earl dies, the Dukedom passes to the 3rd Duke's senior descendant). If the 3rd Duke has no surviving heirs of his body (i.e. he has no kids or all his descendants predecease him, leaving his branch of the family extinct), then the title reverts to the 2nd Duke of Earl and (since the 2nd Duke is already dead, or there wouldn't be a 3rd Duke) it's immediately inherited by the senior surviving descendant of the 2nd Duke (e.g. the 3rd Duke's younger brother). If the 2nd Duke also has no surviving descendants, the title reverts to the 1st Duke and passes to the 1st Duke's current heir. And if the 1st Duke has no surviving descendants, the title reverts back to whoever created the title and granted it to the 1st Duke (usually the King -- the title "reverts to the Crown").

Extending the same principle to early-medieval divided inheritance: suppose the father (Alfred) was Count of A, B, and C and passed the County of A to the eldest son (Bill), the County of B to the second son (Bob), and the Count of C to the youngest son (Brian). If Bob dies without issue before Bill and Brian, then the County of B reverts to the late Alfred, and then is divided, negotiated over, or fought over by Bill and Brian.

However, if Alfred were Duke of D (comprising the future Counties of A, B, and C) and during his lifetime creates Bill Count of A, Bob Count of B, and Brian Count of C, and on his deathbed leaves the senior title Duke of D to Bill, then when Bob dies the County of B reverts to the Duke of D, since Bob's the first Count of B and has no heirs of his body.

Of course, rules of inheritance were fuzzier in those days. In either case, if Bob named either Bill or Brian, or even someone who wasn't part of the family but who had the confidence of Bob's vassals and retainers, as his heir in default of heirs of his body, then that would probably stick. Likewise, if Bill, or Brian, or the King, or anyone else with a plausible pretext came in with enough military and political support, they'd probably be able to make a claim of their own stick.
 
Top