centexhairysub Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 While rjo is correct, there was a legal way that the right of the first born could be put aside, it was rarely used; my understanding is that it wasn't just in case of the mental competency being questioned. With the doctrine of primogeniture, the title and the estate, the actual land that gave the family the title, that was entailed by the title went to the first born son. Technically that is all that was required, however what usually happened was that the vast majority of the total estate went to the first born son. However, there are several examples where a first born son or the closest male relative that was to receive the title had so put off the holder that they left them only the estate that was entailed to them by the title. They could in reality leave the rest of the property and wealth to whomever they wished. When this was done, it usually brought about a dire crisis as often the titled estate alone was not able to generate enough income to keep it going or life a very luxurious lifestyle. While there are more examples of this happening than actually replacing the primary heir, this was rarely undertaken either. To split the estate in this manner, often lead to the whole family being downgraded and this was something no one at this level of society was readily prepared to do. It appears that one of the few reasons to take this drastic step was if there was some question that the person receiving the title or that persons offspring might not be family by blood. Considering this might be a problem that arises with Davina, I could see the Earl and Countess of Bridgemont making the decision that the majority of the estate would pass to an actual blood relative rather than risk someone not of their line getting the lion share of the estate. 2
Canuk Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Changing the succession would be almost unheard of, unless they could prove that Freddie was mentally incompetent. Think about the mentality of that era, where birth was still a pre-eminent parameter. Freddie is the heir by right, not because the Earl chose him to be the heir. It's the same way the Earl acquired the title himself. To suggest that an older son could be displaced for a younger son sounds logical, but in fact in challenges the doctrine of primogeniture, and thus the whole system on which the aristocratic society had been built. Ok that leaves no alternative - kill the bastard!
centexhairysub Posted November 30, 2011 Posted November 30, 2011 Well, just finished the Bridgemont series from the first prolouge to the current chapter in St Vincent; I just think this is the best series on gayauthors... The way that the reader is pulled into the story and the amount of accurate historical detail is just amazing. I can't wait to see what all happens after the battle when Granger returns to London and the real battle begins. Of course, Caroline may have everything sorted out by then but if not George will fix it all when he arrives. 2
Mark Arbour Posted December 8, 2011 Author Posted December 8, 2011 Sorry. The muse has taken me to CAP lately. My time frees up a little bit in a week or so, and I'll try to bring George back to us. 2
Westie Posted December 8, 2011 Posted December 8, 2011 While rjo is correct, there was a legal way that the right of the first born could be put aside, it was rarely used; my understanding is that it wasn't just in case of the mental competency being questioned. With the doctrine of primogeniture, the title and the estate, the actual land that gave the family the title, that was entailed by the title went to the first born son. Technically that is all that was required, however what usually happened was that the vast majority of the total estate went to the first born son. However, there are several examples where a first born son or the closest male relative that was to receive the title had so put off the holder that they left them only the estate that was entailed to them by the title. They could in reality leave the rest of the property and wealth to whomever they wished. When this was done, it usually brought about a dire crisis as often the titled estate alone was not able to generate enough income to keep it going or life a very luxurious lifestyle. While there are more examples of this happening than actually replacing the primary heir, this was rarely undertaken either. To split the estate in this manner, often lead to the whole family being downgraded and this was something no one at this level of society was readily prepared to do. It appears that one of the few reasons to take this drastic step was if there was some question that the person receiving the title or that persons offspring might not be family by blood. Considering this might be a problem that arises with Davina, I could see the Earl and Countess of Bridgemont making the decision that the majority of the estate would pass to an actual blood relative rather than risk someone not of their line getting the lion share of the estate. We need to remember that George's father holds the rank of earl, and depending on when the title was created, he is either an earl of the English Peerage, or an earl of the Peerage of Great Britain. Now, while it is true that a rank of lesser NOBILITY or a DIGNITY can be attached to a piece of land as suggested above, a PEERAGE does not relate to land at all. Peers of the realm (whatever class) are declared by letters patent, and are NEVER attached to estates or parcels of land. This is not always the case within continental europe, but within the English system, and later the British system (followed by the Peerage of the United Kingdom) a peerage was inheritable based solely on the letters patent. MOST of these prescribed Male Preference primogeniture - with some exceptions - which is why the eldest son would inherit. At this time in history, a title was about power and prestige. It so happened that wool was England's biggest export at this time, which meant that many economically powerful people were landowners, and thus why so many people holding large estates were admitted to the peerage. A good example of this (slightly predating this story) was Earl Spencer - of which family the late Diana, Princess of Wales, was a descendant. They made their money as woolen merchants. If we also take the case of the late, and very dear, Lord Faversham - he disinherited his eldest son (he runs several porn studios), and left his vast - and rather delightful - estate to his second son, with a life share to his wife. Regardless, the elder son has still inherited. Titles of Lesser NOBILITY or DIGNITIES, can be linked to land. the most prominent example is "Lord of the Manor". Barons (feudal lords) had titles tied to property, but this practice had largely died out by the end of the Stuart era. Sorry to have missed so many posts..... Ive been somewhat distracted. i will try to get here more often 3
JimCarter Posted December 12, 2011 Posted December 12, 2011 Sorry. The muse has taken me to CAP lately. My time frees up a little bit in a week or so, and I'll try to bring George back to us. I need to add my 2 cents on St. V. I am Jonesing for a new chapter too. I don't enjoy the CAP nearly as much as Granger and his activities. So I personally hate it that you are enjoying writing about the CAP folks so much, but I'll get over it, I'm sure. 1
Mark Arbour Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 I have to follow my muse. Besides, I'm lucky I had the time to write what I did.
Canuk Posted December 15, 2011 Posted December 15, 2011 I have to follow my muse. Besides, I'm lucky I had the time to write what I did. Fully understood, doesn't stop us pyning (pining?) for more of grainger's arse (ass in American - happy to have it either way!!)
Mark Arbour Posted December 16, 2011 Author Posted December 16, 2011 Fully understood, doesn't stop us pyning (pining?) for more of grainger's arse (ass in American - happy to have it either way!!) Thanks, and thanks to all of you for being patient. I'm planning to work on George as soon as I can. Lots of loose ends, and a big friggin' battle to tie up. 1
Westie Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Great chapter it really gives me some closure on a lot of information. I wont be quite so desperate to read the next chapter. Though, as I pointed out in my last post, an Earldom is never linked to land, and so the implication in the Earl's letter that parts of the Bridgemont estate are tied to the title was erroneous. However, such things didn't spoil this picky englishman's enjoyment of a really great story.
Mark Arbour Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 Great chapter it really gives me some closure on a lot of information. I wont be quite so desperate to read the next chapter. Though, as I pointed out in my last post, an Earldom is never linked to land, and so the implication in the Earl's letter that parts of the Bridgemont estate are tied to the title was erroneous. However, such things didn't spoil this picky englishman's enjoyment of a really great story. Now I read your last post and thought I worked that through pretty clearly. Were there not some lands that would have been considered part of the basic estate, and thus governed by the laws of primogeniture? I'm such a confused American. 1
Westie Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 Now I read your last post and thought I worked that through pretty clearly. Were there not some lands that would have been considered part of the basic estate, and thus governed by the laws of primogeniture? I'm such a confused American. No. Land is pretty much always separate when it comes to a peerage. Otherwise it would be possible to sell a title to someone by selling them the land it is linked with. Only lesser dignities are attached to land. Not an earldom. It is also possible to disinherit the eldest son, who would nonetheless inherit the title, but not necessarily the property that goes with it. Some of the confusion in this might be because back in this time, there were such things as land trusts, whereby the land wasn't owned by the individual but by a trust. This type of trust would basically hold land in trust to avoid estate duties/death taxes over centuries, and would ensure that in the event that the title holder left debts rather than fortunes, the creditors could not take the house, lands, artworks etc. These trusts were often created to pass with the title, although the distinction here is that the man would hold the land because he holds the title, and not the title because he holds the lands. This arrangement would actually make sense for the Earl of Bridgemont, as you mention his father left him only debts - a trust holding the core assets of the estate would ensure that the new earl would receive an income and a substantial property portfolio protected from his father's creditors. I have segregated those which are not linked to the title. And now that i think this through, if that one line above were changed to read "title trust" at the end, we are back into the realms of factual accuracy. With my sincere apologies for being so pedantic (I'm guessing that the majority of you would not see/care for any distinction that I have just made). I have done a lot of work relating to English peerage law and title law, and many of you will know of my passion for British History. Sometimes that passion for accuracy overspills - so I'm sorry if I spoiled it for anyone 1
ricky Posted December 21, 2011 Posted December 21, 2011 You've got to be kidding Mark. Spoil it? Not likely. This remains one of, if not THE best series to be found anywhere. Online or in print. Horacio Hornblower be damned. This is simply the best. I confess that I do not dwell on the intricacies of court and the peerage. And for those that do . . . well, get a life. This is fiction woven into history. Get over it and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. For me, this is one of those stories where you almost hate to see the next chapter because you know each one brings you one chapter closer to the end of an incredible adventure. A moment I dread because it means I'll just have to reread this one over and over and hope Mark finds another seafaring tale to be told. I had no idea I would enjoy the sea so much. Thanks Mark.
Mark Arbour Posted December 21, 2011 Author Posted December 21, 2011 No. Land is pretty much always separate when it comes to a peerage. Otherwise it would be possible to sell a title to someone by selling them the land it is linked with. Only lesser dignities are attached to land. Not an earldom. It is also possible to disinherit the eldest son, who would nonetheless inherit the title, but not necessarily the property that goes with it. Some of the confusion in this might be because back in this time, there were such things as land trusts, whereby the land wasn't owned by the individual but by a trust. This type of trust would basically hold land in trust to avoid estate duties/death taxes over centuries, and would ensure that in the event that the title holder left debts rather than fortunes, the creditors could not take the house, lands, artworks etc. These trusts were often created to pass with the title, although the distinction here is that the man would hold the land because he holds the title, and not the title because he holds the lands. This arrangement would actually make sense for the Earl of Bridgemont, as you mention his father left him only debts - a trust holding the core assets of the estate would ensure that the new earl would receive an income and a substantial property portfolio protected from his father's creditors. And now that i think this through, if that one line above were changed to read "title trust" at the end, we are back into the realms of factual accuracy. With my sincere apologies for being so pedantic (I'm guessing that the majority of you would not see/care for any distinction that I have just made). I have done a lot of work relating to English peerage law and title law, and many of you will know of my passion for British History. Sometimes that passion for accuracy overspills - so I'm sorry if I spoiled it for anyone No spoilage at all. I appreciate your comments and feedback. I learn something, and I can be more accurate. I see a title trust in the future for our dear earl. You've got to be kidding Mark. Spoil it? Not likely. This remains one of, if not THE best series to be found anywhere. Online or in print. Horacio Hornblower be damned. This is simply the best. I confess that I do not dwell on the intricacies of court and the peerage. And for those that do . . . well, get a life. This is fiction woven into history. Get over it and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. For me, this is one of those stories where you almost hate to see the next chapter because you know each one brings you one chapter closer to the end of an incredible adventure. A moment I dread because it means I'll just have to reread this one over and over and hope Mark finds another seafaring tale to be told. I had no idea I would enjoy the sea so much. Thanks Mark. Thanks Ricky. I find that with this story, I truly enjoy it, but I tend to write it in fits and starts. It requires dedicated fans to put up with the mercurial nature of the posting!
rjo Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) I found the letter from the Earl to George was wonderful. Long ago when the Earl brought George to the dock for the first time we could feel the love. George may not understand how much the Earl loves his third son. This was not the time parents hugged their kids. Even though the Earl has told George how proud he is of George. George saw it only as doing his duty. It's how George is. He sees the good in others but over looks it in himself, that is what endears us to George. Thanks Mark. It was a great chapter. Edited December 22, 2011 by rjo 1
Mark Arbour Posted December 22, 2011 Author Posted December 22, 2011 I found the letter from the Earl to George was wonderful. Long ago when the Earl brought George to the dock for the first time we could feel the love. George may not understand how much the Earl loves his third son. This was not the time parents hugged their kids. Even though the Earl has told George how proud he is of George. George saw it only as doing his duty. It's how George is. He sees the good in others but over looks it in himself, that is what endears us to George. Thanks Mark. It was a great chapter. I'm glad you liked it! I think we're seeing inside the mind of the earl, and his mind is doing back flips. This thing would definitely have roiled his world. 1
Daddydavek Posted December 22, 2011 Posted December 22, 2011 The Earl has seen the light and is changed. Well, the follow through may be harder than he thinks as Freddy's wife is a scheming evil wench. 2
centexhairysub Posted December 26, 2011 Posted December 26, 2011 I just got back to town and just loved loved loved the latest chapter of St Vincent. The Bridgemont series is for me, the best series on the internet... I just love everything about it. I have re-read it from the start so many times already. I was so touched by the Earl's letter to George. I don't think George has ever understood that the Earl really viewed him as his favorite son, irregardless of his actions. We looking in may have recognized this but even when it was pointed out to him, George never really believed it, at least in my opinion. The letter and George's reaction to it was just heart wrenching. I can see this changing the whole dynamic of how George relates not only to his father but others in the family as well. While I enjoy Sir Kerry, I really want to get Granger and Lord Chartley back together. There was just something that reminded me of Granger and Travers's time together with the two of them. They are more on an even footing and the interplay between the two of them was really fascinating to me. I could really see Chartley replacing everyone else in Granger's life and moving up to the number one slot beside Caroline. I have to wonder if the " Brotherhood " couldn't view Freddie and Davina's behaviour as an attack on a member requiring them to be killed. This would solve so many problems. I have to also wonder if Davina's Major was Jardin either before he was forced out of the country or continiuing correspondence since he left. I find Westie's explanations very enlightening. I am one of those readers that actually enjoys understanding all of the details surrounding the story. Anything that can add to that is a bonus in my mind. I know that the level of detail and historical accuracy make this a harder series to right, but I and those that enjoy it truly treasure each and every chapter that you give us, Mark... Thanks more than you can possibly understand... 1
Mark Arbour Posted December 26, 2011 Author Posted December 26, 2011 Thanks for the feedback! What I've tried to do with this story is to show a maturing George Granger. Hopefully, if you go back to The Gunroom and then fast forward to now, you can see what a huge change we've seen in George. I expect that to be reflected in his relationships. I've been working on the next few chapters, so hopefully I'll have something else out in the near future. My plan is to have this story finished up some time in January. 1
Daddydavek Posted December 27, 2011 Posted December 27, 2011 I've been working on the next few chapters, so hopefully I'll have something else out in the near future. My plan is to have this story finished up some time in January. That you plan to have something else out in the near future is good news. Your plan to have this story finished in January is only good news so long as it is not the end of the Bridgemont series! We've kind of grown fond of George and his daring exploits.
ricky Posted December 27, 2011 Posted December 27, 2011 That you plan to have something else out in the near future is good news. Your plan to have this story finished in January is only good news so long as it is not the end of the Bridgemont series! We've kind of grown fond of George and his daring exploits. That's the sad part. He said it would end with St Vincent.
Mark Arbour Posted December 27, 2011 Author Posted December 27, 2011 That's the sad part. He said it would end with St Vincent. I'm not finished with the series, just the story. The next one is already roughed out in my brain. It's probably going to be called "Mutiny." 2
centexhairysub Posted December 27, 2011 Posted December 27, 2011 I'm not finished with the series, just the story. The next one is already roughed out in my brain. It's probably going to be called "Mutiny." Who in their right mind would mutiny against Granger????? I mean I can see starting a mutiny on a ship to get him to come in and take over but not against him....
Westie Posted December 27, 2011 Posted December 27, 2011 Who in their right mind would mutiny against Granger????? I mean I can see starting a mutiny on a ship to get him to come in and take over but not against him.... Not to pre-judge the next story, but perhaps it refers to granger either leading a mutiny against a corrupt admiral (there is still a wilcox left?), or taking to India or the West Indies, in order to put down a large scale mutiny taking place there.
Recommended Posts