Minor addendum to entails
Posted by CM under Legalese on Thu 10 May 2007
ust in case you were curious, there’s one other thing you need to know about entailed property. Remember how I told you that you could suffer a common recovery to break an entail?
One giant exception: Not in Scotland. In Scotland, you were pretty much stuck with an entail.
I haven’t verified Ireland, but I suspect the same is true. Why? For other reasons, completely unrelated, I was trying to figure out what crimes worked a corruption of the blood. (Translation: There are some crimes that were so bad, that you couldn’t pass your property on to your heirs if you were convicted. Treason, most notably. In the US, forfeiture of property by corruption of the blood is basically unconstitutional).
In any event, it turns out that corruption of the blood could be worked by conviction for sodomy. The Second Earl of Castlehaven screwed his male page and was convicted. His heir lost his english title, that of Baron Audley, but held onto the Irish title.
Update to add one thing: Keep in mind that when I use words like “convicted” in connection with felonies, the end result is not something like, “you go to jail for a few years.” It’s the noose. Or the axe. Corruption of blood is very, very bad. It’s like the uber-death penalty. Because not only do you die–and you do–and not only is your head placed on a pike for everyone to spit on–which it might well have been–but your crime not only dishonor s you; it dishonors your entire family to the point that you can’t pass anything on to them.









May 10th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Fascinating. Of all the things these guys could get away with, screwing a page was just too much. Did that happen often, prosecution for sodomy? I mean, it had to be pretty common - did that Earl have a particular enemy looking to get even?
May 10th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Interesting. Now, could the title holder disinherit a son of everything (entailed properties, etc.) for such crimes? Say, in favor of another son? I would think it would be pretty easy to have trumped up cases.
Oh, the plot possibilities for future books are whirling about in my head!
May 10th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Tessa–That Earl did in fact have a particular enemy–it was his wife, and she also claimed that he was an accessory to her rape. At this point, it’s not clear how much of what she said was true. The page was also put to death, incidentally, and he said that she was the wickedest woman ever. It’s also pretty clear that she was exuberantly adulterous.
Sara–a title holder could trump up a case against his son, but what you have to understand is that the property wouldn’t fall to another son–it would return to the state. Corruption of the blood cuts off inheritance altogether. It’s much easier to trump up a lesser case that just has the son suffer the death penalty (because you will NOT suffer corruption of the blood on a non-capital crime) and thus disinherit him.
May 10th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Wow. . . and we thought US laws were koooky!
May 11th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Wow, what a great tidbit. Thanks for sharing!!
May 11th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Sounds like someone is researching a new book! My goodness you are productive!
May 12th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Craziness. Good thing my parents don’t have anything to leave me….
May 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Gosh, it seems everything thing back them was a hanging crime. Blood thirsty lot.
May 12th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Bev: For a very long time, all felonies were punished by death. It was rather gruesome. Reform came very gradually.