I am most interested in the Georgian and Regency periods. Could then a son be disinherited by his father, although the child had been born legitimately, with his parents married? (Possible reasons I think of, why the father would want to renounce the child, could be he suspects the child isn't his, or that the child is born incapacitated). Would under these circumstances the child still inherit the title and the estates after his father's death?
2007-03-02 19:03:15 · 4 answers · asked by Adnana 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
No, it would be unlikely that he could. There were elaborate legal devices in force which meant that the family property passed from father to eldest son. This was usually by means of 'entail' whereby the founder of a family dynasty would leave his estate 'to my eldest son and his heirs in tail male' Increasingly, the law made provisions whereby this entail could be broken, but this happened more into the Victorian age and up until 1925 when land law in England and Wales was totally reformed. A father who suspected that a child was not his would be in difficulty as English law has always made the assumption that a child born in wedlock is legitimate and in the days before blood tests and now DNA testing that was almost impossible to refute. There are many examples of 'undesirable' sons inheriting - wastrels who gambled the family money away. ones whose mental capacities were limted or odd, for example.
2007-03-02 22:25:45 · answer #1 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A father always had the right to disown a child, even if it were his own. Even today, a person can be disinherited. Although today's legal system allows for more maneuverability via loopholes and lawyers. There was certainly times when it would have been disadvantageous to allow a disabled or crippled child to inherit. Particularly in cases of the succession of positions of royalty.
Since being disabled, crippled or even frail could be seen by others as a sign of weakness or inferiority.
2007-03-02 19:35:47 · answer #2 · answered by charliecizarny 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not sure about those periods but I know that during the time of say Henry VIII they could pretty much do as they pleased, especially after Henry split with the catholic church and sided with Martin Luther so he could marry Anne Bolyne and forsake his wife, Katherine of Aragon.
2007-03-02 19:13:09 · answer #3 · answered by synchronicity915 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
From the money and possessions, yes, if not entailed, but not from the title.
2007-03-03 03:09:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋