European Tribune

Display:
There were also financial reasons. Property laws meant that property was passed on to offspring.

If there were no offspring, the Church could claim a priest's estate after his death.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Apr 21st, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've heard it said that the tradition within the British aristocracy used to be the first son to inherit, the second to the army, the third to the church.  Though, obviously, Church of England priests may marry, I can't help but wonder if the origin of this is the sort of ploy that reduces threats to the succession of the firstborn.

Offloading excess sons into the church was also a useful ploy in those countries where primogeniture (inheritance by the firstborn son) wasn't the cultural norm.  Assuming shared inheritance, a family's power and wealth is much easier to transmit down the generations if you can shift some of the potential inheritors into celibacy and avowed (if not necessarily practised) poverty.  Daughters might be treated the same way to avoid dowry payments.

by Sassafras on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 at 02:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In Britain primogeniture wasn't just a cultural norm, it was the law. You also had entailment to help prevent property leaving the family. Army commissions were an expensive proposition while parishes tended to be in the de facto or de jure disposition of local landowners, along with the income that came with them. Both systems, along with the legal and civil service professions (the other two acceptable careers for noble and gentry sons) provided income and preserved control over the levers of power in the hands of the landed classes. To further help things the British elites routinely incorporated especially successful commoners - not just by ennobling, but by giving or requiring the acquisition of land. That had the effect of limiting bourgeois discontent while making sure that the economic, social, and political interests of the newcomers were aligned with the old elites.

It was a slick system, and it only really began to break down in the last third of the nineteenth century courtesy of expanded suffrage and agricultural depression.

by MarekNYC on Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 at 02:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
The Purpose of Education
by rdf - Nov 20
27 comments

In Defense of the Electoral College
by danps - Nov 22
10 comments

LQD: NATO as 'convenient threat' for Russia
by marco - Nov 21
30 comments

Computational simulations in science
by tiagoantao - Nov 20
20 comments

jitter noise rumble
by emilmoller - Nov 19
18 comments

LQD: The real orgasmic Puritans
by Ted Welch - Nov 20
36 comments

The Puritan Edge
by rg - Nov 20
122 comments

Early Friday Photography Blog No. 62
by LEP - Nov 20
58 comments

Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series