Talk:Fee tail

message: I have added a title 'entail in literature', partly to keep a growing section from interfering with the main one on fee tail as a legal concept, but also in the hope that the section may be expanded, perhaps considering how authors have misunderstood the technical meaning of the term.  Some years ago I read a book called the Quincunx, whose complicated plot was centred around the concept of a base fee, though the author had not understood that this ceased to be base after the death of the protector.  Peterkingiron 17:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a disambiguation note to the article to help you out. Removed the "Literature" section - it was irrelevant to the subject of this article, and was intrusive and distracting. Just a suggestion, you might create an article "Fee tail (literature)", and then the disambiguation note in this article can be changed to point there for the benefit of those with a more literary interest. You could also add your literary wiki-link in literary articles so people can go directly to the explanation. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that won't do. What you are suggesting is a POV fork, which is not allowed. I have added a short para to the lead for non-lawyers, readded the literature section at the end, and added a para on a famous example.  Given the obsolescence of entails in law, and their prevalence in literature etc, non-lawyers are likely to be the main readers of the article. Your suggestion that the literature section was "irrelevant to the subject of this article, and was intrusive and distracting" suggests an inappropriate "closed garden" attitude. Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL at slowest argument ever.  Question: does the term fee tail cover any kind of condition imposed on the transfer of land, or only the inheritance condition?  In Middlemarch, for example, Casaubon's condition is that his wife may not marry Will Ladislaw.  Follow-up question:  who and how would such requirements have been enforced?  For example, when Dorothea decides to marry Ladislaw, does she lose title immediately upon marriage or would the next heir of Casaubon have to sue? Calum (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We would be considered to be proceeding with undue haste by Kenge and Carboy or any respectable Chancery practitioner, surely? I'm afraid I've no idea; I suggest you spend a couple of years in the waiting-room until the lawyers return. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: CLASSIC! Cheers! Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature

message: Things that could usefully added are firstly something on how long entails could last, & secondly the changes in English law in the the 1880s that seemed to have made breaking entails easier. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The change was actually in 1832.  I have added detail of this.  I cannot easily talk about duration.  There are a few English landed estates whose entails unbreakable under an Act of Parliament or because the reversionary interest belongs to the crown.  I think this applies to the Dukes of Marlborough and Wellington and the Marquess of Abergavenny.  Apart from this, they could last a very long time.  The entail arising under the will of Thomas Foley (died 1677) was still subsisting in parts of his estates in the early 19th century, probably because no one had found it necessary to bar it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal issues

message: I'm surprised this article doesn't much discuss the rationale(s) behind entailments. Adam Smith's explanation would certainly be a worthwhile addition. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you are talking about is probably a strict settlement, one aspect of which is popularly referred to an an entail.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: rationale

message: I was cross referencing this article with the Allodial Title article and looking at this article under the United States section I believe that there is an incorrect statement. In this article it states that “most of the land in the United States of America was deemed allodial”. After reading the entry for allodial there seems to be a conflict with the two articles. I believe that this article is the one in error. The United States most certainly is not allodial. It sounds to me like the United States is a Fee simple country. Does anybody have any citation to the contrary? If not I suggest this entry be changed to reflect the United States as a Fee Simple model instead of Allodial.Clintshivers (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In referring to fee simple, you are confusing tenures and estates.  Fee simple and fee tail are estates.  The question of whether land is allodial is a question of tenure.  A fee simple estate may still be subject to feudal incidents (perhaps a rent) to a superior lord.  The statement in allodial title appears to be right.  An allod is not subject to a feudal superior.  In the US, constitutionally the US government cannot derogate from the rights of a citizen to his land, but it is still subject to the sovereignty of the US government.  In an environment where no feudal services are usually due, the question of whehter land is or is not allodial is almost a matter of semantics, because the rights of the sovereign/federal authorities/etc are at most notional.  In my view, it is this article that is wrong, but one could probably argue it either way.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: United States Dispute

message: Hi guys. This will be my first wikipedia edit ever, because I kind of consider it a glaring error. The introductory paragraph states that a fee tail moves by operation of law to the possessory estateholder's heirs. That's a little bit misleading. Under current statutes, heirs can include others that are not of the owner's body. A fee tail is only descendible to blood relatives. ex: From O to A and the heirs of his body. A has no children, only a wife. A dies. Wife has nothing even though she would normally be a legal heir, O gets his reversion. So, to say a fee tail goes to the possessory estateholder's heirs is incorrect. Rjlynn (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about current US law (in 4 states only I think), or the general common law situation, which I think was different? With references, this might be worth adding to the US section, but the article is not covering just "current statutes". Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: John, as far as I know, that's how a fee tail always worked. A fee tail can only pass to issue, that is, a lineal descendant, one born "of your body". At common law, heirs could include others, such as wives, sisters, brothers, etc. These are not lineal descendants. If a decedent dies with legal heirs, but dies WITHOUT issue - a lineal descendant - the fee tail comes to its natural end. I will re-apply the edit once I can find a reliable source to cite that you don't have to pay $10/hour to use. Rjlynn (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Heirs?

message: I've always thought--and seen--the plural of "fee tail" as "fees tail" rather than "fee tails." Have I been mistaken the whole time? Lockesdonkey (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  is right.  Fee is a noun and tail is an adjective.  It's like "Attorneys general".  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural form 

message: Perhaps this article should be merged with Majorat? Seems the same thing, one with an English name, other with a French name. If one article was about fee tail in English-speaking countries and other about majorat in French-speaking (or at least Romance-language-speaking) countries, could make some sense having two articles. But both articles talk about fee tail/majorat in several countries (with different languages) - for example, both refer the polish Ordynacja ("Ordynacja" redirects to "Fee tail" - perhaps "Majorat" should be make a redirect also?)--MiguelMadeira (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is majorat being merged into fee tail (probably as a section, then that makes sense. Definitely not the other way around! Mauls (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. It is certainly necessary to inform the reader of the existence of similar concepts which exist/ed in various nations, but they are surely too different to be treated as equivalents and each is governed by its own legal system. In which case a merger would not be appropriate. The English legal system has little if anything in common with the Napoleonic Code of France, or with legal systems which evolved from Roman law, etc. What is probably needed is an article which discusses the over-arching concept of pre-determined/pre-destined inheritance of land, I can't think of a snappy or accurate title for one, with brief sections on systems operating in various different countries, linking to detailed articles. We're into Law PhD territory here I suspect. If a source exists, great, but it's too complex a topic to be merged by copy editing alone. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way I've now done a fairly major ce, expansion & reorganisation to the article, in an attempt to rationalise it and make it more clearly English law centric. There might be a case to be made for giving more prominence to US & former British colony versions, which have shared history with English.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: :I removed the reference needed tag:
# Almost every article on Wikipedia can use more foot notes.
# There have been improvements to the article, and
# This tag was dated Feb. 2008, was not specific, and there was nothing inline (an original research tag) or on this talk page.
:Of course any editor that feels the need can place a new tag but unspecific "career tags" does not help Wikipedia. Otr500 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More foot notes tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fee tail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061231031433/http://www.szlachta.org/2radziwill.htm to http://www.szlachta.org/2radziwill.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this is written in a highly overblown and non-encylopedic fashion. Not every estate that was entailed fits this description: “The fee tail allowed a patriarch to perpetuate his blood-line, family-name, honour and armorials[1] in the persons of a series of powerful and wealthy male descendants. By keeping his estate intact in the hands of one heir alone, in an ideally indefinite and pre-ordained chain of succession, his own wealth, power and family honour would not be dissipated amongst several male lines.” Many of them were quite modest, not powerful and wealthy. I think it should be rewritten in a more factual and sober fashion. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The language is overblown, but if there was no land there was no point in going to the trouble and expense of doing an entail.  "Powerful and wealthy" are relative I suppose.  But have a go if you like. Johnbod (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on purpose