Talk:Fee tail

Literature

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CLASSIC! Cheers! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal issues

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)

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)

rationale

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)

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)

United States Dispute

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)

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)

Heirs?

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)

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)

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)

Plural form

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)

@Lockesdonkey: 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)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: Not to merge. Consensus was clear but two strong opposes mirror completely different concepts along with a persuasive: "common law tradition, completely separate from any related civil law concept". Otr500 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

I will ping User:Halibutt and User:Volunteer Marek. Certainly the one sentence pl:Majorat (majątek) contains nothing to warrant saying that the topic is simply not developed enough, and I am not an expert in that part of economic/legal history of Poland. Hopefully VM will be able to comment? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

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))

• Strong oppose: These are completely different concepts with completely different undergirding legal systems. Fee tail, while there may be some relationship to the French law concept, is a form of property ownership with over 1000 years of history in the common law tradition, completely separate from any related civil law concept. As Lobsterthermidor wisely points out, what is needed is an article about land inheritance in many legal traditions. Compare our rich body of articles on Capital punishment, with daughter articles Capital punishment in the United Kingdom and Capital punishment in France. One would hardly propose merging those two daughter articles. The same principle applies here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose: What Lobsterthermidor and Mendaliv said. These are similar concepts, but the principles of common law and continental civil law are distinct.

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))

Then, if this article is only about the british (or british-derived) fee tail, perhaps we sould: a) move the passage about Polish-Lihtuanian Commonwealth to "Other" (perhaps in a reduced way); and b) change the interwiki (for many languages, this article is linking, not for an article in these language about the "fee tail", but for an article about a similar institution in the country where these language is used) --MiguelMadeira (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article needs to be broadened to include American law (and presumably Australian, Canadian, and other Common-law countries' laws, to the extent that those differ from English law), but it should not be merged with an article about a Civil-law concept that is foreign to Common-law jurisdictions. That would falsely imply that the concepts are equivalent when they are merely comparable. There's nothing to be gained from it but confusion. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More foot notes tag

I removed the reference needed tag:

1. Almost every article on Wikipedia can use more foot notes.
2. There have been improvements to the article, and
3. 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)

Removed Abolition subsection

I removed the Abolition subsection that stated:

Fee tail as a legal estate in England was abolished by the Law of Property Act 1925.[2][original research?]

This was tagged with an original research tag (above). This seemed amusing since there was an inline wiki-link and a reference so I had to examine it closer.

• The Law of Property Act 1925 reference specifically pointed to 1925 c. 20 Part IV Section 130 that dealt with entailed interest and titled:

Creation of entailed interests in real and personal property

I could find no terms abolishing fee tail at all so certainly not as a legal estate in England in this act.

It is possible I misread something, and possibly the editor that placed the "original research" tag (removed with sub-section) of which there was no discussion, but from what I read in the references and in the sub-section it appears to be original research. If someone wishes to re-include this subsection please provide a reliable source that directly supports content. Otr500 (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible you misread something! I wouldn't mess with this highly technical stuff at all unless you are an English lawyer. See here and here. I'll revert, although this isn't the ideal ref so I won't add it. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am now positive there was something missed but I fear it is not on my end.

• • For clarification: It does NOT take a lawyer, judge, scholar, or any person of certain "credentials" to edit Wikipedia. Most assuredly, under no "rules" of editing, does it require "documentation", or some supposedly credentials of proof, to perform Wikipedia maintenance. I am usually an otherwise very nice person but the air of pretentiousness in your comments, favors me to lean towards an opinion that you have impugned my integrity with an ad hominem attack. Your comments indicate that you feel a considered certain lack of "expertise" means I possibly should not perform maintenance, but certainly should only make edits on articles of which I have "proof of authority". At any rate your comments and actions indicate that I should leave a 2012 dated "career tag" indefinitely on an article, in a section where the reference does NOT support the contents, possibly I should not edit at all, and of a certainty it appears it is thought I should back down in silent support of your reversion while ignoring both Wikipedia policies and your insults.

"IF" you have purchased Wikipedia, and are using this as reasoning, please do not be offended if I require proof. Other than that, I will kindly ask you to refrain from the types of comments you made that more than appears condescending. I am somewhat glad to report that every person alive is ignorant (lack of knowledge) to some degree in some area for I think it impossible one person might know everything.

You provided some evidence, being reportedly proof to support content, that you did not use and apparently possibly consider, a)- not a reliable source, b)- not actually relevant, c)- some other reason you didn't fully explain. Please read:

NOTE: For clarification; there was a long term (2012) dated "original research" tag that was on the article. I looked at the reference and the information listed does not support the content. That is all I need to remove the content (along with an edit summary) but I went farther than that. I went much farther, correctly surmising some "person" would inevitably do just as you did, but nonetheless I made proper edits fully explaining my actions (wasted my time), so that an editor could revert the edit anyway. Maybe you are flexing some unexplained "muscle of strength" but I might offer some caution if that be the case.

The "authority" to perform the maintenance I did is located under WP:OR (one of three core content policies); "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research", Verifiability (also one of three core content policies); "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up.", WP:SOURCES; "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." and, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTFORUM); Wikipedia is not a place for 1)- "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc.", and now WP:Vandalism; "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".

If an editor is an English lawyer, English Lord, or Wikipedia owner, and does NOT provide a reference from a reliable source, this is reasons for a tag. This "tagged" material can be deleted at any time and the burden of proof for re-including it falls on the editor so wishing inclusion.

Mr Johnbod, You have violated (I am sure inadvertently) one or more (being lenient) of the above Wikipedia Policies and guidelines, and further, I hope unintentionally, attempted to open a can of worms that "could" possibly lead to Wikipedia sanctions. I did not revert but followed a first step in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution of discussing this issue.

I just looked and you did revert. This means you are not actually being bold, these types of actions have led to more than one edit war, and I tend to avoid these, preferring to handle things diplomatically, yet nonetheless efficiently, through Wikipedia resolutions.

• We can solve this in one of several ways:

• 1)- You can provide a reliable relevant source, which would facilitate removing the tag, thus solving the problem,
• 2)- You can self-revert your blatant error (paramount to vandalism) of reverting my good faith maintenance edit that is supported by "much" Wikipedia broad community consensus, even to include adding the content later when an appropriate source is located,
• 3)- You can travel some other route that I am sure you will not find of sound reasoning to include doing nothing. This will likely cause me to also take some other route to include possibly reverting as vandalism, according to policy, that may include an "appropriate warning message", or any one of a number of other vehicles provided by Wikipedia.

I will trust that you will examine my reply, not as some ignorant editor you have positioned me as to be, but as someone that has been editing a little while, that has some idea of navigating Wikipedia, and that surely can muster enough verbiage to clearly state my position, either here or before other editors, if the need arises. If you "are" a lawyer then I also trust you will see my reply as constructive. I am somewhat amused because you surely can not know me, but you do have the ability to look at my Wikipedia record, and I hope not err in thinking me as ignorant as you have proposed.

I realize you might possibly be well papered scholar, surely a lawyer (as you are editing here) and I do pretend to try to place myself in an area of which I am not actually equal, however, I am equal as an editor, and I fairly demand to be treated as such. I did not as yet look at your profile and if you are some administrator I will remind you that you are still just an editor. With that in mind, and because I have severe CRS (can't remember shit), I can start over provided amends are reached to appease my offended nature. I will still require that Wikipedia policies be followed and this situation rectified accordingly. There is also a reference required for the sub-section Pride and Prejudice. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Section on purpose

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)

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)