Talk:Gavelkind

definition
Could somebody add a short definition of what Gavelkind actually is? Having read the article I have no clue what it is or how it works, other than that it is a "peculiar system of land tenure".--216.154.205.203 20:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * seconded. This really needs to be translated from (what I presume are) Old English terms. --Anoma lee 13:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And a statement as to its contemporary relevance would not go amiss either. 82.10.108.49 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"This really needs to be translated from (what I presume are) Old English terms" You should look up Old English to see what it means : the Anglo-Saxon language from about 1000 years ago. What we have in this article is Modern English, and it is generally perfectly comprehensible to anyone who is reasonably literate in English. Granted, there is some unusual jargon, but if you want to learn about the details of obscure legal customs, it's probably necessary to learn a few new words. 156.34.47.123 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That may have been a joke, which is something humans use as a vehicle of obtaining humor. I attempted to fix the problem with the definition. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A Big WTF
The grammar is archaic and the writing is legalistic and not descriptive to the point of being useless as a reference.

1. A tenant can alienate his lands by feoffment at fifteen years of age."

Wow, I'm glad we got that 15 years of age in there! Or is this in comparison to some other system where the age requirement is different.

2. There is no escheat on attainder for felony, or as it is expressed in the old rhyme, The father to the bough/The son to the plough."

Apparently, they meant something along the lines of

(Unlike in other systems) if the tenant commits a crime he does _not_ lose his tenancy of the land. Note my sentence uses only the term tenant/tenancy. In a modern wiki we can go on to list all the technical terms if we want to just so we can link to them.

3. Generally the tenant could always dispose of his lands by will.

OMG, that one is nearly readable. "In his will" maybe? Need we talk legally all the time? But then is this even a "peculiar" attribute.

4. In case of intestacy the estate descends not to the eldest son but to all the sons (or, in the case of deceased sons, their representatives) in equal shares.

Oh, here's the definition; it's Collective inheritance instead of simply to the eldest son. This ought to be near the top as an important distinction. But no, the article seems to take it from some law embedding in the 4th position.

" ... are postponed to males,"

Okay, call me when she gets in, but I really don't know what time males is :-)

"... by representation they may inherit together with them."

Maybe, just maybe, some linking might help define these terms, but I'm thinking it's helpless.

5. A wife is dowable of one-half, instead of one-third of the land."

Instead? 'Instead of 1/3 as found in other parts of England/British Isles/Europe or Timbuktu?' What are we comparing to that has not been stated?

6. A widower may be tenant by courtesy, without having had any issue, of one-half,

I don't have any issues I hope she doesn't :-)

A "childess widower" maybe, but since we're talking about a women, is it not properly widow?

"An act for commuting manorial rights in respect of lands of copyhold and customary tenure contained a clause ....

All acts ... contained? Any act? Some particular act?

This whole constellation of articles are near to meaningless as 21st century encyclopedia material! Without some work to link and maybe re-state. Maybe quote the original and provide a summary/overview/translation. Otherwise, it is just humor reading.

ireland
The section "Gavelkind in Ireland" has a link which brings to another article that is a Stub. I don't think that's useful, if the page it's only a stub. Or, at least there should be a summary in the section ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.68.4 (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * well be bold and expand the stub or put it up for AfD and merge te text in here Pickle 15:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Wales to Ireland
A direct quote from the SOED has been placed in the section on Wales, instead of Ireland where it belongs ("sept" does not seem to be a term applied to Wales). If anyone disagrees please change it and give a more precise source. Tsinfandel (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How should the last point of Gavelkind in Kent be presented?
How should the last point of Gavelkind in Kent be presented? 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reword that section to make it more accessible for the average user, but the last point stumped me so much that I didn't even understand what the last point was saying. 94.193.144.115 (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeezus. Nice to see bureaucratic language is not a new invention. I think it's saying this...'' A widow without any children, so long as she remains unmarried, can occupy one-half of the land as a tenant by curtesy. Regarding this law, a manorial rights act of copyhold and customary tenure had a clause that made gavelkind redundant, since an identical customary law already existed in the county of Kent.'' But you better check that with other editors. --Whoosit (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Halfway guessing here, but from curtesy I get the impression that the land had originally been hers, and that perhaps her husband gained it by marrying her ... thus, she cannot be alienated from what was originally owned by her. I think that it applies to immovable property only, and that brings with it more bureaucratese: by some accounts, immovable property may include movable property that is inherently associated with immovable property, such as a cart and oxen associated with tilling the land, but would not include such movable things as the contents of a house (dishes, cookware, etc). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions
1. The article says that the survival of gavelkind in Kent 'is regarded as a concession by the Conqueror to the people of Kent', but nothing about why Kent was granted this exceptional concession. If nobody has the foggiest as to the reason, that should be stated. 2. What were the economic effects on agriculture in Kent (and elsewhere)? Usually equal division of land results over time in uneconomic holdings. Norvo (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After the conquest of 1066, William the Conqueror was faced with many rebellions and insurrections. Legend has it that the people of Kent offered the Conqueror a compromise, either he could respect their ancient laws and customs, or go to war with them. He agreed on the former, so technically Kent was not actually conquered and Kent kept many of its ancient customs etc, including gavelkind. As a result of Gavelkind, Kent had smaller manors and farmsteads than other counties and did not have large estates owned by single landowners. Its semi autonomous status is known as County palatine. Check out the article on the county motto  Invicta (meaning undefeated) which gives more detail on this.Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your speedy and helpful answer. Norvo (talk) 02:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Self-contradiction
The lede: The word may have originated from the Old Irish phrases Gabhaltas-cinne or Gavail-kinne, which meant "family settlement" (Modern Gaelic gabhail-cine). OK, makes sense. Then, in the "Gavelkind in Ireland" section: The Normans called the Irish inheritance law gavelkind because of its apparent similarity to Jutish gavelkind inheritance in Kent. Erm, if the Gaelic etymology is highly speculative and there's a competing Germanic one, the second sentence should be moved to the lede. If it's not the case, the second sentence makes no sense and should be removed. An Irish word borrowed by the Normans could only travel from Ireland to Kent, not the other way round. 37.47.192.51 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)