Harvard Law School Library

Bracton Online -- English

Previous   Volume 2, Page 256  Next    

Go to Volume:      Page:    

[001] who has such privilege and the others, one or several, do not, I believe the privilege
[002] is to take precedence in this connexion. Suppose one holds of one person in socage
[003] and of another by military service, quaere which of the chief lords ought to be
[004] preferred in the marriage of the heir. In truth it is he who enfeoffed by military
[005] service, nor will attention have to be paid to priority of time or posteriority,
[006] because of the military privilege. But to return to the first case, if an inheritance
[007] held by military service descends from the father's side and one in socage from the
[008] mother's side, or conversely, and a dispute arises as to the marriage of the heir in
[009] whose person those two inheritances ought to be united, he must be preferred in
[010] the marriage whose fee was1 first delivered, as will be explained more fully below.2
[011] And finally, note that a minor under age and in the wardship of [his lord] cannot
[012] have another minor in his wardship, for it is true as a rule that one who cannot
[013] govern himself cannot govern others.3 Nor will the marriage belong to him [A]
[014] who is guardian of the minor [B] of whom the sub-tenant [C] ought to hold unless
[015] the tenement of that minor sub-tenant is of the guardian's fee. If it is of another's
[016] fee, that other will have the marriage of the heir of him who was enfeoffed by his
[017] [A's] tenant, and the wardship of the tenement which his [A's] tenant [B] would
[018] have were he of full age even though the marriage belonged to another, his [C's]
[019] chief lord by reason of an older feoffment. 4<The case of Henry de Tracy [A] and
[020] William de Punchardon concerning the heir of Roger Beaupel [C], where the
[021] ancestors of William had enfeoffed Reginald Beaupel [B] of the land of Hywissa,
[022] of which Reginald had enfeoffed Roger his son, and, the heirs of both being under
[023] age at the same time, the heir of Reginald [was] in the wardship of the said Henry
[024] by reason of the land of Cockesley and the heir of Roger in the wardship of William,
[025] because Reginald's tenement and Roger's were not of the same fee.>

Of the marriages of heirs and to whom the marriage ought to belong.

[027] We have spoken above of heirs who are of full age and sui juris on the death of their
[028] parents, and [of those] who are within age, and shown in whose wardship and care
[029] they ought to be until they are of lawful age, whether married in the lifetime of
[030] their parents or not. Now we must turn to those who were not married in the lifetime
[031] of their parents [and see] to whom their marriage may belong, according as
[032] they are in the wardship of their kinsmen or in that of their chief lords. But in the
[033] first place we must not fail to see what the law is if they are of full age and were
[034] not married in the lives of their parents, whether they are male or female. It is
[035] clear that when they are of full age such heirs may arrange their own marriages
[036] without


1. ‘fuit’

2. Infra 261

3. Supra 51, 250

4. Supra i, 383; not in B.N.B., but see i, 94

Contact: specialc@law.harvard.edu
Page last reviewed April 2003.
© 2003 The President and Fellows of Harvard College