NULL
Skriv ut sidan - Äldre inlägg (arkiv) till 2007-03-18
Anbytarforum
Titel: Äldre inlägg (arkiv) till 2007-03-18
Skrivet av: M.Sjöström skrivet 2007-03-18, 23:09
After a long time apparently, I happened to come across, and see that my writing has received plenty of comments.
I am somewhat surprised (or should I ?) that Mr Janzon, the strongest personal critic I seem to have somehow acquired, has not taken into account those trends which I referred to, as a basis of my extrapolation.
Throughout centuries, the original wide right of blood relatives to use family rights to keep landed property in the family, instead of allowing free transactioning to be made by each owner, had got more and more LIMITED. Owner got wider possibilities to sell or bequeath her/his lands, the receivee being yet more often allowed to keep it even if the earlier owner's relatives tried to plead their family right. That had been a trend, also between 13th and 18th century.
Another trend was that istadarätt got more standing in inheritance cases. Earlier, the closest relative(s) got to inherit, and in cases where there existed living children of an equally close relative who was already deceased at the time of the death of the one who left inheritance, they were not counted among heirs of the latter one. Later, a deceased heir's children (and grandchildren and great-grandchildren etc) were more often allowed a share (in right of their deceased parent or ancestor), on basis of istadarätt.
Now, we know (or should know) that in the Åkerö case I cited, the stepdaughter herself also was related by blood with Margareta Bielke, her stepmother. The stepdaughter, the legatee of Margareta's will, happened to be daughter of baroness Ingeborg Ban?r, already deceased (as she was the predecessor of Margareta Bielke as the wife of the husband) who was also FIRST cousin of Margareta Bielke.
The decision of the court was for udal right of Ebba Maria Sparre, another first cousin of Margareta Bielke's, but yet living at the time of Margareta's death.
If istadarätt had existed in that case, the stepdaughter, the legatee of the testament, would have been, on basis of istadarätt, in place of her deceased own blood mother, and thus in same position to the inheritance itself as Ebba Maria Sparre, the plaintiff of the case. Both would have been regarded as first cousins if istadarätt had existed in 18th century in udal right. The other first cousin would not have entitled to better right than the legatee. Äkerö would logically have been held by the one who had got it by testament, as in that case no one got udal right over her. As I wrote, the Åkerö case in early 18th century demonstrated that istadarätt apparently did not exist in udal rights. It did not exist in as late century as in 18th. Knowing direction of the second trend in listed above, it is highly unlikely that it had existed in udal rights in 13th century. Or this trend had changed its direction, which is something I have not seen any evidence about.
Another trend, the one I mentioned first, produces approximately the same outcome. Åkerö case shows that a first cousin was entitled to use udal right over another first cousin's child, in 18th century. Therefore, on basis of known trend (the trend that transactioning got freer and invoking family rights became less successful), I must presume that in 13th century, a first cousin was at least as entitled to use udal right over another first cousin's child, as the 18th century. Which means that istadarätt presumably did not exist in udal rights in 13th century. Knowing direction of this trend, on this basis too, it is highly unlikely that istadarätt had existed in udal rights in 13th century. Or also this trend had changed its direction, which is something I have not seen any evidence about.
Perhaps Mr Janzon could offer proper, detailed evidence of such changes in wind (in as many as two identifiable trends), if those both surprising changes really somehow happened at some points, between 13th and early 18th centuries. I would think that a citation referring to meters of shelves were not sufficient. If evidential details are ?everywhere? in those shelves, it cannot be too difficult to give a public account of such details.
Istadarätt does not mean the further inheritance of a share or place in the death-estate (for example, the only surviving first cousin, closest relative, dies some time after the one to whom one was closest heir/-ess; in that case, his/her place is inherited by his/her own heirs, not on basis of istadarätt, but on basis of normal inheritance of something that has come to belong to the person who died later of the two originals). Istadarätt means the position of a descendant of a person who already was deceased when the original owner died.
I reiterate: I have severe doubts whether 'istadarätt' actually existed in cases of exercising the 'odelsrett' (udal right). (So, even if istadarätt existed in normal inheritance -as some have argued here-, it well might be that as to the udal right, istadarätt was not directly allowed, and that literally 'closest' relatives held first dibs to the said udal right.)