Succession/Inheritance Question

[Diamond]

Let's say there's a noble family in England in the 14th century. They have three sons; the oldest two are knights, with the eldest set up (naturally) as the heir. The youngest is a monk or priest.

Now. The two oldest boys die before their father. There is no other family. Who inherits his estates and titles? Can the youngest take over, even though he's renounced worldly possessions and become a monk? Does he leave the Church? Or do the estate & title get reassigned by the king to someone else?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Diamond

Let's say there's a noble family in England in the 14th century. They have three sons; the oldest two are knights, with the eldest set up (naturally) as the heir. The youngest is a monk or priest.

Now. The two oldest boys die before their father. There is no other family. Who inherits his estates and titles? Can the youngest take over, even though he's renounced worldly possessions and become a monk? Does he leave the Church? Or do the estate & title get reassigned by the king to someone else?

The monk would inherit, and then he might have a choice of either leaving the church or doing something else with them (as in donating them to the church, or renouncing inheritance in favor of the next available relative). At least I think that will be the case.

[Bruno]

It was standard procedure for knights and whatnot to leave all their worldly possessions and lands to the Church. It's how the Knights Templars got all their power, after all.

So it would be relatively easy for the money and possessions to be transferred to the Church if a monk inherited everything and still wishes to remain a monk. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a rule somewhere that explains the precise procedure.

Not sure what happens to the titles, though.

Interesting question.

[Diamond]

What happens if the monk decides it's his 'moral responsibility' to renounce his robes and take up his father's titles, etc? If the Church is in opposition could he still do it? Seems like it might have the potential to create serious problems between Church and king...

I'm just pondering this as background/ideas/mental problems for a story idea.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Diamond

What happens if the monk decides it's his 'moral responsibility' to renounce his robes and take up his father's titles, etc? If the Church is in opposition could he still do it? Seems like it might have the potential to create serious problems between Church and king...

I'm just pondering this as background/ideas/mental problems for a story idea.

If I recall correctly, it was not unheard of for such monks to abandon the habit and to more or less carry on as nobles before them carried on in secular life. Naturally, he would probably be expected to give a good tithe to the church, or a good "donation".

[Diamond]

Now... what if he was a priest, rather than a monk? Obviously, as a third son and (we can assume) a young man, he won't have risen too high in the clergy. He's not going to be a Bishop or anything. But what if he's the personal secretary of another lord? Mightn't this lord fight the priest's leaving the clergy on grounds that he'd gained priveleged access to info he wouldn't have otherwise known?

Just trying to think through the different permutations of this.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Diamond

Now... what if he was a priest, rather than a monk? Obviously, as a third son and (we can assume) a young man, he won't have risen too high in the clergy. He's not going to be a Bishop or anything. But what if he's the personal secretary of another lord? Mightn't this lord fight the priest's leaving the clergy on grounds that he'd gained priveleged access to info he wouldn't have otherwise known?

Just trying to think through the different permutations of this.

In case of a secretary any lord with half a brain would probably love to have a ready-made noble ally, and generally aristocracy was judged by a different measure. It would all depend on what our priest/monk wants, and on how much power/influence/money he inherits. If he wants to claim his inheritance, he would have little trouble claiming it if he does stand to claim a lot, and very few would attempt to stand in his way. After all, why make a potentially powerful enemy when you could make a powerful friend?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Alex

In case of a secretary any lord with half a brain would probably love to have a ready-made noble ally, and generally aristocracy was judged by a different measure. It would all depend on what our priest/monk wants, and on how much power/influence/money he inherits. If he wants to claim his inheritance, he would have little trouble claiming it if he does stand to claim a lot, and very few would attempt to stand in his way. After all, why make a potentially powerful enemy when you could make a powerful friend?

Hmmm...that opens up some intriguing possibilities. I would imagine that the lord would be a bit more older and experienced than our priest in noble duties, so our lord -- with a bit of luck --can set himself up as a mentor of sorts to the young guy.

[Diamond]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Hmmm...that opens up some intriguing possibilities. I would imagine that the lord would be a bit more older and experienced than our priest in noble duties, so our lord -- with a bit of luck --can set himself up as a mentor of sorts to the young guy.

...Especially if he's the one that's secretly had the rest of the monk's family killed...

Ideas are brewing...

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Diamond

Now... what if he was a priest, rather than a monk? Obviously, as a third son and (we can assume) a young man, he won't have risen too high in the clergy. He's not going to be a Bishop or anything. But what if he's the personal secretary of another lord? Mightn't this lord fight the priest's leaving the clergy on grounds that he'd gained priveleged access to info he wouldn't have otherwise known?

Just trying to think through the different permutations of this.

IMO he would probably be required to take over the household and abandon monkhood, and most likely he would want to, since the clergy was the outlet for younger sons that had no other avenue to acquire power. The Church would likely encourage this as there would be money in it for them, and they were generally pretty devoted to maintaining the social order.

Remember too that you're talking about a "real" individual - he will have built relationships and connections in Church service that will make him a good friend in a high place for the Church.

Probably there were monks that really wanted nothing but being a monk, but I think it's probably unlikely that many of these came from noble dynasties.

[Valdemar I]

Originally Posted by Abdul Hadi Pasha

IMO he would probably be required to take over the household and abandon monkhood, and most likely he would want to, since the clergy was the outlet for younger sons that had no other avenue to acquire power. The Church would likely encourage this as there would be money in it for them, and they were generally pretty devoted to maintaining the social order.

Remember too that you're talking about a "real" individual - he will have built relationships and connections in Church service that will make him a good friend in a high place for the Church.

Probably there were monks that really wanted nothing but being a monk, but I think it's probably unlikely that many of these came from noble dynasties.

Surprising many did, but even if they wanted to be monks, the duty to the family came before that*, and as you said the Church too would push him toward leaving the clergy.

*while we often focus on kin murdering kin, the truth are that for most medieval nobles, the families welfare and power came before their own happiness.

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

Originally Posted by Valdemar I

Surprising many did, but even if they wanted to be monks, the duty to the family came before that*, and as you said the Church too would push him toward leaving the clergy.

*while we often focus on kin murdering kin, the truth are that for most medieval nobles, the families welfare and power came before their own happiness.

I guess that's true; Charles V himself's life ambition was to retire to a monastery and contemplate death.

Regarding the second part, formally that's certainly true, i.e. it was irrelevant whether or not nobles even liked their spouses, but they probably had more outlets for enjoying themselves than everyone else.

[Pascal]

Wasnt that kinda one functions of third sons sent into the clergy? As reserve dynasty holders. I seem to recall it was fairly common for noble clergymen to return to worldly affairs if they somehow became heir because everybdoy else had died. The Church had nothing against that, because that was just the way things were.