Talk:The Quincunx

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The core theme of the book is that some one owns a base fee, but it is based on a misunderstanding of the the nature of this. A base fee was created by barring an entail without the consent of the protector, but if it came into possession its owner did not merely have an estate while his predecessor had heirs but in fee simple. The book is a very good read, but is based on a fallacious understanding of the law. I add this here, rather than amending the article as this is WP:OR unless (or until) I can provide a source for this statment. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain a bit? Which characters in the book are the owner and protector? If somebody did not merely have an estate how did they possess it - if at all? When you say his predecessor had heirs but in fee simple is that but a special usage or a typo? Humphrey Jungle (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say, is that the article base fee and what I was taught at law college do not agree. My understanding was that the owner of a base fee resulting from an heir alienating his entail in remainder only obtained the property, if his grantor (or an heir of the body of the grantor) would have become tenant in tail in possession, but for the alienation. If the entailed interest failed (for want of issue) before it fell into possession, the grantee received nothing. If property is settled to A for life then to B and the heirs of his body then C and his heirs, A and B can jointly bar the entail and get a fee simple between them. However, if B bars the entail alone by granting his interest to D, then D only gets a base fee, and inherits the property only if B or an heir of his body would have inherited. A is thus referred to as the protector. I suspect that this is a theoretical legal concept, rather than one that often arose in practice. In many years of looking at old title deeds, I do not think I have ever met one in practice.

I do not have the requisite legal text books, and thus am not certain. However, novels built around entails frequently have got their law wrong. In Pride and Prejudice, the entail is far more likely to have been created under the will of an uncle, than on Mr Bennett's marriage, as parents rarely left their own daughters out from inheriting. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]