My daughter's first cousin, three times removed was Father Flanagan of Boystown. It says that people are working towards having him canonised. Gulp!
On page 7 of the slide show is a picture of my wife Ceppy's mother at a recent celebration in Ballymoe.
What will happen to me if Fr Flanagan is canonised? Ruth and Ceppy are blood relations of his but blood does not pass upwards, from my daughter to me, so I am not. At least that is what I understand from Tristram Shandy! Vol 2, C H A P. LXIV. or alternatively Vol 4, C H A P XXIX [195] There it is explained in detail "That the mother is not of kin to her child". How reliable is that??
Can we expect anything to happen? Would saintliness pass upwards from Fr Flanagan to his Grandparents and from them down to my wife and daughter? If saintliness, unlike blood, can pass upwards then I too will be subject to it.
And all the rest of you!
Later (17th November 2008) I find the following
A Treatise on the Rules of the Law of Personal Succession, in the Different Parts of the Realm And on the Cases, Regarding Foreign and International Succession, which Have Been Decided in the British Courts By David Robertson:
To save you clicking through to the copy, here it is:
"(f) 4 Burn's Eccles. Law, 427. At one time, and for a short period, the succession of the mother was rejected by the English courts. In the Duchess of Suffolk's case, it was held that the mother was not of kin to her child. In the reign of Edward VI. Charles Duke of Suffolk, having issue by one venter [One of two or more wives who are the sources of children to the same husband] a son, and by another a daughter, by his will devised goods to his son, and died. After his death his son died intestate, without wife and without issue ; his mother, and his sister by the father's side, born of the former venter, then living. The mother took the administration; but the sister commenced a suit before the Ecclesiastical judge, claiming that it might be revoked, and the administration granted to her. The most learned as well in the common law as in the civil law, were consulted, and the Ecclesiastical Court revoked the administration granted to the mother, and granted a new administration to the sister, albeit she were of the half-blood to the deceased. (Swinburne, p. 912.) But he adds (p. 918.),
On page 7 of the slide show is a picture of my wife Ceppy's mother at a recent celebration in Ballymoe.
What will happen to me if Fr Flanagan is canonised? Ruth and Ceppy are blood relations of his but blood does not pass upwards, from my daughter to me, so I am not. At least that is what I understand from Tristram Shandy! Vol 2, C H A P. LXIV. or alternatively Vol 4, C H A P XXIX [195] There it is explained in detail "That the mother is not of kin to her child". How reliable is that??
Can we expect anything to happen? Would saintliness pass upwards from Fr Flanagan to his Grandparents and from them down to my wife and daughter? If saintliness, unlike blood, can pass upwards then I too will be subject to it.
And all the rest of you!
Later (17th November 2008) I find the following
A Treatise on the Rules of the Law of Personal Succession, in the Different Parts of the Realm And on the Cases, Regarding Foreign and International Succession, which Have Been Decided in the British Courts By David Robertson:
To save you clicking through to the copy, here it is:
"(f) 4 Burn's Eccles. Law, 427. At one time, and for a short period, the succession of the mother was rejected by the English courts. In the Duchess of Suffolk's case, it was held that the mother was not of kin to her child. In the reign of Edward VI. Charles Duke of Suffolk, having issue by one venter [One of two or more wives who are the sources of children to the same husband] a son, and by another a daughter, by his will devised goods to his son, and died. After his death his son died intestate, without wife and without issue ; his mother, and his sister by the father's side, born of the former venter, then living. The mother took the administration; but the sister commenced a suit before the Ecclesiastical judge, claiming that it might be revoked, and the administration granted to her. The most learned as well in the common law as in the civil law, were consulted, and the Ecclesiastical Court revoked the administration granted to the mother, and granted a new administration to the sister, albeit she were of the half-blood to the deceased. (Swinburne, p. 912.) But he adds (p. 918.),
"True it is, that, in those days, this example did so much prevail, that many judgments passed accordingly upon the like case; but yet, in process of time, the truth prevailed (for what is stronger than truth), and the mother was everywhere adjudged to be of kin to her child, who, dying intestate and without issue, the administration of his goods may be committed unto her (if the ordinary in discretion so think good), as next of kin according to the statute."Thus like most of Tristram Shandy, it is both true and not true.
1 comment:
It's alredy happened, William. We, like a lot of other Scots, are quite probably descended from Robert the Bruce, who was granddaughter (or something) of Saint Margaret. Or is that too long ago to count?
Post a Comment