QUAE TUNC JUNIORES POSSIDEBANT IN TERRIS SIVE DENARIIS TENERENT QUAM...

2.

Quae tunc juniores possidebant in terris sive denariis tenerent quamdiu viverent, heredes

quidem terras tenentium possiderent illas imperpetuum. Heredes vero denarios et non terras

habentium, post patres non haberent.

This clause is rather ambiguous due to the economical language of the text.

⁵⁴

In

my opinion, it applies to dispositions made

inter vivos

by fathers to their sons. It ®rst

provides that cadets may enjoy anything they possess in the patrimony, whether in

land or revenues, for their lives. At the death of a cadet, the lands (and by

implication any revenues, since these derived from land) will revert to the heir and

to the patrimony. This was no doubt designed to limit the fragmentation of

baronies by the creation of hereditary apanages. Before 1185, the legal position of

an apanage after the death of the younger son may have been uncertain. In the

cases of divided baronies discussed above, the `apanage' was inherited by the cadet's

son and was permanently lost to the barony. This clause would have prevented this

result. Henceforth, grants of lands to younger sons would only create life-interests.

The second part of the clause addresses

inter vivos

dispositions to eldest sons, but is

even more opaque. My interpretation is that it is assumed that land received by the

eldest son from the patrimony during his father's life is regarded as an `advance' on

his inheritance, and he will simply retain it after his father's death. For this reason,

the clause only expressly refers to revenues, which are to be treated differently. After

his father's death, the heir may be required to give up any revenues he previously

enjoyed from patrimonial lands to make provision for his sisters and younger

brothers, for instance, in the circumstances provided for in clause 5, below.