I think both are true; but being in the wrong birth order is a form of
losing, or losing out.  Part of my point is that losing is not about
personal failure, but larger forces in history, like English inheritance
law.

[log in to unmask] wrote:

>Isn't the Law of Primogeniture probably the principle reason for migration to
>and around colonial America?  Plus changing fortunes as a result of the
>English Civil War and subsequent political changes.
>
>In western Piedmont North Carolina in the 1700s, it was common practice for
>Daddy to leave his principle estate to his oldest son and give stipends as
>needed so that younger sons could obtain land across the mountains.  Often the
>younger sons were gone well before Daddy died.
>
>I have one full generation in which this occurred. I guess my ancestors were
>all descendants of the "oldest son" or married the "oldest son" since we
>remained in the same place through my father's birth in the 1900s.  This cultural
>practice was occurring even after Primogeniture in America was discontinued as
>a legal requirement. The reason given by some  -  and it sure sounds logical
>-  was that a family's landed estate shrank generation by generation, so this
>was Primogeniture by choice, not by law.
>
>Joyce Browning
>Fairfax County, Virginia
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>

--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK   74104-3189

918-631-3706 (office)
918-631-2194 (fax)

[log in to unmask]

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html