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