Image: Tradition in Action

Entail and Primogeniture

Real estate cannot be a large and permanent industry

Rotten fruits from relaxed customs





The consequences are not purely material, of course. Sibling problems will emerge out of a false sense of entitlement: if all siblings are equally inherited, or at least equitably inherited, they will all want an equal "seat at the table". There can be, then, no family patriarch. The family itself will become a democracy, and the family name, particularly if lands are inherited to married daughters, will become meaningless. The land itself will be prostituted.



The lack of connection to the land and to the family home will mean that less care will be taken in the upkeep and development of the property. The beautiful gardens, fountains and other amenities added to homes in the past are no longer necessary, since there is no objective reason other than raising property values to add beauty to one's property. This will also foster a lack of charity between neighbors, since they can simply move away from one another at the slightest disagreement. No connection to the land also means, naturally, families will break apart. This is why it is common to hear today of "my sister, who lives 500 miles away in California", or "my father who lives 2 hours from here". With factors like these, restoring Christian civilisation is impossible.



Similar results in urban settings

A black neighborhood slated for demolition: now

homeless, mass-migration ensues into more civilised

Catholic neighborhoods: all part of the plan. Detroit —an example of this Of course, this is just as applicable to city-dwellers than country folk. As recent as 100 years ago, one could speak of a "family estate" comprising of a home and a plot of land, even in the middle of the city. The major cities of America—Baltimore, New York, St. Louis—were all major Catholic cities. Neighborhoods were built around the local parish, and although there was certainly less space to go around, the dignity and stability of a family home in the city was no less than that of the manor in the country.



This all changed, of course, at the urging of various groups, beginning in the early 20th century. Realtors, seeing immense profit in the buying-and-selling of expensive homes in the city were not the only group vying for the expulsion of stable Catholic neighborhoods. Political leaders opposed to Catholicism created low income housing developments in the vicinities of Catholic churches, instigating race riots and causing property values and livability to decrease. Typically white Catholics were replaced by Protestant or hedonistic Africans, whose own neighborhoods had been demolished, and in short order, the beautiful cities became "hoods", and the suburbs were born, to the ecstasy of realtors. Much of this is related in greater detail in E. Michael Destruction of Cities.



What to do?

The relaxed customs—essentially elimination, by force of law, of entail and primogeniture—have not been without their social consequences. The fleeting pleasure of having one's own little fiefdom out of the larger family estate may last for a generation or two, but in time, the wealth of the entire family is lost; it is earned in vain. The family man who labors his whole life, buying hundreds of acres of lands and building a beautiful house, is laboring in vain if he gives the property equally to all his children. It must remain intact, or as intact as possible, or it is not worth having in the first place.The consequences are not purely material, of course. Sibling problems will emerge out of a false sense of entitlement: if all siblings are equally inherited, or at least equitably inherited, they will all want an equal "seat at the table". There can be, then, no family patriarch. The family itself will become a democracy, and the family name, particularly if lands are inherited to married daughters, will become meaningless. The land itself will be prostituted.The lack of connection to the land and to the family home will mean that less care will be taken in the upkeep and development of the property. The beautiful gardens, fountains and other amenities added to homes in the past are no longer necessary, since there is no objective reason other than raising property values to add beauty to one's property. This will also foster a lack of charity between neighbors, since they can simply move away from one another at the slightest disagreement. No connection to the land also means, naturally, families will break apart. This is why it is common to hear today of "my sister, who lives 500 miles away in California", or "my father who lives 2 hours from here". With factors like these, restoring Christian civilisation is impossible.Of course, this is just as applicable to city-dwellers than country folk. As recent as 100 years ago, one could speak of a "family estate" comprising of a home and a plot of land, even in the middle of the city. The major cities of America—Baltimore, New York, St. Louis—were all major Catholic cities. Neighborhoods were built around the local parish, and although there was certainly less space to go around, the dignity and stability of a family home in the city was no less than that of the manor in the country.This all changed, of course, at the urging of various groups, beginning in the early 20th century. Realtors, seeing immense profit in the buying-and-selling of expensive homes in the city were not the only group vying for the expulsion of stable Catholic neighborhoods. Political leaders opposed to Catholicism created low income housing developments in the vicinities of Catholic churches, instigating race riots and causing property values and livability to decrease. Typically white Catholics were replaced by Protestant or hedonistic Africans, whose own neighborhoods had been demolished, and in short order, the beautiful cities became "hoods", and the suburbs were born, to the ecstasy of realtors. Much of this is related in greater detail in E. Michael

From the Middle Ages until the early 20th century (when the corruption of society and customs became more intense), family estates were rarely bought and sold. Children usually did not receive equal shares, or even shares remotely close to equal. In most cases, particularly with family farms, the entire property and home would be given to the eldest son, or some other responsible child, whose responsibility it would become to care for his other siblings and dependents: he would be the new head of the family. In fact, with such good customs as Trusts, it could be impossible to sell or divide family land. This provided security and stability: the fulfillment of material needs allowed for a far less-hindered pursuit of good spiritual ends and religious vocations.All of these good customs, which many of our ancestors in recent memory practiced, derive from Catholic civilisation, where enforcement of these customs was more strict. In her book which I cannot recommend highly enough , particularly for its good advice), Dr. Marian Horvat describes two special customs that were effectively the force of law in Catholic states prior to the Revolutions. I believe restoration of these three customs is absolutely necessary for the restoration of a truly Christian civilisation.Modern society prides itself as being logical and pragmatic. It also fears the increasing disparity of wealth between the rich and poor. Why, then, does modern society champion the equal distribution of family estates between children? This is nothing but a guarantee that poor families will not only remain poor, but become poorer; and that rich families, intelligent enough not to equally divide their estates, and to evade complicated inheritance laws, will continue to accumulate their wealth.Two customs, originating from Medieval times,and, were the pillars of stability and kept families vibrant and stable for centuries; and they curbed many of the economic problems we see in society today, especially the excessive inequality.The first custom, entail, is totally repulsive to the real estate agents of today because real estate exists to buy and sell property, and entail, enforceable by law in many Catholic countries of the past, forbade landed property from being bought and sold.The objector will say: "Perhaps the property should not be sold, but at least it has to be equally distributed at the death of the parent, because that is the fair thing to do." Is that so? So, should married daughters, who already have joined other families and other households, be entitled to the same share as the hard-working brothers, who have nothing of their own? As for the brothers, should all the brothers receive an equal inheritance? If so, won't this simply mean the property will continue to be divided, as generations pass, until there is nothing substantial remaining? "But if property is not equally divided, the other siblings will be left out and will become poor." This is why primogeniture, or a custom wherein only one sibling or descendant receives the property, is necessary. And the same force of law that gives siblings the right to sue for equal distribution of land can also give siblings the right to sue for some (albeit small) portion to sustain themselves. It is the moral responsibility of the eldest brother, as new head of the family, to care for and guide those siblings and dependents of his, who now become his quasi-children.This does notmean the eldest son will always inherit the property. As Dr. Horvat comfortably admits on page 32 of, "Nevertheless, it fell to the authority of the parents to judge who was more capable of carrying on the family work. A son who led a dissipated life could be disinherited to give a property to a daughter and her husband. An elder son could be set aside for a younger one."Thus, a system of entail and primogeniture, enforced by law and witnessed by the Church, would go a long way in stopping the instability and frantic tone of life seen in society today. It is important to note in passing that property taxes, at least on non-moveable goods (i.e., the house and the land), which results in the confiscation of the family estate when unpaid, is another great enemy of stability in society, and a truly Christian civilisation must not permit it.Real estate, in its present form, is a false form of industry because it exists to serve an artificially-created need. That need is the general public's desire to constantly move and live in new places, without ever settling down. Once a family with means is unsatisfied with their present home and property, they simply move to another, knowing they will eventually be dissatisfied with that place, too. Indeed, according to Dr. Horvat, 1 in 5 families will move in the next 5 years. A large and permanent real estate industry ensures a nation of rootless, Gypsy-esque permanent migrants. The hope of ever developing a Christian civilisation, which exists on the basis of permanence and stability, thus becomes impossible.There is something remarkably akin to usury with the real estate industry. Homes and properties, which are built once, and only rebuilt rarely, are not intended to be constantly sold and resold. The fundamental purpose of homes is to provide a permanent place to live for a family for generations and centuries to come. The constant selling and reselling of homes is not dissimilar from charging interest on loans and thus creating money out of thin air, where no work earned it.