| Author |
Message |
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:31 am
Post subject: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship - have they
been disinherited?
Thanks
--
Derek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:35 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: | If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship -
have
they been disinherited?
|
No, I think you want "deposed". To disinherit somebody is to rewrite
your will to ensure they don't get what they would otherwise have
received on your death.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3o1461F3kgk8U1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Derek Baker wrote:
If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship -
have
they been disinherited?
No, I think you want "deposed". To disinherit somebody is to rewrite
your will to ensure they don't get what they would otherwise have
received on your death.
|
Thanks for the fast reply.
To explain what I want better: In this case what somebody would not be
getting is the position on someone else's death that they would normally
get. That is, the heir to the throne is not given the throne on the king's
death.
..
--
Derek
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: |
If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship - have they
been disinherited?
|
That depends. The usual meaning of "disinherit" is "to deprive of a
potential inheritance." If, for example, a father disinherits a son,
the father provides in his will that the son will receive no part of
the father's estate when the father dies. Check out the listings at
<http://www.onelook.com/?w=disinherit&ls=a>. You will find that some
dictionaries have extended the usage to mean something much more
general such as "deprive of rights or privileges." That strikes me as
a metaphorical usage that's taken root, like "pig" for someone who
eats too much. I recommend sticking with the narrow, customary use --
deprive of an inheritance.
I suppose it's possible, depending on the laws of a given country, for
a father who is a king to decide that his eldest son, who could
inherit his throne upon his death, will not inherit it. I think, for
example, that the king of Saudi Arabia is allowed to pick his
successor and therefore could, by changing his will (or whatever
document names his successor), disinherit his son with respect to the
throne. But it's an odd usage, and I'd refer to it with something
more specific, such as "change his designated successor."
American law (and probably the law of most other English-speaking
countries) does not allow the complete disinheritance of a wife by a
husband. A widow is allowed to "elect against the will" for some
partial share of the husband's entire estate. In the US this extends
also, in most juridisdictions, to husbands who outlive their wives.
Back to your original question -- I don't know exactly what sentence
you have in mind (and you didn't say), but there's probably a better
word or phrase available.
--
Bob Lieblich
Inherited |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:49 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3o1461F3kgk8U1@individual.net...
Derek Baker wrote:
If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship -
have
they been disinherited?
No, I think you want "deposed". To disinherit somebody is to
rewrite
your will to ensure they don't get what they would otherwise have
received on your death.
Thanks for the fast reply.
To explain what I want better: In this case what somebody would not
be
getting is the position on someone else's death that they would
normally get. That is, the heir to the throne is not given the
throne
on the king's death.
.
|
Ah, I see. That does sound like disinheriting to me, then. But I
wonder if there may be a special word for doing it in respect of a
kingdom. Don Aitken, to name one of a select few, will know if there
is.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:59 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:431B5CF7.A072089@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Derek Baker wrote:
If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship - have they
been disinherited?
That depends. The usual meaning of "disinherit" is "to deprive of a
potential inheritance." If, for example, a father disinherits a son,
the father provides in his will that the son will receive no part of
the father's estate when the father dies. Check out the listings at
http://www.onelook.com/?w=disinherit&ls=a>. You will find that some
dictionaries have extended the usage to mean something much more
general such as "deprive of rights or privileges." That strikes me as
a metaphorical usage that's taken root, like "pig" for someone who
eats too much. I recommend sticking with the narrow, customary use --
deprive of an inheritance.
I suppose it's possible, depending on the laws of a given country, for
a father who is a king to decide that his eldest son, who could
inherit his throne upon his death, will not inherit it. I think, for
example, that the king of Saudi Arabia is allowed to pick his
successor and therefore could, by changing his will (or whatever
document names his successor), disinherit his son with respect to the
throne. But it's an odd usage, and I'd refer to it with something
more specific, such as "change his designated successor."
American law (and probably the law of most other English-speaking
countries) does not allow the complete disinheritance of a wife by a
husband. A widow is allowed to "elect against the will" for some
partial share of the husband's entire estate. In the US this extends
also, in most juridisdictions, to husbands who outlive their wives.
Back to your original question -- I don't know exactly what sentence
you have in mind (and you didn't say), but there's probably a better
word or phrase available.
|
The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
--
Derek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:00 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PrednagIluJNwYbeRVnyuA@eclipse.net.uk...
| Quote: | To explain what I want better: In this case what somebody would not be
getting is the position on someone else's death that they would normally
get. That is, the heir to the throne is not given the throne on the king's
death. |
Yes, this might be disinherit. But in the back of AEU
readers minds was probably that this can no longer
occur in real surviving monarchies. All Western monarchies
now have constitutions or laws which determine the succession,
i.e. monarchs can no longer choose their successors
(if they ever could: the Norman invasion of England
in 1066 turned in part on the claim that law governed
succession, not the last will of the defunct king.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:08 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
|
Without more, "disinherited" does not necessarily mean "removed from
the line of succession." Of course, context may make clear what's
meant. If the King has no children and the brother is the heir
apparent [1], and if that's already clear, and if you're talking
specifically about the brother's getting the throne, "disinherit"
would work. But if things are not that obvious -- and they usually
aren't -- I'd go with your explanatory phrase: "removed from the line
of succession." It's a lot clearer.
[1] Meaning first in succession after the king. (I don't want to
sound patronizing, but many people don't know what "heir apparent"
actually means.) If the brother is not heir apparent, the throne is
not part of his inheritance, though I suppose it could be a
conditional inheritance. But these are a lot of complications to be
heaping on a word that can easily be replaced with a far clearer
phrase.
Go with "removed from the line of succession." You won't be sorry
--
Bob Lieblich
When I exhale on a cold day, it's air apparent |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:13 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:agJSe.725$5I2.2019@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
| Quote: | "Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PrednagIluJNwYbeRVnyuA@eclipse.net.uk...
To explain what I want better: In this case what somebody would not be
getting is the position on someone else's death that they would normally
get. That is, the heir to the throne is not given the throne on the
king's
death.
Yes, this might be disinherit. But in the back of AEU
readers minds was probably that this can no longer
occur in real surviving monarchies. All Western monarchies
now have constitutions or laws which determine the succession,
i.e. monarchs can no longer choose their successors
(if they ever could: the Norman invasion of England
in 1066 turned in part on the claim that law governed
succession, not the last will of the defunct king.)
|
It could have occurred when parliament in England attempted to have the Duke
of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession. Which is what I
am writing about.
--
Derek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:15 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:431B623D.27A3851F@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Derek Baker wrote:
[ ... ]
The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
Without more, "disinherited" does not necessarily mean "removed from
the line of succession." Of course, context may make clear what's
meant. If the King has no children and the brother is the heir
apparent [1], and if that's already clear, and if you're talking
specifically about the brother's getting the throne, "disinherit"
would work. But if things are not that obvious -- and they usually
aren't -- I'd go with your explanatory phrase: "removed from the line
of succession." It's a lot clearer.
|
The preceeding sentence refers to the attempt of the English parliament to
have the Duke
of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession.
| Quote: | [1] Meaning first in succession after the king. (I don't want to
sound patronizing, but many people don't know what "heir apparent"
actually means.) If the brother is not heir apparent, the throne is
not part of his inheritance, though I suppose it could be a
conditional inheritance. But these are a lot of complications to be
heaping on a word that can easily be replaced with a far clearer
phrase.
Go with "removed from the line of succession." You won't be sorry
|
--
Derek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:28 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:431B623D.27A3851F@verizon.net...
Derek Baker wrote:
[ ... ]
The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
Without more, "disinherited" does not necessarily mean "removed from
the line of succession." Of course, context may make clear what's
meant. If the King has no children and the brother is the heir
apparent [1], and if that's already clear, and if you're talking
specifically about the brother's getting the throne, "disinherit"
would work. But if things are not that obvious -- and they usually
aren't -- I'd go with your explanatory phrase: "removed from the line
of succession." It's a lot clearer.
The preceeding sentence refers to the attempt of the English parliament to
have the Duke
of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession.
|
Unless you don't care how sloppy you are with the usage of a word like
"disinherit" [1], I would not use it to describe this situation. If
York is heir by virtue of being the eldest brother of a childless
king, and if the sitting king has some say over who succeeds him, then
the king can disinherit York. But no one other than the person from
whom one inherits can disinherit, so Parliament cannot disinherit
York. If Parliament controls the succession to the throne, it can
replace York as successor, but this does not fit the strict meaning
of"disinherit."
I wouldn't ever use "disinherit" to mean anything other than "deprive
one's heir of his [or her] inheritance."
[1] Lots of people don't care, but you don't seem like one of them.
Particularly in describing such a specific historical instance as
this, I'd urge you to stick to the strict meaning of such a term as
"disinherit."
--
Bob Lieblich
I hope this covers it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:44 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 22:15:48 +0100, "Derek Baker"
<me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | "Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:431B623D.27A3851F@verizon.net...
Derek Baker wrote:
[ ... ]
The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
Without more, "disinherited" does not necessarily mean "removed from
the line of succession." Of course, context may make clear what's
meant. If the King has no children and the brother is the heir
apparent [1], and if that's already clear, and if you're talking
specifically about the brother's getting the throne, "disinherit"
would work. But if things are not that obvious -- and they usually
aren't -- I'd go with your explanatory phrase: "removed from the line
of succession." It's a lot clearer.
The preceeding sentence refers to the attempt of the English parliament to
have the Duke
of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession.
|
Do you need to spell it out, or would something like the following do?
'One can only imagine what would have happened to someone in France who
called for the King's brother to be treated in that way.'
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Derek Baker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:04 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:v9qmh118uiolov9vq3svl5foo6easjp58j@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sun, 4 Sep 2005 22:15:48 +0100, "Derek Baker"
me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:431B623D.27A3851F@verizon.net...
Derek Baker wrote:
[ ... ]
The sentence I have is: 'One can only imagine what would have happened
to
someone in France who called for the King's brother to be
disinherited.'
That is removed from the line of succession.
Without more, "disinherited" does not necessarily mean "removed from
the line of succession." Of course, context may make clear what's
meant. If the King has no children and the brother is the heir
apparent [1], and if that's already clear, and if you're talking
specifically about the brother's getting the throne, "disinherit"
would work. But if things are not that obvious -- and they usually
aren't -- I'd go with your explanatory phrase: "removed from the line
of succession." It's a lot clearer.
The preceeding sentence refers to the attempt of the English parliament to
have the Duke
of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession.
Do you need to spell it out, or would something like the following do?
'One can only imagine what would have happened to someone in France who
called for the King's brother to be treated in that way.'
|
Good idea. Thanks.
--
Derek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Ambuhl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:14 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: | If someone is deprived of a position - for example a kingship - have they
been disinherited?
|
No.
Deposed; dethroned; overthrown; brought down; unseated; ousted;
toppled; dismissed; discharged; cashiered; given the sack; removed;
dispossessed; evicted; expelled; disbar; unfrocked; stripped;
drummed out; banished; cast out; or (in business) promoted.
I'm sure there are many more choices, but 'disinherited' ain't one of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:28 am
Post subject: Re: Is disinherit the word I want? |
|
|
Derek Baker wrote:
| Quote: | "Don Phillipson" <d.phillipson@ttrryytteell.com> wrote in message
news:agJSe.725$5I2.2019@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
"Derek Baker" <me@xyzderekbaker.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
news:PrednagIluJNwYbeRVnyuA@eclipse.net.uk...
To explain what I want better: In this case what somebody would not
be getting is the position on someone else's death that they would
normally get. That is, the heir to the throne is not given the
throne on the king's
death.
Yes, this might be disinherit. But in the back of AEU
readers minds was probably that this can no longer
occur in real surviving monarchies. All Western monarchies
now have constitutions or laws which determine the succession,
i.e. monarchs can no longer choose their successors
(if they ever could: the Norman invasion of England
in 1066 turned in part on the claim that law governed
succession, not the last will of the defunct king.)
It could have occurred when parliament in England attempted to have
the Duke of York, heir to the throne, excluded from the succession.
Which is what I am writing about.
|
Which particular Duke of York is this?
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in