234 sympathetic to similar restrictions on the inheritance of the nobility’s allodial estates. However, further changes in the law limitingthe inheritance right of the daughters of the nobility did not come about. On the other hand, entailed estates began to be set up but only in respect of land which the founder himself had bought. In the case of inheritances within the nobility there developed a practice according to which the sons inherited portions before the daughters, which in practice seems to have resulted in the sons obtaining a larger share than what the law had ordained. The question as to whether cousins should be allowed to marry each other was discussed a great deal and from 1680 it was allowed with royal consent. Most illustrative is the development of the dowry. Large dowries were an indication of the donor’s social standing and it was a means of creating advantageous marriage alliances, something which was especially important for the aristocracy’s position of power. When the dowries were grossly inflated in striving to attain social prestige this was seen as a threat to the whole economv of the nobility. Attempts were made to legislate a ban on large dowries which the aristocracy were, however, opposed to. In 1644 a decree was made regarding marriages of the nobility which partly set a ceiling for the size of dowries - albeit very high and thus a concession for the aristocracv — and partly and most importantly, it transformed the dowry froma present to the wife, with full right of ownership (which could be inherited by her relatives) to a widow’s pension which was only available as long as the widow did not remarrv.^ In all probability in the first instance it was the Crown which was behind the whole patrilinear development and it was they who wished to transformthe nobility into a group of well-educated civil servants and with a knowledge, among other things, of foreign languages. From the Crown’s point of view it would certainly have been desirable with a systemwhere wealth of the nobilitv was assured by means of entailed estates or something similar and where their younger sons became officers or holders of public office and probably (as was the case with most of their daughters) unmarried. The most radical proposals were rejected by the nobility but the patrilinear strivings produced a considerable response from them. 4. The debate regarding hördsrätt Before 1720 a person who wished to sell land that he had inherited was obliged, according to law, to advertise this at the local court. Anv relative wishing to redeem the land had approximately two years in which to do so. The price would be fixed according to a valuation made by six people, three appointed by the seller and three by the relative who wished to redeem. After a debate in Parliament in 1720 hördsrätt was limited substantiallv. The group of relatives with the ^ I'ven before 1644 it was onlv when the man died that the woman herself could use the dowrs-.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=