Preliminary Programme

The route to modernity for the nobility and the manors of Sweden began early in the nineteenth century. Two legal reforms in 1810 underline the changes: the right for anyone to possess all kinds of landed property, and the prohibition against new entailments. A third reform may be added: the reform of the rules to gain nobility, §37 in the Constitution of 1809, and the political consequences of this decision. Together these three changes created new conditions for the nobility, their capability to possess land and manors, and their political influence. It was in many kinds a presage of the major political reforms of 1866, when the four-estate Diet – in many ways led by the estate of the nobility –was transformed into a modern parliament with two chambers. In this perspective, it is important to note not only that the discussions over the new conditions were sharp within the nobility, but also that the estate of the nobility voted in favor of the new rules of 1810. The proposal to abolish the monopoly on exempt land (frälsejord), making it possible for anyone to possess all kinds of land, was in fact initiated by members of the nobility. At the same time, there were proposals in the opposite directions, as a suggestion in 1829 to establish hereditary family seats for the nobility. In these debates, the question how the nobility should be related to land and manors was crucial.

In my paper, I will discuss the sketched development, how it was debated within the nobility, and how the connection between a landed nobility and political power was reshaped during the 19th century. (Show less)

The aim of this paper is to discuss the development and nature of Jewish country houses in
Sweden, during the long 19th century, based on preliminary outcomes of a pilot-study, a
systematic study of Jewish country houses in Sweden c1800-c1950.
Jewish country houses - those owned, renewed and sometimes also built by Jews, have in
the last few years become an area of increasing interest, and it has resulted in on-going
research within the European cultural heritage research field.
Until recently, Jewish country house owners were not identified as a specific group.
However, particularly, in the context of Modernity, and in the light of the changes it entailed
for the nobility, it is interesting to draw attention to the example of Jewish country houses and
their owners. Modernity was a time of progress when it comes to Jewish rights, among them
the right to own properties, which preceded the Jewish Emancipation in Sweden, in 1870.
Yet, until the mid-1850s, Jews were not allowed to settle in the Swedish countryside or in any
other city than Stockholm, Gothenburg, Norrkoping and Karlskrona. Still, exceptions were
made, and some country houses were owned by Jews even before. Clearly, the conditions
for Jewish acquisition of country houses were ambiguous in late 18th and early 19th century
Sweden. Nevertheless, as we shall see, conditions changed, and there was a steady
increase in country houses owned by Jews during the 19th century.
The project outcomes which will be discussed in this paper concern the following:
• The number of country houses which were owned by Jews and how it changed over
time.
• The geographical location of Jewish country houses in Sweden.
• The conditions for Jewish acquisition of country houses, and what Jewish owned
country house were used for, during different time periods.
• Something about the architecture, art collections, material culture, etc. of Jewish
country houses in Sweden. (Show less)

Fee tail have been an important motive in British popular culture for a long time. In many of Jane Austen’s novels, the inheritance of an entail and the lack of male issue is the very center of the conflicts and it is also the preamble for the BBC success series Downton Abbey. As a consequence, many Swedes are fairly familiar with fee tail in Britain, while the fact that this is also a Swedish phenomenon and that Sweden is the only country where fee tail still remain in force is less known.
My presentation will focus on the deeds establishing a fee tail. Central questions are of course who established a fee tail and why. According to Wikipedia “The fee tail allowed a patriarch to perpetuate his blood-line, family-name, honour and armorials in the persons of a series of powerful and wealthy male descendants”. This is without question the result of fee tail, but was it also the intention? This is more disputable. It is not unusual with female founders of an entail, and more commonly the husband and wife both signed the deed rather than just the husband. While male primogeniture was by far most common, there were other setups for succession of an entail, and more importantly, it was more the rule than the exception that the testaments stated that in case that there were no male heir, the (eldest) daughter should inherit that estate. Reconnecting to Downton Abbey: In Sweden, Cousin Peter may have been the heir, but since he died at the very beginning of the series, Downton Abbey would probably have gone to Mary, and she would not have had to marry Matthew to keep the estate.
In my presentation I will primarily address three aspects of the Swedish deeds of entail. First: the succession. Who would inherit the fee tail? Secondly: compensations. Swedish inheritance law stated that all issue should inherit; while entailment was permitted (with special regulations), the idea that just one heir should have it all, ran counter to the Swedish sense of justice. Thirdly: regulations. In what ways did the founder(s) try to control the heir and so to speak, “rule beyond the grave”? (Show less)