Talk:Seigneurial system of New France

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 22, 2004, June 22, 2005, June 22, 2006, June 22, 2007, June 22, 2008, and June 22, 2009.

France

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Quebec Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.

Illustration

The description is good, but a simple illustration of a typical seigneurie layout (with several seigneuries included) would be a great addition. Twas Now 05:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a good diagram at http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007270. I don't know how to add the diagram into the main wiki page, but someone who does might want to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrafreeman (talk • contribs) 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Topic name

Why is this topic used for just the seigneurial system of New France? Isn't the term just as applicable to France itself? -- Jmabel 08:28, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, I thought it was an adaptation of the remnants of the feudal system, based on the specific geography and circumstances of the St. Lawrence River. But I don't really know about 17th century French peasants or whatever :) Adam Bishop 08:32, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I changed the first couple of sentences to mention the broader use, but (at least for now) left the article otherwise intact. Jmabel 09:55, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Intendant

There's an article on Intendant and another on the Intendant System that I think should be considered for merging, or at least cross referencing. I'm not so concerned about the 'Intendant' article as I am about the 'Intendant System' article that is currently proposed to be merged into it. Some high level consideration is definitely in order. --Chaleur 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well they should be cross-referenced, but this should definitely NOT be merged into the Intendant article. Adam Bishop 15:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The benefits of the seigneurial system

what are the benefits of the seigneurial system? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.119.112 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been years since my French history, and I'd want to review and research before answering in concrete detail. But the topic is certainly worth mentioning in the article (with reliable references, natch).

A factor that may not be emphasized in sources — which I found to be significantly ill-considered or intentionally ignored in classwork — is how profoundly ignorant many people were before the 20th century. America was proud of its early literacy rate, but what they meant by literacy might be the equivalent of a poor grammar school education today. (E.g., I remember an annecdote that American cowboy's "literacy" was largely limited to reading the backs of soup cans around campfires.)

People who, for practical purposes. could not read or write needed the help and protection of those who could: landowners, military officers, clergy, judges. So they traded their labor for services. That's not to say that was a good thing, or the best approach, by any means, but it was a workable approach. Piano non troppo (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the benefits of distinguishing between the seigneurial system and other systems of land tenure? because I think it's worthwhile to mention that the last couple sentences of the introduction are so general as to describe any system of land tenure, and any subject of a higher authority as "free." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.25.182 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Michigan land tax

Vestiges of this system are seen in the payment of land tax. The seigneurial system landowners pay on 31 December for the year just over, while the rest of Michigan pays on 1 January for the year to come. This matters every time land is sold in Monroe county. If the seigneurial system land transaction occurs on 30 June, then the seller must pay to the buyer an amount equal to 1/2 the year's tax, since the seller owned the land for that much of the year and the seller has not yet paid the tax. However if the land is not seigneurial system land, then the buyer must pay to the seller an amount equal to 1/2 the year's tax, since the seller has already paid the land tax for the rest of the year but will not own the land for that much of the year. The only way to extinguish this would be to collect the seigneurial year's tax on 31 December, and the next day collect it again as the Common Law tax. This is not reasonable, and the dual tax system persists. Nick Beeson (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]