![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe island of Sark has a unique history.
As Duhaimes LawBlog notes, the stability of the island helped Sarkees keep their island's medieval legal system, with all of its prejudices, intact.
Recently, pressured by European Union human-rights legislation, the Sarkees entered into a heated debate on debating whether or not to introduce democracy to Sark, giving people who weren't the forty hereditary tenants a voice in parliament. As Susan Sachs wrote recently in The Globe and Mail, the integrity of the island's legal system has also been challenged by non-Sarkees, in this case by immigrants.
Though the details of the changes being pushed on Sark differ somewhat--many wealthy immigrant landowners apparently opposed democratic reforms, for instance--the overall impact of non-Sarkee influence has been to push the island away from patriarchal feudalism and towards something approaching modern Western norms, irrespective of the locals' continued attachment to their traditions. Compare the recent fracas on Pitcairn Island, where until quite recently the violent rape-cum-sexual initiation of young women and girls went without particular notice from the remainder of the island community, and indeed was only brought to light and dealt with by non-Pitcairners.
It's the Founder effect, right?
It is the smallest of the four Channel Islands, which are best known as tax havens as well as easy weekend getaway spots for British tourists. But the Sarkees, the 500 or so residents of the island, have been bound by quaint tradition dating to the time of Queen Elizabeth I.
The sovereign was said to have conquered Sark in 1565, not only to prevent it from falling into French hands but also to deny haven to the pesky pirates who used it as a base to attack British shipping.
Legend has it that the fearsome Blackbeard, accompanied by the requisite motley crew, once stormed the island and held the local elders hostage in a barn.
Whatever her reasons, Elizabeth granted Sark to a local grandee, who became know as the seigneur. His descendent, the 22nd Seigneur of Stark, still officially owns everything on the island, from the spectacular cliffs and stone villas to the rose-choked gardens and a handful of hotels and restaurants.
The descendents of the 40 families imported to colonize the island have controlled it politically ever since.
As Duhaimes LawBlog notes, the stability of the island helped Sarkees keep their island's medieval legal system, with all of its prejudices, intact.
Frozen in time, the legal system on the island has remained virtually unchanged. Since Elizabeth I still implemented the traditions of her ancestor, William the Conqueror, significant parts of the Sark legal system is almost a thousand years old.
The feudal system is alive and kicking, no one allowed to freehold land except the ranking Lord. In turn, the Lord (of which Helier was the first Lord of Sark and the incumbent, Michael Beaumont, the 22nd), is required to ensure the defence of the island and pay some money annually to the British Crown, some $3 (no increase since 1565).
Inheritance was only by primogeniture as was the transfer of the any of the 40 leases granted by the Lord. Only the 40 could participate in government and each must own a musket. The annual trimming of trees encroaching over public walkways is based on an ancient vigilante-type custom. There is no divorce law although foreign divorces are recognized. No one can own pigeons except the Lord but all landowners must give one chicken a year to the Lord. No unspayed female dogs (“bitches”) are allowed except those kept by the Lord and the Lord has to approve of any marriage. Lord Beaumont alone appoints all public servants.
Recently, pressured by European Union human-rights legislation, the Sarkees entered into a heated debate on debating whether or not to introduce democracy to Sark, giving people who weren't the forty hereditary tenants a voice in parliament. As Susan Sachs wrote recently in The Globe and Mail, the integrity of the island's legal system has also been challenged by non-Sarkees, in this case by immigrants.
[T]he wealthy Barclay twins grew irritated with Sark's antiquated legal system and asked the European Court of Human Rights to come to their aid.
The Barclays, Sir David and Sir Frederick, own the Ritz Hotel in London as well as several newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, which they bought in 1994 from Canadian media magnate Conrad Black.
The twin brothers also own Brecqhou, an island governed by Sark, where they have built a neo-Gothic castle. When they realized that its 16th-century inheritance laws would prevent them from passing their property on to their daughters, they sought and won a court judgment saying Sark's feudal system violated its people's human rights.
From then on, the Barclays have pushed, prodded and litigated to modernize the island's picturesque but antiquated legal system.
Though the details of the changes being pushed on Sark differ somewhat--many wealthy immigrant landowners apparently opposed democratic reforms, for instance--the overall impact of non-Sarkee influence has been to push the island away from patriarchal feudalism and towards something approaching modern Western norms, irrespective of the locals' continued attachment to their traditions. Compare the recent fracas on Pitcairn Island, where until quite recently the violent rape-cum-sexual initiation of young women and girls went without particular notice from the remainder of the island community, and indeed was only brought to light and dealt with by non-Pitcairners.
It's the Founder effect, right?
