Legal Definitions - Calvin's case

Calvin's case refers to a highly significant legal decision made in 1608 in England. This ruling addressed the legal status of individuals born in Scotland after King James VI of Scotland also became King James I of England in 1603, uniting the crowns of both kingdoms. The court determined that anyone born in Scotland after this date was considered a "natural-born subject" of the King of England. This meant they held the same rights and privileges as those born in England, crucially including the right to own and inherit land in England.

Here are some examples illustrating the impact of Calvin's case:

• Example 1: Inheritance of Land

  Imagine a Scottish family, the MacGregors, whose distant cousin, Arthur, owned a valuable estate in Cornwall, England. Arthur died in 1615 without a will, and his closest living relative was Fiona MacGregor, born in Edinburgh in 1606. Before Calvin's case, Fiona, being born in Scotland, might have been considered an "alien" in England and therefore legally barred from inheriting English land. However, thanks to the precedent set by Calvin's case, Fiona was recognized as a natural-born subject of King James I and could legally inherit Arthur's estate in Cornwall, just as if she had been born in England.

• Example 2: Property Ownership and Business Expansion

  Consider a merchant named Alistair, born in Glasgow in 1609. Alistair moved to London in the 1630s to expand his successful shipping business. He wished to purchase a large warehouse near the Thames and a residence for his family. Calvin's case ensured that Alistair, despite his Scottish birth, possessed the full legal capacity to acquire and own property in England. He was not treated as a foreign national who might face restrictions on land ownership, but rather as a subject of the English Crown with the same property rights as someone born in England.

• Example 3: Legal Standing and Rights in Court

  In 1625, a legal dispute arose in an English court concerning a commercial contract between an English cloth manufacturer and a Scottish wool supplier named Duncan, who was born in Perth in 1605. The English manufacturer attempted to argue that Duncan, being Scottish, did not possess the same legal standing or rights in an English court as an English-born subject. Calvin's case directly countered this argument. It affirmed that Duncan, having been born in Scotland after the Union of the Crowns, was a natural-born subject of the King of England. This meant he had the same legal rights and protections in English courts as any English-born person, ensuring he could pursue or defend his interests without being disadvantaged due to his place of birth.