[001] when the feoffors, father and1 mother, die, the heir not yet married, his marriage [002] will belong to the first feoffor, neither the order nor the priority being changed. [003] If the fees are to be held immediately of the chief lords the same rule will still have [004] to be observed, if the feoffments were made simultaneously, for otherwise it would [005] be impossible to decide which of them was to be preferred in the marriage. But [006] what if the father and2 mother do not enfeoff the heir at the same time but at [007] several times, of several fees, to be held of themselves or of the chief lords. If they [008] are to be held of the chief lords, the first3 order of priority is changed and a new order [009] based on the new feoffment takes effect. If the fees are to be held of themselves [010] and their heirs, the old order and priority still holds; it is not changed with respect [011] to them by the new feoffment and the marriage will belong to them as long as they [012] live. But when they die, if the heir is not married, since he then falls under the [013] potestas of the chief lords by reason of succession and not of feoffment, the first order [014] of priority, changed and altered by the feoffment of the heir, again comes into effect. [015] What was said of an eldest son and heir applies as well to a younger son, if he happens [016] to become heir after the feoffment. If he does not, the feoffment [and the marriage] [017] holds between himself and his warrantor. If the father or mother gives part of the [018] inheritance to their son and heir, at one time or by successive gifts, and retains part, [019] what the law ought to be with regard to the marriage may be sufficiently ascertained [020] from what has been said. If a father and mother [each] possessed of an inheritance [021] enfeoff the heir, or a younger son, at the same time or successively, of both inheritances, [022] [to be held of the chief lords], retaining a portion, on their deaths, the son [023] being within age and unmarried, the part retained will be the first feoffment, when [024] the heir falls into the hands of his lords, though it was the last with respect to the [025] ancestors. When they enfeoff their son and heir of both inheritances to be held of [026] them [the lords] and retain nothing, the fee that was first by the new feoffment will [027] then have to be preferred and the priority of enfeoffment of the ancestors disregarded. [028] Suppose they successively enfeoff their younger son to hold of themselves [029] and their heirs; the marriage of such [son] will belong to them, with no need to [030] consider priority of enfeoffment so far as they and their heirs are concerned since [031] there is [but] one feoffor and one heir, unless perchance the younger son becomes heir, [032] whereupon [the lord] of whose fee such younger son was first enfeoffed is preferred [033] with respect to the marriage, the new arrangement taking effect to the exclusion of [034] the old. It would be otherwise if he had been enfeoffed at the same time of both [035] inheritances completely. In the same way when the heir [A] of the father or mother [036] of the enfeoffed younger son is a minor and in the wardship of his chief lord, the [037] parents