--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@c...>
wrote:
>
> It seems to be just as you say, the way I read the German version of
> the treaty that revised the old one. I was suprised to learn that
> this condo has existed since about the 1830s, and that the 20th
> century treaty was a revision of the original. The river has had
> plenty of time to accrete... but the map shows a wide variance
between
> water and shore south of Wasserbillig - at least 20-30 meters at a
> couple of places. Amost as though sand banks count as water.
i dont know what to make of that
it seems to me the condo must grow & shrink with the river
& unless a dry spot is an island rather than attached to a bank at
any given moment it cant be in the condo at that moment
& of course the maps cant hope to show this nicety
also about the following
i wouldnt think old de jure stuff would have had to be reaffirmed
after the interruptions & conclusions of the wars
if the aggressors were ultimately repulsed
as in these cases
> At the time when Luxembourg had been assimilated into the
> Grossdeutschesreich in the 1940s, the condo must not have existed.
It
> may be that in WW I it ceased to exist, too. I wonder what
document
> brought it back into being.
>
> LN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> wrote in part:
>
> "....to which i would only add at this point on further reflection
> that i think all the condo markers must be indirect or witness
monuments
> since the legal riverbank limits of the condo are evidently
accreting &
> decreasing every
> which way all the time with every change in the levels of the rivers
> & that the condo borders are thus in fact not static
> as they would have been if the markers were direct
> but are always in flux with the actual waterlines on the banks
>
> or isnt that legally & definitively so"