Jump to content

English feudal barony: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Servitium debitum: removed repetitive material
Addition of Barony / Honour of Chilham, held by Richard FitzRoy, illegitimate son of King John. c.1190
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2014}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2014}}
{{English Feudalism}}
{{English Feudalism}}
[[Image:Joao sem terra assina carta Magna.jpg|thumb|King John signs ''[[Magna Carta]]'' at [[Runnymede]] in 1215, surrounded by his '''[[baronage]]'''. Illustration from ''Cassell's History of England'', 1902.]]
[[Image:King John signing the Great Charter (Magna Carta) by English School.png|thumb|King John signs ''[[Magna Carta]]'' at [[Runnymede]] in 1215, surrounded by his '''[[baronage]]'''. Illustration from ''Cassell's History of England'', 1902.]]


In the [[kingdom of England]], a '''feudal barony''' or '''barony by tenure''' was the highest degree of [[feudal land tenure]], namely ''per baroniam'' (Latin for "by barony"), under which the land-holder owed the service of being one of the king's [[baron]]s. The duties owed by and the privileges granted to feudal barons are not exactly defined, but they involved the duty of providing soldiers to the royal feudal army on demand by the king, and the privilege of attendance at the king's feudal court, the precursor of [[Parliament of England|parliament]].
In the [[kingdom of England]], a '''feudal barony''' or '''barony by tenure''' was the highest degree of [[feudal land tenure]], namely ''per baroniam'' (Latin for "by barony"), under which the land-holder owed the service of being one of the king's [[baron]]s. The duties owed by and the privileges granted to feudal barons are not exactly defined, but they involved the duty of providing soldiers to the royal feudal army on demand by the king, and the privilege of attendance at the king's feudal court, the ''[[Magnum Concilium]]'', the precursor of [[Parliament of England|parliament]].


If the [[Estate (law)|estate-in-land]] held by barony contained a significant castle as its ''[[caput baroniae]]''{{efn|The term '' '[[caput baroniae]]' '' is often shortened to '' '[[caput]]' ''}} and if it was especially large – consisting of more than about 20 [[knight's fee]]s (each loosely equivalent to a [[Manorialism|manor]]) – then it was termed an '''honour'''. The typical honour had properties scattered over several [[shire]]s, intermingled with the properties of others. This was a specific policy of the Norman kings, to avoid establishing any one area under the control of a single lord.<ref>{{Citation| last = Alexander| first = J. J.| title = Early Barons of Torrington and Barnstaple| journal = Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association| volume = 73| year = 1941| page = 154}}</ref> Usually, though, a more concentrated cluster existed somewhere. Here would lie the ''caput'' (head) of the honour, with a castle that gave its name to the honour and served as its administrative headquarters. The term '''honour''' is particularly useful for the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the development of an extensive [[peerage]] hierarchy.
If the [[Estate in land|estate-in-land]] held by barony contained a significant castle as its ''[[caput baroniae]]''{{efn|The term '' '[[caput baroniae]]' '' is often shortened to '' '[[caput]]' ''}} and if it was especially large – consisting of more than about 20 [[knight's fee]]s (each loosely equivalent to a [[Manorialism|manor]]) – then it was termed an '''honour'''. The typical honour had properties scattered over several [[shire]]s, intermingled with the properties of others. This was a specific policy of the Norman kings, to avoid establishing any one area under the control of a single lord.<ref>{{Citation| last = Alexander| first = J. J.| title = Early Barons of Torrington and Barnstaple| journal = Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association| volume = 73| year = 1941| page = 154}}</ref> Usually, though, a more concentrated cluster existed somewhere. Here would lie the ''caput'' (head) of the honour, with a castle that gave its name to the honour and served as its administrative headquarters. The term '''honour''' is particularly useful for the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the development of an extensive [[peerage]] hierarchy.


This type of barony is different from the type of feudal barony which existed within a [[county palatine]]. A county palatine was an independent franchise so its baronies were considered the highest rank of feudal tenure in the county and not the kingdom, such as the [[barony of Halton]] within the [[Palatinate of Chester]].<ref>Sanders (1960), p.138, refers to the "Lord" of Halton being the hereditary constable of the County Palatine of Chester, and omits Halton from both his lists.</ref>
This type of barony is different from the type of feudal barony which existed within a [[county palatine]]. A county palatine was an independent franchise so its baronies were considered the highest rank of feudal tenure in the county and not the kingdom, such as the [[barony of Halton]] within the [[Palatinate of Chester]].<ref>Sanders (1960), p.138, refers to the "Lord" of Halton being the hereditary constable of the County Palatine of Chester, and omits Halton from both his lists.</ref>
Line 30: Line 30:
The ''Cartae Baronum'' ("Charters of the Barons") was a survey commissioned by the Treasury in 1166. It required each baron{{efn|The survey in fact covered all the king's [[tenant-in-chief|tenants-in-chief]], not just those who held ''per baroniam'', which adds much uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the term "baron".{{citation needed|date=December 2013}}}} to declare how many knights he had enfeoffed and how many were ''super dominium'', with the names of all. It appears that the survey was designed to identify baronies from which a greater ''servitium debitum'' could in future be obtained by the king. An example is given from the return of Lambert of Etocquigny:<ref>Douglas (1959), p.915</ref>
The ''Cartae Baronum'' ("Charters of the Barons") was a survey commissioned by the Treasury in 1166. It required each baron{{efn|The survey in fact covered all the king's [[tenant-in-chief|tenants-in-chief]], not just those who held ''per baroniam'', which adds much uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the term "baron".{{citation needed|date=December 2013}}}} to declare how many knights he had enfeoffed and how many were ''super dominium'', with the names of all. It appears that the survey was designed to identify baronies from which a greater ''servitium debitum'' could in future be obtained by the king. An example is given from the return of Lambert of Etocquigny:<ref>Douglas (1959), p.915</ref>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
To his reverend lord, Henry, king of the English, Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favour 16 carucates of land and 2 bovates by the service of 10 knights. In these 16 carucates of land I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment:
To his reverend lord, Henry, king of the English, Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favour 16 [[carucate]]s of land and 2 [[bovate]]s [''about 2,000 acres''] by the service of 10 knights. In these 16 carucates of land I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment:
*Richard de Haia holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid me 2 marks.
*Richard de Haia holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid me 2 [[mark (currency)|marks]]. [''about 500 grams of silver'']
*Odo de Cranesbi holds 1 knight's fee.
*Odo de Cranesbi holds 1 knight's fee.
*Thomas, son of William, holds 1 knight's fee.
*Thomas, son of William, holds 1 knight's fee.
Line 41: Line 41:
The privilege which balanced the burden of the ''servitium debitum'' was the baron's right to attend the king's council. Originally{{when|date=April 2019}} all barons who held ''per baroniam'' received individual [[writ]]s of summons to attend Parliament. This was a practical measure because the early kings almost continually travelled around the kingdom, taking their court (i.e. administration) with them.
The privilege which balanced the burden of the ''servitium debitum'' was the baron's right to attend the king's council. Originally{{when|date=April 2019}} all barons who held ''per baroniam'' received individual [[writ]]s of summons to attend Parliament. This was a practical measure because the early kings almost continually travelled around the kingdom, taking their court (i.e. administration) with them.


A king only called a parliament, or council, when the need arose either for advice or funding. This lack of a parliamentary schedule meant that the barons needed to be informed when and where to attend. As baronies became fragmented over time due to failure of male heirs and descent via co-heiresses (see below), many of those who held ''per baroniam'' became holders of relatively small fiefdoms. Eventually, the king refused to summon such minor nobles to Parliament by personal writ, sending instead a general writ of summons to the [[sheriff]] of each shire, who was to summon only representatives of these so-called lesser barons. The greater barons, who retained sufficient power to insist upon it, continued to receive personal summonses. The king came to realise, from the complacency of the lesser barons with this new procedure, that in practice it was not tenure ''per baroniam'' which determined attendance at Parliament, but receipt of a writ of summons originated by himself.
A king only called a parliament, or council, when the need arose for either advice or funding. This lack of a parliamentary schedule meant that the barons needed to be informed when and where to attend. As baronies became fragmented over time due to failure of male heirs and descent via co-heiresses (see below), many of those who held ''per baroniam'' became holders of relatively small fiefdoms. Eventually, the king refused to summon such minor nobles to Parliament by personal writ, sending instead a general writ of summons to the [[sheriff]] of each shire, who was to summon only representatives of these so-called lesser barons. The greater barons, who retained sufficient power to insist upon it, continued to receive personal summonses. The king came to realise, from the complacency of the lesser barons with this new procedure, that in practice it was not tenure ''per baroniam'' which determined attendance at Parliament, but receipt of a writ of summons originated by himself.


The next logical development was that the king started issuing writs to persons who did not hold ''per baroniam'' and who were not therefore feudal barons, but "barons by writ". The reason for summoning by writ was based on personal characteristics, for example the man summoned might be one of exceptional judgement or have valuable military skills. The arbitrary summons by personal writ signalled the start of the decline of feudalism, eventually evolving into summons by public proclamation in the form of [[letters patent]].
The next logical development was that the king started issuing writs to persons who did not hold ''per baroniam'' and who were not therefore feudal barons, but "barons by writ". The reason for summoning by writ was based on personal characteristics, for example the man summoned might be one of exceptional judgement or have valuable military skills. The arbitrary summons by personal writ signalled the start of the decline of feudalism, eventually evolving into summons by public proclamation in the form of [[letters patent]].
Line 61: Line 61:
Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into [[Hereditary peer|baronies by writ]]. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in ''free socage'', that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service. Parliamentary titles of honour had been limited since the 15th century by the ''Modus Tenenda Parliamenta'' [[Act of Parliament|act]], and could thenceforth only be created by [[Hereditary peer#Writs of summons|writ of summons]] or [[letters patent]].
Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into [[Hereditary peer|baronies by writ]]. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in ''free socage'', that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service. Parliamentary titles of honour had been limited since the 15th century by the ''Modus Tenenda Parliamenta'' [[Act of Parliament|act]], and could thenceforth only be created by [[Hereditary peer#Writs of summons|writ of summons]] or [[letters patent]].


Tenure by [[knight-service]] was abolished and discharged and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were henceforth held by [[socage]] (i.e. in exchange for monetary rents). The English ''Fitzwalter Case'' in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and any claims to a [[peerage]] on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the [[House of Lords]], were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them.<ref>[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103727642;view=1up;seq=297 Collins's Peerage Claims, P287]"the nature of a Barony by tenure being discoursed, it was found to have been discontinued for many ages, and not in being, and not fit to be revived, or to admit any pretence of right of succession thereupon: And that the pretence of a barony by tenure being declared for weighty reasons not to be one to be insisted upon"</ref> In the ''Berkeley Case'' in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a seat in the House of Lords by right of a barony by tenure, but the [[House of Lords]] ruled that whatever might have been the case in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, meaning that a barony could not be held "by tenure", and confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.<ref>[http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1861/124.pdf (1861) 8 H.L.C. 21 at 74]</ref> Three Redesdale Committee Reports in the early 19th century reached the same conclusion.
Tenure by [[knight-service]] was abolished and discharged and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were henceforth held by [[socage]] (i.e. in exchange for monetary rents). The English ''Fitzwalter Case'' in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and any claims to a [[peerage]] on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the [[House of Lords]], were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them.<ref>[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103727642;view=1up;seq=297 Collins's Peerage Claims, P287]"the nature of a Barony by tenure being discoursed, it was found to have been discontinued for many ages, and not in being, and not fit to be revived, or to admit any pretence of right of succession thereupon: And that the pretence of a barony by tenure being declared for weighty reasons not to be one to be insisted upon"</ref> In the ''Berkeley Case'' in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a seat in the House of Lords by right of a barony by tenure, but the [[House of Lords]] ruled that whatever might have been the case in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, meaning that a barony could not be held "by tenure", and confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1861/124.pdf|date=1861|publisher= Commonwealth Legal Information Institute|title=1861 English Reports Decisions: The Berkeley Peerage }} 8 H.L.C. 21 at 74</ref> Three Redesdale Committee Reports in the early 19th century reached the same conclusion.
There has been at least one legal opinion which asserts the continuing legal existence of the feudal barony in England and Wales, namely that from 1996 of A W & C Barsby, Barristers of Grays's Inn.<ref>Manorial Law, A W & C Barsby 1996</ref>
There has been at least one legal opinion which asserts the continuing legal existence of the feudal barony in England and Wales, namely that from 1996 of A W & C Barsby, Barristers of Grays's Inn.<ref>{{cite book|title=Manorial Law|first1=A W|first2=C|last1=Barsby|last2=Barsby|publisher=Barsby Ltd|date=1996|isbn=9780952162520}}</ref>


===Geographical survivals===
===Geographical survivals===
Line 127: Line 127:
|[[Bourn]]||Cambridgeshire|| [[Picot of Cambridge|Picot]] ||1086
|[[Bourn]]||Cambridgeshire|| [[Picot of Cambridge|Picot]] ||1086
|-
|-
|[[Bradninch]]||Devon|| [[William Cheever|William Capra]] ||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Bradninch|Bradninch]]||Devon|| [[William Cheever|William Capra]] ||1086
|-
|-
|[[Bulwick]]||Northamptonshire|| [[Richard fitzUrse|Richard FitzUrse]] ||1130
|[[Bulwick]]||Northamptonshire|| [[Richard fitzUrse|Richard FitzUrse]] ||1130
Line 145: Line 145:
|[[Holdgate|Castle Holgate]]||Shropshire||"Helgot"||1086
|[[Holdgate|Castle Holgate]]||Shropshire||"Helgot"||1086
|-
|-
|Cause||Shropshire||Roger FitzCorbet||11th century
|[[Caus Castle|Caus]]||Shropshire||Roger FitzCorbet||11th century
|-
|-
|[[Cavendish, Suffolk|Cavendish]]||Suffolk|| [[Ralph de Limesy|Ralph I de Limesy]] ||1086
|[[Cavendish, Suffolk|Cavendish]]||Suffolk|| [[Ralph de Limesy|Ralph I de Limesy]] ||1086
Line 154: Line 154:
|-
|-
|[[Chester]]||Cheshire||[[Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester|Gerbod the Fleming]]||1070
|[[Chester]]||Cheshire||[[Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester|Gerbod the Fleming]]||1070
⚫
|-
|Chilham
|Kent
|[[Richard FitzRoy]]
|1190
|-
|-
|Chipping Warden||Northamptonshire||Guy de Reinbuedcurt||1086
|Chipping Warden||Northamptonshire||Guy de Reinbuedcurt||1086
Line 167: Line 172:
|Cottingham||Yorkshire|| [[Hugh fitzBaldric]] ||1086
|Cottingham||Yorkshire|| [[Hugh fitzBaldric]] ||1086
|-
|-
|[[Crich|Crick]]||Derbyshire||Ralph FitzHubert<ref>I.J.Sanders Page 37 & 84</ref>||1086
|[[Crich|Crick]]||Derbyshire||[[Ralph Fitzhubert|Ralph FitzHubert]]<ref>I.J.Sanders Page 37 & 84</ref>||1086
|-
|-
|[[Feudal barony of Curry Mallet|Curry Malet]]||Somerset||Roger de Courcelles||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Curry Mallet|Curry Malet]]||Somerset||Roger de Courcelles||1086
Line 199: Line 204:
|Great Bealings||Suffolk||Hervey de Bourges||1086
|Great Bealings||Suffolk||Hervey de Bourges||1086
|-
|-
|Great Torrington||Devon||Odo FitzGamelin||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Great Torrington|Great Torrington]]||Devon||Odo FitzGamelin||1086
|-
|-
|Great Weldon||Northamptonshire||Robert de Buci||1086
|Great Weldon||Northamptonshire||Robert de Buci||1086
Line 205: Line 210:
|[[Greystoke, Cumbria|Greystoke]]||Cumberland||Forne son of Sigulf||1086
|[[Greystoke, Cumbria|Greystoke]]||Cumberland||Forne son of Sigulf||1086
|-
|-
|Hanslope||Buckinghamshire||Winemar the Fleming||1086
|Hanslope||Buckinghamshire||Winemar the Fleming||1086
|-
|-
|Hasley/Haseley||Buckinghamshire||Rodger d’Yorey||1086
⚫
|Hatch Beauchamp<ref>Batten, J. The Barony of Beauchamp of Somerset, in: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 36(1891), pp.20–59</ref>||Somerset||Robert FitzIvo (under Count of Mortain)||1086
|-
⚫
|[[Feudal barony of Hatch Beauchamp|Hatch Beauchamp]]<ref>Batten, J. The Barony of Beauchamp of Somerset, in: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 36(1891), pp.20–59</ref>||Somerset||Robert FitzIvo (under Count of Mortain)||1086
|-
|-
|Headington||Oxfordshire||Thomas Basset||1203
|Headington||Oxfordshire||Thomas Basset||1203
Line 238: Line 245:
|1284
|1284
|-
|-
|[[Launceston, Cornwall|Launceston]]||Cornwall||Descent as [[Earl of Cornwall]]||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Launceston|Launceston]]||Cornwall||Descent as [[Earl of Cornwall]]||1086
|-
|-
|[[Leicester Castle|Leicester]]||Leicestershire|| [[Hugh de Grandmesnil]] ||1086
|[[Leicester Castle|Leicester]]||Leicestershire|| [[Hugh de Grandmesnil]] ||1086
Line 275: Line 282:
|-
|-
|[[Pulverbatch]]||Shropshire||Roger I ''Venator'' (held from [[Roger de Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury|Roger of Montgomery]])||1086
|[[Pulverbatch]]||Shropshire||Roger I ''Venator'' (held from [[Roger de Montgomerie, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury|Roger of Montgomery]])||1086
|-
⚫
|[[Rayne, Essex|Rayne]]||Essex||Roger de Raimes||1086
|-
|-
|[[Redbourne]]||Lincolnshire||Jocelin FitzLambert||1086
|[[Redbourne]]||Lincolnshire||Jocelin FitzLambert||1086
Line 284: Line 293:
|[[Shelford, Nottinghamshire|Shelford]]||Nottinghamshire|| [[Geoffrey Alselin|Geoffrey de Alselin]] ||1086
|[[Shelford, Nottinghamshire|Shelford]]||Nottinghamshire|| [[Geoffrey Alselin|Geoffrey de Alselin]] ||1086
|-
|-
|[[Skelton, East Riding of Yorkshire|Skelton]]||Yorkshire|| [[Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale|Robert de Brus]] ||''temp.'' Henry I
|[[Skelton-in-Cleveland|Skelton]]||Yorkshire|| [[Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale|Robert de Brus]] ||''temp.'' Henry I
|-
|-
|[[Skirpenbeck]]||Yorkshire||Odo the Crossbowman||1086
|[[Skirpenbeck]]||Yorkshire||Odo the Crossbowman||1086
Line 314: Line 323:
|Thoresway||Lincolnshire||Alfred of Lincoln||1086
|Thoresway||Lincolnshire||Alfred of Lincoln||1086
|-
|-
|[[Totnes]]||Devon||[[Juhel de Totnes]]||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Totnes|Totnes]]||Devon||[[Juhel de Totnes]]||1086
|-
|-
|Trematon||Cornwall||Reginald I de Vautort (held from Count of Mortain)||1086
|[[Feudal barony of Trematon|Trematon]]||Cornwall||Reginald I de Vautort (held from Count of Mortain)||1086
|-
|-
|Trowbridge||Wiltshire||[[Brictric]]||1086
|Trowbridge||Wiltshire||[[Brictric]]||1086
Line 349: Line 358:
|}
|}
Source: Sanders (1960)
Source: Sanders (1960)



===Probable baronies===
===Probable baronies===
Line 430: Line 440:
|-
|-
|[[Kentwell]]||Suffolk||Frodo||1086
|[[Kentwell]]||Suffolk||Frodo||1086
|-
|[[Knaresborough Forest]]||Yorkshire||[[Robert I, King of Scotland]]||''temp.'' Edward II
|-
|-
|[[Honour of Lancaster|Lancaster]]||Lancashire||[[Roger the Poitevin]]||''temp.'' William I
|[[Honour of Lancaster|Lancaster]]||Lancashire||[[Roger the Poitevin]]||''temp.'' William I
Line 466: Line 478:
|-
|-
|[[Rayleigh, Essex|Rayleigh]]||Essex||Swain of Essex||1086
|[[Rayleigh, Essex|Rayleigh]]||Essex||Swain of Essex||1086
⚫
|-
⚫
|[[Rayne, Essex|Rayne]]||Essex||Roger de Raimes||1086
|-
|-
|[[Honour of Richmond|Richmond]]||Yorkshire||[[Alan Rufus]]||1086
|[[Honour of Richmond|Richmond]]||Yorkshire||[[Alan Rufus]]||1086
Line 530: Line 540:
*[[Land tenure]]
*[[Land tenure]]
*[[Land tenure in England]]
*[[Land tenure in England]]
*[[Honour (feudal land tenure)]]
*[[Feudal baronies in Devonshire]]
*[[Feudal baronies in Devonshire]]
*[[Mandala (Southeast Asian political model)]]
*[[Mandala (Southeast Asian political model)]]
*[[:simple:English feudal earldom|English feudal earldom]]
}}
}}


Line 542: Line 552:


==Sources==
==Sources==
*Sanders, I.J. ''English Baronies, a Study of their Origin and Descent 1086–1327'', Oxford, 1960.
*Douglas, David C. & Greenaway, George W., (eds.), English Historical Documents 1042–1189, London, 1959. Part IV, Land & People, C, Anglo-Norman Feudalism, pp.&nbsp;895–944
*Douglas, David C. & Greenaway, George W., (eds.), English Historical Documents 1042–1189, London, 1959. Part IV, Land & People, C, Anglo-Norman Feudalism, pp.&nbsp;895–944
* {{cite book | last = Sanders | first = Ivor John | title = English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent, 1086-1327 | publisher = Clarendon Press | year = 1960 | location = Oxford | url = https://archive.org/details/englishbaroniess0000ivor | url-access = registration}}
*Bayeux Tapestry


==Further reading==
==Further reading==

Latest revision as of 17:34, 13 December 2024

English feudalism
Manorialism
Feudal land tenure in England
Feudal duties
Feudalism
King John signs Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215, surrounded by his baronage. Illustration from Cassell's History of England, 1902.

In the kingdom of England, a feudal barony or barony by tenure was the highest degree of feudal land tenure, namely per baroniam (Latin for "by barony"), under which the land-holder owed the service of being one of the king's barons. The duties owed by and the privileges granted to feudal barons are not exactly defined, but they involved the duty of providing soldiers to the royal feudal army on demand by the king, and the privilege of attendance at the king's feudal court, the Magnum Concilium, the precursor of parliament.

If the estate-in-land held by barony contained a significant castle as its caput baroniae[a] and if it was especially large – consisting of more than about 20 knight's fees (each loosely equivalent to a manor) – then it was termed an honour. The typical honour had properties scattered over several shires, intermingled with the properties of others. This was a specific policy of the Norman kings, to avoid establishing any one area under the control of a single lord.[1] Usually, though, a more concentrated cluster existed somewhere. Here would lie the caput (head) of the honour, with a castle that gave its name to the honour and served as its administrative headquarters. The term honour is particularly useful for the eleventh and twelfth centuries, before the development of an extensive peerage hierarchy.

This type of barony is different from the type of feudal barony which existed within a county palatine. A county palatine was an independent franchise so its baronies were considered the highest rank of feudal tenure in the county and not the kingdom, such as the barony of Halton within the Palatinate of Chester.[2]

Creation

[edit]

William the Conqueror established his favoured followers as barons by enfeoffing them as tenants-in-chief with great fiefdoms to be held per baroniam, a largely standard feudal contract of tenure, common to all his barons. Such barons were not necessarily always from the greater Norman nobles, but were selected often on account of their personal abilities and usefulness. Thus, for instance, Turstin FitzRolf, the relatively humble and obscure knight who had stepped in at the last minute to accept the position of Duke William's standard-bearer at the Battle of Hastings, was granted a barony which comprised well over twenty manors.[3]

Lands forming a barony were often located in several different counties, not necessarily adjoining. The name of such a barony is generally deemed to be the name of the chief manor within it, known as the Caput, Latin for "head", generally assumed to have been the seat or chief residence of the first baron. So, for instance, the barony of Turstin FitzRolf became known as the barony of North Cadbury, Somerset.[3]

The exact date of creation of most feudal baronies cannot be determined, as their founding charters have been lost. Many of them are first recorded in the Domesday Book survey of 1086.

Servitium debitum

[edit]

The feudal obligation imposed by the grant of a barony was termed in Latin the servitium debitum or "service owed" and was set as a quota of knights to be provided for the king's service. It bore no constant relation to the amount of land comprised by the barony, but was fixed by a bargain between the king and the baron.[4]

It was at the discretion of the baron as to how these knights were found. The commonest method was for him to split his barony into several fiefs of between a few hundred acres possibly up to a thousand acres each, into each of which he would sub-enfeoff one knight, by the tenure of knight-service. This tenure gave the knight use of the fief and all its revenues, on condition that he should provide to the baron, now his overlord, 40 days of military service, complete with retinue of esquires, horses and armour. The fief so allotted is known as a knight's fee. Alternatively the baron could keep the entire barony, or a part of it, in demesne, that is to say "in-hand" or under his own management, using the revenues it produced to buy the services of mercenary knights known as "stipendiary knights".

Under- and over-enfeoffment

[edit]

Where a baron had sub-enfeoffed fewer knights than required by the servitium debitum, the barony was said to be "under-enfeoffed", and the balance of knights owing had to be produced super dominium, that is "on the demesne". This does not mean they were resident within the baron's demesne, but that they had to be hired with the revenue arising from it.

Conversely, a barony was "over-enfeoffed" where more knights had been enfeoffed than was required by the servitium debitum, and this indicated that the barony had been obtained on overly-favourable terms.

Cartae Baronum

[edit]

The Cartae Baronum ("Charters of the Barons") was a survey commissioned by the Treasury in 1166. It required each baron[b] to declare how many knights he had enfeoffed and how many were super dominium, with the names of all. It appears that the survey was designed to identify baronies from which a greater servitium debitum could in future be obtained by the king. An example is given from the return of Lambert of Etocquigny:[5]

To his reverend lord, Henry, king of the English, Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favour 16 carucates of land and 2 bovates [about 2,000 acres] by the service of 10 knights. In these 16 carucates of land I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment:

  • Richard de Haia holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid me 2 marks. [about 500 grams of silver]
  • Odo de Cranesbi holds 1 knight's fee.
  • Thomas, son of William, holds 1 knight's fee.
  • Roger de Millers holds 2 knight's fees.

And from my demesne I provide the balance of the service I owe you, to wit, that of 5 knights. And from that demesne I have given Robert de Portemort 3⁄4 of 1 knight's fee. Therefore I pray you that you will send me your judgement concerning Richard de Haia who holds back the service of his fee, because I cannot obtain that service except by your order. This is the total service in the aforesaid 16 carucates of land. Farewell.

Summons to Parliament

[edit]

The privilege which balanced the burden of the servitium debitum was the baron's right to attend the king's council. Originally[when?] all barons who held per baroniam received individual writs of summons to attend Parliament. This was a practical measure because the early kings almost continually travelled around the kingdom, taking their court (i.e. administration) with them.

A king only called a parliament, or council, when the need arose for either advice or funding. This lack of a parliamentary schedule meant that the barons needed to be informed when and where to attend. As baronies became fragmented over time due to failure of male heirs and descent via co-heiresses (see below), many of those who held per baroniam became holders of relatively small fiefdoms. Eventually, the king refused to summon such minor nobles to Parliament by personal writ, sending instead a general writ of summons to the sheriff of each shire, who was to summon only representatives of these so-called lesser barons. The greater barons, who retained sufficient power to insist upon it, continued to receive personal summonses. The king came to realise, from the complacency of the lesser barons with this new procedure, that in practice it was not tenure per baroniam which determined attendance at Parliament, but receipt of a writ of summons originated by himself.

The next logical development was that the king started issuing writs to persons who did not hold per baroniam and who were not therefore feudal barons, but "barons by writ". The reason for summoning by writ was based on personal characteristics, for example the man summoned might be one of exceptional judgement or have valuable military skills. The arbitrary summons by personal writ signalled the start of the decline of feudalism, eventually evolving into summons by public proclamation in the form of letters patent.

Deemed feudal barons

[edit]

The higher prelates such as archbishops and bishops were deemed to hold per baroniam, and were thus members of the baronage entitled to attend Parliament, indeed they formed the greatest grouping of all. Marcher lords in Wales often held their lordships by right of conquest and appear to have been deemed feudal barons. The Barons of the Cinque Ports were also deemed feudal barons by virtue of their military service at sea,[6] and were thus entitled to attend Parliament.

Baronial relief

[edit]

Baronial relief was payable by an heir so that he might lawfully take possession of his inheritance.[7] It was a form of one-off taxation, or more accurately a variety of "feudal incident", levyable by the King on his tenants-in-chief for a variety of reasons. A prospective heir to a barony generally paid £100 in baronial relief for his inheritance.[7] The term "relief" implies "elevation", both words being derived from the Latin levo, to raise up, into a position of honour.

Where a barony was split into two, for example on the death of a baron leaving two co-heiresses, each daughter's husband would become a baron in respect of his moiety (mediaeval French for "half"), paying half of the full baronial relief. A tenant-in-chief could be the lord of fractions of several different baronies, if he or his ancestors had married co-heiresses. The tenure of even the smallest fraction of a barony conferred baronial status on the lord of these lands.[7] This natural fragmentation of the baronies led to great difficulties within the royal administration as the king relied on an ever-increasing number of men responsible for supplying soldiers for the royal army, and the records of the identities of these fractional barons became more complex and unreliable. The early English jurist Henry de Bracton (died 1268) was one of the first writers to examine the concept of the feudal barony.

Abolition and surviving vestiges

[edit]

The power of the feudal barons to control their landholding was considerably weakened in 1290 by the statute of Quia Emptores. This prohibited land from being the subject of a feudal grant, and allowed its transfer without the feudal lord's permission.

Feudal baronies became perhaps obsolete (but not extinct) on the abolition of feudal tenure during the Civil War, as confirmed by the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 passed under the Restoration which took away knights service and other legal rights.

Under the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, many baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a "free" (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents. Thus baronies could no longer be held by military service. Parliamentary titles of honour had been limited since the 15th century by the Modus Tenenda Parliamenta act, and could thenceforth only be created by writ of summons or letters patent.

Tenure by knight-service was abolished and discharged and the lands covered by such tenures, including once-feudal baronies, were henceforth held by socage (i.e. in exchange for monetary rents). The English Fitzwalter Case in 1670 ruled that barony by tenure had been discontinued for many years and any claims to a peerage on such basis, meaning a right to sit in the House of Lords, were not to be revived, nor any right of succession based on them.[8] In the Berkeley Case in 1861, an attempt was made to claim a seat in the House of Lords by right of a barony by tenure, but the House of Lords ruled that whatever might have been the case in the past, baronies by tenure no longer existed, meaning that a barony could not be held "by tenure", and confirmed the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.[9] Three Redesdale Committee Reports in the early 19th century reached the same conclusion. There has been at least one legal opinion which asserts the continuing legal existence of the feudal barony in England and Wales, namely that from 1996 of A W & C Barsby, Barristers of Grays's Inn.[10]

Geographical survivals

[edit]

Survivals of feudal baronies, in their geographical form, are the Barony of Westmorland or Appleby, the Barony of Kendal, the Barony of Arundel and the Barony of Abergavenny.[11] The first two terms now describe areas of the historic county of Westmorland, in the same way that the word "county" itself has lost its feudal meaning of a land area under the control of a count or earl.

Lists

[edit]
See also: List of nobles and magnates of England in the 13th century

Ivor J. Sanders searched the archives, for example Exchequer documents such as fine rolls and pipe rolls, for entries recording the payment of baronial relief and published his results in English Baronies, a Study of their Origin and Descent 1086–1327 (Oxford, 1960). He identified a number of certain baronies where evidence was found of payment of baronial relief, and a further group which he termed "probable baronies" where the evidence was less clear. Where he could not identify a caput, Sanders named the barony after the name of the baron, for example the "Barony of Miles of Gloucester". The following lists include all of Sanders' certain and probable baronies.

For a full comprehensive list of feudal baronies in the 13th century along with earldoms, bishoprics, and archbishoprics see List of nobles and magnates of England in the 13th century.

Certain baronies

[edit]
Name of barony County of caput First known tenant Earliest record
Aldington Kent William FitzHelte 1073
Arundel Sussex Roger de Montgomery pre 1087
Ashby Lincolnshire Gilbert de Neville 1162
Ashfield Suffolk Robert Blund 1086
Atherleigh Lancashire Domhnall Uí Bhriain post 1086
Aveley Essex John FitzWaleran 1086
Bampton Devon Walter de Douai 1086
Biset – Manasser Biset (d.1177) pre 1177
Gloucester (baronial court at Bristol[12]) Gloucestershire Robert FitzHamon(d.1107) pre 1107
Miles of Gloucester/Brecon Brecon Miles de Gloucester 1125
Basing Hampshire Hugh de Port 1086
Beckley Oxfordshire Roger d'Ivry 1086
Bedford Bedfordshire Hugh de Beauchamp 1086
Belvoir Leicestershire Robert de Todeni 1086
Benington Hertfordshire Peter I de Valoynes 1086
Berkeley Gloucestershire Robert FitzHarding temp. Henry II, pre 1166
Berkhampstead Hertfordshire Robert, count of Mortain 1086
Beverstone Gloucestershire Robert de Gurney 1235
Blagdon Somerset Serlo de Burci 1086
Blankney Lincolnshire Walter I de Aincourt 1086
Blythborough Suffolk William FitzWalter 1157
Bolham Northumberland James de Newcastle 1154
Bolingbroke Lincolnshire Ivo de Taillebois 1086
Bourn Cambridgeshire Picot 1086
Bradninch Devon William Capra 1086
Bulwick Northamptonshire Richard FitzUrse 1130
Burgh-by-Sands Cumberland Robert de Trevers temp. Henry I (1100–1135)
Burstwick/"Holderness"[13] Yorkshire Drogo de Brevere 1086
Bywell Northumberland Guy de Balliol temp. William II(1087–1100)
Cainhoe Bedfordshire Nigel d'Aubigny (died before 1107) 1086
Castle Cary Somerset Walter de Douai 1086
Castle Combe[14] Wiltshire Humphrey de Insula 1086
Castle Holgate Shropshire "Helgot" 1086
Caus Shropshire Roger FitzCorbet 11th century
Cavendish Suffolk Ralph I de Limesy 1086
Caxton Cambridgeshire Hardwin de Scales 1086
Chatham Kent Robert le Latin (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) 1086
Chester Cheshire Gerbod the Fleming 1070
Chilham Kent Richard FitzRoy 1190
Chipping Warden Northamptonshire Guy de Reinbuedcurt 1086
Chiselborough[c] Somerset Alured "Pincerna" 1086
Clare Suffolk Richard fitz Gilbert c. 1090
Clifford Hereford Ralph de Tony 1086
Cogges Oxfordshire Wadard (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) 1086
Cottingham Yorkshire Hugh fitzBaldric 1086
Crick Derbyshire Ralph FitzHubert[15] 1086
Curry Malet Somerset Roger de Courcelles 1086
Eaton Bray Bedfordshire William I de Cantilupe 1205
Eaton Socon Bedfordshire Eudo Dapifer 1086
Ellingham Northumberland Nicholas de Grenville temp. Henry I
Embleton Northumberland John FitzOdard temp. Henry I
Erlestoke Wiltshire Roger I de Mandeville temp. Henry I
Ewyas Harold Herefordshire Alfred of Marlborough 1086
Eye Suffolk Robert Malet 1086
Field Dalling/St.Hilary Norfolk Hasculf de St James 1138
Flockthorpe in Hardingham Norfolk Ralph de Camoys 1236
Folkestone Kent William de Arques (held under Odo Bp. of Bayeux) c. 1090
Folkingham Lincolnshire Gilbert de Gant 1086
Framlingham Suffolk Roger I Bigod 1086/temp. Henry I
Freiston Lincolnshire Guy de Craon 1086
Great Bealings Suffolk Hervey de Bourges 1086
Great Torrington Devon Odo FitzGamelin 1086
Great Weldon Northamptonshire Robert de Buci 1086
Greystoke Cumberland Forne son of Sigulf 1086
Hanslope Buckinghamshire Winemar the Fleming 1086
Hasley/Haseley Buckinghamshire Rodger d’Yorey 1086
Hatch Beauchamp[16] Somerset Robert FitzIvo (under Count of Mortain) 1086
Headington Oxfordshire Thomas Basset 1203
Headingham Essex Aubry I de Vere 1086
Helmsley Yorkshire Walter Espec temp. Henry I
Hockering Norfolk Ralph de Belfou 1086
Holderness (see caput:Burstwick)
Hook Norton Oxfordshire Robert d'Oilly 1086
Hooton Pagnell Yorkshire Richard de Surdeval (under Count of Mortain) (part) Ralph Pagnell (under King) (part) 1086
Hunsingore Yorkshire Erneis de Burun 1086
Kendal Westmorland Ivo de Taillebois temp. William II
Kington Herefordshire Adam de Port c. 1121
Kirklinton Cumberland Adam I de Boivill(?) post temp. Henry I
Knaresborough Yorkshire William de Stuteville c. 1175
Kymmer-yn-Edeirnion Merionethshire Gruffydd ab Iorwerth ab Owain Brogyntyn 1284
Launceston Cornwall Descent as Earl of Cornwall 1086
Leicester Leicestershire Hugh de Grandmesnil 1086
Long Crendon Buckinghamshire Walter I Giffard 1086
Marshwood Dorset Geoffrey de Mandeville (c. 1070 – c. 1119) temp. Henry I
Monmouth Monmouthshire Withenoc c. 1066
Morpeth Northumberland William I de Merlay temp. Henry I
Much Marcle Herefordshire William fitzBaderon 1086
Mulgrave Yorkshire Nigel Fossard 1086
Nether Stowey Somerset Alfred de Hispania 1086
Nocton Lincolnshire Norman I de Darcy 1086
North Cadbury Somerset Turstin FitzRolf 1086
Odell Bedfordshire Walter le Fleming 1086
Okehampton Devon Baldwin FitzGilbert 1086
Old Buckenham Norfolk William d'Aubigny Pincerna temp. Henry I
Oswestry Shropshire Warin the Bold (held from Roger of Montgomery) temp. William II
Pleshy Essex Geoffrey I de Mandeville 1086
Poorstock Dorset Roger I Arundel 1086
Prudhoe Northumberland Robert I de Umfraville temp. William I
Pulverbatch Shropshire Roger I Venator (held from Roger of Montgomery) 1086
Rayne Essex Roger de Raimes 1086
Redbourne Lincolnshire Jocelin FitzLambert 1086
Richard's Castle Herefordshire Osbern fitzRichard 1086
Salwarpe Worcestershire Urse d'Abitot (held from Roger of Montgomery) 1086
Shelford Nottinghamshire Geoffrey de Alselin 1086
Skelton Yorkshire Robert de Brus temp. Henry I
Skirpenbeck Yorkshire Odo the Crossbowman 1086
Snodhill Herefordshire Hugh the Ass 1086
Sotby Lincolnshire William I Kyme (held from Walden the Engineer) 1086
Southoe Huntingdonshire Eustace Sheriff of Huntingdonshire 1086
Stafford Staffordshire Robert I de Stafford 1086
Stainton le Vale Lincolnshire Ralph de Criol temp. Henry I
Stansted Mountfitchet Essex Robert Gernon 1086
Staveley Derbyshire Hascuil I Musard 1086
Stoke Trister Somerset Bretel St Clair 1086
Styford Northumberland Walter I de Bolbec temp. Henry I
Sudeley Gloucestershire Harold de Sudeley 1066
Tarrington Herefordshire Ansfrid de Cormeilles 1086
Tattershall Lincolnshire Eudo son of Spirewic 1086
Thoresway Lincolnshire Alfred of Lincoln 1086
Totnes Devon Juhel de Totnes 1086
Trematon Cornwall Reginald I de Vautort (held from Count of Mortain) 1086
Trowbridge Wiltshire Brictric 1086
Walkern Hertfordshire Derman temp. William I
Wallingford Berkshire Milo Crispin 1086
Warwick Warwickshire Robert de Beaumont, Count of Meulan 1086
Weedon Pinkeny/Lois Northamptonshire Ghilo I de Pinkeny 1086
Wem Shropshire William Pantulf (held from Roger, Earl of Montgomery) temp. William II
Weobley Herefordshire Walter de Lacy temp. William I
West Dean Wiltshire Waleran the Huntsman 1086
West Greenwich Kent Gilbert de Maminot, Bishop of Lisieux (held from Odo Bishop of Bayeux) 1086
Whitchurch Buckinghamshire Hugh I de Bolbec 1086
Wigmore Herefordshire William FitzOsbern temp. William I
Winterbourne St Martin Dorset widow of Hugh FitzGrip 1086
Wolverton Buckinghamshire Manno le Breton 1086
Wormegay Norfolk Hermer de Ferrers 1086
Writtle Essex Isobel of Huntingdon, sister & co-heir of John the Scot, Earl of Chester 1241

Source: Sanders (1960)


Probable baronies

[edit]
Name of barony County of caput First known tenant Earliest record
Alnwick Northumberland Ivo de Vesci 11th century
Appleby Westmorland Robert de Vieuxpont 1203/4
Asthall Oxfordshire Roger d'Ivery 1086
Barnstaple Devon Geoffrey de Mowbray (see House of Mowbray)[17] 1086
Barony of Port Kent Hugh de Port 1086
Barony de Ros Kent Geoffrey I de Ros 1086
Beanley Northumberland Gospatric, Earl of Dunbar temp. Henry I (1100–1135)
Berry Pomeroy[18] Devon Ralph de Pomeroy 1086
Bothal Northumberland Richard I Bertram pre.1162
Bourne Lincolnshire William de Rollos 1100–1130
Bramber Sussex William I de Braose 1086
Brattleby Lincolnshire Colswain 1086
Callerton Northumberland Hubert de la Val 11th century
Cardinham Cornwall Richard FitzTurold temp. William I(1066–1087)
Chepstow Monmouthshire William FitzOsbern, 1st Earl of Hereford pre.1070
Chilham Kent Fulbert I de Dover 1086[19]
Chitterne Wiltshire Edward of Salisbury 1086
Christchurch Hampshire Richard de Reviers 1100–1107
Clun Shropshire Robert "Picot de Say" 1086
Dudley Worcestershire William FitzAnsculf 1086
Dunster Somerset William I de Mohun 1086
Dursley Gloucestershire Roger I de Berkeley 1086
Egremont Cumberland William Meschin temp. Henry I (1100–1135)
Elston-in-Orcheston St George Wiltshire Osbern Giffard 1086
Eton Buckinghamshire[d] Walter FitzOther 1086
Flamstead Hertfordshire Ralph I de Tony 1086
Fotheringay Northamptonshire Waltheof son of Siward, Earl of Huntingdon and Northampton pre-1086
Hadstone Northumberland Aschantinus de Worcester temp. Henry I (1100–1135)
Hastings Sussex William II, Count of Eu 1086
Hatfield Peverel Essex Ranulph Peverel 1086
Haughley Suffolk Hugh de Montfort 1086
Helions Bumpstead Essex Tihel 1086
Hepple Northumberland Waltheof pre.1161
Horsley Derbyshire Ralph de Burun 1086
Irthington Cumberland Ranulph le Meschin c. 1100
Keevil Wiltshire Ernulph de Hesding pre.1091
Kempsford Gloucestershire Ernulf I de Hesding 11th/12th centuries
Kentwell Suffolk Frodo 1086
Knaresborough Forest Yorkshire Robert I, King of Scotland temp. Edward II
Lancaster Lancashire Roger the Poitevin temp. William I
Langley Northumberland Adam I de Tindale 1165
Lavendon Buckinghamshire Bishop of Coutances 1086
Lewes Sussex William I de Warenne 1086
Liddel Strength Cumberland Ranulph le Meschin pre. 1121
Little Dunmow Essex Ralph Bayard 1086
Little Easton Essex Walter the Deacon 1086
Manchester[20] Lancashire Albert de Gresle temp. William II
Mitford Northumberland John pre temp. Henry I
Odcombe[e] Somerset Ansgar I Brito 1086
Old Wardon Bedfordshire William Speche (Espec) 1086
Papcastle Cumberland Waldeve temp. Henry I
Patricksbourne[f] Kent Richard FitzWilliam 1086
Peak Derbyshire William I Peverel 1086
Pevensey Sussex Gilbert I de l'Aigle 1106–1114
Plympton Devon Richard I de Reviers 1087–1107
Pontefract Yorkshire Ilbert I de Lacy 1086
Rayleigh Essex Swain of Essex 1086
Richmond Yorkshire Alan Rufus 1086
Rothersthorpe Northamptonshire Gunfrid de Cioches 1086
Skipton Yorkshire Robert de Rumilly temp. William II
Stogursey (Stoke Courcy) Somerset William de Falaise 1086
Swanscombe Kent Helte[g] 1086
Tamworth Staffordshire Robert Dispensator 1086
Tarrant Keyneston Dorset Ralph de Kaines temp. Henry I
Thirsk Yorkshire Robert de Mowbray pre-1095
Tickhill Yorkshire Roger de Busli 1086
Topcliffe Yorkshire William I de Percy 1086
Tutbury Staffordshire Henry de Ferrers 1086
Wark Northumberland Walter Espec temp. Henry I (1100–1135)
Warter Yorkshire Geoffrey FitzPain c. 1101
Whalton Northumberland Walter FitzWilliam pre-1161
Witham Essex Eustace II, Count of Boulogne 1086
Wrinstead[h] Kent William Peverel post 1088

Source, unless otherwise stated: Sanders (1960), pp. 103–151

Others

[edit]

Later establishments

[edit]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ The term 'caput baroniae' is often shortened to 'caput'
  2. ^ The survey in fact covered all the king's tenants-in-chief, not just those who held per baroniam, which adds much uncertainty as to the exact meaning of the term "baron".[citation needed]
  3. ^ Chiselborough held from Robert Count of Mortain
  4. ^ Now in Berkshire
  5. ^ Odcombe held from Count of Mortain 1086
  6. ^ Patricksbourne held from Odo of Bayeux 1086
  7. ^ Held from the Bishop of Bayeux
  8. ^ Wrinstead: now represented by Wrinstead Court, c. 11 miles NW of Ashford, Kent

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Alexander, J. J. (1941), "Early Barons of Torrington and Barnstaple", Report and Transactions of the Devonshire Association, 73: 154
  2. ^ Sanders (1960), p.138, refers to the "Lord" of Halton being the hereditary constable of the County Palatine of Chester, and omits Halton from both his lists.
  3. ^ a b Sanders (1960), p.68
  4. ^ Passage on servitium debitum based on Douglas (1959), p.894
  5. ^ Douglas (1959), p.915
  6. ^ Roskell, J. S.; Roskell Clark, Linda; Roskell Rawcliffe, Carole, eds. (1992). House of Commons 1386–1421. The History of Parliament. Vol. 1: Introductory survey, appendices, constituencies. Stroud: Alan Sutton. p. 751. Constituencies, Cinque Ports
  7. ^ a b c Sanders (1960), preface, v.
  8. ^ Collins's Peerage Claims, P287"the nature of a Barony by tenure being discoursed, it was found to have been discontinued for many ages, and not in being, and not fit to be revived, or to admit any pretence of right of succession thereupon: And that the pretence of a barony by tenure being declared for weighty reasons not to be one to be insisted upon"
  9. ^ "1861 English Reports Decisions: The Berkeley Peerage" (PDF). Commonwealth Legal Information Institute. 1861. 8 H.L.C. 21 at 74
  10. ^ Barsby, A W; Barsby, C (1996). Manorial Law. Barsby Ltd. ISBN 9780952162520.
  11. ^ Sanders (1960), p.56-7 Barony of Kendal; p.103-4 probable Barony of Appleby (Westmorland)
  12. ^ The caput of this Barony of Gloucester is uncertain (Sanders, p.6)
  13. ^ English, B., The Lords of Holderness, 1086–1260: A Study in Feudal Society, Oxford, 1979
  14. ^ Poulett, Scrope G., The History of the Manor and Ancient Barony of Castle Combe in the County of Wiltshire, privately printed, 1852
  15. ^ I.J.Sanders Page 37 & 84
  16. ^ Batten, J. The Barony of Beauchamp of Somerset, in: Proceedings of the Somersetshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, 36(1891), pp.20–59
  17. ^ Greenway, D.E., ed. (1972). Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107–1191. London.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  18. ^ Powley, E.B. The House of De La Pomerai, Liverpool, 1944
  19. ^ Hasted, Edward (1798). "Parishes". The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. 6. Institute of Historical Research: 386–393. Retrieved 28 February 2014.
  20. ^ Manchester was held of the Honour of Lancaster, per Sanders (1960), p.130, note 8, therefore possibly more properly a barony within a County Palatine

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_feudal_barony&oldid=1262910214"