* This paper originally was presented as “Family and Feudalism in Henry I's England” at the Sixteenth International Congress on Medieval Studies (1981) at the Medieval Institute of Western Michigan University. For this, and all my work, I gratefully acknowledge the training, criticism, and friendship which I received from Robin S. Oggins.

¹ On the distribution of royal patronage, see Hollister, C. Warren, “Magnates and ‘curiales’ in Early Norman England,” Viator 8(1977): 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem., “Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates,” in The Battle Abbey Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies, Proceedings II, 1979, ed. R.A. Brown (Suffolk, 1980), pp. 93-107; and Newman, Charlotte A., “The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I” (Ph.D. diss., S.U.N.Y., Binghamton, 1978).Google Scholar

² Southern, R.W., “The Place of Henry I in English History,” Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962): 127–169.Google Scholar Southern revised this essay and published it in his collection, Medieval Humanism (New York, 1970, pp. 206–233)Google ScholarPubMed, but in doing so he eliminated many valuable footnotes and an appendix.

³ Painter, Sidney, “The Family and the Feudal System in Twelfth-century England,” Speculum 35 (1960): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Comparatively few documents dating from Henry I's reign survive. The only two extant treatises are the “Constitutio Dom us Regis” (ed. Johnson, Charles in Nigel, Richard Fitz, Dialogus de scaccario, [London, 1950])Google Scholar—a description of the royal household—and the Leges Henrici Primi (ed. Downer, L.J., [Oxford, 1972])Google Scholar—a collection of laws. Both are important for an understanding of the government and society, but are of limited use for a prosopographical study of the nobility. The only useful narrative works are the chronicles, especially the works of Orderic Vitalis (Ecclesiastical History, ed. Chibnall, Marjorie, 6 vols. [Oxford, 1969–1981])Google Scholar, and William of Malmesbury (especially the Gesta Regum, ed. Stubbs, William. 2 vols., Rolls Series, [London, 1887–1889; repr. 1964])Google Scholar, and idem., Historia Novella, ed. K.R. Potter (London, 1955). Both of these men were contemporaries whose works include much detail about individual nobles.

Most of the sources which are useful for a prosopographic study of the nobility are governmental records and private charters. The governmental records are of three types: surveys of an area made as a result of special inquests; one exchequer record; and chancery records. Of the surveys, hidages exist for part of Lincolnshire (The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, eds. Foster, C.W. and Longley, T., Lincolnshire Record Society, vol. 19 [Horncastle, 1924]Google Scholar, hereafter cited as the Lindsey Survey), Leicestershire (The Leicestershire Survey, ed. Slade, C.F. [Leicester, 1956])Google Scholar, Northamptonshire (“The Northamptonshire Survey,” ed. Round, J.H., in Victoria County History of Northamptonshire [London, 1902; repr. 1970])Google Scholar, and Herefordshire (Herefordshire Domesday, ed. Tait, J. and Galbraith, V.H., “Pipe Roll Society,” vol. 62, ns vol. 25 [London, 1950])Google Scholar, as well as a few smaller ones. There are a few simple feudatories such as the Bayeux Inquest (in vol. 2 of the Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall, H., Rolls Series [London, 1896; repr. 1965]).Google Scholar All of the surveys have provided contemporary information as to how much land was held (in-chief and subinfeudated) in a given area by certain families; who were their neighbors; and who were their feudal connections. They also provide some evidence for changes in relations between Domesday and the more complete records of Henry II, thus helping to identify what changes occurred before or as a result of the Anarchy.

Only one exchequer account (Magnus Rotulus scaccarii, vel Magnus Rotulus Pipae, Anno Tricesimo-primo Regni Henrici Primi, ed. Hunter, Joseph, [London, 1929]Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Pipe Roll 31 Henry I) is extant for the reign, but it provides a wealth of material for a proso-pographic study. Royal favors and nobles' actions can best be seen in the miscellaneous payments recorded in 1130: payments of relief, payments for marriage to heiresses or by heiresses not to marry, accounts by guardians for their wards' land, and payments for various fines, often against neighbors. Also recorded in this Pipe Roll are the exemptions from the “common assizes”—the danegeld, murdrum, and various auxilia—including the amount of the exemption. Since we know the danegeld assessment at the time, we are able to determine shire holdings for those who received this form of royal favor. Justices, sheriffs, and other officials accounting in the Pipe Roll give us some record of royal service.

The Pipe Roll is limited to a short time period, but the charters and writs of the chancery span the entire reign. More than 1500 were preserved by their recipients, mainly religious houses, and have been calendared in volume two of the Regesta (Regesta regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066-1154, eds. Davis, H.W.C.et al, 4 vols. [Oxford, 1913–1969]Google Scholar, hereafter cited as Regesta). In addition to the information provided by the subject of the document, the witness lists provide records of court attendence.

While most of the extant documents are royal, some private ones have survived. Two churches, Canterbury (The Domesday Monachorum of Christchurch Canterbury, ed. Douglas, D.C., [London, 1944])Google Scholar, and Peterborough (Descriptio militum de Abbatia de Burgo,” in Chronicon Petroburgense, ed. Staplet, T. on, Camden Society, original ser., vol. 47. [London, 1849])Google Scholar, left feudatories similar to the royal ones. Most of the private sources are similar to the chancery records listed in the Regesta. All have been collected in cartulary form by late medieval clerks and many have been published by local historical societies or nineteenth-century archivists. Though the content often is duplicative of the royal confirmations, they were witnessed by the people most directly connected with the donor or “litigant,” and often are still the only printed source of the complete text. Several family source works now provide more reliable texts, most notably Greenway, D.E., ed. Charters of the Honour of Mowbray (London, 1972)Google Scholar; Mason, Emma, ed. The Beauchamp Cartulary (Pipe Roll Society, vol. 81, ns vol. 43 [London, 1980])Google Scholar; Patterson, Robert B., ed. Earldom of Gloucester Charters (Oxford, 1973)Google Scholar, and Walker, David, ed. “Charters of the Earldom of Hereford,” Camden Society, 4th ser., vol. 1, Camden Miscellany, vol. 22 [London, 1964]).Google Scholar

⁵ A broad definition of family is being used—an extended family of individuals with blood ties which gave them some claim on inheritance. Marital ties are kept separate for purposes of study, but were certainly within the contemporary definition of an extended family, although as Timothy Reuter has pointed out, the medieval nobles' definition of family was variable (The Medieval Nobility [New York, 1978], pp. 6–7).Google ScholarPubMed

⁶ Holt, J.C., “Politics and Property in Early Medieval England,” Past and Present 57 (1972): 9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oggins, Robin S., “Population Growth, Inheritance and European Expansion,” Acta: The Eleventh Century 1 (1974): 32–34Google Scholar; Barrow, G.W.S., The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History (Oxford, 1980), pp. 7–29.Google Scholar

⁷ Round, J.H., Studies in Peerage and Family History (London, 1970), pp. 115–124.Google Scholar

⁸ Orderic Vitalis, 5:296-298. Richard fitz Gilbert de Clare was elevated to Abbot of Ely, William Giffard, brother of the Earl of Buckingham, to Bishop of Winchester, and Robert, third son of Hugh, earl of Chester, to Abbot of Bury St. Edmunds.

⁹ Wightman, W.E., The Lacy Family in England, 1066-1194 (Oxford, 1966)Google Scholar, geneological tables 1 and 2.

¹⁰ See pp. 294-95 above.

¹¹ The one default was Roger d'Abêtot. The other seventeen families which left heiresses were the Albini/Belvoirs, Arches, Arques, Ballons, Hesdings, fitz Johns, fitz Nigels, Gants, Gloucester/Herefords, Ivris, Lacy/Herefords, Lacy/Pontefract, Meschin/Chesters, fitz Hamos, St. Johns, Trussebots, and de Veres. The St. Johns demonstrate the “problems of nature.” Only one of the three brothers left a record of a wife or child. In the next generation, neither of the two sons left children. After two generations, one female's children be¬came the heirs to the uncles and great-uncles.

¹² Regesta, 2: no.843. This pattern follows the formula specified in the Wessex laws which were incorporated into the Leges Henrici Primi (c.70, 20-20b). As Pollock and Maitland show, however, there is little indication that the Leges (especially the Wessex section) represented accepted rules (History of English Law 2 vols. [Cambridge, 1895, 1968],.1:101,.2: 267-268Google Scholar). We therefore must examine the practice of inheritance to better understand the family values of the time.

¹³ Of the 56 noble lay tenants identified in the Lindsey Survey only about a dozen appear not to be connected by either feudal or marital ties to others in the survey. Herbert of St. Quentin provides the starting point for a characteristic example. St. Quentin was a tenant of both Lindsey tenants-in-chief, the Count of Aumale (Lindsey Survey L 7/1), and the Earl of Gloucester (Patterson, , Gloucester Charters, pp. 75, 96Google Scholar). Aumale was the son-in-law of Ralph de Mortimer (Calendar of documents preserved in France, ed. Round, J.H. [London, 1899], no. 1264?Google Scholar, and the Yorkshire overlord of Ralph and Jordan Paynel (Regesta, 2: no. 1333), all three of whom held land in the Lindsey Riding. Gloucester was related by marriage to another tenant, Hamo Dapifer, and held his Lincolnshire lands of William of Tourniant, son of yet another Lindsey tenant (Lindsey Survey, L 3/18). For a more complete discussion of the surveys and the complexity of feudal and marital ties, see Newman, , “Anglo-Norman Nobility,” pp. 128–132.Google Scholar

¹⁴ How to divide the nobles in order to study them is one of the most debated and interesting questions among Anglo-Norman historians. It is obvious who were the greatest of the nobles and who were the least great, but no designation is fully satisfactory. Contemporaries were not precise in their terminology; for example, barones was applied to both tenants-in-chief and rear vassals (Stenton, F.M., The First Century of English Feudalism [Oxford, 1961], p. 86).Google Scholar Since the baronage was not specialized, however, titles—especially those used before the increase in Stephen's reign—hold special importance (ibid., p. 88). C. Warren Hollister has published the most complete attempt at a quantitative approach to land holding, using the figure £750 per annum to designate a magnate (“Magnates and ‘curiales,’” p. 63). The figures, however, are based on Domesday Book and no record is as complete for at least a century, so any attempt at totalling the land held by individuals or families in Henry I's reign must be inexact (ibid., p. 75n3). Hollister continued his analysis in “Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates” with the warning that the “methodology, though admittedly precarious, does provide a valuable general picture—blurred yet not seriously misleading,” p. 99. A magnate is “a very wealthy landholder,” (ibid.) but the designations become more “fuzzy at the boundaries” (ibid., p. 100). My reasons for using different categories are several and are based on the question I ask of the material. In addition to the categories used here, I have separated lay and ecclesiastical landholders since church titles themselves provided status and the church was an alternative means of mobility for families, and of administration for the king. In addition, I wanted to separate families of similar wealth whose behavior in relation to the court differed—hence the separation of the “fuzzy” lesser nobles (i.e. non-magnate, tenants-in-chief) from the service families, although many had equal incomes. For the same reason, the royal family is separated from the magnates. These categories allow me, to some degree, to avoid certain questions which are impossible to answer accurately because of the nature of the sources; (1) absolute wealth, and (2) whether desirability of land coincided with its income (see Kapelle, W.E., The Norman Conquest of the North [Chapel Hill, 1979], p. 213).Google Scholar Finally, this breakdown allows me to combine ranking by income, title and that older question of “new men” vs. “old men,” thus being able to use the same categories to study a variety of questions. In spite of the debate and difference in approach, there are few disagreements in the ultimate ranking of individuals—the major problem being where to place “natural” children who performed royal service.

¹⁵ Henry of Warwick married the daughter of the Count of Perche. Robert of Meulan married Isabel, daughter of the Count of Vermandois and niece of the King of France. After Robert's death, Isabel married the Earl of Surrey, making William (III) de Warenne step-brother to Robert's children, and her daughter by the Earl married Henry's son. For their behavior in the Anarchy, see Cronne, H.A., The Reign of Stephen (London, 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁶ For the results of the interconnections in the North see Kapelle, The Norman Conquest, and Holt, J.C., The Northerners (Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar

¹⁷ D.E. Greenway has compiled most of the sources for the family in Charters of the Honour of Mowbray.

¹⁸ The Gloucesters married into the families of Newmarket, Braose, Lacy, and fitz Pons, lesser nobles with land in Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, Wales, and Yorkshire; of Bohun and Mare, established service families; of Herbert the Chamberlain, a rising servant; and of fitz John, a prominent new family. Most of the Gloucester sources are available in Walker, “Charters of the Earldom of Hereford.”

¹⁹ The Bassets were prominent curiales and royal justices, and received much patronage as witnessed throughout eleven counties in the Pipe Roll of 31 Henry I. They made only one advantageous marriage during Henry I's reign to the Ridels, one of the first new families in Henry's service. Geoffrey Ridel had married a magnate daughter, Geva, and her family, the earls of Chester, witnessed the Basset marriage arrangement (Regesta, 2:no. 1389). Interestingly, the descendants of this marriage took the name Ridel. This indicates that what was viewed as the most important inheritance while coming through a partially magnate mother, was associated with the obviously new man curialis grandfather.

²⁰ Hollister, C.W., “The Anglo-Norman Civil War: 1101,” English Historical Review 88 (1973): 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The brothers were Robert of Bellême, Roger le Poitevin, and Arnulf de Montgomery.

²¹ Orderic Vitalis, 6:332. Waleran's brothers-in-law were Hugh de Montfort, Hugh fitz Gervase and William Louvel. Waleran's brothers did not join him in rebellion—he created a new family network for a political aim.

²² Round, J.H., Feudal England (London, 1909), p. 195.Google Scholar

²³ Davis, R.H.C., “Treaty between William Earl of Gloucester and Roger Earl of Hereford,” in A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, eds. Barnes, P. and Slade, C.F., Pipe Roll Society, vol. 74, ns vol. 36 (London, 1960) pp. 139–146Google Scholar; for the change in allegience, see pp. 140-141.

²⁴ White, G.H. (“Henry I's Illegitimate Children,” Appendix D, in Complete Peerage 11 (1949): 105–121)Google Scholar lists the children with their respective spouses or clerical livings.

²⁵ This decision—its legal basis, political basis, and consequences—has been examined by many, see Hollister, C. Warren, “The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126: Prelude to Stephen's Anarchy,” Journal of Medieval History 1(1975): 19–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and LePatourel, John, “The Norman Succession” English Historical Review 86 (1971): 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁶ Queen Maud's character and treatment are described by William of Malmesbury in the Gesta Regum (2: 493-495). Henry's use of marriage can be demonstrated by the case of the Empress Matilda who was married for the first time at eight years and is said to have disliked her second husband, Geoffrey of Anjou, to the point of leaving him. Henry of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum ed. Arnold, Thomas, Rolls Series (London, 1879; repr. 1965), pp. 252 and 254.Google Scholar

²⁷ Hollister, C. Warren in “The Strange Death of William Rufus” (Speculum 48 (1973): 637–653)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Russell, J.C. in “Death along the Deer Trails” (Medievalia 1 (1977): 89–95)Google Scholar are convincing on the events surrounding Rufus' death.

²⁸ Orderic Vitalis, 4:148,220; and William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 2: 467–469.Google Scholar Both David's, C.W.Robert Curthose (Cambridge, 1920)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Freeman's, E.A.The Reign of William Rufus (Oxford, 1882)Google Scholar, include discussions of Henry's position with his brothers including Robert's imprisonment of Henry, and Robert and William's disseisin and siege of Henry's land.

²⁹ This interpretation is not necessary to understand Henry's favor to Brian fitz Count, whose loyalty and curial service were repeatedly demonstrated, but it possibly helps to explain Brian's presence at the court. Count Alan might have sent the boy there out of either friendship or family ties.

³⁰ Sanders, I. J., English Baronies (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar, is a useful compilation of information organized by land units which Sanders terms “baronies” (at some time having a relief of £ 100 levied on them) and “probable baronies.” For a study of the early twelfth century there are problems with this handbook since much of the 1100-1135 information is inferred from Domesday Book or thirteenth-century records. The existence of the land as units during Henry I's reign often is tentative. Sanders, however, does provide a convenient sample of holdings and holders.

³¹ This does not include baronies forfeited after the major rebellions. The two cited here are Much Marcle, lost by the heir of William fitz Baderon (Sanders, , English Baronies, pp. 64, 66Google Scholar), and Pevensey, Sussex, not inherited by Richer de Laigle but given to his brothers. Richer proceeded to sign a treaty with Louis of France and it was a year before he settled with Henry (ibid., p. 136 and Orderic Vitalis, 6:194-200).

³² Unfortunately, the analysis of Sanders, English Baronies, and the surveys and charters is too long to be included in this presentation. For details see Newman, , “The Anglo-Norman Nobility,” pp. 84–96.Google Scholar

³³ For example, Robert of Ferrers held some of the Countess Judith's land in Slade, Leicester¬shire Survey, p. 88.

³⁴ John LePatourel, Norman Barons, The Historical Association, Hastings and Bexhill Branch (1966), p. 24.

³⁵ Hollister, , “Anglo-Norman Civil War,” p. 318Google Scholar, and White, G.H., “The Career of Waleran, count of Meulan and earl of Worcester, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 4th ser., 17 (1934):23–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁶ The Gloucesters of Hereford are an example of the lack of attendance. Walter of Gloucester served as sheriff, castellan, and constable, and attested 29 times during Henry's reign. Miles, who also personally filled his offices, became a major curtails during the active years, attesting 43 times after he inherited in 1127. Miles was sought by both sides in the Anarchy during which he was made an earl. Roger, reared as a great noble, only attended Stephen's or Henry's court on state occasions, a magnate pattern of attendance.

³⁷ Regestal: no. 1062.

³⁸ Morris, W.A., “The Sheriffs and the Administrative System of Henry I,” English Historical Review 37 (1972): 164, 167, 162.Google Scholar

³⁹ This pattern is seen among the known foresters, justices and dapiferi. Newman, , “The Anglo-Norman Nobility,” pp. 64–66.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ The actual extent of royal prerogative while the father lived is unclear. Sidney Painter (“Family and Feudal System,” p. 8), surmises that it probably depended on the relative power of the noble and suitor—that is, the king would not insult a powerful suitor by rejecting the bethrothal.

⁴¹ Fifteen marriages were between members of “lesser noble” families: Alice, one-third heiress of Aldington, to Walter de Chauncey (her two co-heiresses married lesser nobles but the marriage dates are less certain, Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 1Google Scholar); Maud of Aveley to Hasculf de Tany (ibid., p. 4); Geva de Burci to William de Falaise (ibid., p. 15); Grace de Tracey to John de Sudeley (ibid., p. 20); Adelize de Insula to Reginald de Dunstanville (ibid., p. 28); Margery de Reinbuedcurt to Robert de Foliot (ibid., p. 33); Maud de Monville to Rualon d'Avranches (ibid., p. 45); Isilia de Bourges to William Peche (ibid., p. 48); Adeline Espec to Peter de Ros (ibid., p. 53); Agnes de Belfou to Hubert I de Ria (ibid., p. 53); Maud de Sudeval to Ralph Pagnell (ibid., p. 55); Isabel de Hispania to Robert de Chandos (ibid., p. 67); heiress de Ballon to a son of Newmarket (ibid., p. 68); Beatrice daughter of William fitz Ansculf to Fulk Paynel (ibid., p. 113); Maud de Hesding to Patrick de Chaworth (ibid., p. 124). Four marriages involved magnate husbands, although three husbands were non-inheriting younger sons and the fourth had lost his patrimony under Rufus: daughter of Hugh de Beauchamp to Hugh “the Poor” Beaumont (ibid., p. 10); Adeline de Rullos to Baldwin fitz Gilbert de Clare (ibid., p. 107); Cecily de Rumilly to William de Meschin (ibid., p. 142); Emmeline de Ballon to Reginald son of the Earl of Bedford (ibid., p. 66). Three marriages were between heiresses and members of the royal family: Maud of Gloucester to Robert of Caen (ibid., p. 6); Maud of Huntingdon and Northampton to David of Scotland (ibid., p. 118); Maud of Boulogne to Stephen of Blois (ibid., p. 151).

⁴² The seven marriages of service families were as follows: Miles of Gloucester to Sibly de Newmarket (ibid., p. 6); Roger Bigod to Adeliza de Toeni (ibid., p. 12); Robert de Vere to Alice de Montfort (ibid., p. 120); William de Courcy to Emma de Falaise (ibid., p. 143); Humphrey de Bohun to Maud of Salisbury (ibid., p. 91); Nigel d'Albini to Maud Mowbray (ibid., p. 146); Raulon d'Avranches to Maud Monville (ibid., p. 45). The five marriages of new men were: William Mauduit to Maud Hanslope (ibid., p. 50); William d'Albini Brito to Cecily de Toeni (ibid., p. 12); Eustace fitz John to Beatrice Vesci (ibid., p. 103); Robert de la Haia to Muriel Picot (ibid., p. 109); Brian fitz Count to Maud Walingford (ibid., p. 93).

⁴³ For a closer examination of service and court attendance see Newman, , “Anglo-Norman Nobility,” pp. 52–83Google Scholar, and Hollister, “Magnates and ‘curiales’”, pp. 63-81.

⁴⁴ By Painter's count of the Cartae Baronum, 61 of approximately 140 men “had enfeoffed one or more relatives” by 1166 (“Family and Feudal System,” p. 10). William d'Albini Brito for example had subinfeudated almost half of his land to relatives (Red Book of the Exchequer, 1:328Google Scholar). Most of the Courcy holding in 1166 had been land gained through marriage (ibid., 1:224-225).

⁴⁵ Ibid., 1:289, 295, 309, 324. Southern, “Place of Henry I,” pp. 135-140) has listed Geoffrey's patronage and connections during Henry I's reign.

⁴⁶ The newer nobles not only married into older families but spent their money in the same ways (feudal expenses, travel among manors or to court, building, royal fines, keeping a household, crusading), patronized the same monastic orders, and patronized (or did not) the same artistic styles (Newman, , “Anglo-Norman Nobility,” pp. 24–34).Google Scholar