Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T17:23:43.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exercise of the King's Will in Inheritance of Baronies: The Example of King John and William Briwerre*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Ralph V. Turner
Get access

Extract

By the late twelfth century, the principle that hereditary succession guaranteed title had triumphed in English feudal land law, and this threatened lords' rights to choose their tenants freely. Henry II's assizes were providing mesne tenants with security of tenure. They separated title to a tenement from lordly acceptance of the tenant when the the tenant was a direct descendant of the previous landholder. An undoubted male heir could take possession at once, not waiting for his lord to put him into possession, denying the lord his right to take the land into his hand and hold it until relief was paid.

The new actions available to mesne tenants did not apply to direct tenants of the Crown, however. The Angevin monarchs resisted following rules that their courts were enforcing against other feudal lords in their treatment of their own tenants-in-chief. The king held to the old view that an heir does not succeed to his ancestor's property automatically, but only has a customary claim to be accepted as tenant. As Glanvill noted, the king claimed primer seizin, his right to take possession of a barony and to place the heir in possession only once the heir had done homage to him and made arrangements to pay relief.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 22 , Issue 3 , Fall 1990 , pp. 383 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the Ninth British Legal History Conference, Glasgow, 5-7 July 1989.

References

1 Thorne, Samuel E., “English Feudalism and Estates in Land,” Cambridge Law Journal (1959): 194–209.Google Scholar

2 Palmer, Robert C., “The Origin of Property in England,” Law and History Review 3 (1985): 22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also Thorne, , “Feudalism and Estates in Land,” p. 201.Google Scholar

3 Milsom, S. F. C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 162-63, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Hall, G. D. G., ed., Glanvill, Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1965), 9: 6, p. 110Google Scholar; Milsom, , Legal Framework, pp. 163-64Google Scholar. Also Waugh, Scott L., The Lordship of England, Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics 1217-1327 (Princeton, 1988), pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

5 Holt, J. C., “Politics and Property in Early Medieval England,” Past & Present 57 (1972): 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Jolliffe, J. E. A., Angevin Kingship (London, 1955), pp. 56, 95.Google Scholar

7 Milsom, , Framework, p. 16Google Scholar; Waugh, , The Lordship of England, p. 127.Google Scholar

8 “Politics and Property”: p. 30; De Aragon, RaGcna, “The Growth of Secure Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England,” Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982): 383Google Scholar. Newman, Charlotte A., The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry 1: The Second Generation (Philadelphia, 1988), p. 119.Google Scholar

9 Based on Sanders, I.J., English Baronies (Oxford, 1960)Google Scholar. Compare my figures with Charlotte A. Newman's 187 for Henry I's time (The Anglo-Norman Nobility, p. 116); or Sidney Painter's 197 baronies in 1199 (The Reign of King John [Baltimore, 1949], p. 19Google Scholar); or Scott Waugh for 1200, who calculates 192 separate baronies or portions in 1200 (Lordship of England, p. 18, n. 10).

10 E.g. Geoffrey de Say's rivalry with Geoffrey fitz Peter and his son over the Mandeville inheritance. See Turner, Ralph V., Men Raised from the Dust: Administrative Service and Upward Mobility in Angevin England (Philadelphia, 1988), pp. 56-58, 67–68.Google Scholar

11 Warren, W. L., Henry II (Berkeley, Calif., 1973), p. 386Google Scholar. Not all would accept Warren's view, however; see Keefe, Thomas K., “King Henry II and the Earls: The Pipe Roll Evidence,” Albion 13 (1981): 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Chronica Rogeri de Hovedene, ed. Stubbs, William, Rolls Series (London, 1868-1871), 3: 6Google Scholar; Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Benedicts Abbatis, ed. Stubbs, William, Rolls Series (London, 1867), 2: 101Google Scholar; The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, ed. and trans. Appleby, John, Medieval Texts (London, 1963), p. 6.Google Scholar

13 Roger Wendover, 3: 238, 347Google Scholar. Paris, Matthew, Chronica Majora, ed. Luard, H. R., Rolls Series (London, 1872-1884), 2: 635Google Scholar, describes him as martius et expertus. Jolliffe, J. E. A., “The Chamber and the castle treasuries under King John,” in Hunt, R. W., Pantin, W. A., Southern, R. W., eds., Studies in Medieval History presented to F. M. Powicke (Oxford, 1948), p. 131.Google Scholar

14 See my Men Raised from the Dust, pp. 74-75.

15 Ibid., pp. 80-86.

16 Holt, , “Feudal Society and the Family in early Medieval England: IV. The Heiress and the Alien,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 35 (1985): 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter cited as T. R. H. S.].

17 Stubbs, William, Select Charters and other Illustrations of English Constitutional History (9th ed.; Oxford, 1913), p. 118.Google Scholar

18 Holt, , “Feudal Society and the Family: IV,” pp. 2–10Google Scholar; Stenton, F. M., The First Century of English Feudalism 1066-1166 (Oxford, 1932), pp. 37–41.Google Scholar

19 Glanvill, 7: 3, p. 76Google Scholar; Bracton, ed. Woodbine, G. E., trans. Thorne, S. E. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968-1977) f. 66b, 2: 194.Google Scholar

20 On the Laws and Customs of England: Essays in Honor of Samuel E. Thorne, ed. Arnold, Morris S., et al. (Chapel Hill, 1981), pp. 69–78.Google Scholar

21 Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, ed. Hardy, T. Duffus, Record Commission (London, 1835)Google Scholar [hereafter cited as Rot. de Obl. et Fin.], p. 507. Division of the barony of Cavendish, Suff., between two sisters: Mabel, widow of Hugh Bardolf, and Basilia, wife of Hugh de Odingselles. For details, see Pipe Roll 5 Rie. I, p. 124; 6 Ric. I, p. 92; Pipe Roll 7 John, pp. 34, 197 (all pipe roll citations are from Pipe Roll Society, London, editions); Memoranda Roll 1 John, Pipe Roll Society, n. s. 21 (1943): 54.Google Scholar

22 Holt, , “Feudal Society and the Family: IV,” pp. 10–11Google Scholar, citing the Statutum Hiberniae de Coheredi-bus. See also Bracton, f. 78, 2: 227.

23 Waugh, Scott L., “Marriage, Class, and Royal Wardship in England under Henry III,” Viator 16 (1985): 183-85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Baronies: Benington, 1235; Bulwick, 1215; Burgh by Sands, 1202; Cavendish, 1203; Great Torrington, 1227; earldom of Chester, 1232 and 1237; honor of Leicester, 1204; Odell, 1217; Pleshy, 1190; Southoe, 1219; Stainton la Vale, 1202; and West Dean, 1200/01. Probable baronies: Egremont and Papcastle, 1213; Lavendon, 1185-1204; Hepple, 1198; Odcombe, 1199; Pontefract, 1193; Stogursey, 1224-25.

25 Geoffrey fitz Peter and his wife Beatrice de Say's agreement with her sister illustrates this royal intervention; see my Haskins Society Journal article, “The Mandeville Inheritance, 1189-1236: Its Legal, Political, and Social Context,” 1 (1989): 147-72Google Scholar. Also 500 mark fine for one of three sisters' part of the barony of Cavendish, , Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 113Google Scholar. In 1217 following the death of the lord of Odell, each of his daughters offered £100 as fine and relief for half the barony, Pipe Roll 2 Hen. III, p. 63.

26 Pipe Roll 30 Hen. II, p. 108; Rotuli de Dominabus et Pueris et Puellis, ed. Round, J. H., Pipe Roll Society, (London, 1913), p. 43, 45Google Scholar; xlii-xliii.

27 Memoranda Roll 1 John, pp. 65-65.

28 The five husbands were de Clinton, Henry, Miles, and de Beauchamp, Richard, Geoffrey, Geoffrey fitz, and de Gatesden, Adulf, Rot. Lit. Pat., p. 41Google Scholar; Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hall, Hubert, Rolls Series (London, 1897), pp. 137, 173Google Scholar. See Rot. de Obl. et Fin., pp. 145, 149, 151, for holdings of the sisters' husbands in 1201.

29 0n Briwerre's wealth, see my Men Raised from the Dust, pp. 76-77, 80-85. Another curialis, Hugh Bardolf, likely engaged in money-lending (Turner, Ralph V., The English Judiciary in the Age of Glanvill and Bracton, c. 1179-1240 [Cambridge, 1985], p. 118Google Scholar).

30 Painter, , King John, p. 78Google Scholar; Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 132.Google Scholar

31 Pipe Roll 1 John, pp. 128, 238; Rot. de Obl. et Fin., pp. 10, 23, 171. Apparently John de Montacute, who brought the action, was an under-tenant, Curia Regis Rolls, Public Record Office (London, 1923– ), 1: 139Google Scholar, Trinity 1200. See a plea of service between John, and Briwerre, William, Curia Regis Rolls, 12: 115, no. 577.Google Scholar

32 Pipe Roll 2 John, pp. 99-100; Rot. de Obl. et Fin., p. 184, part of Briwerre's acquisition of the daughters of Hugh de Morvill.

33 Pipe Roll 4 John, p. 256, Richard de Hescombe.

34 Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Public Record Office (London, 1904– ), 1: 191, no. 597Google Scholar, following the death of Joan Briwerre.

35 P.R.O., DL 42/2, f. 200d.

36 Curie Regis Rolls, 8: 135Google Scholar, Michaelmas 1219; 9: 259, Hilary 1220. His creditor was William de St. Michael. Earlier in 1216, he had lost land because of debts to the Jews (Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 272bGoogle Scholar).

37 Exc. Rot Fin., 1: 41Google Scholar; P.R.O. SC 1/1, no. 184.

38 See Round, J. H., “The Heirs of Richard de Lucy,” The Genealogist 15 (1906): 129-33Google Scholar; and “The Honour of Ongar,” Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, n. s. 7 (1900): 142-52.Google Scholar

39 Red Book of the Exchequer, 1: 351-52; 2: 639Google Scholar. His Kent estates included the manor of Lesnes (or Westwood or Erith), half of which he used to endow his abbey of Lesnes.

40 Round, , “Ongar,” p. 142Google Scholar, for fees of the honor of Boulogne, of earldoms of Gloucester and Cornwall.

41 Pipe Roll I Ric. I (Record Commission edition), p. 20Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 2 Rie. I (Pipe Roll Soc), p. 104Google Scholar; 6 Ric. I, pp. 24, 28, xxi-xii.

42 See Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25–26Google Scholar, for a claim that Godfrey had held his father's barony of Lesnes, Kent, by inheritance.

43 Leges Henrici Primi, ed. Downer, L.J. (Oxford, 1972), pp. 224, 70, 21Google Scholar: “The first-born son shall have the father's ancestral fee [feodum]; the latter shall give any purchases or subsequent acquisitions of his to whomever he prefers” (Glanvill, 7: 1, p. 71Google Scholar).

44 Pipe Roll 6 Rie. I, p. 250. She had been married to Fulbert of Dover, baron of Chilham, , Kent, , Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 111.Google Scholar

45 Pipe Roll 2 Rie. I, p. 4, Geoffrey de Lascelles and his brother Charles came to England from overseas. Pipe Roll 7 Rie. I, p. 217, he has Ongar; also 8 Ric. I, p. 111; p. 9 Ric. 1, p. 63; 10 Ric. I, p. 126; 1 John, p. 86; 2 John, p. 37; 3 John, p. 58; 4 John, p. 259; 5 John, p. 123. For honor of Gloucester fees, see Pipe Roll 1 John, p. 37; 4 John, p. 283; 5 John, p. 83; 6 John, p. 231; 7 John, p. 104. For Cornwall fees, see Pipe Roll 8 Ric. I, p. 142; 1 John, p. 186; 5 John, p. 83; 6 John, p. 40-41. Pipe rolls for Richard I also mention a William de Lascelles, who held land in Cumberland and of the honor of Peverel of Nottingham.

46 Pipe Roll 8 John, p. 19. Geoffrey de Lascelles disappears from the pipe rolls after this entry. Victoria County History, Essex, 4: 160Google Scholar, note, suggests that he was killed in the fighting in Normandy.

47 Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25–26.Google Scholar

48 Bracton's Note Book, ed. Maitland, F. W. (Cambridge, 1887), 3: no. 1764Google Scholar, dated 1227.

49 Pipe Roll 6 John, p. 34, fine for the bishop's inheritance, but Robert must stand to right in the curia regis should anyone wish to plead against him. For other evidence of Robert in possession, see Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 14Google Scholar; Red Book of the Exchequer, 1: 161; 2: 539Google Scholar, Pipe Roll 13 John, p. 160, Cornwall, “Heirs of Richard de Lucy owe 20 marks, but Robert fitz Walter is quit by king's writ.” Round, , Genealogist, p. 132Google Scholar, says thai Robert was named by Godfrey heir to Diss, Norf.

50 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 8b.

51 Rot. de Obl. et Fin., p. 229, £800; but pp. 321-22, the fine appears as 800 marks; Pipe Roll 7 John, p. 117. Rose's son was Fulbert III de Dover.

52 Pipe Roll 7 John, p. 195; Rot. de Obl. et Fin., pp. 261-62, 267. She married Nicholas fitz Adam. William Briwerre was to have the autumn harvest, however.

53 Rot. de Obl. et Fin., p. 414.

54 Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 111Google Scholar. Young Fulbert d.s.p. ante 1212.

55 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 125, 5 Oct.Google Scholar

56 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 126b, 127; Rot. Chart., pp. 189, 190; PRO DL10/61, 10/63; DL 42/2, f 225.

57 Painter, , King John, p. 76Google Scholar. Suits continued into Henry III's reign over the Lucy lands, as descendants of Richard de Lucy's daughters – Robert fitz Walter, Richard de Montfichet, and Richard de Umfraville – and his son Geoffrey's descendants battled each other. E.g. Curia Regis Rolls, 8: 25–26; 9: 277; 11: 77-78, no. 416; 12: 23-24, no. 136; 13: 571, no. 2703; 13: 471-72, no. 2213; 14: 186, no. 919; 14: 435-36, no. 1717Google Scholar; also Bracton's Note Book, 2: no. 476; 3: no. 1764.

58 Painter, , King John, pp. 219-21Google Scholar. High reliefs continued after John's death; e.g. Nigel II Mowbray paid £500, 1223/24, Exc. Rot. Fin., 1: 113Google Scholar; Henry de Scales owed 190 marks as fine and relief, 1218, Pipe Roll 2 Henry III, p. 32.

59 E.g. Richard de Clifford, a younger son, proffered 300 marks, presumably because his elder brother was outside the kingdom (Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I, p. 126). Ralph de Somery offered 400 marks for his uncle Gervase Paynell's barony (Pipe Roll 10 Ric. I, p. 122; 1 John, p. 164). William de Werbirton and Giles de Muncele offered 500 marks for having the inheritance of Juliana, wife of William fitz Aldulf, “whose nearer heirs they are, as they say” (Pipe Roll 2 John, p. 206). Robert de Girros offered 20 marks for his inheritance from his aunt, Pipe Roll 1 John, p. 75. Five daughters and heirs of Stephen of Turnham offered 20 marks, a palfrey, and promised to pay their father's £100 debt for having his land (Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 32). Robert Marmion, a younger son, offered £500 for his father's lands until his elder brother should return to the king's peace; even then he was to retain certain specified manors (Pipe Roll 2 Henry III, pp. 54-55). See also Holt, , “Politics and Property,” p. 24.Google Scholar

60 Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 11. Hugh d'Aubigny proffered 2500 marks for his brother's earldom of Arundel, shortly before he came of age, 1233/34 (P.R.O. C.60/33, m. 11; Exc. Rot. Fin., 1: 250, 399). Also 200 marks for half the barony of Poorstock in 1198 (Pipe Roll 10 Ric. I, pp. 218, 221); 300 marks for Sudeley, also in 1198 (10 Ric. I, p. 7; Memoranda Roll 1 John, p. 39); Hugh de Bolbec offered 200 marks and two palfreys for his brother's barony of Whitchurch, 1205 (Rot. de Obl. et Fin., p. 314); 300 marks and seven palfreys offered for Castle Carey, 1207 (Pipe Roll 9 John, p. 605); Warin de Montchesney offered 2000 marks for his inheritance from his brother (Pipe Roll 16 John, p. 31). Largest by far is the 10,000 mark fine offered by Nicholas de Stuteville, 1205 (see note 71 below).

61 E.g. contention over Cottingham, see Turner, Ralph V., The King and his Courts (Ithaca, N.Y., 1968), pp. 150-61Google Scholar; for Totnes, pp. 160-61; for Trowbridge, pp. 163-64; for Richmond, see Alexander, James W., Ranulf of Chester, A Relic of the Conquest (Athens, Ga., 1983), pp. 10, 20.Google Scholar

62 Rot. Chart., p. 28; P.R.O. DL. 42/2, f. 217d. For other gifts of Fulk Paynell, see Cal. Inq. Post. Mort., 1: 34, no. 139.

63 Pipe Roll 26 Henry II, pp. xxvii, 94; 31 Henry II, pp. xxviii, 164, 182; 10 Richard I, p. 178; Rot. de Obl. et Fin., pp. 4, 71; Sanders, , Baronies, p. 5.Google Scholar

64 Pipe Roll 6 Ric. I, pp. 30, 167, 172; Memoranda Roll 1 John, p. 73; Pipe Roll 2 John, pp. 227, 230, 235.

65 Sanders, , Baronies, pp. 5, 123.Google Scholar

66 Complete Peerage, 4: 766.Google Scholar

67 Complete Peerage, 4: 765-66Google Scholar; Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 136Google Scholar; Painter, , King John, pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Pipe Roll 1 John, p. 16; Rot. de Obl. et Fin., p. 3.

68 WiIliam displaced Peter de Sandiacre at Horsley, Rot. Chart., p. 123; Pipe Roll 6 John, p. 161; Pipe Roll 7 John, p. 232.

69 Pipe Roll 10 Ric. I, p. 118; Curia Regis Rolls, 1: 268Google Scholar; Walter Malet brought the assize, paying 20 marks, Pipe Roll 2 John, p. 20

70 Pipe Roll 6 John, p. 161; Pipe Roll 7 John, p. 232; Rot. Chart., 123; Sanders, , English Baronies, pp. 122-23Google Scholar; Painter, , King John, pp. 26, 76–77.Google Scholar

71 Holt, J. C., “Feudal Society and the Family in early Medieval England: III. Patronage and Politics,” T. R. H. S. 5th ser. 34 (1984): 20Google Scholar. E.g. Nicholas de Stuteville's 1205 fine of 10,000 marks for his brother William's inheritance, although William left a legitimate son (Pipe Roll 7 John, p. 59). For details, see Painter, , King John, pp. 334-36.Google Scholar

72 Glanvill, 7: 3, pp. 77–78.Google Scholar

73 Plucknett, T. F. T., A Concise History of the Common Law (5th ed.; London, 1956), p. 718.Google Scholar

74 E.g., Stenton, Doris M., ed., Pleas before the King or his Justices, 2, Seiden Society 68 (1949): 144, no. 528Google Scholar; Bracton's Note Book, 3: 595, no. 1766.Google Scholar

75 Bracton, f. 64b, 2: 189; f. 267b, 3: 283-85, f. 267b; 4: 46, f. 327b; 173-74, ff. 374-374b. Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., A History of English Law (Cambridge, 1898), 2: 285.Google Scholar

76 Sanders, , English Baronies, p. 148Google Scholar; Complete Peerage, 10: 450-53.Google Scholar

77 Holt, J. C., The Northerners (Oxford, 1960), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar

78 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: lib. See also Pipe Roll 8 John, p. 196 (1206); Pipe Roll 9 John, p. 82 (1207); William Briwerre evidently had control of Agnes' lands, but soon they were in Richard de Percy's hands.

79 Curia Regis Rolls, 6: 321.Google Scholar

80 Curia Regis Rolls, 7: 160.Google Scholar

81 Rot. Lit. Claus., 1: 207, 250, 308Google Scholar; Holt, , Northerners, p. 67.Google Scholar

82 Ror. Lit. Claus., 1: 308, 339, 360b.Google Scholar

83 Complete Peerage, 10: 450, note b.Google Scholar

84 Palmer, Robert, “Origins of Property,” pp. 16–19.Google Scholar

85 Eales, Richard, “Henry III and the End of the Norman Earldom of Chester,” in Thirteenth Century England, Proceedings of the Newcastle upon Tyne Conference 1985, ed. Coss, P. R. and Lloyd, S. D. (Woodbridge, Suff., 1986), pp. 100-12.Google Scholar

86 English Judiciary, pp. 52-63; 112-120.

87 Turner, , Men Raised from the Dust, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

88 Waugh, , “Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship,” pp. 199–205.Google Scholar

89 Magna Carta, articles 2, 3, 39, 52. See Waugh, , The Lordship of England, pp. 83–84Google Scholar; Holt, J. C., Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 115-25Google Scholar, and Appendix IV, pp. 316-37, for text of the Charter.