Edward III and the English Peerage: Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England

EDWARD III AND THE ENGLISH PEERAGE

Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England

J.S. Bothwell

EDWARD III AND THE ENGLISH PEERAGE Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England

Patronage was central to medieval kingship, and a crucial facet of royal power. In this book – the first in-depth examination of the topic – Dr Bothwell looks at how it worked in practice, through a detailed analysis of how Edward III, one of the most successful of medieval English monarchs, used royal favour to create a ‘new nobility’, to reward and control the established peerage, and to reposition the monarchy in general following the vicissitudes of his father’s reign and a problematic minority. The author shows how the judicious use of largesse helped to produce domestic stability and encouraged the successful prosecution of foreign wars; demonstrates how the nature of royal patronage came to reflect changes in feudalism, land law, finance, and the Church; and indicates the consequences of these changes for the more general history of medieval patronage, the evolution of the Lords and Commons, and the state of royal power both at the centre and in the localities. DR JAMES BOTHWELL is Lecturer in Later Medieval English History at the University of Leicester.

EDWARD III AND THE ENGLISH PEERAGE Royal Patronage, Social Mobility and Political Control in Fourteenth-Century England

J. S. Bothwell

THE BOYDELL PRESS

© J. S. Bothwell 2004 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner First published 2004 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 1 84383 047 7

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. PO Box 41026, Rochester, NY 14604–4126, USA website: www.boydell.co.uk

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bothwell, James. Edward III and the English peerage : royal patronage, social mobility, and political control in fourteenth-century England / J.S. Bothwell. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p.) and index. ISBN 1–84383–047–7 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Great Britain—Politics and government—1327–1377. 2. Patronage, Political—Great Britain—History—To 1500. 3. Social mobility—Great Britain—History—To 1500. 4. Nobility—Great Britain—History—To 1500. 5. Edward III, King of England, 1312–1377. 6. England—Social conditions—1066–1485. I. Title: Edward, the Third, and the English peerage. II. Title. DA233.B68 2004 942.03′7—dc22 2003017271

This publication is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Great Britain by St Edmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk

Contents

Acknowledgements

viii

Abbreviations

ix

Introduction The parliamentary peerage in early fourteenth-century England The situation in 1330 The problem of peerage endowment Scope and organisation of the book

1 2 3 5 8

PART ONE New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77: the Sources and Uses of Royal Patronage 1

The ‘new’ nobility Timeservers, old hands and problem cases ‘New blood’ promoted into the parliamentary peerage Promotions into the titled nobility

15 16 18 22

2

Mechanisms of royal largesse Reasons for patronage in grants and associated documents Types of tenure Feudal and financial obligations Grant authorisations Replacement and protection of royal patronage

28 28 32 37 40 43

3

Royal feudal rights Escheats, expectancies and forteitures Marriage rights and arrangements Wardships and custodies

46 47 60 67

4

Annuities and assignments Exchequer annuities Source-based payments

78 79 82

Contents 5

Routine patronage Offices and keeperships Pardons and licences Royal writs, orders and general influence Symbolic preference

93 94 99 102 105

PART TWO The Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage 6

Contemporary response Individual response General contemporary response

113 114 127

7

Distribution of royal favour The new parliamentary peerage The established peerage Overall distribution to the parliamentary peerage

138 138 145 149

8

Kings, the parliamentary peerage and royal patronage in the later Middle Ages The impact of Edward III’s patronage programme Patronage, promotion and the peerage after Edward III The place of Edward III’s use of largesse in the later Middle Ages

154 154 156 158

161 163 165 167 170 184 192

Appendices Appendix key 1. The definition of ‘new men’ and other limitations on this study 2. Careers of major players 3. Escheats, expectancies and forfeitures 4. Marriage rights and arrangements 5. Wardships and custodies 6. Annuities (a) Annuities granted (b) Annuity payment rates 7. Principal geographical interests of new men

200 203 206

Bibliography

209

Index

222

In memory of BEN BOTHWELL 1916–1992

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Russell Trust, and the Department of Medieval History, University of St Andrews, for financing my doctoral studies from 1991 to 1995, as well as the Department of History, University of Leicester, for giving me the time and funds to convert the thesis into a book. The staffs of the Public Record Office, British Library, and the National Library of Scotland have been indispensable to the collection of the material for this book, as have the libraries of the Universities of St Andrews, London, York, Leeds and Leicester. I would also like to thank John Langdon of the University of Alberta, who introduced me to medieval history, and who encouraged me to continue my studies at a postgraduate level. Chris Given-Wilson, my doctoral supervisor at the University of St Andrews, and Mark Ormrod, my postdoctoral adviser at the University of York, provided a great deal of inspiration and practical help while I wrote my thesis, and later as I worked on this book – both are to be commended for wading through the manuscript in its entirety (though any errors, of course, are my own). Special thanks are also due to my mother, Joan, my brother, Mark, and Tracey Rudkowski, a long suffering friend, for their continued support and encouragement, and, of course, to Eliza, who not only put up with discussions of outlines, sources, methodological problems, etc., on far too many weekends and bank holidays, but also very kindly proofread the final version. Finally, I would like to say a belated ‘thank-you’ to my father, who instilled in me an interest in history which has rarely faltered. This book is dedicated to him.

Abbreviations

Unless otherwise noted, all manuscript references are from the Public Record Office, London. Italicised personal and place names in the text and appendices indicate uncertain identity. Family branch is shown by the use of abbreviations (see Appendix Key) in places where this is needed. When necessary, individual peers are given roman numerals to differentiate between them (based on chronological precedence within the period 1330–1377, not the family history as a whole). AD A-NS BIHR BJRL BP BL CCharR CCR CDRS CFR CHJ CIM CIPM CMemR CP CPR CS DNB EcHR EGW EHD EHR HJ HR HSJ JBS JMH LQR

A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office Anglo-Norman Studies Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Register of Edward the Black Prince British Library Calendar of Charter Rolls Calendar of Close Rolls Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland Calendar of Fine Rolls The Cambridge Historical Journal Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem Calendar of Memoranda Rolls: Exchequer The Complete Peerage Calendar of Patent Rolls Camden Society Dictionary of National Biography Economic History Review English Government at Work 1327–1336 ed. W.H. Dunham, J.R. Strayer and E.F. Willard (Cambridge, Mass. 1940–50). English Historical Documents English Historical Review The Historical Journal – (Formerly CHJ ) Historical Research – (Formerly BIHR ) Haskins Society Journal Journal of British Studies Journal of Medieval History Law Quarterly Review

x MH MP NH NMS n.s. PP PRO RDP RP RS SR TRHS VCH

Abbreviations Midland History Medieval Prosopography Northern History Nottingham Mediaeval Studies new series Past and Present Public Record Office Reports . . . Touching the Dignity of a Peer, 5 vols. (London, 1829) Rotuli Parliamentorum Rolls Series Statutes of the Realm Transactions of the Royal Historical Society Victoria County History

Introduction So may your thoughts, good sirs, be one With our doughty king who died when old, And with Prince Edward too, his son, True fountain of the spirit bold. I know not when we shall behold Two lords of such a lofty kind. Yet now their fame is hardly told: It’s out of sight and out of mind. On the Death of Edward III 1

DESPITE the pessimistic eulogy of at least one fifteenth-century poet, and most historical opinion prior to the 1950s,2 Edward III’s reign (1327–77) is now rated as one of the most successful of the English Middle Ages. Raised in the court of his father, Edward II, a generally unpopular king deposed in 1327, Edward III came to power in his own right in 1330 after the overthrow of his guardians, his mother, Queen Isabella, and her lover, Roger Mortimer. At first preoccupied with the Disinheriteds’ campaign against the Bruce line, by 1337 he had entered into a war with France, a conflict which brought financial trouble and parliamentary crisis by 1340. However, once military campaigning began to go well on the Continent, first in Brittany, then at Crécy and Calais, domestic criticism, while never entirely silent, had less on which to focus. Rather, the next crisis to hit England came with the advent of the Plague in 1348, which would continue until 1350, and would revisit the realm in 1361, 1369 and 1375. In spite of this, though, Edward’s rule itself remained relatively stable, and was helped along further by the English victory at Poitiers, when the French king was captured, and the cessation of hostilities as a result of the Peace of Calais in 1360. Thereafter, a period of peace and general prosperity reigned, a well deserved respite for the now middle-aged Edward. Such times rarely last, however, especially for medieval monarchs. With the renewal of hostilities with France in 1369, and the physical decline of Edward himself, things began to fall apart. The situation reached a nadir in 1376, when the Good Parliament criticised the royal administration’s handling of both foreign and domestic affairs, and ordered the removal of many of the king’s most trusted courtiers. Though its acts were reversed in the next parliament, it nonetheless marked an inglorious end to an otherwise popular king. 1 2

B. Stone, trans. and ed., Medieval English Verse (Harmondsworth, 1984), p. 117. For a brief historiography of Edward III’s reign, see W.M. Ormrod, The Reign of Edward III: Crown and Political Society in England 1327–1377 (New Haven and London, 1990), Conclusion.

2

Edward III and the English Peerage

What is clear, even from this briefest of summaries, is that two issues are important in understanding the character of Edward III’s rule: his conduct of the Scottish and French wars and his relationship with parliament. Both tended to dictate the high, and low, points of his reign and on both he expended considerable amounts of energy. However, another factor, underlying and intimately connected with these and other issues and also almost always put forth as crucial to understanding Edward’s ultimate success, is his treatment of the English nobility. The fact that, as an adult, he faced no palpable threats of armed noble force during an independent rule which spanned nearly half a century clearly marks him off from his father, grandfather, or any king since the Norman Conquest. It was, indeed, a remarkable feat by any measure: few kings had a better overall relationship with their nobility, and modern historical consensus tends to recognise this fact. That said, what the following study will argue is that the way Edward III achieved this impressive record, and his good relations with the English nobility in general, was far more complex than is commonly assumed. Simply being a comrade-in-arms in wars abroad, companionable at home, generous to his friends and family and forgiving to his enemies, as Edward’s relationship with the nobility of the realm is usually summarised, was not a way to keep powerful, ambitious noble families in line.3 If a ‘softly softly’ approach had not been used by previous monarchs at the beginning of their reigns (Henrys I and II and Edward I spring to mind as being in similar situations), and they had had to use other methods, why should we assume Edward III did otherwise? With the deposition of his father and the impoverishment and generally low repute of the crown, could royal lordship based mainly around themes of generosity and good comradeship really have been the monarch’s key policy when dealing with the increasingly powerful and self-confident English nobility? It seems unlikely. The parliamentary peerage in early fourteenth-century England To understand the inner workings of Edward III’s treatment of the English nobility, we must first look to the state of that same nobility on the eve of his independent rule in 1330. First, it should be noted that it was only in the fourteenth century that the nobility itself was to become clearly defined and delineated. Before this, while they were not simply an ‘undifferentiated mass’,4 since certain individuals did take precedence because of previous history and/or size of land holdings,5 there were still few formal distinctions between the bulk of the king’s propertied subjects. Rather, it was only in 1317 that the word ‘peer’ first surfaced in parliament as an indication of status. At this time Thomas, earl of Lancaster, requested that there be a discussion of the deteriorating situation on the northern border in the presence of the ‘peers of the land’ (pares terrae).6 3 4 5

6

See discussion of historiography of Edward III’s relations with his nobility, below, pp. 8–9. McFarlane’s phrase. K.B. McFarlane, The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973), p. 268. See C. Given-Wilson, The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community (London, 1987), pp. 56–8; D. Crouch, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain, 1000–1300 (London, 1992), pp. 11–15, 20–2. J.E. Powell and K. Wallis, The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (London, 1968), p. 284.

Introduction

3

The more general use of this term, though, had its basis much further back, at least as far as Magna Carta,7 clause thirty-nine – namely, that No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go or send against him, except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.

The earl of Lancaster’s use of the word ‘peer’ in one of Edward II’s assemblies, however, showed that, along with a long-standing legal and feudal usage, it had now become acceptable in a contemporary parliamentary context as well. At roughly the same time, moreover, the list of individual parliamentary summons (which are considered to designate a peer of the realm) was becoming increasingly predetermined. Before the fourteenth century, summons to parliament had not been hereditary; rather, according to Sayles, it ‘depended on the king’s will, the caprice of chancery, the kind of business to be transacted, [and] the length of time at the government’s disposal’.8 However, the early fourteenth century – and in particular the period between the accession of Edward II in 1307 and the Nottingham Coup of 1330 – witnessed the development of a standardised summons list for parliament, one based on a mixture of ‘precedent, the record and the shadowy notion of barony’, in which the names of individuals, and thence their families, began to reappear with increasing regularity.9 Probably due to the fact that the crown was under forms of ‘tutelage’ for large parts of this period, and also because the royal government’s attention was often diverted by more pressing issues,10 large sections of the list were copied in their entirety from one year to the next and, though there were changes,11 nonetheless by the 1320s the idea that certain families had the right to be summoned to parliament had arrived. The situation in 1330 These were not the only developments with respect to the nobility that Edward III faced on his assumption of independent rule in 1330. His position was further complicated by the more general political history of the last two decades. In particular, his father, Edward II, is viewed as an unmitigated disaster as king. Notorious for his fondness of favourites, this monarch allowed their treatment, along with more general criticisms of corruption and incompetence, to create a serious breach between himself and his nobility. Two major episodes of instability ensued: the crisis of 1308–12, which only ended after the execution of the king’s closest friend, Piers de Gaveston, by a group of his barons; and the period ending in 1322, when Edward II, after yet more years of turmoil, soundly 7

8 9 10

11

Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, pp. 284–5. See also G.O. Sayles, The King’s Parliament of England (London, 1975), pp. 100–3. Sayles, King’s Parliament, p. 72. Paraphrased from Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, p. 315, see also pp. 303–15. Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, p. 315; A.L. Brown, The Governance of Late Mediaeval England 1272–1461 (Stanford, 1989), p. 180. See W.A. Dugdale, ed., A Perfect Copy of All Summons of the Nobility to the Great Councils and Parliaments of the Realm (London, 1685).

4

Edward III and the English Peerage

defeated his baronial critics at the battle of Boroughbridge. After this, however, the king became increasingly isolated, preferring to spend most of his time with a new group of favourites, the Despensers, the father and son team who were to dominate the royal administration. Finally, Edward’s wife, Queen Isabella, tired of the loss of royal attention and fearful for her position, took advantage of the mood of the country as a whole to arrange the coup which replaced Edward II with his teenage son. Thereafter, for the next three and a half years, a minority government ruled: one, however, controlled primarily by Isabella and her lover, Roger Mortimer. It was only when, on 18 October 1330, Edward III and a group of supporters burst into the queen’s chamber at Nottingham castle, arrested Mortimer, and placed him in transit for the hangman’s rope, that the young king finally assumed direct rule of his kingdom. But though Edward was now in control, his own future was far from certain. With a parliamentary peerage growing in power, packed with men whose presence had been decided either by Isabella’s minority government or by Edward II, Edward III faced a situation that would have been daunting to the most experienced of leaders, let alone the eighteen-year-old son of a deposed, and later probably murdered, monarch. Not only had the king’s nobility regularly acted above their station in the quarter century prior to 1330 but it was in Edward II’s reign that they had reached an apex in self-assurance with their role in the Deposition – a self-assurance already developing in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries with aristocratic statements of rights and interests from Magna Carta to the Ordinances of 1311. Similarly, as a social group, the nobility had evolved considerably over the previous century, both with the official recognition that a certain type of individual should be called to parliaments or great councils to advise the king, and with the development of a medieval noble ‘lifestyle’, manifested in such diverse areas as the rise of chivalry, the beginnings of chantries, and the composition of treatises on estate management. Finally, noble economic power also continued to expand and, with it, the size and control of their estates, especially with the growth of entails, the beginning of the development of enfeoffment-to-use (a form of trust),12 and the enactment of a statute in 1327 which disallowed forfeiture to the king for unlicensed land transfers. More generally, the disturbances of the 1320s also laid the foundations for problems for Edward III, especially for royal control in the localities. This was, after all, the heyday of the Folvilles, Coterels and John Molyns, all of whom were to cause considerable trouble for royal and local officials in the counties. As the reign progressed, moreover, Edward was to find that domestic responsibilities were not the only matters pressing. With the instability in Ireland in the aftermath of the 1315–18 invasion of Edward Bruce, the Disinheriteds’ activities in Scotland in the early 1330s, and the outbreak of the Hundred Years War with France in 1337, Edward III was to be in desperate need of substantial support from the English nobility for his foreign policy. But such support was not simply for the taking. After all, it was not so long since Edward I’s nobles had refused their king military service, and, as has been noted with respect to the French war, 12

See p. 124 n. 87.

Introduction

5

though Edward III’s ‘nobility were seeking to maintain his [i.e. the king’s] honour and his inheritance, . . . they had no personal interests there [i.e. in Aquitaine] to safeguard’.13 This, along with the emergence of contract armies – which often left the monarch a debtor to the same nobles14 – made action on Edward III’s part more problematic, but also all the more crucial. Finally, a demographic crisis in the nobility during this period also had the potential to cause troubles for the new king. For, in addition to the king’s need for a supportive nobility, that nobility also had to be sufficiently large if the king were to govern competently. Due in part to deaths in battle and executions in the 1320s, but more importantly to a general lack of male heirs, line failure or descent to coheirs, usually women, was one of the banes of the late medieval aristocracy. This, along with the fact that the right to individual summons was not regularly transmitted through women, meant that there was a substantial decline in the numbers called to parliament as peers of the realm. Looking at those sixty families first summoned to parliament between the years 1300 and 1324, fifteen died out in the male line by 1325, eleven more by 1350, and all but fourteen by the end of the century.15 And the situation was not much better in the titled nobility. Indeed, though the numbers had never been high, nor had any king substantially increased them since the Anarchy,16 the fact that many of the titled nobles around in 1330 were of a considerably older generation, or otherwise inactive, left Edward III with few to help govern his kingdom.17 The problem of peerage endowment Despite such challenging circumstances, within three decades of the Nottingham Coup, Edward III had established a rapport with his nobility which has become a byword for good political relations in the later Middle Ages.18 First, Edward gradually renewed relations with the established nobility. Though this was difficult, if not impossible, with a dangerous figure like Roger Mortimer, or with men intimately connected with the political murders of the Minority such as John Maltravers and Simon Bereford, Edward did manage to come to an accommodation with most of those, or at least their families, who had caused problems during the 1320s. The heir of the earl of Arundel, who was executed in 1326 on the orders of Isabella and Mortimer, was restored to his inheritance;19 those who had taken part in the 1328–9 rebellion against the minority regime, including the

13

14

15 16

17 18 19

A. Tuck, Crown and Nobility 1272–1461: Political Conflict in Late Medieval England (London, 1985), p. 117. E.B. Fryde, ‘Magnate Debts to Edward I and Edward III: A Study of Common Problems and Contrasting Royal Reactions to Them’, The National Library of Wales Journal 27 (1991–2), 279; Ormrod, Edward III, p. 104. McFarlane, Nobility, p. 174. See R.H.C. Davis, King Stephen 3rd edn (London, 1990), Appendix 2; McFarlane, Nobility, p. 267; T.F. Tout, ‘The Earldoms under Edward I’, TRHS n.s. 8 (1894), 131–3. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 34. E.g. J. Vale, Edward III and Chivalry 1270–1350 (Woodbridge, 1982), pp. 2–3. C. Given-Wilson, ‘Wealth and Credit, Public and Private: The Earls of Arundel 1306–1397’, EHR 106 (1991), 5.

6

Edward III and the English Peerage

earls of Lancaster and Norfolk, as well as those who had attached themselves to the earl of Kent’s cause in 1330, were forgiven their misdeeds as well as substantial bonds to which they had been forced to acquiesce.20 More surprisingly, during the course of the 1330s, Hugh Despenser the Younger’s heir was gradually brought back into the king’s good graces and his inheritance,21 as were the descendants of Mortimer.22 Even John Maltravers, jailer of Edward II and accomplice in the earl of Kent’s death, started to find some favour.23 Though still under a death sentence and in self-imposed exile on the Continent in the late 1330s, he was granted an annuity of £100 at the exchequer in 133924 – no doubt at least in part for his role in bringing Flanders onto the English side in the war with France25 – and by 1352 he had been restored to his estate.26 Nonetheless, to allow the noble families left over from his father’s regime or from the Minority to monopolise the king’s goodwill – as well as the government of the kingdom – was to risk a return to old power struggles, if not a repeat of past mistakes. Rather, the obvious remedy to this situation was the creation of a royalist power base within the nobility. Most previous medieval kings had done this to some degree when they came to power; indeed, from the Norman kings onward it was often deemed a necessary part of establishing one’s own independent rule.27 However, the level of thought and planning that went into such promotions could vary considerably between reigns. Whereas monarchs such as Henry I and Henry II had an obvious policy of promoting men of proven ability to positions of rank,28 Henry III and Edward II focused on smaller groups of courtiers, often foreign and usually lacking in experience and/or tact, to the exclusion of the rest of the nobility.29 To such men, the companionship of a handful of Poitevins or a couple of Despensers appeared much more important than the backing and goodwill of the nobility as a whole. To his credit Edward III, though he had his favoured subjects, tended to take the route of the first two Henrys. In Edward’s case this meant acknowledging those already sufficiently wealthy to warrant peerages – but in a number of cases having yet to receive them – as well as promoting into the parliamentary nobility those less well-off men who had proved loyal, competent supporters of his kingship. However, acknowledgement of place in, or promotion into, the peerage

20 21

22 23

24 25 26 27

28

29

RP ii, 31, 54; CPR 1330–4, 26, 35, 410; DL10/259; see also p. 100. Especially through grants and reseisins of family properties. E.g. CPR 1330–4, 241, 267; CPR 1334–8, 461–2. RP ii, 62; for more details of the Mortimer family rehabilitation, see p. 152. Many thanks to Dr. Caroline Shenton for allowing me to see a draft copy of her forthcoming Dictionary of National Biography entry on John Maltravers. CPR 1338–40, 378. CP viii, 583. Though Shenton puts forth other reasons also. See DNB entry. CPR 1350–4, 110. J.C. Ward, ‘Royal Service and Reward: The Clare Family and the Crown 1066–1154’, A-NS XI 1988 (Woodbridge, 1989), 261. See J.A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), Chapter 7; W.L. Warren, Henry II (London, 1973), pp. 308–14. See H.W. Ridgeway, ‘Foreign Favourites and Henry III’s Problems of Patronage, 1247–1258’, EHR 104 (1989), 590–610; N. Fryde, The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II 1321–6 (Cambridge, 1979), passim.

Introduction

7

was one thing; it was altogether another to ensure that such men were willing and able to serve the monarch adequately, both at home and abroad. First, to keep the loyalty of those who warranted, or already had, individual summons to parliament primarily of their own accord, and who otherwise might have had little inducement against returning to past allegiances, it was of the utmost importance that Edward was perceived to be not just merciful but generous. Indeed, monarchs of any period were expected to show material and other forms of favour, and the fourteenth century was no exception. According to The Mirror of Edward III, written for the young king by William of Pagula in the early 1330s: Again, according to Cassiodorus, whatever effects the measure of good reputation neglects the increase of wealth, and one’s faculty for ruling would then be more powerful when one strives to acquire a treasure of good reputation, to the neglect of the utility of valuable possessions. And you, King, if you wish to acquire for yourself the love of the people through your work, you should show this.30

Though William was emphasising to the young king the need to avoid keeping bad company as well as the sin of avarice, it nonetheless also showed that the way to good lordship lay not in hoarding one’s wealth, but in distributing it wisely. Christine de Pisan more than likely would have agreed: ‘There is no doubt that nothing profits a prince as much as discreet generosity.’31 Secondly, the king had to face the more daunting prospect of ensuring that the less well-off of his ‘new men’ had the income to sustain their rank. After all, though one could perhaps get by in the established nobility without having sufficient blue blood as long as one had ability, or at the very least royal favour, it was far harder for an individual to be taken seriously by the establishment if he did not have an adequate income, landed or otherwise, to sustain his rank. And, in the words of George Holmes, by the fourteenth century, ‘status was handled realistically; it corresponded to wealth and power’.32 This connection between riches and status was most clearly stated in the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum (The Manner of Holding Parliament), written in the early 1320s. The tract gave specific instructions as to who should be called to parliament from the different sections of the clergy and laity: Also there ought to be summoned and come every one of the earls and barons and their peers, that is to say those who have lands and revenues to the value of a complete earldom, that is to say twenty knight’s fees of one knight, each fee being reckoned worth twenty librates which makes four hundred librates in all, or to the value of one complete barony, that is to say thirteen and a third knight’s fees of one knight each fee being reckoned at twenty librates which make four hundred marks . . .33

30

31 32

33

C.J. Nederman and K. Forhan, eds. Medieval Political Theory – A Reader: The Quest for the Body Politic, 1100–1400 (London, 1993), p. 204. Christine de Pisan, The Book of the Body Politic, ed. and trans. K. Forhan (Cambridge, 1994), p. 26. See G.A. Holmes, The Estates of the Higher Nobility in Fourteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1957), p. 4. See N. Pronay and J. Taylor, eds. Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1980), p. 81.

8

Edward III and the English Peerage

Though theoretical and somewhat unrealistic,34 nonetheless the Modus showed the growing awareness that some form of economic distinction, preferably through land ownership, was necessary for an individual to be classed as noble and, in particular, a parliamentary peer. In other words, the evolution of the peerage in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries had created a definable rank, based on individual summons to parliament, with which a property qualification was then associated. It was obvious that Edward III, if he wished his supporters to be taken seriously, first needed to ensure they had the means necessary to uphold their present or future positions. However, though promises of patronage to either old or new nobility, well-off or impoverished, could be made, and other such gifts hoped for, the finding of the necessary resources was almost always problematic for a new king – not least one faced with the legacy of a minority regime’s excesses, an increasingly factitious nobility, the gradual growth of enfeoffmentto-use, jointures and other potential limitations on royal power, local law and order issues, military problems in Scotland, Ireland, and France, long-term inflation and even, it has been argued, a shift in the foundations of state finance in the two centuries before 1330.35 Indeed, the gradual movement of the realm’s fiscal base from feudal, judicial and other traditional forms of income to direct and indirect taxation revenue over the course of the high and later Middle Ages, which in turn led to increased dependence for finance on the consent of parliament and other representative councils, left English monarchs in a far more difficult position than ever before when it came to their own rule, let alone rewarding supporters. Unsurprisingly, at the beginning of his majority it was far from clear how Edward III was to promote and empower a large group of men while keeping the established nobility onside and, most importantly, maintaining firm control over the aristocracy of England as a whole. Scope and organisation of the book The rather large and vexing question of ‘how’ Edward III’s patronage programme worked must be examined in detail before we can decide whether the ‘why’ commonly given is entirely adequate. For though, at its most basic level, Edward’s good relations with his nobility are rarely now disputed, questions remain. How were these good relations achieved under such difficult circumstances? Were they achieved primarily through a logically appealing strategy that mixed even-handed distribution of largesse, comradeship in the field of battle, and generous, merciful kingship at home? This is often argued. Or was the process somewhat more complicated? From consideration of these questions we can go on to re-examine the overall rationale behind the programme, and, more generally, the place of Edward III’s largesse to the parliamentary peerage 34

35

Given-Wilson has shown that the incomes indicated as the lowest level for individual summons would prove overly optimistic. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 66. N. Barratt, ‘English Royal Revenue in the Early Thirteenth Century and its Wider Context, 1130–1330’, in W.M. Ormrod, M. Bonney, and R. Bonney, eds. Crises, Revolutions and SelfSustained Growth: Essays in European Fiscal History, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999), 87.

Introduction

9

both within the larger history of royal patronage, and the later Middle Ages as a whole. Having said this, what is surprising is the fact that, though war and concepts of chivalry and ‘good kingship’ have been discussed at length for almost every reign in the Middle Ages, and the importance of royal largesse is constantly stressed in most treatments of medieval politics, no one has previously attempted an indepth analysis of the patronage practices of an English medieval monarch, not even of one of the most politically successful monarchs. Examinations of royal patronage are usually either in article form or part of much larger studies, rarely having enough space for any but the briefest of treatments. Nevertheless, the granting practices of most medieval English kings have had their modern commentators,36 however cursory the treatment, and Edward III’s are no exception. Most notably, the broad-based studies of McFarlane, Tuck, GivenWilson, and Ormrod come closest to giving a view as to how this monarch used largesse. To these historians, Edward III’s patronage is seen primarily as an attempt to refill the ranks of the hereditary nobility, depleted by line failure and civil war, to a level which would enable him to fulfil his ambitions both at home and on the fields of battle in Scotland and France.37 For the sake of war abroad, home defence and the administration of the realm, so the story goes, Edward III promoted a number of royal supporters, well-wishers and political bedfellows into, or upwards within, the parliamentary peerage as bannerets, barons, earls or even, in one case, a duke. Similarly, according to this line of argument, he kept content the established nobility from before his rise to independent power in 1330 through a mixture of clemency for their parts in the events of the previous decade and a wide, even-handed distribution of royal largesse among their ranks.38 As a result, this seemingly logical line of argument, usually employed as part of a much larger rehabilitation of Edward III over the last half century,39 habitually shows up whenever fourteenth-century kingship is discussed. However, though a practice of multiple promotions, forgiveness, and generosity might at first glance seem a reasonable explanation of how Edward III managed

36

37

38

39

For example, J.E. Lally, ‘Secular Patronage in the Court of King Henry II’, BIHR 49 (1976), 159–84; M. Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage under Edward I’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England I, 1985 (Woodbridge, 1986), 41–51; A. Tuck, ‘Richard II’s System of Patronage’, in F.R.H. Du Boulay and C.M. Barron, eds. The Reign of Richard II (London, 1971), 1–20; R.A.K. Mott, ‘A Study in the Distribution of Patronage, 1389–99’, Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literature and History Section Proceedings 15 (1974), 113–33; S.D. Church, The Household Knights of King John (Cambridge, 1999); S.L. Waugh, The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics 1217–1327 (Princeton, 1988). E.g. McFarlane, Nobility, pp. 156–64; Tuck, Crown and Nobility, pp. 118–9; Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 33–42; Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 56–60; A. Ayton, ‘Edward III and the English Aristocracy at the Beginning of the Hundred Years War’, in M. Strickland, ed., Armies, Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Britain and France (Stamford, 1998), 188–90. E.g. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 59. This image of Edward’s patronage is propagated by historians of later reigns: e.g. N. Saul, Richard II (New Haven, 1997), p. 129. A rehabilitation marked by May McKisack’s contribution to the Oxford History of England series and her article, ‘Edward III and the Historians’. M. McKisack, The Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1959), esp. Chapters 6, 7 and 8; M. McKisack, ‘Edward III and the Historians’, History 45 (1960), 1–15.

10

Edward III and the English Peerage

to re-establish control over the English nobility after the vicissitudes of his father’s reign and the Minority, many questions remain. Aside from some well worn examples of earldoms granted to new men and forfeited estates granted back to old, was his material patronage to the nobility really that wide and evenhanded? Were patronage grants, promotions, general good treatment and good fellowship all there was to Edward’s successful dealings with his nobility? How did Edward III pursue a policy of mass patronage in a period generally perceived to be one not just of straitened royal circumstances, but also of economic and social disruption? How did these developments relate to the state of a key component of monarchical power, feudalism, and its perceived decline in the later Middle Ages? Why was there not more contemporary reaction to this programme? Of the contemporary reaction there was, how much of it related directly to the king’s use of royal resources, and how much was fallout from other debates going on at the time? More generally, were successful war abroad and a contented polity at home Edward III’s only goals? Or was he in the process of developing a broader conception of royal largesse and the way to wield it? Was this perhaps in part to counterbalance an increasingly hereditary parliamentary peerage and a Commons that was threatening to grow in power? Finally, were his policies towards the kingdom’s elite ones that Edward himself had come up with? Or were they a strand in the development of the English medieval monarchy that stretched back well before his reign – and would continue beyond it? Indeed, if one looks past the most sensational points of Edward III’s patronage programme such as the 1337 earldom creations – usually the only aspect picked up on by modern commentators but also the one which Edward himself most wanted his subjects to see40 – to a more detailed examination of royal largesse to the whole of the English nobility during the period, a different image of this king’s agenda, methods and ultimate goals emerges. This is a more complex picture, taking into account not just political and military aims and ambitions but also developments in areas as diverse as parliament, exchequer finance, commerce, land law, the Church, and royal power in the localities as well as noble self-perception and social stratification. Moreover, by placing Edward’s endowments within the framework of all royal patronage to the English peerage during the period 1330–77, more will be understood about the functioning of royal largesse, and how Edward’s endowment programme related to his treatment of the parliamentary peerage as a whole. To this end, the following work is divided into two parts. Part One comprises a case study of royal patronage to those newly raised, or to be raised, to the parliamentary peerage (‘the new men’), presenting a detailed analysis of the resources used to give sixty-eight individuals (fifty-nine barons, nine earls, with one earl further promoted to a duchy) enough wealth to merit or sustain their promotions, and the way these resources were used. Part Two will look at the contemporary reaction to Edward’s endowment programme, and then at how royal patronage distributed to the ‘new men’

40

On Edward III’s use of promotions for purposes aside from those stated, see J.S. Bothwell, ‘Edward III, the English Peerage, and the 1337 Earls: Estate Redistribution in the Later Middle Ages’, in J.S. Bothwell, ed., The Age of Edward III (York, 2001), 35–52.

Introduction

11

compared to that given to the remaining 175 members (twenty-five earls and 150 barons) of the established peerage (i.e. those who had been individually summoned to parliament before the autumn session of 1330 or who were from male lines previously summoned). An examination of Edward III’s patronage policies to the parliamentary peerage as a whole follows, including an analysis of royal patronage to the parliamentary peerage during the period 1330–1377. This last part of the book explores both the impact of Edward III’s use of patronage to his nobility and how it can be placed within the more general historical trends of the later Middle Ages. The appendices catalogue grants to the parliamentary peerage between 1330 and 1377. Some caveats must obviously come with a topic of this scope. First, the definition of royal patronage used here is one in which the king gives reward or advantage to his new men for past, present or future service, but is not meant to indicate more basic remuneration for work done, as is usually the case of fees for commissions, lesser offices and service in war. Rather, it is meant to show royal preference for an individual through the distribution of wealth, power or rights – whether through grants of lands, money, offices or other forms of favour. Though in theory the division is blurred at times between basic remuneration and patronage, the king’s intentions are usually more than clear in the records of the period. Second, the time frame of this study has been restricted to the period from Edward III’s accession to independent power after the Nottingham Coup on 18 October 1330 until his death on 21 June 1377 because it marks the time when, in theory at least,41 he had overall control of royal patronage. Third, all grants made by the king to those receiving parliamentary summons during this period – excluding only those not primarily involved in the English political scene, and the offspring of the king (who need to be treated as a separate category)42 – will be examined, such summons (even if only for a couple of parliaments)43 being a clear indicator of a certain amount of economic, social and political status connected with ideas of the peerage and nobility at this time. Doubtless, there were others active during the reign who also could be referred to as ‘noble’, especially if one accepts a definition of nobility which includes those ‘more commonly referred to as the gentry’.44 However, it is clear that Edward III’s regime tended to observe the traditional principle that the king’s chief responsibilities, as far as royal patronage was concerned, were to the higher nobility: it is therefore only in relation to the parliamentary peerage that he may be said really to have had a policy or strategy of patronage. (Any patronage going to the gentry, or other groups such as merchants and churchmen, was much more reactive, patchy and dependent upon the individual). The peerage, after all,

41

42 43 44

Edward’s decline, and resulting lack of governmental control, in the 1370s is often noted (e.g. Tuck, Crown and Nobility, pp. 161–2) – though, at least in terms of favour to his mistress, he kept tight control. See J.S. Bothwell, ‘The Management of Position: Alice Perrers, Edward III and the Creation of a Landed Estate 1362–77’, JMH 24 (1998), 31–51. See Appendix 1 for further definition of ‘new’ parliamentary peerage. As in Complete Peerage and by historians such as McFarlane, Powell and Wallis and Given-Wilson. E.g. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. ix–x.

12

Edward III and the English Peerage

encompassed the most wealthy, powerful and politically successful families in the land, and it was crucial for any monarch, if he wanted to keep control of his kingdom, to influence and, if possible, dominate it. How far he was able to do so provides a very important index of the power and political skills of this medieval king. Due to the comprehensive approach of the following work, there has been a fair amount of numerical analysis, especially in the penultimate chapter. Two points need to be made about this. First, it is clear that the division between ‘new’ and ‘old’, while important, was not absolute, and the divide would have been somewhat less clear at the time, especially with younger sons of nobles being promoted as well as new men’s sons becoming, in effect, members of the established nobility. This is obviously not to say such a division is not worthwhile, but simply that any numbers which emerge must ultimately be treated with a degree of caution. Moreover, the numbers which do emerge, while I have tried to be as comprehensive as possible in my search through contemporary documents, must, if for no other reason than the issue of record survival, be considered indicators of magnitude rather than precise figures. Thus, the numbers and percentages in this book, taken on their own and together, are meant to indicate trends rather than absolutes. With these provisos in mind, the following work is offered as a chiaroscuro, but hopefully representative, portrait of royal patronage towards the most powerful group of men in England, the parliamentary peerage, in one of the longest and most politically stable reigns in medieval history.

PART ONE

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77: the Sources and Uses of Royal Patronage

1 The ‘New’ Nobility Among the signs of royalty we considered it to be the most important that, through a suitable distribution of ranks, dignities and offices, its position (vallatum) is sustained by the wise counsels and protected by the many powers of formidable men. Yet, the hereditary ranks in our kingdom, both through descent to coheirs and coparceners according to the law of the kingdom and through a failure of issue and various other events, having returned into the hand of the king, this realm has experienced for a long time a substantial loss in the names, honours and ranks of dignity. (From the charter raising Robert Ufford to the earldom of Suffolk on 16 March 1337.)1

TO VARYING DEGREES, all medieval English monarchs promoted underlings, supporters and/or friends during their reigns. Henry I’s promotions were made up of ‘men raised from the dust’2 – Geoffrey de Clinton, Ralph Basset, Rainer of Bath and Hugh of Buckland, to name but four – individuals with, at best, obscure origins who rose in the king’s service as well as in personal wealth. These were the men who had helped Henry I regain firm monarchical control of England after the reign of an unpopular, elder brother (William Rufus) and a succession disputed by another, belatedly ambitious, one (Robert Curthose). Although Henry’s were not the first ‘new men’ in the post-Conquest period, as has been emphasised by Hollister and Green,3 nor, more obviously, would they be the last. Henry III’s problematic courtiers were mainly Poitevins and Savoyards, usually of limited means, who had either been in his father’s court or had come across with his new bride, Eleanor of Provence.4 Even Edward I had a core of boon companions, men such as Roger Leyburn, Otto de Gransdon and John de Vescy, some of whom had collected around him during the latter part of his father’s reign,5 gone on crusade with him and helped conquer the

1

2

3

4

5

As with some other 1337 earls. Reports . . . Touching the Dignity of a Peer 5 vols. (London, 1829), v, 28–32. Though there may have been ‘exaggeration’ in Orderic Vitalis’s famous remark. Green, Government of England, pp. 139–43. C.W. Hollister, ‘Henry I and the Invisible Transformation of Medieval England’, in H. Mayr-Harting and R.I. Moore, eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to R.H.C. Davis (London and Rio Grande, 1985), 122–3; J.A. Green, The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 9–10. M. Powicke, The Thirteenth Century 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1962), pp. 48–53, 73–4; Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 590–610. H.W. Ridgeway, ‘The Lord Edward and the Provisions of Oxford (1258): A Study in Faction’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England I, 97.

16

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Welsh.6 All were of considerable importance to the monarchs they served and all, with the possible exception of Edward I’s supporters, aroused controversy. So who, then, made up Edward III’s ‘new’ nobility? Out of 243 men individually summoned to parliament between Edward III’s assumption of independent power in 1330 and his death in 1377, fifty-nine who (like their fathers and grandfathers before them) had received no previous writ of summons were promoted into the peerage by Edward III. He raised nine other men further to the rank of earl, and one of these earls, the earl of Lancaster, to that of duke (see Table 1). Table 1. Promotions Decade 1330–40 1341–50 1351–60 1361–70 1371–77

To barons 19 19 6 7 8

To earls 7 0 2 0 0

To duke 0 0 1 0 0

These sixty-nine new promotions can be divided into three main groups: those men of noble wealth yet to be individually summoned to parliament, some of whom managed to avoid the disturbances of the past two decades, others who were central to them; individuals of knightly status raised by Edward III into the parliamentary peerage; and those special few given the further honour of earldoms, and in one case, a duchy.7 Timeservers, old hands and problem cases Of these promotions, roughly half were for men who already had the wealth to sustain their new ranks – either through the generosity of Edward II or the minority regime, or through inheritance and/or marriage – but had yet to receive titles commensurate with their positions. Some had estates large enough to warrant individual summons to parliament without any substantial patronage and were most likely being called primarily in recognition of this fact. A good example of this type of new man was John Creting, son and heir of Sir Adam Creting, Marshal of the King’s Army in Gascony in the mid-1290s. John was born c.1275 at Chepstow, and, when of sufficient age, served with his father on the Continent, where he was taken prisoner, and at one point believed dead.8 Released before April 1300, he was subsequently allowed to do homage for his father’s estate in England and Ireland.9 Thereafter, he spent a considerable

6 7

8 9

M. Prestwich, Edward I (London, 1997), pp. 69, 84, 180. For more on the careers of the individuals discussed in the following chapter, see their entries in The Complete Peerage, The Dictionary of National Biography, and Appendix 2. CCR 1296–1302, 175; CPR 1292–1301, 361, 362–3. CPR 1292–1301, 501; CCR 1296–1302, 340.

The ‘New’ Nobility

17

amount of time on his Irish estates, though he was apparently prepared to go on campaign in Scotland with Edward I in June 1307.10 Retained by Thomas, earl of Lancaster, for most of the 1310s,11 Creting had a falling out with the earl a couple of years before the battle of Boroughbridge (1322), reproaching Lancaster because he ‘did not conduct himself towards the king as he was bound to do’.12 After this, however, Creting took no further discernible part in the events of the reign or the Minority. Rather, his summons to Edward III’s parliament three times in 1332 as a peer of the realm was more to do with the size of his patrimony – which included properties in Huntingdonshire, Suffolk, Essex, and Shropshire13 – than with royal service performed in the recent past, let alone expected in the future. For others, such as John Hausted, a promotion into the parliamentary peerage was more clearly connected with previous good service – though the size of his estate was still also a factor.14 Hausted, of a Midlands gentry family, had been a loyal servant of the central government, whoever was actually in charge, and had picked up a great deal of experience in the process.15 Active as early as 1302,16 he was a yeoman in the young Prince Edward’s household, though temporarily banished from it by Edward I in 1305 as part of a more general attempt to reform the prince’s ways.17 A minor favourite of Edward II,18 Hausted was continuously of service to the royal government, first on the northern border, then in the royalist army at Boroughbridge in 1322. Later in the same year he was made acting Marshal of the Royal Household, as well as being summoned to the Great Council in 1324. Indeed, even during the Minority, Hausted was considered of enough importance to be granted a 200 mark annuity out of the Bordeaux customs, as well as being made seneschal of Gascony in 1328,19 where he had been on royal service for most of the later part of the decade.20 Primarily as a result of this service, Hausted was summoned to parliament from 1332 until his death in 1336. For Edward III, then, such a man – both for his proven loyalty and considerable experience – was a necessary part of a competent royalist faction within the nobility, whether during war or peace, at home or abroad. Then there were the men holding larger estates who were summoned to encourage better service in the future – especially where it had previously been lacking. Also called to parliament for the first time in 1332, Gilbert Talbot

10 11

12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19

20

CPR 1292–1301, 536, 568; CPR 1301–07, 70. DL41/132; J.R. Maddicott, Thomas of Lancaster 1307–1322 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 54, 59; DL29/1/3/25–8. CIM 1307–48, 115. CIPM iii, 215–16, 384–6. As Hausted received no substantial patronage after 1330, he must have been considered to have had a large enough estate to sustain a peerage already. See Appendices. See CP vi, 402–3. CPR 1301–07, 26. J.S. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston Earl of Cornwall, 1307–1312 (Detroit, 1988), p. 31. CCharR 1300–26, 108; CPR 1317–21, 140; CFR 1319–27, 13, 80, 84–5, 129. Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, p. 317; W. Dugdale, The Baronage of England (London, 1675–6), ii, 126. CPR 1321–4, 428; CCR 1323–7, 233, 553, 658; CPR 1327–30, 389, 455; CCR 1330–3, 327; CMemR 1326–7, 41, 77.

18

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

(b.1276), son of Richard Talbot (d.1306), was a prime candidate for such treatment. Constantly anti-royalist during the latter half of Edward II’s reign, Talbot, like John Creting, had been a follower of Thomas of Lancaster.21 Deprived of his estate after the battle of Boroughbridge, he nonetheless was pardoned upon recognition of a large bond for good behaviour, receiving back his estate on 1 November 1322.22 At this time, he was further granted the keeping of the castle, town and barton of Gloucester,23 as well as being placed on a commission to arrest disturbers of the peace in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Herefordshire.24 By 1326, however, Talbot was again immersed in events. In October of that year, he was ordered by Edward II, already in retreat from Isabella’s forces, to get Gloucester castle ready for his arrival.25 However, according to at least one account as early as January of the same year, Talbot also appears to have been dealing with the Londoners on behalf of the queen.26 Perhaps as a result of this duplicity for her sake, when Edward II was finally caught and imprisoned, Isabella forgave Talbot the bond for good behaviour forced on him after Boroughbridge.27 Aside from also becoming a household banneret and royal chamberlain during the minority period,28 in his colourful career prior to Edward III’s accession Talbot amassed a considerable estate, especially in Wales, the Marches and the southwest.29 After the Nottingham Coup, while continuing to be a royal banneret,30 he was shown further, though not excessive, favour by both king and queen,31 including a number of respites of debts throughout the 1330s.32 Nonetheless, despite coming to some sort of accommodation with the young king, Talbot was obviously a worry as a potential ‘loose cannon’ and, at least from the royal perspective, better off in a parliamentary peerage created by royal will than in a less defined, and therefore potentially more volatile, position. Probably at least in part resulting from such considerations, Talbot was summoned to parliament for the first time in 1332, and continued to be so until 1343. ‘New blood’ promoted into the parliamentary peerage Such men, for better or worse, were a necessary part of the highest echelon of society and had to be officially recognised as such. Whether experienced and/or loyal or not, they held enough land at the time either of Edward III’s accession

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29

30 31 32

DL41/134; CMemR 1326–7, 54. CPR 1321–4, 211; CFR 1319–27, 170. CFR 1319–27, 182. CPR 1321–4, 214. CFR 1319–27, 420. Fryde, Tyranny, p. 187 and n. 52. CFR 1319–27, 170. E101/384/7 mem 3; Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, p. 314; RP ii, 427b, 428a; CCharR 1327–41, 81. That a £2,000 bond had been set for Talbot’s good behaviour by Edward II after Boroughbridge shows his prosperity in this period. SC8/75/3711; CFR 1319–27, 170; CCR 1323–7, 220; CCR 1327–30, 35; see also CIPM viii, 519–24. BL Nero C VIII, fol. 223. See Appendices; BL Cotton Galba EIII, fol. 183ob. E208/2/557; E208/2/134; E208/2/127; E208/2/144.

The ‘New’ Nobility

19

or at their own majority to be noticed when it came to individual parliamentary summons. The Modus Tenendi Parliamentum had, then, clearly caught the spirit of the time – to be taken into account, one needed estates that counted. Earlier kings had done something similar – not all of Henry I’s new nobility had been ‘raised from the dust’, not all of Henry III’s favourites impoverished foreign ne’er-do-wells.33 Experience and previous wealth were necessary characteristics of any monarch’s group of supporters, and especially of one so young and inexperienced as Edward III in 1330, and facing so unsettled a situation. But, as with earlier kings, Edward III also raised up less well off, though rarely less experienced, individuals, his own version of Henry I’s ‘new men’. Indeed, Edward promoted the remaining half of this group of sixty-eight men to the peerage and beyond, men who had few claims to their promotions in terms of their estates.34 First, there were men who had made their names and careers primarily in the previous reign, either through royal service, royal favour or sometimes both. John Darcy was a prime example of this group.35 Born at some point before or c.1284 to a long-established northern family, Darcy’s first mention of note was late in Edward I’s reign when he was outlawed for felony and then pardoned.36 Retained by the earl of Pembroke c.1307–1323, who had secured Darcy’s earlier pardon,37 as well as by John Mowbray,38 by 1318 Darcy was in a position to start arranging patronage for his own retainers, for example his valet, Walter de Calnerle.39 During the problems of the early 1320s, he was with Pembroke’s affinity in Scotland and France on royal service.40 After Boroughbridge, though other members of his family had been on the wrong side,41 Darcy continued to be a loyal servant of the crown. He was on various commissions and other forms of royal service throughout the period,42 as well as gaining control of some of the Contrariants’ forfeited lands and offices, as governmental guardian or for life – including the keeping of the manor of Moliagh in Ireland, late of Roger Mortimer of Wigmore.43 Even after the Deposition, Darcy remained in favour, receiving the wardship of part of William le Marschal’s estate in Norfolk to the value of 200 marks, in fulfilment of a £100 per annum promise of lands and rents44 – as well as various other favours,

33

34

35

36 37

38 39 40 41 42 43 44

B.M. Walker, ‘King Henry I’s Old Men’, JBS 8 (1968), 1–20; R.C. Stacey, Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry III 1216–1245 (Oxford, 1987), p. 255. Although some, such as Roger and John Beauchamp, were offshoots of noble houses. See Ormrod, Edward III, p. 108. For the rationale behind their inclusion, see Appendix 1. See R. H. R. Mortimer, ‘Lordship and Patronage: John Darcy and the Dublin Administration 1324–47’, University of Durham M.A. (1990), especially Part I; R.F. D’Arcy, The Life of John First Baron Darcy of Knayth (London, 1933). CPR 1301–07, 528; CPR 1307–13, 44. AD iv, 35; AD v, 162; J.R.S. Phillips, Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke: 1307–1324 (Oxford, 1972), pp. 255, 260, 268. CCR 1307–13, 469. SC8/326/E740. CPR 1317–21, 521, 591; CPR 1321–4, 186; CCR 1323–7, 42; Phillips, Aymer de Valence, p. 203. CPR 1321–4, 103; Fryde, Tyranny, p. 73. E.g. CPR 1321–4, 125, 264, 389; Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 230–1, 239. CPR 1321–4, 332; CFR 1319–27, 193, 297. CFR 1327–37, 38.

20

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

including a life grant of the manor of Wark in Tynedale (Northumb.),45 and lands forfeited by the earl of Kent in 1330.46 By 1328 he was a king’s banneret,47 and by 1329 a member of the council present in the queen’s chamber.48 During his career prior to Edward III’s assumption of personal power, moreover, Darcy had held a variety of important offices including constable of Norham castle (1317), sheriff of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire (1319–22), Lancashire (1323), Yorkshire (1327–28) as well as justiciar of Ireland (1323–27, 1328–31). Indeed, fairly quickly, Darcy appears to have been considered a loyal, and influential, servant of the minority regime, feeling secure enough to make his acceptance of the governorship of Ireland conditional upon certain requirements.49 With all this administrative experience, along with service against the Scots and important diplomatic missions to the continent50 – such as to arrange for the marriage of the king’s son to the daughter of Philip VI in July 133151 – it is unsurprising that, in the third parliament after the Nottingham Coup, Darcy was summoned as a peer of the realm.52 Similarly, Thomas Ughtred was in many ways an old hand, significantly promoted with lands and title during the reign, more than likely for his important previous experience – though in his case it was more military than administrative.53 Son and heir of Robert Ughtred, Thomas was born in 1292, receiving large parts of his inheritance soon after the death of his father in 1310.54 His first major service to the reigning monarch, Edward II, was to go to Scotland to gain the release of William Latimer, captured at Bannockburn in 1314.55 He served on various military and judicial commissions, and, at the siege of Berwick in 1319, was captured by the Scots. A royalist in the early 1320s, he was given control of the castle and town of Scarborough, and later appointed the keeper of lands of some of the Contrariants, including Thomas of Lancaster’s castle of Pickering.56 In 1322, he was part of the disastrous Scottish campaign which followed the battle of Boroughbridge. Predictably, as a royalist, Ughtred was

45

46 47 48 49

50 51

52

53

54 55 56

CPR 1327–30, 335, 373; A History of Northumberland (15 vols.) volume 15 ed. by M.H. Dodds (Newcastle, 1940), p. 284; shifted to a grant in fee. CCharR 1327–41, 118. CPR 1327–30, 538, 513, 520. CMemR 1326–7, 373. CCR 1327–30, 425; Mortimer, ‘Lordship and Patronage’, Chapter 2. J. Lydon, ‘The Impact of the Bruce Invasion 1315–27’, 301, and J.A. Watt, ‘The Anglo-Irish Colony under Strain 1327–99’, pp. 394–5, both in A. Cosgrove, ed., A New History of Ireland, vol. ii Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987). CCR 1327–30, 315–6; CPR 1327–30, 523; CPR 1330–4, 7; CCR 1330–3, 331. CPR 1330–4, 157; E101/310/21. At this time – the early 1330s – the earl of Lancaster also retained him. DL40/1/11, fol. 45 ob; Holmes, Estates, p. 67. As shall be seen, it was normal for the king to patronise before he promoted, though Darcy, because of his considerable previous service, was an exception. That, however, he still did not have the means to sustain himself without the king’s help at this point is shown in that he was granted the custody of substantial amounts of land in Ireland in 1333, and even in 1344 the king had to grant him an annuity in lieu of his fee as justiciar of Ireland and until certain expectancies came in. C59/14; CPR 1343–5, 208. For Ughtred, see A. Ayton, ‘Sir Thomas Ughtred and the Edwardian Military Revolution’, in Bothwell, ed., Age of Edward III, 107–32. CIPM v, 106; CCR 1307–13, 271; CFR 1307–19, 78. Rotuli Scotiae, ed. D. Macpherson et al., 2 vols. (London, 1814–19), i, 130. CFR 1319–27, 107, 105; CCR 1318–23, 429.

The ‘New’ Nobility

21

little in evidence during either the Deposition or the minority period, and next shows up as the knight for Yorkshire in the 1330 parliament, and having his control of the Tybetot estate confirmed in early 1331.57 He took part in the ‘Disinheriteds’ Scottish campaign of 1332, and was, as a result, granted a substantial estate in Scotland by Balliol, later confirmed by Edward III.58 His connection with the north continued throughout the 1330s and 1340s,59 being appointed Admiral of the Northern Fleet in 1336, and keeper of Perth in the next year. In the first phase of the Hundred Years War, he went to Flanders and helped besiege St. Omer. Attending the Great Council of 1342, he was finally individually summoned to parliament in 1344, no doubt at least in part to help iron out future military plans on the Continent. Secondly, there were ambitious young men from the middling to upper gentry, individuals such as Reginald Cobham of Sterborough, a man of some prominence in the Home Counties, but not of much previous import with king or court.60 A younger son of a family of ‘prosperous gentry’ in the southeast, Cobham was born about 1295, though his first mention of note does not come until 1328 when he was part of a diplomatic mission to Brabant and Flanders61 – and oddly not a recipient of major royal favour until 1334, when he was listed as a knight of the king’s household.62 Apparently close to Edward III,63 and on many diplomatic missions in the late 1330s and early 1340s,64 nonetheless he made his name primarily as a soldier, taking part in most of the major campaigns of the reign – including the siege of Tournai, and those ending in the battle of Crécy, the siege of Calais, and the battle of Poitiers. In these battles, moreover, he held positions of honour, at Crécy being one of the three guardians of the sixteen-year-old Prince Edward, and at Poitiers, Marshal of the Black Prince’s Army.65 Resulting from this service, as well as a growing amount of administrative experience,66 he was made knight banneret in 1337, Captain of Calais, Captain and Admiral of the King’s Fleet to the West (1344), Knight of the Garter around 1353, and was summoned to parliament from 1347 until a year before his death in 1361. Somewhat better known than Cobham – though partly, it should be said, due to his appearance at the siege of Calais in Froissart’s Chronicle,67 and in part 57 58 59

60

61 62 63

64

65

66 67

CPR 1330–4, 64. Rotuli Scotiae, i, 255, 261, 273–4, 587; CDRS, iii, 204, 242, 337–8; CPR 1330–4, 553–4. E403/291 (20 Feb. 1338); CPR 1330–4, 556; CPR 1334–8, 239; CCR 1341–3, 347; E401/367 (13 Dec. 1341); A. Ayton, Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy under Edward III (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 174, 245, 257. For Cobham, see N. Saul, Death, Art and Memory in Medieval England: The Cobham Family and their Monuments 1300–1500 (Oxford, 2001), pp. 124–30; T. May, ‘The Cobham Family in the Administration of England, 1200–1400’, Archaeologia Cantiana 82 (1967), 8–12; CP iii, 353. CPR 1327–30, 300, 317. BL Nero C VIII, fol. 223. Fryde, ‘Magnate Debts’, 275; T.F. Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England: The Wardrobe, The Chamber and the Small Seals 6 vols. (Manchester, 1928), iii, 120. CPR 1334–8, 428, 420–1, 388; CCR 1337–9, 42; The Anonimalle Chronicle 1333–1381, ed. V.H. Galbraith (Manchester, 1927), p. 16. Chronica Johannis Reading, p. 359; Knighton’s Chronicle 1337–96, G.H. Martin, ed. and trans. (Oxford, 1995), pp. 60–2; Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E.M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889), pp. 129, 296; CP iii, 353. May, ‘Administration of England’, 8–12. J. Froissart, Chronicles, ed. and trans. by G. Brereton (Harmondsworth, 1978), pp. 104–9.

22

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

due to Ramon Lull’s Book of the Ordre of Chyvalry, printed by Caxton in 148868 – was Walter Mauny. Mauny was a younger son of Jean le Borgne de Magny, lord of Magny in France.69 Born about 1306, he was initially in the service of the count of Hainault, coming across to England as a page of Edward III’s new wife, Philippa.70 A king’s yeoman and esquire by 1328, and king’s knight by 1331,71 in the early 1330s he was on campaign in Scotland with the ‘Disinherited’, taking part in Dupplin Moor (1332), and the capture of Berwick in the next year. Made keeper of Harlech castle and sheriff of Merioneth in North Wales, keeper of the Marshalsea of the King’s Bench,72 and granted part of a subsidy for war finances,73 his obvious ability and active part in military affairs led to Mauny being made Admiral of the Northern Fleet later in the decade, raiding Cadzand in 1337, and taking part in the naval victory at Sluys in 1340. Abroad on the king’s service throughout the rest of the 1340s he, like Cobham, played a major part in the siege of Tournai, campaigned in Scotland later in the same year, and in 1342 went to Brittany to help the king’s ally, John de Montfort.74 In 1344/5 he was part of the earl of Derby’s campaign in Gascony, and, though missing Crécy as a result, nonetheless played an important role in the siege of Calais. Doubtless as a result of this extensive service to the king, though perhaps also partly because his connection with the queen, he was summoned to parliament from November 1347 until his death in 1371. Promotions into the titled nobility These, then, were the sort of individuals promoted into the parliamentary peerage by Edward III. A mixture of wealth, experience and/or drive seems to have marked them out from other members of the gentry, and brought them to the king’s notice as men worthy of substantial advancement. Moreover, a handful of individuals, most of similar or greater experience and ability than these men, were further promoted into, or within, the titled nobility during the reign. After all, it was from those holding earldoms that many of the problems had arisen in the past, and it was therefore crucial for the monarch to regain influence over this section of the nobility. Most of these individuals were Edward III’s close friends and supporters, often those who had helped him gain control of the kingdom in 1330, and who were, at least partly as a result, raised to earldoms during the reign. Take, for example, Robert Ufford, raised to the earldom of Suffolk in

68 69 70 71 72 73 74

M. Keen, Nobles, Knights and Men-At-Arms in the Middle Ages (London, 1996), p. 27. For Mauny, see G. Snead, ‘The Careers of Four Fourteenth Century Military Commanders serving Edward III and Richard II in the Hundred Years’ War’, University of Kent M.A. (1968), pp. 11–36. H.E.L. Collins, The Order of the Garter 1348–1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 2000), p. 55. CMemR 1326–7, 374, 377; CPR 1330–4, 96; BL Nero C VIII, fol. 223. SC8/63/3125; CPR 1334–8, 19. CCR 1337–9, 358; see E356/8/3/2ob; CPR 1338–40, 545; CCR 1346–9, 416; G.L. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance to 1369 (Oxford, 1975), p. 277. Adam Murimuth, Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. E.M. Thompson (RS 1889), p. 125; Knighton’s Chronicle, pp. 38–40; Ayton, Knights and Warhorses, p. 263.

The ‘New’ Nobility

23

March 1337.75 Born in 1298 to the first Lord Ufford, a major Suffolk landowner, Robert started his life as a ward in the royal household,76 receiving control of his inheritance in 1318 while still underage,77 and entering royal service soon thereafter. Though with the king in France in 1320, his first major royal commission was when he went abroad in the company of the earl of Kent in March 1324, an unsuccessful campaign ending with the capitulation of Kent’s forces.78 For reasons unknown, he was still on the Continent in August 1325,79 but was back by the summer of the next year, at which time he was among those ordered to defend the east coast against the king’s enemies.80 After the Deposition, Ufford was not of great importance to Mortimer and Isabella, though he was allowed to join the royal household in 1328.81 The scant evidence that we do have concerning his activities during the minority period are mainly of those of a member of the lesser nobility, namely on a commission of the peace in November of 1327,82 an oyer and terminer in September 1328,83 and in defence of his own interests – for example, pursuing a tenant concerning the relief of a moiety of his manor of Combs (Suffolk).84 Rather, instead of acting as a henchman to Mortimer and Isabella, Ufford was becoming a close companion of the young king, being present on the journey to Amiens in 1329 to pay homage to the French king for Aquitaine. In the next year, he was listed in the exchequer accounts as wearing the king’s livery as a banneret.85 However, by this point he also seems to have ingratiated himself with Mortimer and Isabella. Indeed, after Kent’s execution in March 1330, Ufford was given a life grant of Kent’s manor of Layham (Suffolk), the farm of the town of Waltham (Essex), and the town of Dartford (Kent), as well as being granted under similar terms the castle and town of Orford (Suffolk), held previously by his father.86 The main reason for these grants is unknown, but that in July 1330 he was ordered to array the knights and other men of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk in order ‘to resist the king’s rebels’,87 might possibly hint at some previous service in Mortimer’s struggle against Lancaster and Kent. As late as 3 September 1330, Ufford was still apparently in favour with the Mortimer faction, feeling confident enough to petition to buy the previous summer’s produce of his recently acquired manor of Layham.88

75

76

77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

For Ufford, see also J.M. Parker, ‘Patronage and Service: The Careers of William Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, William Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon, Robert Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, and William Bohun, Earl of Northampton’, University of Durham M.A. (1986), pp. 20–2 and ff. T. Stapleton, ‘A Brief Summary of the Wardrobe Accounts of the 10th, 11th and 14th Years of King Edward II’, Archaeologia 26 (1836), 341; CPR 1313–17, 620. CCR 1313–18, 542. CPR 1321–4, 403–4; McKisack, Fourteenth Century, p. 109. CFR 1319–27, 358, CIPM vi, 421. CPR 1324–7, 311, 315–6; CCR 1323–7, 644–5. E101/384/7 mem. 4. CPR 1327–30, 214. CPR 1327–30, 351. CMemR 1326–7, 193. CMemR 1326–7, 377. CPR 1327–30, 517, 522; CPR 1330–4, 184. CPR 1327–30, 570–1. CFR 1327–37, 189.

24

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Nonetheless, considering his increasing closeness to the young king, it was of little surprise that Ufford was involved in the coup of October 1330, being one of the key players in the events at Nottingham Castle. Moreover, most of his energies were spent in the service of the king in the years following the coup. In December 1330 he was appointed keeper of the forest south of Trent, and in January 1331 he was made justice of the eyre of the forest in the county of Wiltshire. These offices, as well as a variety of commissions,89 kept Ufford out of court for a considerable period.90 In January 1332, he was first summoned to parliament vita patris as a peer of the realm, his family having received individual summons since 1309, and in 1334 he was listed as a banneret of the royal household.91 In November of the next year, Ufford was a member of an embassy to the Scots and, that having failed, took part in the campaign against them.92 He was made steward of the household from March 1336 to March 1337, as well as holding the office of Admiral of the Northern Fleet between January and August 1337. In March 1337, he was raised to the rank of earl. Ufford, then, was a clear case of experience, competence and good service at the highest level being rewarded and further encouraged by one of the greatest honours in the land. However, such favour usually also came with some personal attachment to the king, as was to a degree visible in Ufford’s life up to 1337, and even more clear in the career of Edward’s closest supporter, William Montagu. Montagu was born at Cassington (Oxon.) in 1301, the eldest son of William Montagu, second Baron Montagu, captain of the knights of the king’s household, steward of the household and seneschal of Gascony, and Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Piers Montfort. 93 A ward of the king and yeoman and squire of the royal household,94 William Montagu the younger was granted his own wardship on 3 May 1321.95 When he received full control of his father’s estate in early 1323,96 it comprised mainly a block of eleven manors in western England, along with one in Norfolk and two in Cumberland.97 A participant in the Scottish campaign of 1322, a valet in the royal household in 1325 and knighted in 1326, Montagu nonetheless avoided taking any major role in the events of 1326–7 – though he attached himself to the count of Hainault’s retinue fairly soon after the invasion.98 Summoned for the new king’s ill-fated excursion into Scotland, he only reappears in the chancery records in December 1327 to arrange the entail of his manor of Donyatt (Somerset).99 Thereafter, however, he becomes increasingly visible.

89 90 91

92 93

94 95 96 97 98 99

E.g. CPR 1330–4, 63, 144, 572. See C. Given-Wilson, ‘Royal Charter Witness Lists’, MP 12 (1991), 63. BL Nero C VIII, fol. 223; he was also on the lists of Queen Philippa’s great wardrobe. BL Cotton Galba EIII, fol. 183ob. BL Nero C VIII, fol. 238. For more on the Montagus, see M.W. Warner, ‘The Montagu Earls of Salisbury Circa 1300–1428: A Study in Warfare, Politics and Political Culture’, University College, London, Ph.D. (1991). Tout, Chapters, iii, 27; Parker, ‘Patronage’, pp. 18–19. CFR 1319–27, 56; CCR 1318–23, 287. CCR 1318–23, 629. CIPM vi, 140–4. Parker, ‘Patronage’, p. 24 CPR 1327–30, 199.

The ‘New’ Nobility

25

In the exchequer account of June 1328, he was listed as a royal banneret,100 and in January of the next year, he was to be paid 200 marks yearly for life for staying with the king with twenty men-at-arms.101 In partial fulfilment of fees in arrear connected with this office, on 11 January 1329 he was granted for life the manor of Wark on Tweed (Northumb.),102 and in March 1329 pardoned all royal debts – especially some substantial ones left him by his father as a result of his time as Seneschal of Aquitaine.103 It is not surprising, then, to find Montagu taking part in official trips to the continent thereafter. In the summer of 1329, he, as Ufford, accompanied the king’s embassy to give homage to Philip of France for Aquitaine. Moreover, it was during this trip that Montagu was engaged in his first diplomatic enterprise, a commission to negotiate marriages between Edward III’s sister, Eleanor, and the son of Philip VI of France, and the earl of Cornwall and one of the French king’s daughters.104 In September of that year, Montagu was also sent on a commission to the continent with Bartholomew Burghersh, ostensibly for ‘treating with Odin lord of Cuk as to his stay with the king in his council and retinue for life’,105 but in reality to meet with Pope John XXII concerning the young king’s problems with the minority regime. As a result, Montagu was in Avignon until February of 1330.106 Given a considerable amount of patronage during this period,107 nonetheless by early 1330 Montagu’s main preoccupation was conspiring with Edward to oust Mortimer and Isabella from power. Once this was done, on 18 February 1331, he was summoned to parliament for the first time as Lord Montagu and, in the spring, accompanied the king on a secret mission to the king of France to pay homage for Aquitaine at Amiens.108 On various commissions throughout this period, it was obvious that Montagu was rapidly becoming accustomed to royal service to both the king and queen,109 outstripping most contemporaries in terms of royal favour and trust. In September he hosted a tournament at Cheapside, and in November he was arranging to go on another diplomatic mission to the continent.110 In February 1333, he was granted 200 marks from the tenth and fifteenth of York, Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby, Lancaster, Cumberland, Westmorland, and Northumberland, presumably to help him with his expenses whilst he was laying siege to Berwick, which fell in July of the same year.111 In June 1333 he was given the keeping of the Isle of Man for a year,112 and in March 1334, Montagu, along with Henry Ferrers, was granted custody of the Channel

100 101 102

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

CMemR 1326–7, 373. CFR 1327–37, 116. CFR 1327–37, 116, 129; CPR 1327–30, 386, 392; A History of Northumberland volume 11 ed. by K.H. Vickers (Newcastle, 1922), p. 39. CPR 1327–30, 373; CCR 1323–7, 587; CMemR 1326–7, 33, 114, 117; Parker, ‘Patronage’, pp. 22–3. CPR 1327–30, 399. CPR 1327–30, 443,445. Tout, Chapters, iii, 27. CFR 1327–37, 155, 165, 172, 173, 181, 184; CPR 1327–30, 528. E101/310/22. BL Cotton Galba EIII, fol. 183ob. CPR 1330–4, 223–4. CCR 1333–7, 7; later increased by £100. CCR 1333–7, 8. CFR 1327–37, 362; CPR 1330–4, 464.

26

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Islands, to hold for five years, rendering five hundred marks at the exchequer.113 It was also in this month that Montagu was placed on a commission to negotiate with the king of France over the status of Aquitaine. By 1335, he was again on campaign, leading a retinue to Scotland of 180 men-at-arms, 136 mounted archers and sixty footmen.114 In late March 1335, aside from being pardoned for all previous crimes, including harbouring John Maltravers, Montagu was granted, after the death of the keeper, the custody for life of the Tower of London.115 Finally, in March 1337, due at least in part to all his good and loyal service to Edward III in the past, and in expectation of much more in the future, he was made earl of Salisbury. There were, of course, other men favoured by Edward III who might be considered ‘new’, especially those fighting the war with Scotland and France, but who were never individually summoned to parliament. Nonetheless, the most important for king and realm were the types of men whom Edward had managed to promote into, or within, the increasingly hereditary parliamentary peerage over the course of his reign. Overall, moreover, Edward’s new men clearly had significant characteristics in common. They all had experience and/or abilities that would make them useful to Edward III, whether in the military, administrative and/or consultative spheres. Obviously, their martial abilities were a key issue, especially during the active phases of the Scottish and French Wars.116 It was notable that a third of the new men held some form of major military office connected with the wars with Scotland and France, and were often called back to that or similar posts more than once – for example, John Beauchamp was made an admiral at least three times in his career, as were Guy Brian, the earl of Huntingdon and the duke of Lancaster. Also, going from the list of parliamentary summons, it is notable how most men were first summoned at the beginning of or during the time of active warfare – though, of course, between activities in Scotland and France, there was not much time when some form of campaign was not being mounted, or at least contemplated, in the period 1330–60. However, it was not just military ability that appealed to Edward III when choosing whom to promote. Having seen what bad domestic management had done to his father’s power and prestige, it is perhaps unsurprising that his son made substantial provision for this aspect of his rule as well. To begin with, many new men had been connected with the royal household from youth – a perennially good way to groom supporters. At least fourteen of Edward’s new nobility – including all but one of the 1337 earls, as well as Ralph Stafford, Thomas Bradeston, Reginald Cobham, and Walter Mauny – had risen to the status of household banneret, and seven more – including Thomas Holand, Roger

113 114 115 116

CFR 1327–37, 390. BL Cotton Nero C VIII, fols. 236–8. CPR 1334–8, 88. For the following, see J.S. Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment of Peerage Creations in the Reign of Edward III’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1996), Appendices 2 and 6; also see the chapter on routine patronage, and Appendix 2, later in this work.

The ‘New’ Nobility

27

Beauchamp and Guy Brian – to that of household knight.117 Moreover, almost half the new men would also hold some form of important domestic, and usually non-military, office during their careers, from keeperships of major castles to shrievalties and escheatories to the stewardship of England. Indeed, while military posts for the sake of fighting the Scots and French came to some of the new men, such domestic posts came to even more – rarely would one see a new man rise very far without having held at least one major administrative or domestic post to offset a burgeoning military career. Only career soldiers such as John Beauchamp and Thomas Ughtred stuck primarily to offices connected with wars abroad during Edward III’s reign, and perhaps as a result never tended to rise as far as some of their contemporaries. Thus, while military campaigns abroad were important to the king in choosing his new men, so too was the issue of control at home. Unlike previous groups of favoured supporters, however, especially Henry III’s Poitevins and Savoyards but also Henry I’s administrator knights and Edward I’s crusader and Welsh warriors, it must be said that, as a whole, the new men were not very homogeneous. Coming from a variety of backgrounds and with a variety of interests, as we have seen, there was a wide mix of individuals newly promoted by Edward III – established men and parvenus, county and court knights, first and younger sons, warriors, guardians and administrators. Nonetheless, from such diversity, the monarch had the raw materials to prepare his kingdom for a variety of contingencies – from peace and domestic harmony to parliamentary crises and war on a number of fronts. Finally, while it was true that Edward’s friends and supporters tended to form the core of this ‘new’ nobility, they were by no means the only components. As well as those promoted for their youth, enthusiasm, and loyalty shown in times of peril, just as important were the ‘old blood’ and ‘old hands’ amongst Edward’s favoured for the power and experience they had.118 Even the inclusion of some problematic cases of the previous decade was necessary if Edward III wanted to avoid turmoil and rebellion during his reign. Diversity in many respects, then, was a necessity, giving the king the ability to handle a variety of situations which had the potential to develop during his reign – the importance of which his ancestors, and successors, often failed to recognize sufficiently. The backgrounds and talents of each type of new man, in other words, were to prove crucial if Edward III’s attempt to develop and utilise a loyal ‘royal’ nobility was to work.

117

118

See C. Shenton, ‘The English Court and the Restoration of Royal Prestige, 1327–1345’, University of Oxford D. Phil. (1995), Appendix 2. As in Henry I’s reign. Walker, ‘King Henry I’s “Old Men” ’, 3–7.

2 Mechanisms of Royal Largesse At least one may be confident about one thing: every phrase in a normal chancery letter was, as Thomas Carlyle would have said, ‘significant of much’.1

HAVING NOW identified the various categories of ‘new men’ active in Edward III’s reign, it would next be helpful to examine the system which allowed the king to distribute royal favour. Recorded originally in the Charter Rolls, Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls or sometimes the Close Rolls, the general form of official acts of royal patronage was more or less set by the fourteenth century – with most grants recording the date and place of the act, the name of the grantee, the terms of the grant, the authorisation under which the grant was made, and, at times, the witnesses present. Nonetheless, despite being mainly formulaic by this period, the details of Edward III’s grants themselves are well worth examining. An analysis of the specific reasons used for acts of largesse, the durations for which grants were made, associated obligations, authorisations, and the protection and replacement of grants already given out will not only provide a firm foundation for understanding how Edward used the material resources at his disposal for the sake of his new men, but also perhaps help us to begin to understand the more general rationale behind those same grants. Reasons for patronage in grants and associated documents As it was perceived to be an integral part of the royal prerogative, prior to our period English kings rarely made a substantial effort to rationalise acts of patronage to their subjects. Indeed, when the records surrounding the major royal acts of largesse before the fourteenth century are examined, one cannot but notice how arbitrary they look by comparison – especially when it came to parliamentary sanction, or lack thereof. Rather, as noted as early as the seventeenth century, it was only in Edward III’s reign that, in the charters recording a promotion, ‘those preambles expressing the convenience of advancing persons of merit to honour, or the merit of the person created or both . . . began to be prefixed to the Creations of Earles’.2 Whether because of Isabella and Mortimer’s autocratic manner when

1 2

B. Wilkinson, ‘The Chancery’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 170. J. Selden, Titles of Honour (London, 1631), p. 659. Prestwich, however, notes the brief-lived prece-

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

29

it came to distributing royal largesse, Edward III’s own insecure position at the beginning of his independent rule, or perhaps a longer term development of the idea of a monarch’s accountability in the use of the kingdom’s resources,3 the official reasons for Edward’s patronage tended to be better publicised than those of his predecessors – the most famous case being the royal rationale behind the 1337 earldom creations as put forth in parliament.4 However, even if this king had no other agenda aside from those stated publicly at the time, there were also more detailed reasons recorded in the text of the grants themselves and connected paperwork which gives a clearer idea as to why it was felt a certain individual deserved a grant at a particular time. Henry I had used the phrase pro amore, ‘for the love of ’, to indicate special favour,5 and use of similar, if usually more substantial, clauses continued throughout Edward III’s reign and beyond. It should, though, first be made clear that, when it came to royal patronage, there is a differentiation to be made between gifts and grants. Gifts, whether goods or money, were usually moveable in nature and meant to show favour in a fast, informal and uncomplicated manner.6 For example, in November 1330, Thomas Bradeston, along with Robert Ufford, William Clinton, and a number of members of the established nobility were given aketons of gold, silver and silk thread.7 For New Year’s celebrations in 1334, William Bohun and Robert Ufford were given tokens of affection – chalices and ewers worth £6 17s 11⁄2d and £8 10s respectively – as were Gilbert Talbot, Thomas Bradeston and Roger Swynnerton.8 Cash gifts were also common. On 12 March 1332, William Bohun, listed as ‘consanguineo dominus Rex’, was granted £60 from the exchequer as a ‘donum’.9 Later in the reign, the earl of Huntingdon also received a large monetary gift, one of £823, close to the annual income of his earldom.10 Such was the type of patronage Edward III gave out when he wanted to show informal and/or largely spontaneous favour to his supporters, or when he wanted to make a token gesture – both much as kings had before him.11 On the other hand, grants of lands, wardships, marriages, annuities and offices usually entailed more thought and were meant to show more substantial, and longer lasting, approval. The reason for some of these grants was not stated, at least in the text of associated documents. For example, there is an entry in the Fine Rolls in early 1332 to John Beauchamp of Warwick of an extension of a grant of the

3

4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

dent of the creation of the earl of Carlisle in 1322. M.C. Prestwich, The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272–1377 (London, 1980), p. 148. Specifically articulated as far back as the Paper Constitution of 1244. H. Rothwell, ed., EHD 1189– 1327 (London, 1975), pp. 359. See Bothwell, ‘1337 Earls’ in Bothwell, ed. Age of Edward III, 35–52. S.L. Mooers, ‘Patronage in the Pipe Roll of 1130’, Speculum 59 (1984), 297–9. See p. 106. ‘Gifts’ of wardships was another matter – see p. 69. C. Shenton, ‘Edward III and the Coup of 1330’, in Bothwell, ed., Age of Edward III, 23–5. E101/387/9 mem 1–2. E403/259 (12 March 1332): in order to pay debts owed, though this itself was a show of favour as not all were honoured. CPR 1345–8, 438; C66/222/14. Sizeable monetary gifts also went to Montagu and Ufford. C62/110 mem 2. For similar grants in Edward I’s reign, see D.A. Barrie, ‘The Maiores Barones in the Second Half of the Reign of Edward I (1290–1307)’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1991), pp. 305–79.

30

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

manors of Norton and Bromsgrove (Worcs.) from ‘during pleasure’ to an eightyear lease which has no recorded justification.12 The stated reason for other grants was simply the effect it was to have rather than any act or merit of the recipient. On 20 May 1360, William Bohun, earl of Northampton, was granted the keeping of the forests of Hatfield and Blackley (Essex), presumably for the earl’s own recreation while staying at his manor of Hatfield, as it is stated that he ‘may hunt in these and take of deer there at his will without interference or dispute’.13 Grants of such a specific nature would have usually originated in official or unofficial petitioning of the king by the individual involved. Though, as Ormrod has pointed out, ‘Almost all patronage was a matter of grace, to be exercised by the king alone’, and further that, for Edward III’s reign in particular, the activeness of petitioners was limited,14 nonetheless, there could at times be petitioning to influence the king to adjust the terms of a grant. Indeed, though evidence of such petitioning in general is limited when it comes to Edward’s patronage to his new men, there are still some illustrative exceptions. In March 1332, the king granted Henry of Grosmont a 500 mark exchequer annuity.15 This grant, made in part for the ‘special affection’ which the king bore him,16 was later, ‘at his own request’, exchanged for the sum which Roger Grey paid for the lands connected with the castle of Abergavenny, part of the Pembroke inheritance of Laurence Hastings.17 However, it was not just additions or exchanges of grants for which an individual petitioned – it was also when a grant was found to be in some way lacking. On 23 April 1340, a commission was set up at the request of Guy Brian, constable of the Castle of St Briavels and keeper of the Forest of Dean, to investigate whether Brian’s claim that the rent set for the castle and forest of £160 per annum was excessive. He argued that the extended value was in actuality no more than £84 13s 1⁄4d, resulting in him being unable to pay the rent without ‘great waste and destruction in the forest’. Brian, therefore, was requesting that the king lower the farm or relieve him of its custody – as a result, it was lessened to £120 in May 1341.18 Most grants, however, especially those unconnected with any previous rights, had a clear justification in the text of the grant itself, and often in any connected writs as well. Of the grants which did have some form of a priori reasoning attached, the most basic were simply listed as being ‘of our special grace’ (or versions thereof) as when, on 20 February 1358, Thomas Musgrave was granted in fee the free warren of all his demesne lands in Musgrave and Soulby (Westmor.) as well as right to impark connected woods.19 Such grants were again

12 13 14

15 16 17 18

19

C60/132/22; CFR 1327–37, 296. C66/260/29; CPR 1358–61, 430. On petitioning, see Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 56–8; A. Tuck, ‘Richard II’s System of Patronage’, in Du Boulay and Barron, eds., Reign of Richard II, esp. 4–10. CPR 1330–4, 265; E403/265 (17 December 1332). C66/178/12; CPR 1330–4, 265 C66/181/26; CPR 1330–4, 397. See also pp. 38, 80. C66/197/14d; CPR 1338–40, 495; CPR 1340–3, 190–1; CFR 1337–47, 230. First recorded payments at this rate: E401/367 (19 January 1342; 22 January 1342). C53/143/3; CCharR 1341–1417, 157.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

31

probably at the petition of the grantee, and, more importantly, were of a decidedly limited nature, usually being an addition to a larger, earlier, grant or an alleviation of some of its more burdensome obligations. Other grants gave a clearer indication of preference by the king. Deeds of the recipient’s ancestors sometimes formed part of the explanation behind such grants. For example, on 14 October 1339, Michael Poynings, though still a minor, was granted the control of the estate of his father, Thomas Poynings, along with control over his own marriage. This was granted to Poynings not for any merits of his own, at least according to the terms of the grant, but rather ‘in consideration of the great merits of Thomas Ponynges, knight, tenant in chief, who met his death in his service, and the affection which he had for him’.20 Or it could be good service to a previous regime. Though John Darcy the younger was, on 21 November 1341, given the control of the marriage of Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas Meinill, due partly to ‘his own acceptable service in staying by the king’s side, and in the hope that for such increase of his estate, he will be the more diligent to serve him’, the grant was also made because of the good service of John Darcy, senior, to both Edward II and Edward III and ‘his labours and great anxieties’ in such service.21 More importantly, there were the grants which only cited service to Edward III himself as the main reason for the patronage involved. In 1342, John Darcy, senior, justiciar of Ireland, was granted royal presentments to benefices in Ireland, considering the ‘fruitful service’ long rendered by him in that office.22 Indeed, past and present good service to Edward III in various capacities was an important reason for patronage, as when Darcy was also granted 200 marks yearly for his stay with the king.23 Likewise, in August 1333, in recompense for various expenses on the king’s behalf but also considering the ‘great place’ which he held in the running of the kingdom, the king made William Montagu’s life grant of the manor of Wark on Tweed into an entailed one.24 Much of the stated rationale for the grants to Montagu in particular tended to be strongly worded – unsurprising, considering his closeness to the king, but also a clear indicator that these phrases were not meant to be formulaic. Lower down the ranks, Walter Mauny’s grant of a £100 annuity was referred to in the Warrants for Issue as being ‘on the pretext of good and laudable service’ to the king,25 and a grant to Guy Brian was for ‘hard work and dangers’ faced in royal service.26 Much patronage, though, was also very clearly stated as being given for upholding recently acquired ranks and to encourage good service in the future. A payment to Hugh Audley, earl of Gloucester, of an annuity granted in 1337 noted the grant as having originally been made ‘for the burden and honour of

20 21 22 23

24 25 26

CPR 1338–40, 395; C66/201/12; for favour to the father, see CPR 1334–8, 401; C62/114/5. CPR 1340–3, 352; C66/205/4. CPR 1340–3, 513; C66/207/15. CPR 1338–40, 441–2, 458–9; C66/197/27; also see E403/339/16 (1 November 1346); E403/340/31 (19 February 1347)(continued for his son). CPR 1330–4, 462, 463, 520; C66/182/24; History of Northumberland, xi, 39 E404/4/22 (22 and 23 April 1338). E404/5/29 (6 May 1342).

32

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

supporting the said earldom’.27 On 22 May 1349 it was noted in the exchequer Issue Rolls that the king had granted a sum for John Beauchamp of Warwick’s fee for his stay with the king and also to maintain the status of banneret which he had been recently granted.28 Some were even more specific in their phrasing. On 15 July 1355, because Guy Brian, at the king’s command, had ‘undertaken to raise his banner in the king’s present passage [to France] and from henceforth to maintain the state of a banneret’, he was given licence to acquire in fee from alien as well as native ecclesiastical landholders up to £200 yearly of lands, rents and fees.29 But perhaps one of the most memorable grants of this type, aside from those connected with the 1337 earldoms, can be seen when on 12 July 1335, Montagu, ‘for good and laudable service which our beloved and faithful William Montagu renders to us and out of the affection in which we hold the said William’, was granted the king’s eagle crest to be borne by him and his heirs, along with various reversions of manors in the southwest for the sake of supporting the honour of bearing the same.30 Types of tenure If the reasons for acts of royal largesse given in the royal records were of interest to a variety of parties, for the new man himself one of the most important parts of any grant was its duration. After all, a crucial aspect of any medieval noble’s aspirations was to ensure that as much as possible of the position and estate he held during his lifetime would descend to his heirs – it was part both of his own fame and that of his line. The growth in importance of the will in the medieval period was a mark of this desire, as was the development of the entail, jointure, and later the enfeoffment-to-use. And, in these aims, as in many other matters, Edward’s new men were quick to emulate their more established comrades. Indeed, being in the potentially precarious position of royal favourite and/or parvenu, such individuals were clearly interested in having any lands granted in as secure a form as possible. As a result, the king tended to use the full spectrum of tenures open to him in order to show varying degrees of favour to his new men. In the following chapters these grants have been divided into five main categories: limited term grants, including leases and rentals and otherwise temporary tenures; grants for the life of the recipient; property granted entailed; property granted in tail male; and finally, lands granted in fee. The shortest period that patronage could be granted out was that which has been listed as ‘limited term’ in Appendix Three – namely lands and rights rented or leased by the grantee, or otherwise given for terms less that those of life grants.31 Sometimes, such grants were for set maximum periods, such as in the case of wardships (as discussed in Chapter Three). But limited term grants could

27 28 29 30

31

E403/326 (3 June 1342). E403/347 (22 May 1349). CPR 1354–8, 287; C66/246/2. C53/122/3; CCharR 1327–41, 348; also see Roger Beauchamp E404/3/19 (17 May 1337); E403/298 (16 December 1337), E208/7/32 Edward III. A.W.B. Simpson, An Introduction to the History of Land Law (Oxford, 1961), pp. 68–70.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

33

also be for less easily defined lengths of time, especially when they were from confiscations of indeterminate duration. On occasion, it depended primarily on the king’s whim as to how long the land would stay away from its original owner and therefore how long it would remain granted out to a new man. The February 1346 grant to Thomas Brewes of the manor of Inglesham (Wilts.) and connected lands in Faringdon (Berks.), which were in royal possession because the abbot of Beaulieu had acquired them without licence contrary to the Statute of Mortmain, were simply listed as being granted to Brewes to hold as long as they remained in royal possession.32 At the beginning of his reign, Edward III had had to use such powers over Church properties cautiously, as some of his ecclesiastical supporters had memories of arbitrary treatment of the Church by previous regimes.33 Nonetheless, as there was no set time-limit on the length of the confiscation for such transgressions,34 this particular grant, in theory, could be of as long, or as short, a time as the king desired – depending on either how much he wished to punish the Abbot, or how much he wished to favour Brewes. Gradually, however, following a trend set by his grandfather, Edward III began to take a more actively aggressive stance towards the Church, especially when it came to ecclesiastical appointments35 – which in turn gave him more leeway as to how long connected temporalities could continue to remain away from their original holders. For instance, in the spring of 1340, Thomas Bradeston was granted the temporalities of the Archbishop of York in Gloucestershire, as long as the temporalities remained in the king’s possession,36 in this case running until the autumn of 1343 and thus being quite lucrative for Bradeston.37 On other occasions, grants were for lengths of time over which the king had little, if any, control. One of the most important of such cases was land held for the duration of war. Alien priories, in particular, were granted out for the length of the French war, as when, in July 1353, John Beauchamp of Warwick was granted the control of the priory of Astley (Worcs.) and connected lands for as long as they were in royal possession as a result of the French war.38 Similarly, on 4 September 1338, Reginald Cobham was given two Sussex manors of the temporalities of the abbot of Bec Hellouin, an alien religious, which ‘are in the king’s hand on account of the lands of religious and other aliens in England being in the king’s hand’, to hold for as long as they remained under royal control as a result.39

32 33 34 35

36 37

38

39

CFR 1337–47, 453. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 134. S. Raban, Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500 (Cambridge, 1982), p. 74. A. Deely, ‘Papal Provision and Royal Rights of Patronage in the Early Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), 497–527; Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 124–8. CFR 1337–47, 169, 170, 171, 172. Only paying an annual rent of £77 17s 1d. CFR 1337–47, 172; E401/363 (4 May 1341), E401/367 (16 February 1342), E401/368 (6 May 1342), E401/370 (5 November 1342), E401/375 (22 October 1343). CFR 1347–56, 367. E401/442 (24 April 1357 – in arrears), E401/443 (17 February 1358), E401/449 (12 February 1359). Alien priories are dealt with in more depth on pp. 57–8, 85–6. CFR 1337–47, 100.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

34

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Probably the most controllable variety of limited term grants were offices. Often committed ‘during pleasure’ to a new man, the duration of such appointments was under close supervision by Edward III’s government, which was unsurprising considering the tendency of administrative posts to become increasingly unaccountable, and even hereditary, in times of trouble – as during the Anarchy, the Barons’ Wars, and, most recently, Edward II’s reign.40 Thus, when, in January 1331, Guy Brian was granted the stewardship and keeping of the castle and town of Haverford in Pembrokeshire and connected royal lands, it was ‘during pleasure’.41 Similarly, on 2 July 1332, Roger Chaundos was committed during royal pleasure the office of escheator in Hereford, Worcester, Gloucester, Shropshire, Stafford and parts of the March of Wales.42 Such or otherwise conditional grants were, then, the main way for the king to give out a variety of offices, getting the position filled and allowing Edward III to patronise those he favoured while still giving him a large degree of control over the office itself – especially important if, for one reason or another, the individual appointed was not up to the job or unable to fulfil the post. But limited term grants were just that. They usually ended well within the lifetime of the recipient and were thus a source of insecurity for a new man – especially with the question hanging of whether or not the king would renew the grant. After all, nobles could often put a lot of effort, as well as their own wealth, into such properties and offices because they expected renewal of their grants at the very least, if not a further extension to permanency. Some grants, however, were for the life of the grantee, and as such were more highly valued. Though, along with limited term grants, life grants had been around since the eleventh century,43 both were made more popular with the king’s subjects by the statute of Quia Emptores (1290), which put an end to subinfeudation, the previous main mechanism for land transfer. And, in this growing popularity of life grants, Edward III followed his subjects, using it a number of times for both his established nobility and his new men. On 18 October 1347, Guy Brian was granted for life the London properties of Adam de Stretton, forfeitee to the crown.44 Similarly, on 25 March 1332, John Darcy senior was granted the manor of Wyke-Valors (Gloucs.) for life rent free, part of the forfeited Despenser estate.45 Moreover, once an individual had served a probationary period in an office, if they showed themselves to be competent, the king sometimes made such positions life tenures also. For instance, on 30 September 1332, Darcy, senior, was initially granted the justiciarship of Ireland during royal pleasure.46 However, on 3 March 1340, once he had proved himself

40

41 42

43

44 45 46

E.g. Warren, Henry II, p. 291; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 93. Though a statute ordering annual replacement of sheriffs was not enforced for most of Edward III’s reign. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 80. CFR 1327–37, 216. CFR 1327–37, 318. In 1340, an attempt was made to make this office appointable annually. E.R. Stevenson, ‘The Escheator’, in EGW, ii, 156; SR, i, 283. Simpson, Land Law, pp. 66–71; J. Hudson, ‘Life-Grants of Land and the Development of Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, A-NS XII (1990), 80. CPR 1345–8, 418. CPR 1330–4, 268. CPR 1330–4, 340.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

35

in the post to the king’s satisfaction, he was granted the office for life.47 Similarly, two months after the Nottingham Coup, on 18 December 1330, Hugh Frene was granted, for ‘good service’, during pleasure the keeping of the castle and town of Cardigan and the stewardship of Cardiganshire.48 In this case, it took the grantee less than two years to have his control over the office lengthened to a life tenure.49 However, as mentioned previously, descent, genealogy and heredity were very important issues for medieval nobles, and to none more than men on the rise, who clearly wished to see their present gains remain with their families beyond their own lifetimes. For lands or offices, therefore, to be attached semipermanently to one’s patrimony was the most humble aim of any new man, especially if he wished to see the justification for his peerage (i.e. the land Edward III had promised, or actually granted, him) extend to his sons, grandsons and beyond. As a result, Edward III also used entails to a considerable degree. Popularised over the previous half century as a result of the clause De Donis Conditionalibus in the Statute of Westminster (1285), which protected the descent of estates in entail by statutory legislation, the use of entails was also encouraged five years later, by Quia Emptores, as another substitute for subinfeudation. Sometimes, such grants were under the most general terms possible within the format of an entail. For instance, in February 1347, ‘in consideration of his good service and especially in parts of France from the last passage of the king to those parts’, Edward III granted that the manor of West Cliffe (Kent), which Gawan Corder, King’s knight,50 held, was to remain to Reginald Cobham and the heirs of his body.51 Other times the terms of the entail were more specific, apparently at the request of the grantee. For example, on 19 December 1337 John Wilington, his son, Ralph, and his daughter-in-law Eleanor, along with the heirs of the body of Ralph, were granted parts of the forfeited estate of John Maltravers. Moreover, if Ralph did not have any direct heirs, then the properties involved were to remain to Henry Wilington in tail male, with reversion to the right heirs of Ralph.52 Tail male grants, in particular, were popular with Edward III for endowing his new nobility, and were, in general, becoming increasingly favoured by nobles themselves in the later Middle Ages. In a few cases, land grants in tail male went to the lesser new men, as when in 1335 John Darcy was granted forfeited lands of the earl of March in Ireland in tail male,53 and in 1337 when he was granted the remainders of various life tenancies of the countess of Pembroke in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.54 But aside from these and another grant in tail to John Stryvelyn in December 1343,55 which later appears to have been shifted to a life

47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

CPR 1338–40, 432. C81/177/4123–4; CFR 1327–37, 227; CPR 1330–4, 31; see also CCR 1330–3, 104. CPR 1330–4, 365. E43/225/(ii) CPR 1345–8, 250. CPR 1334–8, 560–1; later contested: C47/10/35, CP40/341/132(ob). CPR 1334–8, 94. CCharR 1327–41, 428; BL Lansdowne 207A, ff 93–5. CPR 1343–5, 158–9.

36

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

grant,56 most of the property grants in tail male going out to the new men went to the six men promoted to earldoms in 1337. Indeed, when it came to entailed grants overall, the vast majority went to these men, with only a few going to anyone else in the group of new promotions. In particular, William Bohun, William Clinton, William Montagu and Robert Ufford, all raised to earldoms in March 1337, were made most of their grants in connection with their promotions to themselves and their heirs male or entailed.57 Such conditional grants, then, were obviously useful for the recipient in that they kept lands from going out of the family through marriage of a daughter and gave them a potentially long-term tenure, while also, from the king’s perspective, not permanently alienating them from the control of the crown.58 Finally, the most sought-after type of grants were those made in fee – that is to the heirs general. Probably dating back at least to the Norman Conquest,59 and therefore one of the oldest forms of extant tenure, according to Baker, ‘unlike lesser estates, it [the fee grant] was as perpetual and indestructible as the land itself, subject to neither creation nor annihilation by mortal men’.60 This was how roughly half of the ‘established’ earls held their titles during the reign,61 and it is of little surprise that ‘in fee’ grants were seen as being of the most worth. In the text of the grants, the conditions were usually stated as either ‘in fee’, ‘to him and his heirs’, or sometimes ‘to hold to him and his heirs for ever’. As a result, this type of grant rarely came back to the king as there was, if not someone in the direct line, certainly someone in a collateral one to claim the property, office or rights as his or her own. Sometimes lands granted out under such permanent terms came from properties the king had a clear right to, as when Thomas Bradeston was granted the manor of Shalford (Surrey), which had been assigned for life to Thomas Poynings and which had come back into royal possession upon his death.62 But this was not invariably the case. A grant ‘in fee’ could also be used to reinforce the recipient’s hold on a piece of land where it might otherwise be questioned, as when Roger Swynnerton was given parts of the forfeited Despenser estate in 1334,63 or when Thomas Ughtred was granted properties in 56 57

58

59 60 61 62 63

CPR 1374–7, 180, 462. CCharR 1327–41, 401, 484–5; CPR 1334–8, 409–10, 415; see also S.L. Waugh, England in the Reign of Edward III (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 120–2; Bothwell, ‘1337 Earls’, in Bothwell, ed., Age of Edward III, 35–52. It should be noted that there were two types of entail in this period. The first, used almost always in Edward’s endowment programme, was limited to the male or otherwise designated heirs of a grantee with reversion direct to the king. The second, used mainly by the nobility and other landowners, was a grant to the male or other designated heirs of a grantee with reversion to his ‘right heirs’. The purpose behind the two varieties of grant was obvious. The first helped the king ensure that any land granted out was not lost to collateral heirs, especially potential enemies of the crown, as well as ensuring it was not permanently alienated from the king’s control. The second, often connected either with a sale or a deliberate adjustment of an individual’s tenure on a piece of land, was more open. Mainly for the sake of the recipient, it was again designed in order to keep the lands in the male or otherwise designated line, though also allowing them to go to collateral heirs if this failed. For some discussion of these two types of entail, see McFarlane, Nobility, 270–4. J.L. Barton, ‘The Rise of the Fee Simple’, LQR 92 (1976), 120. J.H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History (London, 3rd ed., 1990), p. 301. G. Ellis, Earldoms in Fee: A Study in Peerage Law and History (London, 1963), p. 42. CPR 1338–40, 399. CPR 1330–4, 569; KB27/301/48; also contested after placed in royal control. C47/10/34.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

37

Petergate, York, which had been forfeited to the king’s father, Edward II.64 Indeed, it was fairly common practice for Edward III to grant lands in fee which had a very real chance of later being contested, usually because of their previous history. For example, the fee grant in expectancy to Thomas Bradeston of the castle and manor of Llanfair and the land and lordship of Builth in Wales, which was held by Alice, the countess of Lincoln, the widow of Thomas, earl of Lancaster,65 was, therefore, potentially open to at least two powerful counterclaimants – the countess and Henry, the present earl of Lancaster. Finally, grants were also made in such a manner when the properties involved were in unstable areas, such as in Wales (as above), or on the Scottish borders – as when in November 1348, William Heron, of an important northern gentry family, was granted in fee various lands forfeited by traitors in Northumberland.66 Being in areas of considerable insecurity, such terms were clearly crucial if the king wanted to give his new men as firm a hold as possible over otherwise contentious and easily seized properties. Feudal and financial obligations However, if there were almost always substantial advantages to getting a grant, there were also, obviously, obligations to be fulfilled – though rarely would it leave the recipient without some form of profit. At the very least, there was usually recompense in terms of increased authority, and therefore increased potential for profit. Nonetheless, as many aspects of the feudal system were in decline by this period, the king’s administration still usually expected some form of return on the grants made. There were times, of course, when no render of any sort was requested67 – as when, in May 1336, John Grey of Rotherfield was granted the custody of Robert Moreby’s estate during the minority of his heir,68 or when Henry Scrope was granted the lands of his father Geoffrey, along with all issues thereof.69 Even life grants, which normally would have some sort of regular payment attached, were on the odd occasion (of apparently extreme favour), granted out free of rent and services, as when Gilbert Talbot was granted the manor of Wetelawe [Wheatley?] by Doncaster (Yorks.) in October 1333.70 At other times, nominal services, usually by some form of grand serjeanty,71 were requested. For example, on 18 June 1346, John Beauchamp of Warwick was granted the expectancy of the manor of Oddingley (Worcs.), which Thomas Haukeston held for life, and which Beauchamp was to hold after the latter’s death ‘by the service of serving the king with his cup whenever he comes to the manor’.72

64 65 66

67 68 69 70 71 72

CPR 1338–40, 104. DL10/274; DL10/287; DL10/288; CPR 1338–40, 448. CPR 1348–50, 208–9; also see C. J. Neville, Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1998), pp. 40, 47, 58. Though this had to be clearly stated. See W. O. Ault, ‘Manors and Temporalities’, in EGW, iii, 17. CPR 1334–8, 270. On wardships free of obligation, see also p. 69. CPR 1340–3, 74. CPR 1330–4, 479. Simpson, Land Law, pp. 9–10. CPR 1345–8, 123.

38

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Such, however, was usually the extent of personal service by this period, actual service as a knight and similar tenures having gone into decline in the thirteenth century.73 Rather, somewhat more substantial forms of rent or regular exaction were common. Sometimes, it was simply linked with how much the previous owner had paid. In November 1337, Reginald Cobham was granted the wardship of the estate of John Dokesworth in Hertfordshire during the minority of the heir ‘rendering yearly at the exchequer as much as others will render in moieties at Easter and Michaelmas’.74 Or, the rate of payment could be at the rate at which the land was extended (or assessed by the escheator upon death or confiscation), as when Guy Brian was granted the wardship of the estate of Ralph Botiller ‘at the yearly rent at the exchequer of the extent thereof at Michaelmas and Easter by equal portions’75 – though it could end up being less than this, depending upon how much Edward III liked an individual.76 Rates, however, could be less defined, as when Brian was later granted the wardship of the lands of Robert Pavely, ‘paying as much as it is worth’77 – a phrase which was open to much interpretation, and abuse. Usually, though, if there was an amount to be paid, it was clearly set out in the grant. For example, on 15 May 1342, Thomas Bradeston was granted the keeping of a messuage, eighty acres of land, five acres of meadow, six acres of wood and eight shillings rent in Horsham (Sussex), which had previously been held by the abbot of Fécamp, and which had returned into the king’s hands because the abbot had alienated it without licence. The obligations for these properties, which Bradeston was to hold for seven years, was the payment of a rent of four marks a year at the exchequer, along with a 3s 4d increment.78 A bit more expensive, yet again for Guy Brian, was the manor of Kingsdon (Somerset), late of the estate of Robert Guyen, burgess of Bristol and convicted felon, which was in the king’s possession ‘for certain causes’ and for which Brian had to pay the extended amount of the property, £10 15s 7d, at Michaelmas and Easter.79 Similarly, offices had regular obligations as well as benefits. For example, on 18 February 1331, Roger Chaundos was granted the stewardship of Abergavenny, which was in the king’s possession because of the minority of Laurence Hastings.80 For keeping this lordship, Chaundos was to receive ‘the

73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80

Baker, English Legal History, p. 261; Simpson, Land Law, pp. 7–8. CFR 1337–47, 57. CFR 1337–47, 280. Though escheators were notorious for undervaluing property so as not to be responsible for any rents which accrued while it was in their hands. Indeed this practice was well known and might have been further indication of royal favour. On undervaluing estates in the Inquisitions Post Mortem, see R.F. Hunnisett, ‘The Reliability of Inquisitions as Historical Evidence’, in D.A. Bullough and R.L. Storey, eds. The Study of Medieval Records (Oxford, 1971), 206–35. In some of the grants themselves, it was recognized that extents of lands – by which valuation rents and other payments were usually set – were not their true value. E.g. CFR 1356–68, 120; for the undervaluation of crown lands as patronage for royal servants, see B.P. Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509 (London, 1971), p. 37. Ault, ‘Manors and Temporalities’, in EGW, iii, 19. CFR 1337–47, 495; E401/387(8 February 1347 and 5 March 1347). CFR 1337–47, 282. Though quickly regranted: SC8/194/9678; CFR 1337–47, 306–7. CFR 1347–56, 365; E199/39/30, 32. CFR 1327–37, 235.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

39

usual fee’, but was also to ‘answer at the Exchequer for the issues thereof ’. Again, on 29 December 1332, Walter Mauny was granted for life the keeping of the castle of Harlech and the office of the sheriff of Merioneth in North Wales, receiving the usual fee, though this time being expected to answer for the issues at the Exchequer of Caernarvon.81 That, moreover, the obligations of offices, guardianships and similar positions were real and expected to be fulfilled by the grantee was evident in a number of ways. When an individual was appointed sheriff, for instance, aside from being one of the primary officers of law and order in a county, he was also to answer at the exchequer for the profits from the king’s lands and rights in the county.82 As such, in September 1359, Thomas Musgrave was expected to answer at the exchequer as sheriff and keeper of Yorkshire.83 At other times, it was emphasised in the grant itself that an office was not just a sinecure, but had very real responsibilities attached, as when in September 1332 John Darcy was made Justiciar of Ireland, for which he was expected not only to fulfil the office, but also to have twenty men-at-arms with twenty horses for as long as the commission lasted.84 However, recipients were also expected not to mistreat or ill-use their grants of whatever type, especially those given under temporary terms. It was made clear to Thomas Bradeston, for instance, that he was to keep the bishop of Winchester’s park as the previous tenant, John Giffard of Weston Subedge, had done, and not to let the state of the property decline, as he had ‘not taken care to repair the paling [of the park], though frequently requested to do so by the bishop’.85 Even grants of alien priories, though confiscated enemy property, had similar obligations, both to the king and to the estate itself. For example, on 23 November 1358, Brian, along with Brother Alberic Vassel, was granted the keeping of the priory of Beckford (Gloucs.), and connected possessions and rights, for the duration of the war.86 For this, they were to pay £84 per annum at the exchequer in equal portions at Michaelmas and Easter, as well as arranging for payment for ‘all charges incumbent on the priory and lands’. However, being the possessions of foreign religious houses, grants of alien priories were often more open to abuse than other forms of grant, especially when the farms set by the royal government for them were much too high in the first place.87 As a result, allowances sometimes had to be more forcefully made for the institution in question. For example, on 26 February 1352, Brian was granted another alien priory, this time that of Otterton (Devon).88 For this, Brian, along with William Albemarle and John Gogh, was to pay £110 per annum – the same rate which the late prior had paid. However, not only were they to maintain all other incumbent 81 82 83 84 85

86 87

88

CFR 1327–37, 340. W.A. Morris, The Medieval English Sheriff to 1300 (Manchester, 1927), pp. 242–3. CFR 1356–68, 102. CPR 1330–4, 340. CCR 1330–3, 387; also see S. S. Walker, ‘The Action of Waste in the Early Common Law’, in J.H. Baker, ed., Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978), 185–206. CFR 1356–68, 83. A. McHardy, ‘The Effects of War on the Church: The Case of the Alien Priories in the Fourteenth Century’, in M. Jones and M. Vale, eds., England and Her Neighbours 1066–1453 (London, 1989), 283–4. CFR 1347–56, 322–3.

40

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

charges, but also had to find acceptable sustenance for the monks and the prior’s household. Grant authorisations Though ultimately the king needed to be present and active in some capacity for all types of royal grant, and indeed was, at least until the 1370s,89 Edward III could and did approve such patronage in a number of ways, in a system of authorisation which had been developed primarily in his grandfather’s reign.90 Usually recorded on ‘notes of warranty’, there were five main ways in which grants were authorised – by privy seal, by king, king and council, by parliament and various secret seals. The most common form of authorisation was through the privy seal, the office of which had become independent of the wardrobe in Edward II’s reign, and which was increasingly important as the main authorisation for orders or instructions by the king during the century.91 This seal was often used for matters of lesser importance, or those connected with the routine running of the government92 – though by the later 1330s its power was expanded considerably, mainly for the sake of maximising efficiency.93 The privy seal could be used in its most basic form in orders for the payment of various exchequer debts, as will be seen in Chapter Four.94 It might also be used for delivery of issues, as when in May 1335 the sheriff of Buckingham was ordered to deliver to Walter Mauny the issues from the manor of Beachendon (Bucks.), which he had lately been granted.95 Or it could be used for the grant of certain rights, as when on 10 May 1345, John Darcy ‘le piere’ was granted in fee the two weekly markets at the town of Torksey (Lincs.).96 The privy seal could also be employed when the king was showing someone pardon, especially pardon for debts. For example, on 24 March 1333 the king, ‘by special grace’, sent a writ to the treasurer and barons of the exchequer ordering them to give respite to Gilbert Talbot for the accounts of the castle and barton of Gloucester.97 Less important grants or signs of royal favour were, then, usually authorised by the privy seal – indeed, the majority of small grants in the Patent Rolls, Fine Rolls and Charter Rolls during the reign were approved in this manner. Likewise, one-off gifts of money as recorded in financial documents such as the exchequer’s Issue Rolls were authorised in a similar manner. For example, on 19 June 1354, John Beauchamp received a monetary ‘donum’ of £13 6s 8d ‘by writ of privy seal among the orders of this term’.98 Some gifts and grants, 89 90

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Ormrod, Edward III, p. 56. See B. Wilkinson, ‘The Authorisation of Chancery Writs under Edward III’, BJRL 8 (1924), 107–39; Brown, Governance of Late Medieval England, p. 47; also see Tout, Chapters, passim; EGW, volume 1: Central and Prerogative Administration, pp. 52–77, 162–88. W.A. Morris, ‘Introduction’, in EGW, i, 63; Tout, Chapters, ii, 282–313; iii, 54–5. Wilkinson, ‘Chancery Writs’, 112, 116–17; B. Wilkinson, ‘The Chancery’, in EGW, i, 178–9. Wilkinson, ‘Chancery’, in EGW, i, 178; Tout, Chapters, v, 10–12. See p. 79 n. 9. CCR 1333–7, 392. CCharR 1341–1417, 38. E208/2/134 (bundle 3); also see E208/2/127(bundle 3); E208/2/144(bundle 3); E208/2/135(bundle 3). E403/374 (19 June 1354).

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

41

however, either because of the importance of the person or of the grant, were under the authorisation of the king himself, often through verbal orders.99 At times, this was to ensure payment of an annuity. Though often authorised simply under the privy seal, especially when the exchequer was in a relatively healthy state,100 when pressure was on this department, or when it was an important amount or person involved, an annuity payment would usually be made under the authorisation of the king himself. For instance, on 30 April 1342, a Warrant for Issue authorised by the king was made whereby £20 was ordered to be paid of Guy Brian’s £40 annuity for the Easter term last past.101 Similarly, Walter Mauny’s remainder of a £100 annuity, already partly filled by other grants, was ordered on a number of occasions to be paid to him by Warrants for Issue witnessed by, and under the authorisation of, Edward III.102 At such times, the need for royal authorisation was not only due to the amount of the grant, but also to the fact that, in the late 1330s and early 1340s there were strict regulations in force about payments at the exchequer, especially for the sake of war finance. Acceptance by the king and his royal council was the next level of permission – though at times, there seems to have been little difference to authorisation by the king alone.103 Nonetheless, a number of grants were made in this way, perhaps as part of Edward’s promise to govern with the help of the council after the Nottingham Coup of 1330.104 For instance, on 20 June 1350, Guy Brian was granted that he would only have to pay £10 for the wardship and marriage of the ward and estate of Ralph Abbenhale, obviously a cut rate price for Brian. It was therefore important that there be a fairly substantial authorisation for it – namely, the king and council.105 More crucially, it was probably thought politic that new grants to Edward’s favoured, especially those lower down the social scale, would be authorised by the king and council.106 Both the April 1335 grant to Walter Mauny of £100 at the exchequer ‘until the king or his heirs shall grant the equivalent in land and rent within the realm to him and his heirs’, and the grant the next day of parts of the estate of the earl of Athol in fulfilment of its terms, were deemed to have been important enough to have warranted being authorised by both king and council.107 Certainly larger forfeiture grants to untitled ‘new’ nobility were often granted with the authorisation of the monarch and his council. Such authorisation was given when, in February 1342, John Darcy was granted, along with the king’s clerk, Master William Fyncheden, the keeping of all lands, possessions, rights and offices of the abbot of Lire in England, an 99

100

101 102 103 104 105 106

107

Wilkinson, ‘Chancery Writs’, 114–5. Though such authorisations became less popular as the reign progressed. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 51. E.g. annuity payment to Suffolk in 1337(E404/3/20); though not always the case: e.g. E404/3/19 (6 May 1337). E404/5/29 (6 May 1342). E404/4/22 (22 and 23 April 1338), E404/4/28 (15 October 1341). Wilkinson, ‘Chancery’, in EGW, i, 177–8; Wilkinson, ‘Chancery Writs’, 116–7. J.F. Baldwin, ‘The King’s Council’, in EGW, i, 139. CFR 1347–56, 245. Such phrases as ‘by king’ or ‘by king and council’, sometimes, though not always, indicated verbal orders. Wilkinson, ‘Chancery Writs’, 114–5. CPR 1334–8, 90, 91.

42

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

important and potentially problematic grant and one which would have needed high level authorisation.108 The other main conciliar authorisation for royal patronage was by the sanction of the great council, or versions thereof, or parliament – though at times the phrase ‘by/in parliament’ could also mean ‘by king and council in parliament’,109 in essence being authorization by the less public assembly of the royal council but still connected with the sitting of parliament. During Edward’s personal rule, at first this was often used for pardons, especially for bonds for good behaviour forced on individuals in the previous decade.110 But as the reign progressed, more conciliar or parliamentary authorisations began to be made for land grants. When, in another 1335 grant, Walter Mauny was given in fee various lands and rights forfeited by the earl of Athol, it was done ‘with the assent of the prelates, earls, barons and magnates and of others attending the council of Nottingham’.111 Again controversial grants such as those from forfeited goods and estates often came with some sort of high ranking council or parliamentary backing. William Montagu requested that the tail male grant of Wark on Tweed, first granted in 1329, be reaffirmed as his in 1334 with the assent of parliament, perhaps fearing the claims of the Ros heiresses, descendents of its previous owners.112 Moreover, it was not just the source, but also the potential notoriety, which caused the grant to have parliamentary authorisation. In the case of many of Edward’s favoured bannerets such as Thomas Bradeston and Reginald Cobham, parliamentary sanction was almost a sine qua non considering the problems which Edward II’s promotions had caused him. The fact that the 1337 earls themselves were not only promoted in parliament, but also given their endowments with parliamentary assent, speaks volumes.113 Though, according to one modern commentator, royal grants, ‘if justified in feudal law’, needed no parliamentary sanction, nonetheless, ‘it may be that the King had in mind simply the recording of the good will (“consent”) of Parliament which would be useful if the magnitude of the land grants later came in question as undue depletion of the Royal Treasury’.114 Parliament, in other words, acted as the justifier, as well as measure of public opinion, for grants which might otherwise have been contentious. Where the king had the clearest direct involvement, however, were those grants, orders, etc. done under the ‘secret’ seal, especially the ‘griffin’ seal which, except when the privy seal was elsewhere, was ‘generally concerned only with the more personal affairs of the king’.115 Developed in Edward II’s reign, the secret seal gradually replaced the privy seal as the monarch’s personal seal in the mid-fourteenth century – and, as a result, its control was jealously

108 109

110 111 112 113

114 115

CFR 1337–47, 269. Some authentications ‘in council’ may also have been in parliament. W.A. Morris, ‘Introduction’, in EGW, i, 13. E.g. pardon to William le Blount. CPR 1330–4, 28. CPR 1334–8, 89; see also Morris, ‘Introduction’, in EGW, i, 21. History of Northumberland, xi, 39. H.G. Richardson and G.O. Sayles, The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (London, 1981), p. XXI 2. H. Nicolas quoted in Ellis, Earldoms in Fee, p. 48, n. 4. Wilkinson, ‘Chancery Writs’, 112; Tout, Chapters, iii, 52, and passim.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

43

guarded.116 The secret seal could be used for ordering a Warrant for Issue at the exchequer when the king wanted to make sure the individual involved was paid. On 27 June 1339, a time of financial controls at the exchequer, the treasurer and chamberlains were ordered to pay Reginald Cobham ‘quickly and without delay, certain sums owing’ – an order under ‘our secret seal’ at Walton.117 More notably, secret seal, especially ‘griffin’ orders, on grants were also given out when forfeited land was involved, and in particular when the king had specific instructions which varied from normal procedure concerning these properties. For instance, in October 1348, Michael Poynings was granted, upon petition, a letter which made clear that he had paid in full the amount for which the goods of the estate of Margery de la Beche, forfeitee, were sold to him, a letter authorised by the griffin seal.118 Similar authorisation was later also given for Poynings to be quit of any further payments in respect of the forfeited estate of De la Beche after her death, both in terms of the lands involved and the chattels.119 As with the use of ‘in fee’ tenure, then, authorisations under the secret seal were a good way to buttress a recipient’s (as well as the king’s) rights over otherwise contested lands and rights. Replacement and protection of royal patronage But what happened when a royal grant needed replacement or protection? First, there were various mechanisms connected with grants for their replacement, if necessary. When a grant did have to be surrendered for one reason or another, so long as the king still approved of the grantee, reasonable effort would usually be made to replace it with one of similar, if not always equal, value. For instance, on 1 February 1350, in exchange for the surrender of his right in the castle and manor of Llanfair and the lordship of Builth, Thomas Bradeston was granted £84 1s 3d yearly out of the farms which he paid at the exchequer for the castle and town of Gloucester and connected properties.120 Similarly, four years later, on 13 May 1354 Bradeston was ordered to surrender the bailiwick of the prévôté of l’Entre-deux Mers in Aquitaine, and in its place granted 100 marks to be taken yearly out of the issues of the customs and subsidies of wool, hides and wool fells in the port of London.121 In July 1332, one of the properties of William Montagu’s, the future earl of Salisbury, came into dispute. At that time evidence came to light that the grant of the custody of £20 of rent paid by the prior and convent of Bath for the barton of Bath had actually afterwards been granted to William Bohun.122 Interestingly, though Bohun was the later grantee, he was given priority – though, in compensation, Montagu received custody of the manor of Hurcott (Somerset), during the minority of the heir.

116 117 118 119 120 121 122

Tout, Chapters, v, Chapter 17. E404/4/23. CPR 1348–50, 192. CPR 1348–50, 460. CPR 1348–50, 461. CPR 1354–8, 54. CPR 1330–4, 319, 394.

44

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

However, there were also clauses placed in royal patronage grants themselves which protected the recipient of the grant from loss due to change of circumstances. For instance, due to high infant mortality in the Middle Ages, replacement clauses were added to the grants connected with the operation of inheritance, especially wardships. For example, on 16 April 1342, Guy Brian was granted, for 300 marks, the marriage of Ralph Botiller’s heir, with the clause that if he died before his marriage, he would have the right to the marriage of his underaged heir.123 However, there were other reasons for such clauses as well, for example attacks by the Scots or the French or outbreaks of the plague. In February 1350, John Bohun and his daughter Joan, along with Geoffrey de Rouclee were granted the wardship of various manors on the Isle of Wight due to the minority of John Lisle, with the clause: If it happen that the said manors or part thereof are destroyed by an attack of the common enemies of the realm, so that the said John, Joan and Geoffrey cannot have their usual profits thereof, they shall have allowance in payment of their farm of the yearly amount by which the manors or part of them shall be found to have been damaged by such attack . . . 124

Likewise, on 20 November 1350 Guy Brian was granted a remission of a third of the £120 farm for the keeping of the castle of St Briavels and the Forest of Dean ‘the issues and profits of the castle and forest being so diminished owing to the present pestilence and other causes that the farm cannot be paid, as the king is certainly informed’.125 Through all this, then, it was clear that patronage would be protected, and replaced if necessary – though obviously with the usually unwritten proviso that good behaviour had been present and was going to continue. Through these mechanisms, Edward III made royal patronage available to his new men, as well as the established nobility, during the course of his rule. Many, though not all, of the components of this distribution system had been around at least since Edward I’s reign, and in some cases long before. However, due to internal changes – most notably the declining profits of feudalism and the shifting fiscal base of the royal administration, the rise of an increasingly hereditary parliamentary peerage and the developing power of parliament as a whole, the growth in the use of various legal tenures and devices, and the rise of the privy and secret seals – and external ones – especially the development of increasingly long and expensive campaigns against the Scots and French – the patronage ‘environment’ in which fourteenth century kings operated had changed markedly from that of less than a century before. Indeed, a conjunction of these changes, and an increased need to justify promotions and patronage to the polity as a whole, had given Edward III more incentive than his forbearers to think out the way he both packaged and distributed his royal largesse. Thus,

123 124 125

CFR 1337–47, 277–8. CFR 1347–56, 212. CFR 1347–56, 201.

Mechanisms of Royal Largesse

45

though his grandfather had been an important, if often unwitting, agent in developing and regulating many of the components of royal largesse which would later become indispensable, because of Edward I’s problems with his nobles late in his reign, and the continual problems of Edward II with the polity as a whole (including restrictions on royal grants for parts of his reign due to clauses in the Ordinances of 1311), it was left to Edward III to exploit these developments to their fullest potential, allowing him to build up one of the most nuanced, and focused, royal patronage programmes of the later Middle Ages.

3 Royal Feudal Rights

FEUDALISM, especially as it developed in England after the Norman Conquest, was the main system of bonds between monarch and subject. In theory, the primary aspect of this relationship – the exchange of a variety of services in return for land or other forms of reward – was both firmly structured and, to a degree at least, symbiotic. However, from an early stage a secondary characteristic of this relationship, the production of so-called ‘feudal incidents’ through births, marriages, criminal transgressions and deaths of royal tenantsin-chief – namely rights of wardship and marriage, forfeitures, escheats, and reliefs – became an integral part of the monarch’s ability to show favour to his subjects. Though apparently lacking in importance in Normandy before the Conquest,1 by William Rufus’s reign royal treatment of these rights had become an issue between the English monarch and his subjects. Rufus was accused of ‘wasting’ wardships and forcing individuals to marry down, and though Henry I promised in his coronation charter not to do the same, in the end he followed his brother’s example.2 Henry I’s reign, moreover, and those of Henry II and his sons, also saw the growing use of feudal incidents as royal patronage, along with an increased efficiency in their administration.3 In particular, the development of both the chancery and the exchequer made it much easier for royal officers to know, enforce and exploit the king’s rights over his vassals. Though in the next century there were a number of clauses in Magna Carta attempting to deal with the king’s abuse of feudal rights, Henry III’s majority saw a continued increase in their exploitation, especially for the sake of the king’s foreign favourites.4 Indeed, by Edward I’s reign, the king had a firm enough command of feudal incidents, especially wardships and marriages, to be able to rely on the profits from their sales to meet at least some of the costs of government.5 Finally, this 1 2

3

4

5

D.C. Douglas, William the Conqueror (London, 1964), pp. 97–8. F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983), p. 253; A.L. Poole, Obligations of Society in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1946), p. 97. J.A. Green, ‘“Praeclarum et Magnificum Antiquitatis Monumentum”: the Earliest Surviving Pipe Roll’, BIHR 55 (1982), 11; W.L. Warren, The Governance of Norman and Angevin England 1086–1272 (London, 1987), p. 77; Green, Government of England, pp. 51–94. Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 590–610; H.W. Ridgeway, ‘King Henry III and the “Aliens”, 1236–1272’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England II, 1987 (Woodbridge, 1988), 81–92. S.L. Waugh, ‘The Fiscal Uses of Royal Wardships in the Reign of Edward I’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England I, 53–60; Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England I, 41–52.

Royal Feudal Rights

47

control was augmented further still by the central and local administrative reforms of the 1320s,6 reforms so successful as to set the mould for exchequer and household practice for Edward III’s reign and beyond.7 Mainly as a result of these developments, and because feudal services were becoming increasingly difficult to exact over the course of the later Middle Ages, the granting of incidents became a key way in which kings created and retained material links with their subjects. In other words, despite the beginnings of the deterioration of the medieval tenurial structure by this period, for Edward III’s reign at least the use of feudal incidents remained a fundamental means by which the monarch could show favour to his friends and supporters. Escheats, expectancies and forfeitures At least in theory, the first of Edward III’s priorities in his endowment programme was to ensure that his new men were sufficiently well provided with land either to sustain their new ranks or to be kept content therein. After all, property ownership was an important indicator of status in medieval society, a direct way by which a new man could warrant entry into, and the acceptance of, the existing nobility. Moreover, as noted in the Introduction, by the 1320s clear, if hypothetical, links had begun to be made between the amount of land held and membership of the parliamentary peerage in the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum. Kings themselves, however, had had a sense of the importance of such associations for centuries before the Modus. Henry I made sure his ‘men raised from the dust’ had enough lands to be able to function in their new positions,8 as Edward II had with Piers Gaveston, Hugh Audley, William Montagu, senior, and the Despensers.9 However, with the rise of the parliamentary peerage as an institution and the development of the idea of minimum property qualification, more pressure was placed on kings to find lands for those they wanted to govern in their name. Indeed, the development of an increasingly hereditary parliamentary peerage not only forced Edward III to accept that certain families had a right to be called to parliament, but also that there was now a set of rules and qualifications which he would need to follow if he wanted to get his own supporters into, and secure within, positions of power. To start with, though, two of the most obvious sources of endowment land for his new men – the royal demesne and land obtained by purchase – can be discounted fairly quickly as viable major sources of royal patronage for Edward III. For though the use of royal demesne had, since the late eleventh century, been

6

7

8 9

The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (RS 1896), iii, pp. 903–7, 952–7; Fryde, Tyranny, Chapter 7; M.C. Buck, ‘The Reform of the Exchequer, 1316–26’, EHR 98 (1983), 241–60; N. Saul, ‘Despensers and the Downfall of Edward II’, EHR 99 (1984), 1–33. Tout, Chapters, iii, 47–9; T.F. Tout, The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History (Manchester, 1914), p. 144. See Green, Government of England, pp. 171–93. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, pp. 38–43; Philips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 131–3; Fryde, Tyranny, Chaps. 3 and 8.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

an option in this respect,10 the diminution of this resource to endow even a portion of the individuals involved would have impoverished the monarch and his family. If only twenty men in need of substantial endowment were to be funded up to the rank of baron, this would mean, going on a minimum of 400 marks per annum as cited in the Modus, that Edward III would have to use at least 8,000 marks per annum worth of royal lands – unrealistic when one considers that, according to Harriss, the yield of the royal demesne as a whole was no more than £10,000 to £15,000 a year.11 This is not to say that there were no instances of the royal lands being deployed in this manner – as when the manor of Swainston (Hants) was granted to William Montagu in 1331, a property which had previously been granted to Edward III when prince of Wales in 131212 – but these were only for very special cases. Similarly, purchase was also not a viable option for monarchs looking to endow supporters. Even if royal finances had been available for Edward to accomplish such a feat, the land market at the noble level was highly competitive in this period,13 and was not a place for a monarch looking for large amounts of land – especially during the opening phase of the Hundred Years War, when it was becoming ever more doubtful whether parliament would allow funds granted to be used in such a manner in the first place. Rather, as those before him, Edward III looked to feudal incidents as a possible source of peerage endowments. The obvious first way forward for any endowment programme was through gifts of property which had come back, or were to come back, into the king’s hands, lands controlled and administered mainly by the escheator. Though some kings had been more hesitant than others when it came to granting back out escheats,14 most found it an important component of royal patronage. Edward III could make three main types of grant from this source – grants on account of escheat (including all ‘ordinary return’ of lands into the king’s hands), grants in expectancy (reversions and remainders), and grants as a result of forfeiture or other involuntary surrender. Of these, 122 grants containing escheats, forfeitures and expectancies were given to Edward’s new men during the reign. These grants accounted for, among other properties, at least three honours, four lordships, one stewardship, eighteen castles, and 136 manors. In terms of percentages, 28% were from escheats (including voluntary surrenders), 25% were in expectancy, 46% were from forfeited lands, and 1% were the result of other circumstances.15

10

11 12

13 14 15

R.S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History: 1066–1272 (Ithaca, 1950), pp. 85–92; J.A. Green, ‘William Rufus, Henry I and the Royal Demesne’, History 64 (1979), 337–47; Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 34–8, 40–51. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 150. CCharR 1327–41, 210; C81/178/4286; CPR 1330–4, 54; VCH: A History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight 5 vols. (London, 1900–12), v, 219. Holmes, Estates, pp. 7–8; see also McFarlane, Nobility, pp. 53–5. See Lally, ‘Secular Patronage’, 174–5. Calculated from the number of parcels of properties granted out – that is, lands grouped together by their geography, the nature of their tenure, and the identity of their previous owner (as they would often be grouped in the wording of the grants themselves) rather than simply the date of their grant. See Appendix 3.

Royal Feudal Rights

49

Simple escheats, entails, life grants and leases Escheat was probably the most well known of royal rights from which a grant could be made. Deriving from the Old French eschier (‘to fall’),16 the twelfthcentury tract Dialogus de Scaccario refers to the term as ‘the popular name for the property which reverts to the Treasury on the death of a tenant-in-chief without an heir of his blood’.17 In essence, if anyone holding lands of the king died without heirs, or otherwise came to the end of his term of tenancy, the properties involved would return once more to the king’s custody and, unless they were reserved for the royal demesne by custom or by specification, would then be open to be granted out again.18 In the thirteenth century, this capacity to enforce and exploit royal rights continued to develop with the rise of the office of escheator, which was responsible for the control and management of all the monarch’s feudal rights throughout his kingdom.19 Though there was considerable experimentation in the structure of this office thereafter,20 by the reign of Edward III escheators, and through them escheats, had become indispensable for kings wishing to secure the place of friends and supporters in the landholding hierarchy of the realm. There were four potential sources of escheat – lands which had come back to the king as a result of there being no heirs to an estate held in fee simple; lands returning because there were no heirs to an estate held in tail, and especially tail male; lands returning as a result of the end of life grants or leases; and lands voluntarily surrendered to the king by an individual. Simple escheat of tenures held ‘in fee’, one of the oldest forms of tenure,21 while being perhaps the most obvious way in which land could return to the king, was, in reality, far from common, signifying as it did that all heirs to an estate held in fee simple had died. Previously, in the decades directly after 1066, it was true that more distant claimants had had a relatively weak claim to any lands open to inheritance customs and, if they were the only heirs, the properties involved would more than likely return to the lord.22 However, mainly as a result of Angevin legal reforms,23 even distant claimants could become serious contenders for estates, and this remained true through Edward III’s reign and beyond, making lands escheating in this manner a very rare commodity. However, the escheat of lands entailed, and especially those held in tail male, was altogether another issue, and such lands were very useful to the king as a source of royal patronage. Developed in the thirteenth century and protected by De Donis, entails were used to control the descent of an estate, and particularly

16 17 18

19

20 21 22

23

Baker, English Legal History, p. 274. Dialogus de Scaccario, trans. C. Johnson (London, 1950), p. 94. See F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I 2 vols. 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1968), i, 351–2; Simpson, Land Law, p. 19. S.L. Waugh, ‘The Origins and Early Development of the Articles of the Escheator’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England V 1993 (Woodbridge, 1995), 89–113. Stevenson, ‘Escheator’, in EGW, ii, 113–20. See pp. 36–37. J. Hudson, The Formation of the English Common Law: Law and Society from the Norman Conquest to Magna Carta (London, 1996), pp. 97–100. Hudson, English Common Law, pp. 214–16.

50

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

to prevent its dispersal amongst female heirs. Indeed, tail male meant that only the male issue in the direct line could inherit land so held. Otherwise, it would usually escheat to the original grantor – in cases of tenants-in-chief, the king.24 The main example of this practice during the reign was the fate of those lands coming back to the king after the death of John of Eltham, earl of Cornwall and the king’s brother. Granted to Eltham during the minority of Edward III, this earldom had been in the king’s possession since the death of Piers Gaveston in 1312. Eltham died while on campaign in Scotland in 1336, and, as there were no male heirs, the earldom, and lands connected with it, returned to the king.25 Though most of this estate went to endow Prince Edward on becoming duke of Cornwall in 1337,26 some of the property also proved a boon for Edward’s new men. For example, on 16 March 1337, Reginald Cobham was granted the earl’s manor of Cippenham in Buckinghamshire, said to be worth £64 yearly, as part of a 400 mark promise of lands and rents granted by the king the previous January.27 William Clinton, on becoming earl of Huntingdon, was given the manor of Kirton (Lincs.),28 while Robert Ufford, elevated to the earldom of Suffolk, was granted the castle, town, manor and honour of Eye, the manor of Thorndon, the manor of Henley, and the hundreds of Hartismere and Stow (Suffolk) as well as the manor of Cawston (Norfolk)29 – much of which, before coming to John of Eltham, had been granted to Queen Isabella in 1319.30 Next, there were lands which had returned to the king through the end of life or limited term grants, forms of tenure that had become increasingly popular with nobles themselves as a result of the restrictions placed on subinfeudation by Quia Emptores.31 A routine example was the use made by Edward III of the estate of Thomas Poynings.32 From Poynings’ properties, two new men acquired holdings. One, Reginald Cobham, was granted for life on 12 January 1339 the royal mills beneath the castle of Oxford and an attached meadow called ‘Kyngesmede’, which Poynings held of a life grant. The other, Thomas Bradeston, in October of the same year, was granted in fee the manor of Shalford (Surrey), which had also been held for life by Poynings.33 There were also a number of life grants made during the 1320s, probably as a result of the unsettled nature of the times, which now began to come in – sometimes to the benefit of Edward’s new men. The manors of Fulmer and Datchet (Bucks.), originally held by Henry, then Edmund, de Pynkeney in fee, were just such cases. In 1321, probably under duress, Edmund de Pynkeney granted the manors to Hugh

24 25 26

27

28 29 30 31 32 33

Though there were two types of entail. See above, p. 36 n. 58. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 34–5. CCharR 1327–41, 399, 400, 436–7; E120/1; P.L. Hull, ed., The Caption of Seisin of the Duchy of Cornwall (1337) Devon and Cornwall Record Society n.s., 17 (Torquay, 1971). CPR 1334–8, 346, 401; CPR 1338–40, 310–11; VCH: A History of Buckinghamshire 4 vols. (London, 1905–27), iii, 173–4. CPR 1334–8, 409–10, 415. CPR 1334–8, 418; CCR 1337–9, 60–1. Wolffe, Royal Demesne, p. 231. Baker, English Legal History, pp. 339–40. CPR 1338–40, 395. CPR 1338–40, 399, 401; C62/114/5.

Royal Feudal Rights

51

Despenser the elder,34 which remained in Despenser’s hands until his final forfeiture in 1326,35 after which they were regranted for life to de Pynkeney.36 Upon his death in 1331, these lands were granted out to William Montagu, Fulmer being entailed while Datchet was held in fee.37 Less frequently, voluntary surrender of lands was also a form of escheat from which Edward III’s supporters stood to gain. Though there were only a few of these which could really be viewed as such – the majority of surrenders, such as Queen Isabella’s in 1330, being forced by the king – there was at least one major exception. On 9 September 1332, William Bohun was the recipient of a grant for his good service to the king of the manors of Hinton and Speen (Berks.), Haseley, Ascot, Deddington, Pyrton, and Kirtlington (Oxon.), the town and manor of Wycombe (Bucks.), the manors of Long Bennington (Lincs.), Kneesall (Notts.), Newnham (Gloucs.), Wix (Essex), and a farm of £42 from the manor of Bosham (Sussex), to hold for himself and the heirs of his body.38 These lands had come into the king’s hands through the surrender of the king’s uncle, Thomas, earl of Norfolk – who, though something of a favourite of the previous regime, does not seem to have been forced to give up the lands involved.39 Instead, as he was also Bohun’s uncle, Norfolk was, initially at least, granted the rents off the estates – though he did not have much time to enjoy these as he died without male heirs six years later.40 Expectancies: reversions and remainders All these different ways in which lands could escheat to the king made for a sizeable stock of properties that Edward III could then grant out immediately. However, they make up only part of the grants listed in Appendix Three. Another part consists of expectancies – that is, promises on the future return of lands into the king’s hand at the end of life or entailed tenures. A royal grant in expectancy meant that the king would grant that an estate remain out to a third party when the original owner’s term of tenure ended, essentially creating ‘two estates, one in possession and one in expectancy, in favour of two persons at one and the same time’.41 By the fourteenth century, with the protection of conditional grants allowed by De Donis, and the end of subinfeudation, entails and life grants (as

34

35

36 37 38 39

40 41

Though returning to him briefly during Despenser’s exile. Fryde, Tyranny, p. 30; Hugh Despenser, sr., entered these lands in Edward I’s reign without licence. E42/505. Pynkeney was a Contrariant, though later served Despenser the younger. S.L. Waugh, ‘For King, Country and Patron: The Despensers and Local Administration, 1321–2’, JBS 22 (1983), 25–6. E142/33/8ob; CIPM vii, 324–5; Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 30–1. CCharR 1327–41, 210, 328; C81/178/4286; CPR 1330–4, 54. CFR 1327–37, 323–4; DL10/267. C266/8/60. These were mainly Despenser lands which had been granted to Brotherton in 1327. CCharR 1327–41, 3–4. There was no reason given for the surrender, though Holmes believes it was with Norfolk’s approval: Estates, p. 23, n. 1. Given-Wilson, however, sees Brotherton as being somewhat out of favour by the early 1330s: English Nobility, p. 34. Some evidence of a dispute between Norfolk and Bohun over the lands also survives. See DL25/3354. DL25/1839; DL10/267. Potter’s Historical Introduction to English Law and its Institutions 4th edn. (London, 1958), p. 538; also C.D. Farran, Principles of Scots and English Land Law: A Historical Comparison (Edinburgh, 1958), p. 93.

52

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

noted previously), and therefore expectancies, were becoming increasingly common, as lands under conditional or life terms were far more likely to revert to the granter than they were to under an ‘in fee’ grant. Some grants of expectancies, it must be said, were simply ‘add-ons’ to other patronage directed at a new man. For instance, on 6 April 1335, in consideration of services done for both the king and his father, a grant in tail male was made to John Darcy of the manor of Rathwire and Kildalk in Ireland, by way of the forfeiture of Roger Mortimer, who had held them in turn by the forfeiture of Walter and Almarick de Lacy, said to be allied with the Scots.42 With this, he was granted the reversion of the grange of Rathwire, held for life by Herbert de Sutton – not an important gift, but one which helped round out the grant, and thereby perhaps avoid any future legal complications. Expectancies, however, were mainly used for more important purposes, being a useful way to keep Edward’s supporters contented and enthusiastic with the promise, when there were no suitable lands available, of future acquisitions. In March 1338, Roger Beauchamp, perhaps associated with the more established noble branch of the Beauchamps,43 was granted the remainder of the manor of Bloxham (Oxon.) for life upon the death of John de Weston, life holder of the manor.44 Similarly, on 12 July 1335, William Montagu, developing into a major power in the southwest, was granted ‘for good service rendered and out of special affection’ the old Maltravers’ manors of Wootton Fitzpaine, Frome Whitfield, Marshwood, and Worth Matravers (Dorset) and the manor of Poole Keynes (Wilts.), upon the failure of the direct issue of Robert and Ela FitzPaine.45 However, expectancies were granted not only when the king was hard pressed to find appropriate lands, but also when he was especially interested that a new man be given some form of claim on lands at a particular time. Most important of all, expectancies predominated among the properties granted out to the six new earls in March 1337, just prior to the outbreak of war with France. When Montagu was created earl of Salisbury, aside from the third penny of the county of Wiltshire which customarily went to the earl, he was also granted in tail male the castle and manor of Trowbridge, and the manors of Aldbourne, Amesbury, and Winterbourne (Wilts.) and Henstridge and Charleton (Somerset), at the time held for life by John de Warenne, earl of Surrey and his wife, all in expectancy.46 William Clinton received similar favours on becoming earl of Huntingdon. In order to support this rank, which otherwise Clinton, even with his wife’s income, could not, the king also granted him 1,000 marks worth of land in tail male. This grant comprised the aforementioned manor of Kirton (Lincs.), worth 500 marks a year, and the rest was to be for the moment from the farms of various towns and counties then held by the exchequer, but eventually to be made up with other properties – the manors of Holme and Glatton (Hunts.)47 and the ‘site or place’

42 43 44 45 46 47

CPR 1334–8, 94. CP ii, 44–5. CFR 1337–47, 68. CCharR 1327–41, 348–9, 359. CPR 1334–8, 426–7; E328/108/2–3. Manors held by Despenser the Younger and then Isabella after 1326. E142/33/5.

Royal Feudal Rights

53

of the castle of Huntingdon. Until that time, Clinton was to hold them in expectancy pending the deaths of Queen Isabella and the countess of Pembroke, the life holders of the properties.48 Both grants, then, it was fairy clear, were at least in part to help encourage Edward III’s new earls to do the king’s bidding when it came to the upcoming continental war, and both were with the knowledge that such promises could always remain unfulfilled, especially if the king was not happy with the intended recipient. Expectancies, then, were a useful way to promote good service in the future without the king necessarily giving up any rights in the present. Forfeitures and other Forms of Involuntary Surrender The final, and most important, source of Edward’s direct semi-permanent or permanent land grants to his new men were forfeited properties, rents and rights. Used by monarchs since Anglo-Saxon times, forfeitures proved an important source from which Anglo-Norman kings could endow their supporters. As the remaining native English lords rebelled and forfeited over the course of his reign, William the Conqueror in turn made use of their properties for the sake of his followers,49 as did Henry I with the confiscated lands of the comrades of Robert Curthose.50 Somewhat surprisingly, mainly as a result of his conscious rejection of forfeiture for many political crimes, such punishments were not used by Henry II, at least later in his reign.51 However, his son, John, made use of lands taken during the disturbances of 1215–16,52 as did Edward I those of Welsh rebels, and Edward II the estates of the Contrariants.53 And forfeitures developed into an even more important source of royal patronage in Edward III’s reign, especially with this monarch’s political and military ambitions. In all, there were three main causes of forfeiture during the period 1330–1377 – domestic politics, war, and criminal law transgressions – and as many sources of confiscated lands. First, to Edward III at least, lands due to political forfeiture appeared full of potential, especially given the amount of property which had returned to the royal administration under his father and the minority government. Indeed, though there was a narrowing of the definition of treason as a result of the Statute of 1352, this crime, or versions thereof (including ‘accroachment of royal power’), was still a primary cause of long term forfeiture by tenants-in-chief and subtenants in the fourteenth century.54 There were two main sources of lands forfeited for treacherous activities, which were then used by Edward III in order to patronise his new men: lands forfeited as a result of the troubles during the reign of Edward II and those which came in after the fall of Isabella and Mortimer. Lands taken into the escheator’s possession due to Edward II’s problems in the later 1320s and used by Edward III as a source of

48 49 50 51 52 53 54

CPR 1334–8, 415. R. Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991), Chapters 4 and 7. C.W. Hollister, ‘Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates’, A-NS II 1979 (Woodbridge, 1980), 97–8. Lally, ‘Secular Patronage’, 159, 162–3, 183. Though Church believes this to be overemphasized. Church, ‘Royal Service’, 292. Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England I, 46–7; Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 69–86, 106–18. See J.G. Bellamy, The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1970), 59–101.

54

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

patronage were, almost to a manor, from the estates of the Despensers. While many of the participants in the disturbances of the previous reign were able to make their peace, either with the minority regime in the Parliament of 1327, or soon after the 1330 coup, the Despenser heirs were initially singled out for harsh treatment, probably in revenge for the treatment both Hughs had meted out to the country as a whole.55 Aside from grants to Isabella, Mortimer, and some of those who helped them in the invasion,56 a not insubstantial portion of the Despenser estate went into limbo during the Minority – the regime seemingly loathe to grant such lands to the heirs of the family, yet also unwilling to alienate them permanently elsewhere. Sometimes, if the result of Despenser acquisitiveness, they were given back to their original owners, though usually only for life.57 More often, though, they were unlawfully entered into by previous holders after the fall of the Despensers in 1326 and became a focal point for dispute during the Minority. Such was the case with Marston Maisey (Wilts.). This manor had been held by John de Meysey during the reign of Edward I, but he was forced to give it up to Hugh Despenser the elder.58 When Despenser forfeited in 1326, it was entered into again by Meysey, an act to be confirmed by the king in 1329,59 and continued to hold it as such until 5 May 1331 when it was taken back into the king’s possession.60 Whatever their previous histories, Despenser lands were a useful fund for Edward III’s patronage plans. In the case of Marston Maisey, on 20 August 1331 the manor was granted to John Darcy during pleasure.61 It was regranted to him for life on 25 March 1332, so that he would be able to support himself better, in recompense for other lands taken out of his control – along with the manor of Wyke-Valors by Marston Maisey, both properties once previously held by the elder Despenser, to hold rent free.62 Another of Edward’s new men, Roger Swynnerton, originally a Lancastrian retainer,63 was also made a series of grants of Despenser lands – in this case a continuation of a policy of patronage of the minority regime.64 In 1331, he was granted all the knights’ fees and advowsons of churches belonging to his lands, often originally of the Despenser estate, in the counties of Staffordshire and Cheshire.65 In December 1333, he was further granted, during pleasure, the manor of Little Barrow (Ches.), late of Hugh Despenser the younger,66 and in July 1334 the elder Despenser’s manor of Barrow (Ches.) and Despenser lands and rents in Rushton, Corneford, Alstonefield and

55

56 57 58

59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

RP ii, 3–5; Tuck, Crown and Nobility, pp. 103–04; J.C. Davies, The Baronial Opposition to Edward II: Its Character and Policy (London, 1967), p. 97. C49/45/16; CCharR 1327–41, 2–5; Fryde, Tyranny, p. 208 See example of Pynkeney on pp. 50–51. For a summary of the events in the 1320s, see CCR 1327–30, 495–6; CP40/360/94; C260/61/10; also see pp. 119–20. CCR 1327–30, 495–6. E357/2/7/1ob. CPR 1330–4, 165. CPR 1330–4, 268. A.J. Gross, ‘The King’s Lordship in the County of Stafford’, MH 16 (1991), 32–4. CFR 1327–37, 7–8; CPR 1327–30, 33. C81/178/4290; CPR 1330–4, 56. CFR 1327–37, 381.

Royal Feudal Rights

55

Caldon (Staffs.) were given to him in fee.67 Finally, ending this series of grants, on 25 September 1334, Swynnerton was given the manor of Little Barrow in fee, without payment of any rent.68 Also important for Edward III’s patronage programme were the forfeitures resulting from the Nottingham Coup of 1330, especially those of Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella. Though many of the lands of Mortimer tended, according to Holmes, to remain either in the king’s hands or be leased out, some were nonetheless granted away as patronage during the first half of the reign, a number of which made their way to Edward’s new men.69 Most notably, William Montagu was granted, as part of £1,000 of land in 1331, one of the most important parts of the Mortimer inheritance, the lordship of Denbigh, and the cantrefs of Rhos, Rhufoniog, and Carmarthen, and the commote of Dinmael.70 Worth over 1,000 marks per annum to Montagu, this lordship was forfeited by Lancaster in 1322, and granted to Hugh Despenser the elder, who in turn forfeited it in 1326 when it came into Mortimer’s hands.71 Others who benefited from Mortimer’s fall included John Darcy who, in 1335, was granted the manors of Rathwire and Kildalk in Ireland in fee and tail male respectively,72 and Hugh Frene, given the keeping, though only until further order, of Mortimer’s manors of Marden, Bredwardine and Winforton (Hereford.) in 1331.73 Unsurprisingly, his lover and co-ruler, Queen Isabella, as the king’s mother, was treated far more leniently than Mortimer after October 1330,74 though she was still forced to give up the majority of her estate as well.75 Some of it went, for his part in the Coup, to Robert Ufford. On 24 January 1331, he was granted the manors of Gravesend (Kent) and Burgh (Norfolk) in tail male.76 Montagu also received lands in this period, namely the manors of Christchurch, Westover and Ringwood (Hants), Crookham (Berks.) and Catford (Kent), all previously held by Isabella.77 It is notable that some of these manors had also, like the honour of Denbigh, once been in the hands of the Despensers, and had been granted to Isabella just after the usurpation.78 Isabella’s estate would continue to be of importance throughout the 1330s, though later mainly for grants of reversionary rights. 67

68 69 70 71

72 73 74 75

76 77 78

E142/33/9; CPR 1330–4, 569. He had originally been granted these, along with other Despenser lands in Stafford and Cheshire, ‘during pleasure’ in 1327. The grant of [Great] Barrow was changed to a life grant later in the Minority. CPR 1327–30, 331; CFR 1327–37, 7–8; E357/2/10/1; CPR 1330–4, 50, 569. CPR 1334–8, 21. For more on this manor in the 1320s, see KB27/301/48. Holmes, Estates, pp. 14–18. CChar 1327–41, 199, 210; CCR 1330–3, 115. See also pp. 122–23. An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire (7 vols.) vol. iv, County of Denbigh (London, 1914), p. 39; Survey of the Honour of Denbigh: 1334, eds. P. Vinogradoff and F. Morgan (London, 1914), pp. xii–xiv. CPR 1334–8, 94. E142/65/1–6; CFR 1327–37, 237. CPR 1334–8, 24; Tout, Chapters, ii, 353. SC6/931/25; SC6/954/1; later granted back Ponthieu and Montreuil. E30/62; CPR 1334–8, 24. Her £3,000 pension was increased to £4,500 in 1337. SC1/38/78; P.C. Doherty, ‘Isabella Queen of England 1296–1330’, University of Oxford D.Phil. (1977), p. 325. Though far from her £13,000 per annum income in 1327. A.R. Myers, ‘The Household of Queen Elizabeth Woodville, 1466–67’, BJRL 50 (1967–8), 208. For her estate to 1330, see Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 230–6; E142/41. CCharR 1327–41, 211. CCharR 1327–41, 210; C81/178/4285; CPR 1330–4, 54. See Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 232–4.

56

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

It should be noted with respect to these political forfeitures that many of the confiscated lands, a number of which had been lost by Contrariants, had gone through administration by the chamber, then the exchequer, before being granted to Edward’s new men.79 They were those, therefore, that the monarch had had an even greater degree of control over than normal forfeitures.80 Most of these types of estates, however, had been used up by the later 1330s on Edward’s more pressing endowment cases. By this time, however, the confiscations of enemy alien property in the kingdom, as well as enemy lands captured abroad, were beginning to replenish the king’s fund of largesse.81 As Edward I had used the lands seized during the Welsh and Scottish wars to reward his friends,82 so his grandson used those taken into royal possession due to the Scottish and French wars. Moreover, these were potentially easier to procure for the king than forfeitures connected with domestic transgressions, for, as Bellamy notes, forfeiture by reason of war was ‘a penalty which resulted from a treason which was different than other treasons in that it did not necessarily originate in a verdict in a court’.83 In the Scottish case, by 1333 Edward had decided that the ‘Shameful Peace’ (1328), to which he had been forced to agree by Mortimer and Isabella, was no longer valid. Instead, at first secretly, and then openly, Edward III started to back the ‘Disinherited’, the lords who had lost their lands through the rise of Robert the Bruce to the Scottish throne. As a result, many Scots who held lands in England as well as some English lords who had decided to throw in their lot with the Scots, forfeited – thereby adding to the king’s fund for material patronage. For example, on 1 April 1335, with the agreement of the council, Walter Mauny was granted in fee the manor of Beachendon (Bucks.), which the king held by the forfeiture of David de Strabolgi, earl of Athol, a somewhat tardy rebel.84 Three days later, he was further granted the manors of Stiffkey and Holkham (Norfolk), both again from the earl of Athol’s English lands.85 Similarly, lands in Scotland were also of use as a source of patronage. Thomas Ughtred’s 1333 grant of the estate of the Scottish knight John Stiward, including Bonkyl (Berwicks.), ostensibly made by Edward Balliol but in actuality an act of patronage by Edward III, was one of a number of such grants made in the mid-1330s, especially to those who seen service in Scotland. Finally, probably as a result of changes to the legal definition of treasonous activity,86 some of the property forfeited by those northern landholders believed to be collaborating with the Scots was also granted out to Edward’s new men – as to William Heron,

79 80

81

82

83 84 85 86

Prestwich, Three Edwards, p. 101; Tout, Chapters, iii, passim. See Tout, Chapters, ii, pp. 349–53, esp. pp. 351–2 ft 5, which has a list of chamber lands 1322–26, and compare this with Appendix 3. For land confiscation in the last century, see M. Powicke, The Loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1960), pp. 286–9. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 204–5; also M. Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance under Edward I (London, 1972), pp. 238–41. Bellamy, Law of Treason, p. 81. CPR 1334–8, 89. CPR 1334–8, 89–91; CCR 1333–7, 392. See C.J. Neville, ‘The Law of Treason in the English Border Counties in the Later Middle Ages’, Law and History Review 9 (1991), esp. 3–7.

Royal Feudal Rights

57

though for a fine of 200 marks, of the forfeited lands of Roger de Aulton, Isabel de Cornhale, William de Prendergest, and Thomas de Gosewyk, all guilty of ‘adhering’ to the enemy.87 But the bulk of forfeiture grants resulting from war came with Edward III’s declaration of hostilities against the French king, Philip VI, in 1337. Some grants were from the capture of enemy territory. Though a number went to the established nobility, including William Latimer of Corby, the earl of Arundel, and even John Maltravers (again beginning to find favour in the king’s estimation by the 1340s), some also found their way to Edward’s new men. For example, in September 1347, upon the successful conclusion of the siege of Calais, Thomas Bradeston was granted in fee an inn in the high street of Calais previously held by Fulk Bougouenere.88 Similarly, Henry of Grosmont, earl of Lancaster, received a number of lucrative French grants in 1347, including ‘the lands, vineyards and other goods of such of the prisoners of war taken by him at the time of the capture of the town of St. Jean d’Angely’, the houses and connected possessions of Bernard Barraut, burgess of St. Jean d’Angely, and most importantly, the grant of the lordship of Bergerac, a lordship which Grosmont had taken active part in conquering.89 But, though these grants indicate that Edward III may have initially had novel ideas as to how to treat captured foreign property on the Continent, large scale redistribution of French lands to Englishmen did not become an issue until the reign of Henry V,90 a monarch who looked in a far more serious manner to his French conquests for long term land grants to his comrades-in-arms.91 Rather, it was the English possessions of French subjects which were the more useful in this respect, a source of patronage used by monarchs since the loss of Normandy in 1204, especially during open hostilities with the French.92 Of the more substantial grants, Hugh Audley, to whom was due a £100 land grant, in 1337 gained from the forfeiture of Robert de Stuteville,93 which included the manors of Eckington (Derby.) and Kirkby in Ashfield (Notts.), granted to him in tail male, with the remainders granted to John Darcy in 1340.94 About this time Darcy also received the manors of Louth and Balyogary and all other lands in Ireland in fee, late of the Count of Eu, and again forfeit because of the war with France. However, far more important than these for royal patronage were the lands of the alien religious in England.95 Confiscated in July 1337, ‘alien 87

88 89

90

91

92 93 94 95

CPR 1348–50, 208–9. Fine paid 2 May 1349. E401/397. For Heron, see Neville, Violence, Custom and Law, pp. 40, 47, 77, 87. CPR 1345–8, 566 CPR 1345–8, 542, 562, 566; R. Somerville, History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 2 vols. (London, 1953–1970), volume I 1265–1603, pp. 39–40, 53; DL10/306; K. Fowler, The King’s Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster 1310–1361 (London, 1961), pp. 56–61. See G.L. Harriss, ‘The King and his Magnates’, in G.L. Harriss, ed., Henry V: The Practice of Kingship (Oxford, 1993), 44–5. C.T. Allmand, ‘The Lancastrian Land Settlement in Normandy, 1417–50’, EcHR 2nd ser. 21 (1968), 461–79. Powicke, Loss of Normandy, pp. 286–90. De Stuteville was ‘from Norman parts’. E403/302 (23 November 1338). CPR 1338–40, 441–2, 458–9. McHardy, ‘Effects of War’, 277–95; B. Thompson, ‘The Laity, Alien Priories, and Redistribution of Ecclesiastical Property’, in N. Rogers, ed., England in the Fifteenth Century (Stamford, 1994), esp. 21–4; M.M. Morgan, ‘The Suppression of the Alien Priories’, History 26 (1941), 204–7.

58

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

priories’, as they were then called, had experienced royal exploitation throughout the later Middle Ages, most systematically after Edward I’s seizure of all foreign ecclesiastical property in 1295.96 Part of Edward III’s use of this source, as will be seen in the next chapter, took the form of inflated farms of alien religious lands which were then used in the payment of annuities. But assignments were not the only way in which the alien priories could be utilised to provide endowment patronage. Edward’s new men were also granted the keeping of alien lands directly, using part or all of the estates of twelve alien houses in the period 1338–59 for the sake of six of his new men. An early example was when, in 1338, Reginald Cobham was granted the manors of West Preston and Hooe (Sussex) of the Benedictine priory of Ogbourne St George (Wilts.).97 Later, in 1349, Roger Beauchamp was given the keeping of the manors of Aston Carrant and Ashton (Gloucs.), previously directly controlled by the alien abbot of Beaubec.98 And it was not just parts of an alien priory’s lands which were redistributed. Often it was the whole priory, as shown in the grants of the priories of Lapley and Newent to the earl of Derby, and Lewisham and Greenwich to John Beauchamp.99 In one case, all the English lands of a foreign abbey, that of Lire, were granted to John Darcy, and after his death, to his son and John de Kyngeston.100 Though these were rarely permanent grants,101 the fact they often remained in a peer’s hands for twenty years or more, usually until the restoration of alien lands ordered by the king in 1360, meant that they nonetheless became a semi-permanent part of his estate. Similarly, forfeiture for felonious acts or other legal transgressions also played a part in the patronage of the reign. Originally denoting disloyalty to one’s lord, the meaning of felony developed considerably in the later Middle Ages, becoming a ‘particularly serious wrong’ during Henry II’s time.102 By the 1200s, the laws concerning felony were an important part of medieval criminal law, including those through which a felon’s estate could be lost. However, Edward III used a somewhat novel, or perhaps retrograde, approach to the right. As Bellamy has shown, prior to 1352, when the ambit of forfeiture was set by statute, Edward attempted to extend the penalty of forfeiture to the king. Previously, forfeiture had been the penalty only for treasonous crimes, but it was now extended to cover crimes previously considered felonies, and therefore punishable by permanent escheat to a felon’s immediate lord alone (the king, unless he was that lord, only being allowed to hold the lands for a year and a day

96

97 98 99 100

101

102

McHardy, ‘Effects of War’, 278–9; D. Matthew, Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions (Oxford, 1962), p. 81. CFR 1337–47, 100; CCR 1339–41, 544. CFR 1347–56, 105. CFR 1337–47, 230–31, 298–9; CCR 1354–60, 608. The Abbey’s lands in Normandy were first granted for the payment of royal debts to Darcy, but later its English lands became patronage for the duration of the war. CCR 1341–3, 323; CFR 1337–47, 269; CFR 1347–56, 86; D’Arcy, Life, pp. 80, 100. Though return of such lands to their original owners was not a necessity. McFarlane, Nobility, pp. 53–4. Hudson, English Common Law, pp. 161.

Royal Feudal Rights

59

upon the initial confiscation of the lands involved).103 In this, then, at least in terms of its punishment, Edward III was going back to the earlier view of felony as disloyalty. Examples of this type include the forfeiture of a messuage and some parcels of property in Oxford held by Philip de Oo, ‘felon’,104 and that of the estate of John le Marschal of Changeton, which came back to the king as the result of le Marschal breaking prison at Guildford.105 But however minor the crime, especially compared to treason, these forfeitures nonetheless offered up a not insubstantial amount of open land to a king always on the lookout for new patronage sources. Philip de Oo’s lands were granted to the earl of Salisbury in 1338,106 and Marschal’s estate to Reginald Cobham in 1343.107 Perhaps the most lucrative case of this sort for Edward’s new men was that connected with the abduction of Margery, widow of Nicholas de la Beche, and the connected murder of Michael le Poynings, ‘le uncle’.108 From these, Reginald Cobham was granted the entire estate of Thomas Arden, one of the abductors, in fee as part of a 500 mark grant to him of lands and rents.109 Michael Poynings, another of Edward’s bannerets, gained the custody of the lands of Margery de la Beche in the counties of Oxford, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Surrey and Sussex, rendering 500 marks yearly for them, which later appear to have been granted for life.110 A number of these properties were used by Edward III after the political forfeitures had started to dry up, and they could be very extensive – as the grants of the estates of Margaret de la Beche and Thomas Arden illustrate. And again, though most of the properties, with the notable exception of Arden’s, were only granted for limited terms, they, like the alien priories, often formed an important extension to a new man’s estate. However, it is notable that most of the grants of forfeitures connected with felony, treason and related serious crimes were made to new men before the Treason Statute of 1352 – which, thereafter, limited the type of crimes for which one could lose an estate to the king.111 Nonetheless, there was one final source of involuntary surrenders which, as with alien priories, was connected with the lands of the Church, though this time it had nothing to do with foreign ecclesiastics or war. For the king also had rights over the vacancies of temporalities of every office from prior to the Archbishop of Canterbury.112 Abused throughout the later Middle Ages, this had the potential to be a very useful source of patronage, especially as there had been ‘effective seizure of ecclesiastical

103 104 105 106 107 108

109 110

111 112

Bellamy, Law of Treason, pp. 59–101. CPR 1334–8, 573. CFR 1337–47, 328. CPR 1334–8, 573. CFR 1337–47, 328; E401/383 (26 October 1345). CFR 1347–56, 36, 59–60; CPR 1345–8, 268, 407; E199/1/16; Bellamy, Law of Treason, pp. 69–71; Tout, Chapters, iv, 130–1. CPR 1348–50, 407, 460; CCR 1346–9, 451. She had, by this time, married Arden. CFR 1347–56, 36, 59–60; CIPM ix, 239; C257/24/3–10. Poynings and Cobham had considerable previous contact with Nicholas de la Beche. CP40/312/472, 495d; BP i, 133; CPR 1334–8, 421, 428; CCR 1349–54, 123. SR i, 319–20; Bellamy, Law of Treason, Chapter 4. See Stevenson, ‘Escheator’, in EGW, ii, 112.

60

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

sovereignty by Edward III’ by the latter half of his reign.113 Though there were only two major cases of Edward using this type of patronage for his new men, they were important ones. In July 1350, Guy Brian and Roger Beauchamp along with Otto de Grandisson and Master Adam de Lichfeld were granted the guardianship of the temporalities of the bishopric of Exeter.114 These had come into the king’s possession as a result of a transgression committed by John, bishop of Exeter, which Brian, Beauchamp et al. then got control of, for a fine of 200 marks, to hold during the life of the vacancy.115 Similarly, on 24 April 1340, Thomas Bradeston was granted the guardianship of the Gloucestershire temporalities of the archbishop of York, including the manor of Churchdown with appurtenances in that county,116 vacated by the death of William de Melton, and rendering £77 17s 1d per annum at the exchequer.117 Though such grants rarely lasted more than a year or two, the sums involved could be substantial and well worth holding for a new man, however short the period. Marriage rights and arrangements Another feudal right which had the potential for long-term patronage for Edward III was that of royal control over the marriage of the heirs and heiresses of tenants-in-chief.118 From the late eleventh century, the control of the marriage of an unbetrothed minor or widowed heir of an estate held in chief had been the king’s. Indeed, due to the custom of ‘prerogative wardship’, this held true even if only a small part of the deceased’s lands was held in chief.119 Moreover, over the course of the thirteenth century, certain legal developments helped to augment the power of this right further still. Both the growth in the king’s ability to regulate the division of estates amongst coheiresses,120 and the fact that Quia Emptores started a permanent increase in the number of lands held in chief,121 meant that, by the start of his reign, Edward III had one of the firmest grips on the right yet known by an English monarch. Add to this the control over maritagium and marriage portions inherent in such rights and the king’s hold

113 114 115 116 117 118

119 120

121

Wilks in R.N. Swanson, Church and Society in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1993), p. 328. CPR 1348–50, 559; CFR 1347–56, 251. E401/404 (10 December 1350). Returned December 1351. CPR 1350–4, 188–9. E357/2/10/2ob. CFR 1337–47, 169–72. In the case of an underaged heir, this right was usually connected with the guardianship of the body. S.S. Walker, ‘Free Consent and Marriage of Feudal Wards in Medieval England’, JMH 8 (1982), 123. The main works dealing with the royal right of marriage in the Middle Ages are: Waugh, Lordship, esp. pp. 207–21; J.C. Ward, English Noblewomen in the Later Middle Ages (Harlow, 1992), pp. 12–33; J.T. Rosenthal, ‘Aristocratic Marriage and the English Peerage, 1350–1500: Social Institution and Personal Bond’, JMH 10 (1984), 181–94. After Magna Carta, the king’s control over the marriage of widows decreased, moving from the right to choose marriage partners to simply the right of veto over the marriage – though this still effectively meant that the king’s good will was a necessity for any proposed marriage. Waugh, Lordship, p. 86. J.M.W. Bean, From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England (Manchester, 1989), p. 140. S.L. Waugh, ‘Women’s Inheritance and the Growth of Bureaucratic Monarchy in Twelfth and Thirteenth-Century England’, NMS 34 (1990), 83–92. Simpson, Land Law, pp. 22–3.

Royal Feudal Rights

61

over the matrimonial activities of wards and widows was of key importance to his endowment programme.122 Marriage had always been a rapid route to social advancement, though, as Waugh notes, ‘royal lordship served as a powerful lever in opening it to individuals’.123 William Rufus was well-known for marrying down heirs, heiresses and widows under his control (the practice known as ‘disparagement’),124 and Henry I used them to build up his new men as well as members of his family.125 Partly as a result of this tendency, but also because of King John’s more extreme treatment of widows and heirs, Magna Carta and all of its reissues had clauses attempting to stop connected abuses, especially disparagement. Nonetheless, Henry III used these rights extensively for his courtiers, marrying William de Valence to Joan de Muntchensi and granting Geoffrey de Lusignan the marriage rights of Maud, widow of William de Longspée,126 and Edward I deployed them to build up the power of his family.127 More recently, Edward II had used Margaret, sister of Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester, and niece of the king, to augment the status of his favourite, Piers Gaveston.128 After Gaveston’s death, Margaret was married to Hugh Audley, and Roger D’Amory and Hugh Despenser the younger married her two sisters – the three women being coheiresses of the earl of Gloucester’s lands and all three men being court favourites at one point or another during the reign.129 Thus, the grant of a marriage was one of the simplest, most effective and least costly (at least in terms of liquid funds) ways for a monarch to show favour, while also ensuring that royal supporters controlled some of the most important estates in the kingdom. Grants of marriage rights The royal rights over marriage of tenants-in-chief could be used by the king for the sake of his new men in two ways. The first was to grant to an individual the right of guardianship over the marriage, as well as the receipt of the marriage fine, of the ward of a tenant-in-chief. In the period 1330–77, thirty-nine rights of marriage were granted out by Edward III to twenty-one of his new men: seventeen in the period 1331–40, thirteen in 1341–50, five in 1351–60, and four from that point until the end of the reign. Thirty-five concerned underage heirs and heiresses while only four were to do with widows – most of the latter were used for the peers’ own marriages. Of those whose sex is mentioned in the grant, twenty-five were male and at least fourteen female. Though eleven of these have

122 123

124 125

126 127 128 129

McFarlane, Nobility, pp. 64, 84–5. Waugh, Lordship, p. 207; also see R.C. De Aragon, ‘In Pursuit of Aristocratic Women: A Key to Success in Norman England’, Albion 14 (1982), 258–66; Lally, ‘Secular Patronage’, 165–7; Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England I, 41–4. Barlow, William Rufus, pp. 172–3. R.W. Southern, ‘The Place of Henry I in English History’, Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962), 144–5; Green, Aristocracy, pp. 264–5; Green, Government of England, pp. 84–7, 176–80 Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 595, 603. McFarlane, Nobility, pp. 248–67. Hamilton, Piers Gaveston, pp. 38–9. M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217–1314 (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 40–1; Philips, Aymer de Valence, pp. 132–3.

62

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

evidence of some type of price, only three are over 300 marks, and rarely was an amount close to the actual worth of the grant.130 A few of these grants arose from the desire for a new man to control the royal feudal rights connected with his own kinsmen, something worthwhile if he did not wish the members of his extended family to become party to inopportune matches131 – Edward III’s grant of the marriage rights of Isabella, widow of Norman Darcy, and Philip, his son and heir, to John Darcy in 1340 being examples of this practice.132 More important for our period, though, were marriage grants connected with individuals who were not related to the new men. Guardians’ use of marriages had not changed much since the last century,133 and Edward III’s new men continued in the same vein. Many marriage grants were of rights over members of gentry families. For instance, on 17 September 1340, Thomas Bradeston, a rising member of the Gloucestershire gentry and one of Edward’s new men, was granted the marriage of John, son and heir of William de la More, a lesser Gloucestershire landholder.134 Five weeks later he was further granted the marriage of the mother of William de la More, Matilda, wife of Thomas de la More.135 As an extension to the grant, on 8 January 1341, Bradeston was given the wardships of the lands of the deceased William de la More, comprising mainly the manor of Oldland (Gloucs.) as well as receiving the marriage of the heir without having to pay anything for it.136 On May 4, the king allowed the dower portion of the More inheritance to go to Matilda and her new husband, Simon Basset, a prominent member of Gloucestershire county society, with Thomas getting the fine from the couple for having married without the king’s licence.137 Finally, Bradeston was confirmed in his guardianship of the other two-thirds of the inheritance on 7 May, paying £7 15s a year for it.138 Though the More heir later died while under age, his sister and next heir was also by right controlled by Bradeston, and again was married by him into a prominent Gloucestershire family, this time that of Berkeley.139 Thus, in a very short space of time, Bradeston had gained control over most of the royal feudal incidents connected with the More family, all in the name of patronage and only paying

130

131 132 133 134

135 136 137 138 139

Often, moreover, the marriage fine was waived: e.g. for Guy Brian and the Botiller marriage (CFR 1337–47, 277–8; CCR 1341–3, 469; CPR 1340–3, 518). However, payment of fines became more common as the reign progressed. After 1348, all ten grants of marriage had fines attached, six of which were recorded as being paid on the Receipt Rolls. E.g. Saint Quintin – E401/396 (24 October 1348); Botreaux – E401/419 (22 April 1353 and 8 May 1353); Bonet – E401/419 (16 April 1353); Criketot – E401/442 (6 June 1357) and E401/449 (8 February 1359); Tybetot E401/518 (30 June 1377); Bradeston E401/518 (9 April 1375). This was likely part of more general attempts to maximize feudal profits in the years following the Black Death. See W.M. Ormrod, ‘Edward III’s Government of England, c. 1346–1356’, University of Oxford D.Phil. (1984), pp. 243–9 Waugh, Lordship, pp. 58–9. CPR 1340–3, 42, 46; CFR 1337–47, 194. See Waugh, Lordship, pp. 207–21. CPR 1340–3, 40; CIPM viii, 184; J. Smyth, The Lives of the Berkeleys 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883), i, 284. CPR 1340–3, 61. CFR 1337–47, 200. CCR 1341–3, 69–70. CFR 1337–47, 211. See also CCR 1341–3, 69–70. CFR 1347–56, 215; CIPM ix, 285.

Royal Feudal Rights

63

out what it was worth in rent at the exchequer. This, then, was obviously a way to allow a parvenu a considerable amount of power over his neighbours along with helping him to cement alliances with more prestigious families. But grants of marriage rights could also be from further up the scale – such as the case of the Irish Ormond marriage for John Darcy. Originally a member of the northern gentry, Darcy’s interest in Ireland appears to have begun in 1323 when he was made justiciar there by Edward II, holding the office almost continuously between that date and 1340.140 This, along with his marriage in 1329 to Joan, widow of Thomas, earl of Kildare, and further royal grants to Darcy,141 meant that he was developing considerable interests in the country by the 1340s. It was appropriate, then, that in March 1346, Darcy, ‘for good and long service’ gained control of the marriage of James Butler, the underage son of the earl of Ormond, and stepson of another peer, Thomas Dagworth (Dagworth had married the countess Ormond in 1344), in exchange for 1,000 marks at the exchequer142 – which, though a large sum for the time, was not nearly as much as the potential monetary gain from the Ormond properties. Indeed, upon his majority, the young earl of Ormond was to hold a sizable estate in Tipperary and Kildare as well as a number of manors spread over southern England.143 Unsurprisingly, the marriage was not sold again, but rather used for Darcy’s own family – namely, to provide for the marriage of his own daughter at some point soon after 1346, making her son the second earl of Ormond.144 Marriage arrangements By far, however, the most important consequences of the king’s feudal right of the marriage of his tenants-in-chief came when a new man was given the rights over the woman involved for his own marriage – almost always in order to expand his estates and influence. Granted, some young men on the rise did marry for the sake of genuine affection,145 but such marriages tended to be a minority. Rather continuation of line and social advancement were the main issues in mind when marriages were arranged. Indeed, almost all of the new peerage creations of the reign got married at least once. Of the sixty-eight individuals we are dealing with, twenty-five took part in twenty-six marriages before 1330, twenty-eight took part in twenty-nine marriages during the period 1330–77, and twenty-one marriages are undatable – though probably did happen during the period 1330–77. Only one, John Beauchamp of Warwick, is certain not to have married at all, a rarity in the Middle Ages but especially within a class so interested in property, heirs and personal advancement though connections. 140

141 142 143 144

145

For Darcy’s career in Ireland, see Watt, ‘Anglo-Irish Colony Under Strain, 1327–99’, in Cosgrove, ed., New History of Ireland, ii, 365–6. E.g. CFR 1327–37, 300–01; CPR 1334–8, 94; CPR 1338–40, 458–9. CFR 1337–47, 465; E401/388 (18 May 1347). CIPM viii, 117–27. Granted papal dispensation – the marriage being within prohibited degrees – in May 1346. CP x, 121. See Rosenthal, ‘Aristocratic Marriage and the English Peerage’, 187–92. Notably twelve out of the seventy-five marriages of new men were to women to whom either a surname or a Christian name cannot be given – perhaps indicating the obscurity of their origins, or at least their relative lack of importance. See Appendix 4b and CP, passim.

64

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Indeed, a good marriage was a necessity for any male with aspirations to a higher status in the Middle Ages and many were willing to risk royal displeasure to make such an arrangement. In one instance, Walter Mauny and Margaret, widow of Lord Segrave, daughter and coheir of Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk, incurred the king’s anger by marrying, or in their case, intermarrying without royal licence in the mid 1350s – though one must wonder whether the king was also somewhat perturbed at a wealthy titled heiress marrying beneath her station without royal consent.146 Such attempts to circumvent the usual routes of marriage could, however, be more controversial, depending upon the difference in rank between the prospective bride and her suitor. The countess of Lincoln, twice widowed, once by Thomas, earl of Lancaster, and once by Ebulo Strange, and therefore twice dowered, as well as being the Lacy heiress in her own right, was a very worthwhile prospect for anyone on the rise. Probably as a result, Hugh Frene, a Herefordshire knight, decided to abduct her from Bolingbroke castle in the winter of 1335,147 and at some point thereafter married her.148 The couple were subsequently imprisoned by royal command and orders were sent out to confiscate all their lands.149 By the spring, though, obviously accepting the marriage as a fait accompli, the king had pardoned them and restored their lands.150 Though Frene, dying in the winter of 1336, did not have much time to enjoy the estate, nor the rise to the peerage at least partly resulting from it, it is nevertheless a clear indicator of the importance of a good marriage to a fourteenth-century man on the make. Most such marriages, however irregular their original arrangements, were eventually accepted and sometimes even condoned by the king.151 Luckily, the majority of Edward III’s new men did not need to resort to such extremes in order to find suitable brides. Some had already enhanced their estates by profitable marriages before Edward’s accession to independent power in 1330. In some instances, the estates of the women these men married may arguably have been one of the reasons for individual summons to parliament in the first place – for example, Hugh Audley’s summons to parliament in 1317, and his promotion to the earldom of Gloucester in 1337, was probably mainly as a result of his marriage to the widow of Piers Gaveston, who also happened to be the sister of the last earl of Gloucester.152 Indeed, marriages in previous regimes often simply marked the beginnings of the ascent of a man. Three more of the six 1337 earls had made worthwhile marriages by the time Edward gained independent control

146

147

148 149 150 151

152

CPR 1354–8, 325, 147; R.E. Archer, ‘The Estates and Finances of Margaret of Brotherton, c.1320–1399’, BIHR 60 (1987), 264–80. CPR 1334–8, 282; for the story of the abduction, see G.O. Sayles, ed., Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench under Edward III vol. 5 (London, 1958), pp. 90–1. Before 23 March 1336. CP vii, 687. CFR 1327–37, 473; CCR 1333–7, 561. CCR 1333–7, 353, 564, 554; CFR 1327–37, 491. For examples C. Rawcliffe, The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham 1394–1521 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 8–10; K.P. Wentersdorf, ‘The Clandestine Marriages of the Fair Maid of Kent’, JMH 5 (1979), 203–19. See Given-Wilson, Nobility, pp. 37–40.

Royal Feudal Rights

65

of the kingdom in 1330, thereby making them significantly less expensive to endow than they otherwise would have been. A prime example is William Clinton, the younger son of a Warwickshire gentry family, and apparently something of a favourite of Mortimer and Isabella – being appointed an escort to the count of Hainault and his daughter, Philippa, on their journey to meet the new king.153 Probably as a result of this favour, in 1328 he was allowed to marry Juliana le Blount, not only the heiress to the Leyburn inheritance,154 but also twice widowed – and therefore twice dowered – the first as a result of her marriage to the son and heir apparent of the earl of Pembroke.155 For a man who had had a very limited annual income to date, then, this was a windfall of substantial proportions, pushing Clinton into the ranks of the nobility in terms of landholding in very short order. But despite previous arrangements, there were still many new men who needed good marriages during the course of the reign.156 Though the king only held the right to consent to the marriage of widows – while in the case of female wards he had the right to arrange the actual marriage157 – as seen in the case of the Mauny and Frene matches, it was often a daring gambit not to seek the royal blessing first with such actions.158 Thus, especially for those as dependent on royal good will as Edward’s new men, the king’s approval for any type of marriage was usually a necessity – and therefore an important aspect of royal patronage for new men. And again, these marriages clearly reflected the need for a new man to establish himself firmly both in his sphere of influence and in the nobility as a whole. A typical example was the marriage of Roger Beauchamp to Sibyl Patshull at some time before 1337. Eldest of the four coheiresses of Sir William Patshull, her brother, and daughter of Sir John Patshull by Mabel de Grandson, daughter of Lord Grandson, Sibyl was, as a result of her lineage, a woman firmly placed in the English peerage. Moreover, the inheritance over which her husband would have control, though later to be subdivided, brought with it the manors of Chelsing (Herts.), Bletsoe (Beds.), Crawley (Bucks.), and Stonegrave and Nunnington (Yorks.), all of considerable interest to a young midlands knight on the rise – especially one with an aristocratic name, and perhaps lineage as well,159 but without, as yet, an estate to match.160 Obviously, though, the higher in Edward III’s estimation a man became, the more important a bride would be. Thomas Dagworth, the younger son of John Dagworth, a member of the Suffolk gentry and the usher of the exchequer, made

153 154 155 156

157 158

159 160

CPR 1327–30, 190. CPR 1327–30, 325; CCR 1327–30, 263–4; CP vi, 649; CIPM v, 121–3. CIPM vi, 385–93. Only two of these marriages, both notably very early in the reign, were because of arrangements made by others than the king or his government. For the Kirkton/Meriet marriage see CPR 1330–4, 114; for the Saint Philbert/Ufford marriage, CPR 1330–4, 176; CPR 1334–8, 176; E401/314 (4 November 1333); E401/320 (7 July 1334). See Waugh, Lordship, pp. 67–8, 86. See J.C. Ward, ed. and trans., Women of the English Nobility and Gentry 1066–1500 (Manchester, 1995), pp. 15–16. CP ii, 44. CIPM x, 410–12.

66

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

an even more dramatic rise. Dagworth himself had had very little to look forward to in terms of an inheritance, his father having held at his death only a modest estate in East Anglia.161 However, as a result of his remarkable military ability, best seen whilst on campaign in Brittany in the 1340s, he rose to become one of Edward’s most famous war captains. To reward Dagworth, who was probably too young to benefit from the first round of royal patronage in the 1330s,162 in 1343 the king allowed him to marry the widow of the earl of Ormond, Elizabeth, second surviving daughter of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford and Essex, and Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I. For someone of Dagworth’s background, this was no mean advance, bringing him into the upper levels of the nobility overnight, at least in terms of income. Though she did not control the wardship and marriage of her son (see above) she did control her dower lands including the manors of Finborough (Suffolk), Twyford, Great Linford, and three parts of the manor of Aylesbury (Bucks.), Smeetham Hall (Essex), Rotherfield Peppard (Oxon.), Cold Ashton (Gloucs.), Sopley (Hants), Long Compton (Warwicks.), Weeton (Lancs.), Kilpeck (Hereford.), and Shere and ‘la Vacherie’ (Surrey), most of which had been held in jointure and entail by Ormond and his wife.163 It is notable, though, that this was the only royal patronage Dagworth would receive – the king probably feeling that control over an entire earldom was a more than generous gift for one of his war captains. Any further royal largesse that the couple received was primarily directed at the wife – mainly, from annuities granted before their marriage.164 Dagworth’s only major gain independent of his wife was a payment of 25,000 florins for the capture of Charles de Blois, duke of Brittany, in 1347,165 which, though in part patronage, was also a result of Dagworth’s own ability on the battlefield. Finally, one of the most important examples of a new man’s marriage during the reign was that of the union of William Bohun, fifth son of the earl of Hereford, and Elizabeth, widow of Edmund Mortimer (d.1332) and coheiress to the Badlesmere inheritance, in 1335.166 Perhaps in part an attempt to make peace between the Bohun and Mortimer families after the events of 1330,167 not only did Bohun get control over a considerable part of the Badlesmere inheritance,168 as well as a dower portion of her husband’s lands (mainly made up of Maelienydd and Deuddwr in Wales),169 but probably in connection with his wife’s affiliation with the Mortimers, in April 1336 he was also given control of part of the wardship of the heir to the Mortimer estate, which included the manors of Cleobury Mortimer and Earnwood (Salop), the reversion of the manor

161 162 163 164 165

166 167 168 169

CIPM vii, 310–11. The first major mention of Dagworth is in October 1337. CPR 1334–8, 531. CCR 1337–9, 341, 345, 348, 349. CCR 1343–6, 300–01. CPR 1348–50, 146. For payments see E403/344 (9 October 1348); E403/344 (16 March 1349); E403/347 (25 May 1349); E403/353 (15 April 1350); E403/353 (28 June 1350). See also Holmes, Estates, pp. 43–4. Ward, English Noblewomen, p. 27. CIPM viii, 146–7; Holmes, Estates, pp. 17, 23. CFR 1327–37, 325.

Royal Feudal Rights

67

of Arley (Staffs.), and the manor of Bisley (Gloucs.).170 In September of the same year, he also gained possession in a similar manner of the castle of Wigmore, the ancient home of the Mortimers.171 This marriage, then, had a considerable impact upon the holdings of William Bohun, establishing both him and the Bohun clan in general as very powerful players on the Welsh borders, and making William himself more able to uphold the rank of earl of Northampton which he received in March of the next year.172 Wardships and custodies These, then, were the feudal resources available for long-term patronage by Edward III, resources crucial for this monarch if he wanted to give his new nobility even the slightest degree of power and stability, let alone encourage them to fight the Scots or French. Less permanent, though no less useful, when it came to such ambitions were wardships and custodies. Wardship, referred to in the Dialogus de Scaccario as ‘escheat with heir’,173 was the holding of the body and/or lands of minors or anyone so incapacitated as not to be able to perform the relevant feudal services.174 From this right, the guardian could usually take some form of profit, provided he left enough to sustain the heir and that the lands of the wardship involved were not hurt, or ‘wasted’, by these exactions.175 If the estate of a ward comprised lands held of several lords, as was often the case, these rights would be divided according to lordship, though control of the body of the heir and any connected marriage rights would be given to the lord holding the oldest enfeoffment176 – a policy known as ‘priority of enfeoffment’. However, if but a fraction of the land was held of royal lordship, then ‘prerogative wardship’ came into play. This meant that not only all lands held of the king by a deceased tenantin-chief, as well as the body of his heir, returned to royal custodianship, but also all other lands held by the deceased of any lord whatsoever.177 Though the latter right could obviously be detrimental to the immediate lords of those also holding of the king, and thereby a potential source of complaint, in general the concept of royal wardship survived, though modified, Magna Carta and subsequent legal changes taking place in thirteenth century.178 Indeed, rather

170 171 172 173 174

175

176 177

178

CPR 1334–8, 252. CFR 1327–37, 495. CCharR 1327–41, 401, 484–5. Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 94. The age of majority was twenty-one for male heirs, sixteen for unmarried female heirs and fourteen for married heiresses. Simpson, Land Law, pp. 17–18. See J.C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965), pp. 213–16; Waugh, Lordship, pp. 79–80, 233–4. However, the guardian was also expected to find sustenance for any siblings of the ward and was responsible for debts of the deceased. S.S. Walker, ‘Royal Wardship in Medieval England’, University of Chicago Ph.D. (1966), pp. 21, 44–5. J.M.W. Bean, The Decline of English Feudalism 1215–1540 (Manchester, 1968), p. 15. Waugh, Lordship, pp. 72–9. See also Bean, Decline of Feudalism, pp. 9–10; S.F.C. Milsom, ‘The Origin of Prerogative Wardship’, in G. Garnet and J. Hudson, eds., Law and Government in Mediaeval England and Normandy (Cambridge, 1994), 223–44. E.g. Provisions of Merton (1235–36), the Statute of Marlborough (1267) and the first Statute of Westminster (1275).

68

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

than specifically targeting over-zealous interpretation of royal rights, any restrictions placed on wardship in this period were more generally aimed at protecting all types of heirs and their estates – such as rules concerning waste, disparagement of wards and forced remarriage of widows – or attempting to close loopholes used to avoid wardships. Aside from these, the only substantial criticisms levelled specifically at the king’s use of the right during the century previous to Edward III’s accession was when it was seen to be granted away to undeserving individuals.179 Moreover, from the Conqueror’s time onwards, monarchs had always made considerable use of wardships as a way to reward followers or to build up support. As with other feudal incidents, because William I’s followers came from many parts of France, with many different traditions, it took some time before wardship rights were ironed out.180 Thereafter, though, William Rufus was notorious for both selling wardships to the highest bidder and ‘wasting’ them, as was Henry I, regardless of the promises in his coronation charter – though, going from Green’s tables, actual royal profits from both wardships and marriages were quite limited during his reign.181 Henry II also made considerable use of wardships for the sake of his nobility – a resource he tended to favour, along with marriage grants, over hereditary land grants.182 Indeed, all the Anglo-Norman kings used wardships to a considerable degree, despite calls, repeated in Edward III’s reign, that guardianships should be given to relatives.183 Within the first clauses of Magna Carta, John’s barons had attempted to put limitations on their abuse, as John had outshone both his father and elder brother when it came to extorting large fines for wardships and marriages.184 However, this did not stop their use, and abuse. Henry III frequently used wardships (and marriages) ‘to subsidise the cost of annual fees or pensions’,185 while Edward I made them a source of profit by keeping them in royal custody for as long as possible.186 Finally, Edward II exploited wardships financially, especially under the Despensers,187 though also using them to show favour to his supporters. With this tradition behind him, then, Edward III had a firm control over the right of wardship at the beginning of his rule – as well as set precedent in its usage as a form of royal largesse.188 The different classifications of wardship

179

180 181 182

183 184 185 186 187 188

S.L. Waugh, ‘Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship in England under Henry III’, Viator 16 (1985), 198–206; Walker, ‘Royal Wardship’, p. 39; Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 590–610. F. Barlow, The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216 4th edn (London, 1988), p. 114. Green, Government of England, pp. 83–7; 223–5. T.K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons (Berkeley, 1983), pp. 94–6, 106–8; Lally, ‘Secular Patronage’, 163–7; R.V. Turner, Men Raised from the Dust: Administrative Service and Upward Mobility in Angevin England (Philadelphia, 1988), p. 6. Green, Aristocracy, pp. 265–6. R.V. Turner, King John (London, 1994), p. 104. Waugh, Lordship, p. 183 Waugh, ‘Fiscal Uses of Royal Wardships’, 55–7; Waugh, Lordship, pp. 167–9. Waugh, Lordship, pp. 167–9. Edward’s uses of this right echo Waugh’s divisions of wardship for the previous century. Waugh, Lordship, p. 155.

Royal Feudal Rights

69

grant to Edward’s new men were fivefold. Of the ninety-one grants of land in wardship between 1330 and 1377, twenty-four were straight gifts with no attached charges; fifty-one were grants with some type of annual remuneration to the king; one was by lease; three were by substantial fine or sale; three were by simple custodianship of the land; seven were a mixture of these types – or cases where the terms of a grant were later changed; and in two cases, the terms of the grant are unknown.189 Grants free of all payments Straight grants were often the most lucrative form of wardship patronage for a new man, being, as they were, free from all charges save those connected with the upkeep of the land and provision for the heir. As a result, the holder of such wardships could count on making a profit on all normal and feudal revenues connected with the estate. Typical was the 1349 grant to Guy Brian of the wardship and marriage of the heir of William de Welle, tenant-in-chief, ‘without rendering anything for the same’.190 Welle was a member of the upper gentry, and his estate upon death consisted of the manors of Great Sampford and East Tilbury (Essex), Exning (Suffolk), as well as lands in Cambridgeshire and the March of Wales.191 In this case, because the estate was small enough, all rights of wardship could conveniently go to one individual. However, when more important wardships came open, as in the case of an estate of the titled nobility, land was usually granted out in parcels. Edward’s new men benefited from the Strathbolgi earl of Athol’s estate in this manner. David Strathbolgi’s father, one of the ‘Disinherited’, had been slain in the forest of Kilblane in 1335, leaving his three-year-old son as a royal ward. Thereafter, for the next twenty years, until 1355, the Athol inheritance was in the hands of the king, to do with as he pleased.192 Two of Edward’s new men profited from this wardship. In June 1336, while both men were apparently on campaign in the north, Edward granted Walter Mauny ‘for his free service to the king’, the manors of Stiffkey and Holkham (Norfolk), both of which had been part of the late earl of Athol’s estate, and which he was now to hold rent free during the son’s minority.193 Later, in 1343, John Stryvelyn, one of Edward’s northern supporters, probably in connection with service in Scotland, was granted £20 rent in Kilham, Foston, Thwing, Fiveley Nook, Thixendale and other towns in Yorkshire, which was of the estate of the earl of Pembroke but which later came into Athol’s hands by inheritance.194 Commitments with payments attached Grants free of payments were, however, obviously expensive for the royal purse, and made up less than a third of all wardships given out. Rather, the most 189

190 191 192 193 194

Whether the dower portion of a wardship also came to an grantee depended on how generous the king was feeling. See also Waugh, Lordship, p. 145. CPR 1348–50, 283. CIPM ix, 322–3. Aside from the dower of Athol’s wife. C257/20/7. CPR 1334–8, 266. CPR 1343–5, 47, 57.

70

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

common type of wardship patronage was what is referred to as ‘commitments’ in Appendix Five. In essence, these were any grants the terms of which called for some form of remuneration to the king, often the rate at which it had been extended during the inquisition post mortem – which itself was probably lower than the actual annual value of the land.195 But whether at the extended rate or another, the commitment was nonetheless usually a very profitable form of patronage, allowing, as it often did, any profits beyond this amount to go into the guardian’s pocket. A typical example is the November 1337 grant to Reginald Cobham of the entire estate of John de Dokesworth, this time a member of the lesser gentry, of the manor of King’s Walden and a parcel of land held by John Veer, both in Hertfordshire, to hold during the minority of the heir and ‘rendering yearly at the exchequer as much as others will render in moieties at Easter and Michaelmas’.196 And again, more important wardships tended to be granted out in parcels. Perhaps one of the most well used estates in this respect was that of Edmund Mortimer. Son of the executed earl of March, Mortimer had, with the support of the Lords, received back part of his father’s estate in late 1331.197 However, he died a few months later, and the wardship of his three-year-old son, Roger, and his estate escheated to the king. Though some of this estate was granted out as gifts, much also went out as commitments. On 30 April 1334, Thomas Bradeston was granted the manor of Kingsland (Hereford.) during the minority of Roger Mortimer, at a set rate per year at the exchequer, and, in the next month, Hugh Frene, a knight of Hereford and later of some fame as the abductor of the countess of Lincoln, was granted the manor of Orleton (Hereford.) rendering £52 7s 8d per annum at the exchequer.198 Unsurprisingly, William Bohun, who married Edmund Mortimer’s widow in 1335, was more substantially favoured with Mortimer lands, not only receiving in wardship various manors towards the Welsh borders, apparently free of all rents and services, but also the aforementioned Mortimer caput honoris of Wigmore (Hereford.) ‘rendering yearly at the exchequer as much as H. bishop of Lincoln . . . used to render’.199 Finally, on 6 September 1341, Bohun and his wife were granted another part of the Mortimer estate, the keeping of the castle of Knucklas and Pilleth on the Welsh Marches, which had been held by John Daucok for 100 shillings per annum, and which they were to pay, as well as a 20 shillings increment.200 For Edward III’s wardship policy, then, the Mortimer estate offered both the raw materials and adaptability for the short term, yet often geographically crucial, endowment of a number of his new men – while still also allowing some recompense for the royal exchequer. Substantial fines and sales The remaining wardships which Edward granted out all had somewhat more substantial remuneration for the king attached to them – though rarely, unless it 195 196 197 198 199 200

CFR 1327–37, 407; Stevenson, ‘Escheator’, in EGW, ii 137; see p. 38 n. 75. CFR 1337–47, 57; CIPM viii, 61. RP ii, 62; CPR 1330–4, 193. CFR 1327–37, 401, 407, 409. CPR 1334–8, 252; CFR 1327–37, 495. CFR 1337–47, 239–40.

Royal Feudal Rights

71

was a simple stewardship, was the grantee not able to take some form of profit from the transaction.201 Indeed, though the wardships granted by lease or sale were rarely the most immediately profitable, they nonetheless could be very lucrative in the longer term to those so favoured. Such arrangements were mainly for the control of specific parts of an estate, as when, on 23 June 1357, Reginald Cobham was allowed, for £100 fine payable at the exchequer, to have control of a moiety of the manor of Ixworth (Suffolk) of the estate of William Criketot during the minority of the heir, ‘provided that he do the real charges and services due to the king and others from the said moiety’. 202 Similarly the acquisition in 1336, for a fine of 1,000 marks, of the guardianship of the manors of Bromsgrove, and its bailiwick (Worcs.), and Martyr Worthy (Hants)203 by William Montagu was, considering the Mortimer heir was included in the price, something of a bargain. Once in a while, though less commonly than with other types of grant, the king would even allow a new man to buy the wardship of a dead tenant-in-chief in its entirety – for example, the estate of Robert de Pavely, acquired by Guy Brian in December 1346 for the price of 250 marks and comprising the manors of Ruddington (Notts.) and Paulerspury and Great Houghton (Northants), as well as the marriage of the heir.204 Such extensive control, however, was again definitely exceptional.205 As we have seen, escheats, expectancies, forfeitures, marriages and wardships were all crucial sources for royal patronage to Edward III’s new men during the reign. When it came to deciding how to distribute such resources, however, the least important factor were ties of blood – as was clear from the plaintive calls in parliament for more of these rights to go to relations.206 Indeed, aside from early releases of one’s own inheritance, only in a few grants do blood relationships seem to have been the issue – for example, when the guardianship of the estate of John Brewes was granted to Thomas Brewes because of the former’s mental incapacity.207 This was, of course, nothing new: kings often looked either to favourites qua favourites or their own treasuries when dealing with feudal incidents long before they ever thought about granting them to the families involved, despite pleas to the contrary.208 Somewhat more important were in-law relationships. After all, to hold the lands of one’s in-laws not only helped protect them from harmful outside control, but also enhanced one’s power and position within the extended family – an especially important consideration for those new men who had married above their previous station. Without doubt, the fact that

201 202 203 204

205 206 207 208

Waugh, Lordship, p. 185. CFR 1356–68, 41. Fine paid E401/442 (30 June 1357); E401/449 (8 February 1359). CFR 1327–37, 488–9. CFR 1337–47, 494, 495. CIPM viii, 487–8. Payments made 8 February 1347 £100 (E401/387); and 5 March 1347 £66 13s. 4d. (E401/387). See Waugh, Lordship, p. 149. RP ii, 104a; see also p. 129. CCR 1364–8, 97–8. See S.S. Walker, ‘The Feudal Family and the Common Law Courts: the Pleas Protecting Rights of Wardship and Marriage, c. 1225–1375’, JMH 14 (1988), 13–31.

72

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

a parvenu now had control of the lands of those who were often his social superiors must have gone some way to ameliorating his low birth, or at least his previously undistinguished position. Whether it be the control of Despenser lands by Brian,209 Pembroke lands by Clinton,210 or even Mortimer lands by Bohun,211 such grants placed those so favoured in a more powerful position, one which was, however, a necessity for a new man to be able to stand his ground in an established family. Likewise, the control of the estate of a prospective daughter or son-in-law would obviously again help to improve the position of the new man within the family, as in the royal grant of the wardship of the lands of the heir of the earl of Ormond to John Darcy, his future father-in-law.212 More essential in deciding where royal patronage went, though, were the new men’s geographical interests. In the case of escheats, expectancies and forfeitures, it was of considerable importance to a new man that such grants reflected, to a degree at least, the geography of his existing estate – something helped not just by the number of estates coming into the king’s possession but also by the royal administration’s ability to break apart estates and grant relevant parts to suitable recipients. For example, Robert Ufford’s family interests, as well as the dower portion of his wife’s estate from a previous marriage, lay primarily in East Anglia.213 In response to this, Ufford received a number of land grants from estates in the area throughout his career (see Appendices), some as a result of his part in the 1330 coup and subsequent service on the king’s behalf, others in connection with his promotion to the earldom of Suffolk in 1337. Though grants of escheats, expectancies and forfeitures by no means had to conform to previous areas of interest – especially when a new man had very limited previous holdings, as in the case of Walter Mauny, or when the king wished to ensure he had a more ubiquitous presence in all areas of the kingdom, as seems to have been the case with William Montagu – similar stories can nonetheless be told for most other peerage creations.214 Indeed, unless the king, for reasons of his own, was out to create a new sphere of influence for an individual, overall the geographical positioning of escheat, expectancy and forfeiture grants tended to match those of previous holdings. Similarly, a new man’s geographical sphere of influence helped dictate the identity of wardships granted out.215 After all, for the sake of usefulness of royal patronage granted out, it was pointless giving a new man land which was too far from his power base as it made both care and control of the property difficult. But this was even truer when it came to wardships, which usually entailed attempting to protect and control land which everyone knew was to be in custodianship, and therefore in practice less well defended by law.216 It was thus

209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

CFR 1347–56, 109, 257–8; CCR 1349–54, 17–18; CPR 1348–50, 578, 579. CFR 1327–37, 245; CCharR 1327–41, 259; CFR 1327–37, 360; C81/180/4472B. CPR 1334–8, 252; CFR 1327–37, 495; CFR 1337–47, 239–41. CFR 1337–47, 465–6; CP x, 121. CP xii:2, 148–53; DNB lviii, 9–10; CCR 1323–7, 117–18. Compare Appendix 3 with Appendix 7. For the previous century, see Waugh, Lordship, pp. 188–9. Indeed, wardships were the perfect time to assert dormant rights. See pp. 114–15.

Royal Feudal Rights

73

in the interests of all concerned – new man, king, and even ward – that the grantee had the power in the wardship’s geographical area to defend his newly acquired estates. However, here – as with escheats, expectancies and forfeitures – part of what made wardships useful in this respect was the set precedent which allowed large estates to be broken up into smaller parts.217 Indeed, unless for exceptional cases, rarely was a new man, no matter how favoured, granted the entire estate of a member of the higher nobility, much less the body and marriage of the heir. In particular, almost all estates of the titled nobility granted to Edward’s new men – those of the earldoms of Kent, Pembroke, Athol, and Ormond as well as the estate of Roger and Edmund Mortimer and the elder and younger Despensers – were broken up into relevant smaller grants to individuals both within and outside Edward’s new nobility. Within Edward’s new promotions, they accounted for a quarter of all wardships granted between the years 1330 and 1377. The only new man given an entire major estate was John Darcy, granted the earldom of Kildare in Ireland in 1332 – and this, in all likelihood, was connected not only with his marriage three years earlier to the widow of Thomas FitzJohn, earl of Kildare,218 but also to his position as justiciar of Ireland. Geography was of prime importance for grants of marriage rights to Edward’s new men as well. Considering that many of the individuals who received this form of patronage were the less well off and therefore needier of Edward’s supporters, this practice was quite logical. However, if one was of a lesser county family such as Bradeston,219 there would often be little to be gained from the control of marriage rights of one’s own kinsmen, save to prevent them from going to others. Rather, it was of far more interest for a new man to gain and retain the marriage rights of the more well-to-do neighbouring families whereby he could then enhance his power in a locality, but over which otherwise he would have no control. And this was true both for the marriage rights of others granted to the new man as well as for the marriage of the new man himself. A good marriage, as we have seen, could make the power of new men in their localities. As with wardships, it helped to strengthen their estates by allowing them control over more land either through the addition of their wives’ inheritances or the marriages of their offspring to their wards. Whether it be Roger Beauchamp’s marriage to Sibyl Patshull or Thomas Dagworth’s to the countess of Ormond, a well thought out marriage almost always increased the size of a new man’s estate substantially – and usually, as with escheats, forfeitures, and expectancies, in an area where he had previous interests.220 But equally, if not more, important when it came to grants from the king was the issue of their duration – indeed, though this could rarely be decided in cases of wardship or marriage grants, for all other sources it was a crucial issue. For the posterity-minded noble of the later Middle Ages, the terms under which a grant was made were part of the importance of a grant itself. Of the variety of 217 218 219

220

Waugh, Lordship, p. 149. CFR 1327–37, 300–01; D’Arcy, Life, pp. 49, 61. N. Saul, Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981), pp. 76–7. Though the holdings of their wives could create new areas of interest. See Appendix 7.

74

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

royal grants which could be made to a new man, it was obvious that, where possible, he would want his lands granted in the most secure form of tenure – namely, in fee. After all, a man rising in the ranks in this period was not only looking to his own well-being, but those of his heirs, and they would not benefit from his limited term and life holdings. But perhaps less obviously, nor would they always be best served by entail, and especially tail male, royal grants. For, though at first glance these grants were meant simply to keep lands in the direct or male line for the sake of the grantee and his family, in practice both types of grant often worked in the interests of the grantor. Not only did they prevent lands so demised from being alienated by sale, entails also usually ensured that if the grantee failed to produce an appropriate heir, or in the case of tail male, the often elusive male heir, the lands would be returned to the grantor – in this instance, the king. And it is hard to believe that a new man would have preferred his family not to have his lands at all than to have them fall into the hands of a daughter or cousin. Thus, in the ‘term’ column on Appendix Three, when the terms of grants were changed – more than likely as a result of petition – they were usually towards grants in fee. In both theory and practice, then, it was obvious that the new man preferred royal land grants to be on the most permanent terms possible. Grants of feudal rights from whatever source, however, were important not just in terms of regional spheres of influence or inheritances. All these rights – whether escheats, expectancies, forfeitures, marriages or wardships – also bolstered the new man’s position in the kingdom as a whole. In this respect, the timing of grants of escheats, expectancies and forfeitures (which could generally be controlled more readily than wardships and marriages) was pivotal to new man and king alike. If the individual involved was less well off, royal grants usually had to come by the time he was called upon to perform certain duties, whether in the parliamentary chamber or on the battlefield. After all, a new man had to be able to sustain himself and his family before he reached either place – in the former case so that he would be taken seriously by the more established nobility and in the latter so that his family would be provided for while he was off fighting, or indeed if he died while fighting. It is unsurprising, then, that there was a concentration of escheat, expectancy and forfeiture grants in the first two decades of Edward’s independent rule, often coming before the outbreak of war or before a summons to parliament, and often to the most pressing of cases – that is, those who had not yet the wealth to sustain themselves properly. And, though grants of wardship and marriage were not as controllable in this regard, they too were crucial to a new man in terms of position in the kingdom. Firstly, for someone newly raised, though wardship grants were obviously an important addition to more permanent patronage, they were also a quick and convenient way to status within county, and more importantly court, society. Such acceptance had always been a crucial issue for ‘new men’ in landed society, going back to at least the time of the Anglo-Normans.221 After all, nothing gave

221

E. Mason, ‘Magnates, Curiales and the Wheel of Fortune: 1066–1154’, A-NS II 1979 (Woodbridge, 1980), 130.

Royal Feudal Rights

75

a man rank in such a setting as much as the ability to control the fate of the estates of his betters, if only temporarily. It is, therefore, notable in Appendix Five that a large proportion of wardships, including parcels of estates of the titled nobility, again went to the more humble of Edward’s new men. Though this may in part be the result of a tendency to give less permanent grants to the lesser of his new men, nonetheless, it also had the potential to give such individuals more prominent roles both in the areas they were developing estates and, equally important, in the realm overall.222 And this was even more true when it came to marriages. Edward III’s use of the royal feudal right of marriage – whether as a grant of the right of marriage of an heir or heiress to a new man or the arrangement of his own marriage – helped to reinforce his supporters’ positions within the realm. It gave them a status and presence within their sphere of influence which only came with attachment to established noble blood. After all, at the beginning of the reign a number of these men were of less than distinguished origins, sometimes little better off than their tenants or those over whom they would later have power – especially when it is remembered that Edward’s new men often obtained many of their holdings before being raised to parliament. And, though they might increase the size of their estates, it was not simply this that would ennoble them. In the highly traditional society which existed in medieval England, a society bound by ties of blood and heredity, wealth and landholding alone were often not enough to make a man noble – at least in the eyes of his contemporaries.223 Rather, marriage was one of the few routes through which respectability might come quickly to the more humble. Indeed, by allowing his new men to marry their sons and daughters into more well established lines, as well as licensing their marriage into the lines themselves, Edward III helped them gain a respectability within county and court circles which, even with all the other royal patronage they received, they would have had difficulty in achieving otherwise. Exploitation of royal feudal incidents, then, was a crucial part of Edward III’s patronage programme to his new men, allowing them to build up their estates and positions within their own spheres of influence as well as the kingdom at large. Whether through longer-term grants of estates, marriage into wealthy families, or temporary provision, through wardships, until such grants became available, Edward III used the rights at his disposal to develop the landed power of his new men to an estate befitting members of the parliamentary peerage. Though there were dangers inherent in this practice, it nonetheless helped establish the credibility of the new men both in the localities and on the national and international stage, arenas crucial for Edward III in his attempts to re-establish monarchical control after the problems of his father’s reign and the Minority – as well as his need to promote his wars in Scotland, and more importantly, France. That said, the situation which allowed Edward III to be able to use his feudal rights so fully and effectively had only come about relatively recently. Royal

222 223

See also Waugh, Lordship, p. 188. Though a crucial criterion for an individual parliamentary summons. See pp. 7–8.

76

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

tactics concerning the distribution and use of various sources tended, at the most basic level, to be similar to that of previous reigns. Though blood and inlaw relations played some part, geographical distribution and duration were the more important aspects of the grants to any recipient of patronage, and therefore issues for the king as well. However, Edward III’s manipulation of these rights had not been preceded, at least not with nearly as much aplomb, by previous monarchs – especially, somewhat surprisingly, his father and grandfather. Part of this, of course, was to do with the interests of these kings, Edward I being occupied in regaining control of the country and its borders after the civil war of 1258–1265, and Edward II’s actions usually being more determined by his favouritism of a small band of courtiers than any attempt to deal with the ‘bigger picture’. More, though, was to do with the changes which had taken place with respect to landholding over the last half century, and from which Edward III’s new men, not to mention the king himself, were the earliest to benefit to any substantial degree. First, as mentioned in the last chapter, there was the flexibility now allowed the king and his councillors when it came to granting out patronage – with developed concepts not just of grants entailed and in tail male but, by extension, also grants for life and for lesser terms. Indeed, more legislation in these areas usually meant more royal regulation, and therefore more controllability and predictability for the sake of the king’s policies. Secondly, the protection of entails afforded by De Donis in particular meant that, from the recipient’s viewpoint, estates so granted became more secure for the term of the grant, ensuring land stayed with a line for the near future. However, in the longer run, since entails as a result became more popular (also, in part, a result of Quia Emptores), more land had the potential to return to the monarchy at the end of the direct line rather than going to collateral heirs, and therefore be open to be granted out again – which in turn made the granting of expectancies from entails more frequent and predictable than grants from lands held ‘in fee’. Thirdly, the ending of subinfeudation with Quia Emptores also meant that, though feudalism as a whole was beginning to go into decline in this period, more and more estates were nonetheless gradually developing into tenancies-in-chief, and therefore open to direct escheats (including forfeitures), wardships, marriage rights and reliefs to the monarch. The king, as a result, was again beginning to regain more direct control over the estates of some of his subjects, and therefore made more use of their feudal incidents as a source of royal patronage, at least until the impact of the development of the enfeoffment-to-use (a form of trust which kept certain incidents from returning to the king) began to be felt in the latter half of the fourteenth century.224 Aside from these tenurial changes, there were also other developments in this period which helped greatly enhance Edward III’s uses of royal patronage in comparison to those of previous kings. The growing incidence of crimes liable to forfeit or confiscation – including the accroachment of royal power – under the first two Edwards allowed Edward III an enlarged ability when it came to 224

For the enfeoffment-to-use, see p. 124 n. 87.

Royal Feudal Rights

77

using confiscated lands for the sake of his new men, at least until the Statute of Treasons (1352) again put limitations on it. Similarly, the wars in Scotland and France, over both of which the king had new or reaffirmed rights of overlordship, allowed Edward III an additional fund of patronage with which to show favour to his new men. This, along with an increasingly exploitative attitude towards alien priories during the Hundred Years War, allowed Edward increased control over yet another, if potentially controversial, source of landed patronage. Finally, the fact that the parliamentary peerage was now a much clearer and distinct entity than ever before, even if did not live up quite yet to the dictates of the Modus Tenendi Parliamentum, gave Edward a firmer, and wider, structure around which to focus the use of these sources for the sake of this endowment programme. Whereas twelfth- and thirteenth-century kings only really had the option of either ‘making’ someone an earl, or giving him high-ranking administrative status, by Edward III’s time the choice was also open to the king to promote an individual into the peerage, and thus fairly clearly making him of the noble class, without necessarily giving him an earldom. Though problematic in other ways, this gradual stratification of society in the later Middle Ages nonetheless gave Edward III, and even more so future kings, greater choice of the level to which favourites and supporters could be promoted, and a more defined structure into which to promote them. Overall, then, there was a definite potential for a growth in the number of grants available at any given time, and more ways to give them out and control them, and these factors gave Edward III the scope to map out a clearer and more ambitious strategy than any previous English medieval monarch. Indeed, it was fortunate for Edward that the accumulation and coincidence of these changes – most, though not all, of which were related to landholding and/or had their foundations in the legal changes of Edward I’s reign – took place in the second and third quarters of the fourteenth century, after the disturbances of Edward II’s reign, and before the impact of legal devices, and the enfeoffment-to-use in particular, on the amount of land returning to the king had really begun to take effect. It was this new, if relatively short-lived, environment, along with previously discussed reforms of the royal administration, which allowed Edward III to follow a royal patronage ‘strategy’ in a manner which, even if they had so desired, had not been practicable to his father, grandfather, or any English king since William the Conqueror.

4 Annuities and Assignments

UNFORTUNATELY for Edward III’s new nobility, appropriate sources of landed income, long or short term, were not always available at the time of endowment. Until these could be found, the king used other means to sustain these individuals – something done mainly through payments from various sources of royal revenue. Undeniably, though financial patronage was often a ‘secondary indicator of importance’, as one historian has called it for Henry I’s reign,1 nonetheless, it remained a very useful and important one throughout the Middle Ages. Though whether Anglo-Norman kings favoured money fiefs for ordinary patronage to household knights is now open to debate,2 it is more difficult to deny that later kings used cash payments as a flexible way to show favour, especially to those moving into or within the nobility. Henry III gave such payments to his courtiers,3 and Edward I, while generally believed to have been tight-fisted, granted a variety of dona to his supporters.4 But it was only in the first quarter of the fourteenth century that increased co-ordination between use of cash payments, especially annuities, and other forms of patronage really came into its own.5 Before this, the lack of secure entails and life grants meant that it was difficult to know if, when or how a piece of land was going to return to the king, and therefore if an annuity should be granted in expectation of those lands coming back into the king’s possession. Looking at Henry III’s reign, for instance, it is notable how ineffectual the promises were for lands in place of annuities, despite repeated attempts by the king and his ministers to fulfil them.6 However, by Edward II’s reign, due to the growing security and popularity of entails and life grants resulting from De Donis and Quia Emptores, as well as an increasingly efficient escheatory,7 expectancies had a greater chance of being predicted, and therefore connected arrangements being fulfilled. As a result,

1 2

3 4 5

6 7

Mooers, ‘Pipe Roll of 1130’, 286. B.D. Lyon, ‘The Money Fief under the English Kings’, EHR 66 (1951), 161–93; versus S.D. Church, ‘The Rewards of Royal Service in the Household of King John: A Dissenting Opinion’, EHR 110 (1995), 277–98; Church, Household Knights of King John, pp. 78–81. Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 592–8. Prestwich, ‘Royal Patronage’, in Coss and Lloyd, eds., Thirteenth Century England I, 44–6. Though this relationship (i.e. annuities held until suitable lands open up) dates back at least to John’s reign. T. Madox, The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer 2 vols. (London, 1769), i, 390. Ridgeway, ‘Henry III’s Problems of Patronage’, 592–8. Stevenson, ‘Escheator’, in EGW, ii, 113–20.

Annuities and Assignments

79

‘until he receive the equivalent in land and rent’ or similar phases started to become common in grants by the later 1320s. Even so, annuities and other forms of payment were, at first glance at least, far from the best means for Edward III to sustain his new men in their new, or future, estates. Not only were the resulting writs and warrants for payments bound to cause a substantial increase in administrative paperwork, but, more importantly, such payments had the potential to diminish the liquid funds available to finance Edward’s ambitions in Scotland and France, especially when it came to paying out wages for troops and ‘buying’ the support of various continental allies. This said, if Edward wished to enable his new men to act in a manner befitting nobility on both the home front and on campaign abroad at times when other sources were not forthcoming, annuities, mainly in the form of either exchequer assignment or directly off sources of royal revenue, were often the most viable option. Exchequer annuities The process of exchequer assignment itself dates back as early as the twelfth century, and evidence for its use can be found throughout the Patent, Issue and Receipt Rolls for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.8 In theory, it was the most obvious and straightforward of payments, and therefore, from an early stage, one of the most well used. An exchequer assignment, usually designated in the Patent Rolls by the phrase ‘at the exchequer’, meant that an individual, granted an annuity of a specified sum, would then take either the letter patent, a writ for payment, or both to the clerks at the exchequer.9 The wording of such grants was general, not mentioning the source of the annuity and making any arrangement last until appropriate, though often unspecified, lands and/or rents became available – for example, on 3 April 1335 Walter Mauny was granted ‘£100, to be received yearly at the exchequer until the king or his heirs shall grant the equivalent in land and rent within the realm to him and his heirs’.10 Though on the odd occasion paid in cash by the clerk of the exchequer,11 the individual

8

9

10 11

A. Steel, ‘The Distribution of Assignment in the Treasurer’s Receipt Roll, Michaelmas, 1364–5’, CHJ 2 (1927), 178; Calendar of Patent Rolls and Exchequer Issue Rolls, passim. Harriss states that ‘those seeking payment of an annuity, or a prest in support of one of the recognized charges of state, would be covered by their general (or dormant) warrant, while for all occasional debts and charges an occasional (or final) warrant, issued usually under the privy seal, would be required’. G.L. Harriss, ‘Preference at the Medieval Exchequer’, BIHR 30 (1957), 17. However, in times of financial restraint, even exchequer annuities needed Warrants for Issue before they could be paid. See E404/2/11 (4 August 1331); E404/2/11 (5 October 1331); E404/3/19 (26 March 1337). For much of what follows about assignment, see H. Jenkinson, ‘Exchequer Tallies’, Archaeologia 62 (1911), 367–80; J.F. Willard, ‘The Crown and its Creditors, 1327–33’, EHR 42 (1927), 12–19; A. Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer 1377–1485 (Cambridge, 1954), xxix–xl, 1–35; G.L. Harriss, ‘Fictitious Loans’, EcHR, 2nd ser. 7 (1955–6), 187–99; Harriss, ‘Preference at the Medieval Exchequer’, 17–40. CPR 1334–8, 90. There are only four recognizable instances on the Issue Rolls where Edward’s new men were given payment of their annuities in cash – designated by the word ‘sol’ in the margin. For the payment to Audley, see E403/302 (23 November 1338); to Brian, E403/305 (27 May 1340); to Bohun and Grosmont, E403/302 (23 December 1338); also see Willard, ‘Crown and its Creditors’, 16–19; A. Steel, ‘The Practice of Assignment in the Later Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), 172–80; Steel, ‘Distribution of Assignment’, 178–85.

80

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

involved would more often be assigned a revenue source (or sources) – which might or might not be the same as that for the previous annuity payment – when he appeared at the exchequer. The procedure for this entailed an exchequer clerk making a record of the payment on the Issue Rolls of the date, county, payee, the nature of the payment, the term for which it was being paid, the order by which it was done, and the amount of the payment.12 On a corresponding day in the Receipt Rolls, or a date soon thereafter, an entry was recorded whereby the source of the payment was specified, along with the amount,13 and usually a combination of a writ and tally – or receipt in the form of a notched wooden stick which was broken much as a chirograph was torn – were made.14 The individual involved would then take the writ and tally – with the name of the source and the amount due inscribed on it – to the officer in charge of the revenue source. If the payment was made, the individual would then hand over the writ and/or tally as a receipt to the officer, who would in turn produce it at the upper exchequer when it came time to audit the accounts. These ‘at the exchequer’ payments were the basis for many annuities. However, payment was dependent on a number of factors – what accounts happened to be outstanding at a particular time, the amount of the annuity, the degree of influence an individual had at the exchequer, and, in the end, the amount of royal favour an annuitant possessed.15 As a result, such annuities were paid from a miscellany of sources, often whatever accounts happened to be outstanding on a certain day. An early example of this practice was an annuity to Henry of Grosmont, the son of Henry of Lancaster. Fowler notes that in 1322, Henry only had control of the lordships of Beaufort and Monmouth, granted to him by his father.16 This, along with the fact that his father had to pay his expenses for 1331–2,17 led the king to grant Henry a 500 mark annuity in March 1332 in order to allow him to sustain himself.18 Though this annuity only continued for a year and a half, after which he was given the wardship of the castle and lands of Abergavenny, as well as a life grant from his father of the castle and township of Kidwelly, lands and rents of Carnwalton, the castles of Ogmore, Grosmont and Skenfrith,19 payment was made from at least three different sources – including fines,20 a payment from a tenth and fifteenth,21 and part of a farm.22

12

13

14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

For the relationship between Issue and Receipt Rolls, see J.L. Kirby, ‘The Issues of the Lancastrian Exchequer and Lord Cromwell’s Estimates of 1433’, BIHR 24 (1951), 121–3. Beginning in the 1330s notes start to appear in the margins of the Receipt Rolls as to whether a revenue source had been assigned (denoted by a ‘pro x’ or a variation thereof) – though this was not common until the late 1340s. Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, pp. xxx–xxxi; Steel, ‘Distribution of Assignment’, 178. For marginalia, see A. Steel, ‘The Marginalia of the Treasurer’s Receipt Rolls, 1349–99’, BIHR 7–8 (1929–30), 67–84, 133–43. It should be noted, however, that there were a number of variations on this procedure. See Willard, ‘Crown and its Creditors’, 18–19. See Harriss, ‘Preference’, 17–40. Fowler, King’s Lieutenant, p. 26. Fowler, King’s Lieutenant, p. 28. CPR 1330–4, 265. DL25/2061; DL27/192. E403/265 (17 December 1332); E401/308 (17 December 1332). E403/267 (16 July 1333); E401/311 (16 July 1333). E403/271 (1 March 1334).

Annuities and Assignments

81

A somewhat later example of an exchequer annuity is one to Hugh Audley on becoming earl of Gloucester in 1337. Originally granted £100 per annum in March 1337 until lands or rents came in, in September of that year Audley was granted the manors of Kirkby in Ashfield (Notts.) and Eckington (Derby.) in fulfilment of £90 of this grant.23 The remaining £10 per annum continued to come from the exchequer until Michaelmas 1344 when it appears to have stopped.24 Between these dates, there are at least three different sources of payment. For the first term of the annuity, the Michaelmas term of 1337, payment was made by the collectors of the lay fifteenth and tenth in the county of Gloucester, the amount at that time still being the full £50 term payment.25 In Michaelmas 1338, after the manors had been granted, the payment was one of the rare instances of cash fulfilment of an annuity at the exchequer, being noted in the margin of the Issue Roll by the word ‘sol’.26 Finally, a later payment in June 1342 was from the 100 shilling fine paid by one John le Marschal, an individual noted previously as being convicted of breaking prison at Guildford.27 However, a longer running example from the height of the reign – namely a 200 mark annuity granted to Michael Poynings on 23 March 134728 – is perhaps more illustrative of the process of exchequer assignment. This started being paid from the lay fifteenth and tenths from the county of Sussex and continued that way until February 1350 when the grant from parliament ran out.29 He was paid by his prest – in this case, an advance – for a year and a term in Michaelmas 1350,30 but then no more payments were made until Easter of 1352, when funds from another fifteenth and tenth granted that year were used.31 Payment over the next ten years was somewhat erratic, sometimes nothing appearing to have been paid for three terms running, and then a series of arrears being recorded. Nonetheless, through a variety of sources – among others, again, tenths and fifteenths32 and prests,33 but also the Chichester customs,34 and the payments and fines for alien priories35 – the exchequer clerks managed to fulfil a not inconsiderable amount of the royal financial obligations to Poynings.

23 24

25 26 27 28 29

30 31

32 33 34

35

CPR 1334–8, 414–15, 522. See also p. 57. For detailed list of payment references for annuities cited in this chapter, see Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. E403/298 (24 October 1337). E403/302 (23 November 1338). E403/326 (3 June 1342); E401/368 (4 June 1342). See p. 59. CPR 1345–8, 268. E403/340 and E401/391 (6 November 1347); E403/347 and E401/397 (1 May and 13 May 1349); E403/349 and E401/399 (2 payments, both 1 March 1350). Concerning the lay subsidies, see Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 320–2, 326–7. E403/355 and E401/404 (2 payments, both 2 December 1350). Two payments were made from the lay fifteenth and tenth – in arrears for Easter 1350 and for Michaelmas 1351 (E403/362 and E401/413 (11 July 1352)). E403/368 and E401/419 (9 July 1353). E403/375 and E401/375 (21 October 1354); E403/412 and E401/470 (13 November 1362). E403/387 and E401/442 (24 April 1357); E403/388 and E401/443 (5 October 1357 and 1 March 1358); E403/392 and E401/446 (10 July 1358); E403/394 and E401/449 (12 October 1358 and 4 December 1358); E403/398 and E401/454 (20 January 1360); E403/417 and E401/475 (28 October 1363). E403/397 and E401/453 (9 July 1359); E403/403 and E401/459 (3 February 1361).

82

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Such a variety of sources could, however, stabilise if the situation was favourable to both the king and the annuitant. This appears to have been the case with a £40 annuity granted to Guy Brian. Granted around 1340, 36 this started being paid from the castle of St Briavel and the Forest of Dean, of which Brian had earlier been granted the custody.37 Brian was further granted another £40 annuity on 26 August 1346, ‘to support the order of knighthood which he has taken from the king, and for his fee for his stay with him’.38 Though this was sometimes paid from other sources, such as clerical tenths, the farm of Somerset and Dorset, fifteenths and tenths, alien priories, debts and revenues of bishop’s temporalities, for most of the life of the annuity,39 which continued for the rest of the reign,40 payment was made from what he owed yearly for the castle of St Briavel and the Forest of Dean. This, then, made receiving fulfilment of the annuity a far less complicated task for Brian (especially as he was also controller of the source in question) than had the sources continued to be a miscellany of whatever accounts happened to be due on the day he, or one of his servants, came in to obtain payment. Source-based payments Exchequer annuities were one way for the king to fulfil his obligations to those he was interested in promoting. There was, however, another – by payments assigned direct off a fixed source. This was what Brian’s annuity noted above had gradually turned into, but one of the advantages of this second type of grant was that the source was decided on from the beginning. Usually identified in the Letters Patent, grants from previously designated sources would almost always have royal orders going out directly to the officers in charge of the annuity, thereby by-passing the process of exchequer assignment, to ensure payment.41 For example, for William Aldeburgh, though not a particularly favoured individual, orders went out for the payment of his 100 mark annuity with a fair degree of regularity after it was first granted.42 Similarly, upon John Beauchamp’s exchange of an annuity out of the alien priory of Hayling to that from the London customs,43 instructions were sent to the collectors of the custom of wool hides and wood-fells in the port of London to pay Beauchamp the

36 37

38 39

40

41

42

The earliest mention found of this annuity is in E403/309 (27 April 1340). CFR 1327–37, 461; E403/322 and E401/367 (19 January 1342); E403/326 and E401/368 (6 May 1342). According to Harriss, ‘To secure remittance of an official debt in discharge of a personal claim . . . was one of the commonest ways of obtaining one’s dues’. Harriss, ‘Preference’, 26–7. CPR 1345–8, 474. E403/318 and E401/363 (26 July 1341); E403/344 and E401/396 (11 October 1348); E403/355 and E401/404 (20 October 1350); E403/388 and E401/443 (24 November 1357); E403/397 and E401/453 (6 June 1359). Though £60 of this was later transferred to a direct payment off the farm of St Briavel and Dean – in essence a remission of rent. E403/356 (3 June 1351). E.g. annuities from customs. M.H. Mills, ‘The Collectors of Customs’, in EGW, ii, 194; see also W.M. Ormrod, ‘The Protecolla Rolls and English Government Finance, 1353–1364’, EHR 102 (1987), 624–5. E.g. CCR 1354–60, 261, 378, 443, 471; CCR 1360–4, 29. Though it later went into arrears. See CCR 1364–8, 250; for payments see E122/193/18; E356/8.

Annuities and Assignments

83

amount due.44 And, though Warrants for Issue may at specific times be seen as serving the same purpose for exchequer annuity payments,45 it is notable that, at least in the case of Edward’s new men, not only were orders concerning source based annuities mandatory, but writs for their payment were enrolled in the Close Rolls – thus denoting royal administration’s constant awareness of the need to make sure that the annuities were fulfilled.46 The main sources of previously designated patronage were threefold: farms of manors, hundreds, towns, and counties; customs of the ports of the realm; and issues from confiscated alien religious lands. Of the different sources of payment, indeed, payments from the farms paid for counties, manors, hundreds and other lands held of the king were the oldest and quite common. Whenever a king wanted to show favour, it was a fairly easy task to grant money from what was owed to him by his subjects, usually making the payment directly through the affected county’s sheriff. When it came time for the sheriff, who was responsible for this type of royal income, to settle his account with the central administration, the payments connected with these annuities, along with many other forms of payment, would then be deducted from the king’s revenue for any given county.47 Some new men were given money from the farms paid by those holding properties under royal control, as when in 1331 William Bohun was granted the £90 farm paid by the abbot of Kirkstall for the manor of Collingham (Yorks.), in the king’s hands by reason of his custody of John, heir of Edmund, late earl of Kent, to hold until the minority of the heir or until provision be made for him.48 Others were given the farm of town issues, including those towns already held by them. In a late grant of an annuity, in October 1376, Roger Beauchamp was granted a 100 mark annuity ‘to be taken by his own hands’ out of the farm of £85 due from Devizes (Wilts.), a town which Beauchamp already held for life of the king’s grant.49 But perhaps the largest and most diverse grant of this type was, unsurprisingly, to one of Edward’s new titled nobility, William Clinton, granted 1,000 marks of land in 1337 upon becoming earl of Huntingdon.50 In this grant, Clinton was immediately given the manor of Kirton (Lincs.) worth 500 marks per annum. However, as no other appropriate land appears to have been available, the other 500 marks was to be made up of the expectancies of the manors of Holme and Glatton, as well as the site of the castle of Huntingdon, all in Huntingdonshire and held for life by Queen Isabella and the countess of Pembroke respectively.51 Until the rest of the land could come in, 43 44 45

46

47 48 49 50 51

CPR 1345–8, 169. CCR 1346–9, 302, 470, 564; CCR 1349–54, 117, 160, 173. E.g. for the payment of exchequer annuities to Mauny. E404/4/22 (22 & 23 April 1338); E404/4/28 (15 October 1341); E404/7/48 (20 May 1366); E404/8/51 (27 October 1366); E404/9/57 (6 November 1368). For the Close Rolls, see G.R. Elton, England 1200–1640 (London, 1969), pp. 39–40. The payments themselves were most often recorded on the Pipe or Customs Rolls, and on the records for the source itself. For a list of these payments, see Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. Morris, ‘Sheriff’, in EGW, ii, 73–100; Morris, Medieval English Sheriff, pp. 126–7. CPR 1330–4, 193. CPR 1374–7, 352. CPR 1334–8, 415. See pp. 52–3.

84

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

however, Clinton had to be given other income to help him sustain his new rank, being granted: £100 10s yearly of the farm and issues of the county of Kent, and the balance of the £232 16s 8d, to wit: £33 6s 8d of the farms and issues of the counties of Huntingdon and Cambridgeshire; £59 10s of the farms and issues of the county of Kent; £80 of the farms of the towns of Winchelsea and Rye, the manor of Higham (Sussex) and connected properties; £60 of the farm of the town of Sandwich; and £10 of the farm of the king’s seven hundreds in the county of Kent. Customs revenues, while often also used for the payment of exchequer annuities,52 were another direct source for annuities. Customs had become increasingly important to the monarchy mainly as a result of Edward I’s changes to duties, especially the first regular raising of customs on wool, woolfells, and leather in 1275 – and were further developed in the fourteenth century by the instigation of tunnage, poundage, and petty customs on merchandise aside from wool and cloth.53 For the most part, annuities began to be taken off customs revenues only after the first of these changes had taken place, and seem, overall, mainly to have been used as royal patronage to any degree starting in the reign of Edward II. Indeed, it was during the fourteenth century that customs and subsidy revenue on overseas trade was to peak,54 thus allowing an increasing number of annuities to be paid from this source. Payments to individuals direct from customs were made with two authorisations, the exchequer issued a general instruction to the collectors that the annuity was to be paid to such a person, but the person concerned had also to produce a second writ, showing that payment was actually due for that particular term, or half year. A.B. [sic] then received his money direct at the custom house and gave a receipt for it either in the form of a letter patent or an indenture between himself and the collectors.55

Annuities from such a source could be relatively small, as when Thomas Bradeston was granted 100 marks per annum from customs and subsidy issues of wool, hides and wool fells in the port of London, which he had been granted in replacement of the life grant of the bailiwick of the prévôté of l’Entredeux-Mers in the duchy of Aquitaine.56 However, customs were mainly useful for larger annuities. In March 1337, in order to sustain the rank of earl of Northampton, William Bohun was given £1,000 per annum in land, made up of a number of expectancies the worth of which totalled £739 16s 111⁄4d, the remainder to be paid at the exchequer.57 Until these expectancies came in, however, Bohun was to be paid £400 from the customs of the port of London,

52 53

54

55 56 57

Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 98–100; Mills, ‘Collectors of Customs’, in EGW, ii, 168–9; R.L. Baker, The English Customs Service: A Study of Medieval Administration, 1307–1343 (Philadelphia, 1961), pp. 5–7. W.M. Ormrod, ‘England in the Middle Ages’, in R. Bonney, ed., The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe, c.1200–1815 (Oxford, 1999), Figure 1.11 and 1.15. Mills, ‘Collectors of Customs’, in EGW, ii, 194. CPR 1340–3, 82; CPR 1354–8, 54. See CCharR 1327–41, 401, 484–5.

Annuities and Assignments

85

£150 from the port of Boston, £150 from the port of Kingston upon Hull, as well as £200 from the farm of the city of London, and £100 from the sheriff of Essex.58 Similarly, in 1337, Henry of Grosmont, upon becoming earl of Derby, was granted 1,000 marks per annum out of the royal customs, namely 400 marks out of the customs at the city of London, 300 marks from the port of Boston and 300 marks from the port of Kingston upon Hull.59 This grant was, however, unlike the grants to the other 1337 creations, meant only to tide Derby over until he came into his inheritance. The war with France provided the final major source for annuities – namely, the income from confiscated alien religious lands. Edward I was the first king to realise fully the potential usefulness of ‘alien priories’ confiscated as a result of the outbreak of war with France in the mid 1290s, though primarily as a way to enhance the profits of the exchequer rather than as a source for annuities.60 Rather, it was only in Edward III’s reign that the land of alien religious estates was used in a substantial way as a source of patronage either to augment the estates of supporters of the king,61 or, more importantly for this discussion, as a fund for annuities. Several of Edward’s new men were given some form of annuity from this source. A good example is that of Thomas Bradeston. On 16 October 1339, Edward III granted to Bradeston, ‘for his better support in the estate of banneret’, an annuity of 500 marks at the exchequer until appropriate lands or rents came in.62 With no evidence of any type of payment having been made in the interim,63 on April 26 of the next year, the source of this annuity was changed to the 500 marks paid by the proctor of the French abbot of Fécamp for the custody of the abbot’s confiscated English estate,64 with the proviso later added that ‘if any part of the lands shall have been granted to others, he shall receive such part of the 500 marks as shall be wanting at the exchequer’.65 On 18 August 1344, the keeping of some of the abbey’s lands in Sussex were granted to Eleanor de Beaumont, ‘the king’s kinswomen’, and Richard de Melbourn, parson of the church of Edelesburgh.66 In place of the income derived from them, on the next day Bradeston was granted the farm of the alien priories of Deerhurst (£110), held by Queen Isabella, and Newent (Gloucs.) (£130).67 Further modifications of the grant came in July of the same year, by way of a petition of

58 59

60 61 62

63 64

65

66 67

CPR 1334–8, 416–17. CPR 1334–8, 400. Later in 1337, the 400 marks of the customs of the Port of London was changed to the Petty Customs of the City of London. CPR 1338–40, 319. McHardy, ‘Effects of War’, 277; Morgan, ‘Suppression of the Alien Priories’, 205. See also pp. 57–58. CPR 1338–40, 395. On 4 April 1340, he was granted the reversion of the castle and manor of Llanfair and the lordship of Builth. CPR 1338–40, 448. See E403/307 passim. CPR 1338–40, 471. See also E101/212/1/14 (18 June 1340). First payment order on 3 September 1340. CCR 1339–41, 511–12. CPR 1340–3, 28. On at least three occasions, Thomas had to be paid in part from the exchequer, assigned his own payments for Gloucester castle and the archbishop of York’s temporalities. E403/ 326 (6 May 1342), E401/368 (6 May 1342); E403/327 (5 November 1342), E401/370 (5 November 1342); E403/330 (13 February 1344). CFR 1337–47, 386. CFR 1337–47, 386–7; CCR 1343–6, 535.

86

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Bradeston’s, that because 84 marks of the said sum due to him from the abbot’s manors of Cheltenham and Slaughter (Gloucs.) were in arrears, he might have the custody of those manors to that value, to which the king agreed.68 Finally, on 20 February 1349, the king gave the keeping of all the abbey’s lands in England back to the proctor, and Bradeston appears to have been paid by this individual from this point on.69 In another example, on 15 January 1350, Guy Brian was granted ‘for many services rendered to the king for a long time, and for his good behaviour now in the last conflict between the king and his enemies of France at Calais in bearing the king’s standard against them prudently and keeping it uplifted strenuously and powerfully’, an annuity of 200 marks at the exchequer for life until he gained equal provision in lands and rents.70 On 22 October of the same year, letters were then granted for the 200 marks to be taken out of the farms of the alien priories of Otterton and Newton Longville.71 In July 1354, probably as a result of the ongoing peace negotiations between England and France, Brian was further granted, for protection of future payments of this annuity, that if the priories were to be removed from the king’s control for any reason, he would get for life the annuity from the issues of the counties of Somerset and Dorset (150 marks) and Gloucestershire (50 marks).72 After the peace of Calais in 1360, these annuities had to be given up, and, in the case of Brian, he was granted the amount out of the said county issues.73 John Beauchamp also received annuities from alien religious houses, as did John Grey of Rotherfield and Henry of Grosmont.74 All of these lapsed with peace in 1360 as well, but again if the new man affected was favoured enough, Edward III did not hesitate to make other arrangements for his annuities. Aside from a few other miscellaneous items such as a grant of 1,000 marks yearly out of the coinage of tin in Cornwall to William Montagu,75 or a £100 grant from the hanaper for Robert Burghcher,76 these were the main source-based annuities used for Edward’s new men. But to make either variety of arrangement for his new men was one thing, for them to be carried through was very much another. Indeed, assignments made at the exchequer were especially notorious on this account. Not only were there any number of standing charges, not to mention occasional debts, which had to be met for a given term, but this was also, of course, where the wardrobe debentures were to be honoured for the payment of troops and the purchase of supplies.77 Predictably, then, it often became a

68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77

CPR 1343–5, 517, 553. CCR 1349–54, 9–10; CPR 1348–50, 272–3. CPR 1348–50, 444. CPR 1348–50, 444; CCR 1349–54, 257; E106/9/27/1. CPR 1354–8, 100. CPR 1358–61, 564. CPR 1345–8, 246; CCR 1346–9, 182; CFR 1337–47, 281. CPR 1334–8, 426–7. CCR 1341–3, 46. See A. Steel, ‘Some Aspects of English Finance in the Fourteenth Century’, History 12 (1928), 303–5; Waugh, Edward III, p. 177.

Annuities and Assignments

87

competition to see who could get the instalments of their annuities paid – usually entailing a mixture of knowledge of the exchequer administration, bribery, and royal influence.78 Somewhat surprising, therefore, was the fact that Edward’s new men did not have to go to such extremes to obtain payment on their exchequer annuities. Though few such annuities seem to have been paid in full (see Appendix 6b), there is very little evidence that they were not paid most of the time – and usually, if not on time, then within a few terms of the payment date.79 Moreover, though it is dangerous to argue from a lack of evidence, one would have expected that, had it actually been considered a serious problem in the odd case when exchequer annuities were not recorded as having been paid for long periods of time, some evidence of the annuitants attempts to get them paid would have shown up in the records – either in the form of petitions, writs, or fictitious loans.80 Indeed, fictitious loans, an accounting procedure to allow for unpaid exchequer debts on the Issue and Receipt Rolls, were perhaps the best indicator of problems with payment.81 Yet in only two instances in payments made to new men can tallies definitely be shown not to have been honoured – and even then, when the sources had been changed, they were honoured within the year.82 Source-based annuities, on the other hand, were slightly less reliable when it came to payment – though here it is at times difficult to decide how much again was due to lack of payment, and how much to record survival for certain terms. To start with, though, there were obvious instances when source based annuities were not paid for a number of terms running – such as William Clinton’s £50 annuity from the farm of the town of Sandwich, which has no recorded payments from the Michaelmas term of 1339 until his death in 1354 when arrears, though only a small amount of the total amount owing, were paid.83 Similarly, some of the annuity payments from alien priories were irregularly paid, though again, it is difficult to know if the record of these payments simply did not make it on to the Pipe Roll.84 Going from the surviving evidence, however, source based annuities had a lower payment rate than exchequer annuities (see Appendix 6b). In many ways, this is understandable. After all, since these payments were based on only one source, if that source failed, whether because of lack of funds, or for 78 79 80

81 82

83

84

Harriss, ‘Preference’, 17–40. Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. Only one case of chronic nonpayment of an annuity seems to exist. See entry concerning Mauny’s annuity. CCR 1360–4, 81. Harriss, ‘Fictitious Loans’, 187–99; Kirby, ‘Issues of the Lancastrian Exchequer’, 124–5. See E403/359 and E401/410 (11 November 1351) for the £200 annuity for Thomas Ughtred and E403/460 and E401/522 (23 June 1376) for the 100 mark annuity for Thomas Musgrave. The latter was also in a period when nonpayment of annuities was common. See C. Given-Wilson, The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance in England 1360–1413 (New Haven and London, 1986), 131–2. E403/336 (17 January 1346); E372/186/14/1ob; E372/199/35/1ob. There is, also, more evidence of petitioning to get payments in arrears fulfilled – e.g. William Aldeburgh’s 100 mark annuity from customs and Thomas Bradeston’s 500 mark annuity off alien priories. CCR 1364–8, 250; and above. For example, in a table for Guy Brian’s 200 mark annuity granted in the early 1350s, part of the sum from Newton Longville had to be calculated from the priory’s records of payments out (E106/9/27) as there are no corresponding payments listed on the Pipe Rolls. See Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b.

88

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

other reasons, the annuitant could be out of luck when it came to obtaining payment. For example, when the king wanted to pay off some of his debts to the Bardi in 1331, all the customs revenues of the port of London were diverted to this end – regardless of what outstanding assignments existed.85 Indeed, though payments of arrears were made, there does not appear to have been a developed reserve system existing as there was with exchequer annuities. Add this to the fact that source based annuities, because of their often considerable geographical distance from the machinery of central government, were less well regulated than exchequer annuities and the former may be viewed as being the somewhat less secure of the two varieties of assignment. At first glance, then, it might appear somewhat odd that, for the most part, Edward’s new men appear to have preferred source-based annuities. Why, in other words, would John Stryvelyn request that his 200 mark exchequer annuity be changed to 200 marks off the issues of the customs of Newcastle upon Tyne and Hartlepool?86 Part of the answer to this may have been to do with the more general disrepute of the exchequer tally,87 and perhaps suspicion of any regular financial obligation without a fixed source. Part also, in terms of the larger annuities, was probably because it would have been awkward to arrange collection of a number of exchequer assignments – especially if they had to be made up of many relatively small payments gradually accumulated over the course of each term.88 More, however, may be connected with the geographical stability and convenience of the source based annuity. After all, if an annuitant knew each time where a payment was coming from, it would be potentially much easier to obtain than if one had to go chasing around the kingdom in order to get various tallies honoured.89 Indeed, for longer terms and larger sums, source based annuities, when available, were the more popular and the more practical way of getting payments for annuities. In the case of Reginald Cobham, payment direct from the sheriff of Surrey and Sussex was well suited to the annuitant. Cobham, being of a major south-eastern gentry family, and a large land holder there in his own right, was much in evidence in county administration and therefore well able to make sure that such an annuity was paid.90 But perhaps the clearest evidence 85

86 87 88

89

90

Only when a named assignee was specifically singled out for payment could he be relatively sure of fulfilment of his annuity – at least for the term in question. CCR 1330–3, 108; also Steel, ‘Some Aspects of English Finance’, 304. CCR 1338–40, 335. Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, pp. xxxiv–xxxv. It is notable that only one annuity which continued to be paid at the exchequer was over 200 marks. See Appendix 6a. On the geographical problems connected with exchequer assignment, see Willard, ‘Crown and its Creditors’, 12–14. But the weakness of exchequer based annuities should not be pushed too far in this respect. There were a number of cases of assignments for exchequer annuities being ‘tailored’ to be within a new man’s area of interest. For example, Thomas Ughtred, a northern knight, was granted a 200 mark exchequer annuity in March 1347 – which was then paid from, among other sources, the clerical tenth of Yorkshire, issues from the Hull and Newcastle customs, as well as sheriff’s issues for the area. These sources of assignment, then, were all well within his sphere of influence, giving Ughtred considerable sway over the officers in charge of the sources – and indeed, from Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b, he seems to have been relatively successful in his pursuit of payment. Indeed, Cobham’s standing ensured that he had one of the higher overall payment rates. See Appendix 6b; Harriss, ‘Preference’, 24–5.

Annuities and Assignments

89

that direct payment by this method, rather than through the exchequer, was the more preferred of the two ways was the fact that the majority of the grants to the new earls, the most favoured of Edward’s ‘new men’, were made up of source based annuities. Of the six individuals made earls in 1337, four of them – Clinton, Montagu, Bohun and Grosmont – were given payments of this sort,91 while of the two remaining, Audley received his land grant fairly quickly and therefore there was no reason to make long term provision for an annuity source,92 and Robert Ufford petitioned, after a year of apparent nonpayment at the exchequer, to have his converted to payments from the first farms and issues of the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk until the reversion promised him of the manor of Benhall came in.93 Edward III, then, had a mixture of factors to take into consideration when distributing annuities. Usually, the different types of assignment were employed as follows. Exchequer assignment was used in one of two ways. Firstly, it was simply a way to fund a new man until appropriate sources materialised. For example, in order to uphold the rank of banneret, Michael Poynings was given a 200 mark life exchequer annuity until other provisions could be made.94 In another case, the exchequer annuity was replaced by a ‘direct source’ annuity which in turn was later replaced by lands. On 8 June 1335, Reginald Cobham was given a 100 mark exchequer annuity, again until he received lands and rents for life.95 Later changed to a 400 mark grant in January 1337, this was partly filled by a life grant of the manor of Cippenham (Bucks.), worth £64 yearly, and of the farm of Great Yarmouth (£55).96 However, to cover the rest of the grant, which was still outstanding, on 4 September 1338 Cobham’s annuity instalments were converted from being paid at the exchequer to being paid from the issues of the counties of Surrey and Sussex until the lands came in.97 Indeed, for lack of any evidence to the contrary, it seems that an individual had an interest in getting away from the process of exchequer assignment and, in response to this preference, Edward often tried to move his new men from payments at the exchequer to more direct exploitation of royal revenue as quickly as possible. For instance, on 13 January 1350, Guy Brian was granted a 200 mark life annuity until the king could find him appropriate lands and rents.98 However, by October 22 of the same year, the source of this had been changed to the same amount out of the farms of the alien priories of Otterton and Newton Longville. In six other cases, a similar process took place while in no instance was a source-based annuity permanently changed to an exchequer annuity (see Appendix 6a). Secondly, exchequer annuities could be used as a reserve mechanism if lands and rents granted out were later lost or if other sources were found in some way

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

CPR 1334–8, 400, 409–10, 415–17, 426–7. See CPR 1334–8, 522 CPR 1338–40, 265–6; Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. CPR 1345–8, 268. CPR 1334–8, 117. CPR 1334–8, 346, 401; CPR 1338–40, 105–6. CPR 1338–40, 152. CPR 1348–50, 444.

90

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

wanting. In a case mentioned above of a 500 mark annuity granted to Bradeston, to be held originally at the exchequer, then from a farm paid by the proctor of the alien abbot of Fécamp for his lands in England,99 the proviso was added that ‘if any part of the lands shall have been granted to others, he shall receive such part of the 500 marks as shall be wanting at the exchequer’.100 And, on at least three occasions, Bradeston had to be partially paid in this manner, being assigned his own payments to the exchequer for the castle of Gloucester and the temporalities of the archbishop of York.101 Again, in the case of William Bohun’s 1337 earldom grant, when payment was not forthcoming from the customs, the king ordered it to be paid out of the revenues of the exchequer.102 Source-based annuities, on the other hand, had only one major function, to run as a long-term substitute until sufficient lands and rents came in. It is unsurprising, then, that most of the major annuities of the reign depended, at least in part, on such sources. And, considering that they resulted from a direct order from the government on a set revenue, the fact that not only did an annuitant avoid having to compete at the exchequer to obtain worthwhile sources,103 but that he would not have to go far and wide to get his tallies honoured,104 made these in many ways the preferred, and as a result the better used, of the two types of assignment – especially if an annuity was expected to run for any length of time. It would be wrong, however, at least from the perspective of the grantee, to portray one type of annuity as being worth more or less than the other. Rather, exchequer annuities, somewhat more adaptable and dependable, were used as starting and reserve sources, and source-based ones were granted for longer terms because of their convenience and stability. It must be emphasised, however, that the success of either type of annuity was heavily dependent on royal goodwill. Without this, exchequer-based annuities could as easily go into arrears as source-based payments. Finally, if an annuity had to be recalled, the worth of its replacement was again dependent on royal favour. In 1354, Thomas Bradeston gave up the bailiwick of the prévôté of Entre-Deux Mers in the duchy of Aquitaine, which was then granted to Bertrand de Montferrand.105 In recompense, Bradeston was granted a 100 mark annuity out of the issues of the customs and subsidies of wool, hides and wool fells in the port of London. In another case, the individual involved was yet to be in such a favourable position with the king, and so did not get as equitable a settlement. In March 1337, Roger Beauchamp, one of the king’s yeomen but yet to be summoned to parliament, and Sibyl, his wife, were granted a ‘yearly allowance’ of 100 marks at the exchequer until sufficient land or rents would come in to either the couple or Roger’s heirs.106 The source was then 99 100 101

102 103 104 105 106

CPR 1338–40, 471. CPR 1340–3, 28. E403/326 and E401/368 (6 May 1342); E403/327 and E401/370 (5 November 1342); E403/330 (13 February 1344). CCR 1337–9, 49; E403/302 (6 November and 12 December 1338). Though both types of annuitant presumably competed at the office of the source. See Steel, Receipt of the Exchequer, pp. xxxi–xxxii. CPR 1354–8, 54. CPR 1334–8, 394.

Annuities and Assignments

91

changed, at their request, to the farm of the town of Northampton in February of the next year – another case of preference of a determined and convenient source over an undetermined and perhaps inaccessible one.107 This was paid with regularity throughout the next decade,108 but on 26 October 1351 the king granted a perpetual annuity to the warden and college of the king’s free chapel of St George, Windsor of 100 marks yearly of the farm of the town.109 This grant, along with one made to Walter Mauny of £50 from the town in the 1340s,110 must have severely taxed the town’s resources. As Mauny was still in great favour at this time, Beauchamp was the more likely to lose out of the two, and indeed was bought out of his annuity for 800 marks – essentially an eight year advance on his annuity paid in instalments through various sources at the exchequer.111 Beauchamp, however, lived until 1380, and therefore lost out on a considerable amount of potential income. Overall, what allowed Edward III this crucial flexibility when it came to the use of the different types of annuities, exchequer- and source-based, was twofold. Firstly, the exchequer had grown more efficient, especially as a result of the Despenser reforms of Edward II’s reign, which in turn tended to increase royal revenue.112 Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, there had been an overall increase in the revenue of customs of the realm over the previous half century as a result of various reforms initiated primarily by Edward I and Edward III. The rise of a regular duty on all exports of wool, woolfells and leather in the mid 1270s, the arrangements with alien merchants in 1303 for a higher rate connected with these duties in return for certain privileges, along with the development of the new or petty customs during the later 1340s, all increased customs revenue – easily the most important fund for source-based annuities during the reign (and indeed since at least the thirteenth century)113 – to an amount whereby it could feasibly act as a local counterpart to exchequer-based annuities, either in place of, or substituting for, them at various times. Indeed, considering the potential problems involved in relying on one source for an annuity, such a relationship between the two types of annuity was crucial if Edward was going to grant a viable cash alternative when he did not have, or wish to grant, lands and rents to his subjects. Edward III’s success in getting a substantial amount of the annuities granted, totalling in all over £8,000 per annum, paid to his new men was, then, a considerable feat – one which was, as we have seen, accomplished through the use of two types of annuity, one granted through exchequer assignment, and the other direct from the revenue source. Availability had a certain amount to do with how annuities were granted out – and in this source-based assignments seem to

107 108 109 110 111 112 113

CPR 1338–40, 17; CCR 1341–3, 65. Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b; E208/7/marked 32 Edward III; CCR 1341–3, 65, 438. CPR 1350–4, 174. CPR 1338–40, 332. E403/359 (12 October, 19 October, 20 October, 29 November, 10 December 1351). See Fryde, Tyranny, pp. 99–105. Brown, Governance of Late Medieval England, p. 65.

92

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

have been the more important component – but more can be put down to a selective use of both types of annuity in an attempt to reflect the specific needs of each new man and his position with respect to the king, as well as an increasingly evident income requirement for membership in the parliamentary peerage in the first place. But what, in the end, must have united both types of annuity, at least in the eyes of a new man, was the combination of adaptability and reliability, a combination only recently available with any degree of dependability, and one which fitted in well with the feudal sources of patronage discussed in the last chapter. These two qualities, more than anything else, made annuities if not an equal replacement for land – especially as a source of social standing – then at least a worthy substitute, allowing the annuitant enough liquid funds to live in the lifestyle befitting a noble both at home in England and while on campaign in Scotland and France. And, if McFarlane was correct in stating that ‘the greater part of the earnings of the nobility was neither hoarded nor invested; it was used to achieve a higher standard of luxury’,114 Edward’s new men needed liquid assets not only to support themselves, and their families and retainers, but also to keep up with the extravagant tastes of their more established compatriots. ‘To ignore this kind of visual language’, in the words of another historian, ‘was to invite social and political downfall.’115

114 115

McFarlane, Nobility, p. 96. K. Mertes, The English Noble Household 1250–1600: Good Government and Political Rule (Oxford, 1988), p. 103.

5 Routine Patronage

AS SEEN in the preceding chapters, Edward III’s patronage programme was essentially demarcated by a mixture of the resources open to him at any given time, his ability to dictate how they were used, and the interests of his new men. But, though he had greater control than previous kings over the resources coming into his hands due to developments in land tenure and royal finance, as well as in administrative offices such as that of escheator, there was still a degree of chance as to what patronage was available to grant out at any particular moment. Indeed, while the increasingly efficient administration of forfeitures, entails, life grants and annuities all made it easier for the king to tailor patronage to his new men, the exact timing of the return of feudal incidents to royal possession was still mainly dependent upon circumstances outside the control of the king and his administrators – namely, the marriage and death of tenants-in-chief, forfeitures as a result of rebellions, wars, etc. Only with annuities could the king be relatively sure of an immediately available source of endowment – and even then, as seen in the last chapter, there could be problems. Not only was payment of the annuity dependent upon the health of the source from which it was granted, but it was also usually not feasible for Edward III to incur such obligations too freely – pressed, as he was, to finance the Scottish and French war efforts through an increasingly confident, and argumentative, parliament. This last point was particularly important for all the sources discussed thus far. For, with the grants analysed in the previous two chapters, there was often little or no immediate recompense for the king or his government – something quite extravagant, especially in periods of war austerity. There was, in some instances, the strengthening of royal power by the exercise of some as yet unfulfilled right, as when new men were given warrant to take annuities from sources which had hitherto been unforthcoming to official pressure, or when the king granted lands to a new man in an area only nominally under the control of the English crown – for example, the grants of many Scottish estates. Or there could be benefit to the king through a more general strengthening of the royal presence in an area due to the grant to a favourite of lands or rights there, as in the case of the build up of Robert Ufford’s power in East Anglia or Walter Mauny in Wales – a tactic also used by Henry I to balance out the power of his established nobility.1

1

D. Crouch, ‘Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger, Earl of Warwick: New Men and Magnates in the Reign of Henry I’, BIHR 55 (1982), 113–23.

94

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Nonetheless, most grants offered no immediate benefit to the king, and rather were detrimental to his readily available sources of income – especially the limited amount of money usually available at the exchequer. Considering that both Henry III’s and Edward II’s magnates had called for the resources of the crown, including sources of royal patronage, to be used for the bettering of the estate of the crown, such seemingly extravagant use of material wealth had, then, the very real potential of being questioned. In other words, endowment of new men was often an extended term investment with any dividends being repaid in potentialities rather than more tangible immediate recompense, and as such, was open to criticism. Finally, that in recent history the revocation of royal grants en masse had been demanded by influential members of the polity – as in the Ordinances of 1311 and the Treaty of Leake (1318) – meant that Edward III, while acting as a savvy patron, also had to keep the mood of the nation firmly in mind when showing generosity to his supporters. Consequently, Edward also made use of a variety of often less costly, and usually less controversial, sources to keep his new men feeling ‘favoured’ until he was able, or felt it appropriate or worthwhile, to give them more substantial grants. In many ways, these sources could be referred to as ‘routine patronage’ – being, as they were, not only common as gifts to many members of the nobility, but also the by-product of the normal functioning of royal influence. However, by treating many of his new men to this more informal type of patronage – which, if they had been subject to it before, was nowhere near the amount they now received – Edward III was in essence again helping to bring them into the world of the older noble families, a process vital if he was not to face divisions more serious than those which plagued Henry III and Edward II. Hence, though the symbolic importance of such acts frequently outweighed their economic potential, this miscellany of patronage may nonetheless be viewed as crucial in further promoting both a ‘new nobility’, and the stability of the noble class as a whole, during Edward’s reign. Offices and keeperships Perhaps the most readily visible patronage of this type was the grant of offices, commissions, embassies and various other situations which were to come up during the course of the reign. Though clearly often preferring the best man for the job where possible, nonetheless these positions had to be filled by Edward III, and they were a good way to get the old and new peerage to work together while at the same time helping to reinforce the former’s loyalty.2 There were, first of all, a number of temporary appointments such as places on various commissions and embassies. Every substantial medieval landowner could expect to be placed on at least a few of these during the course of his career, and Edward III’s reign was no exception. Aside from providing a necessary service for the king, this was a good way for an individual to make his presence periodically felt either in the local community, the kingdom as a whole or, in the case of 2

As Henry I had found. Mooers, ‘Pipe Roll of 1130’, 285.

Routine Patronage

95

embassies, the international scene. In the locality, this most often meant seats on various judicial or military commissions in counties where a new man had substantial interests. William Blount, by no means an extraordinary example, was, in the space of six years, on at least five such commissions: of the peace in Staffordshire, of array and the peace for Worcestershire, of arrest, and of oyer and terminer.3 Such exposure not only helped a new man’s prestige in a given area, but could also advance the interests of those connected with him. Likewise, the presence of a new man on national and international commissions and embassies was, by indicating the king’s trust in his judgement, bound to increase his prominence both at home and abroad. Thomas Brewes’ place on a commission to look into the abuses of the king’s ministers in 13414 – the start of the retributions by Edward III on account of his forced withdrawal from the Continent – and Walter Mauny’s presence, in 1359, on a commission to the French concerning a possible truce,5 can both be seen as useful reinforcement of the national and international position of a new man. Indeed, aside from being potentially very lucrative – a member of the gentry or nobility often getting anywhere from 40 to 100 shillings a day, with expenses, as compensation for service – commissions and diplomatic missions were also a clear indication of previous valued service to the king, as the appointments of Bohun, Ufford and Montagu indicate.6 However, perhaps the most important, and obvious, way to develop a new man’s profile within the kingdom, as well as his ability to work with the older nobility, was to place him on the royal councils. Between the years 1331 and 1377, eighteen of Edward’s new men appear on royal charter witness lists – presumably giving them some part in the council of the king,7 though never seeming to dominate it.8 Though there are some notable absences in these lists – for example Thomas Bradeston, Thomas Holand and Michael Poynings – they nonetheless account for many of Edward III’s most favoured individuals.9 There were, however, more mundane posts to which a new man could aspire through the king’s grace. Such positions had always been a way for a king to show favour to his friends, and from this Edward III did not deviate.10 Thirtyseven of Edward’s new men received at least one such office during their careers, seventeen receiving three or more, from a total of 117 major offices given out to

3 4 5

6 7

8 9

10

CPR 1330–4, 137; CPR 1334–8, 139, 210, 358, 448. CCR 1339–41, 609. Foedera Conventiones Litterae et Cuiuscunque Generis Acta Publica, ed. T. Rymer, 7 vols. (Record Commission 1819–1869), iii, 417. H.S. Lucas, ‘Diplomatic Intercourse’, in EGW, i, 313. Given-Wilson, ‘Royal Charter Witness Lists’, 61–73. Though there are problems with such evidence, if used cautiously they can give a fairly good indication of those close to monarchs. See also R. Heiser, ‘The Royal Familiares of King Richard I’, MP 10 (1989), 25–50. Baldwin, ‘King’s Council’, in EGW, i, 141. Notably, some of these appointments also had the backing of parliament, as when William Clinton was chosen to be one of the six-man council demanded by the York parliament of 1332 to advise the king. Baldwin, ‘King’s Council’, in EGW, i, 140. E.g. Church, ‘Royal Service’, 293; for the late fourteenth century, see Mott, ‘Distribution of Patronage’, 114, 118–20, 128–30.

96

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

these men in the period 1330–77.11 The offices were from a variety of sources. Some were dependent upon the geography of the new man’s holdings, especially when it came to posts like the shrievalty. A profitable source of patronage by the twelfth century,12 though starting into a decline by our period, this was still an important office to the royal administration.13 Moreover, the fact that, until late in the reign the rule of an annual change of sheriffs tended to be ignored,14 made these offices all the more valuable. In terms of patronage, they were usually reserved for the larger landowners of the county,15 often due to the many local duties connected with such posts. However, it is also noteworthy that many of the shrievalties granted to the new men were of counties perceived to be open to external threats. For example, the office of the sheriff of Yorkshire, a county often raided by the Scots, was held by three new men with northern connections either promoted or to be promoted during the course of the reign – namely William Aton, Ralph Bulmer and Thomas Musgrave.16 Or, the grant of such an office might be in connection with newly developed threats in an area, as when Roger Kerdeston was granted the shrievalty of Norfolk and Suffolk, which was under threat of naval attacks by the Scots and French at the time.17 Often, if one man was particularly useful to and trusted by the king, he could end up holding a number of local offices. Aside from the shrievalty of York given on a number of occasions to Musgrave, as noted above, at various times he was also made deputy sheriff of Westmorland, custodian of Appleby castle, keeper of the Western March of Scotland, and keeper of Berwick, as well as escheator for the northern counties. Indeed, such appointments were clear evidence that experience and ability counted, as the king was unlikely to grant posts repeatedly in a turbulent area to an unworthy candidate. The grant of the control of castles similarly reinforced both a new man’s status in his sphere of influence and royal control in the localities. Sometimes, as noted in previous chapters, castle grants were made in fee or other more permanent arrangements, and thus may be said to be augmenting a new man’s estate. However, due to the importance of castles in times of strife, domestic or foreign, as well as their part in the administrative machinery of the kingdom, the king often preferred to keep the ownership of important strategic fortifications clearly under his own control, giving only the custodianship of them to others.18 Indeed, after the rebellion of Henry the Younger in 1173–4, Henry II had all royal castles taken back under royal control, as many had, in effect, previously been added to

11

12 13

14 15 16

17 18

For office appointments of the more important of the new men, see Appendix 2; also see relevant entries in The Complete Peerage and The Dictionary of National Biography. Green, Aristocracy, pp. 267–8. Morris, ‘Sheriff’, in EGW, ii, 41; H.M. Jewell, English Local Administration in the Middle Ages (Newton Abbott, 1972), p. 186. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 80. See Saul, Knights and Esquires, pp. 108–9; Morris, ‘Sheriff’, in EGW, ii, 48. CFR 1356–68, 391–2; CFR 1369–77, 36, 190; CFR 1327–37, 199. See also PRO Lists and Indexes IX: Lists of Sheriffs for England and Wales (London, 1963), 161–2. CFR 1327–37, 262; Rotuli Scotiae, i, 250–1. Though the line between royal and baronial castles was often blurred. N.J.G. Pounds, The Medieval Castle in England and Wales: A Social and Political History (Cambridge, 1990), pp. 75–90, 130–45.

Routine Patronage

97

the estates of their keepers19 – a process which was again necessary after the disturbances of 1215–17.20 Nonetheless, despite such problems, and despite the often considerable work involved in holding the office of constable – including the victualling of the garrison and acting as a jail keeper21 – the control of fortifications was a popular form of patronage. The constableship of Dover castle, along with the wardenship of the Cinque Ports, usually went to individuals in Edward III’s favour and trust, moving from William Clinton in 1330, to Roger Mortimer the younger, thence to John Beauchamp of Warwick.22 Similarly, the custodianship of the Tower of London went to members of an inner circle of new men, as when John Darcy was appointed to the office for life in 1346,23 after which it was granted to Darcy’s son, who, due to some form of incapacity, then surrendered it again, to Beauchamp.24 Grants of more prestigious military offices may also be seen as a form of patronage. Sometimes, these were transferred through inheritance, as when William Bohun became constable of England in 1338 after his brother had been incapacitated.25 But competence was usually the key to selection of candidates for such offices. Some of Edward’s supporters were constantly called to a certain post, thus more than likely indicating proficiency therein. John Beauchamp was made admiral three times during the reign, once of the Fleet off Calais in 1349, then of the Western Seas in 1355, and finally Admiral for the North, South and West in 1360. Similarly, Walter Mauny was made Admiral of the Fleet North of the Thames in 1337 and again in 1348. Though the tenure of an admiralty tended to be brief, and the wages limited, it was nonetheless a great honour and responsibility, and if an admiral did not perform to expectation, he found himself disciplined with severity.26 More positively, certain men were clearly marked out by their ability and were to hold a variety of such military offices. William Bohun held a number of major commissions during his career, including the office of Admiral of the Northern Fleet and the position of King’s Lieutenant in Brittany, while Henry of Grosmont, one of the most militarily minded men of the reign, held no fewer than five such positions: Captain General in Scotland (1336); King’s Lieutenant in Flanders and Calais (1348); Admiral of the Western Fleet (1350); Admiral of the Southern Fleet (1351); and Lieutenant and Captain in Duchy of Brittany (1355). The abilities of other new men, however, lay elsewhere. For these individuals, the royal administration offered equally challenging yet prestigious posts.27

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Warren, Henry II, pp. 141–2. Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 21–5. H.M. Cam, ‘Shire Officials: Coroners, Constables, and Bailiffs’, in EGW, iii, 165–6. CPR 1358–61, 328; CP vi, 648–50; Parker, ‘Patronage’, 191–202. CPR 1345–8, 54–5. CPR 1350–4, 241. CPR 1338–40, 91, 95. A.E. Prince, ‘The Army and the Navy’, in EGW, i, 378–81. Lest too much emphasis be placed on the martial aspects of promotion, one should remember McFarlane’s statement that ‘The ‘peerage creations’ of even so martial a king as Edward III were earned by counsel and by diplomatic and administrative service rather than by prowess in war alone’: Nobility, p. 276; also Turner, Men Raised From the Dust, pp. 9–11.

98

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

Whether it was John Grey’s appointment to the stewardship of the royal household starting in 1350, or Richard Scrope’s to the office of Treasurer of the Exchequer in the 1370s, these offices often took a considerable amount of administrative talent to fulfil – especially the post of royal steward which, as well as dealing with the running and discipline of the royal household, was also responsible for appointments within the household.28 As with military posts, some of these men showed an obvious talent for the work involved, and were asked back repeatedly. John Darcy was such an individual. Having already been appointed to the shrievalties of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Yorkshire, as well as various other commissions from Edward II, in the reign of his son, Darcy held the justiciarship of Ireland from 1332 to 1337, the stewardship of the royal household from 1337 to 1340, and was again appointed justiciar for Ireland in 1340, this time for life. It was a mark of Darcy’s abilities that he had to appoint a deputy for the latter office, ‘as the king cannot dispense with his presence in continual attendance at his side’, and was instead asked to take up the post of royal chamberlain in 1341.29 Financially, such offices often carried with them substantial remuneration, though at least some of these usually went towards the upkeep of the posts themselves.30 John Darcy, as justiciar of Ireland, received £500 a year from the Exchequer of Dublin, promising to keep twenty men-at-arms while the tenure of his office lasted.31 For the captaincy of Calais, Reginald Cobham was to be paid 400 marks a year,32 while the constableship of Dover castle and the wardenship of the Cinque Ports meant that John Beauchamp of Warwick, ‘for sustenance of himself and the chaplains, servants, and watchmen’, received £300 yearly, to be made up from the castle-guard rents, issues and customs of the port of Dover and the rest from the exchequer.33 Even the appointment of William Aldeburgh as valet to Edward Balliol, the English backed claimant to the Scottish throne, brought with it grants of land and rent – though most of these were nominally made by Balliol.34 It should, however, be noted that it could be just as much an act of grace for an individual to be allowed to avoid such offices as to hold them – as S.L. Waugh has shown for Henry III’s reign.35 Indeed, though some of Henry’s subjects valued these grants for the position and status they that offered in their localities and in the kingdom as a whole, a number saw them as burdens, the most onerous of which were to be avoided. And though Edward III’s new men had, overall, better reasons such as war with France when they evaded such obligations, they

28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35

CPR 1370–4, 61; CP vi, 146; J. H. Johnson, ‘The King’s Wardrobe and Household’, EGW, i, 237, 243. CPR 1340–3, 144; CP iv, 57. That such posts were considered patronage by Edward III was shown in December 1339 when Gilbert Talbot was made justiciar of South Wales for life because of ‘the approved fidelity which the king from his childhood has ever found him’. CPR 1338–40, 402. See also Mott, ‘Distribution of Patronage’, 114; see also pp. 37–39. CPR 1330–4, 340. E403/373 (18 October 1353). CPR 1358–61, 328; Parker, ‘Patronage’, p. 192. CDRS iii, 288–9; CPR 1354–8, 142–3. S.L. Waugh, ‘Reluctant Knights and Jurors: Respites, Exemptions and Public Obligations in the Reign of Henry III’, Speculum 58 (1983), esp. 962–71.

Routine Patronage

99

nevertheless did try to avoid them. For example, in early April 1341, Reginald Cobham was granted exemption from judicial and administrative offices against his will, as well as the lodging and sustenance of the king’s officials when nearby.36 In this case, it is more than likely a result of his extensive involvement on the Continent, both on campaign and diplomatic service. Similarly, on 27 January 1347, for his good war service, Robert Coleville was granted exemption for life from ‘appointment as justice, sheriff, escheator, coroner, or other bailiff or minister of the king, or to collect or receive wool, tenths, fifteenths or other quota or grants of whatsoever kind for his use, or to intermeddle in any bailiwick or office, against his will’.37 In other words, for some, avoidance of administrative duties was a way in which the king showed favour, though usually in return for their employment elsewhere in royal service.38 Pardons and licences Offices and important duties, or avoidance thereof, were not the only way that Edward III could further show favour to his new men. It could be also done through a variety of royal writs either forgiving individuals certain debts or transgressions or allowing them certain rights. First of all, there were the pardons for various obligations and crimes, a form of patronage exploited extensively by Henry I, Henry II, and Henry III.39 Though these were given to those at all levels of society, hundreds going out each year,40 the specific nature of some of these pardons marked them apart. One major category were pardons of financial obligations. Some were ‘one-offs’, such as a forgiveness of a debt of William Heron due to hardships of service on the Scottish March.41 Others were more far reaching. In late 1332 Hugh Audley and his wife had to be given a respite on all exchequer debts.42 However, Audley was to be continuously plagued by indebtedness throughout the 1330s, much of it inherited, and certified by the royal administration as being £4,555 7s 11d43 – about a third of which had, again, to be forgiven in 1337. Or sometimes, it could be a case of a postponement of debt repayment. Originally, on 28 February 1335, Thomas Bradeston was granted a pardon until Michaelmas of ‘all the debts, ferms and arrears of ferms which he owes to the king, and to cause him to be released from any distraint made for that cause’.44 On 15 September of the same year this was extended to

36 37 38

39

40 41 42 43 44

CPR 1340–3, 163. CPR 1345–8, 527. If not, a payment would usually be made – which, at least in the case of Henry I, could prove lucrative to the king. Mooers, ‘Pipe Roll of 1130’, 303. Green, ‘“Praeclarum et Magnificum Antiquitatis Monumentum”’, 12 and Tables 1, 2, and 3; Mooers, ‘Pipe Roll of 1130’, 287–91; Hollister, ‘Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates’, 103; Hollister, Henry I, pp. 343–4; T.K. Keefe, ‘Henry II and the Earls: The Pipe Roll Evidence’, Albion 13 (1981), esp. Table 1. Brown, Governance of Medieval England, pp. 48, 138. E208/3/Large file 1(bottom set). E208/2/83/bundle 3; E208/2/74 bundle 3. Fryde, ‘Magnate Debts’, 272–3. CCR 1333–7, 468.

100

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

the Hilary term,45 and continued by such, and more extensive, pardons through till the end of the decade.46 Though such allowance did cause the king’s exchequer a certain amount of financial loss, it was nonetheless a traditional, and convenient, way to show royal favour – though also more than likely indicating some degree of pragmatism by the royal administration about the profitability of pursuing such problematic cases.47 Equally important to a new man were pardons for various crimes, trespasses, and bonds for good behaviour, a royal right which went back to the Anglo-Saxon period. According to Hurnard, the royal pardon in these cases ‘was one aspect of a more general power to determine what punishment should be imposed for a particular category of offences and to remit or commute that prescribed penalty in individual cases’.48 Such pardons were especially important in relation to the problems of the previous reign and the Minority, a number of Edward’s new men having been actively involved in the politics of the 1320s and thus often in need of some form of amnesty. Indeed, though Edward did not take part in coercion as his father and grandfather had,49 the number of individuals still held by financial bonds for good behaviour from previous regimes gave Edward III considerable opportunity for showing good will and favour.50 By the mid-1330s, William Montagu had been forgiven £12,000 in bonds by the king to which the Despensers had bound him during the previous decade, as was Hugh Audley.51 Earlier, in January 1331, Audley had been pardoned a £10,000 recognisance as a result of the rebellion at Bedford in 1329,52 and, on 6 October of the same year, was further pardoned for ‘aid to the king and his mother to pursue the Despensers’.53 Royal pardons for crimes and obligations, however, were more commonly granted at the request of a new man for the sake of others. Often, this could simply entail getting a friend or retainer out of a spot of trouble, as when the earl of Huntingdon obtained a pardon for Walter atte Beche concerning the death of Richard Cheseman in March 1340.54 A more notable case is the pardon of Robert de Folville at the petition of William Bohun, Edward Bohun and John Grey of Rotherfield on 4 November 1332.55 This, indeed, was a gracious act by the king, Folville being a key member of the Folville-Coterel gang56 – though the three men also had to agree to a 1,000 mark bond to ensure his good behaviour. Similarly, a new man could be granted favours to help an associate in financial

45 46

47 48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55 56

CCR 1333–7, 528. E.g. CCR 1333–7, 715; CCR 1337–9, 267; CPR 1338–40, 178, 381; see also Fryde, ‘Magnate Debts’, 275–6. As seen in Henry I’s reign. Mooers, ‘Pipe Roll of 1130’, 300. N.D. Hurnard, The King’s Pardon for Homicide Before 1307 AD (Oxford, 1969), p. 1. Prestwich, War, Politics and Finance, pp. 236–7. For list of recognisances transferred, see E163/4/29 E208/2/88(bundle 3); CCR 1333–7, 96; E159/106/24. There were also respites on the payment of various debts to the Despensers, now held by the king. E208/2/110(bundle 3); CCR 1330–3, 608. CPR 1330–4, 35 CPR 1330–4, 172. CPR 1338–40, 457. CPR 1330–4, 367–8. E.L.G. Stones, ‘The Folvilles of Ashby-Folville, Leicestershire, and their Associates in Crime, 1326–47’, TRHS 5th ser. 7 (1957), 117–36.

Routine Patronage

101

need, as when Roger Beauchamp obtained a respite for Richard Damory concerning debts connected with an on-going court case.57 The use of such pardons and favours, then, were of great value to an individual on the rise, enhancing his position both among his peers and subordinates as well as having the tendency to increase his power overall. Licences for various acts were another convenient, and cheap, way in which the king could show favour to his new men. In some cases, a licence was simply prompted by some mild feeling of royal favour, as when, in July 1334, Thomas Bradeston was given licence to fell and sell wood from within the King’s chase of Fillwood (Somerset),58 or in July 1338 when Reginald Cobham was granted leave to cut down oaks to the value of £100 in the ‘foreign’ woods of Hertle (Bucks.).59 In other cases, however, such licences were a necessary aid to an individual’s financial well-being. On 12 October 1350, as a result of a decline in rental income due to the outbreak of the plague the year before, Guy Brian was granted licence to fell underwood in the Forest of Dean as well as the right to profit from the wood in order to help pay the farm of his lands there.60 More permanent rights could also be involved, such as licences for free warrens, markets, fairs, etc. – all of which were, on the whole, only granted to nobles,61 and therefore yet another way of treating the newcomers in a similar manner to the established nobility. In the early 1340s, Reginald Cobham and his heirs were granted ‘of special grace’ the free warren of all their demesne lands in Kent, Sussex and Surrey,62 and a similar grant was made to John Darcy for all his demesne lands of Temple Newsam in Yorkshire.63 Finally, care of one’s soul was often considered as important as the expansion of one’s estate during this period, and, as a result, royal licences were needed for the sake of religious benefaction as well. Perhaps most important were the licences allowing new men to grant land to the Church, in line with noble practice in the period but contrary to the Statute of Mortmain (1279).64 On 29 August 1342, the king granted John Darcy licence to alienate in mortmain to the prior and convent of Saint Bartholemew’s, Smithfield, London a messuage, 200 acres of land, eight acres of meadow, eight acres of pasture, six acres of wood, and 38s of rent, in Tewin, Hertfordyngbery, and Panshanger (Herts.).65 Similarly, in 1338, John Kirkton was granted licence to alienate lands in Sutton and Trusthorpe (Lincs.) to the prior and convent of Markeby ‘to find a chaplain to celebrate divine service daily in their church for the good estate of the said John in life, for his soul after death, and for the souls of John de Dryby and of 57

58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65

CCR 1349–54, 483; CPR 1350–4, 181. Despite this, they were later at odds over land in Newton Plecy. See CP40/379/3. CPR 1330–4, 558. CPR 1338–40, 116. CPR 1350–4, 5. Brian had also been excused £100 of the £120 due for St Briavels castle and the Forest of Dean. CCR 1349–54, 116; E372/194/10/2. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 66. CCharR 1327–41, 467. BL Harley 805, fol. 230; also granted the market at Torksey. E132/3/45; SC8/256/12788. SR i, 51; Raban, Mortmain Legislation, Chapter 2. CPR 1340–3, 509–10.

102

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

the ancestors and heirs of the said John de Kirketon’.66 Indeed, of the sixty-eight new men, roughly a third had royal licences for some form of grant contrary to the Statute of Mortmain,67 mainly for the sake of their own souls and those of their families, but perhaps also in part fearing the consequences of having ignored the God-ordained structure of society by rising through its ranks. Royal writs, orders, and general influence Royal favour could also be shown by writs meant to speed up the rate at which royal obligations were performed. Discussing the administrative orders of Henry I, Southern states ‘Henry’s writs tell an elaborate story of a king who governed by giving or withholding his countenance in a multitude of small transactions, making life easier for those whom he favoured, and harder for those who stood outside the charmed circle of the king’s pleasure.’68 Edward III was not above this practice either, though neither did he usually imitate Angevin kings and charge for the exercise of his goodwill.69 Hugh Audley, having lately distinguished himself at Sluys, on 10 July 1340 was assigned up to 1,000 marks in repayment of royal debts, and ‘on account of his good service at sea against the king’s enemies, the king wishes him to be speedily satisfied’.70 That such consideration was not always the case is indicated by the number of royal debts which continued to be unfulfilled, especially during the early phases of the Hundred Years War.71 Moreover, individual Warrants for Issue for payment of a king’s obligations to his new men could also be a sign of favour. After all, though survival rates of these warrants make it difficult to be entirely sure, it did not appear to be standard royal policy to grant such warrants for all payments in the reign, especially those from the exchequer.72 It was, at least in the case of Edward’s new men, to be used only for the more favoured, like Bohun and Grosmont, or more powerful, like Hugh Audley, to ensure payments of royal debts were made.73 On the other hand, writs for the continuance of royal grants and obligations were also an important form of patronage. Some did not receive such favour, as the treatment of royal grants that Oliver Ingham had received during the Minority indicate.74 Nevertheless, for those who did, such patronage was obviously worthwhile, as well as convenient for the king to grant out. Confirmations of rights were especially useful in this respect, as when John Darcy sought a confirmation

66 67 68 69 70 71

72 73 74

CPR 1338–40, 13. See CPR 1330–77, passim. Southern, ‘Place of Henry I’, 146. W.L. Warren, King John (London, 1961), p. 177. CCR 1339–41, 438. Probably due in part to the Walton Ordinances. See D. Hughes, A Study of the Social and Constitutional Tendencies in the Early Years of Edward III (London, 1915; reprint Philadelphia, 1978), p. 48; on royal debts to international banking houses, see R.W. Kaeuper, War, Justice, and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988), p. 54. Such annuities were otherwise covered by a general or dormant warrant. See p. 79 n. 9. E404/4/28 (6 September 1341); E404/5/29 (15 May 1342). CPR 1330–4, 22.

Routine Patronage

103

connected with his recently acquired remainder of the manor of Torksey, granted to him in 1337.75 This request, considering Torksey’s present life tenant was a powerful noblewoman who was known to be in favour with the king,76 was probably very wise. Or such favour could also be in the form of the fulfilment of royal obligations of previous regimes, as when, in the early 1330s, John Darcy was promised recompense for money due him from his manors of Edgefield and Walcott (Norfolk), which had been returned by Isabella and Mortimer’s minority regime to Thomas Rocelyn in 1327.77 Similar generous treatment was afforded the life grant of the manor of Wark in Tynedale to Darcy, again originally arranged by the minority regime.78 Though Edward III could easily have cancelled this, the grant was nonetheless confirmed in July 1331.79 But perhaps the most susceptible to possible recall in this respect were grants of annuities. Unlike the often onerous task of removing an individual from the control of a piece of property, an annuity could be ended simply by one writ from the royal administration. When, then, this did not happen, as in the case of an annuity originally granted to William Clinton in 1327 on the orders of the minority government, it was a clear sign of royal favour, Edward III even seeing to it that arrears were paid in the early 1330s.80 Similarly, royal favour always had the potential to influence the outcome of disputes, court cases, and the revival of dormant claims to various properties.81 Though perhaps not as important as earlier kings’ development of controls over descent of inheritance and partition of estates amongst coheiresses, it was still a very useful, and usually cheap, way to show favour to a new man.82 One case involved John Stryvelyn and his wife’s, Barnaba, inheritance of certain Scottish lands.83 In the late 1350s, Stryvelyn petitioned the king that he might have back part of his wife’s inheritance. This land, originally held by her father, Adam de Swynburn, then by Barnaba, had been confiscated by Edward III’s government as a result of elder Swynburn’s associations with the Scots in both the reigns of Edward I and II, and, though to a lesser degree, because Barnaba herself had been

75 76

77 78 79

80

81

82

83

SC8/206/10293; CPR 1343–5, 466; CCharR 1327–41, 428. The countess of Pembroke. For an example of the king taking away an expectancy from a new man for her sake, see CPR 1340–3, 461. CCR 1330–3, 202–03, 250; C81/182/4678; SC8/239/11949. CPR 1327–30, 335, 373. Granted in fee in March 1329. CCharR 1327–41, 118. CPR 1330–4, 158. For a summary of the grants to Darcy in this period, see SC8/239/11949. Darcy also received recompense for £16 of rent in Ormesby (Norf.) and the manors of Brocklesby and Greetham (Lincs.) which had been granted out during the Minority and had been called back in after 1330. CPR 1330–4, 268, 366. CPR 1327–30, 174; E372/184/13/2ob; E372/193/9/1ob. Conversely, that Clinton later lost some of the lands in connection with this annuity – namely the castle, manor and hundred of Halton (Ches.) to Henry of Grosmont in 1348 – may in part be seen as a consequence of his later lack of royal favour, though he did receive assignments in recompense. CPR 1348–50, 195; CCR 1346–9, 571; SC1/41/109. Green, Aristocracy, p. 268; Lally, ‘Secular Patronage’, 171–3; R. F. Treharne, ‘The Personal Rule of Henry III and the Aims of the Baronial Reformers of 1258’, History 16 (1931–2), 337–8; D.A. Carpenter, ‘King, Magnates and Society: The Personal Rule of King Henry III, 1234–1258’, Speculum 60 (1985), 44–9. For example, R.V. Turner, ‘Exercise of the King’s Will in Inheritance of Baronies: The Example of King John and William Briwerre’, Albion 22 (1990), 383–4, 387–9. CDRS iv, 1–2.

104

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

part of the household of Robert the Bruce. Though in part a result of a newly developed policy of the monarch to charge individuals with treason for the offences of their ancestors, in this case at least, Stryvelyn, because of his previous good service, was finally granted back the lands in fee.84 Indeed, Scottish grants, as usually more easily contested, were often targeted for renewals of claims in this fashion – as in the case involving the Saint John estate and John Saint Philbert. First married to Joan Ufford, daughter of Robert Ufford, by Margaret, widow of Thomas de Cailly, Lord Cailly,85 Saint Philbert married secondly, when he was about twenty, Margaret sister and coheir of Edmund Saint John, and daughter of Hugh, Lord Saint John, by Miribel his wife, in September 1347, receiving a portion of her inheritance in the next month.86 Soon thereafter, Margaret and John, as well as her sister Isabel and her husband, Luke Poynings, began to pursue claims to a grant made in Edward I’s reign of the castle of Buittle in Scotland.87 Edward had granted to John Saint John, greatgrandfather of the two heiresses, 1,000 marks per annum at the exchequer until he gave him an equivalent landed estate in Scotland, and later gave him Buittle and other lands of Sir John de Balliol in fulfilment of this grant. Edward III, however, returned the lands to the Balliol family, doubtless at their request, in the form of a grant to Sir Edward Balliol, while Edmund, his son and heir, was under age. In the early 1350s, the Saint John coheiresses and their husbands petitioned the monarch and his council for the restoration of these lands, or to give them property of equal value. Though there is no firm evidence for Edward III’s partisan interference in either of these cases, the fact that these men were favoured by the king clearly had the potential to affect the outcome of the aforementioned petitions – something which would have not been lost on the men themselves and probably encouraged them to pursue their wives’ previously dormant interests in these estates. Even the profitability of acts which normally were due to the initiative of the new man involved was often influenced by royal favour. For example, the payment of ransoms was perceived to be one of the most lucrative forms of profit during the Hundred Years War. Further, while in the early part of the war ransom was a purely personal obligation between captor and captive, by the 1350s both the obligations and the ransoms could be inherited by the heirs of captor and captive, thus making them of far more worth to a man’s line than previously.88 Nevertheless, the ransom received was often directly affected by the esteem in which the king held a man. From the start the king, of course, had the right to a third of all booty, including ransoms, as did the captain of the captor89 – though in reality, according to two recent commentators, ‘they [the captors] were, in effect, served by the King with compulsory purchase orders’.90 Indeed, ‘it had

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

CPR 1358–61, 22. Though effectively under Stryvelyn’s control as early as 1339. CDRS iii, 238. Ufford purchased the marriage c. July 1334. CPR 1330–4, 559. CFR 1347–56, 49. SC8/67/3332; CDRS iv, 13. M.H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (Aldershot, 1993), p. 159. Keen, Laws of War, pp. 146–7. C. Given-Wilson and F. Bériac, ‘Edward III’s Prisoners of War: The Battle of Poitiers and its

Routine Patronage

105

long been accepted . . . that any “great” prisoners taken during the course of a campaign must be handed over by their masters to the king (in return, of course, for reasonable compensation)’. Nonetheless, despite the potential for abuse by the king, most of the new men received fairly generous amounts for their prisoners, and overall, had a good chance of being paid off by the monarch in full.91 In cases of extreme favour, the king could grant away all his rights in a prisoner, as he did when he made a grant in November 1371 to Guy Brian of John, lord of Neufville.92 In other instances, the king essentially bought the prisoner from the new man in question. In September 1348, as a ‘gift’ for his service in the capture of Charles de Blois, the French claimant to the duchy of Brittany, Thomas Dagworth was promised the payment of the generous sum of 25,000 florins in instalments out of the tenth and fifteenths granted to the king.93 Though payment was not made at the rate set out in the original Letters Patent,94 a substantial portion of it was gradually paid, continuing after his death to his widow.95 In a similar instance in 1333, Walter Mauny was promised 1,000 marks by the king for his capture of John Crabbe at Berwick, of which all but £100 seems to have been paid.96 Only on the odd occasion was the new man not reimbursed most of the ransom by the king’s exchequer. For instance, Reginald Cobham’s share in the ransom of 6500 ‘old florins’ for the Count of Longeville,97 which worked out to £1226, appears to have been paid only in part, at least during the reign itself.98 Symbolic preference Whether as a result of the grant of offices, or the production of writs, up to now we have been discussing forms of patronage the main importance of which was economic and political value. Equally significant royal patronage, though, could be shown by symbolic acts meant to indicate the king’s specific preference for an individual, but often without much material value. Such acts were very important in a society interested not just in land as a form of status, but also in other indicators as well, especially those connected with court and chivalric

91 92 93 94

95

96

97 98

Context’, EHR 116 (2001), 815–6. An individual was supposed to get ‘reasonable compensation’ for any prisoners taken – though how this was done was dependent on the king’s will. D. Hay, ‘The Division of the Spoils of War in Fourteenth Century England’, TRHS 5th ser. 4 (1954), 101–102. For the rules about ransoms, see M.H. Keen, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1965), pp. 156–85. Given-Wilson and Bériac, ‘Prisoners of War’, 817. CPR 1370–4, 146. CPR 1348–50, 146. Michaelmas 1348 (1,000 marks), Easter 1349 (£1,000), Michaelmas 1349 (£1,000), Easter 1350 (£1,000) and at Michaelmas 1350 (£1200 and 50 marks). CPR 1348–50, 146. E403/344 (9 October 1348); E403/344 (16 March 1349); E403/347 (25 May 1349); E403/353 (15 April 1350); E403/353 (28 June 1350); E403/356 (22 September 1351); E403/362 (11 July 1352); E403/362 (6 September 1352). E403/270 (11 October 1333); E403/270 (4 February 1334); E403/276 (25 April 1334); E403/279 (10 November 1334); E403/279 (17 December 1334); E403/279 (14 February 1335); E403/282 (19 August 1335). CPR 1358–61, 167. Given-Wilson and Bériac, ‘Prisoners of War’, 832.

106

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

culture. After all, it was only in this period that we have the development of the ceremony connected with peerage,99 the beginnings of coats of arms, as well as attempts, through sumptuary legislation, to control the visible manifestations of the improving status of some members of the lower orders.100 Moreover, nobles themselves were making a clearer statement of their status through the development of previously utilitarian castles into more sumptuous residences,101 itself a expression of social more than political rank, and through the growing interest in personalised patronage to local religious establishments, especially by way of chantries and building projects clearly associated with the family of the patron.102 Through small but significant gifts and grants to his new men, then, the king could show associated, but still important, favour as when in 1340 the earl of Salisbury was given a cup made of gold by Edward III worth £36.103 Similarly, on 8 May 1331, Thomas Bradeston was given a gift, in connection with certain Gloucestershire manors granted to him which were once part of the estate of the late earl of Kent, of the ‘winter corn growing in the lands of those manors’.104 Small gifts of money were also popular with the king, entailing as they did only an initial outlay of resources. In April 1337, it was noted that the merchants of the society of the Peruzzi had paid out 50 marks to Reginald Cobham as a gift from the king.105 Grants of annuities of wine were another token of royal approval, as when, in January 1348, Thomas Bradeston was granted, for life, an annuity of six tuns of wine in the port of Bristol.106 Finally, at the upper end of the scale, the guardianship of the captured king of France, conferred upon Roger Beauchamp in 1359, though not worth much financially, was an office of great import and visibility from which a considerable amount of prestige could be garnered.107 Such acts, then, showed clear favour by the king, even if the deeds themselves were not always worth much financially, and as such offered an increase in both status and protection for the recipient. But perhaps the height of such status-based favour during Edward III’s reign was the conferring of membership in the Order of the Garter. The whole concept of chivalry and court culture had, of course, been developing throughout Western Europe in the high Middle Ages. The growing interest in the Arthurian 99

100 101

102

103 104 105 106

107

A. Wagner and J.C. Sainty, ‘The Origin of the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords’, Archaeologia 101 (1967), 119–22. SR i, pp. 278–80, 311–13, 380–2. See C. Platt, Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to 1600 AD (London, 1978), pp. 173–82; C.M. Woolgar, The Great Household in Late Medieval England (London and New Haven, 1999). J. Rosenthal, The Purchase of Paradise: The Social Function of Aristocratic Benevolence, 1307–1485 (London, 1972); H. Colvin, ‘The Origin of Chantries’, JMH 26 (2000), 163–73. For noble art patronage, see N. Saul, ‘“Forget-me-nots”: Patronage in Gothic England’, History Today 37 (1987), 18–24. E101/389/8 mem. 3. For small gifts of this sort, see also p. 29. C81/181/4578; CPR 1330–4, 115. CCR 1337–9, 42. CPR 1348–50, 2. Evidence for payment: CCR 1349–54, 129, 256; E372/189/47/1; E372/192/42/1ob; E372/193/32/2; E372/195/42/2; E372/196/44/2. C. Given-Wilson, ‘The Court and Household of Edward III 1360–1377’, University of St Andrews PhD (1976), p. 175.

Routine Patronage

107

stories,108 the rise of the romance, and the increasing popularity of tournaments and jousts were all indicators of this – in the case of England, especially during Edward I’s reign. However, the development which really gave the ideas of chivalry a social status was the institution of the Order of the Garter by Edward III in 1348, following the Round Table tournament of 1344, and a template for the founding of many later orders.109 Just as the development of the idea of land qualification made the peerage more valid in an economic sense, so the development of an organised order set up by the monarchy, with rules and restrictions, made chivalry a more important social activity. Of the Order itself, Collins has stated ‘If on one level the order stood as a tribute to the traditional ideals of the knightly vocation, then on the other it represented a sophisticated instrument of patronage in monarchical relations with the nobility’. 110 Of the twenty-six founding members of the Order, five were men promoted during the reign (Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Stafford, John de Lisle of Rougement, John Beauchamp of Warwick, and John Grey of Rotherfield), while six new men (Earl of Suffolk, Earl of Northampton, Reginald Cobham of Sterborough, Thomas Ughtred, Walter Mauny and Guy Brian) joined thereafter to replace members who had died. The order, then, not only acted as a relatively cheap, but high status, source of patronage; it also allowed Edward III to differentiate further between his new men in terms of levels of favour, as well as giving this group as a whole a clearer identity, social coherence, and, even if quite stylised and often fanciful, sense of purpose. Finally, royal material favour to a new man’s friends and kinsmen could be as important to a new man in its symbolic weight as any office or other grant, emphasising an individual’s heightened position within the kingdom. For example, on 11 December 1345 Robert, son of Thomas Bradeston, was granted the marriage of Katherine, the widow of John de Dale, because of the good service done by his father.111 Earlier, in November 1341, John Darcy ‘le fitz’, in part in consideration of the good service of John Darcy ‘le cosyn’, his father, to both Edward II and Edward III, was granted the marriage of Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Nicholas de Menill.112 Similarly, in August 1347 William Bohun, at his own request, and cancelling 2,000 marks in royal debts owed to him, acquired for the earl of Hereford and Essex, his brother, all rights of reversion in the estate of his other brother, Edward Bohun, whose lands had recently come to him by the latter’s death.113 In all these cases, the grant was made while the new man was still living. In other instances, the new man had already died, but the grant was nonetheless made. In June 1347, William Darcy, another son of John Darcy, was granted for ‘good and gratuitous service done by his father’, as well as his

108

109

110 111 112 113

M. Prestwich, ‘The Art of Kingship: Edward I, 1272–1307’, History Today 35 (1985), 40; somewhat downplayed in Prestwich, Edward I, pp. 118–22. S. Gunn, ‘Chivalry and the Politics of the Early Tudor Court’, in S. Anglo, ed., Chivalry in the Renaissance (Woodbridge, 1990), 109. Collins, Order of the Garter, p. 1. CPR 1345–8, 26. CPR 1340–3, 352. CPR 1345–8, 366–7.

108

New Parliamentary Peerage Creations, 1330–77

own, the Irish castle of Mackynegan for his life.114 In a variation on this theme, in July 1346, William Bohun was granted that, if he died within a set period of time after his departure from England on royal service, the assignment made to him for that purpose would nonetheless be made, as well as the fee previously granted to sustain the rank of earl – all of which would doubtless be very useful for his family.115 This variety of royal influence, routine as it may have seemed to the old nobility,116 nonetheless served three main purposes in Edward III’s patronage programme. Firstly, by treating the new men as he treated the old nobility, Edward was accustoming these men to the routine functioning of the class of which they were now, or would soon be, a part. As the king was introducing such a large number of new members to the nobility over the course of the reign, the largest introduction of new families since the Anarchy, such a tactic was, of course, crucial if they were to become acculturated, and therefore fit in, with the more established nobility. It is notable, moreover, that substantial portions of this patronage often came before a man actually became a peer or an earl. Indeed, this type of patronage, especially grants of various types of office, also provided a testing ground for the worthiness of new men, to see if they could handle all aspects of their soon to be acquired ranks. This was true with respect to Edward’s treatment of William Clinton, earl of Huntingdon. For, aside from grants which appear to have been meant to cover the extra expenses of his frequent trips to France on royal service,117 the only estate patronage which Clinton received up until 1337 was that connected with his wife’s rights to various lands.118 Rather, Edward’s method of reward to such a man early on consisted of appointing him to responsibilities by which he could further prove himself. In 1333, Clinton was charged with two offices, justice of Chester and the Constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports, as well as the custody of the castles of Chester, Becherston, Rhuddlan, and Flint and the county of Flint. 119 In the following years, up until the outbreak of war with France in 1337, he was a constant companion of the king on his Scottish campaigns, made Admiral of the West in 1333, and used in diplomatic missions to the continent.120 This, then, was a way not only to show gratitude but also to train an elite in whom the king could have faith and confidence to help him run his kingdom. Secondly, Edward’s use of this type of patronage helped to blend the peerage by bringing the old and new nobility together not just in their treatment by the king, but also in their duties. A new man’s place on various embassies and commissions along with the older peerage, as well as in commanding troops in Scotland and France, was bound not only to teach them something of how to

114 115 116 117 118 119 120

CPR 1345–8, 331. CPR 1345–8, 150. For similar patronage by Edward I, see Barrie, ‘Maiores Barones’, pp. 305–79. E.g. CPR 1330–4, 532, 534; CCR 1333–7, 215. See p. 65. CPR 1330–4, 13. CPR 1330–4, 273, 466, 467, 532, 534; CPR 1334–8, 30; Parker, ‘Patronage’, pp. 150–3.

Routine Patronage

109

act, but also increase their sense of commonality with these more established families. Though they might otherwise have come into contact, it would not necessarily have been at an equal level, and especially not at a level which would have the potential to foster trust and respect between the old and new nobility. In many ways, then, the use of royal influence, while a routine part of the workings of royal government, was a necessary part of any programme of promotion. Considering the number of individuals involved, and the growing stratification and status consciousness of society overall in this period, such royal influence was crucial if Edward did not want to face civil disturbances over his exercise of favour similar to those faced by another purveyor of mass patronage, Henry III. Finally, it should not be forgotten that this type of patronage, though often not of substantial value in itself, helped remind the new men that the king continued to be on their side, a very important psychological aspect of the patronage relationship. Though, for example, Edward avoided the mistake of Henry III and Edward II in promoting courtiers such as Peter des Rivaux and the Despensers to overly powerful official positions in the exchequer, nonetheless, even in quite small acts of royal favour, he did always make his preference for individuals fairly evident, as well as seemingly fair. The large grants of estates, wardships, marriages and annuities may have been crucial for giving a new man the wherewithal to survive in the peerage, but as these events were relatively spaced out over the lifetime of an individual, it was also important that the king continued to remind him that he was favoured, and rightly so, especially for those who had come from more humble origins. As a result, it is rare that a year went by that a new man did not receive some sort of royal favour, even if it was only for the form of a pardon – royal patronage, in other words, was just as important in the status and confidence that it conferred upon the individual, especially a parvenu, as the wealth it imparted. After all, without the confidence to ‘act’ noble within a highly aggressive group of individuals such as the English parliamentary peerage, the impact of any material patronage granted out would be lessened. Royal largesse was only as beneficial as the way it was used by the recipient, and without the necessary self-assurance, valuable resources could easily be squandered.

PART TWO

The Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

6 Contemporary Response New men are essential to any stable regime, and complaints about them constitute still another medieval topos. 1

EDWARD III’s patronage to his new men came from the resources outlined in the preceding chapters. Although these resources could be similar to those available in previous reigns,2 the ways in which they were used in the period 1330–77 could vary considerably from their earlier use. In some ways, Edward’s royal patronage programme knew no previous equal, particularly considering its link with the development of an official parliamentary peerage. Indeed, by taking on the task of promoting sixty-eight men over the course of the reign and finding the resources to support them – to the extent of giving varying levels of self sufficiency to about half of them and of keeping the other half content – Edward was doing something quite novel in the annals of English history. By raising such men into this increasingly closed institution, with the types and combinations of grants he was able to use, Edward was making clear that, though the nobility might now have rights to inheritance as well as more definition as a class, it was still ultimately the king who decided who was to be included in the ranks of the most important political and social order in the land. Unlike today, however, in the Middle Ages novelty on any scale, especially at the hand of a monarch, was not seen as a virtue. Rather, in a society bound by, and dependent upon, the importance of tradition, innovative royal policy, especially when it came to status and land, was likely to excite comment, if not reaction. Indeed, even if the idea is now questioned that Henry I’s redistribution of rebel estates to his new men helped fuel the Anarchy,3 the memory of the dispossessions and their aftermath was still alive during the rebellion of 1173–4,4 while, a century and a half later, the excessive patronage to Gaveston and the Despensers helped cause the unlawful executions of favourites and the deposition of a king. In other words, if it was one of the king’s duties to distribute largesse to his subjects, his subjects saw it as both their right and their duty to advise him how to do so – and if their counsel was ignored, they

1 2 3

4

Hollister, ‘Invisible Transformation of England’, 123. E.g. R. Mortimer, Angevin England 1154–1258 (Oxford, 1994), pp. 71–3. See D. Crouch, The Reign of King Stephen 1135–54 (Harlow, 2000), pp. 124–7; vs. Davis, King Stephen, especially Appendix 2. Warren, Henry II, p. 122.

114

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

were more than willing to show their monarch the error of his ways by force. Tradition going back at least as far as the baronial critics of 1215–17, and more recently Simon de Montfort and Thomas of Lancaster, clearly indicate this manner of response. Individual response To understand the response that Edward’s endowment programme elicited, however, we must first realize that this response took place on two levels – one of individual self-interest and the other of more general contemporary, including group, reaction. In theory, individual subjects of the kingdom had little say over some grants. Unless the king was under some form of tutelage – as during Henry III’s minority or Edward II’s government under the Ordinances and after Bannockburn – appointments to royal offices were probably the most obvious case of this, usually fully within the king’s rights to do with as he pleased without worrying about any previous claims. After all, the king was ultimately responsible for the state of the kingdom and therefore it was both his right and duty to choose those men he saw as most fit to help him govern it. Similarly, the right to grant annuities from royal revenue sources, though open to debate at a public level, was virtually unassailable by private litigation. Though there could be a number of claimants upon a particular source of revenue, there was rarely any effective questioning by aggrieved parties of the fact that the king was perfectly within his right to make such grants, even when annuity payments were being regularly made out of finances controlled by parliament.5 It is therefore unsurprising that this source ended up being the reserve mechanism when other sources of royal patronage were found in some way wanting.6 Wardships and marriages In theory, wardships and marriages were also equally within the king’s rights to grant out. For, just as it has been shown that use of the royal demesne as a source of patronage was not something which the monarch necessarily had to avoid,7 so too was his use of wardships and marriages viewed as an important part of the larger exercise of royal largesse.8 Nonetheless, the practical application of such rights over royal tenants-in-chief could be problematic. For, though no private individual could ever deny the king’s right to grant out the bodies and marriages of the heirs of his tenants-in-chief as he wished,9 what constituted the estate of any minor or widow was often open to dispute.10 Simple jurisdictional rights could cause numerous headaches for the holder of a wardship. For example, in

5 6

7 8 9 10

See Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. Though there is evidence that Thomas Holand questioned Thomas Bradeston’s right to a farm from the town of Gloucester in 1354. See SC8/246/12288. Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 52–75. Waugh, Lordship, pp. 180–93. Walker, ‘Feudal Family and the Common Law Courts’, 15. S.S. Walker, ‘Wrongdoing and Compensation: The Pleas of Wardship in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century England’, Journal of Legal History 9 (1988), 267.

Royal Feudal Rights

115

1370 Ralph Basset, who held lands in wardship of the heir of John Mowbray of Axholme, was ordered to allow the proctor in England of the abbot of Fécamp to exercise, among other rights, his right to ‘five good bucks in time of grease (in gresso) and five does in time of fermison, all whole with their hides’ in the woods of Stanherst and Rippefeld, a right that the abbot had going back to the time of Henry III.11 Again in 1370, presumably on or about the time he was granted the wardship, Basset was ordered to pay to one John Dysworth arrears of 40 shillings, and to pay it to him in future, an annuity John Mowbray had granted Dysworth for reporting the birth of his daughter.12 Another claim on the wardship of the Mowbray estate came from a religious house of ‘le Sele’ on 12 June 1371 when Basset was ordered to ‘cause a tithe of all the rents of the barony of Brembre to be paid them’, which Basset, according to the monks’ petition to the king, was unwilling to give.13 However, considering its temporary nature, it is unsurprising that litigation concerning wardships was generally routine. Indeed, of the two rights, marriage was the more contested – affecting, as it did, not only the transmission of inheritances but also the fate of dowers, maritagia, and marriage portions. By far the most controversial marriage grants were those concerning the marriage of a new man himself. Considering the sometimes substantial distance in social rank between husband and wife, a new man had to be ready to defend his wife’s wealth from a variety of claimants. In some cases, this involved the dower from a widow’s previous marriage. For example, around 1350 Guy Brian married Elizabeth, widow to both Hugh Despenser and Giles Badlesmere. In the Hilary term of 1355 the couple presented a case in the Court of Common Pleas against Margery de Ros, sister and coheir to Badlesmere, over a third part of the manor of Bradfield Combust (Suffolk).14 The Brians claimed this as dower from Elizabeth’s first marriage to Badlesmere (d.1338). However, Margery claimed that the manor was not part of the dower of Elizabeth, because Giles had not died seised of it – the time at which the apportioning of dower usually took place. Rather, Margery claimed that Giles had demised the manor to Thomas Verdon for life, so that after his death the right of reversion of that manor and all connected lands was to descend to all four sisters and coheiresses of Giles Badlesmere, namely Margery herself, Elizabeth Bohun, Maud de Veer and John, son of Margaret, late wife of John Tybetot. Though Verdon was obviously in fairly firm control of the land as Elizabeth had been unsuccessfully pursuing cases to reclaim her dower portion from him for a number of years previous to her marriage to Brian,15 the judges finally sided with the Brians, as the property involved was in the possession of the couple on the death of Elizabeth in 1359 – only after which it returned to Margery.16

11 12 13 14 15 16

CCR 1369–74, 149. CCR 1369–74, 155. CCR 1369–74, 238. CP40/380/215. CP40/324/504, CP40/325/163, CP40/343/260. CCR 1354–60, 583.

116

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

Indeed, considering Giles Badlesmere had died over a decade before their marriage, Brian had quite a time assembling his wife’s dower, as further cases against the earls of Northampton and Oxford, John Avenel, John Tybetot, and Thomas Arundel illustrate.17 But dowers were not the only problem for Edward’s new men. Life grants of all types could be a barrier to a full realisation of the potential of a wife’s estate. In the Michaelmas term of 1337, William Bohun, earl of Northampton, and Elizabeth, widow of Edmund Mortimer (d.1332), sought against Joan, late the wife of Roger Mortimer, Edmund’s father, a third part of thirty-nine manors in Montgomeryshire as the dower of Elizabeth as a result of her marriage to Edmund.18 Joan, however, claimed that the said lands were hers by the grant of Edmund for her life. In the end it was decided that Joan did have a right to the land as she died seized thereof in 1359 – three years after Elizabeth, thereby never giving Bohun control over the lands.19 A more complex case of life grants causing problems concerns two of Edward’s new men, John Kirkton and Ralph Cromwell, and the castle of Tattershall (Lincs.) and connected lands. In 1334, John Dryby granted Kirkton Tattershall, apparently by word of mouth.20 Though Kirkton later obtained royal licence for this grant,21 he still seems to have been very nervous about the solidity of his claim over the lands, and throughout the next three decades made various legal arrangements to make his control as firm as possible.22 At some point before July 1364, however, there were the first inklings of trouble over the property, when the king’s government claimed certain feudal rights over the lands – though as a favour to Kirkton this action was halted.23 The important point here was that it was noted at this time that not only did no charter accompany the original 1334 grant, but that none of the tenants had attorned to Kirkton during Dryby’s lifetime. Indeed, this seems to have opened up the property involved to dispute, and Kirkton lost physical possession of the property at some point later in the summer of 1364. As a result, in the Michaelmas term of the same year, Kirkton brought a suit against Ralph Cromwell and his wife Matilda over the castle, as well as the manor of Kirkby on Bain, Kirkton accusing the couple of unjustly disseising him of them.24 However, Ralph and Maud claimed it as her inheritance as a descendant of Dryby, thereby rejecting the validity of the 1334 original grant. In the end, Kirkton’s somewhat insubstantial claim was found wanting as Dryby’s grant to him was judged to have been made only for his life.25 The

17

CP40/369/125(ob); CP40/380/215. CP40/312/446; CP40/314/206. See also CCR 1337–9, 421–2. 19 The lands involved were to revert to Roger Mortimer and his heirs. CIPM x, 255. The families also had disputes over Cleobury Mortimer and lands in Wales. CP40/386/43. 20 CPR 1361–4, 520; CP viii, 338–9. Kirkton was later pardoned for acquiring the property without licence. CPR 1330–4, 554. 21 CPR 1330–4, 554. 22 See CPR 1343–5, 8; C143/260/4; CPR 1350–4, 233; C143/307/2; CP40/371/189; CPR 1361–4, 272; C143/342/16. 23 CPR 1361–4, 520. 24 C260/77/1. Tattershall was recorded as being worth £20 per annum in 1343. C143/260/4. 25 C260/77/1; CCR 1364–8, 322–3 18

Royal Feudal Rights

117

Cromwells subsequently obtained hold of the property upon Kirkton’s death in 1367,26 which remained with the family into the fifteenth century.27 Escheats and expectancies Lands and rights resulting from marriages, then, could often be very problematic to a new man. Nonetheless, such cases were to be expected with any partition of land or division of an inheritance and would rarely remove all rights involved from the grantee. What was perhaps more disturbing for an individual favoured by Edward III was when he found lands granted to him directly also being the subject of controversy and/or royal indecision. Grants from escheats were somewhat problematic in this respect. First of all, there could be difficulties getting the granted properties into the hands of the new man in the first place. At least one grant had to be repeated many times before the lands involved were secured. On 12 January 1339, Reginald Cobham was granted for life ‘in consideration of good service in divers part and for the better support of the estate of banneret which he has received from the king’ the king’s mills beneath the castle of Oxford with the meadow there called ‘Kyngesmede’, which had been held by Thomas Poynings, and which had upon his death come back into the king’s hands.28 It was again granted in October 1339, but was later vacated.29 By February 1340, the mills had still not been delivered to Cobham, and orders were given to the escheator responsible for England south of Trent and the sheriff of Oxford to do so.30 Finally, in April 1340, over a year after the original grant, the lands were again listed as being granted to Cobham, though this time he did get possession. On a somewhat grander scale, due to the influence of the Earl of Desmond, the Earl of Stafford and Richard Talbot had considerable trouble getting control of his Irish estate.31 They had been granted its custody in August 1348 due to Desmond’s rebellion in the middle of the decade, but were never able to gain actual control of it and, indeed, it was granted back to Desmond in 1349. However, even when escheated lands or rights did make it to a new man, it was by no means a guarantee that they would remain with him any length of time. Sometimes, simple administrative adjustments could be the cause of problems. In September 1332, Roger Swynnerton was granted for life the hundred of Pirehill (Staffs.) ‘so that he keep it according to the statute published thereon at Lincoln by the common council of the realm’.32 Later, however, he lost control of it ‘by pretext of an agreement made by the king and council touching the rejoining to their counties of hundreds of old annexed thereto and granted by 26

27

28 29 30 31

32

CCR 1364–8, 322–3. Dryby’s grants to Kirkton were not popular with the former’s family. See CP40/331/187(ob). W. Douglas Simpson, ed., The Building Accounts of Tattershall Castle: 1434–1472 (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 55, 1960), xii-xiii. CPR 1338–40, 377. CPR 1338–40, 349. CCR 1339–41, 346. For the complex history of the Desmond confiscation, see A.F. O’ Brien, ‘The Territorial Ambitions of Maurice Fitz Thomas, First Earl of Desmond, with Particular Reference to the Barony and Manor of Inchiquin, Co. Cork’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 82 (1982), 75–7. CFR 1327–37, 329.

118

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

Edward II and the king’ – though, in 1334, he regained the rights.33 Next, in September of the same year, the grant of the hundred was again revoked, and granted to Robert de Sapy, who had held it by Letter Patent in the reign of Edward II.34 The hundred, however, went through one more change of ownership, as it is noted as being back in Swynnerton’s possession upon his death in 1338.35 Even when such grants had been in the hands of a new man for a number of years, they were often far from secure. On 1 March 1344, the justices of the King’s Bench were ordered not to place Walter Mauny in default for non-appearance in a court case against John, son of Richard Grey of Codnor concerning the manor of Overstone (Northants), because he was in royal service at the time.36 Later on in the decade, the case was resumed in the court of Common Pleas.37 Mauny had originally been granted the manor, part of John Maltravers’ forfeited estate,38 in 1335 in recompense for the manors of Stiffkey and Holkham (Norfolk) which had been granted to him from the forfeited estate of David de Strathbolgi, earl of Athol, but which afterwards were returned to the earl.39 Grey sought this ‘replacement’ manor from Mauny, claiming it as his right and inheritance, and that it had been unjustly taken from his grandfather, who, according to Grey, had held it from Henry III’s time. Even though the grant was obviously not very secure – as witness the unusual proviso that ‘if he be impleaded in respect of this manor and lose it in this way or any other he shall receive compensation’40 – Mauny, in this instance, did eventually win the case, and by February 1368, he was arranging for the manor to be regranted in tail male.41 Though the number of court cases connected with all these sources mounted as the reign wore on, they were nonetheless well within the king’s right and powers to grant out. Control of wardships, marriages and escheats were all firmly part of the king’s feudal rights, and therefore open to little debate – though how such rights were exercised could, as has been seen, be very contentious. However, expectancies and especially forfeitures, the two sources which made up the most substantial portion of Edward’s patronage programme, though still obviously within the king’s rights to grant out, were, by nature, less well defined and therefore less secure. Expectancies were obviously a less satisfactory source of grant to an individual – the often considerable period between grant and seisin allowing time for any number of claims, petitions and lawsuits to be initiated. For instance, on 13 May 1340 Reginald Cobham was granted in fee the reversion of the manor of Strood (Kent), which was held for life by Mary, countess of Pembroke, ‘in recompense for lands taken back into his hands’.42 However, by the spring of 1342, the grant had been revoked as it was found that the original

33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

CFR 1327–37, 412. CFR 1319–27, 29; CFR 1327–37, 416. CFR 1337–47, 74. CCR 1343–6, 475. CP40/354/362(ob) E199/31/12. CPR 1334–8, 176. CPR 1334–8, 176. CPR 1367–70, 92. CPR 1338–40, 511.

Royal Feudal Rights

119

grant to the countess of Pembroke had been made in fee.43 Lesser new men in particular often had considerable trouble controlling lands granted in this manner. On 26 July 1333, Thomas Bradeston was given the manor of Knolle (Somerset), held by William Dovyll, in expectancy. This was originally granted as a result of the forfeiture of Thomas de Gournaye.44 However, later in the 1330s, the widow of de Gournaye, Joan, won back the manor from Bradeston, and the king had to grant him in compensation that the manor of Kingsland, which he already held in wardship, would in future be rent free – as well as making provision for an exchequer annuity, if the wardship was taken out of his possession, until lands and rents in fee could be provided.45 Finally, in one case, three new men went to battle in court over the same expectancy. Robert Benhale and Eva, his wife, sought the manor of Benhall against Robert Ufford, earl of Suffolk, in the court of Common Pleas in the Trinity term of 1351.46 The couple claimed that it ought to revert to them since Guy de Ferre, who held it of John Clavering, the late father of Eva, had died without heir. Ufford, however, claimed the reversion as his right through a grant of the king after the death of Eleanor Ferre,47 and entered upon the land thereon. In the same term, moreover, John Norwich also brought a suit against Ufford over the manor, this time claiming that Guy de Ferre held the property of one Walter de Norwich, to whom John was the heir.48 In both disputes, however, Ufford, one of the king’s closest favourites, ended up the winner, dying seised of the manor in 1369.49 Forfeitures Grants of expectancies, then, at times tended to be contentious because of the nature of the grant. Grants of forfeitures, however, were almost always problematic because of the source. This was especially true concerning grants made directly from the forfeited lands of the last reign. Grants from property involuntarily surrendered were often hotly contested, not only by the original owners or their descendants, but also by any others who felt they had claims upon the lands involved. The dispute over the manor of Marston Maisey in Wiltshire, mentioned in Chapter Three, is a case in point. 50 Originally held by John de Meysy in the reign of Edward I, in 1305 or 1306,51 Hugh Despenser the elder forcibly disseised him from the manor and apparently imprisoned him until he signed it over. Meysy then sought a writ of novel disseisin against Despenser, which he pursued without success, except insofar as to get Despenser angry enough to name Meysy as one of the 1322 rebels. As a result, Meysy abjured the realm, but came back after Despenser’s fall and regained hold of the manor. In 1330, he granted the manor to a group of feoffees who then granted it back to 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

CPR 1340–3, 461. CPR 1330–4, 457; CCharR 1327–41, 305. CPR 1334–8, 561–2; Appendix 3. CP40/366/112. CPR 1338–40, 265. CP40/366/112(ob) CIPM xii, 410. Except where noted, the following is from CP40/360/94. C260/61/10.

120

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

him, with remainder to Peter le Veel and Cecily, his wife, ‘the heirs of their bodies, and the right heirs of Peter’.52 However, when Edward III took personal control of the kingdom, the manor was taken back into the king’s hand as part of the forfeiture of Despenser and granted to John Darcy, first as a simple appointment during royal pleasure, then for his life, and in 1338 for the life of his son.53 There was no major dispute concerning the manor in Darcy’s lifetime, but after his death, an action was started in October 1350 by the designated heir of John de Meysy, the son of Peter le Veel, who claimed right of the manor through the aforementioned fine which gave him control of the property after the death of Meysy.54 Indeed, grants of forfeitures were very susceptible to counter-claims. In the case of the grant of Marston Maisey to Darcy, there was a proviso in expectation of problems, namely that if ‘these manors or any parcel thereof be at any time recovered against the said John by judgement of the king’s court, he shall receive an equivalent’.55 Similarly, on 20 March 1344, Guy Brian was granted during pleasure the keeping of the manor of Stoke Trister (Somerset), late of the ever-troublesome John Molyns, giving £40 a year for it to the chamber.56 This was later, in October 1344, granted for a period of seven years.57 However, in September 1345, Brian was forced to give back the manor to John Molyns.58 Again, the forfeited estates of John de Marshal and John de Segrave – parts of which had been granted to Cobham, Brian and Mauny – were returned to their original owners within two years of being granted. Nonetheless, the last three disputes were settled fairly quickly. On other occasions, the matter was more drawn out. One of the longest running, and most contentious, land disputes connected with Edward III’s endowment programme was over the commote of Is Cennan including the castle of Carreg Cennan (Carmarthenshire). This lordship had come into Edward I’s hands in the early 1280s as a result of his conquest of Wales and was then granted to John Giffard of Brimpsfield in 1283,59 though not without considerable opposition from the earl of Hereford.60 Nonetheless, the Giffard family retained hold of it until 1322,61 when John Giffard forfeited his lands for siding with the Contrariants. Edward II then granted them to Hugh Despenser the younger, and, according to Davies, it was 52

53 54

55

56 57 58 59 60

61

Abstracts of Feet of Fines Relating to Wiltshire for the Reign of Edward III, ed. C.R. Elrington (Wiltshire Record Society, vol. 29, 1973), p. 23. CPR 1330–4, 165, 268. For the grant to his son, see CPR 1338–40, 16. CP40/360/94. For another example of the confusion caused by the redistribution of the Despenser estate, see Adam de Moldworth’s suit to regain control of the manor of Little Barrow. KB27/301/48; C47/bundle 10/No.34; C260/93/34. CPR 1330–4, 268. Though this was tame compared with the clause in Richard II’s 1385 grant to Robert de Vere that ‘the curse of God and St Edward and the King on any who do or attempt aught against this grant’. R.A.K. Mott, ‘Richard II and the Crisis of July 1397’, in I. Wood and G.A. Loud, eds., Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages (London and Rio Grande, 1991), 165–6. CFR 1337–47, 378. CFR 1337–47, 394. By griffin seal. CCR 1343–6, 605. KB27/313/23. R.R. Davies, Lordship and Society in the March of Wales: 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978), p. 37; J.E. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), pp. 206, 222. Davies, Lordship and Society, p. 48.

Royal Feudal Rights

121

during his tenure that it gained the ‘virtual status of a Marcher lordship’.62 Despenser’s fall in 1326 and the coronation of Edward III in the next year resulted in the commote being granted, as part of the estate of John Giffard and his wife Aveline, to John Maltravers on 4 October 1327 to hold for as long as it remained within the king’s custody.63 In November 1328, the castle was also granted to him,64 and on 22 March 1329 Maltravers was given all the Giffard lands to himself and his heirs, though by the wording of the charter there was still a great deal of ambiguity as to whether the lands should have been in the king’s hands in the first place.65 In May 1330, one John de Caillewe also released to Maltravers all lands of John Giffard of which he had rights and was granted licence to enfeoff him with his rights connected with the castle.66 Thereafter, the lordship was forfeited as a result of Maltravers’ fall in the Nottingham Coup in late 1330, and next appears as a grant of the property’s farm for life to Maurice Berkeley in November 1334.67 On 18 December 1337, however, Berkeley was persuaded to part with the land in exchange for the grant of other Giffard lands, and the lands were then granted to John Wilington, Ralph, his son, and Eleanor, his wife, and the heirs of Ralph’s body, along with a grant of the dower portion of Giffard’s wife’s lands, namely the manor of Broughton Gifford and the properties of Elston and Orcheston (Wilts.).68 This piece of land, then, was essentially moving from one Gloucestershire landowner to another, depending upon the political environment of the day. But few of the individuals mentioned thus far appear to have voiced any real legal challenge to the way in which the lands moved. However, almost immediately after the 1337 grant, and throughout the next few years, there ran a court case over the ultimate ownership of the property. The case started in earnest in the Trinity Session of the Court of King’s Bench in 1338.69 Though Giffard’s widow, Margaret, also brought actions over the lands against the Wilingtons,70 the main contender against their ownership of the property was Gilbert Talbot, justice of South Wales, keeper of Carmarthen castle and another of Edward’s new promotions. Talbot stated that the right to the property was his through one Llywelyn ap Rhys Vaghan, ‘consangineus’, living in the time of Edward I, and therefore probably connected with the pre-Edwardian ownership of the commote. He claimed that Llywelyn had not forfeited, as was often thought, but had in fact died seised of the lands in question and that therefore, after his death, by right his estate should have reverted to his aunt Wenthave, sister of Rhys, his father, then to her son Richard, and then to Gilbert himself. The elder Wilington, however, died in 1338, and the lands and connected court case were inherited by

62 63

64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Davies, Lordship and Society, pp. 280, 300, 304. CFR 1327–37, 65. Maltravers had previous connections with the Giffards. CPR 1321–4, 40; CCR 1318–23, 483; CCR 1327–30, 171. CFR 1327–37, 113. CCharR 1327–41, 116–17. CPR 1327–30, 527; CCR 1330–3, 140; see also C260/91/36; KB27/366/73. CPR 1334–8, 42, 563–4; CFR 1327–37, 423. CPR 1334–8, 561–4; DL10/281. KB27/313/23; also see CP40/320/448(ob). CP40/316/1. See KB27/314/26, CP40/341/132(ob) and SC8/192/9556 for more on the case.

122

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

his son, Ralph. Perhaps due to the problematic nature of the grant, in 1340 Ralph decided to enfeoff the earl of Derby with Carreg Cennan and Is Cennan, a man more powerfully placed to protect the property.71 Problems for the sons of new men Considering forfeitures made up a considerable amount of Edward’s long-term patronage to his new men, this was obviously a disturbing trend. However, more importantly, that any such patronage – escheat, expectancy, or forfeiture – could be overturned when an individual died and a less favoured son took his place was even more worrying. A number of the sons of new men had to face this possibility, including Ralph Wilington and John Darcy the younger, mentioned above, though perhaps the best example is the plight of William Montagu, second earl of Salisbury. William Montagu senior, as we have seen, was a great favourite of Edward III, having been a leader of the 1330 coup and one of his great war captains. However, upon his death in 1344, Edward took a far more ambivalent attitude to his son. As a result, in the course of the second earl of Salisbury’s lifetime, the family lost a considerable amount of the gains which the elder Montagu had made through Edward III’s favour – including the honour of Denbigh, Sherborne castle (Dorset) and the lands connected with the Warenne inheritance. The Mortimer lands were particularly problematic in this respect. As mentioned previously, the estate, forfeited after the 1330 coup, was originally a boon for Edward’s new men. These were thereafter, however, subject to a number of lawsuits, one of the most conspicuous being over the honour of Denbigh. Denbigh was one of the lordships conquered by Edward I in the early 1280s, being originally granted to Henry de Lacy, earl of Lincoln.72 On the death of Henry, Alice, his sole surviving child and the wife of Thomas, earl of Lancaster, inherited her father’s estate and Denbigh passed into Lancastrian hands. However, in 1322 the lordship again came into royal possession as a result of Lancaster’s forfeiture, and threats by the Despensers against Lancaster’s widow further diverted it to the elder Despenser’s hands.73 After Despenser’s fall, it was granted to Roger Mortimer, who in turn held it until he was executed in 1330. It was then given to William Montagu in 1331 as a sign of favour for his aid in the overthrow of Mortimer, being worth at the time about £1,000 per annum, though he ended up having to pay substantial sums to members of those families who had held the lands over the last half century in order to secure the title – most notably the widow of the earl of Lancaster, the son of Hugh Despenser the younger, and Hugh the elder’s widow, Eleanor, and her husband, William de la Zouche.74 As Davies states, this, along with further purchases in the area,75 made Montagu into one of the more substantial Marcher lords. 71

72 73 74 75

DL10/289. Though the Wilington family had connected rights until at least 1345. CPR 1338–40, 549; CCR 1343–6, 582; Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales, ed. W. Rees (Cardiff, 1975), p. 319; see also Fowler, King’s Lieutenant, p. 172; Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, p. 39. Davies, Lordship and Society, p. 27. Fryde, Tyranny, p. 113. C47/10/35; DL25/3347; Davies, Lordship and Society, p. 50; for Denbigh, see p. 55. Especially the reversion of the Montalt inheritance from the queen mother. Davies, Lordship and Society, p. 50.

Royal Feudal Rights

123

However, as noted above, a king’s preference for a man did not necessarily extend to his offspring, so that when the judgement against Roger Mortimer, earl of March (d.1330), was reversed in the autumn of 1354,76 it was again open season on his estate. Roger Mortimer’s grandson, also named Roger, asserted in the Trinity session of King’s Bench in 1354 that William Montagu, the second earl of Salisbury, had illegally entered into the lordship of Denbigh and unjustly held it.77 Both men then showed up to court in person, emphasising the importance of the case. The earl of Salisbury did not recognise the rights of the Mortimer family and said that his father had been granted Denbigh and associated lands and rights by the king. Mortimer, however, now reinstated to his grandfather’s title of earl of March, claimed that since the disinheritance of his grandfather had been declared erroneous, he should be reseised. March, probably as a result of his growing favour with Edward III, won the case, though Salisbury was still trying to win back the lordship in 1359, 1377–80 and even as late as 1397.78 But Mortimer lands were not the only properties which would cause problems for the younger Montagu. During the Minority, Montagu senior was granted for life the castle of Sherborne, originally built by Roger de Caen, bishop of Salisbury and Henry I’s chief administrator,79 and in 1331 this grant was entailed to Montagu.80 However, disagreement over the actual control of the castle between the king and the bishop of Salisbury dated back to the twelfth century. 81 In May 1354, in the latest incarnation of this dispute, Bishop Robert Wyville of Salisbury claimed the castle against the second earl of Salisbury as the right of his church of the Blessed Mary, Salisbury, from the time of Jocelin de Bohun, bishop of Salisbury in Henry II’s reign.82 Both men appeared in person and decided to put forward champions for a trial by combat. Pledges were made and the date set, but on the day of the battle, though the bishop of Salisbury came with his champion, the earl withdrew, after which the bishop regained seisin for himself and his heirs through agreements with the earl and Edward III.83 Finally, Montagu the younger also had problems with a number of the expectancies granted to his father. Probably some of the most important were the grants made to the elder Montagu upon becoming earl of Salisbury in 1337. At this time, he was granted a number of lands expectant on the demise of John

76 77

78

79

80

81 82 83

See Bellamy, Law of Treason, pp. 83–5. KB27/376/21. Earlier, in October 1353, Montagu had requested a letter patent to certify that he had done homage for the lordship of Denbigh. SC1/40/122. See also Calendar of Ancient Correspondence concerning Wales, ed. J.G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1935), 190–1. C47/10/35; SC1/38/106; RP iii, 7, 58–60; see also Holmes, Estates, p. 19 n. 3. Others who gained from Mortimer’s fall had similar experiences. See KB27/375/71, KB27/376/20. L.F. Salzman, Building in England Down to 1540 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 367; A. Pettifer, English Castles: A Guide by Counties (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 67–8. CPR 1327–30, 528; CCharR 1327–41, 210; CPR 1330–4, 54; RP ii, 56–7. However, this was not as generous of the king as might be thought, as the castle had gone through many owners in the last decade and was desperately in need of repair. See CPR 1327–30, 563. Pounds, Medieval Castle, pp. 29, 31, 53. CP40/375/275; for this case, also C260/70/34 CCR 1354–60, 122, 180–2. See also Holmes, Estates, p. 29; J. Steane, The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales (London, 1985), p. 26.

124

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

de Warenne, earl of Surrey and his wife. Upon the death of Surrey in 1347, however, Henry of Grosmont launched a series of suits against the countess of Surrey over her husband’s lands, including the reversions granted to Montagu and his heirs.84 Claiming that his uncle, Thomas of Lancaster, had only demised them to Warenne alone, Henry argued that the lands should have reverted to him through his father, the brother and heir of Thomas. In 1348, an agreement was reached whereby Grosmont was to control all the manors connected with the inheritance save Aldbourne.85 However, for reasons not entirely clear, the lands again returned to Countess Warenne’s hands, who then leased them to the Black Prince. The latter returned them to the earl of Salisbury as his reversionary right on the countess’s death in 1361. Though dispute over the manors continued into the 1360s with Lancaster’s heir, Blanche, and her husband John of Gaunt, winning a court case over the matter in 1365, finally, by agreement, the couple gave back the rights to most of the lands to Salisbury.86 Treatment of patronage granted Unsurprisingly, then, some new men tried to protect their lands against lawsuits and confiscations as quickly and forcefully as possible. One way to do this was through enfeoffments-to-use, a form of trust which put legal ownership of the property involved in the hands of a third party. 87 The ‘use’ had its origins in the thirteenth century, but only began to be used by the nobility in the latter part of Edward III’s reign. Nonetheless, though effectively curtailed in the Good Parliament of 1376 as a way to avoid forfeiture, before this point it was perceived as a useful protective device against the various rights of royal overlordship and legal challenge – at least six of Edward’s new men having arranged uses as recorded in their Inquisitions Post Mortem.88 Robert Ufford enfeoffed his brother, Peter de Ty and Adam de Scakelthorp of part of a manor and some rent in Combs (Suffolk),89 while in 1349 Henry of Grosmont was given licence, apparently in connection with service in France, to grant £1,000 per annum in lands and rents to unnamed persons for twelve years.90 Jointures were also common in our period, and could be used to protect properties, allowing the

84

85

86

87

88 89 90

For Henstridge and Charleton (Som.), CP40/359/43; for Canford, CP40/359/43(ob); for Trowbridge, Winterbourne, Amesbury and Aldbourne (Wilts.), CP40/359/46. For what follows, see Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, i, 35–6; F.R. Fairbank, ‘The Last Earl of Warenne and Surrey, and the Distribution of his Possessions’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 19 (1907), 257–63. Except Trowbridge and Aldbourne. Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, i, 36; see also C260/106/8. There was also the issue of the wives of the forfeitees. Both Mortimer’s and Maltravers’ wives did petition to have some of their lands restored to them. C47/10/19/6; SC8/63/3108; CP viii, 581–3. What happened in an enfeoffment-to-use was that the tenant-in-chief (A) granted away legal right over part or all of his estate to a third party (B), but still retained physical possession and profits from the land. Thus when A died, since he did not hold legal title to the land, it did not revert to the king but rather continued to be held by the legal owner (B), who would then, usually by prior arrangement, arrange that the heirs of A would receive legal possession upon their majority. See Bean, Decline of Feudalism, 104–79. Bean, Decline of Feudalism, pp. 117–8, Appendix 2. CPR 1340–3, 502. CPR 1348–50, 374. Grosmont also enfeoffed lands to the bishop of Lincoln, the earl of Arundel, among others, before he died. CPR 1358–61, 575–6, 580.

Royal Feudal Rights

125

surviving partner in a marriage to continue holding a property for life without it being subject to the attendant feudal incidents.91 The treatment of the entailed grant to William Bohun in 1332 of the estate of the king’s uncle, Thomas, earl of Norfolk, was one of the most important of jointure arrangements in this period.92 In July 1346 the king granted Bohun licence to enfeoff John Stratford, archbishop of Canterbury, and others with the lands so that he could then grant them in jointure to himself and his wife, Elizabeth. 93 Though Elizabeth predeceased him in 1356 (Bohun lived until 1360), for the Bohuns, jointure was potentially a good way both to protect property from the payment of reliefs, and to make the necessary provision for one’s spouse without having either to rely on the speedy and equitable distribution of dower or on the kindness of offspring. Similarly, Ralph Stafford and his wife had her part of the Clare estate made into a jointure tenancy in 134894 – though again she died before him, this time in 1370 (Stafford lived until 1372). Indeed, while such devices may not have made new men’s families immune from legal action and the loss of lands – as a potential plaintiff could also take the feoffee or wife to court – they nonetheless did place one more stage between them and the original grant, and perhaps also lent more power to any claim to ownership simply by the number of others who would be affected if the outcome of the case was unfavourable. Finally, though often to prove double edged,95 an entail also could afford a new man’s estate some protection, through the initial confirmation of the title of the land necessary for an entail to be set up, the limitations placed on how the land would descend after the death of the holder (especially the loss of land for a line through inheritance by women), and by the theory, at least, that entailed lands were protected from forfeiture in cases of treason.96 In many cases, then, the contemporary reaction of new men simply took the form of attempts to defend newly acquired lands from covetous hands. But, perhaps as a result of the obviously contentious nature of many of the grants, especially those of escheats and forfeitures, a few of the new men also treated their royal grants as a commodity, to be sold or otherwise exploited to maximum effect as quickly as possible. Sometimes, new men treated short-term confiscations as a way to turn a quick profit. For example, in February 1349 Roger Beauchamp was granted, for the payment of the farm, the keeping of the manors of Aston Carrant and Ashton (Gloucs.), both of which had been in the possession of the alien abbot of Beaubec and were confiscated as a result of the war with France.97 Within a month, however, Roger had demised this land to one William Dale, the king having acknowledged the grant.98 Somewhat more commonly, longer term forfeiture grants were used in such a manner. In the case of the Maltravers’ manor of Overstone, a further indenture in February 1339 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98

Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 138–42. CFR 1327–37, 323–4; DL10/267. CPR 1345–8, 143. For the ‘use’ of Deddington (Oxon.), see CP40/348/35. Along with the Corbet inheritance. CPR 1348–50, 19; CPR 1350–4, 67. See pp. 141–5. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 139. CFR 1347–56, 105. CFR 1347–56, 107.

126

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

showed Cobham granting the manor to John Molyns to hold for life of Cobham by a rent of £80.99 Indeed, despite his criminal connections, Molyns was a favoured tertiary recipient of royal patronage. In the same year, Walter Mauny granted to him the manor of Beachendon and the reversion of the manor of Chearsley, both in Buckinghamshire and both of the estate of the earl of Athol, with remainder to his sons and reversion to his right heirs.100 Escheats could be treated in a similar manner. The manor of Cippenham (Bucks.), granted to Reginald Cobham originally for life,101 later in fee, out of the estate of the earl of Cornwall was, in early 1338, then granted by Cobham to Master John de Thoresby and John de Etton, and they granted it back to him for his life, with the remainder going again to John Molyns for life and John, his son, in tail male and then to William, brother of John, son of John, in tail male, with reversion to the right heirs of John Molyns.102 Nonetheless, overall, these transfers of grants were exceptional, tending to prove the rule of the importance of land ownership over money to the new men. A final way to turn a profit, especially in the case of short term tenures, was to abuse these grants, the intention being to get as much value out of them before they went back into the possession of the original owner. The treatment of wardships and other forms of guardianship in this manner by monarchs had been a problem since William Rufus’s time, reiterated in the Coronation Oath of Henry I,103 and in Magna Carta, but they were obviously not the only ones involved in such activities.104 Though, since the late thirteenth century, the action of waste had been a popular remedy to stop such destruction, grants often still had to have clauses requiring guardians to take care of their wards and their estates.105 Moreover, when it came to ‘wasting’, alien priories were also susceptible, especially as they were afforded less protection as lands of the enemies of England. Grants of alien priories usually had to have some form of clause requiring the holder not to commit waste, as in the grant to John Beauchamp of Warwick of the keeping of the priory of Astley, ‘so that he keep the priory and lands without waste and destruction, and maintain the divine offices and other charges incumbent’.106 However, in at least one case, that of the grant of the estate of the abbot and convent of Lire to John Darcy, this clause clearly seems to have been ignored, and the abbot received back the lands by the grant of the king because ‘the said lands, possessions and churches, with the manors, woods and other things pertaining thereto, are greatly deteriorated and almost destroyed by reason of the said farm and on account of their occupation by laymen’.107 Even royal offices were open to such abuse by new men, as when

99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107

CPR 1338–40, 310–11 CPR 1338–40, 409–10. Molyns forfeited this manor soon after. SC6/759/16. See pp. 50, 89. CPR 1338–40, 310–11. EHD 1042–1189, 433; Hollister, Henry I, pp. 108–12. Walker, ‘Action of Waste’, 185–206. See pp. 67–69. CFR 1347–56, 367. It had become royal policy to grant back to aliens their lands provided they were able to render the proper amount for the farm of the properties involved. CFR 1347–56, 427–8.

Royal Feudal Rights

127

it was found that Roger Beauchamp, late constable of the castle of Devizes ‘wasted and removed’ much of the weaponry of the castle, as well as everything from a wardrobe of the queen to a bakehouse with two ovens and furnaces.108 Profit, in other words, was not just to be had from holding a grant, but also, in the case of those held only temporarily or insecurely, running it into the ground. General contemporary response Unsurprisingly, then, individual response was generally quite negative to Edward’s endowment programme. In particular, many of his subjects felt themselves to have better claims to the properties and rights involved than a group of social-climbing knights and administrators. To defend themselves from this, the new men either tried to protect the grants they were given, use them as gifts for friends and supporters, or overexploit them before the term of the grant expired. Such ‘private’ reaction, though, was nothing new; the courts were always full of individuals claiming more urgent rights to lands which had returned to royal possession. The response, however, could have been much more serious had Edward III been less subtle in ‘placing’ men in specific areas109 – as, for instance, Richard II was when he placed men on the northern borders,110 East Anglia,111 and Devonshire.112 And, at first glance, more general contemporary response seems to reflect the individual criticisms of Edward III’s patronage discussed above. After all, this was the period when, as G.L. Harriss has made abundantly clear, the distinctions between royal and public spheres of finance were still being worked out. What lay within the king’s right to use or distribute at will, either personally or through a variety of offices within the royal household, what rights he had over the jurisdictions of various offices of state such as the exchequer and the judiciary, and what the rights of parliament were, both of the lords and the commons, was constantly in flux throughout this period – and therefore open to debate. Indeed, in the century before Edward III’s reign, many changes had come about in all of these areas and, though rarely surviving long the crises that had excited them, nonetheless illustrate the prevalent idea that the king’s government should be changed, or at least, modified. The way in which the king ran the royal household and who he had round him at court had been decisively questioned as early as Magna Carta (1215), when in clause fifty, it was ordered that various Poitevins attached to King John’s court should be removed.113 Later, in the Provisions of Oxford (1258) and Westminster (1259), more general reforms of the royal household and administration were laid out by Henry III’s baronial critics to help

108 109 110 111

112

113

CIM 1377–88, 65–6. See p. 140. See A. Tuck, ‘Richard II and the Border Magnates’, NH 3 (1968), 27–52. R. Virgoe, ‘The Crown and Local Government: East Anglia under Richard II’, in Du Boulay and Barron, eds., Reign of Richard II, 218–41. M. Cherry, ‘The Courtenay Earls of Devon: The Formation and Disintegration of a Late Medieval Aristocratic Affinity’, Southern History 1 (1979), 90–4. Magna Carta, Clause 50.

128

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

get the monarchy out of severe indebtedness.114 By 1318, a specific group of household ordinances had been put forth, at least in part to limit the actions of Edward II, including clear rules about what type of person should be the steward, how accounts were to be kept, down to clauses on the individual who was to guard the king’s chamber door.115 Though by the mid-1320s lands were independently connected with the chamber itself to ensure its continued funding free from parliamentary controls,116 the precedent had now been set for various forms of ‘public’ interference in the running of the royal household. Moreover, the king’s rights over the departments of the exchequer and the judiciary – crucial for the management and protection of available sources of royal patronage – were also periodically limited, depending upon the powers and abilities of the king. In the Provisions of Oxford (1258), royal control over the offices of the chief justice, the treasurer, and the chancellor of the exchequer, among others, was severely curtailed. Henceforth, the idea was that these posts were only to be held for a year at a time, with the office-holder having to account at the end of that year not only in front of the king, but also before the royal council or the council of twenty-four (also set up by the Provisions), as well as the individual who was to succeed him in the office.117 Similarly restrictive for periods during Edward II’s reign was clause thirty-nine of the Ordinances of 1311: the Chancellor, Treasurer, Chief Justices of the one Bench and of the other, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Treasurer of the Wardrobe, the Steward of the King’s Household, all the Justices, the Sheriffs, Escheators, Constables, Inquirers for any matter whatever, and all other the King’s Bailiffs and Ministers, shall be sworn at all times that they receive their Bailiwicks and Offices, to observe and keep all the Ordinances made by the Prelates, Earls, and Barons thereunto chosen and assigned, and every of them, without contravening them in any point.118

Finally, of course, parliamentary rights over the resources of the kingdom as a whole also expanded in this period. From a time when it merely acted as a rubber stamp on requests of the king for financial aid in the mid-thirteenth century, through the beginnings of the development of supply and redress in Edward I’s reign, parliament was gradually to develop a crucial say over the financial needs of the king. More sporadically, but also potentially crucial, it was to gain some control over royal rights to appoint to a variety of offices, which in turn influenced the way the royal administration was run. Parliament, in other words, was gradually becoming supplier, manager, and even external assessor, to the king’s government this period – and as such, a real force with which to be reckoned.

114 115

116 117 118

EHD 1189–1327, 361–7, 370–6. C. Stephenson and F.G. Marcham, eds. Sources of English Constitutional History (New York, 1937), pp. 199–204. See Tout, Chapters, ii, 349–53. EHD 1189–1327, 144. SR i, 167.

Royal Feudal Rights

129

Parliament As a result of these developments, then, the king’s use of his feudal and other resources, along with finances granted by common assent, were bound to come up in the political debates of his reign. Indeed, a number of mentions of what were perceived as royal misuse of sources of patronage were made in parliament during Edward III’s reign. In 1339, the peerage in parliament requested that wardships be given to the next of kin119 – unsurprising considering the number of wardships given out to Edward’s new men previously.120 Next, during the crisis of 1340–1, attempts were made to control the use of royal feudal rights more generally, namely that in exchange for the grant of a ninth, Edward III promised that all the profits rising of the said Aid [i.e. the ninth], and of Wards and Marriages, Customs and Escheats, and other profits rising of the said Realm of England, shall be put and spent upon the Maintenance [and] the Safeguard of our said Realm of England, and of our Wars in Scotland, France, and Gascoign, and in no places elsewhere during the said Wars.121

Thus, the issue was now full blown, especially since the concurrent drain on the public treasury as a result of the three years of ‘phoney war’ from 1337 to 1340 was much heavier than it had ever been before, even during the 1290s.122 Indeed, ‘the crisis of 1340’, according to Harriss, ‘produced the clearest statement of the view that such [feudal] revenue pertained to the realm’.123 A couple of years later, in 1343, a more general request was made by the Commons that all lands, rents, escheats and other royal profits be retained by the king in order to maintain himself, fund the war and ‘other great matters of his realm’.124 Finally, at the end of the reign, this request was again made by the commons in the Good Parliament of 1376,125 to be reiterated in Richard II’s reign. Starting as an examination of the late king’s use of annuities,126 this unsurprisingly also turned into a more general examination of Edward III’s use of royal patronage sources.127 Such comments, however, were not without a background (as has been discussed), being the fuel for a debate which stretched back into the last century, and therefore not specific to Edward III’s reign.128 Indeed, one must be careful about equating the rhetoric surrounding specific crises, especially that of 1340–1, with more endemic criticism of Edward III’s elevation and endowment programme. For instance, though the idea that wardships should be given to

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128

RP ii, 104. Appendix 5. SR i, 289–90. Prestwich, Three Edwards, pp. 216; Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 10–11. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 155. RP ii, 141. RP ii, 356. RP iii, 16b, 35b. RP iii, 57a, 74b. See Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 160–85. It should be noted that the Ordinances of 1311 were referred to throughout the period, whenever critics called for reform of the government (e.g. RP ii, 7, 11).

130

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

the next of kin had never been stated as clearly as this before, at least not in parliament,129 the importance of the divide between royal and familial wardship had already been emphasised by relatives of the ward for over a century.130 More importantly, the argument that profits arising off the royal estate, and especially royal feudal incidents, should be used for the defence of the realm or in sanctioned wars was an old one – for example, the rhetoric in use in such demands has been seen by many historians as echoing the Ordinances of 1311.131 Furthermore, bouts of parliamentary criticism tended to come at times when the country was under considerable financial and political stress.132 Whether in the early 1340s, at the height of Edward’s exactions for the first phase of the Hundred Years War, or in the turbulence of the late 1370s when there was not only the downturn in fortunes in France, but also domestic discontent at home, in each instance the kingdom in a very delicate state. It was unsurprising, then, that parliament criticised whatever it saw as unnecessary expenditure as a way to decrease the burden on its members. This is not to say that such censure was not important, or for that matter, valid – only that it cannot be said to have primarily arisen from the use of royal patronage alone, but more as a ‘knee jerk’ reaction to more general demands for economy. It is notable that there was little such recorded reaction up until the late 1330s, namely before the period of financial stress had really set in, or after the mid 1340s, once the war had again begun to go well. Indeed, while other criticisms, such as the use of direct or indirect taxation for the financing of the war effort, were put forth throughout the reign by the king’s detractors, it is also notable that only when the debate really hit a fever pitch in the early 1340s and mid 1370s did royal patronage itself come close to being targeted for debate.133 At other times, for example when the Commons started being more specific about what parliamentary grants could be used for – as in 1344, l346, 1348, and 1352134 – royal patronage was not mentioned, and, indeed, annuities of new men continued to be paid from such grants throughout the period.135 Even the amalgamation, by 1350, of customs (which the king had a right to dispense as he wished) and subsidies (which were supposed to be devoted to the purposes for which they were awarded by parliament), while potentially controversial in itself,136 did not cause any major problems for the continued payment of annuities. In contrast, by the end of Edward III’s reign, and throughout the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV, annuities, and royal patronage in general, were to become a major political issue, both the grants themselves,

129

130 131 132 133 134 135 136

Though it was in Henry I’s coronation charter. EHD 1189–1327, 433. Later kings, in stronger positions, preferred the royal control of wards in the Dialogus de Scaccario, p. 94. See Walker, ‘Feudal Family and the Common Law Courts’, 13–31. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 300–01; Ormrod, Edward III, p. 15. See also Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 73–5. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 231 ff. G.L. Harriss, ‘War and the Emergence of the English Parliament’, JMH 2 (1976), 41. Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b. N.S.B Gras, The Early English Customs System (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), 85–9.

Royal Feudal Rights

131

and the controversy over the sources used to fund them, especially where they had originally been sanctioned by parliament.137 Finally, though criticism of Edward’s policies was more than evident throughout the reign, seldom in the parliaments of the period were Edward’s new men a particular focus of criticism. Firstly, as peerages were usually conferred in parliament, it could be argued that the lack of debate at the time indicated that the king’s promotions had the backing of the nobility, and perhaps even the commons as well. Though such an argument can be pushed too far – the royal will on issues clearly important to the king being a good reason for general support – nonetheless the fact that so many promotions, especially the multiple promotions in 1332, 1337 and 1348,138 leave little record of negative response in the records, does indicate general willingness to accept, or at least acquiesce in, the king’s choices. Indeed, aside from criticisms of the conduct of the war, which applied to anyone fighting in France, the closest anyone ever came to criticising the actual elevation and endowment of the new men was when the earl of Surrey, noting the presence of John Darcy and Ralph Stafford, among others, in the parliament of 1341, asked: Sir king, how goes this parliament? Parliaments were not wont to be like this. For here those who should be foremost are shut out, while there sit other men of low rank who have no business to be here. Such right belongs only to the peers of the land. Sir king, think of this.139

This was a sharp criticism, and one which must be taken as an indictment of Edward’s choice of favourites as well as, presumably, his use of patronage. But this was the only case of substantive criticism of Edward’s new men in a reign lasting five decades. Whereas in other reigns, when the subject of the abuse of royal patronage had come up, individual examples were freely and constantly given in connection – so much so that the infamy of a Gaveston, Despenser or de la Pole threatened to eclipse the reputation of the kings they were said to serve – the reaction to Edward’s new men, while never completely silent, cannot be said to have threatened to cause outright rebellion.140 Rather substantive criticism, when it came, tended to be at a more theoretical level of the working out of the use of feudal causalities.141 For the majority of his reign, then, when Edward III was criticised for his patronage, aside from the instance noted above, it was not because he targeted the wrong people for reward, but rather that he used such patronage at all instead of the more laudable goal, at least in the Commons’ eyes, of keeping it to ‘help maintain the household or the King’s wars’.142

137 138 139 140

141 142

See Given-Wilson, Royal Household, pp. 130–8. See Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 1. Croniques de London, ed. G.J. Aungier (CS 1844), p. 90. And, it must be said, in much shorter order. Whereas Piers Gaveston, the Despensers, and Michael de la Pole all caused reaction within a few years of their rise, four of the most important of Edward III’s new men – namely William Montagu, Robert Ufford, William Bohun, and William Clinton – survived the best part of a decade, until the crisis of 1340–1, often compiling large estates, yet rarely being the target of communal disapproval. See Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 155. Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, p. 155.

132

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

Chronicles, contemporary writings and political tracts Had there been continual opposition to Edward’s choice and reward of new men throughout the reign, it would surely have found voice in the chroniclers of the time – often among the keenest of royal critics. King John and Henry III had Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris to watch over them, and Edward II had Ranulf Higden and the author of the Vita Edwardi Secundi – all writers with considerable, and often valid, criticisms of the monarchy of the day. However, most chronicles of Edward III’s reign simply mention the promotion of the 1337 earls,143 or at best refer to the characters and prowess of the new men, usually in connection with the war in France.144 Adam Murimuth did note the inexperience of many members of Edward’s government, but this was as far as it went.145 Indeed, considering the publicity around the 1337 creations, as well as the sheer number of men whom Edward raised to the peerage and endowed to various degrees, especially after 1341,146 the fact that, of the chroniclers of the reign, only one saw fit to level any sort of criticism against Edward on this score is quite surprising. Sir Thomas Gray, in his Scalacronica, was the sole contemporary chronicler to criticise Edward III’s use of patronage to his new men: Upon which earls and other good men of his the King bestowed so liberally of his possessions that he retained for himself scarcely any of the lands appertaining to the Crown, but was obliged to subsist upon levies and subsidies, which were a heavy burden upon the people.147

This passage is clearly pointed, and does also echo the customary call for ‘the king should live of his own’. But again, Gray’s work had a heavy slant. His chronicle may be seen from the viewpoint of a man languishing as a prisoner in Edinburgh castle for lack of anyone to pay the ransom, one who also thought the Scottish war more important than the French, and therefore was likely to look at those who left him there in less than favourable light.148 However, even Gray does not question the focus of the patronage, rather its use at all at a time of national need. Similarly, the political tract Against the King’s Taxes, believed to have been composed c.1338, though criticising all and sundry concerning the harshness of the king’s exactions, made no pointed criticisms of royal patronage to those newly risen – even though tenths and fifteenths were often being used to pay the annuities of Edward’s new men at this time.149 This is not to say that

143

144

145

146 147

148 149

E.g. Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Monachi Cestrensis (RS 1882), viii, 332; Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, pp. 78–9. E.g. the Chandos Herald refers to Northampton as a ‘right noble person’, Suffolk as having a heart ‘hardy and brave’, and Cobham and Brian being ‘valiant’ and ‘good’ respectively. Chandos Herald, Life and Feats of Arms of Edward, the Black Prince, Francisque-Michel, trans. (London, 1883), 8–9. Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, p. 118; N. Fryde, ‘Edward III’s Removal of his Ministers and Judges, 1340–1’, BIHR 48 (1975), 155. See Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 1. T. Gray, Scalacronica: The Reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III H. Maxwell, trans. (Glasgow, 1907), p. 102. Scalacronica, vii-viii. I.S.T. Aspin, ed., Anglo-Norman Political Songs (Anglo-Norman Text Society, 1953), pp. 105–15; Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 5b.

Royal Feudal Rights

133

contemporary commentators were unwilling to criticise Edward – especially about events of the last years of the reign, as seen in the writings of ‘John of Bridlington’,150 William Langland,151 and, perhaps most important of all, Thomas Walsingham152– but simply that, for whatever reason, they did not see Edward’s patronage programme as worthy of sustained attack. Attitude of the royal family/established peerage The general lack of negative feeling towards Edward’s new men, especially once the war began to go well, was also manifested in their acceptance by the ruling class. Such a level of acceptance was in many ways without precedent for newly promoted supporters of the king. While Henry I’s ‘men raised from the dust’ never seem to have had many problems during that king’s reign, Henry III’s courtiers were a perennial point of criticism by the nobility and some members of the royal family, coming up most famously in the 1244 Paper Constitution and the Provisions of Oxford of 1258.153 Similarly, Piers Gaveston and the Despensers were constant irritants to the established nobility, and later Queen Isabella herself, as shown in the Ordinances of 1311, the Treaty of Leake, the Glamorgan War of 1321, and finally the Revolution of 1326–7. Edward III’s promotions, however, faced little in the way of sustained opposition by the establishment, either in the form of quiet but close criticism from the royal family or more vocal attacks from the old nobility. For all kings perhaps the easiest group to appease were the royal family and royal relatives, all of whom, to some degree, were in a similarly reliant situation to parvenus, especially when it came to support from the king. Indeed, Henry I’s family seem to have been in as dependent a relationship to the king as his ‘new men’, as do many of Henry III’s blood relations and in-laws. And this does not change with Edward III’s reign. Sometimes, evidence of this attitude would manifest itself through acts of token favour from members of the royal family, as when Edward, the Black Prince gave John Beauchamp two tuns of wine, a ‘cloth of “Turkie”’, and, on one occasion, ‘the best mare in the park of Risbergh at his choice, except the prince’s grey mare there’.154 On the other hand, more substantial reward could also indicate acceptance. Walter Mauny, for example, was appointed Marshal of the King’s Marshalsea, by the earl of Norfolk,155 as was Roger Beauchamp to the life custodianship of Devizes castle in 1340

150 151

152

153 154

155

‘John of Bridlington’ in T. Wright, ed., Political Poems and Songs, 2 vols. (London, 1859), i, 208–15. See H. Jewell, ‘Piers Plowman – A Poem of Crisis: An Analysis of Political Instability in Langland’s England’, in J. Taylor and W. Childs, eds., Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England (Gloucester, 1990), 59–80. For Walsingham and other sources for the Good Parliament, see J. Taylor, ‘The Good Parliament and Its Sources’, in Taylor and Childs, eds. Politics and Crisis, 81–96. EHD 1189–1327, 360, 361–7. BP iv, 53, 67, 113. This system, however, did at least once work in reverse, the show of favour by a member of the royal family being the precursor to favour by the king: Richard Stafford was raised to the peerage after he had been given a 200 mark annuity, and later land grants, by the Black Prince. CPR 1358–61, 303; Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 1; D.S. Green, ‘The Household and Military Retinue of Edward the Black Prince’, University of Nottingham Ph.D. (1998), pp. 78, 165. CP viii, 572. For other grants by the earl of Norfolk to new men, see CPR 1330–4, 96; C260/71/18; CCR 1360–4, 81; CPR 1330–4, 402.

134

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

by Queen Philippa.156 At times, though not as often, even sons of new men were favoured by members of the royal family, as when, in 1372, John Grey of Rotherfield’s son was given a seven year grant by the Black Prince of the leet of Shabbington of his honour of Wallingford (Berks.).157 Moreover, this acceptance was also reflected in the willingness of all sectors of the ruling class to do business with Edward’s new men. Often, with the royal family this took the form of leases of lands to certain individuals. The Inquisitions Miscellaneous note that the manor of Banstead (Surrey), previously held by Queen Isabella and granted on the latter’s fall from grace to Queen Philippa, was then given by Philippa for a two-year term to one of Edward’s new men, Thomas Bradeston.158 In another transaction, in 1355, the queen gave licence to John Beauchamp to purchase the manor of Sileham in Rainford (Kent), held of her in chief of her manor of Milton Regis (Kent) with the further proviso that Beauchamp would also retain the manor from the king after the death of the queen.159 Earlier, in July 1337, there was a confirmation of a life grant by Philippa to John Verdon of the keeping of Rockingham castle and the stewardship ‘of the forest between the bridges of Oxford and Stafford’. This was held by the queen of Edward’s gift, and was to be kept by Verdon at a rent of £80 a year.160 Higher up, in 1342, the earl of Derby leased the honour of Pontefract back from Philippa for £1,000 per annum,161 and, in 1345, she leased to the earl of Huntingdon the abovementioned manor of Milton Regis for £220.162 Even the old queen, Isabella, was not above doing business with Edward’s new men, especially William Montagu, the key man in her lover, Roger Mortimer’s, downfall. On 1 October 1337, Montagu was granted the reversion of a number of Isabella’s lands.163 Though in part an act of patronage by the king, this was also the result of Montagu giving Isabella 600 marks out of the coinage of tin in the county of Chester which he had previously been granted until his 1337 reversions came in.164 From the non-royal nobility, however, the acceptance of a new man was more likely to be seen in his part in the enfeoffment-to-use – obviously a position of trust, as no landholder would wish to put legal control of his property in the hands of someone he did not believe completely worthy. As this was primarily a mid-fourteenth-century development, its main impact was on the latter part of Edward III’s reign. Nonetheless, it was an important indicator of establishment favour for Edward’s new men. For instance, in 1361 Ralph Basset, one of the

156

157 158 159 160 161 162

163 164

CPR 1340–3, 115; CPR 1343–5, 270. Philippa was later to make Beauchamp her steward. GivenWilson, ‘Court and Household’, p. 175. LR14/1059. CIM 1307–48, 371. CPR 1354–8, 186. CFR 1337–47, 26; held until at least 1343. C47/9/58/10. Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, i, 35. CPR 1343–5, 442. For other grants by Philippa to Edward’s new men, see C47/9/58/1,4,5,6ob, 10, 12ob, 14ob. CPR 1334–8, 506; CPR 1343–5, 235; CCR 1343–6, 250; History of Northumberland, xv, p. 284; CCR 1364–8, 262–3; CPR 1364–7, 224. CCharR 1327–41, 431–3; CCR 1337–9, 273; BL Harleian Charter 43 D26. CPR 1338–40, 114, 115.

Royal Feudal Rights

135

victors of Crécy, was part of a group enfeoffment made by the earl of Warwick of the castle and shrievalty of Worcester and other manors, lands and rights spread throughout Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, Rutland and the March of Wales – a considerable trust for one yet to be raised to the peerage.165 Similarly, in November 1374 both Richard Scrope and Roger Beauchamp were feoffees to the earl of March’s substantial estate in the West Midlands and Wales including the castle, manor and town of Ludlow as well as a number of lordships in the Marches.166 And, in at least one case, a new man was a feoffee-to-use on three separate occasions. Guy Brian first acted as such in July 1359 when he, along with John Seys and Thomas Andreu, were enfeoffed with the manors of Martley (Worcs.), Sherston (Wilts.) and Ashley (Hants) by Edward Despenser.167 Later, in January 1366, he was, along with the duke of Lancaster and the earl of Hereford, listed as a feoffee-to-use for a number of the earl of Arundel’s lands in Surrey, Sussex and Wales, including the castle and town of Reigate (Surrey).168 Finally, in March 1373, Brian, along with the bishop of London and the earl of Arundel were pardoned for acquiring in fee from the earl of Hereford the manor of West Peckham (Kent) which they were then given licence to grant to another group of feoffees.169 But perhaps the most noticeable way in which a new man may be seen as finding recognition by the old nobility was through his inclusion in the wills of the latter. Sometimes, this was as a witness or executor to a will. This was a particularly important office if the person making out the will wanted to ensure that his instructions, especially concerning the care of his soul, were carried out. Ralph Basset was either a witness to, or an executor of, the will of William Ferrers, Lord of Groby in 1368, while in 1369 Basset, along with Roger Beauchamp and Guy Brian were all noted as being executors of the will of Thomas, earl of Warwick.170 In the latter will these men were given various tokens of the earl’s affection, Beauchamp receiving ‘a ring, the best he can chose after the rest which [sic] are disposed of, also my next best tilting horse’ while Brian received ‘a cup and a horse, the next best he can choose’. Brian’s presence again seems to have been particularly popular in such arrangements, also being included in the wills of the earls of Hereford and Arundel, as well as his fellow new man, Walter Mauny.171 Whether, then, because of an inherent trust in Edward III as a judge of character, or because contact with these individuals was seen as a good way to ingratiate oneself with the king, the new men seem, at least, to have been accepted by the English noble establishment. * 165

166 167 168 169 170 171

CPR 1361–4, 48. Even witnessing such an agreement was a position of trust. E.g. Walter Mauny’s part in the 1369 enfeoffment-to-use of the earl of Pembroke of the lordship of Abergavenny. CPR 1374–7, 72. CPR 1374–7, 33–4. CPR 1358–61, 244. CPR 1364–7, 198. CPR 1370–4, 264. Testamenta Vetusta, ed. N.H. Nicolas, 2 vols. (London, 1826), i, 76, 80 Testamenta Vetusta, i, 86, 89, 96.

136

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

Thus, reaction to Edward III’s patronage programme to his new men could be quite varied, depending on which level is being examined. Where individual selfinterest was concerned, his new men may be seen as creating a considerable amount of controversy, as had favourites of previous reigns. A royal grant not only marked the transfer of land to a new holder, it also, in many eyes, was the time when dormant claims were to be revived, especially when the new holder had still to secure his claim to the property. As a result, many took the opportunity to push their rights to lands against individuals perceived as parvenus. However, while Edward III’s reign witnessed some of the more lively chapters in an on-going debate about the king’s use of his feudal resources both in practice and theory, few pointedly questioned the right of the monarch to ‘make’ these men in the first place. Even more surprisingly, and unlike in previous reigns, they did not usually debate Edward’s choice of new men or patronage of them. Criticisms did come, but when they did, they were generally at the level of private litigation rather than public comment – in itself very surprising considering the recent precedent of vocal criticism of the king, criticism which had developed so far as to help depose an anointed monarch. Indeed, the limited public response to Edward III’s largesse for most of his reign is something of a wonder. Without a doubt, it was one of the largest patronage programmes that England had ever seen, dozens of men being promoted into and within one of the most important institutions in the land, and yet it caused only moderate comment, and no more serious – especially violent – reaction. More vocal criticism of royal use of resources did develop late in the reign, primarily as a result of permanent alienations of feudal rights to the 1370s court clique – though this criticism was not that ‘the king should live of his own’, as is often argued for earlier periods, or that he should fund wars through his feudal rights. Instead, the point being made at this time was that the alienation of too many feudal rights, rather than keeping them mainly under royal control as a way to continue to generate income, was permanently lessening the crown’s ability to raise finances at all.172 Later on, one of the allegations made against Richard II in 1399 was that he was giving away the royal patrimony, and in 1404 the Commons went so far as to demand a resumption of all grants since 40 Edward III (1367)173 – possibly because it was perceived this was the last time that the king’s rights in this area had been used responsibly. Finally, in 1406, Parliament, and especially the Commons, sought to advise the king on the running of the kingdom in areas such as the grant of offices and the use of annuities and other royal resources,174 all with an eye to increased efficiency in the running of the king’s government as a whole. Amazingly, such criticisms, though often equally valid for Edward III’s patronage policies towards his new men, had failed to materialise to any degree until very late in his reign. Why did the king’s critics not say more, especially

172

173 174

W.M. Ormrod, ‘The Politics of Pestilence: Government in England after the Black Death’, in W.M. Ormrod and P.G. Lindley, eds. The Black Death in England (Stamford, 1996), 170–1. A.L. Brown, ‘The Commons and Council in the Reign of Henry IV’, EHR 79 (1964), 18–19. Brown, ‘Commons and Council’, 3–4, 10, 14–15.

Royal Feudal Rights

137

considering the size of Edward’s patronage programme? Much, of course, had to do with the new men’s often well publicised competence and past history, which tended to mesh with the needs of the kingdom as a whole at the time. A lot, also, had to do with Edward III’s more general propaganda campaign to sell the war in France to his subjects, with which the new men were so intimately connected.175 But neither could have been the whole story. Barons had ‘joined the chorus of complaints against new men’176 in earlier and later reigns, so why not now? Were the established nobility, and indeed the political community as a whole, letting their rights concerning this aspect of the king’s performance slip as a result of complacency, or did they generally approve of what he was doing? Why, in other words, was there not more substantial comment when it came to one of the largest endowment programmes that medieval England had or would ever know – especially at a time when the English nobility itself had begun to have increasingly clear tenurial, economic and social qualifications for its membership, when parliament was becoming more vocal, and when the kingdom’s resources as a whole were strained in the face of foreign war, economic slowdown, and, by the middle of the century, the Black Death?

175

176

Most recently, see A.K. McHardy, ‘Some Reflections on Edward III’s Use of Propaganda’, in Bothwell, ed., Age of Edward III, 171–92. Turner, Men Raised from the Dust, p. 14.

7 Distribution of Royal Favour

PREVIOUS chapters have looked at Edward III’s patronage to a group of ‘new’ supporters and its reception. Unprecedented in its scope and focus, and clearly connected with concurrent or future membership in the parliamentary peerage, it was a massive, if not entirely realised, programme and, as such, was bound to have a considerable impact. Having examined the background, sources, implementation and reaction to Edward’s patronage, we are now ready to reanalyse both the motivation and the impact of this king’s endowments of his ‘new men’, and place it had within the larger framework of royal patronage to the English peerage as a whole from 1330 to 1377. The new parliamentary peerage If creation also involved endowment one may well ask, why did the king wish to create new earls and other peers? If the members of the higher nobility were such obviously bad things, obstacles to good government, natural enemies to the royal authority, why didn’t sensible kings let them die out? Why multiply a conspicuous evil, why create obstacles to one’s own exercise of power? Was it just blind folly that led Edward III to reverse his grandfather’s policy of limitation? To revive the lapsed earldom of Devon for Hugh Courtenay in 1335 and to create six new earldoms on a single day in March 1337? And five more by 1362? If not, then what were his reasons? And for summoning still more new men to his frequent parliaments?1

Edward III’s goal, in McFarlane’s view, was service in peace and war which, along with royal kinship, were ‘the two motives for patronage throughout the centuries’. According to most modern historians, that had been the basis of Henry I’s patronage, as it was for Henry III’s, and even Edward I’s. And, undoubtedly, as we have seen in the discussion of the circumstances surrounding Edward’s accession to power, as well as the rhetoric in many of the grants themselves, this was at least one of his aims. Both the weakness in royal governance in the 1310s and 1320s, and the situations which were to develop on both the Scottish and French fronts, made such arrangements crucial. But the question which must then be asked is how this manifested itself in Edward III’s endowment of his new men, and whether these were his only objectives? What, 1

McFarlane, Nobility, p. 156.

Distribution of Royal Favour

139

in other words, determined this monarch’s day-to-day dispersal of grants to his new peerage, and was there, more importantly, any overall rationale to the patronage he granted out? The first part of this question, I believe, has been answered sufficiently in the preceding chapters. The overall conclusion to be reached from these is that the interests of a new man – geographical, social, and temporal – were, unsurprisingly, an important determinant of the way in which grants were given out. After all, not to take into account such factors would be to make any patronage so disbursed a waste of valuable resources. When Henry I granted lands to his new men, he made sure they were concentrated in areas in which they already had some influence, and in periods when they would be useful to them.2 Even Edward II tried to give his favourites lands at times and in places where they desired more power – especially, in the case of the Despensers, in south Wales in the early 1320s. The only substantial adjustments to this type of policy by Edward III reflected the fact that he was dealing with a wider variety of individuals, with more clearly defined ranks demanding more in the way of endowments. This situation, along with a more efficient escheatory, and an increased tendency for lands to return to the king as a result of De Donis and Quia Emptores, did impact on the implementation of royal policy – though not the more basic rationale behind the interests of a new man. And, in many ways, such policies had a natural potential to augment the king’s power as well. For example, as a new man’s landed power increased in his sphere of influence, so too, if the man was loyal, did the king’s more general control over the locality. For Thomas Bradeston’s landed estate to be augmented in Gloucestershire also meant an increase in the king’s overall control of the area. Similarly the grant of a wardship or marriage to a loyal new man was bound not only to increase royal control over tenants-in-chief as a whole, but often also over the estates and wards of the more problematic families of the 1320s such as the Mortimers and Despensers. That William Montagu and William Bohun – not to mention Thomas Dagworth, John Darcy, Guy Brian, and Walter Mauny – had been granted a substantial number of rights over both families’ estates could not help but increase the king’s power and standing. Moreover, the grant of offices could have had the similar benefit of placing royal supporters in crucial positions in times of trouble. William Clinton’s control of Dover and the Cinque Ports or William Bohun’s guardianship of the Scottish Marches could easily make the difference between a successful and unsuccessful raid or invasion. Finally, Edward sometimes further focused this patronage, both temporally and geographically. Temporally, aside from the fact that a number of the promotions up until 1337 were to fairly obscure individuals (more than likely summoned simply for size of land holding or long service), Edward made two-thirds of his promotions into and within the peerage in the first two decades after 1330. In part, this was so that they were able thrive in the increasingly status conscious social environment developing in fourteenth-century England. However, this

2

See R.W. Southern, ‘Henry I’, in R.W. Southern, ed., Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970), 215–20; Green, Government of England, pp. 171–93 and Biographical Appendix.

140

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

policy was also at least partly connected with Edward’s wish to build up royalist power in the 1330s and 1340s for both domestic administration and fighting the Scots and French, as has often been observed. Geographically, and less well known, Edward III also concentrated on promoting men into the peerage who already held estates or offices in East Anglia, or were later given or acquired lands or appointments there, presumably at least in part for the sake of defence of the eastern shore – of the sixty-eight new men, twenty-six had landholdings there at the start of their careers while another five were granted East Anglian lands over the course of the reign,3 a policy which Richard II was to continue.4 These men, then, having a clear stake in the wealth of the area, would have very real reasons for taking seriously their part in local administration, and through that the defence of the realm. Henry I had used similar tactics in building up his supporters,5 as had Henry II6 – though they were the only kings to have had a clear strategy of doing so before Edward III. Nonetheless, this could not be the whole explanation. For Edward III to grant out patronage primarily to suit his new men, with any royal advantage simply as a by-product dependent on their loyalty, was not only impractical, it could also be a threat to the very royal power he was trying to augment. Indeed, for Edward to endow by such reasoning alone would risk a return to a domination by ‘overmighty’ subjects similar to that of his father’s reign and the Minority, individuals bloated with lands and income via royal favour who threatened not only to excite civil war by their presence, but also to damage the power and prestige of the crown itself. Why then would a king, whose father had had so many problems with his titled and untitled nobility, want to rebuild the power of this group on apparently unconditional grounds? One must, therefore, perhaps begin to question the more fundamental rationale behind Edward III’s endowment programme to his new men. In other words, though one of Edward’s ultimate goals was loyal and competent service at home and abroad, were there other aims as well? What was the purpose behind his distribution of patronage to these individuals? Was it an attempt to endow permanently as many followers as he could with hereditary estates befitting their new ranks, thereby threatening to create dynasties which could easily move outside royal control? Or can his be seen to be a more thoughtful approach, less ambitious and less dangerous perhaps, but one which would allow Edward III to have a more controllable relationship with his nobility? A great deal of evidence in favour of the latter view does exist in the particulars surrounding Edward III’s patronage to his new men. Firstly, when land was readily available – either by escheat, forfeiture, or in expectancy – Edward effectively made the estates he was creating for these individuals far less permanent than they need otherwise have been by an extensive use of conditional grants. Again, it was really De Donis (1285) and Quia Emptores (1290) which

3 4 5 6

See Appendix 7. Virgoe, ‘Crown and Local Government’, 218–41. Green, Government of England, pp. 134–94; Green, Aristocracy, pp. 134–5. Warren, Henry II, pp. 309–14, Chapter 10.

Distribution of Royal Favour

141

opened up conditional tenures for use by both the king and his subjects. However, neither Edward I or his son were able fully to exploit their potential. By the 1290s Edward I was already contending with wars in Scotland and France, and a potential baronial rebellion, while the character of Edward II’s reign did not lend itself to thoughtful distribution of patronage – though there were administrative developments at that time which later would help his son marshal the patronage sources at his disposal. Rather, Edward III’s reign marked the first time that a king was able to exploit conditional grants to any degree for either his subjects’ sake or his own. Thus, of 101 land grants normally eligible to be given out in fee to his new men,7 only forty-one were so granted (containing, among other properties, six castles and thirty-eight manors).8 That this provisional nature was true of limited or life grants is obvious, but the use of entailed and tail male grants was also important in this respect. Though potentially, but not necessarily, of longer duration than life tenures, these types of grant would nevertheless rarely be permanent alienations, especially considering the infertility among the noble class as a whole in this period – a matter of which the king was well aware.9 Undeniably, when one looks at the terms of the land grants made during the reign over which the king had active choice, there was a prevalence of grants on conditional terms – sixty in total (containing, among other properties, eleven castles and ninety-four manors), and including seven grants in entail, fourteen in tail male, fourteen for life, and twenty-four for less than life (limited term).10 Moreover, of the twenty-seven new men represented in Appendix Three as recipients of lands from the king, all held at least part of the lands granted on conditional terms while only thirteen were ever granted lands in fee. This, then, often made a family’s retention of enough properties to stay within the peerage dependent either upon having direct heirs, and especially the ever elusive male heir, or on his descendants retaining enough royal favour to get such grants renewed. Most notably, the land grants made in 1337 to those newly raised to earldoms were, almost to a manor, granted out in tail male, while only three of these men ever received lands in fee from the king. The chances were, then, that sooner or later a large portion of the lands Edward III had granted out to his new men would escheat to the crown – if not at the end of the term of tenancy or on the death of a new man, then not uncommonly within a generation or two. Many of the more substantial of these grants, however, had been given out by the later 1340s – at least those going to the new men. After this, a number of the lands given out were forfeitures connected with alien religious lands, and

7

8

9 10

Leaving out twenty-one grants made from forfeited religious lands which, though eligible to be granted out permanently, rarely were – the king probably fearing that large scale permanent alienation of this sort would cause problems for him with Rome. See Appendix 3 and pp. 57–8. All numbers are calculated from the last known status of a grant. Furthermore, it should be noted that eighteen of these forty-one grants in fee contained lands in politically unstable areas – e.g. Wales, Scotland, or France – and thus Edward may have been trying to reinforce tenuous claims by so granting the lands. As indicated by Edward himself in his 1337 earldom creations. See p. 15. Though the sample is somewhat small, it is also notable that Edward’s propensity for tail male grants goes against the more general trend in favour of entail. Compare with S.J. Payling, ‘Social Mobility, Demographic Change, and Landed Society in Late Medieval England’, EcHR 2nd ser. 45 (1992), 57.

142

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

therefore in practice often not granted out for long terms. In some ways, then, Edward may be thought to have ‘shot his bolt’ with respect to long term patronage to his new men by this point – presumably in part at least for encouraging his nobility before they went off to fight the French – and afterwards had to use more temporary forms of reward to favour them.11 But this image of a land shortage later in the reign forcing a curtailment of permanent endowment should not be pushed too far – especially when one takes into account the number of grants going out to the established nobility throughout the period. Indeed, that Edward never even tried to replace many of the annuities granted out with lands and rents may be seen as somewhat suspect. Though this may in part reflect the aforementioned scarcity of open land, the fact that many of these annuities went on for decades without the most cursory of attempts to fulfil them,12 even if only with expectancies, indicates a lack of determination on Edward’s part to find many of his new men permanent endowments. Moreover, as the reign progressed, not only did straight annuities with no lands or rents attached become more common (half of the annuities granted out after 1341), but even the promises of lands connected with endowment annuity grants became less permanent. Whereas prior to 1340 all but four of sixteen annuities granted until lands and rents came in (excluding third pennies of counties) were in expectation of lands either in entail, tail male, or fee (though only four of the remaining twelve annuities were specifically until lands in fee came in), after this point six of nine such annuities granted were with only life land grants attached – including grants for Michael Poynings, Guy Brian and the Earl of Stafford.13 Edward III, then, possibly as a result of some of his new men’s less than supportive stance in the 1340–1 crisis,14 was even less willing to grant out permanent estates as time went on, rather preferring to rely on less permanent, and more easily controllable and recallable, sources such as annuities, wardships, and offices to show favour. Thus after this point, though ‘conspicuous and continuous service could be expected to be rewarded’,15 it was increasingly less common that it was rewarded permanently.16 Edward’s great great grandfather, King John, had had a similar relationship with at least one member of his nobility, William Longspée, another

11

12 13

14 15 16

See Appendices. Especially as Edward III increasingly also had his own family’s estates to think about. W.M. Ormrod, ‘Edward III and his Family’, JBS 26 (1987), 398–442. See Appendices 6a and 6b. Of the other two, the grant to John Darcy was in expectation of the remainder of Pembroke lands promised in 1337, and that to Henry Scrope was first granted to his father, and extended by royal favour to the son. CCharR 1327–41, 428; CCR 1343–6, 439; CPR 1343–5, 208; CPR 1361–4, 272. Wilkinson, ‘Protest of the Earls’, 181. Ormrod, Edward III, p. 105. At first glance, marriage as a patronage source is the exception to this statement. However, especially in the case of widows, not only was the king’s say somewhat limited by the preferences of the new man, and even the widow, but also the fact that the inheritances of these women had frequently been spoken for by the offspring of their first marriages meant that quite often any territorial gains did not remain with the new man beyond his lifetime – for example, the gains made by Bohun as a result of his marriage to the widow of Edmund Mortimer, and Dagworth’s marriage to the countess of Ormond. This, along with the fact that some of the widows were past childbearing age by the time that they made their marriages – for example the countess of Lincoln and Eve de Clavering – meant that marriage commonly did not have a permanent impact on the estate of a new man. See pp. 63–7 and Appendix 4.

Distribution of Royal Favour

143

Earl of Salisbury17 – but aside from this somewhat unique case there were few instances of kings using nonpermanent grants in so coherent a manner prior to Edward III’s reign. Finally, at a more general level, the number of new men whose descendants were granted summons also declined drastically after the first generation, even though the families in this particular group, defying McFarlane’s numbers for the nobility as a whole, often continued in the male line. Though in the period 1327–36 most individuals summoned were resummoned themselves or had their sons summoned,18 in the reign as a whole after 1330, of twenty-seven new men who died during the reign and who had mature sons, thirteen, including the sons of several of Edward’s favourite bannerets such as Thomas Ughtred, Thomas Dagworth, and Michael Poynings, were nonetheless never summoned to parliament. Indeed, perhaps the most notable similarity between Edward’s new promotions during the reign is in the future of the peerages granted out. Of the sixty-eight new men, thirty-eight (56%) would have no eligible heirs during the reign, and another thirteen (19%) would have eligible heirs who were not summoned, making a total of fifty-one (75%) who would not have sons summoned during the reign. In other words, for a variety of reasons, Edward ended up having only a quarter of his new men’s heirs summoned during the reign. Through his use of the power over individual summons, then, Edward III was, at least partly, being proactive in enforcing what had been true for AngloNormans also, namely that ‘No family could be classified indefinitely as curial. Either its members prospered, and became baronial, or failed to make their mark at court, and faded from the administrative hierarchy, leaving little further trace.’19 From this evidence, added to the fact that the king not infrequently had less regard for the interests of the descendants of a new man than he had had for the new man himself, Edward III’s endowment programme to his new men may be seen to have had somewhat more limited aims than previously thought. To elaborate on McFarlane’s answer to the questions posed at the beginning of this section, then, though the utility of the new men was of great importance, one must also realize that, in many instances, Edward had no clear intention of permanently endowing new noble lines. Indeed, though it was fairly obvious that the king needed such men for ‘service’, this does not necessarily mean he wanted to ennoble their descendants in perpetuity. An individual might possess qualities which would endear or make him of use to the king – that the rest of his line would have those same qualities, however, was by no means certain. Thus, perhaps Edward did not ‘reverse his grandfather’s policy of limitation’ with respect to the nobility,20 but rather simply used different methods – especially the extensive use of conditional land grants, wardships and annuities – to achieve similar ends. Due to changes which had taken place during the last 17 18

19 20

B.W. Holden, ‘The Balance of Patronage: King John and the Earl of Salisbury’, HSJ 8 (1996), 82. T.F.T. Plucknett, ‘Parliament, 1327–36’ in E.B. Fryde and E. Miller, eds. Historical Studies of the English Parliament volume 1 Origins to 1399 (Cambridge, 1970), 209. Mason, ‘Magnates, Curiales and the Wheel of Fortune’, 118. McFarlane, Nobility, p. 156.

144

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

half century in areas of land tenure, feudalism, war and finance, this was a somewhat novel approach, but one which, for Edward III at least, proved very useful for re-establishing monarchical power in the kingdom as a whole, and the parliamentary peerage in particular. Any idea that Edward III had it in mind to create new noble lines from his promotion programme should, then, be rethought. For, from the material available, the way Edward actually used the resources open to him suggests a lack of firm resolve to ennoble permanently any but a handful of his new men and their descendants – from the way he distributed rank and patronage, it is often difficult to argue anything more. And in this, he was doing something which previous kings might have wished they were able to do when it came to limiting the power of the supporters, but who did not have the mechanisms, scope of resources, or the proper domestic political environment, to do so. Even in the twelfth century, when the laws concerning lands, customs and inheritance had yet to settle down, it was still clear that the lands being given out to Henry I or Henry II’s supporters, for instance, were being given with the understanding that, bar rebellion or other serious acts against the king, they were under near permanent or permanent terms. By Edward III’s reign, however, there were more limitable, controllable and ‘tailorable’ options open to kings, and this monarch was more than willing to exploit them to their fullest extent. In treatments of the period, however, there is a tacit acceptance of the idea that Edward III set about trying to ‘create’ new hereditary noble families21 – after all, there was little clear precedent for any other approach when it came to kings endowing men with lands and position – and that in the end there was often no permanence to the results of his efforts simply because of the chance of hereditary survival. Historians look to the rhetorical flourishes of the grants, and in particular those connected with the creation of the six earls in 1337, as proof of this. But, from the evidence available, this might be taking such statements too much at face value – and crediting Edward III with too little common sense, and too little foresight. At the beginning of this study, a brief summary of the development of the parliamentary peerage was put forth, and I would like to return to it here. For this institution was obviously bound sooner or later to compete with the monarch for political and social power as, the more stratified it became, and the more hereditary, the further outside of the ambit of the king’s personal control it moved. Indeed, it was the members of the peerage, rapidly developing from an amorphous concept of nobility, who had caused the problems during the 1320s, and had the potential to cause more. Such developments could but grow under a weak king like Edward II, especially with determined characters like Thomas of Lancaster in the thick of things – but it was also natural that a strong king like Edward III should attempt to control it. And, though it could never be argued that Edward ‘packed’ the peerage by these means, nonetheless by placing within it a number of individuals friendly to him and, more importantly, men he could often control as a result of the dependent

21

This idea also appears in fifteenth century history as part of the ‘overmighty noble’ aspect of the Wars of the Roses. E.g. A.J. Pollard, The Wars of the Roses (London, 1988), pp. 49–50.

Distribution of Royal Favour

145

and tenuous nature of their estates, Edward could limit the implications of these developments. Indeed, a view of Edward cautiously stringing many of his new men along with the promise of landed estates – and giving them annuities and custodianships in the meantime – is perhaps not all that far off the mark. In other words, the case can be made that Edward III was trying to influence the power of a growing hereditary peerage not only by making a substantial number of its members dependent on royal goodwill, but also by not allowing much of the patronage granted out to remain out indefinitely. Moreover, if all this was obvious to men of the time – which the common usage of the nonhereditary term ‘banneret’ for many of the lesser of these new men seems to indicate22 – it may, in turn, help explain why the kingdom as a whole was generally more willing to accept these men en masse as they never had a single Despenser or Gaveston. The way Edward III got to this point, as we have seen, was relatively uncharted. The idea of structuring a royal patronage programme with the aim of encouraging, retaining, and controlling good service within an institutionalising parliamentary nobility was not something which English kings had developed to any degree prior to Edward III. Certainly, unlike the previous use of parliamentary summons by kings, in Edward’s endowment and promotion programme we witness the first coherent acknowledgement by a monarch of the importance of continually influencing the composition and behaviour of the parliamentary peerage. This reaction, indeed, marked the growing realisation by monarchs that it was imperative for them to retain some degree of control over an institution which otherwise, by ‘precedent, the record and the shadowy notion of barony’, threatened to move further and further outwith royal power. Through Edward’s forceful restatement of the royal right to decide new summons to parliament, and to control men once they were peers, recruitment to the parliamentary peerage, and checks on the behaviour of that same peerage, had again become a real part of royal power by the end of the reign. Edward I’s reign may, as Tout once argued, have been a ‘fresh starting-point in the history of the English peerage’, but Edward III’s was more clearly a new departure for monarchical control of that same peerage.23 The established peerage This, however, was by no means the end of the story. Edward III might well have regained control of recruitment to, and the behaviour of, the new parliamentary peerage during his reign, but there was still the mass of peerage families receiving individual summons from before 1330 over whom he initially exerted little real control. ‘Old men’ of various types had existed in previous reigns, and often played a critical role in political and governmental continuity, as seen in

22

23

‘For it was never conceived that the title Banneret, as it denotes a Knight Banneret, was hereditarie’, and this limitation seems to have continued when ‘banneret’ developed into a parliamentary rank: Selden, Titles of Honour, p. 737; see also Saul, Knights and Esquires, pp. 7–10; Prestwich, Three Edwards, p. 139; Brown, Governance of Late Medieval England, p. 181; Given-Wilson, English Nobility, 61–2. Tout, ‘Earldoms under Edward I’, 130.

146

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

the extensive use to which Richard I put his father’s favoured nobles and curiales.24 Moreover, when there was a clear group of ‘new men’ in any reign, the issue of the status and behaviour of ‘old men’ becomes even more important in trying to understand a medieval monarch’s patronage policy. The ‘established nobility’ were, after all, the ones who could be both key supports of the monarchy and the most damning of its detractors – as the criticisms levelled at Henry III’s courtiers by the established nobility and at Edward II’s by the Contrariants showed. Therefore, such individuals also need to be taken into account when discussing any king’s relations with his nobility. The established nobles of Edward III’s reign were primarily of two types. First, there were those families who had remained loyal to the crown, during minority and majority, and usually caused little trouble for the king. They were the noble families who often had been called to parliament either in Edward I’s reign or early in Edward II’s as a result of the size and identity of their estates, but had never shown any real expansionist or upwardly mobile tendencies – families like the Furnivalles, Cobhams of Rundale and Cauntelos at the level of baron, and the de Vere and Courtenay earls. Up until and throughout Edward III’s reign, such families, who made up the vast bulk of the established peerage (made up of 175 parliamentary peers), played little important part in national events; rather they were simply those who looked after their own estates and interests, raised troops in time of war and, in many cases, acted as officers of the administration and legal system in the localities. The Cauntelos of Derbyshire were just such a low profile family. First summoned in 1299, William Cauntelo and his sons, William and Nicholas, were constantly on various forms of lower level royal service, including campaigns in Scotland and offices connected with the Scottish Borders.25 When not on campaign, the majority of the family’s efforts were focused on rearranging or protecting their estates, for example when William Cauntelo the younger granted the manors of Greasley (Notts.) and Middle Claydon (Bucks.) to his brother in 1320, or when in 1354 Nicholas entailed the manors of Ravensthorpe, Boltby, Thirlby, Stainley, Farnham, Azerley, Brathwaite and Redmire (Yorks.).26 Though such families often had some ties of vassal or retainer with more politically active members of the nobility,27 they rarely seem to have taken substantial roles in the major events of the reign on their behalf. As such, though they may have supported the removal of Edward II,28 they nonetheless played little direct part in the events of the 1320s. Indeed, the only major controversy the Cauntelo family took part in during the fourteenth century was a letter of protest signed by a number of barons, including the senior Cauntelo, to the Pope in 1301. They were, then, as with some of older members of Edward’s new nobility, mainly royalist, but also mainly in the background.

24

25 26 27

28

Heiser, ‘Royal Familiares’, 30–4; also see R.V. Turner, ‘Good or Bad Kingship? The Case of Richard Lionheart’, HSJ 8 (1996), 68–9. See CP iii, 111–15. CPR 1317–21, 516. Though they could have a number of such relationships. See S. Walker, The Lancastrian Affinity 1361–1399 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 94–117. For the nobility’s role, see C. Valente, ‘The Deposition and Abdication of Edward II’, EHR 113 (1998), 856–9.

Distribution of Royal Favour

147

Then there were the more politicised members of the established nobility, those families who had taken active parts in the events of the two decades before the Nottingham Coup of 1330. Usually Ordainers, Contrariants, those involved in the Deposition, or active critics of the minority regime, such families had a tradition of involvement in the fate of the kingdom. Again these were families, about twenty-five in all, who had originally been called to parliament because of the size and/or identity of their estates, but who also had members actively interested in expanding their lands and, especially, their influence – families such as the Berkeleys, Burghershes and Lucys and, among the titled nobility, Mortimers, Despensers and FitzAlans. The stories of the latter group have been often told, though one should not forget the lesser players of the previous halfcentury who were, nonetheless, very important for the run of events. Take, for example, members of the Berkeley family, summoned since 1295, who were, at various times, Vice Constable of England, Warden of Gloucester, Chief Justiciar of South Wales, Seneschal of Gascony and Marshal of the English Army in France.29 Moreover, aside from taking part in most of the major campaigns in the fourteenth century, Maurice Berkeley was also a Contrariant in 1322, dying in prison four years after the defeat at Boroughbridge. His son, Thomas, also fought at Boroughbridge but was released during the autumn of 1326, and then made custodian of the deposed Edward II – he was later charged with having helped cause the old king’s death, though acquitted in 1330. These, then, were families who had somehow survived the events of the 1320s, especially Boroughbridge and the Deposition, and were intact enough to play a role in the new reign. Nonetheless, they had also often ended up being roughly treated and so, unsurprisingly, when Edward III came to independent power in 1330, while not showing open hostility, still had keen memories of what the monarchy, or those acting in its name, could do. They were, in other words, individuals who clearly had to be taken into account when Edward was considering policy towards his nobility. Overall, Edward patronised these men with similar sources to those he used for his new peerage creations. 101 (58%) of the established nobility as a whole received grants of escheats, expectancies, forfeitures, marriage rights, wardships, annuities and offices from the king in the period 1330–77. How, then, did the distribution to these 101 men compare with that to the new nobility – of whom forty-nine of sixty-eight new men [72%] received patronage – and what can it tell us about Edward III’s patronage policy towards them? (I have placed the new nobility’s numbers, discussed in Part One, in square brackets.) There were ninety-one grants [122] of escheats, forfeitures and expectancies to members of the established nobility, among other properties, three honours, seventeen castles, and ninety-four manors [three honours, four lordships, one stewardship, eighteen castles, and 136 manors](though four of these grants to the established nobility were either regrants of estates lost during the 1320s or grants to John of Eltham, earl of Cornwall who, as the king’s brother, could be argued to be in a separate category). In terms of percentages, though it is difficult to get exact 29

CP ii, 127–31.

148

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

figures, around 45% [46%] were from forfeited lands, 9% [25%] were in expectancy, the rest being from various forms of ‘normal’ escheat including the end of life and entailed tenures which were not subject to expectancies, as well as from voluntary surrenders.30 Of the seventy-two [101] grants open to be granted out in fee,31 only twenty-three [forty-one] were so granted (32%) [41%]. In terms of wardships to the established nobility, of the 114 grants [ninety-one] of land in wardship to Edward’s men between 1330 and 1377(notably, though, twenty-six of these grants were specifically noted as being of the recipients’ own inheritances or lands connected with their families rather than new lands), thirty (26%)[twenty-four/26%] were straight gifts with no attached charges; sixty-nine [fifty-one] were grants with some type of annual remuneration to the king (61%)[56%], the rest being obtained by sale, or as simple custodianship. The linked marriages had similar proportions. In the period 1330–77, forty-two rights [thirty-nine] of marriage were granted out by Edward III to twenty-four [twentyone] of his established nobility. Seventy-nine established nobles [twenty-eight] themselves took part in ninety-seven [twenty-nine] marriages during the period 1330–77, and fifty-four marriages are undatable [twenty-one]. In terms of nonfeudal patronage, twenty annuities [thirty-three] were granted out to seventeen members [twenty-five] of the established nobility, totalling £2,400 [£8,302 6s 8d] in all. Of the total committed to annuities, 97% [79%] was paid, showing that though not much was granted in the way of annuities to the established nobility, when they were granted, they were more likely to be fulfilled. Finally, sixty-five members [thirty-seven] of the established nobility were granted 162 major offices [117], from that of sheriff to that of constable of the Tower of London. Clearly, then, though there are marked similarities, Edward III’s treatment of groups within the peerage could also vary. More of the new nobility were favoured (58% of established nobles receiving grants versus 72% of new men), and favoured with generally more lucrative grants, especially when it came to the 1337 earls. Indeed, only in two areas – wardships and connected marriages, and offices – did the established nobility clearly do better, the former probably due to the growing claims which the families involved had on them,32 the latter to the necessity of having experienced men in certain key posts. Otherwise, in terms of land grants as listed in Appendix 3, the established peerage got somewhat less (43%)[57%], and in terms of expectancies only 9% of the land were granted to established nobility [25%], thus indicating that Edward III was less enthusiastic in trying to find these individuals properties than he was for the new men. Also telling was the fact that 68% [59%] of land grants which were made to the established nobility were under some form of limitation while only 32% [41%] were in fee. Somewhat more noticeable differences can be seen by comparing the amount of annuities – usually granted until more permanent provision could be found – given to established nobility, the new nobility getting

30 31 32

As calculated for the new men. See above Again, excluding Church lands. Bean, Decline of English Feudalism, Chapters 3 and 4; Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 149–53.

Distribution of Royal Favour

149

over three times as much income from these as the established. In other words, even Edward’s future plans concerning the ‘old men’ were not nearly as grandiose as those connected with the new. All this indicates that, if the king was not committed to promising to make long term endowments for his new nobility, he was even less willing to expand the power of his established nobility through long term royal patronage. Rather, somewhat like his policy towards the new nobility, Edward III seemed to have preferred to keep the old nobles on tenterhooks when it came to the ultimate fate of the patronage which they did get – through the use of conditional grants, annuities and the like – while at the same time giving the appearance of generosity to the established nobility as a whole. Though perhaps less threatening than having most or all of one’s estate, and therefore one’s place in the parliamentary peerage, under such limitations, it still made clear that the royal patronage going to the established nobility was being given on expectation of continued good behaviour – and if that stopped, the new additions to their estates and power could easily be placed in jeopardy. Overall distribution to the parliamentary peerage Nonetheless, despite some signs that Edward was favouring his new nobility over parliamentary peerage families from either Edward II’s reign or the Minority, overall one is struck by the degree of parity with which patronage was granted out to both groups. Overall, 432 grants were made to the new nobles in the period 1330–77 and 403 to the old (excluding marriage arrangements). Similarly, by year (perhaps the most obvious way the grants presented themselves at the time), the numbers tend to stay relatively even until quite late in the reign. In only in nineteen years out of forty-seven is there anything more dramatic than a 60/40 split either way when it came to number of individual acts of patronage, and twelve of these years were in the period 1360–77, when the new men were beginning to die off. In other words, when looked at in terms of annual or accumulating amounts, there is a perception of a remarkable even handedness when it comes to royal patronage granted out to both established nobility and new men. But if the old and new nobility square up relatively equally from this perspective, when the numbers are broken down on a per capita basis, the picture does not look nearly as even, or as fair. As mentioned earlier, the parliamentary peerage had some 243 members in the period 1330–77. Of these, 175 were established nobles (twenty-five titled nobles and 150 barons) and sixty-eight men newly raised (nine titled nobles and fifty-nine barons). From the very beginning, then, this means that there were two and a half times as many established nobles as new nobles in the kingdom over the course of the reign. However fair the appearance of the number of acts of royal patronage to old versus new men, or in accumulating amounts, per person the situation was bound to be less satisfactory for the established nobility. Indeed, what is most obvious when one looks at the total numbers of grants going out against the number of individuals in each group is that, per peer, the old nobility were receiving far less per person than the new. Of the whole parliamentary peerage in the period 1330–77, the old nobility got on average 2.30 grants per peer vs. 6.35 grants per peer for the new peerage. Moreover, when one starts to break this per capita patronage down into

150

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

sources, this favouritism of the new men becomes even more pronounced. Starting with those lands being granted out either as a result of escheat, forfeiture, or in expectancy, of 213 grants made to the parliamentary nobility in the years 1330–77, 122 went to the new nobility, while ninety-one went to members of the established nobility. This averages out to 1.79 grants per peer for the new nobility, against 0.52 grants per person for the established nobility. The ninetyone grants to the established peerage in the period 1330–77 went to fifty-one men, with eight men (Henry Ferrers of Groby, Ralph Neville of Raby, Hugh Despenser, the earl of Arundel, Bartholomew Burghersh, John Darcy II, William Latimer II and the earl of March) getting four or more grants. Indeed, grants to these eight men made up forty-four of the ninety-one grants of lands and rights granted to the established nobility. In comparison, 122 grants went to twentyeight new men, with thirteen individuals (Montagu, Ufford, Darcy, Bohun, Swynnerton, Beauchamp, Bradeston, Mauny, Stryvelyn, Brian, Cobham, Clinton and Grosmont) getting four or more grants. Grants to these thirteen men made up 104 of the 122 grants of lands and rights granted to the new nobility. In terms of wardships, out of 205 wardships granted out in total to members of the peerage, ninety-one (44%) went to members of the new nobility, while 114 (56%) went to members of the established nobility. This again works out to 1.34 wardships per peer for the members of the new nobility and 0.65 wardships per peer for members of the established nobility. In this, then, in terms of overall wardship distribution, old and new nobility got roughly equal shares of wardships available, though per person, the new peer got nearly twice as many wardships as the established noble (even more if one does not count the grants of parts of their family’s estates to them). The 114 grants going to the established peerage in the period 1330–77 went to fifty-six men, with again seven men – Ralph Neville of Raby, the earl of Arundel, Bartholomew Burghersh, the earl of March, earl of Warwick, John Hastings and William Latimer – getting four or more grants. Grants to these seven men made up forty-eight of the 114 wardship grants to the established nobility. The ninety-one grants going to the new peerage in the period 1330–77 went to thirty-four men, with eight men (Bradeston, Clinton, Montagu, Ufford, Bohun, Mauny, Brian and Roger Beauchamp) getting four or more grants. Patronage to these men comprised fifty-four of the ninetyone grants given to the new nobility. Then there are connected marriages. Of eighty-one grants of marriage rights, forty-two were to the old nobility and thirty-nine to the new men. This works out to 0.24 marriages per person for members of the old nobility, and 0.57 marriages per person for members of the new nobility. Of the forty-two grants to twenty-four ‘old’ men, three or more went to six men, Ralph Neville, the earl of Arundel, Bartholomew Burghersh, Richard Talbot, William Latimer II and the earl of Warwick. Indeed, they accounted for twenty of the forty-two marriage grants, while sixteen men received only one grant of marriage rights. Of the thirty-nine grants to twenty ‘new’ men, three or more went to five men (Ufford, Bradeston, Montagu, Darcy, and Brian). They accounted for twenty of the thirty-nine marriage grants, while thirteen men received only one marriage grant. Next, in terms of annuities, of the fifty-four annuities granted out, twenty went to members of the established nobility, worth in total £2,400 per annum in all,

Distribution of Royal Favour

151

while thirty-three went to the new men, totalling £8,302 6s 8d per annum. This works out to 0.11 annuities to members of the established nobility (roughly £14 per annum for every established noble) and 0.49 per person of members of the new nobility (£122 per annum for every new man). The twenty grants went to seventeen members of the established peerage with three getting more than one grant, while the thirty-three grants went to twenty-six new men, with five getting more than one grant. Again, in the area of office holding, there was a marked preference for grants to the new nobility when it came to distribution per person.33 During the reign, 102 of the 243 peers of the reign were granted major offices, thirty-seven from the new nobility and sixty-five from the established. Of 279 offices (some granted more than once), 117 went to the new men (1.72 offices per person), sixteen getting three or more offices (e.g. Guy Brian, the earl of Huntingdon, the earl of Salisbury, Walter Mauny and Reginald Cobham), while 162 went to the established nobility (0.93 offices per person), eighteen receiving three offices or more, including, again, Bartholomew Burghersh, Henry Ferrers, the earl of Warwick, the earl of Arundel, Ralph Neville, as well as Thomas Berkeley, Ranulf Dacre, the earl of Cornwall, Anthony and Thomas Lucy, and Richard Talbot. In total, they accounted for eighty individual offices. However, though offices such as the chamberlain and the stewardship of the royal household seem to have been distributed relatively evenly between members of the old and new nobility, lower down in the administration, especially at the county level, the old nobility was slightly more predominant – though it would be a difficult task to see how many of those sheriffs who were not nobles or their deputies were nonetheless retained by the nobility, new or old. Nevertheless, fourteen members of the established nobility or their named deputies held the office of sheriff of one or more counties for one year or more during the period 1330–77, while only ten members of the new nobility did so. For the more important military posts, however, Edward tended to chose his new men, and in particular the individuals he had often trusted during the run-up to the Nottingham coup in 1330. This was especially true of military offices connected with the war in France and Scotland, where most of the major posts – from admirals of various fleets to marshals, lieutenants, and captains of the king’s armies on the Continent – were held by men he had favoured with new peerages or further titles during the reign. Thus, not only were the new promotions into or within the peerage, man for man, treated generally much better than members of the established nobility, but it also becomes quite clear from the number of individuals who keep on reappearing as grantees that the vast majority of the established nobility were being ignored in favour of a few handpicked ‘old men’. This core of ‘old’ peers receiving patronage were primarily of our second group of established nobility, namely those families who had played important, often though not always antiroyalist, parts in the events of the 1310s and 1320s – and who, whatever their political allegiance, were usually troublemakers with the potential to make more.

33

Also, a proportionately far smaller number of established nobles were bannerets, knights or squires in the royal household. See Shenton, ‘English Court’, Appendix 2.

152

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

The earl of Arundel was the son of the earl of Arundel who had been against Gaveston and who was executed in 1326; Richard Talbot the son of a new man (Gilbert Talbot) who was an enemy of Gaveston, a Contrariant, and had helped Isabella in her invasion; both Bartholomew Burghersh and Thomas Berkeley were Contrariants, the latter also tried and acquitted for the death of Edward II; Ranulf Dacre had been pardoned for any part in the death of Gaveston; Hugh Despenser was the son of Hugh Despenser the Younger; Roger Mortimer (earl of March) was the grandson of the Mortimer executed in 1330; Henry Ferrers had taken part in the rebellion of 1328–9; Anthony Lucy had rebelled for the queen in 1326 (Thomas was his son); and even Thomas Beauchamp’s father had acted against Gaveston. On the firmly royalist side, though less well represented, Ralph Neville had a father who was a king’s man at Boroughbridge, as did William Latimer II a grandfather; and John Darcy II was the son of a new man who had taken a firmly royalist part in the events of the 1320s, whoever was actually in charge.34 All men, as we have seen, received noticeable helpings of royal patronage, even if it had sometimes been recycled through various methods from their father’s estates. In addition, almost all, like many of Edward III’s new nobility, had their power bases in certain geographical areas. However, whereas many of Edward’s new men, including in this core group, had interests in East Anglia (Bohun, Clinton, Ufford, Grosmont, Montagu, Darcy, Cobham, Mauny and Beauchamp) (see Appendix 7) perhaps at least in part for defensive reasons, almost all of the established nobility substantially favoured by the king had spheres of interest in either near or in Wales, or on the northern borders, perhaps due to the need to ensure those on the edges of the kingdom had clear reason to stay in line. The Berkeleys, Mortimers, Despensers, and Talbots were families based on the Welsh border, while the Beauchamps and Arundels had substantial holdings there or in the West Midlands. Similarly, the Nevilles, Ferrers, Lucys and Dacres all had considerable interests in the northern counties. Indeed, aside from shows of clemency which, as mentioned before, were relatively cheap, all favour to the established nobility was focused on men who, because of the previous history of themselves or their families, Edward III had to ensure were onside. In some ways, then, this royal patronage to a collection of men was the mirror image of his treatment of a similar sized group of men among the new nobility (Montagu, Ufford, Darcy, Bohun, Swynnerton, John Beauchamp, Bradeston, Mauny, Stryvelyn, Brian, Cobham, Grosmont, Clinton, Roger Beauchamp) – though representing a far smaller proportion of the total number of established nobility. But, rather than creating the vanguard of a new order dependent on the monarchical goodwill and situated to dominate the counties close to the English Channel and the North Sea, in this case royal largesse was meant to control the key members of the established noble families, especially important considering their powerful positions on the Welsh and Scottish borders. Moreover, as with the new nobility, these men had careers which, while not uncommonly connected with wars abroad – a fair number of men having offices connected with the wars in Scotland and France – also had important administrative and/or domestic elements. While Edward’s foreign ambitions 34

See pp. 19–20.

Distribution of Royal Favour

153

were important, then, it was within his own government and domestic administration that he tended to focus the talents of these men. In other words, Edward was gambling that substantial patronage to a few strategically placed families of the 1320s establishment – rather than wider, but as a result more thinly spread, patronage – was the way to keep the old nobility both in line and under control. What becomes clear, then, is that while at first glance, and more than likely perceived at the time, Edward was being relatively even-handed in his material favour, when one actually looks at the worth and spread of the patronage, this is not true. When one further considers that 93 out of 243 parliamentary peers overall summoned during the reign received no recorded patronage, and another 122 peers only limited amounts (usually less than three grants), making a grand total of 215 (88%) out of 243 members of the parliamentary peerage receiving little or no royal largesse during Edward III’s independent rule (1330–77), evenness does not come into it. Moreover, while five of the nine members of the new titled nobility during the period 1330–77 received substantial amounts of patronage (three grants or over), only four of the twenty-five members of the titled nobility did, making a total of twenty-five titled nobles left out in the cold when it came to the king’s favour. Finally, of the 835 grants (excluding marriage arrangements) made in this period, 256 went to the fourteen men of the new nobility (18.3 grants per person) while 197 went to the fourteen old nobles (14.1 grants per person), with a grand total to 453 grants going to these twenty-eight ‘core’ old and new nobles (16.2 grants per person) while the remaining 215 members of the parliamentary peerage got only 382 grants (1.8 grants per person). The spread was, therefore, clearly neither even, fair, nor particularly wide when it came to royal patronage to Edward III’s parliamentary peerage. Rather, what tended to happen was that, just as there was a small group of contemporaries within the new parliamentary peerage whom Edward III felt it necessary to patronise heavily and promote for the sake of war abroad and peace at home, so too in the established nobility there was an, albeit proportionally far smaller, group, mainly sons of players in the events of the 1320s, whom Edward felt it unwise to ignore. If, in other words, this king needed a group of ‘new men’, so too, like other monarchs before him, did he need a group of ‘old men’, however tainted by the events of the past. In this way, then, Edward III managed to both control and placate ‘those who counted’ in both groups by his choice of a dozen or so, often strategically located, key men in each group over the course of the reign. That there was such limited reaction to Edward’s patronage programme, then, though in large part due to the quality of the new men to whom favour was shown, the details of the way the favour was shown, and the overall packaging of the programme, was also the result of Edward’s judicious, but very selective, patronage to the established nobility. Though usually less, and under less favourable terms, than to the new men, nonetheless, by granting to ‘those that counted’ in the old nobility, not only did Edward III get on side and under control those who had the power, or were potentially dangerous, within the established parliamentary peerage, he also gave the impression, at least, that patronage was being spread in a more non-partisan manner than it actually was – an impression crucial when one remembers the host of damning criticisms his father, Edward II, had faced about his use of royal resources, and the responses it had elicited.

8 Kings, the Parliamentary Peerage and Royal Patronage in the Later Middle Ages For over thirty years, Edward’s treatment of the nobility went largely unquestioned. The principal reason was that the king’s favours were spread widely, evenly and temperately.1

THIS is the received wisdom as to how Edward III managed his nobility – much as, it has been argued, Henry I and other kings had done with varying degrees of enthusiasm, competence and success before him.2 Moreover, it has generally been accepted that for Edward III and his predecessors this strategy was for the sake of foreign wars and control at home. Both seem simple, logical assertions to make. The impact of Edward III’s patronage programme However, as we have seen, the ‘how’ of Edward III’s patronage programme is not as it first appears. From the evidence presented, it is clear that a simple, wide and level distribution of largesse was not the basis of Edward III’s patronage programme, neither was it influenced solely by matters of domestic administration and foreign power. With close to nine-tenths of the parliamentary peerage being the recipients of few or no acts of substantial royal patronage during the reign (including twenty-five of thirty-four (74%) members of the titled nobility), the argument of a wide spread of royal patronage during the reign is very difficult to sustain. Perhaps the only way one can see any form of parity when it came to royal patronage is through the number of individuals given substantial patronage by Edward III in both established and new peerages. But such discussion of parity is deceptive. It does not, as has been indicated, take into account the far smaller proportion of established nobility favoured overall, the generally lower worth of the favour going out to them, or even the fact that some of the properties granted out to the main established nobles were either the return or early possession of their own family’s estates, or due to grants made to the king’s brother (and therefore an anomalous case) of the lands of Queen Isabella.

1 2

Ormrod, Edward III, p. 59. Turner, Men Raised from the Dust, p. 4; Turner, King John, p. 4

Kings, the Parliamentary Peerage and Royal Patronage

155

Rather, the way that Edward worked the resources at his disposal was far more subtle. Perhaps, at the time, it may have seemed a relatively even-handed attempt to show favour to his old and new nobility – hence perhaps part of the reason for the lack of reaction. In reality, though, Edward’s use of material favour had a considerable bias towards his ‘new men’, as substantial as that towards any previous group of favourites. Moreover this was especially true when one considers the unprecedented number of individuals shown substantial favour, the nature and spread of that favour, as well as, of course, the number of men patronized simply by a new individual summons to parliament in the first place. Nonetheless, through the methods mentioned above – the preference of worthwhile, if diverse, recipients, the choices of sources of patronage, the way it was granted out (especially through the conditions placed upon grants), and the propaganda programme surrounding it – Edward supported his new men while at the same time keeping his established nobility, and the political community as a whole, content with what was, in many ways, a raw deal. Nonetheless, Edward could not afford to ignore the established nobility completely. Though he did not seriously patronize more than a fraction of this group as favourably as his new men, he did nonetheless gradually pinpoint certain pivotal members of established families over the course of the reign to receive respectable and visible, if also conditional, amounts of patronage. Most were of the politically active families of the previous reign, those who had taken part in the events of the 1310s and 1320s, and whom Edward, despite considerable evidence of anti-royalist pasts, was forced to take into account. As such, they received by far the lion’s share of the patronage to the established nobility. Indeed, fairness or even-handedness rarely entered into the calculations. Rather, the idea again was to give to either those who counted, or those who might cause problems, noticeable amounts of patronage, and hope that the rest – the other 161 established peers called during the reign – were willing, through ignorance, desire, fear or even familial allegiance, to follow suit without any substantial material inducement from the king. A large gamble, maybe, though through these tactics, and the packaging of and controls on royal patronage as a whole, it cannot be denied that the established nobility remained remarkably royalist throughout one of the longest, and most eventful, reigns in medieval history. If the ‘how’ of Edward III’s patronage is now open to question, we must also, clearly, re-visit the ‘why’. The needs of domestic politics and foreign wars, in other words, were just a part of the picture. Edward could easily, and more cheaply, have funded men to back him without placing them in an establishment which was becoming increasingly independent and powerful. Kings before him had done as much, especially as the institution of the parliamentary peerage itself had only developed over the last half century, and so did later monarchs like Richard II and Henry IV with their gentry retaining policies. In other words, unless Edward III was specifically interested in controlling the development of an increasingly autonomous parliamentary peerage, rather than a more general overall enhancement of royal power, there seems little reason to go to all the expense of promoting his main supporters into it, especially when the landed income qualification was becoming ever more important. Perhaps, then, though we must keep foreign war and domestic politics in mind, we should also be

156

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

looking at the larger picture. For it was not simply these matters which made Edward III re-infiltrate the parliamentary peerage with dependent royalists, while manipulating and controlling men already in it. By making the parliamentary peerage an integral part of his patronage programme, Edward was also turning a potentially negative historical development for the English medieval monarchy into one which helped structure his, and potentially future kings’, patronage programmes. By promoting a number of men loyal to him into the peerage, and making a core of them clearly dependent upon him for their positions, and by controlling the most potentially problematic members of the established nobility in a similar manner, during his reign Edward III regained some control over the composition and behaviour of the increasingly hereditary, and powerful, version of the parliamentary peerage which had developed by fourth decade of the fourteenth century. Indeed, with such an endowment programme in place, Edward must have recognised that this institution, powerful, cohesive and stratified as it was now becoming – as witnessed most famously in the peerage’s part in the deposition of Edward II and their call to be allowed to try their own in 1341 – could quite easily become a threat to monarchical power during his lifetime, not to mention after his death. If a monarch was perceptive enough to know that, if he wanted his men to have power in the polity he would now have to raise them to the peerage, it would have been very surprising if he had not also realised the repercussions of the continued growth and development of the peerage for the monarchy as a whole. Little wonder, then, that he also focused his patronage so strategically or conditionally within the parliamentary peerage, especially if he did not want the short term needs of his early years to come back to haunt him or his successors. Patronage, promotion and the peerage after Edward III Strengthening the peerage with loyal adherents had become a major means of buying support in periods of tension and crisis – a method deliberately employed from the days of Edward III to those of Henry VIII.3

After Edward III, however, although kings followed programmes of patronage of supporters into, or within, the parliamentary peerage, this was never to be as coherent, successful, or forward thinking as under Edward III. Indeed, the last years of Edward III’s own reign set the tone for what followed, the majority of his patronage by this time going not to a group of would-be supporters in the peerage, but rather to a court clique headed by his own mistress, Alice Perrers.4 Thereafter, Richard II and Henry IV were both decidedly miserly in the way in which they promoted to the peerage, despite the fact that by the end of Richard’s reign there existed more devices to control royal patronage once it had gone out – including the eligibility of lands enfeoffed-to-use and entailed to royal forfeit, as well as an early form of attainder for those who persisted against the king’s

3 4

J.R. Lander, Government and Community: England 1450–1509 (London, 1988), p. 43. See Holmes, Good Parliament, passim.

Kings, the Parliamentary Peerage and Royal Patronage

157

will. Nonetheless, Richard II mainly promoted a group of select favourites,5 and Henry IV raised only three men into the peerage during his reign, all members of the royal family.6 It was not until Henry V’s reign that a monarch would again promote relatively large numbers into the peerage and attempt to patronize them. Like Edward III, Henry raised a number of men to the titled peerage – though in his case, many of these were again of his own family, or those demoted because of the problems of the last couple of decades.7 Even Henry VI attempted to increase the number of individuals in the English peerage,8 however ineffectual this policy would end up being. Oddly, though, considering his reputation, this Henry was, for whatever reason, the last king in the Middle Ages with a clear idea of the connection between royal patronage and the composition of the peerage. Edward IV, Richard III and Henry VII all had enthusiastic patronage programmes for their supporters, but none focused on the issue of the composition of the parliamentary peerage, rather tending to build up support generally and in the localities – with promotions to the peerage, if and when they came, being a by-product of this favour rather than an aim. Why such an obviously successful and potentially crucial programme of patronage and promotion into the parliamentary peerage as Edward III’s was not repeated to any real degree is not clear. The easiest answer lies, of course, in Edward’s qualities as king, both his sensitivity to the politics of situations and his ability to package his rule holistically; something which none of his successors seem to have been able to do, or, at least, not effectively. The local retaining of Richard II,9 the lack of revenge by Henry IV,10 and Henry VII’s controlling the nobility with various bonds and conditions,11 were all tactics that Edward III would have recognized. However, no monarch after him appears to have had the ability and/or drive to employ the range of Edwardian policies, as illustrated throughout the preceding work, to fullest effect. Rather, future kings appear instead to have overemphasized some of the tactics used by Edward III at the expense of others, thereby opening the way for a visibly uneven treatment of the king’s most important subjects, and real problems in the longer term. But there were other, equally important, reasons why it was more difficult for future kings to influence the composition of the parliamentary peerage, even if they had been so inclined, in the way Edward III had. First is the fact that some later kings tended to divert their resources, taking other approaches to royal 5

6 7 8

9

10 11

See Tuck, ‘Richard II’s System of Patronage’, in Du Boulay and Barron, eds., Reign of Richard II, 1–20; Mott, ‘Distribution of Patronage’, 113–33. K.B. McFarlane, Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights (Oxford, 1972), pp. 60–1. C.T. Allmand, Henry V (Berkeley, 1992), pp. 370–1. Full reference: R.A. Griffiths, The Reign of Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority (London, 1981), p. 353. Tuck, ‘Richard II and the Border Magnates’, 27–52; Virgoe, ‘Crown and Local Government’, 218–41; Cherry, ‘Courtenay Earls of Devon’, 90–4. Brown, ‘Reign of Henry IV’, in Chrimes, ed., Fifteenth Century England 1399–1509, 3. J.R. Lander, ‘Bonds, Coercion and Fear: Henry VII and the English Peerage’, in J.R. Lander, ed., Crown and Nobility 1450–1509 (London, 1976), 267–300. Though this idea has been questioned. T.B. Pugh, ‘Henry VII and the English Nobility’, in G.W. Bernard, ed., The Tudor Nobility (Manchester, 1992), 57–65.

158

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

management of the political community – for example, Richard II’s gentry based retaining strategy12 – which might have lessened their ability to influence the parliamentary peerage. Notably, though, such initiatives tended to come late in the reign, once attempts to control the higher nobility had failed, or when it was clear from the start of the reign that the king’s hold on the polity was bound to be somewhat precarious, as was the case of Henry IV, Edward IV, and Richard III. More of an issue was the state of feudalism by the fifteenth century. It can be argued that in the fourteenth century, feudal incidents were still in sufficient abundance to be of interest to the monarch as a source of patronage, despite the development of enfeoffments-to-use and, to a lesser degree, jointures. However, by the fifteenth century, it was clear that the impact of these and similar developments had begun to tell, considerably limiting the amount of patronage available from the feudal sources.13 This, and the fact that monarchs faced ever more demands from the landholding class, a class including some members with substantially reduced incomes by the fifteenth century,14 meant an even greater need for largesse emanating from the monarchy – with, unfortunately, kings being even less able to meet it. Finally, the parliamentary peerage itself was never again to be in as fluid a state as it had been in Edward III’s reign – by the fifteenth century, there is talk of a ‘closed’ peerage, and though promotions were made thereafter in the medieval period, they were never in the numbers open to Edward III, in the days before the numerical and tenurial boundaries had become more customary and fixed. Indeed, aside from Richard II’s extraparliamentary promotion of earls and dukes in 1385,15 a development which the creation of peers in the king’s chamber in the Henry VI’s reign continued,16 the fact that Richard also began to create baronies by patent,17 a device reintroduced by the Lancastrians,18 speaks volumes. Though in part these developments may have shown the two kings’ absolutist proclivities, they also showed the increasing difficulties for later monarchs trying to introduce supporters into a more clearly defined hereditary peerage. In other words, Edward III’s success when it came to management of the English nobility, though his character and policies obviously played a large part, was also due to the fact that he was lucky enough to be monarch at a time when the parliamentary peerage was still malleable enough to influence its composition, and his right over feudal incidents and other royal rights still potent enough to allow him to do so. The place of Edward III’s use of largesse in the later Middle Ages Above all, he [Henry I] understood that the first art of government is the art of patronage: to reward his friends without ruining himself; to reward those who 12 13 14

15

16 17 18

Given-Wilson, Royal Household, Chapter 4. As in Bean, Decline of English Feudalism, Chapters 4 and 5. Though how much this income declined is a matter of debate. T.B. Pugh and C.D. Ross, ‘The English Baronage of 1436’, BIHR 26 (1953), 1–2, 16, 25. C. Given-Wilson, ‘Richard II and the Higher Nobility’, in A. Goodman and J.L. Gillespie, eds. Richard II: The Art of Kingship (Oxford, 1999), 117–20. Wagner and Sainty, ‘Introduction of Peers’, 123. Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 63. J.T. Rosenthal, ‘The Lancastrian Peerage’, Studies in Medieval Culture VIII & IX (1976), 183.

Kings, the Parliamentary Peerage and Royal Patronage

159

matter, and to ensure that those who were not rewarded continued not to matter.19

If, then, Edward III’s patronage programme to the parliamentary peerage can be seen as the last real success story in the Middle Ages of royal use of largesse on a mass scale for the sake of influencing the composition and behaviour of the English nobility, and that all following it were less effectual copies, overdeveloped in some areas but woefully inadequate in others, how much did Edward III’s use of patronage itself differ from those who came before? In other words, did Edward set some sort of idealised precedent for future kings such as Richard II, Henry IV and Edward IV to follow, with varying degrees of determination or competence, or was he himself following time-honoured traditions concerning the distribution of royal largesse to the nobility, if not the parliamentary peerage? The answers to these questions must be qualified. After all, any monarch’s use of patronage was bound to be for the sake of manipulating those with power, or potential power, in the kingdom, and to that end had to be subtle, or even at times unprincipled. However, a number of processes ongoing in the later thirteenth and fourteenth centuries helped changed the ways in which monarchs could, and would, find and use sources of royal patronage. First, the growth in the use of entails, life grants, and expectancies in this period must again be emphasized. Edward I’s legislation affecting conditional grants and, by extension, expectancies made them not only more accessible and numerous, but also more controllable and therefore more predictable – in other words a more useful commodity for patronage, especially before the full development of the impact of the ‘use’ by the later fourteenth century. More generally, though more controversially, the three Edwards’ reinvigoration of prosecutions and punishments for treason and treason-like activities, as well as their increasingly harsh treatment of ecclesiastical possessions, culminating in the outlawing of Church properties and the first confiscation of alien priories, broadened the amount of land available to be granted out. Add to this the growth in royal income coming from customs duties during the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, the increased efficiency of the exchequer primarily as a result of a series of vigorous reforms in the 1320s,20 as well as Edward III’s own fiscal reforms, especially in the middle years of the reign,21 and there was an obvious growth in the variety, and amount, of patronage resources at the king’s disposal, as well as more ways to distribute them. That neither of the first two Edwards took any real advantage of these developments for the sake of managing their nobility was more to do with their preoccupations as kings – whether the royal family or a few overly favoured courtiers – than with the avenues not being open in the first place. If, then, in Prestwich’s words, ‘Edward I’s [legislation] had created openings for the future’,22 Edward III was the first king in a position to use such openings

19 20 21 22

Southern, ‘Henry I in English History’, 153. Buck, ‘Reform of the Exchequer’, 241–60; Harriss, King, Parliament and Public Finance, pp. 217–23. Ormrod, ‘Edward III’s Government of England’, passim; Ormrod, Edward III, pp. 86–90, 201. Prestwich, Edward I, p. 297.

160

Impact and Rationale of Edward III’s Patronage

for the sake of enhancing royal power over the nobility as represented by the parliamentary peerage, and the only succeeding king, for a variety of reasons, able to exploit them to fullest effect. In some ways, the preceding work has taken a rather cynical view of Edward III’s material relations with his nobility. After all, any young monarch was bound to show more favour to his boon companions and contemporaries than to other members of the nobility, old or new – there did not have to be any deep political scheming behind it. That many of these individuals played such an important part in his establishing his independent rule in the first place – whether at Nottingham castle in 1330 or on the Scottish moors or the plains of France – made such favour even more clearly a matter of course. Indeed, one could argue that every new medieval monarch wanted to remodel his nobility, and even that, what appeared to be strategy was actually just longevity – after all, when a king had reigned for as along as Edward III, it was only normal to expect a number of individuals to be raised up. And yet, as noted previously, the circumstances at the start of Edward’s reign were far from normal – in many ways, they were exceptional; for Edward not to have realised this would have caused him much more trouble than he ended up facing. Not only had his father been deposed – the first royal deposition in English history – and new, dangerous ideas grown up about limitations on royal power and how to deal with misgovernment, but there was now also an increasingly established parliamentary peerage, as well as a better-defined and powerful parliament as a whole. Under such circumstances it is perhaps unsurprising that this young king acted in an innovative, and manipulative, manner, that he had more that one agenda when he started to patronise his nobility, and that he learned to package his acts of royal favour for the sake of retrieving the position of the monarchy with subtlety and tact. That said, if Edward had few antecedents for his ‘holistic’ and forward looking patronage programme because of the nature of the social and political environment at the beginning of his reign, he was nonetheless to prove an exemplar for those who followed. Few later monarchs, though, took note of the exceptional environment at the start of their predecessor’s reign; the subtle ways in which he manipulated the resources at his disposal; the explicit, and not-so-explicit but indispensable, packaging which surrounded his endowment and patronage programme; or, perhaps most significantly, his understated yet clear attempt to re-establish firm royal control over an increasingly powerful, independent and hereditary grouping of the most important men in the land – the English parliamentary peerage.

Appendices

Appendix Key The following conventions and abbreviations are used in several of the appendices. Further conventions and abbreviations are explained at the beginning of the appendices in which they are used. Title indicates most important title to date. Branch of family is indicated if needed for identification from another branch of the family also individually summoned to parliament. See family branch abbreviations below. Italics indicate uncertainty of identity. All grants are listed unless immediately vacated. + = and other holders.

Family branch abbreviations Ax Be Bl Co Cr Dr Du Er Es Gr Ha He Hl Ka Ke Ki Kn

Axholme Bletsoe Blackmere Codnor Corby Drayton Dunster Eresby Essex Groby Harringworth Heleigh Helmsley Knaith Kent Kingston Lisle Knokyn

La Mi Mo Ra Ro Rg Ru Rh St So Sp Ti Wa We Wt Wi

Laxton Midhurst Mortimer Raby Rotherfield Rougemont Randall Ruthin Sterborough Somerset Sapcote Titchmarsh Warwick Wem Watton Wilton or Shirland

Other abbreviations A/ Arch/ A.P./

Abbot Archbishop Alien Priory

B/ C/ Cs/

Bishop Count Countess

E/ I/ L/

Earl Island Lord

Q/ P/ S/

Queen Priory Scotland

1 2 3 4 5 61 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

Appendix One The Definition of ‘New Men’ and other Limitations on this Study

Only if a man had no previous right to a summons to the rank of peer or a higher title – either because his family had never had a summons previously or because he was of a cadet line – is he included as a member of the ‘new’ parliamentary peerage. As a result, my list is somewhat different from that given by Powell and Wallis in The House of Lords in the Middle Ages for two main reasons. Firstly, certain names are missing from my list in comparison with Powell and Wallis’s due to the fact that they sometimes referred to eldest sons as being ‘new’ either (1) when their fathers or grandfathers had only occasionally been summoned to parliament, or (2) when their fathers or grandfathers had been summoned frequently, but they themselves had not been summoned since the death of their fathers (or grandfathers). For my selection of individuals, the fact that these men, or their families, were nonetheless considered of enough previous importance to be summoned in the first place excludes their sons and grandsons from the ‘new’ classification. For similar reasons I have also omitted the ‘revived’ earldoms of Devon and March from this list. Secondly, and conversely, Powell and Wallis do not tend to consider men ‘new’ who happen to either marry into, or gain by collateral inheritance, lands held in barony. However, it has been noted that this is going to extremes as ‘it is not always clear whether the crucial point was that the man in question was now a “tenurial baron”, or simply that he was now a major land holder’ (Given-Wilson, English Nobility, p. 60). Moreover, the fact that many of these men had had their marriages arranged as a result of Edward’s endowment programme, which therefore may be seen as part of their elevation, allows most of those raised during the reign rightly to be called ‘new’. In other words, there is rarely a clear enough case of a man being summoned simply because of the identity of a recently acquired estate – rather than for other reasons such as estate size or royal favour – that one can confidently start omitting names from the list of those ‘newly’ summoned as a matter of royal will.1

1

See McFarlane, Nobility, p. 172; Powell and Wallis, House of Lords, pp. 312–79; Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 55–61. For a full list of the new men, see Bothwell, ‘Royal Endowment’, Appendix 2. This list also includes younger sons or cadet lines of noble houses, as they can be said to be outwith both the main noble inheritances and parliamentary summons.

166

Appendix One

I have avoided discussing Edward’s promotion of his sons to the titled nobility, which, while not entirely a matter of course and certainly an issue with respect to his relations with the nobility, nonetheless cannot be considered elevations in the same sense as those raising Edward’s new men. For similar reasons, William of Juliers, made earl of Cambridge in 1340, and Ingelram de Coucy, raised to the earldom of Bedford in 1366, as sons-in-law to the king, have been excluded from this treatment; another reason for their exclusion is that, as foreigners, they assumed only a limited role in English affairs.2

2

For a discussion of Edward’s arrangements for his family, see Ormrod, ‘Edward III and his Family’, 398–422; Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 42–7. For patronage to the royal family more generally, see Wolffe, Royal Demesne, pp. 52–8.

Appendix Two Careers of Major Players (1330–77) Sources: A Perfect Copy of All Summons of the Nobility to the Great Councils and Parliaments of the Realm; The Complete Peerage; Dictionary of National Biography; Handbook of British Chronology; Calendars of: Patent Rolls, Close Rolls, Fine Rolls. Only major offices are listed, namely those of the level of sheriff or above. Date in brackets indicates the year(s) in which the appointment was made.

Established Nobility Beauchamp, Thomas (Earl of Warwick – 1329) d.1369 Captain of the Army against the Scots (1337); Warden of the March of Scotland (1337); Keeper of Southampton (1339); Marshal of England (1344); Sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire (1344); Admiral of the Western Fleet (1353); Constable of the Army (1355) Berkeley, Thomas (summoned 1329–60) d.1361 Chief Warden of Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford (1336); Sheriff of Gloucestershire (1338); Marshal of the English Army in France (1340); Captain of the Scottish Marches (1342); Warden and Chief Justice in Eyre South of Trent (1345) Burghersh, Bartholomew (I) (summoned 1330–54) d.1355 Captain and Admiral of the Western Fleet (1337); Constable of Dover Castle/ Warden of the Cinque Ports (1343, 1346); Chamberlain of the Royal Household (1355); Constable of the Tower of London (1355) Dacre, Randolf (I) (summoned 1321–38) d.1339 Sheriff of Cumberland (1330); Keeper of the Castle of Carlisle (1330); Warden of the March of Cumberland (1333); Warden of the Marches of Cumberland and Westmoreland (1334, 1336) Darcy, John (II) (summoned 1348–54) d.1356 Escheator in Holderness (1344); Constable of Tower of London (1347) Ferrers (Gr), Henry (summoned 1330–8) d.1343 Keeper of the Channel Islands (1333); Keeper of Berwick (1335); Justice of Chester (1336, 1337, 1340, 1341, 1342); Chamberlain to the King (1337) FitzAlan, Richard I (Earl of Arundel – 1330) d.1376 Justiciar of North Wales (1334); Keeper of the Castle and Town of Porchester (1335); Sheriff of Shropshire (1345); Keeper of the Castle and County of Caernarvon (1339); Captain and Admiral of the West (1340, 1345) Hastings, John (Earl of Pembroke) (1368) d.1375 Lieutenant of the King’s Forces in Aquitaine (1372)

168

Appendix Two

Latimer (Cr), William (II) (summoned 1368–79) d.1381 Steward of the Royal Household (1368); Keeper of the King’s Forest Beyond Trent (1368); Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset (1374); Captain of St. Sauveur LeVicomte (1370); Keeper of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports (1372) Lucy, Anthony (summoned 1321–43) d.1343 Keeper of the Castle and Town of Berwick (1334); Justiciar of Berwick and all other lands of the King of England in Scotland (1335); Keeper of Northumberland, Westmoreland and Cumberland against the Scots (1336); Sheriff of Cumberland and Westmoreland (1338); Keeper of Carlisle Castle (1338) Lucy, Thomas (summoned 1344–64) d.1365 Sheriff of Cumberland (1345, 1352); Joint Warden of the Western Marches (1346); Keeper of Carlisle Castle (1345, 1357); Escheator for Cumberland, Westmoreland and Lancashire (later 1340s) Mortimer, Roger (Earl of March -1354) d. 1360 Keeper of the Castle of Corfe (1354); Keeper of the Castle of Dover and Warden of the Cinque Ports (1355) Neville (Ra), Ralph (II) (summoned 1331–65) d.1367 Steward of the Royal Household (1330); Warden of the Scottish Marches (1334); Keeper of Bamburgh Castle (1335); Keeper of Berwick (1356); Keeper of Bamburgh Forest (1335); Keeper of the Realm (1338, 1340); Overseer of the Keepers of the Temporalities of Durham during his Absence on the King’s service (c.1340) Talbot, Richard (summoned 1332–55) d.1356 Keeper of Berwick (1337); Justiciar of the Lands in Scotland occupied by the King of England (1337); Keeper of the Town of Southampton (1340); Chief Justice in Gloucester and Worcester (1341); Steward of the Royal Household (1345)

New men Beauchamp (Wa), John (summoned 1350–7) d.1360 Admiral of the Fleet off Calais (1349); Captain of Calais (1355); Admiral of the Western Seas (1355); Admiral for the North, South and West (1360); Keeper of the Castle of Dover and Warden of the Cinque Ports (1360) Beauchamp (Be), Roger (summoned 1363–79) d.1380 Captain of Calais (1372); Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household (1376–77) Bohun, William (Earl of Northampton-1337) d.1360 Constable of England (1338); King’s Lieutenant in Brittany (1342); Warden of the Scottish Marches (1350); Admiral of the Northern Fleet (1351) Bradeston, Thomas (summoned 1347–60) d.1360 Constable of Gloucester Castle (1330, 1338) Brian, Guy (summoned 1350–89) d.1390 Stewardship and Keeping of the castle and town of Haverford (1331); Keeper of St Briavel’s Castle (1335); Governor of St Briavel’s Castle/Warden of the Forest of Dean (1341); Admiral of the Western Fleet (1356); Keeper of the Great Seal (1349); Steward of the Royal Household (1359); Admiral of the Fleet at Southampton and to the West (1370); Admiral of the Western Fleet (1370) Clinton, William (Earl of Huntingdon – 1337) d.1354 Constable of Dover Castle and Warden of the Cinque Ports (1330); Justice of Chester (1330); Justice of Kent (1332); Captain and Admiral of the Western Fleet (1333, 1341); Captain and Admiral of the Fleet from the Thames to Portsmouth

Careers of Major Players

169

(1340); Keeper of the Forest This Side Trent (1343); Keeper of the Castle and Town of Rochester (1351) Cobham (St), Reginald (I) (summoned 1347–60) d.1361 Keeper of the Castle of Leeds (1340); Captain and Admiral of the Western Fleet (1344, 1348); Marshal of the Prince’s Army at Poitiers (1356) Darcy, John (I) (summoned 1332–4) d.1347 Justiciar of Ireland (1332, 1340); Steward of the Royal Household (1337); King’s Chamberlain (1341); Keeper of Nottingham Castle (1344); Life Constable of the Tower of London (1346) Grosmont, Henry of (Duke of Lancaster – 1351) d.1361 Captain General in Scotland (1336); Steward of England (1345); Sheriff of Stafford (1345); King’s Lieutenant in Flanders and Calais (1348); Admiral of the Western Fleet (1350); Admiral of the Fleet in the South (1351); Lieutenant and Captain in Duchy of Brittany (1355) Mauny, Walter (summoned 1347–71) d.1372 Sheriff of Merioneth and Keeping of the Castle of Harlech (1332); Marshal of the King’s Marshalsea; Captain and Admiral of the Northern Fleet (1337, 1348) Montagu, William (Earl of Salisbury – 1337) d.1344 Keeper of the Castle of Corfe (1330); Keeper of the Isle of Man (1333); Custodian of the Channel Islands (1333); Captain and Admiral of the Western Fleet (1337); Marshal of England (1338); King of the Isle of Man (c.1340) Stryvelyn, John (summoned 1363–71) d.1378 Sheriff of Northumberland (1343); Sheriff of Edinburgh and Custodian of the Castle (1335); Custodian of Berwick-upon-Tweed (1345–46) Ufford, Robert (Earl of Suffolk -1337) d.1369 Keeper of the Forest This Side Trent (1330); Steward of the Royal Household (1336); Captain and Admiral of the Northern Fleet (1337,1344); Marshal of the Army (1346); Joint Marshal of the Army (1356)

Appendix Three Escheats, Expectancies, and Forfeitures1

Source e expectancy(reversions/remainders) for forfeiture/involuntary surrender k in royal possession by escheat Term of Tenure en entailed f in fee l life grant > later changed to

lt m t

o r s

other royal right voluntary surrender

limited term(e.g. royal pleasure/duration of war) minority tail male

Established nobility Date 21/10/30 25/10/30

Name J. Clavering E/Norfolk

29/10/30 01/12/30 04/12/30

J. Maltravers R. Grey(Co) E/Cornwall

1

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

Source k k k k for for for for for for

Term lt lt lt lt lt en en en en en

Region Norfolk Norfolk Suffolk Wilts. Northants Suffolk Norfolk Lincs. Northants Herts.

Last Known Holder R. Thorp2 R. Thorp3 R. Thorp4 G. Beauchamp5 J. Maltravers6 Q/Isabella7 Q/Isabella8 Q/Isabella9 Q/Isabella10 Q/Isabella11

Compiled from Chancery and Exchequer records, with reference to Victoria County Histories. All spellings of place names are taken from those in the indices of the HMSO published material and checked against Bartholomew’s Gazetteer of Places in Britain and the VCH. Two-thirds of the manor of Ashwellthorpe. Manor of Fundenhall. £7 15s of rent in Helmingham. Manor, forest and park of Clarendon. Manor of Overstone. Manor of Haughley, the castle and manor of Eye with the hamlets of Dallinghoo, Alderton and Thorndon and a yearly rent belonging to the honour of Eye in Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, and Essex with the guard of the castle of Eye, and the free court belonging to the said honour in Lincolnshire; also the hundreds of Hartismere and Stow. £20 of yearly rent due from the prior and convent of Bromholm for the manor of Bacton. Lands and tenements in Clopton. Town of Rockingham. Castle and town of Berkhamsted with the honour.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date

Name

17/12/30 18/12/30 20/12/30 20/12/30 16/02/31 16/02/31

W. Latimer I(Cr) J. Strange I(Bl) E/Lancaster H. Courtenay I W. Latimer I(Cr) E. Strange

23/04/31 08/07/31

J. Audley(He) H. Ferrers(Gr)

20/07/31 10/10/31

H. Bohun E/Cornwall

12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31

Source for for for for for for k e r for for for e r k k k for for for

Term en en en en en f lt f lt>f lt en en en lt lt lt l en en en

Region Bucks. Berks. Lincs. Leics. Surrey Bucks. Wales Northumb. Devon Bucks. Wales Salop Lincs. Staffs. Staffs. Salop Kent Cornwall Oxon. Wilts.

171 Last Known Holder Q/Isabella12 Q/Isabella13 Q/Isabella14 Q/Isabella15 Q/Isabella16 S. Bereford17 J. Overton18 T. Bamburgh19 Edward III20 S. Bereford21 Q/Isabella22 Q/Isabella23 A. Stopham24 Edward III25 T. Verdon26 T. Verdon27 H. Madefray28 Q/Isabella29 Q/Isabella30 Q/Isabella31

Manors of Princes Risborough and Cippenham. Castle and town of Wallingford with members and the honours of Wallingford and St Valery, the mill of Oxford and the King’s meadow there. Manor of Kirton. Manors of Bowden Magna and Market Harborough. Manor of Byfleet. Manor of Latimer. Town of Nevern. All the lands in Newlands and Warenton, of the estate of John Middleton. Hundred of Budleigh. Messuage and a carucate of land called Shardelowes in Amersham. Manor of Overton with the land of Maelor Saesneg. Castle, manor and hundred of Ellesmere and the hamlets of Colemere and Hampton. Manor of Waddington. Hundred of Totmonslow. Manor of Balterley, and of lands in Blakenhall and Fanton. Manor of Ludlow. Manor of Ospringe. Castle, borough and manor of Tintagel, manors of Climsland with the park, Tybesta with the bailiwick of Powder, castle and manor of Restormel with the park, manor of Tewington, castle and manor of Trematon, manor of Helston in Kyrier, manor of Moreske [in St. Clement’s, Truro], manor of Tywarnhaile [in Perran Zabuloe], manor of Penknight [in Lanlivery], manor of Pelynt with the park, Rillaton [in Linkinhorne] with the beadlery of East Hundred; castle and manor of Launceston; manor of Helston in Trigg with the park, Liskeard with the park, Calstock with the fishery and Talskithey; and £14 3s 5 3⁄4d rent of the issues of Cornwall receivable from the steward or sheriff. See also E199/5/9. Manor of Watlington. Castle and manor of Mere. Later, in October 1333, this grant was to include the king’s hundreds in Cornwall, the town of Lostwithiel and all the remaining royal issues and profits of Cornwall; the farm of the city of Exeter; all the profits of the king’s harbours in Cornwall, with wreck of sea and the prises and customs of wines there and in the water of Sutton (Devon); the king’s stannary in Devon and the coinage of the same, with the water of Dartmouth, the profits of the king’s Mine Court (Cornwall); and the town of Ilchester (Som.). CCharR 1327–41, pp. 302–3.

172

Appendix Three

Date 15/11/31 20/11/31

Name R. Neville II(Ra) H. Despenser

25/01/32 02/02/32

R. Neville II(Ra) H. Despenser

30/04/32 02/10/32 01/11/32 10/08/33 13/09/33 02/10/33 14/10/33 c.1334 24/02/34 12/03/34

H. Ferrers(Gr) H. Despenser R. Neville II(Ra) R. Holand E/Arundel R. Neville II(Ra) J. Cobham I(Ke) + H. Beaumont H. Husee J. Cobham I(Ke) +

32

33 34

35

36 37

38 39

40 41

42

43 44 45 46 47

Source k for k e for e k k k k for k k for k k

Term lt lt>f lt>f l>f lt>f lt>f lt lt>f l lt l>f lt lt t lt lt

Region Cumb. Leics. Bucks. Bucks. Hants Hants Ireland Hants Yorks. Northants Wales England England Leics. Surrey Kent

Last Known Holder R. Barton32 S. Bereford33 E/Kent34 H. Claveryng35 R. Wodehouse36 A. Thebaud37 T. Verdon38 W. Horewod39 J. Wysham40 J. Stiward41 E/March42 B/Durham43 Arch/Canterbury44 E/Winchester45 W. Hatton46 A/St Augustine47

Manors of Penrith and Sowerby with the hamlets of Langwathby, Scotby, Carlatton and Salkeld and other appurtenances. Manor of Fritheby. Yearly farm of £60 which the men of Aylesbury (Bucks.) used to render at the exchequer, late of Edmund, earl of Kent, tenant in chief, and in the king’s hand by reason of the minority of John his son and heir. This was vacated, as was a later grant on 2 February 1332 of just the manor of Fritheby and the farm of £50 which the abbot and convent of Waltham Holy Cross (Essex) used to pay Edmund, earl of Kent, and which was in the king’s hands by reason of the minority of the heir (CPR 1330–4, 241). Manor of Iver. On 15 July 1352 this was exchanged – on the king’s request – for £90 of lands and rents in Northumberland, namely ‘of the rent of £40 which Henry de Percy pays to the king for the town of Corbridge, co. Northumberland, and of the reversion of the rent of £51 7s 1⁄2d issuing out of the cornage in the county of Cumberland, which Richard de Denton takes for life’. Until this reversion came in, Neville was to be paid £50 out of the customs of Newcastle. However, though paid once (E356/8/63/1) thereafter this annuity seems instead to have been made compensation for the castle of the Hermitage, originally granted to Neville by Edward de Balliol, and again surrendered to Edward III by Neville. No further attempt appears to have been made to pay Neville the original annuity for the sake of the manor of Iver. CPR 1350–4, 307, 310. An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Roxburghshire 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1956), i:83. Manor of Ashley and 16 marks rent in Up Somborne. Previously of the Despenser estate. E142/35. Reversion of 4 marks of rent in the same town held as dowry by Alice Thebaud. Later, in December 1332, the Waltham Holy Cross grant was replaced by the manors of Thorley and Wellow (Hants) CPR 1330–4, 377–8. Custody of the lands of Theobald de Verdon, his father-in-law. Manor of Mapledurwell. In August 1333, all grants made in late 1331 and 1332 to Despenser were granted ‘until the lands of his inheritance from his mother come to his hands’. CPR 1330–4, 462. However, later still, in April 1337, along with the grant of some new lands, most of these grants were converted to in fee grants. CPR 1334–8, 461–2. Manor of Faxfleet. Extent payable at the exchequer by Henry, earl of Lancaster, for the custody of the manor of Chelveston. Castle, manor and lands of Chirk. After Mortimer’s forfeiture, Chirk had initially been annexed to the crown ‘for ever’. CPR 1330–4, 109. Guardianship of the bishopric of Durham and connected lands in the diocese of York and elsewhere. Guardianship of the archbishopric and temporalities of Canterbury. Castle and manor of Loughborough. Keeping of a moiety of the manor of Shalford. Guardianship of the temporalities of the abbey of Saint Augustine, Canterbury.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date 18/06/34 07/12/34 18/12/34 31/12/34 01/02/35 03/04/35 02/06/35 16/03/36 26/09/36 18/03/37

Name H. Despenser A. Lucy H. Beaumont T. Lucy H. Percy I T. Wake W. Ros(Hl) E/Arundel B. Burghersh I H. Ferrers(Gr)

22/04/37

H. Despenser

23/07/37 19/12/37 05/02/38 10/02/38 18/02/38 20/02/38 08/07/38

E/Arundel E/Surrey H. Ferrers(Gr) W. Ros(Hl) J. Clinton J. Darcy II H. Ferrers(Gr)

48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67 68 69 70 71

72

Source k for k k for k k for k k e e for for for for e for e k k k e k k

Term lt>f l>f lt lt f lt lt>f f lt t t t f f f f f f l t f l l t t

Region Hants Cumb. Lincs. Cumb. Northumb. Northants Yorks. Salop Herts. Bucks. Derby. Essex Sussex Kent Surrey Devon Wilts. Salop Wilts. Salop London Ireland Wilts. Staffs. Staffs.

173 Last Known Holder M. Hoyville48 A. Mowbray49 I. Vescy50 J. Multon51 E/March(S.)52 R. Grey(Co) 53 R. Ros54 E/March55 E/Cornwall56 E/Cornwall57 Q/Isabella58 E/Gloucester59 H. Despenser60 H. Despenser61 H. Despenser62 H. Despenser63 M. Bohun64 E/Arundel 65 M. Gifford66 Q/Isabella67 Edward III68 Edward III69 J. Darcy I70 E. Mortimer71 H. Wrottesleye72

Properties in Little Somborne. Manor of Bolton. On 20 March 1336 Bolton, on account of Alexander Mowbray’s reseisin, was replaced by the manor of Radstone (Northants). CPR 1334–8, 233–4. Keeping of lands which Isabel de Vescy held for life in Lincolnshire. Of Egremont. The keeping of the lands in the parts of Coupland. Fees in Northumberland and 12 marks of rent in Benley. Manor of Overstone for one year. Part of John Maltravers’ estate. Moiety of a water called ‘Pidsceemar’ in Holdernesse with fishery and all profits. Manor of Church Stretton. Keeping of the castle and manor of Berkhamsted. Manor of Prince’s Risborough. Manor of Walton. And wife. The manor and town of Newport – as of her dower. d. 1326. Manor of Rotherfield. 1000 acres of wood in West Peckham and Tunbridge. Three knights’ fees in Chelfham and Warlingham. Half a knight’s fee in Ashreigney, the manors of Langtree and Chittlehampton. Manors of Broad Town and Sherston Magna, Uphaven and Netheravon, and Seend. Woods of Hawkhirst and Bushmoor. Part of the Earl of Arundel’s estate in Edward II’s reign. VCH Shropshire x, 96. Manor of Boyton. Hundred of Bradford. Tower on the river Thames by Baynard Castle in the city of London. King’s lands of Donaghmayn. Manor of Marston Maisey. Manor of Arley. According to The Complete Peerage, he did not get this. CP v, 345. I. Audley was earlier a life tenant. CPR 1334–8, 252. Manor of Tettenhall.

174

Appendix Three

Date

Name

03/03/40 10/04/40 22/05/41 28/05/41 12/06/42 20/04/44 01/10/44 22/05/45 13/02/45 16/03/46 12/05/46 13/10/46

E/Arundel A. Lucy B. Burghersh I J. Darcy II + B. Burghersh I B. Burghersh I J. Darcy II B. Burghersh I W. Greystoke J. Darcy II E/Devon B. Burghersh II

17/10/46 01/09/47

H. Despenser J. Cherleton I/ J. Strange J. Maltravers J. Darcy II + R. Talbot B. Burghersh I G. Say T. Lucy

10/10/47 06/04/48 21/04/48 21/08/48 21/08/48 18/04/53

73

74 75 76 77 78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86 87

88 89 90

91 92

93

Source e e for k k for for k for for for s for k k k for

Term t t f lt lt lt lt f l lt lt l lt lt lt lt lt

Region Wales Salop A.P. Estate Sussex A.P. Kent Lincoln Yorks. A.P. Estate Yorks. A.P. Somerset Cornwall Devon Gloucs.

Last Known Holder G. Talbot73 W. Shareshull74 A/Fécamp75 Arch/York76 D/Brittany77 P/Minstre Lovell P. Columbariis78 Edward III79 W. de la Pole80 P/Craswall81 R. Darreyns82 W. de la Pole83 P/St James84 J. Dauney J. Dauney J. Dauney85 A/Beaubec86

k for for for k k k

lt f lt lt lt lt t>f

Salop France A.P. Bucks. England England Cumb.

B. Corbet87 P. Rosty + 88 A/Lire89 E. Haudlo90 Arch/Canterbury91 Arch/Canterbury92 93

Reversions of the castle and manor of Bwlch y Dinas and the castles of Blaen Llyfni and Newcastle Emlyn. According to The Complete Peerage, he never got these. CP v, 345. Manor of Claverley. Lordship and services of the manors of Bury and West Burton (Sussex). Keeping of the lands late of William de Melton, archbishop of York. Keeping of the lands late of John, duke of Brittany, in Sussex. Manor of Postling. Returned to wife on 30 July 1342. CPR 1340–3, 496. £60 yearly out of the farm of the city of Lincoln. Keeping of the manor of Burstwick in Holdernesse, with its members in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and of the office of receiver of the king’s money there, with the usual fee. Lands of the prior of Craswall in Herefordshire and in the March of Wales. Keeping of the lands late of Robert Darreyns. King’s liberties of Holdernesse and the manor of Barrow. By Exeter. Keeping of the lands late of John Dauney. Manors of Aston Carrant and Ashton held by the alien abbot of Beaubec. Keeping of the castle of Caus and the lands of Beatrice, recently deceased widow of Peter Corbet of Caus. On 27 September 1347, it was found that this rightfully descended to others. See CFR 1347–56, 52–3. Properties in Calais. Estate of the abbot of Lire in England and Wales. Keeping of the bailiwick of the forestership of Bernwood, the site of the manor of Boarstall, and the adjacent garden and 110 acres of land, 25 acres of wood and 2s 10d of rent in Boarstall. Keeping of parks and chaces of the archbishopric of Canterbury in Kent. Keeping of parks and chaces of the archbishopric of Canterbury in Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex, and Buckinghamshire. Later to include those in Essex. CPR 1348–50, 376. Soil and herbage of Allerdale. CPR 1350–4, 426, 433.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date 30/06/54 15/07/55 18/10/56 06/05/57 18/09/58 08/12/58 26/02/61 25/06/61

Name E/March E/March E/March J. Mohun(Du) E/March W. Dacre E/Arundel J. Mowbray(Ax)

Source k for for for r for for for

24/10/61

W. Fauconberge

for for

20/02/63 14/11/63

R. Dacre II E/Arundel

20/11/63 08/06/67 17/11/67 13/05/68 26/05/72 03/06/73 07/12/73 20/11/74 28/06/75 30/08/75 10/11/75

T. Furnivalle III E/Arundel P. Mauley III E/Arundel W. Latimer II (Cr) W. Latimer II (Cr) J. Lovel(Ti) E/Stafford + W. Latimer II (Cr) E. Despenser H. Percy III

94 95 96

97 98 99

100 101 102 103

104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

for k k for for for k for for

Term l lt lt lt f f lt lt lt en/l en/l

Region Wilts. Estate A.P. Berks. Salop Westmor. Sussex Lincs. Yorks. Yorks. Westmor.

lt f

Cumb. France

lt f lt lt lt lt lt lt t lt lt

Yorks. London Yorks. Sussex Kent A.P. A.P. A.P. France A.P. A.P.

175 Last Known Holder Edward III94 W. Ros(Hl) 95 P/Fore96 W. Chiriton97 Edward III98 R. Rygmayden99 A. Clifton100 101 102

R. Burton H. Braythewath A. Lound103 R. Vaux104 H. Colne J. Craye105 106

R. Anguilon107 108

J. Bohun(Mi)109 A. Wodhulle110 P/Tackle P/Minister Lovell P/Wotton Q/Philippa111 P/Beckford P/Scarborough

Keeping of the king’s manor, park and forest of Clarendon. Keeping of all the castles, manors and lands late of William de Ros. Held with the prior of Fore. All lands in Ireland. On 3 March 1357, this was cancelled (CFR 1356–68, 31), but regranted again to March and the Prior of Fore on 18 November 1357 (CFR 1356–68, 51), though was given back to its interim owner, John de Pembrok, just before the Treaty of Calais. CFR 1356–68, 138. Manor of Streatley. Hundred of Munslow. All lands in Preston which Roger de Rygmayden lately held of the demise of Roger de Corewenn, son and heir of John de Corewenn, accused of siding with the Scots. Messuage and a virgate of land in Walderton. Island of Axholme and the manor of Epworth. Manors of Thirsk, Woodhall, Kirkby Malzeard, and Burton in Lonesdale. Manor of West Harsley (Yorks.) and a third part of lands in Burton in Kendal (Westmorland), Thirkleby and Carlton in Balne (Yorks.), late of Roger de Burton, and a messuage and 2 1⁄2 bovates in Braithwaite (Yorks.), late of Hugh de Braythewath, and a messuage and 2 1⁄2 bovates in Thornton le Beans (Yorks.), late of Adam de Lound. Keeping of all the lands in Cumberland. CFR 1356–68, 253. Inn or houses which Hugh de Colne had in the north corner the great market in Calais. Wood called ‘le Northwod’, in Shirclif and certain tofts in Sheffeld. Tenement in the parish of St. Swithun, Candelwykstrete. Manor of Seton in Whitbistrand by Mulgreve Manors of Midhurst, Ford and Climping, and a carucate of land in Eseburn and Wolavyngton. Manor of Elham. The tenements and houses of John Dayre in Calais.

176 Date 12/11/75 16/04/76

Appendix Three Name R. Clifford G. Talbot II

Source k k

Term lt t

Region Cumb. Berks.

Last Known Holder R. Dacre II112 R. Pembrugg113

Date 02/01/31

Name W. Montagu I

18/01/31

W. Montagu I

18/01/31 22/01/31 24/01/31

W. Montagu I J. Ros(Wt) R. Ufford

b.02/31 08/02/31 12/02/31 20/08/31 16/10/31 25/03/32

H. Frene R. Ufford R. Ufford J. Darcy I W. Bohun J. Darcy I

Source for for s for for k for for for k for for e for for for for k for

Term lt lt en en en en en en lt t t t t lt lt lt>t>f lt>l lt l

Region Oxon. Oxon. Dorset Berks. Kent Bucks. Hants Wales Rutland Essex Kent Norfolk Norfolk Hereford. Norfolk London Wilts. Yorks. Wilts.

Last Known Holder Q/Isabella114 Q/Isabella115 W. Montagu116 Q/Isabella117 Q/Isabella118 E. Pynkeney119 Q/Isabella120 E/March121 S. Bereford122 J. Botetort123 Q/Isabella124 Q/Isabella125 J. Claveryng126 E/March127 Q/Isabella128 J. Maltravers129 J. Meysy130 E/Kent131 E/Winchester132

New men

112

113

114 115 116 117 118 119 120

121

122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

Keeping of Naworth castle and lands in Cumberland late of Randolf de Dacre, ‘probably made pending only the minority of William de Dacre’. W. Whellan, History and Topography of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland (London, 1860), p. 657. Manor of Worde, ‘now called the manors of Wadele and Wykyngesham’; in the place of £40 yearly of the farm of the town of Gloucester granted to him for life. CPR 1374–7, 259. Manor of Woodstock with the park. Manor of Handborough. Castle of Sherborne. Previously granted for life on 27 May 1330. CPR 1327–30, 528. Manor of Crookham. VCH: Berkshire, iii, 314. Manor of Catford. Manor of Fulmer. Manors of Swainstone, Christchurch Twynham, Westover and Ringwood. VCH: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, iv, 608; v, 92. Castle, town, manor and honour of Denbigh, and the cantreds of Rhos, Rhufiniog and Carmarthen and the commote of Dinmael. Lands in Ketton and Kilthorpe. Two thirds of the manor of Gestingthorpe. Manor of Gravesend. Manor of Burgh. Manor of Costessey. Manors of Marden, Bredwardine, and Winforton. Manors of Cawston and Fakenham until the reversion of Costessey came in. House called ‘le Bas court’ by Cripplegate. Manor of Marston Maisey. The farm of the manor of Collingham. Manor of Wyke-Valors by Marston Maisey.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date 09/09/32

Name W. Bohun

17/09/32 17/09/32 11/12/32 25/01/33 20/05/33

R. Swynnerton R. Swynnerton J. Beauchamp(Wa) W. Montagu I T. Bradeston

08/06/33 01/10/33 02/10/33

W. Montagu I T. Ughtred G. Talbot I

21/10/33 18/12/33 27/02/34 02/03/34 16/07/34

G. Talbot I R. Swynnerton R. Ufford W. Montagu I R. Swynnerton

133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146

147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156

Source s s s s s s s s k k o k e e for for k k for for k for for for

Term en en en en en en en en l l lt en f f lt>f f l>f l l lt>f lt f f f

Region Berks. Oxon. Bucks. Lincs. Notts. Gloucs. Essex Sussex Cheshire Staffs. Worcs. Somerset Somerset Somerset I/Man Scotland Wales Wales Yorks. Cheshire Norfolk Berwick. Cheshire Staffs.

177 Last Known Holder E/Norfolk133 E/Norfolk134 E/Norfolk135 E/Norfolk136 E/Norfolk137 E/Norfolk138 E/Norfolk139 E/Norfolk140 R. Felton141 Edward III142 E/March(S.)143 M. Montagu144 W. Pavely145 W. Dovyll146 E/Murray147 J. Stiward148 H. Tyrel149 T. Blaunkfront150 Q/Isabella151 H. Despenser152 R. Ufford153 J. Publes154 E/Winchester155 E/Winchester156

Manors of Hinton and Speen. Manors of Haseley, Ascot, Deddington, Pyrton and Kirklington. Town and manor of Wycombe. Manor of Long Bennington. Manor of Kneesall. Manor of Newnham. Manor of Wix. Farm of £42 from the manor of Bosham. Manor of Shotwick. Hundred of Pirehill. Manors of Norton and Bromsgrove. Manor of Hurcott. Manor of Stratton on the Foss. Parcel of lands in Knolle – later referred to as a manor. Originally forfeited by Thomas de Gournay, this was later won back by his widow, Bradeston being granted in compensation that the manor of Kingsland, which he held in wardship, would in future be free of any rent – as well as provision for an exchequer annuity if the wardship be taken out of his hands until lands and rents in fee could be found. CPR 1334–8, 561–2; Appendix 5. See W.A. Moore, A History of the Isle of Man (1900; reprint 1977), pp. 194–5. Manor of Benchill and other properties of Stiward. Rotuli Scotiae, i, 273–4. Castles and lordship of Bwlch y Dinas and Blaen Llyfni. Castle of Newcastle Emlyn. Manor of Wetelawe [Wheatley?] by Doncaster. d. 1326. Manor of Little Barrow. Manor of Cawston. Messuage and £4. 10s. 6d. rent in Berwick-upon-Tweed. Manor of Barrow. Lands and rents in Rushton, Corneford, Alstonfield and Caldon.

178

Appendix Three

Date 24/07/34 01/04/35

Name W. Montagu I W. Mauny

04/04/35 06/04/35

W. Mauny J. Darcy I

20/04/35 20/04/35 12/07/35

W. Montagu I + W. Montagu I W. Montagu I

18/08/35 08/10/35

T. Bradeston J. Stryvelyn

10/10/35 30/10/35 21/03/36 05/04/36

W. Montagu I W. Mauny R. Ufford W. Bohun

14/03/37 16/03/37 16/03/37

G. Brian R. Cobham I(St) E/Salisbury

17/03/37 18/03/37

E/Gloucester E/Northampton

157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169

170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179

180

Source for e for for for e e k e e for e

Term lt f f f t t f f f f f f

Region Scotland Bucks. Bucks. Norfolk Ireland Ireland Berks. Bucks. Dorset Wilts. Scotland Northumb.

k k k e e e k e e e o e

f f l>f m m f l>f t t t l t

Scotland Northants Suffolk Staffs. Gloucs. Sussex Bucks. Wilts. Dorset Somerset Rutland Lincs.

Last Known Holder Scottish Crown157 I. Carbonel158 E/Athol159 E/Athol160 E/March161 H. Sutton162 E. Strange163 E. Pynkeney164 R. FitzPaine165 R. FitzPaine166 E/March167 J. Crumbwell and T. Bamburgh168 Scottish Crown169 R. Grey(Co) 170 R. Ufford171 I. Audley172 J. Bohun173 A. Sapy174 E/Cornwall175 E/Surrey176 E/Surrey177 E/Surrey178 M. Audley179 E/Surrey180

Manor of Ednam. Manor of Chearsley – part of the earl of Athol’s forfeited lands. Manor of Beachendon. Manors of Stiffkey and Holkham. Manors of Rathwire and Kildalk. Grange of Rathwire. Manor of Bisham. Manor of Datchet. Manors of Wootton Fitzpaine, Frome Whitfeld, Marshwood, and Worth Matravers. Manor of Poole Keynes. That is, Patrick Dunbar. The manors of Dunse and Chirnside in Berwickshire. Manors of Belsay and Newlands and connected properties. Forest of Selkirk and Ettrick, the town and county of Selkirk and of Peebles. J.W. Buchan, A History of Peeblesshire 2 vols. (Glasgow, 1925), i, 60–1. Manor of Overstone. Castle and town of Orford – life grant 1 May 1330 (CPR 1327–30, 522). Manor of Arley. Manor of Bisley. Messuage and 300 acres of land and pasture in the marsh of Pevensey. Manor of Cippenham. Castle and manor of Trowbridge, and the manors of Aldbourne, Amesbury and Winterbourne. Manor of Canford. Manors of Henstridge and Charleton. Castle, manor and town of Oakham. Audley was granted an extension to his own life of the life grant to his wife, Margaret, of the property. CPR 1334–8, 414–5. Castle, manor and town of Stamford and manor and town of Grantham.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date

Name

18/03/37

E/Suffolk

19/03/37

E/Huntingdon

25/07/37 16/08/37 01/09/37

E/Suffolk E/Salisbury J. Darcy I

18/09/37 25/09/37

E/Salisbury E/Gloucester

01/10/37

E/Salisbury

03/10/37

E/Derby

19/12/37

J. Wilington

04/01/38

E/Salisbury

181 182 183

184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198

199 200 201 202 203 204

Source e e k k e k e e for e e e for for for e e e e for for for e for

Term t t t t t t t t t f t t lt>f t t f f f f lt lt en en f

Region Northants Rutland Suffolk Norfolk Suffolk Lincs. Hunts. Hunts. Essex Oxon. Yorks. Lincs. Somerset Notts. Derby. Cheshire Norfolk Suffolk Lincs./Wales Norfolk Yorks. Wales Wilts. Oxon.

179 Last Known Holder Cs/Pembroke181 E/Gloucester182 E/Cornwall183 E/Cornwall184 E. Ferre185 E/Cornwall186 Q/Isabella187 Cs/Pembroke188 J. Stuteville189 J. Haudlo190 Cs/Pembroke191 Cs/Pembroke192 J. Fienles193 J. Stuteville194 J. Stuteville195 Q/Isabella196 Q/Isabella197 Q/Isabella198 Q/Isabella199 C/Eu200 C/Eu201 J. Maltravers202 M. Giffard203 P. Oo204

Manor of Fotheringhay. Castle and manor of Oakham and the county of Rutland. Castle, town, manor and honour of Eye, manor of Thorndon, manor of Henley, and the hundreds of Hartismere and Stow. On 18 August 1338 £20 paid yearly by the prior of Bromholm for a fifth part of the manor of Baketon, previously part of the honour, was added. CPR 1334–8, 496. Manor of Cawston. Manor of Benhall. Manor of Kirton. Manors of Holme and Glatton. Site of the castle of Huntingdon. Manor of Dedham. Manor of Beckley. Manors of Temple Newsam and Temple Hirst. Manor of Torksey. Manor of Martock. Manor of Kirkby in Ashfield. Manor of Eckington. Castle and manor of Hawarden, stewardship of Chester, and manors of Lee, Bosley and Neston. Manor of Kenninghall. Manor of Kessingland and a carucate of land and £20 rent in the towns of Framsden (also referred to as a manor) and Kessingland as well as all the rents, customs, homages and services of Thomas de Ketelbergh, tenant of the manor of Framsden and his heirs. Manor of Mablethorpe, 7s. of rent in Harmston and the castle and town of Mold. Manor of Wighton and the hundred of Northgreneho. Manor of Laughton-en-le-Morthen. Castle of Carreg Cennan and the commote of Is Cennan. Manors of Broughton Giffard, Elston and Orcheston. Messuage in Oxford.

180

Appendix Three

Date 15/02/38 01/03/38 29/04/38 03/07/38 07/07/38 b.08/37 04/09/38 12/01/39 12/10/39 05/11/39 01/03/40

Name E/Suffolk R. Beauchamp(Be) W. Mauny T. Ughtred R. Cobham I(St) J. Stryvelyn R. Cobham I(St) R. Cobham I(St) T. Bradeston W. Mauny J. Darcy I

04/04/40 14/04/40 13/05/40 15/12/40 09/02/41 16/06/41 01/02/42 17/02/42 18/02/42 18/02/42 18/05/42 15/05/42

T. Bradeston T. Bradeston R. Cobham I(St) E/Northampton G. Brian E/Derby E/Derby E/Derby J. Darcy I + E/Huntingdon E/Derby T. Bradeston

205

206 207 208

209 210

211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

223

224 225

Source k e k k/e k for for k k k e e for e for e e e for for k for for for for

Term t l>f f f l f lt l f l l l l f lt f t f lt lt lt lt lt lt lt

Region Suffolk Oxon. Wales Yorks. Norfolk Scotland Sussex Oxon. Surrey Northants Derby. Notts. Ireland Wales Gloucs. Kent Essex Devon A.P. A.P. Wales A.P. A.P. A.P. A.P.

Last Known Holder Edward III205 J. Weston206 207

M. Hugate208 Q/Isabella209 210

A/Bec Hellouin211 T. Poynings212 T. Poynings213 R. Foxton214 E/Gloucester215 E/Gloucester216 C/Eu217 Cs/Lincoln218 Arch/York219 Cs/Pembroke220 Q/Philippa221 J. Carreu222 P/Lapley P/Pontefract E/March223 A/Lire224 P/Throwley P/Newent A/Fécamp225

£11. 3s. 4d. of rent from a fee farm and 15s of rent from a yearly scutage paid at the exchequer by John son of Robert de Thorpe of a moiety of the manor of Combs, a quit-claim of £11 18s 4d of rent due by the earl for the other moiety. Manor of Bloxham. Manor of Aber. Two parts of a messuage in Petergate, York, and a grant in expectancy of the dower portion of the messuage on the death of Isabella de Burdon. Farm of £55 of the town of Great Yarmouth. Baronies of Bathgate and Ratho, the lands and mills of Dene, and the suit of the town of Edinburgh ‘to the mills’. C47/22/10/53. Manors of West Preston and Hooe of the temporalities of the alien abbot of Bec Hellouin. King’s mills beneath the castle of Oxford and the meadow called ‘Kyngesmede’. Manor of Shalford. £50 of the farm of the town of Northampton Manor of Eckington. Manor of Kirkby in Ashfield. Manors of Louth and Balyogary [Garristown]. Castle and manor of Llanfair and the land and lordship of Builth. Guardianship of the temporalities of York in the county of Gloucester. Manor of Strood. Manors of Eastwood and Rayleigh (with the honour) and the hundred of Rochford. Part of the lordship and profits which the king had at the gift of Nicholas de Teukesbury in the towns of Dartmouth, Clifton, and Hardenesse. Castle, town and county of Carmarthen and lordship of Cantref Mawr. Held by the Crown since 1330. J.E. Lloyd, A History of Carmarthenshire 2 vols. (Cardiff, 1935), i, 245. English estate of the abbot of Lire. Parcel of lands and rents in Horsham (Sussex).

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date 15/04/43 06/12/43 20/12/43 20/03/44 18/06/44 12/07/44 05/09/45 11/02/46 18/06/46 05/10/46 07/02/47 01/06/47 08/06/47 05/09/47 20/09/47 03/10/47 08/10/47 18/10/47 10/11/47 20/11/47 27/01/48 06/07/48 07/08/48 18/11/48

226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

238 239 240

241 242 243 244 245 246

247

248

Name R. Cobham I(St) J. Stryvelyn J. Stryvelyn + G. Brian E/Northampton + W. Heron J. Ufford T. Brewose J. Beauchamp(Wa) + J. Stryvelyn R. Cobham I(St) E/Lancaster M. Poynings R. Cobham I(St) T. Bradeston E/Lancaster E/Lancaster G. Brian E/Lancaster J. Stryvelyn E/Suffolk J. Ufford R. Stafford/R. Talbot W. Heron

Source for k e for k for for for e k e for for for for for for k k for for for for e

Term lt lt>f t>l lt lt lt lt lt f>l f en t lt>l f f t f l t f en l lt f

Region Estate Northumb. Yorks. Somerset Ireland Northumb. A.P. Berks. Worcs. Scotland Kent France Estate Estate France France France London Derby. Berwick. London Suffolk Ireland Northumb.

181 Last Known Holder J. Marschal226 R. de Rodum227 R. de Nevil228 J. Molyns229 G. Badlesmere230 A/Meuros231 P/St Faith A/Beaulieu232 T. Haukeston233 P. de Hely234 G. Corder235 L/Bergerac236 M. de la Beche237 T. Arden238 F. Bougounere239 Prisoners240 B. Barraut241 R. Conductu242 243

A. de Murref244 F. & L. Creye245 A/Aumale246 E/Desmond247 A. de Hornclyf & R. Cornhale248

The estate of John le Marschal of Changeton. Lands in Roddam. Manor of Faxfleet and 10 marks of rent in North Dalton. Manor of Stoke Trister. Custody of two parts of the barony of Inchiquin. Plot of waste called Trollop. Manor of Inglesham and the messuage and lands in Faringdon. Manor of Oddingley. Lands in Paxton. Manor of West Cliffe. Castle and town of Bergerac on the Dordogne. Lands of Margery late the wife of Nicholas de la Beche in the counties of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Surrey and Sussex. Estate of Thomas Arden. An inn in the high street of Calais. ‘The lands, vineyards and other goods of such of the prisoners of war taken by him at the time of the capture of the town of St. Jean d’Angley’. CPR 1345–8, 562. Houses and connected possessions of Bernard Barraut, burgess of St. Jean d’Angley. Tenements and rents in London. Castle of Horston and £40 yearly from the farm of Derby. Manor of Hutton and connected properties. Plot of land in the Cripplegate ward in London. Manor of Great Belstead. Ufford originally held this until royal debts to him were fulfilled. CPR 1340–3, 287; CPR 1348–50, 125–6. Keeping of the castles, manors and lands in Ireland of Maurice, son of Thomas earl of Desmond, for 800 marks a year at the exchequer. Manor of Thornton.

182 Date

Appendix Three Name

13/02/49 16/02/49

R. Beauchamp(Be) G. Brian +

20/06/49 10/02/50 30/06/50 04/07/50

E/Lancaster E/Huntingdon G. Brian/W. Mauny R. Beauchamp(Be)/ G. Brian + R. Beauchamp(Be) G. Brian + G. Brian J. Beauchamp(Wa) E/Huntingdon E/Stafford/ R. Stafford J. Beauchamp(Wa) D/Lancaster J. Ufford + G. Brian + T. Ughtred G. Brian +

14/10/51 26/02/52 10/07/53 26/07/53 15/05/54 20/05/54 17/06/54 10/11/54 02/04/58 23/11/58 10/05/59 04/07/59

249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268

Source for

Term f

Region Northumb.

for for for k k k k k for for for

f f lt lt lt lt lt lt f lt lt

Northumb. Northumb. Gloucs. Berks. Oxon. Wilts. Hants Worcs. Warwicks. A.P. Estate

Last Known Holder R. de Aulton & I. Cornhale249 W. Pendregest250 T. de Gosewyk251 A/Beaubec252 H. Despenser253 H. Despenser254 H. Despenser255 H. Despenser256 H. Despenser257 J. Murdak258 P/Beaulieu J. Segrave259

for for for for for k

lt lt lt lt lt lt

England London A.P. Somerset A.P. Herts.

B/ Exeter260 A. Walpole261 P/Otterton262 R. Guyen263 P/Astley J. Cauton264

k for k for for k for

lt lt f lt lt lt lt

Staffs. Herts. Yorks. A.P. A.P. Yorks. A.P.

L. Eyet266 R. Bygot267 P/St Faith P/Beckford W. Buscy268 P/Frampton

265

Eight messuages and 168 acres of land in Cornhill. A parcel of lands and rents by the Tweed. Three messuages and eighty acres of land in Goswick. Manors of Aston Carrant and Ashton held by the alien abbot of Beaubec. Lands in Stanford. Lands in Burford and Shipton. Lands in Sherston. Lands in Ashley. Lands in Martley. Parcel of lands and rents in Shrewley. Issues of all the lands of John and Margaret Segrave. Guardianship of the temporalities of the bishopric of Exeter. Messuage and twelve shops in the parish of St. John Zachary. The keeping of the priory of Otterton. Manor of Kingsdon. Manor of Pirton. Manors of Wrottesley and Butterton. Manor of Ayot St Lawrence. Yearly farm of 4 marks 10s due from Lancaster for the bailiwick of Scalby. His lands in Thirkleby.

Escheats, Expectancies and Forfeitures Date 25/10/59

Name J. Beauchamp(Wa)

Source for

Term lt

Region A.P.

08/11/67 14/11/76

J. Stryvelyn T. Musgrave +

k

lt lt

Northumb. Cumb.

269 270

183 Last Known Holder P/Lewisham and Greenwich I. Demon269 J. de la More270

Manor of Cambois and lands in Choppington, West Sleekburn and Bedlington. Keeping of the closes of Hesket and Le Nunclos within the forest of Ingelwood.

Appendix Four Marriage Rights and Arrangements f family or friends g geographical sphere of interest n no obvious connection

Grants of marriage rights Established nobility Date 21/07/31 23/02/34 10/01/35 13/08/35 12/10/35 10/04/36 22/12/36 04/03/38 10/02/39 21/11/41 10/07/42 01/08/42 19/11/42 01/04/43 01/04/43 26/02/44 23/10/45 17/03/46 12/10/46 10/01/47 14/02/47 14/05/47 18/08/47 29/01/48

1 2 3

Name J. Mowbray R. Neville II (Ra) E. Strange E/Arundel B. Burghersh I W. Kerdeston T. Berkeley R. Neville II (Ra) J. Segrave J. Darcy II R. Talbot H. Ferrers (Gr) H. Despenser B. Burghersh I R. Neville II (Ra) J. Cobham II (Ke) E/Arundel E/Warwick R. Talbot E/Warwick E/Warwick B. Burghersh I B. Burghersh I R. Talbot

Family Name Mowbray De la Leye Cubbeldik Langeleye Frevill Kerdeston De la Ware Huntingfield De la Penne Meinill Helyon Strathbolgi(Athol) Moigne Veel Clifford Curzon Beaumont Clifford Fitzherbert Cornwall Lovayne Welle St John Lovel

Vacated by surrender. Cancelled because individual still alive. Part satisfaction of debts. CPR 1340–3, 500.

Main Links f g g g g f/g n g f g g g g n g g n g g g g g g g

Status son daughters son son1 son daughter son2 son son daughter son son3 son son son daughter son son son son daughters daughter son son(s)

Marriage Rights and Arrangements Date 12/07/49 24/08/49 13/10/49 01/10/53 23/03/57 24/07/59 13/07/63 24/10/69 31/01/70 03/05/70 07/12/71 20/09/72 08/07/73 05/12/73 10/05/74 31/12/74 07/08/75 08/08/75

185

Name B. Burghersh I J. Lisle (Rg) E/Arundel R. Mortimer J. Beauchamp III (So) E/March R. Dacre P. Mauley III G. Talbot II A. St Amand J. Neville (Ra) W. Latimer II (Cr) H. Percy III W. Latimer II (Cr) W. Latimer II (Cr) W. Latimer II (Cr) W. Latimer II (Cr) E/Arundel

Family Name Burghersh Pecche4 Strange Vale Cary Greystoke Vaux Bulmer Bergh Beche/Dunn Everingham Courtenay Strabolgi(Athol) Beaumont Fitzwaryn Lumley Say Strange

Main Links f/g g g g g g g g g g g g g g n g g g

Status son son son son son son son son son kinsmen daughters son daughters son son brother son son

Name G. Talbot I R. Ufford T. Bradeston W. Montagu I R. Ufford J. Beauchamp (Wa) J. Grey I (Ro) W. Montagu I E/Salisbury W. Mauny T. Bradeston T. Bradeston E/Salisbury T. Bradeston J. Darcy I J. Darcy I T. Bradeston R. Burgcher R. Burgcher G. Brian J. Darcy I E/ Suffolk G. Brian

Family Name Pleys Davillers Giffard Romeseye St Philbert Bohun Moreby Mortimer Erlegh Benstead Brianzoun Brianzoun Mt Hermerii More Darcy Darcy More Amory Claydon Botiller Ormond Bernak Pavely

Main Links n g g g g g f g g n g g g g f/g g/f g g g g g g n

Status son daughters son son son widow son son son son daughter widow daughter son widow son widow son daughter son son son son

New men Date 20/01/31 14/06/31 15/12/31 21/02/34 10/07/34 21/03/36 30/05/36 03/06/36 19/03/37 03/09/37 16/04/39 04/11/39 02/07/40 17/09/40 20/09/40 15/10/40 25/10/40 18/05/41 12/10/41 16/04/42 24/03/46 10/07/46 20/12/46

4

For debt. CPR 1348–50, 362.

186 Date 26/05/47 04/12/47 25/04/48 1349 26/04/49 22/11/49 14/10/50 03/01/51 28/07/51 01/05/52 22/10/53 20/06/57 24/11/62 14/11/63 07/08/72 12/06/74

Appendix Four Name R. Beauchamp (Be) G. Brian E/Lancaster R. Basset (Sp) G. Brian T. Ughtred M. Poynings E/Huntingdon E/Huntingdon E/Stafford G. Brian R. Cobham I (St) W. Heron et al. T. Ughtred R. Scrope R. Scrope

Family Name St Quintin Abbenhale Verdon Botreaux Welle Conestable Bouet Sevance Twitham Plecy Dynham Criketot Heton Faucomberge Tybetot Bradeston

Main Links g g f g g g g g g g g g g g g n

Marriages (1330–1377)5 Established nobility Date c.1330 b.1331 c.1330 b.1332 b.1332 c.1331 c.1332 c.1332 1332 b.1333 b.1334 b.1334 c.1334 c.1334 b.1335 b.1335 c.1335 b.1336 c.1336 1336 b.1337 c.1337

5 6 7

Name E/Norfolk J. Grey(Co) W. Faucomberge J. Maltravers H. Ferrers (Gr) R. Northwode A. Everingham(La) J. Cobham II (Ke) J. Darcy II J. Lisle(Rg) S. Warde A.Welle E/Cornwall H. Percy II W. Zouche II (Ha) R. Morley B. Burghersh II R. Scales E/Oxford T. Furnivalle III T. Astley J. Sutton II

Wife M. Cobham A. Lisle M. Pateshulle A. Nerford I. Verdon E. Foliot J. Deiville M. Courtenay A. Holand M. Grey Alice Margaret Mary6 Mary7 E. Ros J. de Tyes C. Weyland C.Ufford M. Fitzpayn Margaret E. Beauchamp A. Well

Compiled primarily from The Complete Peerage. Daughter of Fernando IV, King of Castile and Leon. Daughter of Henry, earl of Lancaster.

Status widow single single widow single widow single single single single

single single single single single single widow single

Status daughters daughter son son daughter son son son son brother daughters son son son daughters daughter

Marriage Rights and Arrangements Date b.1338 b.1338 b.1338 1338 1338 c.1338 b.1339 b.1342 b.1342 c.1342 c.1342 b.1343 b.1343 c.1344 c.1343 c.1345 b.1345 b.1345 1345 c.1345 b.1346 c.1347 1347 c.1347 c.1348 b.1349 b.1349 b.1349 b.1349 1349 a.1349 a.1349 c.1350 1350 c.1350 c.1351 c.1351 c.1351 c.1353 b.1353 b.1355 b.1355 b.1355 c.1355 1356 b.1357

8 9

Name J.Tybetot H. FitzHugh R. Northwode M. Berkeley R. Basset II (Dr) R. Strange II (Kn) R. de la Ware H. Despenser W. Ros II (Hl) R. Northwode W. Kerdeston W. Botiller J. Mohun II (Du) J. Neville (Ra) T. Lucy J. Darcy II R. Strange I (Kn) W. Ferrers (Gr) E/Arundel W. Morley J. Welle I H. Husee T. Berkeley J. Botetourt E/Kent J. Tybetot E/Salisbury R. Tybetot J. Willoughby II J. Mowbray II E/Salisbury J. Mowbray I J. Clinton II J. Northwode T. Vere J. Audley H. Greystoke H. Stafford W. Latimer II (Cr) G. Talbot II E. Despenser R. de la Ware J. Beauchamp III (So) H. Dacre R. Northwode P. Mauley III

Daughter of the Margrave of Juliers. By right, countess of Kent

Wife M. Badlesmere E. Cleseby M. Haghton E. Despenser J. Beauchamp A. FitzAlan E. Welle E. Montagu M. Neville J. Faversham M. Cobold Elizabeth J. Burghersh M. Percy A. Beaumont E. Meinill J. Ingham M. Ufford E. Beaumont C. Bardolph M. Ros K. FitzAlan K. Veel J. Zouche Elizabeth8 E. Wauton Joan9 M. Deincourt C. Ufford E. Segrave E. Mohun E. Courtenay I. Say J. Hert M. Ufford I. Lestrange(Kn) J. FitzHenry P. Beauchamp E. Fitzalan P. Butler E. Burghersh Elizabeth A. Beauchamp E. Douglas A. Cobham E. Darcy

187 Status single widow widow single single single single single single widow

single single single single single single widow single single single widow widow single widow single single single single single widow single single single single single single single single single single widow widow widow

188 Date 12/07/58 c.1358 b.1359 1359 c.1359 1359 a.1359 b.1360 b.1361 b.1361 c.1361 1362 c.1363 c.1365 1365 1365 c.1366 1368 1368 c.1368 b.1369 b.1369 1369 c.1370 c.1371 c.1372 b.1373 b.1374 c.1376

Appendix Four Name H. Percy III T. Ros(Hl) R. de la Ware E/Pembroke W. Lisle(Ki) E/Arundel H. Bohun R. Lisle II W. Faucomberge R. Grey(Rh) II H. Courtenay (le fitz) W. FitzWalter W. Ufford W. Furnivalle H. Percy II H. Courtenay (le fitz) B. Burghersh II E/March E/Pembroke W. Ferrers (Gr) H. Beaumont II J. de la Ware R. Ferrers (We) R. Willoughby P Mauley III J. Lovel (Titchmarsh) R. Willoughby J. Cherleton III E/Suffolk

Wife M. Ros B. FitzMaurice A. Mowbray Margaret10 M. FitzElys E. Bohun J. FitzAlan Agnes I. Burton A. Strange M. Bryan A. Dagworth J. Montagu T. Dagworth J. Orreby M. Holand M. Pichard Philippa11 A. Mauny M. Umframvill M. Lovain Elizabeth E. Boteller A. de Skipworth C. Sutton M. Holand M. de la Zouche J. Stafford J. LeStrange(Bl)

Status widow widow single single widow single widow widow single single single single widow single single widow single single widow widow single single single single single single widow

No dates (possibly between 1330 and 1377) E/Hereford & Essex E/Lancaster E/March W. Bardolf R. Basset II (Dr) R. Bavent J. Beauchamp II (So) J. Botetourt N. Cauntelo N. Cauntelo R. Clifford J. Clinton II J. Cobham II (Ke) S. Cobham(Ru)

10 11

Fourth daughter of Edward III. Daughter of Lionel, duke of Clarence

M. Basset (Dr) A. D’Arcies P. Montagu A. Poynings J. Bretagne Joan M. St John M. Grey(Ro) Tiphaine J. Kyme M. Beauchamp J. Limbury A. Stone Avice

single widow single single single single single widow single widow single

Marriage Rights and Arrangements Name R. Cobham II (St) W. Dacre J. Faucomberge H. FitzHugh J. FitzWalter T. Furnivalle III J. Grey(Ro) R. Grey(Co) R. Grey I (Rh) H. Grey(Wi) R. Greystoke W. Greystoke J. Harington I J. Harington II A. Hilton A. Hilton R. Holand J. Huntingfield W. Kerdeston W. Kyme W. Lisle(Ki) A. Lucy P. Montfort J. Mowbray I J. Multon J. Neville(Es) J. Neville(Es) R. Neville I (Ra) R. Neville I (Ra) R. Northwode H. Percy I N. St Maur G. Say W. Say A. St Amando R. Scales J. Segrave J. Strange(Bl) J. Strange II (Bl) R. Strange I

12 13 14

Wife E. Ferrers K. Neville E. Bulmer E. Bulmer A. Percy J. Bret M. Burghersh J. FitzPayn E. Hastings A. Rockley K. Clifford L. Lucy J. Dacre J. Birmingham Alice M. Acton Elizabeth M. Welles A. Norwich J. Littelbury J. Wynnow Elizabeth M. Furnivalle Joan12 A. de la Zouche A. Nerford M. Ward13 E. FitzRoger M. Thweng J. Say I. Clifford M. Lovel M. Beauchamp B. Brewes Eleanor J. Northwood M. Brotherton14 A. Boteler M. FitzAlan Maud

Sixth and youngest daughter of Henry, earl of Lancaster. Annulled on petition. Sole heir of Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk.

189 Status widow single single single single widow single single single single single single single single widow

single widow single single single widow single single single single single single single single single single single single

190

Appendix Four

New men Date c.1330 1331 c.1335 c.1336 1336 b.1337 c.1337 c.1337 c.1338 b.1339 c.1339 c.1339 b.1342 1343 c.1343 1345 c.1346 1348 c.1349 c.1349 1351 c.1351 1352 1354 1355 b.1365 b.06/66 1361 1370

Name G. Lisle(Ki) J. Kirkton W. Bohun H. Frene R. Stafford R. Beauchamp (Be) H. Grosmont T. Brewes E. Montagu J. Stryvelyn T. Holand N. Haudlo18 R. Benhale J. Montagu T. Dagworth T. Musgrave R. Basset M. Poynings L. Poynings G. Brian J. Ufford R. Husee R. Scrope (Ki) G. Lisle W. Mauny J. Stryvelyn R. Cromwell M. de la Pole W. Botreaux

Wife Eleanor I. de Meriet E. Mortimer Cs/Lincoln M. Audley S. Patshull I. Beaumont Beatrice15 Alice16 B. Swinbourn Cs/Kent Mary E. Clavering M. Monthermer Cs/Ormond I. Clifford S. Astley J. Molyns I. Burghersh E. Despenser Alice M. St Quentin B. de la Pole E. St John M. Segrave J. Emeldon M. Bernake K. Wingfield E. Daubeney

Status widow widow widow single single single widow single single single17 widow single widow widow single widow widow widow widow single widow widow single single single single

No Dates (possibly between 1330 and 1377) W. Aldeburgh R. Basset R. Beauchamp(Be) J. Bohun (Mi) T. Bradeston T. Bradeston J. Clifton J. Darcy I J. Grey(Ro) J. Hausted

15

Elizabeth A. Derby Margaret I. Tregoz Agnes Isabel E. Cromwell E. Heron A. Marmion Fina

single

single single single

Widow of Edward, son and heir apparent of Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk. Youngest daughter and coheir of the Earl of Norfolk. 17 CP vii, 150. For disputes over this marriage, see Wentersdorf, ‘Clandestine Marriages’, 203 ff. 18 Later changed his name to Burnell. CP ii, 434–5. 16

Marriage Rights and Arrangements Name W. Heron W. Huntingfield N. Meinill E. Montagu T. Musgrave J. Norwich J. St Philbert J. St Philbert H. Scrope R. Swynnerton G. Talbot I

Wife Isabel E. Willoughby A. Ros Joan M. Ros Margery J. Ufford M. St John Joan or Agnes Maud A. Botiler

191 Status single single single single single

single

Appendix Five Wardships and Custodies a c d f g

appointment (stewardship) commitment (payments) dower fine (but no other payments) grant (no annual payments)1

in p r s w

inheritance or family related lands part of the estate rent or ‘lease at farm’ sale (not a nominal sum) whole estate

Established nobility Date 21/11/30 06/05/31 08/05/31 21/07/31

Name J. Cromwell R. Grey(Rh) R. Grey(Rh) J. Mowbray I

Type c c c f

Estate T. Perot(p) J. Hastings(p) J. Hastings(p) A. Mowbray(p)(in)

09/10/31

H. Percy I

c

R. FitzWalter(p)

17/10/31 15/04/32

R. Grey(Rh) E/Cornwall

c c>g

J. Hastings(p) J. Dynham(w)

28/01/33 27/05/33

J. Lovel (Ti) J. Tybetot

c g

J. Lovel(p)(in) J. Tybetot(w)(in)

23/02/34 10/01/35 20/02/35

R. Neville II(Ra) E. Strange E/Lancaster

g f c

R. de la Leye A. Cubbeldik(w) J. Hastings(p)

13/05/35 12/10/35 10/04/36 22/12/36 04/03/38

E/Arundel B. Burghersh I W. Kerdeston T. Berkeley R. Neville II(Ra)

g a f c s

G. Langeleye(w) E. Frevill(p) M. Kerdeston(p) J. de la Ware(w) R. Huntingfeld(p)

1 2

Save services and other charges – e.g. CFR 1369–77, 293. Cancelled because individual still alive.

Region Bucks. Wales Suffolk Lincs./Yorks./Notts. Beds./Warwicks./ Northants/Leics. Norfolk/Suffolk Essex/Cambs. Herts./Northants Essex Cornwall/Somerset Devon Northants Yorks./Notts./Suffolk Leics./Essex/Cambs. Lincs. Co. Durham Lincs. Suffolk/Warwicks. Leics./Hunts./Hants Oxon. Cambs. Oxon. Hants2 Norfolk/Cambs.

Wardships and Custodies Date

Name

Type

Estate

30/07/38 04/02/39

E/Arundel L. Hastings

c c

E. Mortimer(p)(in) J. Hastings(p)(in)

10/02/39 30/09/40 26/10/41 02/11/41 02/03/42 10/07/42 19/11/42 26/01/43 01/04/43 01/05/43

J. Segrave E/Pembroke T. Botiller R. Mortimer R. Mortimer R. Talbot H. Despenser R. Mortimer B. Burghersh I E/Warwick

c c c c c f c c g c

P. de la Penne(p) E/Athol(p) W. Clerbek(p) E. Mortimer(p)(in) E/March(p)(in) W. Helyon(p) J. Moigne(w) E. de la Hide(p) P. Veel(p) R. Basset(Dr)(w)

15/05/43

R. Neville II(Ra)

s/f

W. Ros(Hl)(p)

14/09/43 25/03/44 06/07/44 16/04/45 17/03/46

B. Burghersh I R. Mortimer W. Montagu II R. Neville II(Ra) E/Warwick

g c g c g

W. Ros(Hl)(p) E/March(p)(in) E/Salisbury(p)(in) R. Clifford(p) R. Clifford(p)

02/04/46 12/10/46

J. Darcy II R. Talbot

c s/f

E/Ormond(w) R. Fitzherbert(w)

14/10/46 10/11/46 18/11/46 10/01/47 10/02/47 14/06/47

E/Warwick B. Burghersh I J. Beauchamp(So) E/Warwick B. Burghersh II B. Burghersh I

g c c>g c c c

R. Clifford(p) N. Glamorgan(w/i) A. de la Zouche(w) M. Cornwall(w) J. Loveyn(w) W. Welle(w)

3

For debt. CPR 1343–5, 126.

193 Region Suffolk/Essex Lincs. Wales Surrey/Middx Sussex/Kent/Suffolk Norfolk/Bucks./Beds. Wilts./Hants/Salop Worcs./Wales Dorset/Northants Warwicks./Leics./Lincs. Somerset/Derby. Ireland Suffolk Wales Worcs. Gloucs. Dorset/Essex Ireland Somerset Leics./Northants Staffs./Bucks./Wilts. Lincs./Notts./Dorset Yorks./Lincs./Leics. Kent/Dorset/Salop Norfolk/Suffolk Bucks./Wilts. Northants/Essex Notts./Beds./London Lincs.3 Wales Somerset Westmor. Cumb./Westmor. London/Yorks. Worcs./Surrey/Dorset Hereford. Ireland Beds./Dorset Somerset Durham/Cumb. Somerset Leics./Sussex/Cambs. Northants Essex/Suffolk Cambs./Wales/Essex Suffolk

194

Appendix Five

Date 26/08/47

Name John, E/Kent

Type g

29/01/48

R. Talbot

c

24/03/48 18/03/48

B. Burghersh I J. Grey(Rh)

c g

15/05/49 12/07/49 22/07/49 22/08/49 24/08/49 13/10/49

B. Burghersh I B. Burghersh I B. Burghersh II E/Arundel J. Lisle(Rg) E/Arundel

g c c c g s

22/10/49 27/10/49 06/02/50

W. Ferrers(Gr) J. Willoughby(Er) B. Burghersh I & E. Despenser

g c c

18/02/50

J. Beauchamp(So)

f

20/04/50 09/04/51 01/10/53 27/01/54 28/05/56 08/06/56 01/08/56 15/05/57 23/02/57 14/02/58 12/05/59 24/07/59

T. Lucy E/Arundel R. Mortimer R. Mortimer R. Lisle(Rg) T. Ros(He) J. Cobham(Ke) R. Neville II(Ra) E/March H. Beaumont R. Clifford + E/March

c g g g c c c c g c c g

4

For debt. CPR 1348–50, 362.

Estate Edmund, E/Kent(w)(in)

Region Bucks./Norfolk Worcs./Middx Kent/Hants/Lincs. Northants/Hunts. Rutland/Wilts. Essex/Devon/Herts. Suffolk/Surrey Sussex/Leics. Somerset/Gloucs. Notts./Derby./Yorks. J. Lovel(w) Norfolk/Worcs. Oxon./Northants Somerset E. St John(p) Hants J. Wake(p) Hereford./Salop Dorset H. Despenser(p) Oxon. J. Burghersh(w)(in) Oxon./Hants M. Lovayne(w) Essex A. Beaumont(w) Lincs./Leics. G. Pecche(w) Suffolk4 J. Strange(w) Gloucs./Wilts./Hants Salop H. Ferrers(p) Salop/Staffs./Oxon. J. Willoughby, sr(w) Lincs./Norfolk H. Despenser(w)(in) Bucks./London Hants/Berks./Oxon. Devon/Wilts./Worcs. Sussex/Gloucs. Surrey/Wales Cornwall/Norfolk Somerset/Dorset Kent J. Beauchamp(So)(p)(in) Somerset/ Gloucs. Devon T. Danyers(w) Cumb. N. Vylers(w/i) R. de la Vale(w) Northumb. A. Braunche(p) Surrey J. Lisle(Rg)(p) Yorks. W. Ros(He)(p)(in) Leics. J. Brewes(p) Lincs. J. Despenser(w) Lincs. Cs/March(p)(in) R. Saltmersh(w) Leics. J. Ros(Kendale)(w) Cumb. W. Greystoke(w) Beds./Herts./Yorks.

Wardships and Custodies Date

Name

Type

Estate

18/05/60 26/02/61

W. Deincourt E/Arundel

c c

10/07/61

H. Bohun II

c

J. Tibetot(p) J. Bernak(p) J. Orreby(p) E/Northampton(p)(in)

28/10/61

W. Ufford

c

E. Montagu(w)

10/02/62 05/08/62 30/09/62 01/10/62 30/10/62 20/02/63 03/04/63 01/06/63

E/Arundel W. Ufford J. Hastings J. Hastings J. Hastings R. Dacre J. Hastings J. Hastings

c c c c c c c g

A. Strange(w) Mary(w) E/Pembroke(p) (in) E/Pembroke(p) (in) E/Pembroke(p) (in) R. Vaux (w) E/Pembroke(p) (in) E/Pembroke(p)(in)

20/12/64

J. Hastings

c

E/Pembroke(w)(in)

23/11/67

E. Mortimer

c

E/March(p)(in)

06/12/67

W. Botiller

c

J. Sudleye

03/11/67

J. Hastings

g

Cs/Huntingdon(w)(in)

01/10/68

W. Lisle(Ki)

c

M. Berkeley(p)

24/10/69

P. Mauley III

s/f

R. Bulmer(w)

5

195 Region Northumb./Cumb. Westmor. Kent/Suffolk/Herts. Sussex Sussex Lincs./Rutland/Notts. Oxford/Essex Dorset Norfolk/Suffolk London Hants/Salop Norfolk/Suffolk Cambs./Bucks. Hunts. Surrey Cumb. Suffolk Northants/Notts. Lincs./Leics./Surrey Staffs./Hunts.5 Worcs./Suffolk Norfolk/Staffs. Lincs./Beds. Hunts./Surrey Middx/Essex/Herts. Leics./Warwicks. Somerset/Northants Notts./Kent Hereford./Wales Dorset/Bucks./Lincs. Berks./Ireland Kent/Sussex/Gloucs. Gloucs./Berks. Worcs./Salop/Wales Warwicks./Gloucs. Worcs. Suffolk/Essex Gloucs./Norfolk Herts./Wilts./Oxon. Kent/Northants Salop/Bucks./Warwicks. Worcs. Essex/London/Wilts. Somerset/Gloucs. Northants/Co. Durham Yorks.

In place of 400 marks which the king ordained for his sustenance. CPR 1361–4, 345–6.

196

Appendix Five

Date 31/01/70 03/05/70 01/10/70 20/11/70 07/12/71 20/09/72

Name G. Talbot II A. St Amand E/Arundel W. Latimer II (Cr) J. Neville W. Latimer II (Cr)

Type g g c c s/f s/f

Estate I. Bergh(w) E. Beche/Dunn (w) H. Beaumont(p) E. Mauley(p) W. Everingham(w) E. Courtenay(w)

24/08/72 12/05/73 08/07/73 05/12/73

E. Mortimer R. Cromwell H. Percy III W. Latimer II (Cr)

c c s/f s/f

E/March(p)(in) Lungevilers(p) E/Athol(p) H. Beaumont(w)

10/05/74 08/06/74

W. Latimer II (Cr) + g W. Latimer II (Cr) g

F. Fitzwaryn(w) T. Thweng(w)

23/06/74 18/11/74 08/12/75 31/12/74 07/08/75 08/08/75 08/09/75 20/09/75 05/11/75

R. Clifford H. Percy III E/Stafford W. Latimer II (Cr) W. Latimer II (Cr) E/Arundel R. Basset(Dr) R. Ferrers(We) H. Percy III

c c c g g c c c c

M. Moriceby(w) E/Athol(p) J. Ferrers(p) R. Lumley(w) W. Say(w) J. Strange(Bl) E. Cobham(p) J. Ferrers(p)(in) Cs/Athol(w)

19/11/75 29/01/76 19/12/75 01/03/76 04/07/76 12/05/77

E/Arundel J. Neville(Ra) E/Stafford G. Talbot II E/Stafford W. Latimer II (Cr) +

c g c g c c

E. Cobham(p) E. Mowbray(d) J. Ferrers(p) E/Pembroke(p) J. Ferrers(p) E/Devon(w)

Name T. Bradeston R. Chaundos W. Clinton W. Montagu I

Type c a c c

Estate E/Kent(p) J. Hastings(p) E/Pembroke(p) E/Kent(p)

Region Hants/Wilts. Berkshire Lincs. Yorks./Northumb Yorks./Notts. Somerset/Devon Cornwall Oxon. Notts. Northumb. Leics./Lincs./Warwicks. Derby./Notts. Wales Lancs./Yorks. Westmor. Cumb./Westmor. Wilts. Gloucs./Berks. Yorks. Herts./Sussex/Kent Hants/Salop Staffs./Northants Hunts. Yorks./Westmor. Cumb./Kent/Norfolk Lincs./Suffolk/Bucks. Essex/Northumb. Herts. Salop/Gloucs./Wilts. Yorks. Derby. Essex Gloucs./Berks. Wilts./Hants/Bucks. Berks./Oxon. Somerset/Dorset Devon/Cumb.

New men Date 13/01/31 18/02/31 21/03/31 03/05/31

6

Region Gloucs. Wales6 Kent Somerset

Regranted to William Aune 6 March 1331 and then committed to Roger Grey on 6 May.

Wardships and Custodies Date 14/06/31 17/11/31 15/12/31 10/02/32 22/07/32 27/10/32 30/10/32 31/04/33 01/07/33

Name R. Ufford W. Bohun T. Bradeston J. Darcy I W. Montagu I J. Darcy I G. Talbot I W. Clinton R. Ufford

Type c g g c g g a c c>g

Estate B. Davilliers(p) E/Kent(p) J. Giffard(w) E/Kildare(w) Mary, his aunt(w) T. Swynburn(p) J. Wysham(p) J. Hastings(p) J. St Philbert(w)

02/10/33 06/01/34 21/02/34 30/04/34 02/05/34 01/05/34 11/07/34 23/09/34 04/01/35 05/04/36 30/05/36 01/06/36 03/06/36 20/06/36 23/09/36 19/03/37 03/09/37 03/11/37 16/04/39 20/10/39 08/02/40

W. Mauny T. Bradeston W. Montagu I T. Bradeston H. Frene H. Grosmont J. Verdon + G. Talbot I W. Montagu I W. Bohun J. Grey I (Ro) W. Mauny W. Montagu I W. Mauny W. Bohun E/Salisbury W. Mauny R. Cobham I (St) T. Bradeston E/Huntingdon W. Mauny

g g g c>g c c>g c c c g g g s/g g c g g c g c c

J. Shelton(p) J. Westcote(p/i) J. Romesye(w) E. Mortimer(p) E. Mortimer(p) J. Hastings(p) T. Burgh(p) R. Abberbury(p) J. Hastings(p) E. Mortimer(p) R. Moreby(w) E/Athol(p) E. Mortimer(p) E/Athol(p) E. Mortimer(p) J. Erlegh(w) E. Benstede(w) J. Dokesworth(w) J. Brianzoun(w) T. Furnivalle(w) J. Brumpton(w)

02/07/40

E/Huntingdon

c

J. Monte Hermerii(p)

29/12/40

H. Scrope

g

G. Scrope(w)(in)

08/01/41 18/05/41 06/09/41 10/10/41 12/10/41

T. Bradeston R. Burghcher E/Northampton J. Darcy I R. Burghcher

c c c g g

W. de la More(w) J. Amory(w) E. Mortimer(p) M. Swynburn(w) J. Claydon(w)

06/05/42

G. Brian

c>g

R. Botiller(w)

7 8 9

Later granted to Montagu and the heirs of his body. See Appendix 3. In replacement of an annuity. CPR 1330–4, 397. Dower granted to him on 1 May 1346. CFR 1337–47, 469.

197 Region Suffolk/Dorset Hants Cambs./Hants/Gloucs. Ireland Somerset7 Essex/Suffolk Gloucs. Middx Norfolk/Suffolk/Essex Gloucs./Berks./Oxon. Norfolk Hants Hants Hereford. Hereford. Wales8 Cambs. Northants Hants Salop/Staffs./Gloucs. Bucks. Hants/Worcs. Norfolk Hereford. Somerset Essex Herts. Bucks./Essex Yorks./Staffs./Derby. Staffs./Salop Berks./Oxon. Hants/Wilts./Devon Cornwall Lincs./Essex/Herts. Yorks./Northumb. Notts./Staffs. Gloucs. Essex/Beds./Leics.9 Hants/Wales Essex/Suffolk Suffolk/Essex Norfolk Salop/Beds. Wilts./Warwicks. Staffs./Lincs.

198

Appendix Five

Date 29/05/43 20/09/43

Name Type J. Stryvelyn g R. Cobham I (St) + c>g

Estate E/Athol(p) J. Beauchamp(So)(p)

15/04/45 12/07/46 20/12/46 26/05/47

T. Bradeston +. E/Suffolk G. Brian R. Beauchamp(Be)

C. Hykeling(w) J. Bernak(p) R. Pavely(w) H. St Quintin(w)

04/12/47 04/12/47 12/12/47

E/Northampton c G. Brian c>f J. Beauchamp(Wa) c

J. Tybetot(p) R. Abbenhale(p) J. Lovel(w)

12/03/49 26/04/49

W. Mauny G. Brian

H. Despenser(p) W. Welle(w)

30/05/49 01/06/49 03/08/49

G. Brian g R. Beauchamp(Be) g E/Suffolk + c

E/Pembroke R. de St Crois(w) I. Ferrers(p)

01/10/49

E/Kent

g

Cs/Kent

11/10/49 02/11/49 22/11/49 13/02/50 20/02/50 03/05/50 01/06/50 13/10/50 14/10/50 20/10/50 20/10/50 02/01/51 03/03/51 28/07/51 04/05/52 22/10/53 16/11/53 22/05/57 20/06/57 14/07/57 13/05/58

J. Beauchamp(Wa) R. Basset(Sp) T. Ughtred J. Bohun(Mi) + G. Brian J. Grey(Ro) G. Brian J. Bohun(Mi) + M. Poynings T. Bradeston G. Brian E/Huntingdon T. Ughtred E/Huntingdon E/Huntingdon G. Brian T. Bradeston E/Stafford R. Cobham II (St) T. Brewes E/Stafford

f c c c c c c c c c c a c c c c c c s c c

E. Despenser(p) E. Botreaux(p) J. Conestable(p) J. Lisle(p) E/Pembroke(p) I. Lovel(p) T. Bishop J. Lisle(p) W. Bonet(w) H. Welyngton(p) H. Despenser(p) W. Sevance(w) J. Conestable(p) A. Twitham(w) E/Pembroke(p) O. Dynham(w) S. Plukenet(p) E/Gloucester(p) W. Criketot(p) J. Brewes(p/i) E/Desmond(p)

10 11

c r s c

c g

Regranted within two months. See Section I. For the sustenance of Edward Despenser.

Region Yorks. Somerset/Dorset Devon/Bucks./Kent Cambs./Berks./Gloucs. Wilts./Middx Suffolk/Wales Suffolk Norfolk Notts./Northants Wilts./Dorset/Berks. Yorks. Essex Gloucs. Norfolk/Worcs. Oxon./Northants Somerset10 Oxon.11 Cambs./Wales Essex/Suffolk Surrey Beds. Oxon./Salop Staffs./Essex Hunts./Lincs. Northants/Yorks. Gloucs. Warwicks. Yorks. Hants Surrey Oxon. Berks. Hants Suffolk Gloucs. Wales Kent Yorks. Kent Warwicks. Devon Gloucs. Bucks. Suffolk Surrey Ireland/England

Wardships and Custodies Date 10/06/60 20/11/60 10/02/61 24/11/62 14/11/63 14/05/68 10/05/68 23/10/68 27/02/69 b.1370 07/02/71

Name G. Brian R. Beauchamp(Be) R. Beauchamp(Be) W. Heron + T. Ughtred G. Brian R. Ufford R. Cromwell L. Poynings R. Basset(Sp) L. Poynings

Type g c c c c c g c c c

Estate E/March(p) T. Bradeston(p) T. Bradeston(p) T. Heton(p) W. Faucomberge(p) J. Bohun(Mi)(p) C. Clifton(p/d) M. Ufford(d) N. Eliot(p/i) J. Mowbray W. Ferrers(Gr)(w)

07/08/72

R. Scrope

c

R. Tybetot(w)

12/06/74

R. Scrope

T. Bradeston(w)

199 Region Somerset/Devon Essex/Surrey Scotland Northumb. Yorks. Lincs. Norfolk Lincs. Sussex Essex/Cambs. Oxon./Lincs./Bucks. Yorks./Salop/Staffs. Northants/Leics. Lancs./Warwicks. Beds./Bucks./Gloucs. London/Essex/Kent Rutland/Lincs./Leics. Wilts./Yorks./Gloucs. Notts./Suffolk Gloucs./Essex Surrey/Wilts./Hants Worcs.

Appendix Six (a) Annuities Granted

Type a straight annuity lf until lands and rents in fee lt until land and rents in tail male

len ll 3rd

until land and rents entailed until lands and rents for life/limited term third penny of an earldom

Source e exchequer payments i payments from source (e.g. towns, counties, customs, alien religious lands, etc.) o other (e.g. hanaper payments) Other arranged lands or other compensation arranged to value of annuity inheritance until inheritance came in, or lands otherwise arranged by the family n/a not applicable > later changed to m mark (13s 4d) Amounts in £ unless specified otherwise

Established nobility Date 04/12/30 22/07/33 03/10/33 23/01/36 18/03/37 01/08/41 17/01/45 b.04/46 15/07/46

1 2

3

4 5

6

Name E/Cornwall T. Lucy E/Cornwall A. Lucy > T. Lucy H. Ferrers (Gr) J. Darcy II W. Ferrers (Gr) J. Lisle(Rg) J. Darcy II

Amount 20 20 300m 50 265m 40 50 40>2005 200

Type 3rd lf ll lf lt lf lt a>ll ll

Source i e e e e e e e>i e>i

Land Grants1 n/a2 arranged3

arranged arranged 4

n/a 6

That is, within the reign and which were not recalled. The Pipe Rolls list only one payment for this, after which it was integrated into a more general grant of issues and rights in Cornwall. E372/176/31/2 Grant of the soil and herbage of Allerdale in fulfilment of this (C266/8/67). Very little payment actually seems to have been made. CPR 1350–4, 433. Later, in October 1349, fulfilled by the early control of his father’s estate. See Appendix 5. According to a notation on the back of the cancelled Letters Patent for the £40 annuity, it was surrendered and £200 annuity took its place. C266/13/66; C266/14/7. Partially arranged.

Annuities Date 15/07/48 25/04/49 25/07/49 10/02/51 15/07/52 06/04/54 05/07/54 26/11/55 27/08/57 23/05/60 24/04/73

201

Name E/Warwick R. Grey(Wi) G. Say A. St Amand R. Neville II (Ra) J. Cobham I (Ke) W. Latimer II (Cr) T. Beauchamp T. Vere T. Beauchamp J. Neville

Amount 1000m 20 200m 200m 50 100m 100m 100m 40 100 100

Type ll ll a a lt ll a a8 a9 a a

Source i e>i e e i i e e e e e>i

Date 27/03/32 03/04/35 08/06/35 15/03/37 16/03/37

Name H. Grosmont W. Mauny R. Cobham I (St) R. Beauchamp(Be) E/Gloucester

16/03/37

E/Salisbury

18/03/37

E/Derby

19/03/37

E/Northampton

19/03/37

E/Suffolk

19/03/37 20/03/37

E. Montagu E/Huntingdon

22/08/37 12/03/38 16/10/39 11/11/39 b.1340 20/10/40 1342 b.1344

J. Stryvelyn W. Mauny T. Bradeston J. Norwich G. Brian R. Burghcher J. Beauchamp(Wa) J. Darcy I

Amount 500m 100 100m>400m 100m 100 20 1000m 20 1000m 20 1000 20 253 6 8 20 100 500m 20 200m12 100 500m 50m 40>80 100 20>280 183 6 8

Type a lf ll len lt 3rd lt 3rd ll11 3rd lt 3rd lt 3rd lt lt 3rd lf lt lf lf ll ll lf>ll lf

Source e>i e e>i e>i e i i i i i i i e>i i e i i e>i e e>i e e o e>i i

Land Grants

n/a n/a arranged 7

inheritance

inheritance n/a

New men

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Land Grants n/a 100m £119 10

£90 n/a arranged n/a £72 7s 6d n/a arranged n/a arranged n/a arranged n/a £61 13s 4d

arranged £60

arranged13

Died in the next year. Until the king, or Thomas’s father, or another, order otherwise for his estate. CPR 1354–8, 314. For the earl of Oxford’s life or until other arrangements were made. CPR 1354–8, 602. See CPR 1334–8, 394. Annuity and lands for the life of his father only. CPR 1334–8, 400; C266/9/42–3. Compensation for granted lands seized back by the Scots. CPR 1334–8, 482. This was actually a grant in recompense for the justiciarship of Ireland, which Darcy had surrendered, but, as he was also granted reversions of lands in connection with this, one may see the annuity as more of an endowment than a fee for an office. CPR 1343–5, 208.

202 Date 23/03/47 01/04/47 20/03/47 06/09/48 24/08/49 15/01/50 1352 24/08/52 13/05/54 30/11/54 26/01/56 20/11/62 28/01/70 06/10/76

14

15

16

17

18

Appendix Six Name M. Poynings E/Lancaster T. Ughtred R. Stafford E/Lancaster G. Brian R. Beauchamp(Be) T. Holand T. Bradeston M. de la Pole W. Aldeburgh H. Scrope T. Musgrave R. Beauchamp(Be)

Amount 200 1000 200>100 600m>1000m 20 200m 100 100m 100m 400m 100m 200m 100m 100m

Type ll a ll>a ll 3rd ll a a a a18 ll lf a a

Source e i e i i e>i e e17 i i i e e i

Land Grants n/a14 n/a15 16

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

n/a n/a

To help Lancaster pay the £1,000 yearly due to Queen Philippa for the castle of Pontefract. CPR 1348–50, 104; Fowler, King’s Lieutenant, pp. 28, 72; Somerville, Duchy of Lancaster, i, 35. This started off being until lands and rents for life came in, with Ughtred promising to provide twenty men-at-arms. However, by the time this grant was changed to the peacetime amount of 100 marks, without any further commitment for men at arms, there was no further mention of lands. Compare E403/344 (2 May 1348); CPR 1358–61, 430; E403/408 (5 May 1361). Stafford had to provide sixty, and later one hundred, men-at-arms. RDP, v, 46. About the treatment of such grants as endowment, Given-Wilson, English Nobility, pp. 154–5. For the life of his wife, or until her brother, the earl of Kent, died without heirs – which he did in December. CPR 1350–4, 312. Held jointly with his father. See CCR 1354–60, 120.

Appendix Six (b) Annuity Payment Rates1 Underlined figures indicate overpayment. Figures in italics indicate estimates.

Exchequer assignment: payments to 13772 Established nobility Annuitant T. Lucy E/Cornwall A. Lucy > T. Lucy H. Ferrers(Gr) W. Ferrers(Gr) J. Darcy II R. Grey(Wi) G. Say A. St. Amand W. Latimer II (Cr) T. Beauchamp3 T. Vere J. Neville

Duration 07/33–04/53 10/33–10/36 01/36–12/65 03/37–09/43 01/45–10/49 07/46–02/48 04/49–10/50 07/49–06/59 10/51–05/60 07/51–06/77 11/55–09/69 08/57–01/60 04/73–06/77

Expected £ s 380 498 8 1500 621 16 200 150 30 1333 6 1134 6 1066 13 1233 6 80 400

d

8

8 8 4 8

Paid £ 355 499 1257 613 100 200 30 1207 874 1433 1310 80 319

% s

d

19 12 17 5 18 4

10 7 10 10 6

9 5.5 8 8.5 8

93 101 84 101 50 133 30 90 77 134 106 100 80

New men Annuitant

Duration

H. Grosmont R. Cobham(St)

03/32–01/33 06/35–10/61

1

2

3

Expected £ s d 283 2 1 438 5

Paid £ s d 583 17 6 600

% 206 137

The following tables have been compiled from PRO E101 (Various Accounts), E106 (Alien Priories), E122 (Customs Accounts), E356 (Customs Accounts), E372 (Pipe Rolls), E401 (Receipt Rolls), and E403 (Issue Rolls). Certain annuities have been omitted because, usually due to other arrangements being made, they were cancelled very quickly – i.e. to the Earl of Cornwall (12/30), Walter Mauny (04/35), Edward Montagu (03/37), Laurence Hastings (09/38) and Ralph Neville (07/52). See Appendix 6a. Payments (c.1360) for the 100m annuity granted in 1355 combined with those of £100 annuity.

204 Annuitant E/Suffolk E/Gloucester W. Mauny T. Bradeston M. Poynings T. Ughtred J. Beauchamp(Wa) G. Brian G. Brian

Appendix Six Duration 03/37–06/39 03/37–11/47 03/38–01/72 10/39–04/40 03/47–03/69 1347–05/65 12/48–05/49 1340–06/77 01/50–10/50

Expected £ s 506 13 150 3400 166 13 2933 6 2900 90 940 133 6

d 4

4 8

8

Paid £ 342 120 3001 166 1367 1732 150 885 133

% s

d 6 10

17 13 9 5

1 4 4 6

13 6

4 8

68 80 88 100 47 60 170 94 100

Source-based assignments Established nobility Annuitant

Duration

J. Lisle(Rg) J. Darcy II E/Warwick R. Grey(Wi) J. Cobham I (Ke)

03/46–10/55 02/48–03/56 07/48–09/69 10/50–06/70 04/54–02/55

Expected £ s d 1800 560 14000 400 133 6 8

Paid £ s d 1410 2 9 560 14100 200 233 6 8

Expected £ s 5666 13 17010 6 5666 13 140 650 210 470 680 3220 5166 5 1650 10000 850 317 18 92 15

Paid £ 4174 14606 4730 120 565 200 444 270 2781 3195 1575 3686 750 222 73

% 78 100 101 504 175

New men Annuitant E/Huntingdon E/Northampton E/Derby E/Salisbury E/Suffolk E/Gloucester E/Northampton E/Derby R. Cobham I (St) E/Suffolk W. Mauny T. Bradeston R. Burghcher J. Darcy I J. Darcy I

4 5 6

Duration 03/37–08/54 03/37–09/60 03/37–09/45 03/37–01/44 03/37–11/69 03/37–11/47 03/37–09/60 03/37–03/61 09/38–11/61 06/39–11/69 11/39–01/72 04/40–08/60 12/40–1349 1344–05/47 1344–05/47

d 4 3 4

4

% s

d

9 15 4

10 18

7

9

4

11

8

Payment stopped in 1360 when the alien priories were returned to their original owners. £810 paid at exchequer. E403/302 (6 November and 23 December 1338). £400 paid at exchequer. E403/302 (23 December 1338).

74 865 836 86 87 95 94 40 86 62 95 37 88 70 76

Annuities Annuitant

Duration

J. Beauchamp(Wa) Ra. Stafford J. Beauchamp(Wa) E/Lancaster G. Brian G. Brian T. Bradeston R. Beauchamp(Be)

10/45–10/46 09/48–08/72 05/49–12/60 08/49–03/61 10/50–06/77 11/50–06/77 05/54–08/60 10/76–06/77

7

Expected £ s d 30 14800 3220 240 1620 3600 400 66 13 4

205 Paid £ s d 30 11871 19 11 2660 200 1290 2403 12 333 6 8 65 7 11

% 100 807 83 83 80 67 83 98

Adjustment to Bothwell, ‘Equivalent in Land and Rent’, 169. According to the annuity’s accounts listed in E101/508/14, this was paid to 1368 at least – though in 1365 it was £859 1s 9d in arrears. C260/76/13.

Appendix Seven Principal Geographical Interests of New Men1 EA EM

East Anglia (Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire) East Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland) N North (Durham, Cumbria, Northumberland) NW Northwest (Cheshire, Lancashire) SE Southeast (Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Essex, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, London, Middlesex, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Sussex) SW Southwest (Cornwall, Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire) WM West Midlands (Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire) Y Yorkshire CI Channel Islands I Ireland IM Isle of Man S Scotland W Wales F France Brackets denote rough approximation Bold type indicates identifiable changes through marriage

Name J. Audley J. Creting J. Darcy I J. Hausted J. Verdon P. Uvedale J. Ros(Wt) R. Kerdeston J. Sutton I G. Talbot I H. Frene

Start of career/1330 unknown (EA,EM) EA,EM,I,N,NW,Y EA,EM,SE EA,EM,SE EA,EM,SE,SW,W EA,EM,Y EA,EM N,EA,EM,SE,WM,Y WM,SW W,WM

H. Erdington J. Wilington N. Meinill R. Monthermer H. Audley

SE,SW,WM SW N,Y SE EA,EM,I,SE,SW,W

1

1330–77 unknown

Change

EM,I,Y EA,EM EM

WM,SW,W,Y EM,NW,SE,SW, WM,Y

W,Y EM,NW,SE,SW,Y

SW,W

SW,W

EM

Geographical regions as in Ordnance Survey. Statlas UK: A Statistical Atlas of the United Kingdom (Southampton, 1995).

Principal Geographical Interests of New Men Name W. Bohun W. Clinton H. Grosmont W. Montagu I R. Ufford R. Swynnerton J. Leyburn R. Chaundos J. Grey I (Ro) T. Kirkton R. Coleville R. Bulmer T. Ughtred T. Dagworth

Start of career/1330 SE EA,EM,NW,SE,SW, WM EA,EM,NW,SE,SW, W,WM,Y EA,N,SE,SW,NW, S,SE,SW,W EA,EM,SE,Y NW,WM N,SW,WM SW,WM,W EM,SE,SW,WM,Y unknown EA,EM,N EM,N,Y Y (EA,SE)

T. Bradeston R. Cobham(St) W. Mauny T. Brewose J. St Philbert R. Husee R. Bouchier R. Lovel E. Montagu M. Poynings T. Musgrave N. Burnell G. Brian H. Scrope J. Beauchamp(Wa) R. Stafford

SW SE F SE,SW EA,SE,SW EM,SE,SW SE S,SW,W EA EA,SE N

W. Huntingfield T. Holand

EA,EM,SE (EM)

J. Montagu G. Lisle(Ki) R. Benhale J. Ufford J. Norwich J. Kirkton J. Stryvelyn J. Bohun(Mi) R. Beauchamp(Be) M. De la Pole L. Poynings W. Botreaux

N EA,EM,SE,Y EA EA EA EM

SW,WM,W EM,N,SE,WM,Y SW WM,SE

EA,EM,I,SE SE EM,Y SE SE,SW

1330–77 EM,SE,SW,W,WM EA,EM,NW,SE

Change EM,SW,W,WM

EA,F,NW,SE,SW, W,Y, CI,EA,EM,I,IM,IM, NW,S EA,EM,SE NW,WM

F

207

CI,I,IM,EM

W SE unknown

N,S,Y EA,EM,I, SE,SW,WM S,SE,SW,W EA,SE,SW EA,EM,SE,WM,W SE,SW SE

N,S I,WM S,SE,W EA,SW EA,EM,SE,WM,W

SE EA,SE EA,EM,SE,SW S,Y EM,SW,WM SW,WM,W SE,WM EA,EM,I,NW,SW, W,WM,Y (EA,EM) CI,EA,EM,F,SE,SW, WM,Y SE,SW SE EA EA EM N,S,Y SE EM,S,SE,SW,Y EA,Y SE

S,Y EM,SW,WM

SE,WM EA,EM,I,NW,SW, W,Y CI,EA,EM,F,SE,SW, WM,Y SE,SW

N,S,Y EM,S,SW,Y EA

208 Name W. Aton W. Heron R. Basset(Sp) W. Aldeburgh R. Scrope Ri. Stafford R. Cromwell J. Clifton

Appendix Seven Start of career/1330 EM,Y N EM,Y Y EM,SE,Y (WM) EA,EM,WM EA

1330–77 Y N

Change

EA,SE WM EM

EA

Bibliography Primary sources Manuscripts Public Record Office, London: CHANCERY C47 Chancery Miscellanea C49 Parliamentary and Council Proceedings C53 Charter Rolls C54 Close Rolls C59 Extract Rolls C60 Fine Rolls C62 Liberate Rolls C66 Patent Rolls C81 Chancery Warrants C143 Inquisitions ad Quod Damnum C260 Chancery Files, Recorda C266 Cancelled Letters Patent DUCHY OF LANCASTER DL10 Royal Charters DL25 Deeds, Series L DL27 Deeds, Series LS DL29 Accounts of Auditors, Receivers, Feodaries and Ministers DL40 Returns of Knights’ Fees DL41 Miscellanea COURT OF KING’S BENCH KB27 Placita Coram Rege KB29 Controlment Rolls COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CP40 Plea Rolls EXCHEQUER E13 Exchequer of Pleas, Plea Rolls E30 Treasury of Receipt, Diplomatic Documents (c.1100–c.1625) E42 Treasury of Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series AS E43 Treasury of Receipt: Ancient Deeds, Series WS E101 King’s Remembrancer, Various Accounts E106 Alien Priories

210

Bibliography: Primary Sources

E120 King’s Remembrancer: Caption of Seisin of the Duchy of Cornwall E122 Customs Accounts E132 King’s Remembrancer: Transcripts of Deeds and Charters E142 King’s Remembrancer: Extents, Inquisitions and Valors of Forfeited Lands E159 King’s Remembrancer: Memoranda Rolls E163 King’s Remembrancer Miscellanea E199 Sheriffs’ Accounts E207 King’s Remembrancer, Bille E208 King’s Remembrancer, Brevia Baronibus E210 King’s Remembrancer: Ancient Deeds, Series D E328 Augmentation Office: Ancient Deeds, Series BB E356 Customs Accounts E357 Pipe Office: Escheators’ Accounts Rolls E372 Pipe Rolls E401 Receipt Rolls E403 Issue Rolls E404 Warrants for Issue LAND REVENUE LR14 Officer of the Auditors of Land Revenue: Ancient Deeds, Series E SPECIAL COLLECTIONS SC1 Ancient Correspondence SC6 Ministers’ and Receivers’ Accounts SC8 Ancient Petitions British Library: Cotton Galba EIII Cotton MSS Nero C VIII Harleian Charters 43 D5 Harleian Charters 43 D26 Harleian MSS 805 Lansdowne MSS 207A Printed sources Abstracts of Feet of Fines Relating to Wiltshire for the Reign of Edward III, ed. C.R. Elrington (Wiltshire Record Society 29, 1973). Adae Murimuth Continuatio Chronicarum, ed. E. Maunde Thompson (RS 1889). The Anonimalle Chronicle: 1333 to 1381, ed. V.H. Galbraith (Manchester, 1927). Aspin, I.S.T., ed. Anglo-Norman Political Songs (Anglo-Norman Text Society XI, 1953). Calendar of Ancient Correspondence Concerning Wales, ed. J.G. Edwards (Cardiff, 1935). Calendar of Ancient Petitions Relating to Wales, ed. W. Rees (Cardiff, 1975). Calendar of Charter Rolls (1226–1516), 6 vols. (London, 1916–27). Calendar of Close Rolls (1272–1485), 45 vols. (London, 1892–1954). Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, 4 vols. (London, 1108–1509). Calendar of Fine Rolls (1272–1509), 22 vols. (London, 1911–62). Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous (1219–1422), 7 vols. (London, 1916–68).

Bibliography: Primary Sources

211

Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem (Henry III to 6 Hen. IV), 18 vols. (London, 1904–88). Calendar of Memoranda Rolls: Exchequer (1326–27) (London, 1968). Calendar of Patent Rolls (1232–1509), 52 vols. (London, 1891–1916). Chandos Herald, The Life and Feats of Arms of Edward, the Black Prince, trans. Francisque-Michel (London, 1883). Christine de Pisan, The Book of the Body Politic, ed. and trans. K. Forhan (Cambridge, 1994). Chronica Johannis de Reading et Anonymi Cantuariensis 1346–67, ed. J. Tait (Manchester, 1914). Chronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke, ed. E.M. Thompson (Oxford, 1889). Croniques de London, ed. G.J. Aungier (CS 1844). A Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds in the Public Record Office, 6 vols. (London, 1890–1915). Dialogus de Scaccario, trans. C. Johnson (London, 1950). Douglas Simpson, W., ed. The Building Accounts of Tattershall Castle: 1434–1472 (Lincoln Record Society, vol. 55, 1960). Froissart, J. Chronicles, ed. and trans. G. Brereton (Harmondsworth, 1978) Gray, T. Scalacronica: The Reigns of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III, trans. H. Maxwell (Glasgow, 1907). Hull, P.L. ed. The Caption of Seisin of the Duchy of Cornwall (1337), Devon and Cornwall Record Society, n.s., 17 (Torquay, 1971). An Inventory of the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Roxburghshire, 2 vols. (Edinburgh, 1956). An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Wales and Monmouthshire (7 vols.) vol. iv, County of Denbigh (London, 1914). Knighton’s Chronicle 1337–96, ed. and trans. G.H. Martin (Oxford, 1995). Nederman, C.J. and Forhan, K. eds. Medieval Political Theory – A Reader: The Quest for the Body Politic, 1100–1400 (London, 1993). A Perfect Copy of All Summons of the Nobility to the Great Councils and Parliaments of the Realm, ed. W.A. Dugdale (London, 1685). Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden Monachi Cestrensis, ed. C. Babbington and J.R. Lumby, 9 vols. (RS 1865–86). The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall 3 vols. (RS 1896). Register of Edward the Black Prince (1346–65), 4 parts (London, 1930–33). Register of the Great Seal of Scotland: 1306–1424, ed. J.M. Thomson (Edinburgh, 1912). Rothwell, H. ed. English Historical Documents 1189–1327 (London, 1975). Rotuli Parliamentorum, ed. J. Strachey et al., 6 vols. (London, 1787). Rotuli Scotiae, ed. D. Macpherson et al., 2 vols. (London, 1814–19). Rymer, T. ed. Foedera Conventiones Litterae et Cuiuscunque Generis Acta Publica, 7 vols. (Record Commission 1819–1869). Sayles, G.O. ed. Select Cases in the Court of King’s Bench under Edward III, vol. 5 (London, 1958). Statutes of the Realm, 11 vols. (London, 1810–28). Stephenson, C. and Marcham, F.G. eds. Sources of English Constitutional History (New York, 1937). Stone, B. trans. and ed. Medieval English Verse (Harmondsworth, 1984). Survey of the Honour of Denbigh: 1334, ed. P. Vinogradoff and F. Morgan (London, 1914). Testamenta Vetusta, ed. N.H. Nicolas, 2 vols. (London, 1826). Vita Edwardi Secundi, ed. and trans. N. Denholm-Young (London, 1957).

212

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

Ward, J.C. ed. and trans. Women of the English Nobility and Gentry 1066–1500 (Manchester, 1995). Wright, T. ed. Political Poems and Songs, 2 vols. (London, 1859).

Secondary sources Reference works The Complete Peerage, ed. G.E. Cokayne, revised by V. Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday and Lord Howard de Walden, 12 vols. (1910–57). Dictionary of National Biography, 63 vols. (London, 1885–1900). Dugdale, W. The Baronage of England (London, 1676). A Handbook of British Chronology, ed. E.B. Fryde, D.E. Greenway, S. Porter and I. Roy (Cambridge, 1996). A History of Northumberland, 15 vols. (Newcastle, 1893–1940). Ordnance Survey, Statlas UK: A Statistical Atlas of the United Kingdom (Southampton, 1995). Pettifer, A. English Castles: A Guide by Counties (Woodbridge, 2000). Other published works Allmand, C.T. Henry V (Berkeley, 1992). Allmand, C.T. ‘The Lancastrian Land Settlement in Normandy, 1417–50’, EcHR 2nd ser. 21 (1968), 461–79. Altschul, M. A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares 1217–1314 (Baltimore, 1965). Archer, R.E. ‘The Estates and Finances of Margaret of Brotherton, c.1320–1399’, BIHR 60 (1987), 264–80. Ault, W.O. ‘Manors and Temporalities’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), iii, 3–34. Ayton, A. ‘Edward III and the English Aristocracy at the Beginning of the Hundred Years War’, in M. Strickland, ed. Armies, Chivalry and Warfare in Medieval Britain and France (Stamford, 1998), 173–206. Ayton, A. Knights and Warhorses: Military Service and the English Aristocracy under Edward III (Woodbridge, 1994). Ayton, A. ‘Sir Thomas Ughtred and the Edwardian Military Revolution’, in J.S. Bothwell, ed. The Age of Edward III (York, 2001), 107–132. Baker, J.H. An Introduction to English Legal History 3rd edn (London, 1990). Baker, R.L. The English Customs Service: A Study of Medieval Administration (Philadelphia, 1961). Baldwin, J.F. ‘The King’s Council’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 129–161. Barlow, F. The Feudal Kingdom of England 1042–1216, 4th edn (London, 1988). Barlow, F. William Rufus (London, 1983). Barratt, N. ‘English Royal Revenue in the Early Thirteenth Century and its Wider Context, 1130–1330’, in W.M. Ormrod, M. Bonney and R. Bonney, eds. Crises, Revolutions and Self-Sustained Growth: Essays in European Fiscal History, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999), 59–96. Barton, J.L. ‘The Rise of the Fee Simple’, LQR 92 (1976), 108–121. Bean, J.M.W. The Decline of English Feudalism: 1215–1540 (Manchester, 1968).

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

213

Bean, J.M.W. From Lord to Patron: Lordship in Late Medieval England (Manchester, 1989). Bellamy, J.G. The Law of Treason in England in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1970). Bothwell, J.S. ‘Edward III, the English Peerage, and the 1337 Earls: Estate Redistribution in the Later Middle Ages’, in J.S. Bothwell, ed. The Age of Edward III (York, 2001), 35–52. Bothwell, J.S. ‘Edward III and the New Nobility: Largesse and Limitation in FourteenthCentury England’, EHR 112 (1997), 1111–140. Bothwell, J.S. ‘ “Escheat with Heir”; Guardianship, Upward Mobility and Political Reconciliation in the Reign of Edward III’, Canadian Journal of History 35 (2000), 241–73. Bothwell, J.S. ‘The Management of Position: Alice Perrers, Edward III and the Creation of a Landed Estate 1362–77’, JMH 24 (1998), 31–51. Bothwell, J.S. ‘ “Until He Receive the Equivalent in Land and Rent”: the Use of Annuities as Endowment Patronage in the Reign of Edward III’, HR 70 (1997), 146–69. Brown, A.L. ‘The Reign of Henry IV: The Establishment of the Lancastrian Regime’, in S.B. Chrimes, C.D. Ross and R.A. Griffiths, eds. Fifteenth Century England 1399–1509 (Manchester, 1972), 1–28. Brown, A.L. ‘The Commons and the Council in the Reign of Henry IV’, EHR 79 (1964), 1–30. Brown, A.L. The Governance of Late Mediaeval England 1272–1461 (London, 1989). Buchan, J.W. A History of Peeblesshire, 3 vols. (Glasgow, 1925). Buck, M.C. ‘The Reform of the Exchequer, 1316–26’, EHR 98 (1983), 241–60. Cam, H.M. ‘Shire Officials: Coroners, Constables, and Bailiffs’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), iii, 143–83. Carpenter, D.A. ‘King, Magnates and Society: The Personal Rule of King Henry III, 1234–1258’, Speculum 60 (1985), 39–70. Cherry, M. ‘The Courtenay Earls of Devon: The Formation and Disintegration of a Late Medieval Aristocratic Affinity’, Southern History 1 (1979), 71–97. Church, S.D. The Household Knights of King John (Cambridge, 1999). Church, S.D. ‘The Rewards of Royal Service in the Household of King John: A Dissenting Opinion’, EHR 110 (1995), 277–302. Collins, H. The Order of the Garter 1348–1461: Chivalry and Politics in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 2000). Colvin, H. ‘The Origin of Chantries’, JMH 26 (2000), 163–73. Crouch, D. ‘Geoffrey de Clinton and Roger, Earl of Warwick: New Men and Magnates in the Reign of Henry I’, BIHR 55 (1982), 113–23. Crouch, D. The Image of Aristocracy in Britain, 1000–1300 (London, 1992). Crouch, D. The Reign of King Stephen 1135–54 (Harlow, 2000). D’Arcy, R.F. The Life of John First Baron Darcy of Knayth (London, 1933). Davies, J.C. The Baronial Opposition to Edward II: Its Character and Policy (London, 1967). Davis, R.H.C. King Stephen 1135–1154, 3rd edn (London, 1990). Davies, R.R. Lordship and Society in the March of Wales: 1282–1400 (Oxford, 1978). De Aragon, R.C. ‘In Pursuit of Aristocratic Women: A Key to Success in Norman England’, Albion 14 (1982), 258–66. Deely, A. ‘Papal Provision and Royal Rights of Patronage in the Early Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), 497–527. Douglas, D.C. William the Conqueror (London, 1964).

214

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

Dunham, W.H., Morris, W.A., Strayer, J.R., and Willard, E.F., eds. The English Government at Work 1327–36, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50). Eberle, P.J. ‘The Politics of Courtly Style at the Court of Richard II’, in The Spirit of the Court, ed. G.S. Burgess and R.A. Taylor (Woodbridge, 1983), 168–78. Ellis, G. Earldoms in Fee: A Study in Peerage Law and History (London, 1963). Elton, G.R. England 1200–1640 (London, 1969). Fairbank, F.R. ‘The Last Earl of Warrene and Surrey, and the Distribution of his Possessions’, Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 19 (1907), 193–264. Farran, C.D. The Principles of Scots and English Land Law: A Historical Comparison (Edinburgh, 1958). Fleming, R. Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991). Fowler, K. The King’s Lieutenant: Henry of Grosmont, First Duke of Lancaster 1310–1361 (London, 1961). Fryde, E.B. ‘Magnate Debts to Edward I and Edward III: A Study of Common Problems and Contrasting Royal Reactions to Them’, The National Library of Wales Journal 27 (1991–2), 249–87. Fryde, N. ‘Edward III’s Removal of his Ministers and Judges, 1340–1’, BIHR 48 (1975), 149–61. Fryde, N. The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II: 1321–26 (Cambridge, 1979). Gillespie, J.L. ‘Richard II: Chivalry and Kingship’, in J.L. Gillespie, ed. The Age of Richard II (Stroud, 1997), 115–38. Given-Wilson, C. The English Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: The Fourteenth-Century Political Community (London, 1987). Given-Wilson, C. ‘Richard II and the Higher Nobility’, in A. Goodman and J.L. Gillespie, eds. Richard II: The Art of Kingship (Oxford, 1999), 107–28. Given-Wilson, C. ‘Royal Charter Witness Lists’, MP 12 (1991), 35–93. Given-Wilson, C. The Royal Household and the King’s Affinity: Service, Politics and Finance in England 1360–1413 (New Haven and London, 1986). Given-Wilson, C. ‘Wealth and Credit, Public and Private: The Earls of Arundel 1306–1397’, EHR 106 (1991), 1–26. Given-Wilson, C. and Bériac, F. ‘Edward III’s Prisoners of War: The Battle of Poitiers and its Context’, EHR 116 (2001), 802–33. Gras, N.S.B. The Early English Customs System (Cambridge, Mass., 1918). Green, J.A. The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997). Green, J.A. The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986). Green, J.A. ‘ “Praeclarum et Magnificum Antiquitatis Monumentum”: the Earliest Surviving Pipe Roll’, BIHR 55 (1982), 1–18. Green, J.A. ‘William Rufus, Henry I and the Royal Demesne’, History 64 (1979), 337–52. Griffiths, R.A. The Reign of Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422–1461 (London, 1981). Gross, A.J. ‘The King’s Lordship in the Country of Stafford’, MH 16 (1991), 24–44. Gunn, S.J. ‘Chivalry and the Politics of the Early Tudor Court’, in S. Anglo, ed. Chivalry in the Renaissance (Woodbridge, 1990), 107–28. Hamilton, J.S. Piers Gaveston Earl of Cornwall, 1307–1312 (Detroit, 1988). Harriss, G.L. ‘Fictitious Loans’, EcHR 2nd ser. 8 (1955–6), 187–99. Harriss, G.L. ‘The King and his Magnates’, in G.L. Harriss, ed. Henry V: The Practice of Kingship (Oxford, 1993), 31–52. Harriss, G.L. King, Parliament, and Public Finance to 1369 (Oxford, 1975). Harriss, G.L. ‘Preference at the Medieval Exchequer’, BIHR 30 (1975), 17–40. Harriss, G.L. ‘War and the Emergence of the English Parliament’, JMH 2 (1976), 35–56.

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

215

Hay, D. ‘The Division of the Spoils of War in Fourteenth-Century England’, TRHS 5th ser. 4 (1954), 91–109. Heiser, R. ‘The Royal Familiares of King Richard I’, MP 10 (1989), 25–50. Holden, B.W. ‘The Balance of Patronage: King John and the Earl of Salisbury’, HSJ 8 (1996), 79–89. Hollister, C.W. ‘Henry I and the Anglo-Norman Magnates’, A-NS II 1979 (Woodbridge, 1980), 93–107. Hollister, C.W. ‘Henry I and the Invisible Transformation of England’, in H. MayrHarting and R.I. Moore, eds. Studies in Medieval History Presented to R.H.C. Davis (London and Rio Grande 1985), 119–131. Holmes, G.A. The Estates of the Higher Nobility in Fourteenth-Century England (Cambridge, 1957). Holmes, G.A. The Good Parliament (Oxford, 1975). Holt, J.C. Magna Carta (Cambridge, 1965). Hoyt, R.S. The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History: 1066 to 1272 (Ithaca, 1950). Hudson, J. The Formation of the English Common Law: Law and Society from the Norman Conquest to Magna Carta (London, 1996). Hudson, J. ‘Life-Grants of Land and the Development of Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, A-NS XII (1990), 67–80. Hughes, D. A Study of the Social and Constitutional Tendencies in the Early Years of Edward III (London, 1915; reprint Philadelphia, 1978). Hurnard, N.D. The King’s Pardon for Homicide before 1307 AD (Oxford, 1969). Hunnisett, R.F. ‘The Reliability of Inquisitions as Historical Evidence’, in D.A. Bullough and R.L. Storey, eds. The Study of Medieval Records (Oxford, 1971), 206–35. Jenkinson, H. ‘Exchequer Tallies’, Archaeologia 62 (1911), 367–80. Jewell, H.M. English Local Administration in the Middle Ages (Newton Abbott, 1972). Jewell, H.M. ‘Piers Plowman – A Poem of Crisis: an Analysis of Political Instability in Langland’s England’, in J. Taylor and W. Childs, eds. Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England (Gloucester, 1990), 59–80. Johnson, J.H. ‘The King’s Wardrobe and Household’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 206–249. Kaeuper, R.W. War, Justice, and Public Order: England and France in the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1988). Keefe, T.K. Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and his Sons (Berkeley, 1983). Keefe, T.K. ‘Henry II and the Earls: The Pipe Roll Evidence’, Albion 13 (1981), 191–222. Keen, M.H. The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (London, 1965; Aldershot, 1993). Keen, M.H. Nobles, Knights and Men-At-Arms in the Middle Ages (London, 1996). Kirby, J.L. ‘The Issues of the Lancastrian Exchequer and Lord Cromwell’s Estimates of 1433’, BIHR 24 (1951), 121–51. Lally, J.E. ‘Secular Patronage in the Court of King Henry II’, BIHR 49 (1976), 159–84. Lander, J.R. ‘Bonds, Coercion and Fear: Henry VII and the English Peerage’, in J.R. Lander, ed. Crown and Nobility 1450–1509 (London, 1976), 267–300. Lander, J.R. Government and Community: England 1450–1509 (London, 1988). Lloyd, J.E. A History of Carmarthenshire, 2 vols. (Cardiff, 1935). Lucas, H.S. ‘The Machinery of Diplomatic Intercourse’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 300–31. Lydon, J. ‘The Impact of the Bruce Invasion 1315–27’, in A. Cosgrove, ed. A New History of Ireland, vol. ii: Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 275–302.

216

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

Lyon, B.D. ‘The Money Fief under the English Kings’, EHR 66 (1951), 161–93. Maddicott, J.R. Simon de Montfort (Oxford, 1994). Maddicott, J.R. Thomas of Lancaster 1307–1322 (Oxford, 1970). Madox, T. The History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, 2 vols. (London, 1769). Mason, E. ‘Magnates, Curiales and the Wheel of Fortune: 1066–1154’, A-NS II 1979 (Woodbridge, 1980), 118–40. Matthew, D. Norman Monasteries and their English Possessions (Oxford, 1962). May, T. ‘The Cobham Family in the Administration of England, 1200–1400’, Archaeologia Cantiana 82 (1967), 1–31. McFarlane, K.B. Lancastrian Kings and Lollard Knights (Oxford, 1972). McFarlane, K.B. The Nobility of Later Medieval England (Oxford, 1973). McHardy, A. ‘The Effects of War on the Church: The Case of the Alien Priories in the Fourteenth Century’, in M. Jones and M. Vale, eds. England and her Neighbours 1066–1453 (London, 1989), 277–95. McHardy, A. ‘Some Reflections on Edward III’s Use of Propaganda’, in J.S. Bothwell, ed. The Age of Edward III (York, 2001), 171–92. McKisack, M. ‘Edward III and the Historians’, History 45 (1960), 1–15. McKisack, M. The Fourteenth Century: 1307–1399 (Oxford, 1959). Mertes, K. The English Noble Household 1250–1600: Good Governance and Politic Rule (Oxford, 1988). Mills, M.H. ‘The Collectors of Customs’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), ii, 168–200. Milsom, S.F.C. ‘The Origin of Prerogative Wardship’, in G. Garnet and J. Hudson, eds. Law and Government in Mediaeval England and Normandy (Cambridge, 1994), 223–44. Mooers, S.L. ‘Patronage in the Pipe Roll of 1130’, Speculum 59 (1984), 282–307. Moore, A.W. A History of the Isle of Man (London, 1900; reprint 1977). Morgan, M.M. ‘The Suppression of the Alien Priories’, History 26 (1941), 204–12. Morris, W.A. ‘Introduction’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 3–81. Morris, W.A. The Medieval English Sheriff to 1300 (Manchester, 1927). Morris, J.E. The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901). Mortimer, R. Angevin England 1154–1258 (Oxford, 1994). Mott, R.A.K. ‘Richard II and the Crisis of July 1397’, in I. Wood and G.A. Loud, eds. Church and Chronicle in the Middle Ages (London and Rio Grande, 1991), 165–77. Mott, R.A.K. ‘A Study in the Distribution of Patronage, 1389–99’, Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society: Literature and History Section Proceedings 15 (1974), 113–33. Myers, A.R. ‘The Household of Queen Elizabeth Woodville, 1466–7’, BJRL 50 (1967–8), 207–35. Neville, C.J. ‘The Law of Treason in the English Border Counties in the Later Middle Ages’, Law and History Review 9 (1991), 1–30. Neville, C.J. Violence, Custom and Law: The Anglo-Scottish Border Lands in the Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh, 1998). O’ Brien, A.F. ‘The Territorial Ambitions of Maurice Fitz Thomas, First Earl of Desmond, with Particular Reference to the Barony and Manor of Inchiquin, Co. Cork’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 82 (1982), 59–88. Ormrod, W.M. ‘Edward III and his Family’, JBS 26 (1987), 398–442. Ormrod, W.M. ‘England in the Middle Ages’, in R. Bonney, ed. The Rise of the Fiscal State in Europe, c.1200–1815 (Oxford, 1999), 19–52. Ormrod, W.M. ‘The English Crown and the Customs, 1349–63’, EcHR 2nd ser. 40 (1987), 27–39.

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

217

Ormrod, W.M. ‘The Politics of Pestilence: Government in England after the Black Death’, in W.M. Ormrod and P.G. Lindley, eds. The Black Death in England (Stamford, 1996), 147–81. Ormrod, W.M. ‘The Protecolla Rolls and English Government Finance, 1353–1364’, EHR 102 (1987), 622–32. Ormrod, W.M. The Reign of Edward III: Crown and Political Society in England 1327–1377 (New Haven and London, 1990). Payling, S.J. ‘Social Mobility, Demographic Change, and Landed Society in Late Medieval England’, EcHR 2nd ser. 45 (1992), 51–73. Phillips, J.R.S. Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke: 1307–1324 (Oxford, 1972). Platt, C. Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to 1600 AD (London, 1978). Plucknett, T.F.T. ‘Parliament, 1327–36’, in E.B. Fryde and E. Miller, eds. Historical Studies of the English Parliament, Volume 1: Origins to 1399 (Cambridge, 1970), 195–241. Pollard, A.J. The Wars of the Roses (London, 1988). Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W. The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols. 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1968). Poole, A.L. Obligations of Society in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century (Oxford, 1946). Potter’s Historical Introduction to English Law and its Institutions 4th edn (London, 1958). Pounds, N.J.G. The Medieval Castle in England and Wales: A Social and Political History (Cambridge, 1990). Powell, J.E. and Wallis, K. The House of Lords in the Middle Ages (London, 1968). Powicke, M. The Thirteenth Century 1216–1307 (Oxford, 1962). Powicke, M. The Loss of Normandy (Manchester, 1960). Prestwich, M. ‘The Art of Kingship: Edward I, 1272–1307’, History Today 35 (1985), 34–40. Prestwich, M. Edward I (London, 1997). Prestwich, M. ‘Royal Patronage under Edward I’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England I, 1985 (Woodbridge, 1986), 41–52. Prestwich, M. The Three Edwards: War and State in England 1272–1377 (London, 1980). Prestwich, M. War, Politics and Finance under Edward I (London, 1972). Prince, A.E. ‘The Army and the Navy’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 332–93. Pronay, N. and Taylor, J., eds. Parliamentary Texts of the Later Middle Ages (Oxford, 1980). PRO Lists and Indexes IX: Lists of Sheriffs for England and Wales (New York, 1963). Pugh, T.B. and Ross, C.D. ‘The English Baronage of 1436’, BIHR 26 (1953), 1–28. Pugh, T.B. ‘Henry VII and the English Nobility’, in G.W. Bernard, ed. The Tudor Nobility (Manchester, 1992), 49–110. Raban, S. Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500 (Cambridge, 1982). Rawcliffe, C. The Staffords, Earls of Stafford and Dukes of Buckingham 1394–1521 (Cambridge, 1978). ‘Reports from the Lords’ Committees Appointed to Search the Journals of the House, Rolls of Parliament, and Other Records for All Matters Touching the Dignity of a Peer’, in Journal of the House of Lords (London, 1820–9). Reports . . . Touching the Dignity of a Peer, 5 vols. (London, 1829). Richardson, H.G. and Sayles, G.O. The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (London, 1981). Ridgeway, H.W. ‘Foreign Favourites and Henry III’s Problems of Patronage, 1247–1258’, EHR 104 (1989), 590–610.

218

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

Ridgeway, H.W. ‘King Henry III and the “Aliens”, 1236–1272’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England II, 1987 (Woodbridge, 1988), 81–92. Ridgeway, H.W. ‘The Lord Edward and the Provisions of Oxford (1258): A Study in Faction’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England I, 1985 (Woodbridge, 1986), 89–99. Rigby, S.H. ‘The Customs Administration at Boston in the Reign of Richard II’, BIHR 58 (1985), 12–24. Rosenthal, J.T. ‘Aristocratic Marriage and the English Peerage, 1350–1500: Social Institution and Personal Bond’, JMH 10 (1984), 181–94. Rosenthal, J.T. ‘The Lancastrian Peerage’, Studies in Medieval Culture VIII and IX (1976), 181–86. Rosenthal, J.T. The Purchase of Paradise: The Social Function of Aristocratic Benevolence, 1307–1485 (London, 1972). Salzman, L.F. Building in England Down to 1540 (Oxford, 1967). Saul, N. Death, Art and Memory in Medieval England: The Cobham Family and their Monuments 1300–1500 (Oxford, 2001). Saul, N. ‘Despensers and the Downfall of Edward II’, EHR 99 (1984), 1–33. Saul, N. ‘ “Forget-me-nots”: Patronage in Gothic England’, History Today 37 (1987), 18–24. Saul, N. Knights and Esquires: The Gloucestershire Gentry in the Fourteenth Century (Oxford, 1981). Saul, N. Richard II (New Haven and London, 1997). Saul, N. ‘Richard II and Chivalric Kingship’, Royal Holloway Inaugural Lecture Series (London, 1999), 3–23. Sayles, G.O. The King’s Parliament of England (London, 1975). Selden, J. Titles of Honour (London, 1631). Shenton, C. ‘Edward III and the Coup of 1330’, in J.S. Bothwell, ed. The Age of Edward III (York, 2001), 13–34. Simpson, A.W.B. An Introduction to the History of Land Law (Oxford, 1961). Smyth, J. The Lives of the Berkeleys, 3 vols. (Gloucester, 1883). Somerville, R. History of the Duchy of Lancaster, 2 vols. (London, 1953–70). Southern, R.W. Medieval Humanism and Other Studies (Oxford, 1970). Southern, R.W. ‘The Place of Henry I in English History’, Proceedings of the British Academy 48 (1962), 127–69. Stacey, R.C. Politics, Policy and Finance under Henry III 1216–1245 (Oxford, 1987). Stapleton, T. ‘A Brief Summary of the Wardrobe Accounts of the 10th, 11th and 14th Years of King Edward II’, Archaeologia 26 (1836), 318–45. Steane, J. The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales (London, 1985). Steel, A. ‘The Distribution of Assignment in the Treasurer’s Receipt Roll, Michaelmas, 1364–5’, CHJ 2 (1927), 178–85. Steel, A. ‘The Marginalia of the Treasurer’s Receipt Rolls, 1349–99’, BIHR 7–8 (1929–1930), 67–84, 133–43; 8 (1931), 1–13. Steel, A. ‘The Practice of Assignment in the Later Fourteenth Century’, EHR 43 (1928), 172–80. Steel, A. Receipt of the Exchequer 1377–1485 (Cambridge, 1954). Steel, A. ‘Some Aspects of English Finance in the Fourteenth Century’, History 12 (1928), 298–309. Stevenson, E.R. ‘The Escheator’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), ii, 109–167. Stones, E.L.G. ‘The Folvilles of Ashby-Folville, Leicestershire, and their Associates in Crime, 1326–1347’, TRHS 5th ser. 7 (1957), 117–36.

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

219

Swanson, R.N. Church and Society in Late Medieval England (Oxford, 1993). Taylor, J. ‘The Good Parliament and its Sources’, in J. Taylor and W. Childs, eds. Politics and Crisis in Fourteenth-Century England (Gloucester, 1990), 81–96. Thompson, B. ‘The Laity, Alien Priories, and Redistribution of Ecclesiastical Property’, in N. Rogers, ed. England in the Fifteenth Century (Stamford, 1994), 19–41. Tout, T.F. Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England: The Wardrobe, The Chamber and the Small Seals, 6 vols. (Manchester, 1928). Tout, T.F. ‘The Earldoms under Edward I’, TRHS n.s. 8 (1894), 129–55. Tout, T.F. The Place of the Reign of Edward II in English History (Manchester, 1914). Treharne, R.F. ‘The Personal Rule of Henry III and the Aims of the Baronial Reformers of 1258’, History 16 (1931–2), 336–40. Tuck, A. Crown and Nobility 1272–1461: Political Conflict in Late Medieval England (London, 1985). Tuck, A. ‘Richard II and the Border Magnates’, NH 3 (1968), 27–52. Tuck, A. ‘Richard II’s System of Patronage’, in F.R.H. Du Boulay and C.M. Barron, eds. The Reign of Richard II (London, 1971), 1–20. Turner, R.V. ‘Exercise of the King’s Will in Inheritance of Baronies: The Example of King John and William Briwerre’, Albion 22 (1990), 383–401. Turner, R.V. ‘Good or Bad Kingship? The Case of Richard Lionheart’, HSJ 8 (1996), 63–78. Turner, R.V. King John (London, 1994). Turner, R.V. Men Raised from the Dust: Administrative Service and Upward Mobility in Angevin England (Philadelphia, 1988). Vale, J. Edward III and Chivalry: Chivalric Society and its Context 1270–1350 (Woodbridge, 1982). Valente, C. ‘The Deposition and Abdication of Edward II’, EHR 113 (1998), 852–81. VCH: A History of Berkshire, 4 vols. (London, 1906–24). VCH: A History of Buckinghamshire, 4 vols. (London, 1905–27). VCH: A History of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, 5 vols. (London, 1900–12). VCH: A History of Shropshire, 11 vols. (London, 1908–1985). Virgoe, R. ‘The Crown and Local Government: East Anglia under Richard II’, in F.R.H. Du Boulay and C.M. Barron, eds. The Reign of Richard II (London, 1971), 218–41. Wagner, A., and Sainty, J.C. ‘The Origin of the Introduction of Peers in the House of Lords’, Archaeologia 101 (1967), 119–50. Walker, B.M. ‘King Henry I’s Old Men’, JBS 8 (1968), 1–20. Walker, S. The Lancastrian Affinity 1361–1399 (Oxford, 1990). Walker, S.S. ‘The Action of Waste in the Early Common Law’, in J.H. Baker, ed. Legal Records and the Historian (London, 1978), 185–206. Walker, S.S. ‘The Feudal Family and the Common Law Courts: the Pleas Protecting Rights of Wardship and Marriage, c.1225–1375’, JMH 14 (1988), 13–31. Walker, S.S. ‘Free Consent and Marriage of Feudal Wards in Medieval England’, JMH 8 (1982), 123–34. Walker, S.S. ‘Wrongdoing and Compensation: The Pleas of Wardship in Thirteenth and Fourteenth Century England’, Journal of Legal History 9 (1988), 267–307. Ward, J.C. English Noblewomen in the Later Middle Ages (Harlow, 1992). Ward, J.C. ‘Royal Service and Reward: The Clare Family and the Crown 1066–1154’, A-NS XI 1988 (Woodbridge, 1989), 261–78. Warren, W.L. The Governance of Norman and Angevin England 1086–1272 (London, 1987). Warren, W.L. Henry II (London, 1973).

220

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

Warren, W.L. King John (London, 1961). Watt, J.A. ‘The Anglo-Irish Colony under Strain 1327–99’, in A. Cosgrove, ed. A New History of Ireland, vol. ii: Medieval Ireland 1169–1534 (Oxford, 1987), 352–96. Waugh, S.L. England in the Reign of Edward III (Cambridge, 1991). Waugh, S.L. ‘The Fiscal Uses of Royal Wardships in the Reign of Edward I’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England I, 1985 (Woodbridge, 1986), 53–60. Waugh, S.L. ‘For King, Country and Patron: The Despensers and Local Administration, 1321–2’, JBS 22 (1983), 23–58. Waugh, S.L. The Lordship of England: Royal Wardships and Marriages in English Society and Politics 1217–1327 (Princeton, 1988). Waugh, S.L. ‘Marriage, Class, and Royal Lordship in England under Henry III’, Viator 16 (1985), 198–206. Waugh, S.L. ‘The Origins and Early Development of the Articles of the Escheator’, in P.R. Coss and S.D. Lloyd, eds. Thirteenth Century England V, 1993 (Woodbridge, 1995), 89–113. Waugh, S.L. ‘Reluctant Knights and Jurors: Respites, Exemptions and Public Obligations in the Reign of Henry III’, Speculum 58 (1983), 937–86. Waugh, S.L. ‘Women’s Inheritance and the Growth of Bureaucratic Monarchy in Twelfth and Thirteenth-Century England’, NMS 34 (1990), 71–92. Wentersdorf, K.P. ‘The Clandestine Marriages of the Fair Maid of Kent’, JMH 5 (1979), 203–31. Whellan, W. The History and Topography of the Counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland (London, 1860). Wilkinson, B. ‘The Authorisation of Chancery Writs under Edward III’, BJRL 8 (1924), 107–39. Wilkinson, B. ‘The Chancery’, in EGW, 3 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1940–50), i, 162–205. Wilkinson, B. ‘The Protest of the Earls of Arundel and Surrey in the Crisis of 1341’, EHR 46 (1931), 177–93. Willard, J.F. ‘The Crown and its Creditors, 1327–33’, EHR 42 (1927), 12–19. Wolffe, B.P. The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509 (London, 1971). Woolgar, C.M. The Great Household in Late Medieval England (London and New Haven, 1999). Unpublished dissertations Barrie, D.A. ‘The Maiores Barones in the Second Half of the Reign of King Edward III (1290–1307)’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1991). Bothwell (-Botton), J.S. ‘Royal Endowment of Peerage Creations in the Reign of Edward III’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1996). Doherty, P.C. ‘Isabella Queen of England 1296–1330’, University of Oxford D.Phil. (1977). Given-Wilson, C. ‘The Court and Household of Edward III 1360–1377’, University of St Andrews Ph.D. (1976). Green, D.S. ‘The Household and Military Retinue of Edward the Black Prince’, University of Nottingham Ph.D. (1998). Mortimer, R.H.R. ‘Lordship and Patronage: John Darcy and the Dublin Administration 1324–47’, University of Durham M.A. (1990). Ormrod, W.M. ‘Edward III’s Government of England, c.1346–1356’, University of Oxford D.Phil. (1984).

Bibliography: Secondary Sources

221

Parker, J.M. ‘Patronage and Service: The Careers of William Montagu, Earl of Salisbury, William Clinton, Earl of Huntingdon, Robert Ufford, Earl of Suffolk, and William Bohun, Earl of Northampton’, University of Durham M.A. (1986). Shenton, C. ‘The English Court and the Restoration of Royal Prestige, 1327–1345’, University of Oxford D.Phil. (1995). Snead, G. ‘The Careers of Four Fourteenth Century Military Commanders serving Edward III and Richard II in the Hundred Years’ War’, University of Kent M.A. (1968). Walker, S.S. ‘Royal Wardship in Medieval England’, University of Chicago Ph.D. (1966). Warner, M.W. ‘The Montagu Earls of Salisbury circa 1300–1428: A Study in Warfare, Politics and Political Culture’, University College, London Ph.D. (1991).

Index

Since literally hundreds of names, places, etc., are dealt with in the appendices, only those which appear both in the text and the appendices have been indexed.

Abbenhale, Ralph 41, 198 Abergavenny 30, 38, 80, 135 n.165 Accroachment of royal power 53, 76 Against the King’s Taxes 132 Albemarle, William 39 Aldbourne (Wilts.) 52, 124 and n.84 and n.86, 178 n.176 Aldeburgh, William 82, 87 n.82, 98, 190, 202, 208 Alice, countess of Lincoln 37, 64, 70, 122, 142 n.16, 180, 190 Alien priories 33 and n.38, 39, 57–8, 59, 77, 81, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87 and n.83, 89, 90, 125, 126 and n.107, 144, 159, 163, 174 and n.86, 174, 180 and n.211, 181, 182 and n.252, 183, 200, 204 n.4 Alstonefield (Staffs.) 54, 177 n.156 Amesbury (Wilts.) 52, 124 n.84, 178 n.176 Amiens 23, 25 Anarchy (1139–53) 5, 34, 108, 113 Andreu, Thomas 135 Annuities Background 78–9 Exchequer annuities 79–82, 87–91, 200–2, 203–5 Source-based payments 82–6, 87–91, 200–2, 203–5 Alien priories 85–6 Customs 84–5 Town Farms 83–4 Appleby castle 96 Aquitaine, duchy of 5, 23, 25, 26, 43, 84, 90, 167 Arden, Thomas 59, 181 and n.238 Arley (Staffs.) 66–7, 173 n.71, 178 n.172 Arundel, Thomas 116 Ascot (Oxon.) 51, 177 n.134 Ashley (Hants) 135, 172 n.36, 182 n.256 Ashton (Gloucs.) 58, 125, 174 n.86, 182 and n.252

Astley (Worcs.) 33, 126, 182 Aston Carrant (Gloucs.) 58, 125, 174 n.86, 182 n.252 Aton, William 96, 208 Audley, Hugh, earl of Gloucester 31, 47, 57, 61, 64, 79 n.11, 81, 89, 99, 100, 102, 173, 178 and n.179, 179, 180, 198, 201, 204, 206 Aulton, Roger de 57, 182 Avenel, John 116 Avignon 25 Aylesbury (Bucks.) 66, 172 n.34 Azerley (Yorks.) 146 Badlesmere inheritance 66, 115–16 Badlesmere, Giles 115–16, 118 Balliol, Edward 21, 56, 98, 104, 172 n.35 Balliol, John de 104 Balyogary (Ireland) 57, 180 n.217 Banneret 9, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 32, 42, 85, 89, 117, 143, 145 and n.22, 151 and n.33 Bannockburn, Battle of (1314) 20, 114 Banstead (Surrey) 134 Barraut, Bernard 57, 181 and n.241 Basset, Ralph (d. 12th c) 15 Basset, Ralph 115, 134–5, 186, 190, 198, 199, 208 Bath, prior and convent of 43 Beachendon (Bucks.) 40, 56, 126, 178 n.59 Beaubec, alien abbot of 58, 125, 174 and n.86, 182 and n.252 Beauchamp family 19, 152 Beauchamp (Bletsoe), Roger 29, 26–7, 32 n.30, 52, 58, 60, 65, 73, 83, 90–1, 100–101, 106, 125, 126–7, 133–4 and n.156, 135, 150, 152, 168, 180, 182, 186, 190, 198, 199, 201, 202, 205, 207 Beauchamp (Warwick), John 19, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 37, 40, 58, 63, 82, 86,

Index 97, 98, 107, 126, 133, 134, 152, 168, 177, 181, 182, 183, 185, 198, 201, 204, 205, 207 Beauchamp, Thomas, earl of Warwick 135, 150, 151, 152, 184, 193, 200, 204 Beaufort, lordship of 80 Beaumont, Eleanor de 85, 187 Bec Hellouin, abbot and abbey of 33, 180 and n.211 Beche, Margery de la 43, 59, 181 and n.237 Beche, Nicholas de la 59 and n.110, 181 and n.237 Beche, Walter atte 100 Becherston 108 Beckford, priory of 39, 175, 182 Benhale, Robert, and Eva his wife 119 Benhall (Suffolk) 89, 119, 179 n.185 Bereford, Simon 5, 171, 172, 176 Bergerac, lordship of 57, 181 and n.236 Berkeley family 62, 147, 152 Berkeley, Maurice 121, 147, 187, 195 Berkeley, Thomas 151, 152, 167, 184, 192 Berwick 22, 25, 96, 105, 167, 168, 169, 177 n.154 Berwick, Siege of (1319) 20 Bisley (Gloucs.) 66–7, 178 n.173 Black Death 1, 44, 62 n.130, 101, 137 Blackley (Essex) 30 Blanche of Lancaster 124 Bletsoe (Beds.) 65, 163 Blois, Charles de 66, 105 Blount, Juliana le 65 Blount, William 42 n.110, 95 Bloxham (Oxon.) 52, 180 n.206 Bohun, Edward 100, 107 Bohun, Elizabeth 115, 125 Bohun, Joan 44 Bohun, Jocelin de 123 Bohun (Midhurst), John 44, 175, 190, 198, 199, 207 Bohun, John, earl of Hereford and Essex (d.1336), 135, 188 Bohun, Humphrey de, earl of Hereford and Essex (d.1361), earl of 66, 107, 120, 135, 171, 188 Bohun, William, earl of Northampton 29, 30, 36, 43, 51 and n.39, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79 n.11, 83, 84, 89, 90, 95, 97, 100, 102, 107, 108, 116, 125, 131 n.140, 132 n.144, 139, 142 n.16, 150, 152, 168, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 185, 190, 195, 197,198, 201, 204, 207 Boltby (Yorks.) 146 Bonkyl (Berwicks.) 56 Bordeaux 17

223

Borgne de Magny, Jean le, lord of Magny 22 Boroughbridge, Battle of (1322) 4, 17, 18 and n.29, 19, 20, 147, 152 Bosham (Sussex) 51, 177 n.140 Boston 85 Botiller, Ralph 38, 44, 62 n.130, 185, 197 Botreaux family 62, 186, 198 Bougouenere, Fulk 57, 181 Bradeston, Robert 107 Bradeston, Thomas 26, 29, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 50, 57, 60, 62 and n.130, 70, 73, 84, 85–6, 87 n.83, 90, 95, 99, 101, 106, 107, 114 n.6, 119, 134, 139, 150, 152, 168, 177 and n.146, 178, 180, 181, 185, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205 Bradfield Combust (Suffolk) 115 Brathwaite (Yorks.) 146 Bredwardine (Hereford.) 55, 176 n.127 Brembre, barony of 115 Brewes, John 71 Brewes, Thomas 33, 71, 95, 190, 198 Brian, Guy 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 38, 39, 41, 44, 60, 62 and n.130, 69, 71, 72, 79 n.11, 82, 86, 87 n.84, 89, 101, and n.60, 105, 107, 115, 116, 120, 132 n.144, 135, 139, 142, 150, 151, 152, 168, 178, 180, 181, 182, 185, 186, 190, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207 Bridlington, John of 133 Bristol 38, 106 Brocklesby (Lincs.) 103 n.79 Bromsgrove (Worcs.) 30, 71, 177 n.143 Broughton Gifford (Wilts.) 121, 179 n.203 Bruce, Edward 4 Bruce, Robert 56, 104 Builth (Wales) 37, 43, 85 n.62, 180 n.218 Buittle castle 104 Bulmer, Ralph 96, 195, 207 Burgh (Norfolk) 55, 176 n.125 Burghcher, Robert 86, 197, 201, 204 Burghersh family 147 Burghersh, Bartholomew (d. 1355) 25, 150, 151, 152, 167, 173, 174, 184, 185, 192, 193, 194 Burghersh, Bartholomew (d. 1369) 174, 186, 188, 193, 194 Butler, Elizabeth, Countess of Ormond 63, 66, 73, 142 n.16, 190 Butler, James, earl of Ormond (d.1338) 63, 66, 72, 193 Butler, James, earl of Ormond (d.1382) 63, 72

224

Index

Caen, Robert de, bishop of Salisbury 123 Caernarvon (Wales) 39, 167 Caillewe, John de 121 Cailly, Margaret 104 Cailly, Thomas 104 Calais 1, 21, 22, 57, 86, 97, 98, 168, 169, 174 n.88, 175 n.96, n.105 and n.111, 182 n.239 Caldon (Staffs.) 55, 177 n.156 Canterbury, archbishop and archbishopric of 59, 125, 172, 172 n. 44 and n. 47, 174 n.91 and 92 Cardigan castle 35 Carmarthen (Wales), cantref of 55, 176 n.121 Carmarthen castle 121, 180 n.223 Carreg Cennan (Wales), commote of 120–2, 179 n.202 Cassington (Oxon.) 24 Catford (Kent) 55, 176 n.118 Cauntelo, Nicholas 146, 188 Cauntelo, William 146 Cawston (Norfolk) 50, 170 n.7, 179 n.183 Chandos Herald 132 n.144 Chaundos, Roger 34, 38, 196, 207 Channel Islands 25–6, 167, 169, 206 Charleton (Somerset) 52, 124 n.84, 178 n.178 Cheapside 25 Chearsley (Bucks.) 126, 178 n.158 Chelsing (Herts.) 65 Cheltenham (Gloucs.) 86 Chepstow 16 Cheseman, Richard 100 Chichester 81 Christchurch (Hants) 55, 176 n.120 Church 10, 11–23, 33, 59–60, 148 n.31, 159 Church of Blessed Mary, Salisbury 123 Churchdown (Gloucs.) 60 Cinque Ports 97, 98, 108, 139, 167, 168 Cippenham (Bucks.) 50, 89, 126, 171 n.12, 178 n.175 Clare estate 125 Clare, Gilbert de, earl of Gloucester 61 Clare, Margaret de, sister of Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester 61 Clavering, Eve de 142 n.16 Clavering, John de (and Eva his daughter) 119, 190 Cleobury Mortimer (Salop) 66, 116 n.19 Clinton, Geoffrey de 15 Clinton, William, earl of Huntingdon 26, 29, 36, 50, 52–3, 65, 72, 83–4, 87, 89, 95 n9, 97, 100, 103 and n.80, 108, 131 n.140, 134, 139, 150, 151,

152, 168, 179, 180, 182, 186, 196, 197, 198, 201, 204, 207 Cobham, Reginald (Sterborough) (d. 1361) 21, 22, 26, 33, 35, 38, 42–3, 50, 58, 59 and n.110, 70, 71, 88, and n.90, 89, 98–9, 101, 105, 106, 107, 117, 118, 120, 125–6, 132 n.144, 150, 151, 152, 169, 178, 180, 181, 186, 197, 198, 201, 203, 207 Cobham (Rundale) family 146 Cold Ashton (Gloucs.) 66 Coleville, Robert 99, 207 Collingham (Yorks.) 83, 176 n.131 Combs (Suffolk) 23, 124, 180 n.205 Commons 10, 127, 129, 130, 131, 136 Contract armies 5 Contrariants 19, 20, 51 n.35, 53, 56, 120, 146, 147, 152 Convent of Saint Bartholomew’s, Smithfield, London 101 Corder, Gawan 35, 181 Corneford (Staffs.) 54, 177 n.156 Cornhale, Isabel de 57, 181, 182 Coterels 4, 100 Coucy, Ingelram de, earl of Bedford 166 Courtenay, Hugh de, earl of Devon 138, 146, 171 Crabbe, John 105 Crawley (Bucks.) 65 Crécy, Battle of (1346) 1, 21, 22, 135 Creting, Adam 16 Creting, John 16–17, 18, 206 Criketot family 62, 186 Criketot, William 71, 186, 198 Crisis of 1340–1 1, 129, 130, 131 n.140, 142 Cromwell, Matilda 116 Cromwell, Ralph 116–17, 190 Crookham (Berks.) 55, 176 n.117 Curthose, Robert, duke of Normandy 15, 53 D’Amory, Roger 61 Dacre, Ranulf (d.1339) 151, 152, 167 Dagworth, John 65 Dagworth, Thomas 63, 65, 66, 105, 139, 143 n.16, 188, 190, 207 Dale, Katherine, widow of John 107 Dale, William, 125 Damory, Richard 100–101 Darcy, Isabella 62 Darcy, John (d. 1347) 19–20 and n.52, 31, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58 and n.100, 62, 63 and n.140, 72, 73, 97, 98, 101, 102–3 and n.79, 107–08, 126, 131, 139, 142 n.13,

Index 150, 152, 167, 173, 176, 178, 179, 180, 185, 190, 197, 201, 204, 206 Darcy, John (d. 1356) 31 and n. 23, 97, 107, 122, 150, 152, 167, 173, 174, 184, 186, 187, 193, 200, 203, 204 Darcy, Norman 62 Darcy, Philip 62 Darcy, William 107 Dartford (Kent) 23 Datchet (Bucks.) 50–1, 178 n.164 Daucok, John 80 De Donis Conditionalibus 35, 49, 51, 76, 78, 139, 140–1 De la Pole family 131 Dean, Forest of 30, 44, 82 and n.40, 101 and n.60, 168 Deddington (Oxon.) 51, 125 n.93, 177 n.134 Deerhurst, priory of 85 Denbigh (Wales) 55, 122–3 and n.77, 176 n.121 Deposition of 1327 2, 4, 19, 21, 23, 113, 147, 156, 160 Desmond, earl of 117 and n.31 Despenser family and estate, 4, 6, 34, 36, 47, 51 n.39, 54, 55 and n.67, 68, 72, 120, 122, 131 and n.140, 133, 139, 145, 147, 152, 172 n.36, 173 Despenser, Edward 135, 198 n.11, 175, 187, 194 Despenser, Hugh, earl of Winchester (d. 1326) 51 and n.34, 55, 73, 91, 100 and n.51, 109, 113, 119–20, 122, 172, 176, 177 Despenser, Hugh (d. 1326) 6, 51 n.35, 52 n.47, 61, 73, 91, 100 and n.51, 109, 113, 120–1, 122, 152, 177 Despenser, Hugh, son of Hugh the Younger (d. 1349) 6, 115, 150, 152, 172, 173, 174, 182, 184, 187, 193, 194, 198 Despenser, Elizabeth, widow of (also widow of Giles Badlesmere) 115, 190 Deuddwr 66 Devizes (Wilts.) 83, 127, 133–4 Devon, earldom of 165, 146 Dialogus de Scaccario 49, 67, 130 n.129 Dinmael, commote of (Wales) 55, 176 n.121 ‘Disinherited’ 1, 4, 21, 22, 56, 69 Disparagement 61, 68 Disturbances of 1215–17 53, 96–7, 113–14 Dokesworth, John 38, 70, 197 Donyatt (Somerset) 24 Dover 97, 98, 108, 139, 167, 168

225

Dovyll, William 119, 177 n.146 Dryby, John de 101–2,116–17 and n.26 Dupplin Moor, Battle of (1332) 22 Dysworth, John 115 Earldom creations of 1337 10, 15, 22–3, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 35–6, 42, 50, 52, 57, 64–5, 72, 81, 83, 84, 85, 89, 90, 123, 131, 132, 134, 138, 141 and n.9, 144, 148, 178, 179. Earnwood (Salop) 66 Eckington (Derby.) 57, 81, 179 n.195 Edgefield (Norfolk) 103 Edward I 2, 4, 16, 17, 19, 27, 29 n.11, 44, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 61, 66, 68, 76, 77, 78, 84, 85, 91, 103, 104,107, 108 n.116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 128, 138, 141, 145, 146, 159 Edward II 1, 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, 18 and n.29, 20, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 45, 47, 53, 61, 63, 68, 76, 77, 78, 84, 91, 94, 98, 107, 109, 114, 118, 120, 128, 132, 139, 141, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 156, 173 n.65 Edward III Historiography of patronage during reign 9–10 Idea of endowment programme 6–9 Overview of reign 1 Patronage, royal General reasoning for 6–8 Geographical spread of 206–208 Impact after reign 156–8 Impact during reign 154–6 Placing of Edward’s programme 158–61 Problems with 113–37 Specific reasons for in documents 28–32 Strategy and distribution 71–7, 86–92, 108–09, 138–53 Treatment by recipients 124–7 Scope and organization of book 10–12 Situation at start of Independent rule 3–5, 8 Treatment of established nobles 5–7 Edward IV 157, 158, 159 Edward, prince of Wales (the Black Prince) 1, 17, 21, 50, 133 and n.154, 134 Eleanor of Provence, wife of Henry III 15 Eleanor, sister of Edward III 25 Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I 66 Elston (Wilts.) 121, 179 n.203 Eltham, John of, earl of Cornwall 25, 50, 126, 147, 151, 170, 171, 173, 178, 179, 186, 192, 200, 203 and n.2

226

Index

Enfeoffment-to-use 4, 8, 32, 76 and n.224, 77, 124 and n.87, 125 n.93, 134–5 and n.165, 156, 158, 159 Entail 4, 24, 29, 31, 32, 35, 36 and n.58, 49, 50 n.24, 51, 66, 72, 74, 76, 78, 80, 93, 125, 141 and n.10, 142, 146, 148, 156, 159, 170–83, 200–202 Entre Deux Mers, 43, 84, 90 Etton, John de 126 Eu, count of 57, 179, 180 Exchequer tally 80, 87, 88, 90 Exning (Suffolk) 69 Eye (Suffolk) 50, 170 n.7, 179 n.183 Farnham (Yorks.) 146 Fécamp, abbot of 38, 85, 90, 115, 174, 180 Felony 19, 38, 58–9 Ferre, Guy de 119 Ferrers (Groby), Henry 25, 150, 151, 152, 167, 171, 172, 173, 184, 186, 194, 200, 203 Ferrers (Groby), William 135, 187, 188, 194, 199, 200, 203 Feudal rights Background 46–8 Escheats 47–8, 49–51, 117–19, 170–83 Expectancies 47–8, 51–3, 170–83 Forfeitures 47–8, 119–22, 170–83 Crime (incl. treason) 58–9 Ecclesiastical 59–60 Political 53–6 War 56–8 Marriage Rights 60–1, 115–17 Grants of rights 61–3, 184–6 Marriages of new men 63–7, 186–91 Wardships 67–9, 114–5, 192–9 Free of all payments 69 Payments attached 69–70 Substantial fines and sales 70–1 Fictitious loans 87 Fillwood (Somerset) 101 Finborough (Suffolk) 66 FitzAlan, earl of Arundel, family of 147, 152 FitzAlan, Edmund, earl of Arundel (d. 1326) 5, 151, 173 n.65. FitzAlan, Richard, earl of Arundel (d. 1376) 5, 57, 124 n.90, 135, 150, 151, 167, 172, 173, 174, 175, 184, 185, 187, 188, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 FitzPaine, Ela 52 FitzPaine, Robert 52, 178 Fiveley Nook (Yorks.) 69 Flanders 6, 21, 97, 169 Flint 108

Folville family 4, 100 Folville, Robert de 100 Foston (Yorks.) 69 France 4, 6, 8, 9, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, 35, 52, 57, 67, 68, 75, 77, 79, 85, 86, 92, 95, 96, 98, 106, 108, 109, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 137, 141 and n.8, 147, 151, 152, 160, 167, 174, 175, 181, 206 Frene, Hugh 35, 55, 64, 65, 70, 176, 190, 197, 206 Froissart, Jean 21 Frome Whitfield (Dorset) 52, 178 n.165 Fulmer (Bucks.) 50–1, 176 n.119 Furnivalle family 146 Fyncheden, Master William 41 Garter, Order of 21, 106–7 Gascony 16, 17, 22, 24, 147 Gaveston, Piers de, earl of Cornwall (d. 1312) 3, 47, 50, 61, 64, 113, 131 and n.140, 133, 145, 152 General (or dormant) warrant 79 n.9, 102 n.72 Giffard (Brimpsfield), Aveline de 121 Giffard (Brimpsfield) family 120–2 and n.63, 185 Giffard (Brimpsfield), John 120–2, 197 Giffard (Brimpsfield), Margaret 121, 179 Giffard (Weston Subedge), John 39 Glamorgan War of (1321–2) 133 Glatton (Hunts.) 52, 83, 179 n.187 Gloucester 18, 40, 43, 86 n.65, 90, 114 n.6, 147, 167, 168, 176 n.113 Gogh, John 39 Good Parliament (1376) 1, 124, 129, 133 Gosewyk, Thomas de 57, 182 Gournaye, Thomas de 119, 177 n.146 Grandisson, Otto 15, 60 Grandisson, John, bishop of Exeter 60, 182 n.260 Grandson, Mabel de, daughter of Lord Grandson 65 Gravesend (Kent) 55, 176 n.124 Gray, Thomas 132 Greasley (Notts.) 146 Great Barrow (Ches.) 54, 65 n.67, 177 n.155 Great Houghton (Northants) 71 Great Linford (Bucks.) 66 Great Sampford (Essex) 69 Great Yarmouth 89, 180 n.209 Greenwich, priory of 58, 183 Greetham (Lincs.) 103 n.79 Grey (Condor), Richard 118, 170, 173, 178, 186, 189

Index Grey (Rotherfield), John 37, 86, 97, 100, 107, 134, 185, 189, 190, 197, 198, 207 Grey, Roger 30 Grosmont castle 80 Guildford 59, 81 Guyen, Robert 38, 182 Gynwell, John, bishop of Lincoln 124 n.90 Hainault, count of 22, 24, 65 Halton (Ches.) 103 n.80 Harcla, Andrew de, earl of Carlisle 28–9 n.2 Harlech castle 22, 39, 169 Hartismere (Suffolk) 50, 170 n.7, 179 n.183 Hartlepool 88 Haseley (Oxon.) 51, 177 n.134 Hastings, John 150, 167, 195 Hastings, Laurence, earl of Pembroke 30, 38, 65, 69, 72, 73, 193, 198, 204 n.2 Hatfield (Essex) 30 Haukeston, Thomas 37, 181 Hausted, John 17 and n.14, 190, 206 Haverford (Pembrokeshire) 34, 168 Hayling, priory of 82 Henley (Suffolk) 50, 179 n.183 Henry I 2, 6, 15, 19, 27 and n.118, 29, 46, 47, 53, 61, 68, 78, 93, 94 n.1, 99 and n.38, 100 n.47, 113, 123, 126, 130 n.129, 133, 138, 139, 140, 144, 154, 158 Henry II 2, 6, 46, 58, 68, 96, 99, 123, 144 Henry III 6, 15, 19, 46, 61, 68, 78, 94, 98, 99, 109, 115, 118, 127, 132, 133, 138 Henry IV 130, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159 Henry IV 157, 158, 159 Henry of Grosmont, earl of Derby, duke of Lancaster (d. 1361) 16, 22, 26, 30, 57, 58, 79 n.11, 80, 85, 86, 89, 97, 102, 104 n.80, 107,122, 124 and n.90, 134, 135, 150, 152, 169, 179, 180, 181, 182 and n.267, 190, 197, 201, 202 n.14, 202, 204, 205, 203, 207 Henry of Lancaster, earl of Lancaster 6, 20 n.51, 23, 37, 80, 171, 172 n.41, 186 n.7, 188, 189 n.12, 192 Henry the Younger, son of Henry II 96 Henry V 57, 157 Henry VI 157, 158 Henry VII 157 Henry VIII 156 Henstridge (Somerset) 52, 124 n.84, 178 n.178 Heron, William 37, 56–7, 99, 181, 186, 191, 199, 208

227

Hertfordyngbery (Herts.) 101 Hertle (Bucks.) 101 Higden, Ranulf 132 Hinton (Berks.) 51, 177 n.133 Holand, Thomas, earl of Kent 26, 95, 190, 202 Holkham (Norfolk) 56, 69, 118, 178 n.160 Holme (Hunts.) 52, 83, 179 n.187 Hooe (Sussex) 58, 180 n.211 Horsham (Sussex) 38, 180 n.225 Household Ordinances (1318) 128 Hugh of Buckland 15 Hundred Years War 1, 2, 4, 10, 21, 26, 27, 33, 44, 48, 52, 56, 67, 77, 85, 93, 98,102, 104,108, 125, 130, 138, 140, 142 Huntingdon 52–3, 179 n.188 Hurcott (Somerset) 43, 177 n.144 Higham (Sussex) 84 Ingham, Oliver 102 Ireland 4, 8, 16, 17, 19, 20 and n.52, 31, 34, 35, 39, 52, 55, 57, 63 and n.140, 73, 98, 108, 117, 169, 172, 173, 175 n.96, 178, 180, 181 and n.247, 193, 195, 197, 198, 201 n.13, 206 Is Cennan (Wales), commote of 120–2, 179 n.202 Isabella, Queen 1, 4,5,18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 50, 51, 52 n.47, 53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 83, 85, 103, 122, 133, 134, 152, 154, 170, 171, 173, 176, 177, 179, 180 Isle of Man 25, 169, 177, 206 Ixworth (Suffolk) 71 Joan, widow of Thomas FitzJohn, earl of Kildare 63, 73 John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster 124 John, bishop of Exeter 60, 182 John, earl of Kent 83 John, King 15, 61, 68, 78 n.5, 127, 132, 142 John II, King of France 1 Jointure 8, 21, 66, 124–5, 158 Juliers, William of, earl of Cambridge 166 Kent, earldom of 73 Kent, Edmund, earl of 6, 20, 23, 83, 106, 172 and n.34, 196, 197 Kerdeston family 184 Kerdeston, Roger 96, 206 Kidwelly 80 Kilblane (Scotland) 69 Kildalk (Ireland) 52, 55, 178 n.161 Kilham (Yorks.) 69 Kilpeck (Hereford.) 66

228

Index

King’s Free Chapel of St. George, Windsor 91 King’s Walden (Herts.) 70 Kingsdon (Somerset) 38, 182 n.263 Kingsland (Hereford.) 70, 119, 177 n.146 Kingston upon Hull 85, 88 and n.89 Kirkby in Ashfield (Notts) 57, 81, 179 n.194, 180 n.216 Kirkby on Bain (Lincs.) 116 Kirklington (Oxon.) 51, 177 n.134 Kirkstall, abbot and abbey of 83 Kirkton, John 65 n.156, 101–2, 116–17 and n.20 and 26, 190 Kirton (Lincs.) 50, 52, 83, 171 n.14, 179 n.186 Kneesall (Notts.) 51, 177 n.137 Knolle (Somerset) 119, 177 n.146 Knucklas, castle of 80 Kyngeston, John de 58 Lacy, Almarick de 52 Lacy, Henry de, earl of Lincoln 122 Lacy, Walter de 52 Langland, William 133 Lapley, priory of 58, 180 Latimer of Corby, William (d. 1335) 171 Latimer of Corby, William (d. 1381) 57, 150, 168, 175, 185, 187, 196, 201, 203 Latimer, Thomas 20 Layham (Suffolk) 23 Leake, Treaty of (1318) 94, 133 ‘Le Sele’, religious house of 115 Lewisham, priory of 58, 183 Leyburn inheritance 65 Leyburn, Roger 15 Lichfield, Master Adam de 60 Lincoln 117 Lire, abbot and abbey of 41, 58 and n.100, 126, 174 and n.89, 180 and n.224 Lisle (Rougement), John de 44, 107, 185, 186, 194, 200, 204 Little Barrow (Ches.) 54–5, 120 n.54, 177 n.152 Llanfair castle 37, 43, 85 n.62, 180 n.218 Llywelyn ap Rhys Vaghan 121 Long Bennington (Lincs.) 51, 177 n.136 Long Compton (Warwicks.) 66 Longeville, count of 105 Longspée, William de 61, 142 Longspée, Maud 61 Louth (Ireland) 57, 180 n.217 Lucy family 147, 152 Lucy, Anthony 151, 152, 168, 173, 174, 189, 200, 203

Lucy, Thomas 151, 152, 168, 173, 174, 187, 194, 200, 203 Ludlow (Salop.) 135 Lull, Ramon, author of Book of the Ordre of Chyvalry 22 Lusignan, Geoffrey de 61 Mackynegan, castle of 108 Maelienydd (Wales) 66 Magna Carta 3, 4, 46, 60 n.118, 61, 67, 68, 126, 127 Maltravers, John 5, 6 and n.23, 26, 35, 52, 57, 118, 121 and n.63, 124 n.86, 125, 170, 173 n.53, 174, 176, 179, 186 Marden (Hereford.) 55, 176 n.127 Maritagium 60, 115 Markeby, prior and convent of 101 Marschal (Changeton), John le 59, 81, 181 and n.236 Marschal, William le 19 Marshall, John de 120 Marshwood (Dorset) 52, 178 n.165 Marston Maisey (Wilts.) 54, 119–20, 173 n.70, 176 n.130 and n.132 Martley (Worcs.) 135, 182 Martyr Worthy (Hants) 71 Mauny, Walter 21–2, 26, 31, 38–9, 40, 41, 42, 56, 64, 65, 69, 72, 79, 83 n.45, 87 n.80, 91, 94, 95, 97, 105, 107, 118, 120, 126, 133, 135 and n.165, 139, 150, 151, 152, 169, 178, 180, 182, 185, 190, 197, 198, 201, 203 n.2, 204, 207 Meinill family 184 Meinill, Elizabeth, daughter of Nicholas de Meinill 31, 107, 187 Meinill, Nicholas 31, 191, 206 Melbourn, Richard de, parson of the church of Edelesburgh 85 Melton, William de, archbishop of York 33, 60, 85 n.65, 90, 174 and n.76, 180 Meysey, John 54, 119–20, 176 Middle Claydon (Bucks.) 146 Milton Regis (Kent) 134 Minority government 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 50, 53, 54, 55 n.67, 75, 100, 102, 103 and n.79, 123, 140, 146, 147, 149 Mirror of Edward III 7 Modus Tenendi Parliamentum 7, 8, 19, 47, 48, 77 Molaigh (Ireland) 19 Moldworth, Adam de 120 n.54 Molyns, John 4, 120, 126 and n.100, 181, 190

Index Molyns, John, son of John 126 Molyns, William 126 Monmouth, lordship of 80 Montagu, William (d. 1319 ) 24, 47 Montagu, William, first earl of Salisbury (d.1344) 24–6, 29 n.10, 31, 32, 36, 42, 43,48, 51, 52, 55, 59, 71, 72, 86, 89, 95, 100, 106, 122–4 and n.77, 131 n.140, 134, 139, 150, 151, 152, 169, 176, 177, 178, 185, 193, 196, 197 and n.7, 201, 204, 207 Montagu, William, second earl of Salisbury (d. 1397) 122–4, 187, 193 Montalt inheritance 122 n.75 Montferrand, Bertrand de 90 Montfort, Jean de 22 Montfort, Piers 24 Montreuil (France) 55 n.75 More family 62–3, 185 More, Thomas de la 62 More, John de la 62 More, Matilda de la 62 More, William de la 62, 197 Moreby, Robert 37, 185, 197 Mortimer family and estate 6, 66, 67, 72, 122, 123, 139, 147, 152, 163, 185 Mortimer, Edmund (d.1332) 70, 73, 116, 142 n.16 Mortimer, Elizabeth, widow of Edmund 66, 70, 116, 142 n.16, 190, 196, 199 Mortimer, Roger, earl of March (d. 1330) 1, 4, 5, 6 and n.22, 19, 23, 25, 28, 35, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 65, 70, 97, 103, 116 and n.19, 122, 123 and n.78, 124 n.86, 134, 152, 172 and n.42, 173, 176, 178, 180, 193 Mortimer, Roger, earl of March (d.1360) 70, 97, 123, 150, 152, 168, 185, 193, 194, 195 Mowbray (Axholme), John 115, 175, 199 Muntchensi, Joan de 61 Murimith, Adam 132 Musgrave (Westmorland) 30 Musgrave, Thomas 30, 39, 87 n.82, 96, 183, 190, 191, 202, 207 Neufville, John Lord 105 Neville (Raby), Ralph (d. 1367) 150, 151, 152, 168, 172 and n.35, 184, 192, 193, 194, 201, 203 n.2 Newcastle upon Tyne 88 and n.89, 172 n.25 Newent, priory of 58, 85, 180

229

New Men Administrative ability 26–7 Attitude of established nobles 134–5 Attitude of the royal family towards 133–5 Chronicle opinion of 132–3 Definition of 165–6 Lack of homogeneity 27 Landed men promoted into 16–18 Major players 167–79 Martial ability 26–7 New men during other reigns 6, 15–16, 47 Newly endowed 18–22 Problems for sons 122–4 Titled nobles 22–6 Newnham (Gloucs.) 51, 177 n.138 Newton Longville, priory of 86, 87 n.84, 89 Norham castle 20 Normandy 46, 57, 58 and n.100 Northampton 91, 180 n.214 Northampton, Treaty of (the “Shameful Peace”) (1328) 56 Norton (Worcs.) 30, 177 n.143 Norwich, John de 119, 191, 201, 207 Norwich, Walter de 119 Nottingham Coup (1330) 3, 4, 5, 11, 18, 20, 24, 35, 41, 54, 55, 72, 121, 122, 147, 151 novel disseisin 119 Nunnington (Yorks.) 65 Occasional (or final) warrant 79 n.9 Oddingley (Worcs.) 37, 181 n.233 Ogbourne St George, priory of 58 Ogmore (Wales) 80 Oldland (Gloucs.) 62 Oo, Philip de 59 Orcheston (Wilts.) 121, 179 n.203 Order of the Garter 21, 106, 107 Ordinances (1311) 4, 45, 94, 114, 128, 129 and n.128, 130, 133 Orford (Suffolk) 23, 178 Ormesby (Norfolk) 103 n.79 Otterton, priory of 39, 86, 89, 182 and n.262 Overstone (Northants) 118, 125, 170 n.6, 173 n.53, 178 n.170 Oxford castle 50, 117, 180 n.212 oyer and terminer 23, 95 Pagula, William of 7 Panshanger (Herts.) 101 Paper Constitution of 1244 29 n.3, 133 Paris, Matthew 132

230

Index

Parliament and Royal Government Development of peerage 2–3 Individual summons to 10–11,16, Modus Tenendi Parliamentum 7–8, 47, 48 Response to endowment programme 127–9, 129–132, 136 Patshull, John 65 Patshull, Sibyl 65, 73, 190 Patshull, William 65 Paulerspury (Northants) 71 Pavely, Robert 38, 71, 185, 198 Perrers, Alice 11, 156 Perth 21 Peruzzi 106 Petergate in York 36, 180 n.208 Philip VI of France 20, 23, 25, 57 Philippa of Hainault 22, 24 n.91, 25, 65, 127, 133–4, 133–4 n.156 and 162, 175, 180, 202 n.14 Pickering (Yorks.) 20 Pilleth (Wales) 70 Pirehill (Staffs.) 117, 177 n.142 Pisan, Christine de 7 Poitevins 6, 15, 27, 127 Poitiers, Battle of (1356) 1, 21, 169 Pole, Michael de la 131 n.140, 190, 202, 207 Pontefract 134, 202 n.14 Ponthieu 55 n.75 Poole Keynes (Wilts.) 52, 178 n.166 Pope Boniface VIII 146 Pope John XXII 25 Poynings, Luke 104, 190, 199, 207 Poynings, Michael, le uncle 59 Poynings, Michael 31, 43, 59 and n.110, 81, 89, 95, 142, 143, 181, 186, 190, 198, 202, 204, 207 Poynings, Thomas 36, 50, 117, 180 Prendergest, William de 57, 182 Prerogative wardship 60, 67 Priority of enfeoffment 67 Properties, offices and rights Background to use of 44–5 Authorization of grants 40–3 Obligations connected with 37–9 Replacement and protection mechanisms 43–4 Types of tenure 32–7 Provisions of Merton (1235–6) 67 n.178 Provisions of Oxford (1258) 127, 128, 133 Provisions of Westminster (1259) 127 Pynkeney, Edmund de 50–1, 54 n.57, 176, 178 Pynkeney, Henry de 50 Pyrton (Oxon.) 51, 177 n.134

Rainer of Bath 15 Ralph, earl of Stafford 26, 107, 117, 125, 131, 142, 175, 181, 182, 186, 190, 196, 198, 202 and n.16, 205, 207 Ransom 104–105 and n.90, 132 Rathwire (Ireland) 52, 55, 178 n.161 and 162 Ravensthorpe (Yorks.) 146 Rebellion of 1173–4 96, 113 Rebellion of 1328–9 100 Redmire (Yorks.) 146 Reigate (Surrey) 135 Rhos (Wales) 55, 176 n.121 Rhuddlan (Wales) 108 Rhufoniog (Wales) 55, 176 n.121 Richard I 146 Richard II 120 n.55, 127, 129, 130, 136, 156, 157–8, 159 Richard III 157, 158 Ringwood (Hants) 55, 176 n.120 Rivaux, Peter des 109 Rocelyn, Thomas 103 Rockingham castle 134 Ros family 42 Ros, Margery de 115 Rotherfield Peppard (Oxon.) 66 Round Table Tournament (1344) 107 Routine Patronage Background 93–4 Offices and keeperships 94–9 Pardons and licences 99–102 Royal writs and influence 102–05 Symbolic preference 105–08 Royal demesne 47–8, 49, 114 Ruddington (Notts.) 71 Rushton (Staffs.) 54, 177 n.156 Rye (Sussex) 84 Sandwich (Kent) 84, 87 Sapy, Robert de 118, 178 Savoyards 15, 27 Scakelthorp, Adam de 124 Scarborough 20 Scotland 1, 2, 4, 8, 9,17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 37, 44, 50, 52, 56, 67, 69, 75, 77, 79, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 103, 104, 108, 109, 129, 132, 138, 139, 140, 141 and n.8, 146, 151, 152, 160, 167, 168, 169, 175 n.99, 177, 178, 180, 181, 199, 201 n.12, 206 Scrope, Geoffrey 37, 197 Scrope, Henry 37, 142 n.13, 191, 197, 202, 207 Scrope, Richard 97, 135, 186, 190, 199, 208

Index Segrave, John 64, 120, 182 and n.259, 184, 187, 189, 193 Segrave, Margaret 64, 120, 182 n.259, 190 Seys, John 135 Shabbington (Berks.) 134 Shalford (Surrey) 36, 50, 172 n.46, 180 n.213 Sherborne castle 122–3, 176 n.116 Shere (Surrey) 66 Sherston (Wilts.) 135, 182 n.255 Sileham in Rainford (Kent) 134 Skenfrith (Wales) 80 Slaughter (Gloucs.) 86 Sluys, Battle of (1340) 22, 102 Smeetham Hall (Essex) 66 Sopley (Hants) 66 Soulby (Westmorland) 30 Speen (Berks.) 51, 177 n.133 St Briavels 30, 44, 82 and n.40, 102 and n.60, 168 St John family 104, 184 St John, Miribel 104, 191 St Jean d’Angely (France) 57 St Omer 21 St Philbert estate 104, 185 St Philbert, John 65 n.156, 104, 191, 197, 207 St Pol, Mary de, countess of Pembroke 35, 53, 83, 103 n.76, 118–19, 179, 180 St Quintin family 62, 186, 198 Stafford, Richard 133 n.154, 182, 208 Stainley (Yorks.) 146 Statute of Alienation (1327) 4 Statute of Treasons (1352) 53, 58, 59, 76–7 Statute of Marlborough (1267) 67 n.178 Statute of Mortmain (1279) 33, 101, 102 Statute of Quia Emptores (1290) 34, 35, 50, 60, 76, 78, 139, 140–1 Statute of Westminster I (1275) 67 n.178 Statute of Westminster II (1285) 35 Stiffkey (Norfolk) 56, 69, 118, 178 n.160 Stiward, John 56, 172, 177 and n.148 Stoke Trister (Somerset) 120, 181 n.229 Stonegrave (Yorks.) 65 Stow (Suffolk) 50, 170 n.7, 179 n.183 Strabolgi, David, earl of Athol (d. 1335) 41, 42, 56, 69, 73, 118, 126, 178 and n.158, 184, 193, 197 Strange, Ebulo 64, 171, 178, 184, 192 Stratford, John, archbishop of Canterbury 125 Stretton, Adam de 34 Strood (Kent) 118, 180 n.220 Stryvelyn, Barnaba 103–4

231

Stryvelyn, John 35, 69, 88, 103, 104 and n.84, 150, 152, 169, 178, 180, 181, 183, 190, 198, 201, 207 Stuteville, Robert de 57 and n.93, 179 Sudbury, Simon, bishop of London 135 Sutton (Lincs.) 101 Sutton, Herbert de 52, 178 Swainstone (Hants) 48, 176 n.120 Swynburn, Adam de 103 Swynnerton, Roger 29, 36, 54, 55, 117–18, 150, 152, 177, 191, 207 Talbot, Gilbert (d. 1346) 17–18 and n.29, 29, 37, 40, 98 n.29, 121, 152, 174, 177, 185, 191, 197, 206 Talbot, Richard (d. 1306) 18 Talbot, Richard (d. 1356) 117, 150, 151, 152, 168, 174, 181, 183, 193, 194 Tattershall (Lincs.) 116 and n.124 Temple Newsam (Yorks.) 101, 179 n.191 Tewin (Herts.) 101 Thixendale (Yorks.) 69 Thomas, earl of Lancaster 2, 3,17, 18, 20 and n.51, 37, 55, 64, 114, 122, 124, 144 Thomas of Brotherton, earl of Norfolk 6, 51 and n.39, 64, 125, 143 and n.155, 170, 177, 186, 189 n.14, 190 n.15 and 16 Thoresby, Master John de 126 Thorndon (Suffolk) 50, 170 n.7, 179 n.183 Thurby (Yorks.) 146 Thwing (Yorks.) 69 Tilbury (Essex) 69 Torksey (Lincs.) 40, 101 n.63, 102–03, 179 n.192 Tournai, Siege of (1340) 21, 22 Tower of London 26, 97, 148, 167, 169 Trowbridge (Wilts.) 52, 124 n.84 and 86, 178 n.176 Trusthorpe (Lincs.) 101 Twyford (Bucks.) 66 Ty, Peter de 124 Tybetot estate 21, 62, 186 Tybetot, John 115–16, 187, 192 Ufford, Joan 104, 191 Ufford, Robert, earl of Suffolk (d. 1369) 15, 22–4, 25, 29 and n.10, 36, 41 n.100, 50, 55, 65 n.156, 72, 89, 93, 95, 104 and n.85, 107, 119, 124, 131 n.140, 132 n.144, 150, 152, 169, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 185, 186, 188, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 207 Ughtred, Robert 20

232

Index

Ughtred, Thomas 20–1, 27, 36, 56, 87 n.82, 88 n.89, 107, 143, 177, 180, 182, 186, 198, 199, 202 and n.15, 204, 207 ‘La Vacherie’ (Surrey) 66 Valence, Aymer de, earl of Pembroke 19, 65, 69 Valence, William de 61 Vassel, Brother Alberic 39 Veel, Peter de 120, 193 Veer, John de 70 Veer, Maud de 115 Verdon, John 134, 197, 206 Verdon, Thomas 115 Vere, John de, earl of Oxford 116, 201 n.9 Vere, Robert de, earl of Oxford 120 n.55 Vescy, John de 15 Walcott (Norfolk) 103 Wales 16, 18, 22, 34, 37, 39, 53, 56, 66, 67, 69, 70, 98 n.29, 116 n.19, 120, 121, 135, 139, 141, 147, 152, 167, 171, 172, 174, 174 n.81 and 89, 176, 177, 179, 180, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 206 Wallingford (Berks.) 134 Walsingham, Thomas 133 Waltham (Essex) 23 Walton (Essex) 43 Walton Ordinances (1338) 102 n.71 Warenne, countess of 52, 124 Wark in Tynedale (Northumb.) 20, 103 Wark on Tweed (Northumb.) 25, 31, 42 Warenne inheritance 122

Warenne, John de, earl of Surrey 52, 122, 124, 131, 173, 178 ‘Wasting’ 46, 67–8, 126–7 Weeton (Lancs.) 66 Welle, William de 69, 203, 208 Wendover, Roger of 132 Wenthave, sister of Llewellyn ap Rhys Vaghan 121 West Cliffe (Kent) 35, 181 n.235 West Peckham (Kent) 135, 173 n.61 West Preston (Sussex) 58, 180 n.211 Weston, John de 52, 180 Westover (Hants) 55, 176 n.120 Wetelawe [Wheatley?] (Yorks.) 37, 177 n.151 Wigmore, lordship of 67, 70 Wilington family 121, 122 n.123 Wilington, Eleanor 35, 121 Wilington, Henry 35 Wilington, John 35, 121, 179, 206 Wilington, Ralph 35, 121, 122 William I (the Conqueror) 53, 68, 77 William II (Rufus) 15, 46, 61, 68, 126 Winchelsea (Sussex) 84 Winforton (Hereford.) 55, 176 n.127 Winterbourne (Wilts.) 52, 124 n.84, 178 n.176 Wix (Essex) 51, 177 n.139 Wootton Fitzpaine (Dorset) 52, 178 n.165 Worth Matravers (Dorset) 52, 178 n.165 Wycombe (Bucks.) 51, 177 n.135 Wyke-Valors (Gloucs.) 34, 54, 176 n.132 Wyville, Robert, bishop of Salisbury 123 Zouche (of Mortimer), William de la 122