User:Ltwin/Draft History of the English aristocracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Highlighted text needs a source

Anglo-Saxon period (600-1066)[edit]

5th–8th century[edit]

In the 5th century, Germanic peoples collectively known as Anglo-Saxons migrated to sub-Roman Britain and came to dominate the east and southeast of the island. Based on archaeological evidence (such as burials and buildings), these early communities appear to have lacked any social elite. Around half the population were free, independent farmers (Old English: ceorlas) who cultivated a hide of land (enough to provide for a family). Slaves, mostly native Britons, made up the other half.[1]

By the late 6th century, the archeological evidence (grander burials and buildings) suggests the development of a social elite. This period coincided with the Late Antique Little Ice Age and the Plague of Justinian. These events would have caused famine and other societal disruptions that may have increased violence and led previously independent farmers to submit to the rule of strong lords. The Old English word for lord is hlaford ('loaf-guardian' or 'bread-giver').[2]

The early law codes of Kent use the Old English word eorl ('high born', 'noble') to describe a nobleman. By the 8th century, the word gesith ('companion'; Latin: comes) had replaced eorl as the common term for a nobleman.[3][4]

By serving a lord (Old English: hlāford, literally "bread-giver"), gesiths gained protection (mund) and rewards of gold and silver. Young nobles were raised with the sons of kings to someday become their gesiths. Kings rewarded gesiths with landed estates, which were necessary to fund their role as military leaders.[5]

900–1066[edit]

By the 10th century, Anglo-Saxon society was divided into three main social classes: slaves, ceorlas ('free men'), and þegnas ('thegns', 'aristocrats').[6] Thegn (Old English: þeġn) meant servant or warrior, and it replaced the term gesith in the 10th century.[3] Law codes assigned a weregeld or man price of 200 shillings for a ceorl and 1,200s for a thegn. Children inherited thegnly status from their father, and a thegnly woman who married a ceorl retained her noble status.[7]

Not all ceorlas were peasants. Some were themselves landlords, and these prosperous free men could aspire to thegnly rank. Archbishop Wulfstan of York (1002–1023) wrote that a ceorl had to own five hides to qualify for thegnhood. The legal text Norðleoda laga ('law of the Northern People') concurred but added that the property qualification had to be met for three generations.[8]

In 1066, there were an estimated 5,000 thegns in England.[9] These were divided into three ranks: ealdormen, king's thegns, and median thegns.[10] The ealdorman was an official appointed by the king to administer a shire or group of shires (an ealdormanry).[11] In the 11th century, while England was ruled by a Danish dynasty, the office changed from ealdorman to earl (related to Old English eorl and Scandinavian jarl).[12] After the king, the earl was the most powerful secular magnate.[13] During Edward the Confessor's reign (1042–1066), there were four principal earldoms: Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, and East Anglia.[13] The wealthiest family was the Godwinsons, led by Earl Godwin of Wessex. The Godwinsons held vast amounts of land, and Godwin's sons were granted their own earldoms. The Godwinsons' rivals were the Leofricsons, led by Earl Edwin of Mercia. Morcar, Edwin's brother, became earl of Northumbria in 1065.[14]

Below ealdormen were king's thegns, so called because they only served the king. The lowest thegnly rank were the median thegns who owed service to other thegns.[15] Thegns were the backbone of local government and the military. Sheriffs were drawn from this class, and thegns were required to attend the shire court and give judgment. For these reasons, historian David Carpenter described thegns as "the country gentry of Anglo-Saxon England".[16]

High-ranking members of the church hierarchy (archbishops, bishops and abbots) paralleled the secular aristocracy. The church's power derived from its spiritual authority as well as its virtual monopoly on education. Secular government depended on educated clergy to function, and prelates were important politicians and royal advisers in the witan (the king's council).[17] 

Danish kings introduced the terms staller (one who had a seat or stall in the king's hall) and housecarl (member of the king's military household). A lord's military retainer was called a cniht ("knight") or ridere ("rider").[18]   

"Reputable moneyers were important men, often possesing rights of private jurisdiction. ... One must think of the moneyer as a member or potential member of the thegnly class".[19]

Anglo-Norman period[edit]

Norman Conquest[edit]

In 1066, William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) became king after achieving the Norman Conquest of England. The old aristocracy was destroyed and replaced with a new one.[14]


William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) claimed ownership of all land in England, so all landholders were directly or indirectly tenants of the Crown. He confiscated estates that had been fully owned by Anglo-Saxon lords and granted them to his Norman followers as fiefs. Likewise, church property had to be held in feudal tenure.[20] These followers formed a French-speaking, Anglo-Norman aristocracy with estates in both Normandy and England.[21] This cross-Channel aristocracy also included smaller groups originating from other parts of France, such as Brittany, Boulogne, and Flanders.[22]


The greatest magnates were relatives of the duke and already great landowners in Normandy. The new elite's status was based on a "new bargain between the king and his leading followers".[14] Find out what this means.


The ten wealthiest earls and barons together owned 25 percent of the land:[23]

  1. Robert of Mortain, the earl of Cornwall
  2. Odo of Bayeux, the earl of Kent
  3. William FitzOsbern, the earl of Hereford
  4. Roger de Montgomery, the earl of Shrewsbury
  5. William de Warenne, the earl of Surrey
  6. Hugh d'Avranches, the earl of Chester
  7. Eustace II, the count of Boulogne
  8. Richard fitz Gilbert
  9. Geoffrey of Coutances
  10. Geoffrey de Mandeville

Feudalism[edit]

Main article: Feudalism in England

Anglo-Saxon land law recognised several types of land tenure. Bookland was property granted by charter to a person with outright ownership, while loanland was leased temporarily. For a benefice, the recipient (such as a parish priest) was granted the income from the property without having ownership. These forms of land tenure created weak bonds between lords and vassals that were constantly being dissolved and reformed.[24]

The Norman Conquest of 1066 introduced feudal land tenure that created stronger and multi-generational ties between lords and vassals. In feudalism, a lord granted the use of a fief to his vassal and the vassal's heirs in return for specified service (such as knight-service). The fief-holder was a tenant, not the owner of the fief. The fief-holder could not sell the land or give it away; however, he could sub-let land to his own tenants in return for their service in a process called subinfeudation.[25]

Feudalism became the basis of English land law. William the Conqueror (r. 1066–1087) claimed ownership of all land in England, so all landholders were directly or indirectly tenants of the Crown. He confiscated estates that had been fully owned by Anglo-Saxon lords and granted them to his Norman followers as fiefs. Likewise, church property had to be held in feudal tenure.[20] Vassals who held land directly from the king were called tenants-in-chief.[26] According to Domesday Book, there were 1,100 tenants-in-chief in 1086. Most of these were lesser tenants-in-chief with estates worth less than £30 a year. Around 170 greater tenants-in-chief possessed estates worth more than £30 a year.[27][23] The Conqueror kept 17 per cent of the land as his royal demesne (now the Crown Estate). The greater tenants-in-chief collectively held 50 per cent, while lesser tenants-in-chief and minor royal officials collectively held 8 per cent. The remaining 25 per cent belonged to the church.[23]

The fiefs of tenants-in-chief were called honours. These were not compact territorial units. The Conqueror purposely spread the manors of an honour over several shires to dilute its power. For example, the largest landholder after the king was his half-brother, Robert, count of Mortain. He held 793 manors spread out over twenty shires. The Honour of Peverel was spread over ten shires.[28] Except in northern England and the Welsh Marches, it was rare for the estates of any lordship to be contiguous.[29]

Ranks[edit]

Not in Article: 
"King's thegns occur in Domesday Book, but their holdings either seem to have disappeared or were held in return for ministerial services in the household or the forests, tenancies ultimately known as 'serjeanties'."[30]

In Normandy, some relatives of the Duke of Normandy were titled counts (Latin: comites), and his close followers were known as barons or sworn men (Latin: fideles). This Norman terminology was introduced into England after the Conquest.[31]

In England, the title of count became synonymous with the title of earl, the highest rank within the Anglo-Norman aristocracy.[32] Originally, earls were officials with power over counties. After Stephen's reign (1135–1154), the title became a mark of status, and the sheriff became the chief officer of a county.[11] It was the only hereditary title in England until 1337,[33] and there were never more than 25 extant earldoms at any one time between 1000 and 1300.[34]

Below earls were the king's barons (Latin: barones regis). This was not a hereditary title but rather a "social dignity" or status a person had by virtue of being one of the greater tenants-in-chief summoned to the king's court (Latin: curia regis). It corresponded to the king's thegn in the Anglo-Saxon hierarchy.[35][36] A baron's lands were referred to as a barony.[31] Earls and king's barons constituted the baronage.

Earls and barons granted land to under-tenants, who numbered 6,000 according to Domesday Book. The most important of these were honorial barons, who were of lesser status than king's barons (see for example Barony of Halton). They corresponded to the lesser thegn of Anglo-Saxon England. Honorial barons were given manors in return for service and had their own tenants. For this reason, they were intermediate or mesne lords.[37][38] Honorial barons could possess great wealth and power, with some eclipsing the lesser important king's barons.[39]

The lower ranks of the aristocracy included the landless younger sons of important families and wealthier knights (men who held substantial land by knight-service). Poorer knights with smaller estates were likely excluded from the aristocracy.[40] A knight's estate was called a knight's fee. It was large enough to support one knight in return for 40 days of military service a year.[41]

Use of the term "gentry" for lesser lords before the 13th century is controversial.[11]

Lifestyle[edit]

A noble's main residence was typically a stone castle, often built close to a favorite monastic house. Lesser aristocrats lived in the countryside and supervised the peasants.[42]

See also[edit]

Citations[edit]

  1. ^ Morris 2021, pp. 49–50.
  2. ^ Morris 2021, pp. 50–55.
  3. ^ a b Loyn 1955, p. 530.
  4. ^ Williams 2008, p. 5.
  5. ^ Jolliffe 1961, pp. 14–15 & 18–19.
  6. ^ Williams 2008, p. 2.
  7. ^ Williams 2008, pp. 1–2.
  8. ^ Williams 2008, pp. 3–4.
  9. ^ Huscroft 2016, p. 29.
  10. ^ Williams 2008, pp. 3 & 5.
  11. ^ a b c Green 2017, p. 103.
  12. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, p. 6.
  13. ^ a b Huscroft 2016, p. 28.
  14. ^ a b c Green 2017, p. 102.
  15. ^ Williams 2008, p. 3.
  16. ^ Carpenter 2003, p. 66 quoted in Huscroft 2016, p. 28.
  17. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, p. 4.
  18. ^ Green 2017, pp. 104–105.
  19. ^ Loyn 1984, p. 123.
  20. ^ a b Warren 1987, pp. 15 & 55.
  21. ^ Bartlett 2000, p. 13.
  22. ^ Green 1997, p. 40.
  23. ^ a b c Given-Wilson 1996, p. 8.
  24. ^ Warren 1987, p. 12.
  25. ^ Warren 1987, pp. 12–13.
  26. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, pp. 39–40.
  27. ^ Green 1997, pp. 16.
  28. ^ Warren 1987, p. 56.
  29. ^ Jolliffe 1961, p. 152.
  30. ^ Green 2017, p. 106.
  31. ^ a b Green 2017, p. 105.
  32. ^ Green 1997, p. 11.
  33. ^ Given-Wilson 1996, p. 29.
  34. ^ Crouch 1992, p. 44.
  35. ^ Green 1997, pp. 11–12.
  36. ^ Crouch 1992, pp. 106–109.
  37. ^ Green 1997, pp. 12 & 16.
  38. ^ Powell & Wallis 1968, p. 40.
  39. ^ Bartlett 2000, pp. 202–203.
  40. ^ Green 1997, p. 12.
  41. ^ Lyon 2016, p. 31.
  42. ^ Green 2017, p. 100.

References[edit]


Further reading[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ltwin/Draft_History_of_the_English_aristocracy&oldid=1224048114"