One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 17 jan 2006 07:27:02

According to Richardson you have had to have at least three to five manors,
to be a knight.
No other requirements? Three different relatives leave me their manor
and that makes me a knight?

This is a description I found:
KNIGHT
Term used from the 9th century to describe a military tenant of land under
a
nobleman. Originally, a knight was little more than a retainer but by 1000
his lowly status had begun to improve, as the Church glorified the
institution of Christian knighthood in an attempt to curb endemic anarchy
in
society.

A man-at-arms was created a knight by being dubbed (struck on both
shoulders
with a sword), which could be done in haste on the battlefield or with
great
ceremony in church. In return for a grant of land or money, the knight did
military service for his lord on a set number of days.

By 1100 the chivalrous code of conduct governing a knight's behaviour had
developed and it was refined over the centuries. But there was always a gap
between ideal and reality, for example, Edward III of England was renowned
throughout Europe for his chivalrous interests yet nevertheless committed
acts of great brutality on the battlefield.

By the look of this land _may_ be given afterwards, but seems not have been
a requirement to become a knight. Also there doesn't seem to be a
"knightly"
class to have existed...........

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 6:51 AM
Subject: Re: Hubert de Burgh's elder brother


My impression is the ranks of lay medieval society were:

villeins (or serfs), tradesmen, merchants, gentlemen, esquires,
knights, barons, earls, and king, in that order.

An esquire was someone who held a manor, or part of a manor.

A knight held at least three to five manors.

A baron (someone summoned to Parliament) held at least 50 manors, give
or take.

An earl held at least 100 manors, give or take.

A king possessed a crown and a throne.

As I stated, I believe Earl Hubert de Burgh's family was of knightly
rank.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net


Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:
In message of 12 Jan, "CED" <leesmyth@cox.net> wrote:


Douglas Richardson wrote:
I think Mr. Tyerman's statement that Hubert de Burgh belonged to a
"Norfolk gentry family" is somewhat in error. Earl Hubert and his
brother, Thomas de Burgh, were certainly both knights. Their other
brother, Geoffrey, was a Bishop, as was their kinsman, Thomas de
Blundeville.
To the Newsgroup:

If having a knight in the family made the family something other than
gentry, what other word would be used to describe that family's
status.

I think you'll find that gentry is a rather late term and not in use in
early middle ages.

That said the division of the known universe was in more recent
centuries, into nobility and gentry and then everyone else. The
nobility were, of course, the peers who were summoned to parliament and
the gentry who were the rest of the country (not city) land-owners.

Being a knight did not alter a person's land tenure so it really did
not put him in a different classification. The main distinction was
probably that, like the soldiers on the Somme in WW1, they became, so
to speak, cannon fodder and died.

When did knights start? 1150 is about the earliest (Roger de Mowbray) I
can find.

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org




Douglas Richardson

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 08:02:43

My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
< According to Richardson you have had to have at least three to five
manors,
< to be a knight.
< No other requirements? Three different relatives leave me their
manor
< and that makes me a knight?

This is apparently Leo's attempt to be funny. This is not what I said,
however.

< This is a description I found:

I wonder if Leo is quoting from wikipedia, the online fountain of all
knowledge and inexactitude?

< KNIGHT
< Term used from the 9th century to describe a military tenant of land
under
< a
< nobleman. Originally, a knight was little more than a retainer but
by 1000
< his lowly status had begun to improve, as the Church glorified the
< institution of Christian knighthood in an attempt to curb endemic
anarchy
< in society.

Just as is stated above, knights were military tenants. Three to five
manors was the normal requirement to hold knighthood.

< A man-at-arms was created a knight by being dubbed (struck on both
< shoulders with a sword), which could be done in haste on the
battlefield or with
< great ceremony in church. In return for a grant of land or money, the
knight did
< military service for his lord on a set number of days.

The knight had to have sufficient income to support his military
service to his lord. That is why he had to own at least three to five
manors. Knights were sometimes gone for months and years at a time,
not just days. If captured in battle, they had to mortgage their
estates to pay their ransom. This all took money and income.

< By 1100 the chivalrous code of conduct governing a knight's
behaviour had
< developed and it was refined over the centuries. But there was
always a gap
< between ideal and reality, for example, Edward III of England was
renowned
< throughout Europe for his chivalrous interests yet nevertheless
committed
< acts of great brutality on the battlefield.
<
< By the look of this land _may_ be given afterwards, but seems not
have been
< a requirement to become a knight. Also there doesn't seem to be a
< "knightly"
< class to have existed...........

Leo should "look at the land" again. He has derived a conclusion not
stated in his source. Why is that?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Leo

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Leo » 17 jan 2006 09:15:01

Wikipedia is not my territory.

I quoted from a book which has been dealt with on gen-med before. A book
published by a serious publisher, I didn't think I needed to spell out the
name, I presumed Richardson would have recognised it. It does have his
favourite word in the title. By Richardson's sneer he indicates he doesn't
agree what has been recorded in a pretty solid book, but then, as it
differs from Richardson's opinion, what can you expect?

Richardson seems to maintain that a person had to have three to five manors
_before_ becoming a knight, whereas I understand, from what I quoted, land
was bestowed afterwards.

I would like to see Richardson supply a record where a person, after proving
he had three to five manors, was made a Knight. What did they do on the
battlefield? Did they rush home to check the number of manors owned by a
candidate for knighthood? Or, as another person who did not have three
manors was denied knighthood.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?


My comments are interspersed below. DR

"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
According to Richardson you have had to have at least three to five
manors,
to be a knight.
No other requirements? Three different relatives leave me their
manor
and that makes me a knight?

This is apparently Leo's attempt to be funny. This is not what I said,
however.

This is a description I found:

I wonder if Leo is quoting from wikipedia, the online fountain of all
knowledge and inexactitude?

KNIGHT
Term used from the 9th century to describe a military tenant of land
under
a
nobleman. Originally, a knight was little more than a retainer but
by 1000
his lowly status had begun to improve, as the Church glorified the
institution of Christian knighthood in an attempt to curb endemic
anarchy
in society.

Just as is stated above, knights were military tenants. Three to five
manors was the normal requirement to hold knighthood.

A man-at-arms was created a knight by being dubbed (struck on both
shoulders with a sword), which could be done in haste on the
battlefield or with
great ceremony in church. In return for a grant of land or money, the
knight did
military service for his lord on a set number of days.

The knight had to have sufficient income to support his military
service to his lord. That is why he had to own at least three to five
manors. Knights were sometimes gone for months and years at a time,
not just days. If captured in battle, they had to mortgage their
estates to pay their ransom. This all took money and income.

By 1100 the chivalrous code of conduct governing a knight's
behaviour had
developed and it was refined over the centuries. But there was
always a gap
between ideal and reality, for example, Edward III of England was
renowned
throughout Europe for his chivalrous interests yet nevertheless
committed
acts of great brutality on the battlefield.

By the look of this land _may_ be given afterwards, but seems not
have been
a requirement to become a knight. Also there doesn't seem to be a
"knightly"
class to have existed...........

Leo should "look at the land" again. He has derived a conclusion not
stated in his source. Why is that?

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Douglas Richardson

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 09:31:06

"Leo" wrote:

< Wikipedia is not my territory.

Ouch! I guess this hit Pas where it hurts.

< I quoted from a book which has been dealt with on gen-med before. A
book
< published by a serious publisher, I didn't think I needed to spell
out the
< name, I presumed Richardson would have recognised it. It does have
his
< favourite word in the title. By Richardson's sneer he indicates he
doesn't
< agree what has been recorded in a pretty solid book, but then, as it

< differs from Richardson's opinion, what can you expect?

When you're ready to reveal the name of the book, we'd all like to know
the title. Until then, please spare us the mini-drama, Pas. I don't
think the book differed from my statement. That was your perception.


Richardson seems to maintain that a person had to have three to five manors
_before_ becoming a knight, whereas I understand, from what I quoted, land
was bestowed afterwards.

This is a general statement. There are exceptions. Usually
hereditary land tenure preceded knighthood, except at the time of the
Conquest.

I would like to see Richardson supply a record where a person, after proving
he had three to five manors, was made a Knight. What did they do on the
battlefield? Did they rush home to check the number of manors owned by a
candidate for knighthood? Or, as another person who did not have three
manors was denied knighthood.

Three to five manors was the general minimum. They often held more
manors than that.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Ginny Wagner

knights and nobles

Legg inn av Ginny Wagner » 17 jan 2006 10:26:01

From THE HISTORY OF EDUCATION
By Ellwood P. Cuberley

3. Training of the nobility

TENTH-CENTURY CONDITIONS. Following the death of Charlemagne
and the break-up of the empire held together by him, a
period of organized anarchy followed in western Europe.
Authority broke down more completely than before, and
Europe, for protection, was forced to organize itself into a
great number of small defensive groups. Serfs, [15] freemen
lacking land, and small landowners alike came to depend on
some nobleman for protection, and this nobleman in turn upon
some lord or overlord. For this protection military service
was rendered in return. The lord lived in his castle, and
the peasantry worked his land and supported him, fighting
his battles if the need arose. This condition of society was
known as feudalism, and the feudal relations of lord and
vassal came to be the prevailing governmental organization
of the period. Feudalism was at best an organized anarchy,
suited to rude and barbarous times, but so well was it
adapted to existing conditions that it became the prevailing
form of government, and continued as such until a better
order of society could be evolved. With the invention of
gunpowder, the rise of cities and industries, the evolution
of modern States by the consolidation of numbers of these
feudal governments, and the establishment of order and
civilization, feudalism passed out with the passing of the
conditions which gave rise to it. From the end of the ninth
to the middle of the thirteenth centuries it was the
dominant form of government.

The life of the nobility under the feudal régime gave a
certain picturesqueness to what was otherwise an age of
lawlessness and disorder. The chief occupation of a noble
was fighting, either in his own quarrel or that of his
overlord. It is hard for us to-day to realize how much
fighting went on then. Much was said about "honor," but
quarrels were easily started, and oaths were poorly kept. It
was a day of personal feuds and private warfare, and every
noble thought it his right to wage war on his neighbor at
any time, without asking the consent of any one. [16] As a
preparation for actual warfare a series of mimic encounters,
known as tournaments, were held, in which it often happened
that knights were killed. In these encounters mounted
knights charged one another with spear and lance, performing
feats similar to those of actual warfare. This was the great
amusement of the period, compared with which the German
duel, the Mexican bullfight, or the American game of
football are mild sports. The other diversions of the
knights and nobles were hunting, hawking, feasting,
drinking, making love, minstrelsy, and chess. Intellectual
ability formed no part of their accomplishments, and a
knowledge of reading and writing was commonly regarded as
effeminate.

To take this carousing, fighting, pillaging, ravaging,
destructive, and murderous instinct, so strong by nature
among the Germanic tribes, and refine it and in time use it
to some better purpose, and in so doing to increasingly
civilize these Germanic lords and overlords, was the problem
which faced the Church and all interested in establishing an
orderly society in Europe. As a means of checking this
outlawry the Church established and tried to enforce the
"Truce of God" (R. 79), and as a partial means of educating
the nobility to some better conception of a purpose in life
the Church aided in the development of the education of
chivalry, the first secular form of education in western
Europe since the days of Rome, and added its sanction to it
after it arose.

THE EDUCATION OF CHIVALRY. This form of education was an
evolution. It began during the latter part of the ninth
century and the early part of the tenth, reached its maximum
greatness during the period of the Crusades (twelfth
century), and passed out of existence by the sixteenth. The
period of the Crusades was the heroic age of chivalry. The
system of education which gradually developed for the
children of the nobility may be briefly described as
follows:

1. Page. Up to the age of seven or eight the youth was
trained at home, by his mother. He played to develop
strength, was taught the meaning of obedience, trained in
politeness and courtesy, and his religious education was
begun. After this, usually at seven, he was sent to the
court of some other noble, usually his father's superior in
the feudal scale, though in case of kings and feudal lords
of large importance the children remained at home and were
trained in the palace school. From seven to fourteen the boy
was known as a page. He was in particular attached to some
lady, who supervised his education in religion, music,
courtesy, gallantry, the etiquette of love and honor, and
taught him to play chess and other games. He was usually
taught to read and write the vernacular language, and was
sometimes given a little instruction in reading Latin. [17]
To the lord he rendered much personal service such as
messenger, servant at meals, and attention to guests. By the
men he was trained in running, boxing, wrestling, riding,
swimming, and the use of light weapons.

2. Squire. At fourteen or fifteen he became a squire. While
continuing to serve his lady, with whom he was still in
company, and continuing to render personal service in the
castle, the squire became in particular the personal servant
and bodyguard of the lord or knight. He was in a sense a
valet for him, making his bed, caring for his clothes,
helping him to dress, and looking after him at night and
when sick. He also groomed his horse, looked after his
weapons, and attended and protected him on the field of
combat or in battle. He himself learned to hunt, to handle
shield and spear, to ride in armor, to meet his opponent,
and to fight with sword and battle-axe. As he approached the
age of twenty-one, he chose his lady- love, who was older
than he and who might be married, to whom he swore ever to
be devoted, even though he married some one else. He also
learned to rhyme, [18] to make songs, sing, dance, play the
harp, and observe the ceremonials of the Church. Girls were
given this instruction along with the boys, but naturally
their training placed its emphasis upon household duties,
service, good manners, conversational ability, music, and
religion.

3. Knight. At twenty-one the boy was knighted, and of this
the Church made an impressive ceremonial. After fasting,
confession, a night of vigil in armor spent at the altar in
holy meditation, and communion in the morning, the ceremony
of dubbing the squire a knight took place in the presence of
the court. He gave his sword to the priest, who blest it
upon the altar. He then took the oath "to defend the Church,
to attack the wicked, to respect the priesthood, to protect
women and the poor, to preserve the country in tranquillity,
and to shed his blood, even to its last drop, in behalf of
his brethren." The priest then returned him the sword which
he had blessed, charging him "to protect the widows and
orphans, to restore and preserve the desolate, to revenge
the wronged, and to confirm the virtuous." He then knelt
before his lord, who, drawing his own sword and holding it
over him, said: "In the name of God, of our Lady, of thy
patron Saint, and of Saint Michael and Saint George, I dub
thee knight; be brave (touching him with the sword on one
shoulder), be bold (on the other shoulder), be loyal (on the
head)."

THE CHIVALRIC IDEALS. Such, briefly stated, was the
education of chivalry. The cathedral and monastery schools
not meeting the needs of the nobility, the castle school was
evolved. There was little that was intellectual about the
training given--few books, and no training in Latin.
Instead, the native language was emphasized, and squires in
England frequently learned to speak French. It was
essentially an education for secular ends, and prepared not
only for active participation in the feuds and warfare of
the time, but also for the Seven Perfections of the Middle
Ages: (1) Riding, (2) Swimming, (3) Archery, (4) Fencing,
(5) Hunting, (6) Whist or Chess, and (7) Rhyming. It also
represents the first type of schooling in the Middle Ages
designed to prepare for life here, rather than hereafter.
For the nobility it was a discipline, just as the Seven
Liberal Arts was a discipline for the monks and clergy. Out
of it later on was evolved the education of a gentleman as
distinct from that of a scholar.

That such training had a civilizing effect on the nobility
of the time cannot be doubted. Through it the Church
exercised a restraining and civilizing influence on a rude,
quarrelsome, and impetuous people, who resented restraints
and who had no use for intellectual discipline. It developed
the ability to work together for common ends, personal
loyalty, and a sense of honor in an age when these were
much-needed traits, and the ideal of a life of regulated
service in place of one of lawless gratification was set up.
What monasticism had done for the religious life in
dignifying labor and service, chivalry did for secular life.
The Ten Commandments of chivalry, (1) to pray, (2) to avoid
sin, (3) to defend the Church, (4) to protect widows and
orphans, (5) to travel, (6) to wage loyal war, (7) to fight
for his Lady, (8) to defend the right, (9) to love his God,
and (10) to listen to good and true men, while not often
followed, were valuable precepts to uphold in that age and
time. In the great Crusades movement of the twelfth century
the Church consecrated the military prowess and restless
energy of the nobility to her service, but after this wave
had passed chivalry became formal and stilted and rapidly
declined in importance (R. 80).

Ginny
ginnywagner@austin.rr.com

Leo

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Leo » 17 jan 2006 10:50:02

Richardson is again in a tantrum. Richardson, as far as I know has only a
few favourite words, words that make money for him, surely he can guess
which one. Lets make it easier for him it is either Royalty or Plantagenet.

His statement has been that a person has to have three to five manors
_before_ any consideration for knighthood was considered----he has repeated
this several times so he must have proof.

He maintains there was a specific _knightly_ class from which new knights
emerged, I still seem to understand that knighthood was bestowed upon an
individual, not his brothers or sisters, but then I could be wrong,
apparently our trained historian and genealogist knows better.

Anyway good to see he has toned down his sneering approach towards that
description, perhaps he realises it may have come from _qualified_ people.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?


"Leo" wrote:

Wikipedia is not my territory.

Ouch! I guess this hit Pas where it hurts.

I quoted from a book which has been dealt with on gen-med before. A
book
published by a serious publisher, I didn't think I needed to spell
out the
name, I presumed Richardson would have recognised it. It does have
his
favourite word in the title. By Richardson's sneer he indicates he
doesn't
agree what has been recorded in a pretty solid book, but then, as it

differs from Richardson's opinion, what can you expect?

When you're ready to reveal the name of the book, we'd all like to know
the title. Until then, please spare us the mini-drama, Pas. I don't
think the book differed from my statement. That was your perception.


Richardson seems to maintain that a person had to have three to five
manors
_before_ becoming a knight, whereas I understand, from what I quoted,
land
was bestowed afterwards.

This is a general statement. There are exceptions. Usually
hereditary land tenure preceded knighthood, except at the time of the
Conquest.

I would like to see Richardson supply a record where a person, after
proving
he had three to five manors, was made a Knight. What did they do on the
battlefield? Did they rush home to check the number of manors owned by a
candidate for knighthood? Or, as another person who did not have three
manors was denied knighthood.

Three to five manors was the general minimum. They often held more
manors than that.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas



Douglas Richardson

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 11:00:20

"Leo" wrote:
Richardson is again in a tantrum. Richardson, as far as I know has only a
few favourite words, words that make money for him, surely he can guess
which one. Lets make it easier for him it is either Royalty or Plantagenet.

Pas can't remember the name of the book he just quoted. Hummm .....

DR

Chris Phillips

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 17 jan 2006 11:12:00

Douglas Richardson wrote:
Just as is stated above, knights were military tenants. Three to five
manors was the normal requirement to hold knighthood.

The funny thing is that this is one case in which it's not necessary to
invent such inaccurate rules of thumb.

Under Henry III precise legal criteria were introduced to define those
eligible for knighthood, and men who failed to take it up were liable to be
fined. Initially this applied to tenants in chief who held a knight's fee
(typically _one_ manor, of course). Later, the measures were extended to
take in all those who held land worth £20 a year, whether tenants in chief
or not.

Chris Phillips

Leo

Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?

Legg inn av Leo » 17 jan 2006 11:34:02

The deduction by "Rich" just shows his mental frame of mind.

Our trained historian and genealogist doesn't seem to recognise a
non-Anglo-Saxon surname, or does he think it is displaying his sense of
humour? The same with his dig at my remark about Wikipedia, I have not
searched that site as I have very little time to play around on the
internet, I have no opinion about wikipedia.

Now others have expressed that Richardson is wrong in his rigid "rule of
thumb" (how many has he?) that only a person has to have three and five
manors _before_ they can become a knight.

After his sneers about my quote, when it appears it came from a reliable
source, he is backtracking, and changing the subject----how Richardsonian,
we have seen this too many times in the past.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royalancestry@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: One is not enough for a knight? Or is it too much?


"Leo" wrote:
Richardson is again in a tantrum. Richardson, as far as I know has only a
few favourite words, words that make money for him, surely he can guess
which one. Lets make it easier for him it is either Royalty or
Plantagenet.

Pas can't remember the name of the book he just quoted. Hummm .....

DR


Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»