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

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Alan Brooks

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

Legg inn av Alan Brooks » 17 jan 2006 08:41:38

Forgive my intrusion into this discussion but I think we are mixing up
apples and pears here.

I don't have the relevant authorities to hand but I believe being a
knight was something a man (I don't think a woman could become a knight)
did and it developed in post Carolingian Europe but probably had its
origins the Roman and Byzantine world. Essentially it involved the
hierarchal development of military types - from warrior monks to
warlords and brigands.

Add the glosses of the troubadors, courtly love and the crusades and the
whole takes on the pariphanalia of chivalry. I am thinking of Geoffrey
of Monmouth and the Arthurian legends but the literature is full of this
stuff. In the courts of Edward III's court or the later medieaval Dukes
of Burgundy we see the giddy heights of these ideas and processes.
Becoming and being a knight was also something of a right of passage for
the young gentry and nobles, but the processes allowed people of little
substance to be recognised and rewarded for deeds of valour on the
battlefield. (I think the ?British army still has something of this
process in field commissions in time of battle.)These processes gave
rise to the orders of knighthood - but over many years.

Land tenure through knight service on the other hand was was something
altogether different and was part of the feudal system by which a tenant
held land by knight service which essentially required him to pay rent
by appearing in person or through substitutes to meet the king's (feudal
lord's) military requirements. This could involve paying the cost of
horses, men, food and rations, etc. A woman could hold land through
knight service but would meet her obligations through paying for the
substitutes to appear.Given the way these things developed the stsyem
didn't remain true so a noble could acquire land from another which
would require some form of knight service to someone his social
subordinate. Elaborate rules were developed to prevent this becomeing
too silly.
I doubt if knights in medieaval times were seen as part of the social
hierarchal order (serf/peasant to king). They aren't today either. The
British Parliament comprised Sovereign, lords (that is Dukes,
marquesses, Ears, Viscounts and Barons) and commons (thatb is knights
from the counties and burghers from the towns). Knights were not nobles
although nobles could be knights. The nearest relevant comparison I can
make (then and now)is holding a university degree.

I am not sure if this helps.

Alan Brooks


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Douglas Richardson

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

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 17 jan 2006 09:17:18

Alan Brooks wrote:
The nearest relevant comparison I can
make (then and now)is holding a university degree.

I am not sure if this helps.

Alan Brooks

Dear Alan ~

Thank you for your good post.

Just like holding a college degree, a knight had to meet certain
requirements. One was holding a minimum of three to five manors
(general statement). Without sufficient income, a knight would have
been unable to discharge the duties expected of him. A knight did more
than go to war.

Having said that, I've seen men who were knights who appear to have had
only one manor, but appearances can be deceiving. Lands were often
held by trustees. Lands were sometimes held for life. Lands could
sometimes be leasehold interests. Men often held lands in right of
their wife's dower.

One notable exception property wise is Ralph de Monthermer, the husband
of Princess Joan of Acre. He was allegedly an esquire during the reign
of King Edward I, which presumably meant he held a manor or part of a
manor. Joan convinced her father into knighting him. She subsequently
ran off with Ralph. So far, I've been unable to find the property
Ralph de Monthermer held before his marriage to Princess Joan.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry.net

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»