Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Tompkins, M.L.

Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Legg inn av Tompkins, M.L. » 23 jan 2006 12:01:01

<<according to "Rich" who hasn't produced a single document confirming
that there has been a "knightly class" in England.>>


A google search against 'knightly class' produces the following:

An article by C Harper-Bill entitled 'The piety of the Anglo-Norman
knightly class' in Anglo-Norman Studies II: Proceedings of the Battle
Conference 1979 (Boydell Press, 1980),

An article by PR Coss entitled 'Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the crisis
of the knightly class in thirteenth century England' in Past and Present
68 (1975), pp 3-37 (it can be read at
http://past.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/1/3 - appended at the end
are a couple of short pedigrees, of d'Aubigny of Gt Wishford,
Willloughby of Kesteven and Nerbone of Stivichall, and a survey of the
manor of Stivichall in 1279),

An article entitled 'Was there a crisis of the knightly class in the
thirteenth century? The Oxfordshire evidence' in The English Historical
Review
377 (Oct 1980), pp 721-752 (it can be read at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri ... LXXVII/721),

A chapter entitled 'The fortunes of the knightly class in
thirteenth-century Warwickshire' in PR Coss's new book 'Lordship,
Knighthood and Locality
A Study in English Society, c. 1180-1280' (Past and Present
Publications, Cambridge University Press, 2003),

and many other references to the knightly class.

The following excerpt from Christine Carpenter's article may help:

'A note first on the definition of the 'knightly' or 'gentry' class.
Historians would probably agree, easily enough, on a description of an
active member: a lord of one or a few manors; frequently a knight,
although the number who assumed the honour was diminishing; a man busy
in local government as a coroner, forest official, sheriff or
under-sheriff. At any time in the thirteenth century there were men of
this kind throughout the counties of England. A large part of local
government depended on them.4 To define the class itself, however, is
more difficult. Contemporaries had no word for it. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries barons, knights, esquires and some laymen who held
no military rank were all considered 'noble' or 'gentle'.5 The class
cannot be confined to those who were technically knights - that is, had
been girded with the sword of knighthood - since this was a group of
rapidly diminishing size which lacked any real unity. Early in the
thirteenth century nearly all lords of manors (and some men of lesser
consequence) were knights. A hundred years later, to make a broad
generalization, the honour was becoming confined to those with two or
three manors and above. Aware of this difficulty Coss decides to focus
attention on 'all who' (presumably beneath the baronage) 'held by
military tenure and were manorial landlords'. One need not cavil at
this definition, although there are problems connected with it.6 The
knightly class thus defined covers a wide social and material spectrum.
It embraces a few lords at the top of the scale who enjoyed incomes of
baronial proportions. It also includes a group of lords who held single
manors which contained well under 300 acres of land.'


The main points to be derived from this are (i) while historians may
disagree on the exact definition of the knightly class (and Professor
Carpenter's article was a polemical contribution to an on-going debate),
they are in no doubt that one existed, (ii) it wasn't confined to just
those who were knights, but was the class from which knights came, and
(iii) its nature changed over time.

Matt Tompkins

PS there's an interesting review of Profesor Coss's recent book on the
Institute of Historical research website (at
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hicks.html), by Professor Hicks,
who doesn't entirely agree with his assessment of the evolution of the
12C knightly class into the 16C gentry.

Leo van de Pas

Re: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 jan 2006 14:08:02

Dear Matt,

Your kindness does not really help. It will only muddy the waters. I am
waiting for Richardson's response "thank you for your good post" and he will
think he is vindicated.

Knights were men chosen from all strata of society. There was not one
exclusive strata from which knights _only_ could come. Knights were sons of
kings as well as of much lower levels of society. Just because most may have
come from one level of society does not make it a "knightly class" .
Probably from the same classes came most of the priests and monks, we do not
call it a "priestly class" either.

Richardson put some restrictions on "his" knightly class which he cannot
provide proof for. According to him someone could only become a knight if he
had three to five manors to support him. This was, according to Richardson,
a requirement _before_ someone could become a knight. What if you own six or
seven manors? Are you overqualified and sorry no knighthood for you?

I maintain that people could be knighted and land/property given
_afterwards_ to make it possible for the person to function as a knight. Do
you really think on the battlefield they say, he deserves to be knighted,
now send someone home to check whether he has three to five manors? If the
ownership of three to five manors was a requirement, there has to be a paper
trail. "Hereby we acknowledge that so-and-so has three manors and can be
knighted", do you really think such papers exist? Or "xyz" lost one manor
and now only has two and therefor lost his knighthood?

To have a class in society you have to have men women and children. Do you
think women and children were knights? To belong to the "knightly class"?
Or today one son becomes a knight and they are the knightly class, and
tomorrow another becomes a priest and they are the priestly class?

Knights were men chosen from all levels of society. Richardson has given
what he thinks were the rules, he involves himself with primary documents,
surely he can find some to substantiate his point of view.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tompkins, M.L." <mllt1@leicester.ac.uk>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:59 PM
Subject: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)


according to "Rich" who hasn't produced a single document confirming
that there has been a "knightly class" in England.


A google search against 'knightly class' produces the following:

An article by C Harper-Bill entitled 'The piety of the Anglo-Norman
knightly class' in Anglo-Norman Studies II: Proceedings of the Battle
Conference 1979 (Boydell Press, 1980),

An article by PR Coss entitled 'Sir Geoffrey de Langley and the crisis
of the knightly class in thirteenth century England' in Past and Present
68 (1975), pp 3-37 (it can be read at
http://past.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/68/1/3 - appended at the end
are a couple of short pedigrees, of d'Aubigny of Gt Wishford,
Willloughby of Kesteven and Nerbone of Stivichall, and a survey of the
manor of Stivichall in 1279),

An article entitled 'Was there a crisis of the knightly class in the
thirteenth century? The Oxfordshire evidence' in The English Historical
Review
377 (Oct 1980), pp 721-752 (it can be read at
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/repri ... LXXVII/721),

A chapter entitled 'The fortunes of the knightly class in
thirteenth-century Warwickshire' in PR Coss's new book 'Lordship,
Knighthood and Locality
A Study in English Society, c. 1180-1280' (Past and Present
Publications, Cambridge University Press, 2003),

and many other references to the knightly class.

The following excerpt from Christine Carpenter's article may help:

'A note first on the definition of the 'knightly' or 'gentry' class.
Historians would probably agree, easily enough, on a description of an
active member: a lord of one or a few manors; frequently a knight,
although the number who assumed the honour was diminishing; a man busy
in local government as a coroner, forest official, sheriff or
under-sheriff. At any time in the thirteenth century there were men of
this kind throughout the counties of England. A large part of local
government depended on them.4 To define the class itself, however, is
more difficult. Contemporaries had no word for it. In the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries barons, knights, esquires and some laymen who held
no military rank were all considered 'noble' or 'gentle'.5 The class
cannot be confined to those who were technically knights - that is, had
been girded with the sword of knighthood - since this was a group of
rapidly diminishing size which lacked any real unity. Early in the
thirteenth century nearly all lords of manors (and some men of lesser
consequence) were knights. A hundred years later, to make a broad
generalization, the honour was becoming confined to those with two or
three manors and above. Aware of this difficulty Coss decides to focus
attention on 'all who' (presumably beneath the baronage) 'held by
military tenure and were manorial landlords'. One need not cavil at
this definition, although there are problems connected with it.6 The
knightly class thus defined covers a wide social and material spectrum.
It embraces a few lords at the top of the scale who enjoyed incomes of
baronial proportions. It also includes a group of lords who held single
manors which contained well under 300 acres of land.'


The main points to be derived from this are (i) while historians may
disagree on the exact definition of the knightly class (and Professor
Carpenter's article was a polemical contribution to an on-going debate),
they are in no doubt that one existed, (ii) it wasn't confined to just
those who were knights, but was the class from which knights came, and
(iii) its nature changed over time.

Matt Tompkins

PS there's an interesting review of Profesor Coss's recent book on the
Institute of Historical research website (at
http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/paper/hicks.html), by Professor Hicks,
who doesn't entirely agree with his assessment of the evolution of the
12C knightly class into the 16C gentry.


John Brandon

Re: Knightly class (was Henrietta Maria etc)

Legg inn av John Brandon » 23 jan 2006 15:55:39

More of Leo doing what he does best (being an irksome old fool) ...


"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
Dear Matt,

Your kindness does not really help. It will only muddy the waters. I am
waiting for Richardson's response "thank you for your good post" and he will
think he is vindicated.

Knights were men chosen from all strata of society. There was not one
exclusive strata from which knights _only_ could come. Knights were sons of
kings as well as of much lower levels of society. Just because most may have
come from one level of society does not make it a "knightly class" .
Probably from the same classes came most of the priests and monks, we do not
call it a "priestly class" either.

Richardson put some restrictions on "his" knightly class which he cannot
provide proof for. According to him someone could only become a knight if he
had three to five manors to support him. This was, according to Richardson,
a requirement _before_ someone could become a knight. What if you own six or
seven manors? Are you overqualified and sorry no knighthood for you?

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»