Question about a knight
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Richard Bradley
Question about a knight
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as to his group association and origins and reasons for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at records that this particular knight might have been referred to at various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as to his group association and origins and reasons for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at records that this particular knight might have been referred to at various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
-
Alex Maxwell Findlater
Re: Question about a knight
This is a small estate for a knight, but not unduly so. Half a fee
means that he would have to supply half a knight for the King's
service each year; was it for 40 days?
Even by this time it was often that the knight service was commuted
for a fine, called scutage (scutum = shield). That was just as well,
as the Judgement of Solomon would not be of much use to the King.
As to his provenance, virtually all landed men were at this period of
Norman descent and secondly the name Roger is a Romance name rather
than a Saxon, as indeed is Henry, the name of his father.
It seems likely that his father or grandfather might have been named
from the place-name Bradley (braid leigh or broad ley; I think that a
leeze was a meadow); it could not have been he himself, but that might
well be why he is sometimes called de Thongland as well. This is a
period when surnames were still developing, so it is not surprising
that his was not consistent.
means that he would have to supply half a knight for the King's
service each year; was it for 40 days?
Even by this time it was often that the knight service was commuted
for a fine, called scutage (scutum = shield). That was just as well,
as the Judgement of Solomon would not be of much use to the King.
As to his provenance, virtually all landed men were at this period of
Norman descent and secondly the name Roger is a Romance name rather
than a Saxon, as indeed is Henry, the name of his father.
It seems likely that his father or grandfather might have been named
from the place-name Bradley (braid leigh or broad ley; I think that a
leeze was a meadow); it could not have been he himself, but that might
well be why he is sometimes called de Thongland as well. This is a
period when surnames were still developing, so it is not surprising
that his was not consistent.
-
Graham Milne
Re: Question about a knight
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the feudal
sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held. Additionaly, if he
held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the feudal sense) of the realm.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up first
in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on which
he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were close to
an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social
status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his
location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as to
his group association and origins and reasons for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be because
his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does sound
Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have generally been
been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date may
have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at records that
this particular knight might have been referred to at various times as Roger
de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de Thongelonde (Thongelonde being
his lands).
=
sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held. Additionaly, if he
held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the feudal sense) of the realm.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up first
in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on which
he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were close to
an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social
status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his
location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as to
his group association and origins and reasons for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be because
his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does sound
Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have generally been
been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date may
have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at records that
this particular knight might have been referred to at various times as Roger
de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de Thongelonde (Thongelonde being
his lands).
=
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in the
House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to Parliament,
unless he was a collector of taxes.
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the
feudal sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held.
Additionaly, if he held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the
feudal sense) of the realm.
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in the
House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to Parliament,
unless he was a collector of taxes.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up
first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on
which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were
close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social
status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his
location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as
to his group association and origins and reasons for residing in
Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be
because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does
sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have
generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date
may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at
records that this particular knight might have been referred to at
various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de
Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
=
-
Graham Milne
Re: Question about a knight
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern) sense.
I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct) sense. Peer, in
the feudal sense, means someone equal in degree as a vassal of a given
superior. Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king were peers of
eachother, all the tenants in chief of a baron were peers of eachother; and
they were, respectively, peers of the kingdom and peers of the barony. So,
it is quite correct to refer to a kinght who was a tenant-in-chief of the
king as a peer of the kingdom (that is, a peer of the realm). And the
consent of ALL tenants in chief of the King was required for the grant of an
extraordinary aid, which basically meant any taxation, so if a knight was a
tenant in chief of the king he had a right to attend Parliament to give his
consent to extraordinary aids. Any by the way, your definition of the word
'peer' is wrong even in the modern sense; a person who has a right to a seat
in the House of Lords is called a Lord of Parliament, so Bishops are Lords
of Parliament but not peers.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f27pa9$rra$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct) sense. Peer, in
the feudal sense, means someone equal in degree as a vassal of a given
superior. Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king were peers of
eachother, all the tenants in chief of a baron were peers of eachother; and
they were, respectively, peers of the kingdom and peers of the barony. So,
it is quite correct to refer to a kinght who was a tenant-in-chief of the
king as a peer of the kingdom (that is, a peer of the realm). And the
consent of ALL tenants in chief of the King was required for the grant of an
extraordinary aid, which basically meant any taxation, so if a knight was a
tenant in chief of the king he had a right to attend Parliament to give his
consent to extraordinary aids. Any by the way, your definition of the word
'peer' is wrong even in the modern sense; a person who has a right to a seat
in the House of Lords is called a Lord of Parliament, so Bishops are Lords
of Parliament but not peers.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f27pa9$rra$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the
feudal sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held.
Additionaly, if he held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the feudal
sense) of the realm.
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in the
House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to Parliament,
unless he was a collector of taxes.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up
first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on
which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were
close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his social
status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based on his
location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any suggestions as
to his group association and origins and reasons for residing in
Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be because
his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does sound
Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have generally been
been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date
may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at records
that this particular knight might have been referred to at various times
as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de Thongelonde
(Thongelonde being his lands).
=
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
I am not muddled. There were no peers in the feudal sense.
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense.
I am not muddled. There were no peers in the feudal sense.
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
Peer, in any sense, means someone equal in status or with similar
interests. That meaning is not confined to knights and they were no more
peers (of the realm) than you or I are.
No, it was not.
No, it was not.
Rubbish. They are not called "Lords of Parliament". There are different
levels of peerage and there is a hierarchy among them. Some are Barons
and are referred to as "Lord", some are Earls and are referred to as
"Earl". They sit in the House of Lords, as do Bishops, who are not
called Lords of Parliament, either. They are Lords Spiritual or
Spiritual Peers and are referred to as "My Lord Bishop" or whatever.
There is debate as to whether they are, technically, peers. The name
"Lords of Parliament" is not in general usage except in Wikipedia.
so Bishops are Lords of Parliament
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense. Peer, in the feudal sense, means someone equal in degree as a
vassal of a given superior.
Peer, in any sense, means someone equal in status or with similar
interests. That meaning is not confined to knights and they were no more
peers (of the realm) than you or I are.
Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king
were peers of eachother, all the tenants in chief of a baron were peers
of eachother; and they were, respectively, peers of the kingdom and
peers of the barony. So, it is quite correct to refer to a kinght who
was a tenant-in-chief of the king as a peer of the kingdom (that is, a
peer of the realm).
No, it was not.
And the consent of ALL tenants in chief of the King
was required for the grant of an extraordinary aid, which basically
meant any taxation,
No, it was not.
so if a knight was a tenant in chief of the king he
had a right to attend Parliament to give his consent to extraordinary
aids. Any by the way, your definition of the word 'peer' is wrong even
in the modern sense; a person who has a right to a seat in the House of
Lords is called a Lord of Parliament,
Rubbish. They are not called "Lords of Parliament". There are different
levels of peerage and there is a hierarchy among them. Some are Barons
and are referred to as "Lord", some are Earls and are referred to as
"Earl". They sit in the House of Lords, as do Bishops, who are not
called Lords of Parliament, either. They are Lords Spiritual or
Spiritual Peers and are referred to as "My Lord Bishop" or whatever.
There is debate as to whether they are, technically, peers. The name
"Lords of Parliament" is not in general usage except in Wikipedia.
so Bishops are Lords of Parliament
but not peers.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f27pa9$rra$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the
feudal sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held.
Additionaly, if he held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the
feudal sense) of the realm.
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in
the House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to
Parliament, unless he was a collector of taxes.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up
first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on
which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings
were close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his
social status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings.
Based on his location and his date of appearance, does anyone have
any suggestions as to his group association and origins and reasons
for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be
because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version,
does sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have
generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that
date may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking
at records that this particular knight might have been referred to at
various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de
Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
=
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
A tenant-in-chief was a tenant who held land directly of the king.
Tenants-in-chief did not have their own tenants-in-chief because that
honour was held for those who held land directly of the king.
Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king
were peers of eachother, all the tenants in chief of a baron were peers
of eachother;
A tenant-in-chief was a tenant who held land directly of the king.
Tenants-in-chief did not have their own tenants-in-chief because that
honour was held for those who held land directly of the king.
-
Graham Milne
Re: Question about a knight
Try reading Magna Carta.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a90c$qn1$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a90c$qn1$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense.
I am not muddled. There were no peers in the feudal sense.
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
Yes, but what about before then?
Try reading Magna Carta.
Yes, but what about before then?
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a90c$qn1$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense.
I am not muddled. There were no peers in the feudal sense.
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
See my other post. There were no peers "in the feudal sense".
Try reading Magna Carta.
See my other post. There were no peers "in the feudal sense".
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a90c$qn1$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense.
I am not muddled. There were no peers in the feudal sense.
-
Graham Milne
Re: Question about a knight
Wrong! If you are not aware of the fact that most earls are called 'Lord x'
(as in, say, 'Lord Leicester' for the Earl of Leicester) then you merely
reveal the depth of your ignorance. Only a few earls are called 'Earl x' (as
in, say, Earl Spencer'). Can I suggest you read Gadd's 'Peerage Law'? You
will find that a person who has a right to a seat in the House of Lords is
called a Lord of Parliament. Bishops are nor peers (though they were, in the
feudal sense, when they held their lands per baroniam), they are Lords of
Parliament. If you insist I will find a suitably impressive quote.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a9g8$r00$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
(as in, say, 'Lord Leicester' for the Earl of Leicester) then you merely
reveal the depth of your ignorance. Only a few earls are called 'Earl x' (as
in, say, Earl Spencer'). Can I suggest you read Gadd's 'Peerage Law'? You
will find that a person who has a right to a seat in the House of Lords is
called a Lord of Parliament. Bishops are nor peers (though they were, in the
feudal sense, when they held their lands per baroniam), they are Lords of
Parliament. If you insist I will find a suitably impressive quote.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a9g8$r00$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense. Peer, in the feudal sense, means someone equal in degree as a
vassal of a given superior.
Peer, in any sense, means someone equal in status or with similar
interests. That meaning is not confined to knights and they were no more
peers (of the realm) than you or I are.
Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king were peers of eachother, all
the tenants in chief of a baron were peers of eachother; and they were,
respectively, peers of the kingdom and peers of the barony. So, it is
quite correct to refer to a kinght who was a tenant-in-chief of the king
as a peer of the kingdom (that is, a peer of the realm).
No, it was not.
And the consent of ALL tenants in chief of the King was required for the
grant of an extraordinary aid, which basically meant any taxation,
No, it was not.
so if a knight was a tenant in chief of the king he had a right to attend
Parliament to give his consent to extraordinary aids. Any by the way,
your definition of the word 'peer' is wrong even in the modern sense; a
person who has a right to a seat in the House of Lords is called a Lord
of Parliament,
Rubbish. They are not called "Lords of Parliament". There are different
levels of peerage and there is a hierarchy among them. Some are Barons and
are referred to as "Lord", some are Earls and are referred to as "Earl".
They sit in the House of Lords, as do Bishops, who are not called Lords of
Parliament, either. They are Lords Spiritual or Spiritual Peers and are
referred to as "My Lord Bishop" or whatever. There is debate as to whether
they are, technically, peers. The name "Lords of Parliament" is not in
general usage except in Wikipedia.
so Bishops are Lords of Parliament
but not peers.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f27pa9$rra$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the
feudal sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held.
Additionaly, if he held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the
feudal sense) of the realm.
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in the
House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to Parliament,
unless he was a collector of taxes.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows up
first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres) on
which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The holdings were
close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his
social status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings. Based
on his location and his date of appearance, does anyone have any
suggestions as to his group association and origins and reasons for
residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be
because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version, does
sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations have
generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that date
may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking at
records that this particular knight might have been referred to at
various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger de
Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
=
-
Renia
Re: Question about a knight
Graham Milne wrote:
There is such a phrase as Lord of Parliament but it is not in general
usage. I did not say Bishops were peers of the realm, I said there was
debate about it. All Earls are Lords but not all Earls are styled "Lord
Such", was all I was saying.
Wrong! If you are not aware of the fact that most earls are called 'Lord
x' (as in, say, 'Lord Leicester' for the Earl of Leicester) then you
merely reveal the depth of your ignorance. Only a few earls are called
'Earl x' (as in, say, Earl Spencer'). Can I suggest you read Gadd's
'Peerage Law'? You will find that a person who has a right to a seat in
the House of Lords is called a Lord of Parliament. Bishops are nor peers
(though they were, in the feudal sense, when they held their lands per
baroniam), they are Lords of Parliament. If you insist I will find a
suitably impressive quote.
There is such a phrase as Lord of Parliament but it is not in general
usage. I did not say Bishops were peers of the realm, I said there was
debate about it. All Earls are Lords but not all Earls are styled "Lord
Such", was all I was saying.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f2a9g8$r00$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
You are getting muddled. You refer to a peer in the current (modern)
sense. I am referring (as I said) to a peer in the feudal (correct)
sense. Peer, in the feudal sense, means someone equal in degree as a
vassal of a given superior.
Peer, in any sense, means someone equal in status or with similar
interests. That meaning is not confined to knights and they were no
more peers (of the realm) than you or I are.
Thus, all the tenants in chief of the king were peers of eachother,
all the tenants in chief of a baron were peers of eachother; and they
were, respectively, peers of the kingdom and peers of the barony. So,
it is quite correct to refer to a kinght who was a tenant-in-chief of
the king as a peer of the kingdom (that is, a peer of the realm).
No, it was not.
And the consent of ALL tenants in chief of the King was required for
the grant of an extraordinary aid, which basically meant any taxation,
No, it was not.
so if a knight was a tenant in chief of the king he had a right to
attend Parliament to give his consent to extraordinary aids. Any by
the way, your definition of the word 'peer' is wrong even in the
modern sense; a person who has a right to a seat in the House of
Lords is called a Lord of Parliament,
Rubbish. They are not called "Lords of Parliament". There are
different levels of peerage and there is a hierarchy among them. Some
are Barons and are referred to as "Lord", some are Earls and are
referred to as "Earl". They sit in the House of Lords, as do Bishops,
who are not called Lords of Parliament, either. They are Lords
Spiritual or Spiritual Peers and are referred to as "My Lord Bishop"
or whatever. There is debate as to whether they are, technically,
peers. The name "Lords of Parliament" is not in general usage except
in Wikipedia.
so Bishops are Lords of Parliament
but not peers.
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:f27pa9$rra$5@mouse.otenet.gr...
Graham Milne wrote:
If a man held land by knight's service then he was a knight (in the
feudal sense); it didn't matter how many knight's fees he held.
Additionaly, if he held in chief on the king he was a peer (in the
feudal sense) of the realm.
No, he wasn't. A peer of the realm is was someone entitled to sit in
the House of Lords. A medieval knight was never able to go to
Parliament, unless he was a collector of taxes.
"Richard Bradley" <rbrabazon@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.2146.1179055958.5576.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com...
This is a general question about the status of a knight that shows
up first in central Shropshire in 1280.
He held at 1/2 knight's fee 7.5 virgates of land (about 245 acres)
on which he lived in a moated home and he had a chapel. The
holdings were close to an old Roman road that led to Wales.
Based on the above, what did 1/2 knight's fee mean? What was his
social status on the sliding knight scale based on his holdings.
Based on his location and his date of appearance, does anyone have
any suggestions as to his group association and origins and reasons
for residing in Shropshire.
At least one researcher has said he was Norman, but this might be
because his name Roger de Bradelei, given thus in a Latin version,
does sound Norman. However the name Bradley and its variations
have generally been been said to have been Saxon.
And speaking of name origins, it has struck me that names at that
date may have been somewhat fluid I have the impression in looking
at records that this particular knight might have been referred to
at various times as Roger de Bradelei, Roger de la Mare, and Roger
de Thongelonde (Thongelonde being his lands).
=