John of Gaunt’s Lancaster Affinity is the most widely signposted example of an affinity. He also created the “super-noble” in the form of his royal sons who he made dukes. Titled noblemen or important members of the gentry (we’ve moved away from barons) developed networks or affinities as a consequence of the greater freedoms that Edward III had been forced to grant them. This ultimately weakened the crown – again this is putting things at their most straight forward. Therefore he gave his nobility more concessions than earlier medieval monarchs had done. He did not require another Mortimer situation on his hands. Rather than being tied to the manor where they were born or having no choice in how much they were offered for their services, land owners now found that the people who worked their land were valuable commodities that had to be paid for.Įdward III needed the support of his nobility. Put very simply, the black death meant that there were insufficient villeins/serfs to work the land. Edward III had the twin problems of the black death and a weakened kingdom thanks to his mother and her lover deposing his father. This system was different from feudalism in that it was based on a contract that involved much more than land in exchange for service and loyalty. The knights might in their turn give land to freemen to hold in return for goods and service.Īll of the above would be served by peasants who might hold their land in return for labour and a percentage of their crops or by serfs who were tied to the land.Ĭlearly it was more complicated than this but this is the basic pyramid that we learn at school.įeudal pyramid showing numbers of people in the system and who gained what.īastard feudalism was not what a serf might describe the social structure as being (sorry – couldn’t resist.) Bastard feudalism developed during the fourteenth century and was at its most influential during the fifteenth century. Just as the baron expected protection so the baron’s tenant would expect the lord to protect him militarily and legally as the lord was himself protected by the king. These vassal of the king would sub-let land, manors and estates to their own adherents, the knightly class or less important barons, in return for loyalty, military service and goods. The lords or barons as medieval history tends to term them, who received land from the monarch often had more than they could manage themselves and in different parts of the country. One of the advantages for William was that he was able to call on a large army when he needed one but it was not a standing army which he would be required to pay for – it also ensured that he was able to reward is supporters. Sometimes a lord might pay for mercenaries to take his place rather than offering military service himself – this was called scutage. In return the monarch’s tenants, or vassals, promised obedience through an act of homage and payment in the form of military service and/or goods. There was a promise of military and legal protection along with the land. The monarch then distributed land or fiefs to his lords – the lands varied in size and location. William the Conqueror regarded the whole of conquered England as his along with the deer, the boar and the wolves who were owned by no one except God and since God had clearly given William England by right of Conquest then the large beasts which roamed the land must also be his…. Essentially the tenant-in-chief was the monarch. Feudalism was the method by which society was structured across the tenth to thirteenth centuries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |