News0 min ago
Domesday Book and the feudal system of post-Norman England
I am doing research on the history of a small town in Essex called Leigh-on-sea; at the time of the Norman invasion it was called "Legra".
I have read the Domesday book entry for it, but I am finding some of the terms confusing. And some sources which interpret the domesday book contradict my understanding. Is there anyone who has a decent knowledge of the feudal system in 11th century England? Or someone who is very familiar with the Domesday Book, who can clarify some things I'm having trouble with?
The translated entry for Leigh-on-sea/Legra is:
Legra was once held by one free man as a manor and as a one hide, is held by R in demesne. Then as now (Semper) two villeins, and two bordars, and one plough on the demesne, and half a plough belonging to the men, and five bordars by the water (super aquam), who hold no land. There is pasture for one hundred sheep. Then it states for one rouncey (horse); five cows; five calves (and); one hundred sheep; now two rounceys; four cows; five calves (and); and one hundred and three sheep. It stated that it was then worth forty shillings; but now one hundred.
What I want to know is, what does "held" mean exactly here? Legal ownership? Or is it more like 'occupying'?
What is a "manor" in this context? What is the difference between a "hide" a "plough" and "demesne"? Am I correct in thinking the freeman owns one and a half ploughs, but one plough is used to sustain his own family, and the half plough is rented to and used by the 2 villeins and 2 borders?
Also, one source said the number of households was 9.
2 villagers (villains I'm guessing) and 7 smallholders (the bordars, again I'm guessing)... but what about the freeman and the manor? Is that not counted? Because that should surely be 10 households otherwise.
And finally, I read somewhere that the feudal system in England was introduced by the Normans, so what would Leigh/Legra be like before 1066?
Thanks. :)
I have read the Domesday book entry for it, but I am finding some of the terms confusing. And some sources which interpret the domesday book contradict my understanding. Is there anyone who has a decent knowledge of the feudal system in 11th century England? Or someone who is very familiar with the Domesday Book, who can clarify some things I'm having trouble with?
The translated entry for Leigh-on-sea/Legra is:
Legra was once held by one free man as a manor and as a one hide, is held by R in demesne. Then as now (Semper) two villeins, and two bordars, and one plough on the demesne, and half a plough belonging to the men, and five bordars by the water (super aquam), who hold no land. There is pasture for one hundred sheep. Then it states for one rouncey (horse); five cows; five calves (and); one hundred sheep; now two rounceys; four cows; five calves (and); and one hundred and three sheep. It stated that it was then worth forty shillings; but now one hundred.
What I want to know is, what does "held" mean exactly here? Legal ownership? Or is it more like 'occupying'?
What is a "manor" in this context? What is the difference between a "hide" a "plough" and "demesne"? Am I correct in thinking the freeman owns one and a half ploughs, but one plough is used to sustain his own family, and the half plough is rented to and used by the 2 villeins and 2 borders?
Also, one source said the number of households was 9.
2 villagers (villains I'm guessing) and 7 smallholders (the bordars, again I'm guessing)... but what about the freeman and the manor? Is that not counted? Because that should surely be 10 households otherwise.
And finally, I read somewhere that the feudal system in England was introduced by the Normans, so what would Leigh/Legra be like before 1066?
Thanks. :)
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sveinn_F. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.domesdaybook.co.uk/life.html
The system of landholding as portrayed throughout the Domesday Book was based on a rigid social hierarchy called the feudal system, imposed in England by William the Conqueror following his successful 1066 conquest.
"held" - Rather than being owned, as is the case nowadays, land was held from a member of society higher up the social tree. At the top sat King William who granted land to tenants-in-chief - usually lords or members of the Church, in return for their assistance in the Norman Conquest. Next down the ladder came under-tenants who held land from the tenants-in-chief, and so it continued with the bottom of the ladder being occupied by peasants - villagers, bordars and cottars - who earned their opportunity to hold a small amount of land by working on the land of the lordship, and slaves, who held no land.
"manor" - The basic unit of land in the Domesday Book is the manor; manors could be larger or smaller than just one village, but all consisted of land and had jurisdiction over the tenants. These were part of larger administrative subdivisions of land called hundreds (wapentakes in Danish areas of the country), which contained several manors and had their own assembly of notables and representatives from local villages.
"hide" - The value of an area of land and its resources was calculated according to size, with set values on each resource unit. In some areas, the values of the manors and their geld assessments are also connected, these are the figures in hides, virgates and carucates.
"plough" - The figure in the entries giving the actual number of ploughs is the best guide to the agricultural capacity of the manor. A plough team consisted of eight oxen and either belonged to the lord who had peasants working them for him or belonged to the peasants themselves. Some areas of Sussex and Herefordshire were highly fertile and could support at least four ploughs per square mile, while the poor land of the North and the Somerset levels could only support one plough in every two square miles or more.
"demesne" - The land retained by a lord of the manor for his own use and support, under his own management, as distinguished from land sub-enfeoffed by him to others as sub-tenants.
The system of landholding as portrayed throughout the Domesday Book was based on a rigid social hierarchy called the feudal system, imposed in England by William the Conqueror following his successful 1066 conquest.
"held" - Rather than being owned, as is the case nowadays, land was held from a member of society higher up the social tree. At the top sat King William who granted land to tenants-in-chief - usually lords or members of the Church, in return for their assistance in the Norman Conquest. Next down the ladder came under-tenants who held land from the tenants-in-chief, and so it continued with the bottom of the ladder being occupied by peasants - villagers, bordars and cottars - who earned their opportunity to hold a small amount of land by working on the land of the lordship, and slaves, who held no land.
"manor" - The basic unit of land in the Domesday Book is the manor; manors could be larger or smaller than just one village, but all consisted of land and had jurisdiction over the tenants. These were part of larger administrative subdivisions of land called hundreds (wapentakes in Danish areas of the country), which contained several manors and had their own assembly of notables and representatives from local villages.
"hide" - The value of an area of land and its resources was calculated according to size, with set values on each resource unit. In some areas, the values of the manors and their geld assessments are also connected, these are the figures in hides, virgates and carucates.
"plough" - The figure in the entries giving the actual number of ploughs is the best guide to the agricultural capacity of the manor. A plough team consisted of eight oxen and either belonged to the lord who had peasants working them for him or belonged to the peasants themselves. Some areas of Sussex and Herefordshire were highly fertile and could support at least four ploughs per square mile, while the poor land of the North and the Somerset levels could only support one plough in every two square miles or more.
"demesne" - The land retained by a lord of the manor for his own use and support, under his own management, as distinguished from land sub-enfeoffed by him to others as sub-tenants.
Boxtops, it was my understanding that the Domesday book is dated more or less 20 years after the coronation of William I. So if I am correct that the Normans did introduce the feudal system, they had twenty years to achieve it, which sounds possible to me. My knowledge of English history 900-1100 is poor but prior to that I am confident, it all sounds very alien to the social structure of the Dark Age England I'm familiar with. :P
And ABerrant, this is extremely helpful! Thank you! But I'm still unsure of "manor". What is the difference between a village and a manor?
And ABerrant, this is extremely helpful! Thank you! But I'm still unsure of "manor". What is the difference between a village and a manor?
-- answer removed --
I think you're right to say the Normans introduced the feudal system, a sort of top-to-bottom system where everyone held land from someone higher up the chain, ultimately going up to the king, and paid for it by working the land and doing military service. William was able to introduce the system because he dispossessed almost the entire Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with his own followers.
For all that, life wouldn't have been much different for anyone (except the dispossessed lords) despite the changes. The Anglo-Saxons had slaves, the Normans didn't; but in practice it may not have made much difference if you were a serf or a slave.
For all that, life wouldn't have been much different for anyone (except the dispossessed lords) despite the changes. The Anglo-Saxons had slaves, the Normans didn't; but in practice it may not have made much difference if you were a serf or a slave.
Agreed Jno - a manor could comprise villages, hamlets, isolated farms, and be the home territory of slaves, freed slaves, free 'men' etc.
In the context of Leigh, 'held' is significant for its past tense as the purpose is to compare the known situation in the time of King Edward with the 1086 situation.
The first sentence doesn't quite run smoothly but is seems to point to the manor as a property remaining in one person's ownership, and that it has prospered in the intervening time being worth more. Also significant is that is has no record of 'waste', so must not have been visited by William's heavies in 1066-7 and torched as many other places were.
In the context of Leigh, 'held' is significant for its past tense as the purpose is to compare the known situation in the time of King Edward with the 1086 situation.
The first sentence doesn't quite run smoothly but is seems to point to the manor as a property remaining in one person's ownership, and that it has prospered in the intervening time being worth more. Also significant is that is has no record of 'waste', so must not have been visited by William's heavies in 1066-7 and torched as many other places were.
"Held" does not signify tense in and of itself - a 'holding' is 'held' no matter if it is past, present or future; the signifiers of tense in this case are "is" and "was".
"was... held" [in 1066] by an [unnamed] free man
"is held" [in 1086] by R [Ranulf Peverel]
The Peverels were much favoured by King William I. It is supposed (but not proven) that circa 1040-50 William's mistress Maud Ingelrica bore his illegitimate son, also named William, and later married Ranulf at which point his stepson took the surname Peverel. Ranulf P and William P each held more than a hundred manors; William P's 162 lordships in the midlands being known as the Honour of Peverel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_of_Peverel
"was... held" [in 1066] by an [unnamed] free man
"is held" [in 1086] by R [Ranulf Peverel]
The Peverels were much favoured by King William I. It is supposed (but not proven) that circa 1040-50 William's mistress Maud Ingelrica bore his illegitimate son, also named William, and later married Ranulf at which point his stepson took the surname Peverel. Ranulf P and William P each held more than a hundred manors; William P's 162 lordships in the midlands being known as the Honour of Peverel...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_of_Peverel
The feudal system was introduced to Britain by William the Conqueror ( Also known as William the Bastard) :-
http://www.historyont...al_Life/feudalism.htm
Ron.
http://www.historyont...al_Life/feudalism.htm
Ron.
We are talking about the 1100's here. was this when Henry II was king? If so, England had just begun to be held together as a country for a few hundred years. I do not believe that anything at that time was written in stone. that is to say, the countryside was loosely held together, by the Lords and Vassals of the King. Sure the nobility was organized, but there were lots of uprisings, not to mention the French. Henry cemented an alliance with the French at last when he married Eleanor of Aquitaine, still the history of the country is still patchy and i have found no reliable sources of "proof" for what when on back then. Your best bet is to study the Kingship of HenryII and his queen to find out how the government work. Good luck. There seems to be a lot about HenryII in the books.!
'We are talking about the 1100's here'
No. Specifically 1086 and before.
'was this when Henry II was king?'
No. His great-grandfather William I.
'Sure the nobility was organized, but there were lots of uprisings, not to mention the French.'
Turmoil in Norman England did not occur until 70 years after the Conquest, precipitated by those pesky Angevins, and that wasn't any peasant uprising but all out civil war, with Nobs on.
'the history of the country is still patchy and i have found no reliable sources of "proof" for what when on back then.'
Where did you look and (in consideration of the above quotes) why were you looking at events a century after the fact?
'Your best bet is to study the Kingship of HenryII and his queen to find out how the government work. Good luck. There seems to be a lot about HenryII in the books.!'
Not relevant and a contradiction of your previous sentence, i.e. 'found no reliable sources of "proof" for what when on back then'.
No. Specifically 1086 and before.
'was this when Henry II was king?'
No. His great-grandfather William I.
'Sure the nobility was organized, but there were lots of uprisings, not to mention the French.'
Turmoil in Norman England did not occur until 70 years after the Conquest, precipitated by those pesky Angevins, and that wasn't any peasant uprising but all out civil war, with Nobs on.
'the history of the country is still patchy and i have found no reliable sources of "proof" for what when on back then.'
Where did you look and (in consideration of the above quotes) why were you looking at events a century after the fact?
'Your best bet is to study the Kingship of HenryII and his queen to find out how the government work. Good luck. There seems to be a lot about HenryII in the books.!'
Not relevant and a contradiction of your previous sentence, i.e. 'found no reliable sources of "proof" for what when on back then'.
Thank you ABerrant. To be specific, I really just wanted to have some general idea of what Legra/Leigh was like around the 9th, 10th and early 11th century. It's just that the Domesday book is the earliest source I can find... I'm hoping to get as much out of it as I can in order to work back and use a combination of my historical knowledge and imagination to create a mental image of what it was like this early on in its history.
Did it even exist at this time perhaps? Being so small, possibly a recent settlement just before the Norman conquest.
But Henry II would be no help at all. Unless there are any sources on Leigh written at the time of Henry II, that would be useful if it mentioned Leigh by name... in case it had a different version of the name... Legra, maybe Lege or something. I'm trying to work out how it got from Legra to Leigh.
Did it even exist at this time perhaps? Being so small, possibly a recent settlement just before the Norman conquest.
But Henry II would be no help at all. Unless there are any sources on Leigh written at the time of Henry II, that would be useful if it mentioned Leigh by name... in case it had a different version of the name... Legra, maybe Lege or something. I'm trying to work out how it got from Legra to Leigh.
according to my Penguin Dictionary of British Place Names, Leigh (like several other Leighs around the country) originally came from the Old English "leah", meaning a wood or a clearing. It says the form "Legra" may be a mistake in the Domesday Book, resulting from confusion with another Essex place name, Legra, which is now Layer. (The -on-Sea was added in the 19th century.)
Given the French habit of nasalising vowels and omitting the end of words altogether (so that champs becomes more like cha...), I suspect they would quite easily have mixed up Leah and Legra; but that's just a guess.
Given the French habit of nasalising vowels and omitting the end of words altogether (so that champs becomes more like cha...), I suspect they would quite easily have mixed up Leah and Legra; but that's just a guess.
Interesting points from Jno
Of practical consideration: living directly on a coast was particularly dangerous in the 11th century - there were still pirate rates. So it's a confident guess that the cockle-shed parts of Leigh were not occupied. The parish church occupies an inland hilltop with coastward slopes that would give an armed attacker plenty to think about. So what might have existed in terms of any settlement (mentioned in Domesday or not) is more likely to have been in this location than anywhere else.
Buildings were ikely to have been very simple, chalk rubble walls with reed thatch roofing. The area has been extensively built over especially since 1900. So in the absence of archaeological fieldwork / geophys, we can only make guesses as to what if anything there was at Leigh.
But then, nobody expected the Prittlewell Prince at Southend, so you never do know.....
Of practical consideration: living directly on a coast was particularly dangerous in the 11th century - there were still pirate rates. So it's a confident guess that the cockle-shed parts of Leigh were not occupied. The parish church occupies an inland hilltop with coastward slopes that would give an armed attacker plenty to think about. So what might have existed in terms of any settlement (mentioned in Domesday or not) is more likely to have been in this location than anywhere else.
Buildings were ikely to have been very simple, chalk rubble walls with reed thatch roofing. The area has been extensively built over especially since 1900. So in the absence of archaeological fieldwork / geophys, we can only make guesses as to what if anything there was at Leigh.
But then, nobody expected the Prittlewell Prince at Southend, so you never do know.....
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News6 mins ago
It Will Never Make It To Strictly
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.