I'm going to go out on a limb and saw off the branch behind me.
Here's a start anyway. The words in () I wasn't sure how to expand.
Ric' de Humfravill dat domino Rex i palfrey pro habendo brevium de pace per Radulf Taillard (sen) suum quod non potuit habere (n) per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nederton de qua tenens; ponit se (in) i magnam assisam.
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
On 26-Feb-23 3:44 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14He was Richard de Umfraville's seneschal - the expanded text is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
Ricardus de Humfravilla dat domino regi j. palefridum pro habendo brevi
de pace per Radulfum Taillardum senescallum suum quod non potuit habere
nisi per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nedertona de qua tenens est et ponit se inde in magnam assisam.
The fine points of this contretemps had better be explained by someone
more familiar than I am with English feudal administration.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:daughter Juliana married John de St. John of Hambleton, Rutland.
On 26-Feb-23 3:44 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14He was Richard de Umfraville's seneschal - the expanded text is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
Ricardus de Humfravilla dat domino regi j. palefridum pro habendo brevi
de pace per Radulfum Taillardum senescallum suum quod non potuit habere
nisi per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nedertona de qua
tenens est et ponit se inde in magnam assisam.
The fine points of this contretemps had better be explained by someone
more familiar than I am with English feudal administration.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thank you very much, Peter. It's fun to learn a little something about an otherwise obscure ancestor (Radulf Taillard) from so long ago and to have some idea of when and where he lived. According to a 1616 pedigree of the Knightly family, Radulf's
On 27-Feb-23 12:55 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:daughter Juliana married John de St. John of Hambleton, Rutland.
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 26-Feb-23 3:44 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14He was Richard de Umfraville's seneschal - the expanded text is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
Ricardus de Humfravilla dat domino regi j. palefridum pro habendo brevi >> de pace per Radulfum Taillardum senescallum suum quod non potuit habere >> nisi per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nedertona de qua >> tenens est et ponit se inde in magnam assisam.
The fine points of this contretemps had better be explained by someone
more familiar than I am with English feudal administration.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thank you very much, Peter. It's fun to learn a little something about an otherwise obscure ancestor (Radulf Taillard) from so long ago and to have some idea of when and where he lived. According to a 1616 pedigree of the Knightly family, Radulf's
I agree with you Jan, though a bit like Humphrey Appleby - "up to a point".
In this case I might be interested like you to learn about Radulf
Taillard, but my eyes would glaze over at what little it tells about
Richard de Umfraville.
A large part of my aversion to English genealogy is caused by the vast deposit of feudal administrivia that has been preserved. This can leave
a distorted impression of the society it reflects, as if the country was ruled by and for a class of opportunistic, petty and highly litigious landholders who spent their lives fussing competitively over status and possessions.
I find it a relief to know and care much less about what my Scottish and Continental forebears avidly held onto.
By now I hoped someone would have told us about the pretexts and process
for obtaining briefs of peace from the king. It appears to me that
Richard had tried and failed to get possession of his withheld share of Netherton through the efforts of his seneschal Radulf and was seeking a
kind of royal injunction to achieve this while a lawsuit over it was
pending - but maybe this is not all there was to it and someone who
knows the appropriate antiquarian jargon could explain what else might
have been going on behind this bare record.
Peter Stewart
On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 04:26:27 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:daughter Juliana married John de St. John of Hambleton, Rutland.
On 27-Feb-23 12:55 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:
On 26-Feb-23 3:44 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14He was Richard de Umfraville's seneschal - the expanded text is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
Ricardus de Humfravilla dat domino regi j. palefridum pro habendo brevi >> de pace per Radulfum Taillardum senescallum suum quod non potuit habere >> nisi per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nedertona de qua
tenens est et ponit se inde in magnam assisam.
The fine points of this contretemps had better be explained by someone >> more familiar than I am with English feudal administration.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thank you very much, Peter. It's fun to learn a little something about an otherwise obscure ancestor (Radulf Taillard) from so long ago and to have some idea of when and where he lived. According to a 1616 pedigree of the Knightly family, Radulf's
probate process in the Northern Province, and the personnel of Chancery and the Privy Seal Office, 1377-1413 showed that almost every clerk was an ordained clergyman.I agree with you Jan, though a bit like Humphrey Appleby - "up to a point".
In this case I might be interested like you to learn about Radulf Taillard, but my eyes would glaze over at what little it tells about Richard de Umfraville.
A large part of my aversion to English genealogy is caused by the vast deposit of feudal administrivia that has been preserved. This can leave
a distorted impression of the society it reflects, as if the country was ruled by and for a class of opportunistic, petty and highly litigious landholders who spent their lives fussing competitively over status and possessions.
I find it a relief to know and care much less about what my Scottish and Continental forebears avidly held onto.
By now I hoped someone would have told us about the pretexts and process for obtaining briefs of peace from the king. It appears to me that
Richard had tried and failed to get possession of his withheld share of Netherton through the efforts of his seneschal Radulf and was seeking a kind of royal injunction to achieve this while a lawsuit over it was pending - but maybe this is not all there was to it and someone who
knows the appropriate antiquarian jargon could explain what else might have been going on behind this bare record.
Peter StewartI also agree with you Peter.
I was amazed to read in Marchant's book "The Church under the Law: Justice, Administration and Discipline in the Diocese of York, 1560–1640" that every clergyman and every cathedral dignitary in York, were qualified lawyers. My own research into the
They were a rapinous lot, given that they had the means and deep enough pockets to see off anyone who complained about their lands and goods being seized, often by the use of forged deeds, and paid witnesses.
England was ruled, not so much by the aristocracy, but by the administrative clerics.
I have often wondered if life was really as litigious as the records suggest.
Wibs
On Tuesday, 28 February 2023 at 04:26:27 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote:daughter Juliana married John de St. John of Hambleton, Rutland.
On 27-Feb-23 12:55 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
On Sunday, February 26, 2023 at 5:24:37 PM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 26-Feb-23 3:44 PM, Jan Wolfe wrote:
In the Rotuli de Finibus Tempore Regis Johannis, I would appreciate assistance in expanding the abbreviations in the entry for Northumberland on page 304 in Membrane 14He was Richard de Umfraville's seneschal - the expanded text is:
https://books.google.com/books?id=rIVTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA304
What was the role of Radulf Taillard in this transaction?
Ricardus de Humfravilla dat domino regi j. palefridum pro habendo brevi >>>> de pace per Radulfum Taillardum senescallum suum quod non potuit habere >>>> nisi per ipsum in propria persona de medietate ville de Nedertona de qua >>>> tenens est et ponit se inde in magnam assisam.
The fine points of this contretemps had better be explained by someone >>>> more familiar than I am with English feudal administration.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
Thank you very much, Peter. It's fun to learn a little something about an otherwise obscure ancestor (Radulf Taillard) from so long ago and to have some idea of when and where he lived. According to a 1616 pedigree of the Knightly family, Radulf's
probate process in the Northern Province, and the personnel of Chancery and the Privy Seal Office, 1377-1413 showed that almost every clerk was an ordained clergyman.I agree with you Jan, though a bit like Humphrey Appleby - "up to a point". >>
In this case I might be interested like you to learn about Radulf
Taillard, but my eyes would glaze over at what little it tells about
Richard de Umfraville.
A large part of my aversion to English genealogy is caused by the vast
deposit of feudal administrivia that has been preserved. This can leave
a distorted impression of the society it reflects, as if the country was
ruled by and for a class of opportunistic, petty and highly litigious
landholders who spent their lives fussing competitively over status and
possessions.
I find it a relief to know and care much less about what my Scottish and
Continental forebears avidly held onto.
By now I hoped someone would have told us about the pretexts and process
for obtaining briefs of peace from the king. It appears to me that
Richard had tried and failed to get possession of his withheld share of
Netherton through the efforts of his seneschal Radulf and was seeking a
kind of royal injunction to achieve this while a lawsuit over it was
pending - but maybe this is not all there was to it and someone who
knows the appropriate antiquarian jargon could explain what else might
have been going on behind this bare record.
Peter Stewart
I also agree with you Peter.
I was amazed to read in Marchant's book "The Church under the Law: Justice, Administration and Discipline in the Diocese of York, 1560–1640" that every clergyman and every cathedral dignitary in York, were qualified lawyers. My own research into the
They were a rapinous lot, given that they had the means and deep enough pockets to see off anyone who complained about their lands and goods being seized, often by the use of forged deeds, and paid witnesses.
England was ruled, not so much by the aristocracy, but by the administrative clerics.
I have often wondered if life was really as litigious as the records suggest.
If I understand this correctly (I am not an expert in the intricacies of feudal law, though I’ve read a bit about it), there has been some dispute conducted at the level of a local court, in which a challenger (not named here) has made some claim onthe moiety that Richard de Umfraville holds and has offered to prove his case through the duel. Richard does not want to rely on this method, so he has bought a Writ of Peace from King John so that the case can be decided instead by jurors at a Grand
On 02-Mar-23 8:23 AM, mbying...@gmail.com wrote:on the moiety that Richard de Umfraville holds and has offered to prove his case through the duel. Richard does not want to rely on this method, so he has bought a Writ of Peace from King John so that the case can be decided instead by jurors at a Grand
If I understand this correctly (I am not an expert in the intricacies of feudal law, though I’ve read a bit about it), there has been some dispute conducted at the level of a local court, in which a challenger (not named here) has made some claim
This is not quite how I understood it - there is nothing stated about a duel, and as far as I can tell the local court would have been under
Richard de Umfraville's control anyway.
I took it to mean (reading "potuit" as a slip for "potuerit") that
Richard as tenant-in-chief was rendering a horse to the king in return
for a brief of peace through his seneschal Radulf Taillard regarding
half of Netherton because he could not obtain it except through Radulf himself from whom it was held - i.e. I suppose Radulf was Richard's sub-tenant in Netherton and the problem was with a sub-sub-tenant
refusing to give up part of it.
But this may well be wrong: I am not very conversant with records like
this, as I can't often stay awake when having to read them and would
rather run a mile (which I can't do) than poke into them.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 12:24:41 AM UTC-5, Peter Stewart wrote:on the moiety that Richard de Umfraville holds and has offered to prove his case through the duel. Richard does not want to rely on this method, so he has bought a Writ of Peace from King John so that the case can be decided instead by jurors at a Grand
On 02-Mar-23 8:23 AM, mbying...@gmail.com wrote:
If I understand this correctly (I am not an expert in the intricacies of feudal law, though I’ve read a bit about it), there has been some dispute conducted at the level of a local court, in which a challenger (not named here) has made some claim
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/LEO.Leeson.Trial_by_Battle.pdf.This is not quite how I understood it - there is nothing stated about a
duel, and as far as I can tell the local court would have been under
Richard de Umfraville's control anyway.
I took it to mean (reading "potuit" as a slip for "potuerit") that
Richard as tenant-in-chief was rendering a horse to the king in return
for a brief of peace through his seneschal Radulf Taillard regarding
half of Netherton because he could not obtain it except through Radulf
himself from whom it was held - i.e. I suppose Radulf was Richard's
sub-tenant in Netherton and the problem was with a sub-sub-tenant
refusing to give up part of it.
But this may well be wrong: I am not very conversant with records like
this, as I can't often stay awake when having to read them and would
rather run a mile (which I can't do) than poke into them.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com
The following article requires some serious staying awake effort but provides some information about the legal/land tenure system changes in England during the second half of the 12th century that led to the demise of trial by battle in land disputes:
See the part about Angevin reforms, such as the introduction of assizes of novel disseisin and mort d'ancestor in 1166 and 1176, and other changes that made alienation of land less costly.
Mark, I am curious about what aspect of the document led you to the idea that it was a response to an offer of trial by dual from a claimant to the property?
On 03-Mar-23 2:46 PM, mbying...@gmail.com wrote:expect this particular type of entry in a fine roll to mention an impending trial by battle, since the details would have been known to those relevant to the case and need not be written into this record. The purpose of this record is to note that a Writ
Jan - Nothing in the entry itself alludes to a duel, of course – the frustrating thing about these legal records is that they are so terse and rarely relate the context in enough detail to make the case fully understandable. But I also would not
It turns out that my reading is inadequate, since Richard de Umfraville
was not the tenant-in-chief of Netherton but a sub-tenant there and in
other Coquetdale towns of Eustace Tyson and his son William, lords of Alnwick, who would have controlled the local court. I wonder if Richard wasn't stepping out of line with his overlord at the time by going to
the king about this - in 1212 John made him surrender Prudhoe castle,
his main stronghold, as security for his good behaviour so he may have
been a persistent trouble-maker.
If the royal stables obtained a horse for the king's intervention every
time some hothead wanted to fight a duel, remounts might have been
supplied well in excess of requirements.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
On 03-Mar-23 2:46 PM, mbying...@gmail.com wrote:expect this particular type of entry in a fine roll to mention an impending trial by battle, since the details would have been known to those relevant to the case and need not be written into this record. The purpose of this record is to note that a Writ
Jan - Nothing in the entry itself alludes to a duel, of course – the frustrating thing about these legal records is that they are so terse and rarely relate the context in enough detail to make the case fully understandable. But I also would not
It turns out that my reading is inadequate, since Richard de Umfraville
was not the tenant-in-chief of Netherton but a sub-tenant there and in
other Coquetdale towns of Eustace Tyson and his son William, lords of Alnwick, who would have controlled the local court. I wonder if Richard wasn't stepping out of line with his overlord at the time by going to
the king about this - in 1212 John made him surrender Prudhoe castle,
his main stronghold, as security for his good behaviour so he may have
been a persistent trouble-maker.
If the royal stables obtained a horse for the king's intervention every
time some hothead wanted to fight a duel, remounts might have been
supplied well in excess of requirements.
Peter Stewart
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:09:53 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,105 |