The Lord of the Manor

220px-hommage_au_moyen_age_-_miniature

In the fourteenth century, land ownership was split almost equally between lay lords (including the king) and ecclesiastical lords. In theory, all land in England belonged to the king, but, in practice, much of it had been given to the church. This was partly as a means of ensuring that prayers were said for the souls of the donor and his family after their deaths and partly because it was sometimes politically necessary to do so. Sometimes, of course, it was simply an act of piety. Lay lords held land from the king in return for paying him homage and promising to support him, with arms if required. The land that these tenants-in-chief held was sometimes given to their followers in turn, and these followers pledged their support to the tenant-in-chief. At the bottom of the ladder, the land was tended by tenants who paid rent for it by means of grain, livestock, their own labour on the lord’s demesne or money.

Some manors were vast, especially those belonging to bishoprics and earls. The ecclesiastical manors were the slowest to change and, throughout the fourteenth century, there were more serfs living and working on these manors than there were freemen. This was reversed on the manors belonging to lay lords, and the proportion of free to serf increased as the size of the manor decreased.

The demesne was the lord’s own land. Its produce was used to feed his household and any excess could be sold at market. If he had serfs who owed him labour services, they would work on the demesne for a specified number of days each week, as well as at plough time and harvest. Where there were no serfs owing labour services, the lord had to hire men (usually his tenants) to work on the demesne for him.

The produce of the demesne provided only part of lord’s income. He also made money when the land his tenants rented from him changed hands. If there was a marriage, or a death, or if a tenant took over from another tenant, a fee had to be paid to the lord of the manor. Because the lord technically owned the serfs, they also had to pay him a fee to be away from the manor for longer than one day. He also benefited from fines. If a villein left the manor for more than a day without the lord’s permission and was found out, he had to pay a fine.

I have so far been referring to the lord as a man, but often they were women. Just as land was given to monasteries, so it was also given to convents, which meant that many abbesses were lords of manors. Women also inherited manors. Joan of Kent inherited many manors all over England on her brother’s death.

Being a lord of a manor meant that the lord had to put in place the machinery to run the manor. If he was away from the manor frequently, and some lords had so many manors spread over a wide geographical area that they couldn’t hope to visit them all, they had to have officials in place to run the manor for them. These included a steward, a bailiff and a reeve, plus others depending on the size and type of manor.

Because they were the only ones with capital, lords of the manor usually provided the local infrastructure. As with giving land to the church, this was sometimes done because it benefited the lord himself and sometimes it was the result of a charitable impulse. Lords of the manor frequently built bridges, especially if these were on roads leading to a market to which the lord had the rights. Once built, the lord would charge people wishing to cross the bridge a toll, ostensibly for the bridge’s upkeep, but sometimes just as a means of making money. Where it was not practical to build a bridge, the lord might maintain a ferry to enable people to cross a river. They often built mills on their land. Their serfs had to use them and the lord of the manor benefited from a tax on their fee for using the mill, or a fine if it was discovered that they were not using it, either because they were taking their grain elsewhere or because they were grinding it at home. Lords of the manor endowed churches, both for their own use and for the use of their tenants. By far the most popular right with the lord’s tenants was his right to establish fairs and markets, as this provided them with somewhere to sell their surplus and to purchase things they could not make.

Among the lord’s less popular privileges was his right to fold all his tenant’s sheep on his demesne so that he could have the benefit of their manure. Conversely, if a tenant’s animal strayed onto the demesne, the tenant would have to pay a fine to have it released to him.

Wealthy lords with extensive estates might have forests, parks or chases where animals were protected so that the lords could hunt them. The kind of hunting they undertook was both prestigious and necessary. Hunting was a skill highly esteemed by nobles. It was necessary, in that it put meat on the table of the lord and his household.

 

 

 

Advertisements

13 Comments

Filed under Fourteenth Century

13 responses to “The Lord of the Manor

  1. The more I find out about The New Forest it seems like the culture is still like that (and reverting back to that). We could do with a new Robin Hood I think. Great post!

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Fascinating article, as usual, April! The extent and depth of your research never fails to impress me. Of all the lords’ rights you mention, I’m particularly intrigued by the building of bridges, and then the charging of tolls, as well as the lords’ rights to establish markets and fairs. Thank you for posting this! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you, Timi. Tolls are a veritable minefield. I need to do more reading (as always), but you could be charged a toll to take your produce to market to sell it. I just looked up tolls in a book at hand and it says that tolls were charged for the transit of goods through a town, for weighing goods, for buying and selling goods, and for setting up a stall in a market, among others things.
      Markets and fairs are separate subjects in their own right. Perhaps I’ll look at them in the next post.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Recently I came across a passing reference to hunting being important to the aristocracy in that it prepared them (the men, anyway) for war.

    That struck me as odd, because it’s hardly equal combat! Then I reflected that hunting would have accustomed them to killing. They wouldn’t have otherwise been expected to slaughter their own food, or do any of their own dirty work.

    Have you ever come across any references along that line?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I haven’t, but I can see that the strategic thinking involved might have helped in war. Hunting could be dangerous, but not in the same way as an opposing army. Melées at tournaments were a better preparation for war.
      What I didn’t mention, but will when I come on to the peasants, is that everyone hunted. Different classes hunted different animals, but everyone hunted.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was thinking particularly of deer: killed by crossbow or sword thrust, or maybe boar (spear thrust?) as opposed to other aristocratic pastimes such as falconry or coursing where it’s the bird or hound who does the killing.

        True, everyone hunted (or poached) though methods and prey differed. I think the “war-training” theory would only work if the use of weapons to kill large prey was a discouragement to squeamishness.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I’ve just looked in the indices of both books I’ve got on medieval hunting and neither seems to have anything to say on this aspect of it, except that hunting boar was very dangerous. I’m not sure you’d have lasted very long if you’d been squeamish.
          I suppose you did learn some skills that would be useful in war, such as pursuing an enemy on horseback, tracking and enemy without being discovered by the enemy, accuracy with bow, sword and spear.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Pingback: Fairs and Markets | A Writer's Perspective

  5. Pingback: Medieval marriage | A Writer's Perspective

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s