In studying history it is incumbent for the student to understand the events and hierarchy of society of any given period. I am particularly grateful for the volume Early Modern England 1484-1714 by Robert Bucholz and Newton Key who provide good explanations regarding this society. Some of the initial information in this article comes from their scholarship.
The World View The early hierarchical world view for English Catholics in the post medieval world included all living creatures. This paradigm dubbed the “Great Chain of Being” was largely an invention of eighteenth century historians, but the elements can be traced back to the Greeks.[1]
The first level included God, Angels, Man, animals, plants and stones, bringing the heavens and the earth together as one, as the physical dwelling place of man.
The second category included Kings, Nobles, Gentlemen, Yeomen, Husbandmen, Cottagers and Laborers – in that order. Later, it would include Merchants.
GOD
I
Kings, Nobles, Gentlemen, Yeomen,
Husbandmen, Cottagers, Laborers
I
KING
I
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls,
Viscounts, Barons
I
KNIGHTS
Esquires
owned between 25 and 30% of the
land in England in 1485
As ruler, the King became the even hand of justice and honor, and was considered God’s representative on earth. The king owned five percent of the land. To assist him in his rule, he relied on approximately sixty noble families, who were further subdivided into; Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. Each title was granted by the King. The titles themselves were handed down from father to son in families of good standing.
Many of the officials in the King’s service, or a noble household would be gentlemen and/or their ladies. Bucholz gives a good explanation, “In theory the gentry consisted of knights, identified by the title “Sir” before their names; esquires, identified by an “esq.” after the names and a new group of landowners who could bear heraldic coats of arms and increasingly appended the designation “gent” to their names. People of this division totaled about 3,000 and who owned between 25 and 30 percent of the land in England in 1485. The greatest knights held multiple estates and could claim incomes of ₤100 or more – surpassing some of the peerage. A lesser knight or esquire might make ₤40 to ₤100 a year while a lesser gentleman with a single manor made ₤20 to ₤40 a year. Such an income provided a comfortable existence supported by a dozen or so servants. Contemporaries believed that only those with the landed wealth had the time or the right to have a say in the running of the country. An act of 1445 enshrined this belief by stipulating that only those with annual incomes of over ₤40 could sit in the House of Commons. The members of this social rank also oversaw day to day local government for the king, service as sheriffs, JPs, and commissioners of array (raising the militia) for their localities.” [2]
Bucholz continues the partitioning of gentry by explaining, “Those who were given the right to vote for members of the House of Commons was limited by a statue of 1430 to those who owned land worth 40 shillings, or ₤2 year.”
A manor held by an individual may have been held by a nobleman or a gentleman, and either way an individual of this title may have owned many pieces of land scattered far and wide. What is certain is the landowner or lord owned most the land in a neighborhood, and held sway over the day to day lives of village inhabitants. There may have been a few freeholders in the neighborhood as well, but the land provided the lord with a vast income from harvesting crops and mining minerals upon it. He also collected rents, and may have had the only mill for grinding grain and maybe even the only oven for baking breadstuffs.
Control of the land also gave him control over the church and the advowsons attached to the church. The advowson gave the land owner the right to name the clergymen who would serve the church in his district. The landowner also had the right to call on his tenants for military service. His power also might have lead the king to name him as local sheriff or justice of the peace, which meant that he was the King’s representative to his subjects, and also could act as judge and jury for offences.
Bucholz explains, “His importance might paradoxically require him to spend time away from his estates in London. If he was a peer, he sat in the upper house of Parliament, the House of Lords. If he was a particularly wealthy gentleman he might be selected by his fellow landowners to sit in the lower house, the House of Commons." [3] It is important to note that only ½ of 1 percent of the total population fell into the category of landholder.
Toward the end of the middle ages, demesne farming dropped off.[4] In its place was the process called “enclosure” which became popular and is evident in the Newburgh’s holdings.[5]
[1] Bucholz and Key, Early Modern England 1485-1714, p. 22
[2] Ibid. p. 24
[3] Bucholz. p. 20-21
[4] Demesne farming was a landowners, for a profit sale of the crops grown on a portion of the estate not being rented out. Bucholz. p. 20-21.
[5] Enclosure, was the enclosure of fields for the purpose of raising sheep and was less labor-intensive. This became a popular but controversial practice in that it deprived tenants of their farm land at the end of the middle ages. However the countryside was being depopulated by the Black Death, so the act of enclosure was controversial. In Newburgh wills the act of granting sheep as bequests was quite common.
Bucholz, Robert and Key, Newton, Early Modern England 1485-1714, 1958 and 2009, Blackwell Publishing, 1958 and 2009.
The World View The early hierarchical world view for English Catholics in the post medieval world included all living creatures. This paradigm dubbed the “Great Chain of Being” was largely an invention of eighteenth century historians, but the elements can be traced back to the Greeks.[1]
The first level included God, Angels, Man, animals, plants and stones, bringing the heavens and the earth together as one, as the physical dwelling place of man.
The second category included Kings, Nobles, Gentlemen, Yeomen, Husbandmen, Cottagers and Laborers – in that order. Later, it would include Merchants.
GOD
I
Kings, Nobles, Gentlemen, Yeomen,
Husbandmen, Cottagers, Laborers
I
KING
I
Dukes, Marquesses, Earls,
Viscounts, Barons
I
KNIGHTS
Esquires
owned between 25 and 30% of the
land in England in 1485
As ruler, the King became the even hand of justice and honor, and was considered God’s representative on earth. The king owned five percent of the land. To assist him in his rule, he relied on approximately sixty noble families, who were further subdivided into; Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Viscounts and Barons. Each title was granted by the King. The titles themselves were handed down from father to son in families of good standing.
Many of the officials in the King’s service, or a noble household would be gentlemen and/or their ladies. Bucholz gives a good explanation, “In theory the gentry consisted of knights, identified by the title “Sir” before their names; esquires, identified by an “esq.” after the names and a new group of landowners who could bear heraldic coats of arms and increasingly appended the designation “gent” to their names. People of this division totaled about 3,000 and who owned between 25 and 30 percent of the land in England in 1485. The greatest knights held multiple estates and could claim incomes of ₤100 or more – surpassing some of the peerage. A lesser knight or esquire might make ₤40 to ₤100 a year while a lesser gentleman with a single manor made ₤20 to ₤40 a year. Such an income provided a comfortable existence supported by a dozen or so servants. Contemporaries believed that only those with the landed wealth had the time or the right to have a say in the running of the country. An act of 1445 enshrined this belief by stipulating that only those with annual incomes of over ₤40 could sit in the House of Commons. The members of this social rank also oversaw day to day local government for the king, service as sheriffs, JPs, and commissioners of array (raising the militia) for their localities.” [2]
Bucholz continues the partitioning of gentry by explaining, “Those who were given the right to vote for members of the House of Commons was limited by a statue of 1430 to those who owned land worth 40 shillings, or ₤2 year.”
A manor held by an individual may have been held by a nobleman or a gentleman, and either way an individual of this title may have owned many pieces of land scattered far and wide. What is certain is the landowner or lord owned most the land in a neighborhood, and held sway over the day to day lives of village inhabitants. There may have been a few freeholders in the neighborhood as well, but the land provided the lord with a vast income from harvesting crops and mining minerals upon it. He also collected rents, and may have had the only mill for grinding grain and maybe even the only oven for baking breadstuffs.
Control of the land also gave him control over the church and the advowsons attached to the church. The advowson gave the land owner the right to name the clergymen who would serve the church in his district. The landowner also had the right to call on his tenants for military service. His power also might have lead the king to name him as local sheriff or justice of the peace, which meant that he was the King’s representative to his subjects, and also could act as judge and jury for offences.
Bucholz explains, “His importance might paradoxically require him to spend time away from his estates in London. If he was a peer, he sat in the upper house of Parliament, the House of Lords. If he was a particularly wealthy gentleman he might be selected by his fellow landowners to sit in the lower house, the House of Commons." [3] It is important to note that only ½ of 1 percent of the total population fell into the category of landholder.
Toward the end of the middle ages, demesne farming dropped off.[4] In its place was the process called “enclosure” which became popular and is evident in the Newburgh’s holdings.[5]
[1] Bucholz and Key, Early Modern England 1485-1714, p. 22
[2] Ibid. p. 24
[3] Bucholz. p. 20-21
[4] Demesne farming was a landowners, for a profit sale of the crops grown on a portion of the estate not being rented out. Bucholz. p. 20-21.
[5] Enclosure, was the enclosure of fields for the purpose of raising sheep and was less labor-intensive. This became a popular but controversial practice in that it deprived tenants of their farm land at the end of the middle ages. However the countryside was being depopulated by the Black Death, so the act of enclosure was controversial. In Newburgh wills the act of granting sheep as bequests was quite common.
Bucholz, Robert and Key, Newton, Early Modern England 1485-1714, 1958 and 2009, Blackwell Publishing, 1958 and 2009.
