12th Century Inheritance
Jun. 5th, 2004 11:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ghoti_mhic_uaitHaving gone back and looked at this poll again, I understand now why you're all interested in the issue; it's because you're all supporters of the Empress, too. Cool. Maybe there should be an Empress Matilda society, like the Richard III Society, but mnore weird.
Anyway
I've been reading recently a book called Land, Law and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England by John Hudson. I am not a historian (or even a lawyer, but I doubt you needed telling that bit), and this is not a scholarly edit, so much as a late-night rambling. Please forgive me if I am inconsistent, unclear or generally boring.
Now, the thing is, that the eleventh century didn't really have inheritance as such. Your average king lived for a bit, owned some lands, and let various lords have bits of it, who in turn had their tenants and so on. When one of the serfs, lords or whatnots died, the holding of that land may have been granted to the family of the previous holder, or may not, at more or less the whim of the relevant overlord[1]. When the king died, you chose a new one, who similarly may or may not have been related to the last. Custom came to dictate (and at this point you have the whole 'does the law follow custom or does custom follow law?' debate. I think charterial evidence is strongly in favour of evolving custome here) that the nice and good and right and proper thing to do was to grant the land to the family of your tenant. Still not quite direct inheritance, but it's getting there.
By the middle of the twelfth century, a system of inheritance had been introduced. The closest heir was one's children, followed by grandchildren, then siblings and their descendants. At this point claims become tenuous; cousins' claims are much easier to discredit. Now, at no point in all this is the sex of the heir relevant. Daughters will usually inherit before grandchildren, and granddaughters before siblings.
Now, this is where the interesting part comes in. You see, Matilda was closer in bloodline to Henry I. He had confirmed her as his heir (which alone wouldn't amount to much, but there were cases where the confirming of the strong favourite swayed the case, iyswim), and Stephen siezed the throne.
Is it any wonder that a couple of decades of anarchy followed? I think not. The more I read on the subject, the more convinced I am that Matilda had a legal right to the throne, and that Stephen just moved quicker. I can't actually remember what the opposing views are, it's so long since I've had a sensible argument on the matter :) However, it does seem to me that it was Stephen's actions which caused the civil war, and the anarchy, and that he really shouldn't have done that.
So, that's exciting.
[1] There's all sorts of boring stuff about homage I could say at this point. It can basically be boiled down to 'When you get land from someone, you generally offer to do services for them, that is, pay homage to them, and they pledge to protect you. If you don't do the services they expect, they get to sieze the land until you do the work, or the courts find in your favour. This continues for as long as you (or whoever) hold the land.
Anyway
I've been reading recently a book called Land, Law and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England by John Hudson. I am not a historian (or even a lawyer, but I doubt you needed telling that bit), and this is not a scholarly edit, so much as a late-night rambling. Please forgive me if I am inconsistent, unclear or generally boring.
Now, the thing is, that the eleventh century didn't really have inheritance as such. Your average king lived for a bit, owned some lands, and let various lords have bits of it, who in turn had their tenants and so on. When one of the serfs, lords or whatnots died, the holding of that land may have been granted to the family of the previous holder, or may not, at more or less the whim of the relevant overlord[1]. When the king died, you chose a new one, who similarly may or may not have been related to the last. Custom came to dictate (and at this point you have the whole 'does the law follow custom or does custom follow law?' debate. I think charterial evidence is strongly in favour of evolving custome here) that the nice and good and right and proper thing to do was to grant the land to the family of your tenant. Still not quite direct inheritance, but it's getting there.
By the middle of the twelfth century, a system of inheritance had been introduced. The closest heir was one's children, followed by grandchildren, then siblings and their descendants. At this point claims become tenuous; cousins' claims are much easier to discredit. Now, at no point in all this is the sex of the heir relevant. Daughters will usually inherit before grandchildren, and granddaughters before siblings.
Now, this is where the interesting part comes in. You see, Matilda was closer in bloodline to Henry I. He had confirmed her as his heir (which alone wouldn't amount to much, but there were cases where the confirming of the strong favourite swayed the case, iyswim), and Stephen siezed the throne.
Is it any wonder that a couple of decades of anarchy followed? I think not. The more I read on the subject, the more convinced I am that Matilda had a legal right to the throne, and that Stephen just moved quicker. I can't actually remember what the opposing views are, it's so long since I've had a sensible argument on the matter :) However, it does seem to me that it was Stephen's actions which caused the civil war, and the anarchy, and that he really shouldn't have done that.
So, that's exciting.
[1] There's all sorts of boring stuff about homage I could say at this point. It can basically be boiled down to 'When you get land from someone, you generally offer to do services for them, that is, pay homage to them, and they pledge to protect you. If you don't do the services they expect, they get to sieze the land until you do the work, or the courts find in your favour. This continues for as long as you (or whoever) hold the land.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-05 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 05:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-06 06:06 am (UTC)