|
|
English Legal History
2/18/2009
Outline
|
|
Genealogy
of the Polstead and Grancurt Families
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Malford and Winterbourne Stoke
|
|
Burnham (somewhat abbreviated)
|
|
The Cast of
Characters:
? = ? ? =
?
___|___________________ _______|___________
|
| | | |
Adeliza=E.
de B. | Robert de P. William de
Grancurt =? ?Walter de G.
|
| |
______| ? = Hugh de P. = Cecilia |
| |
| ______|____Hugh de Candos
= Ascelina
Hugh Warner Matilda |
| __________|_______________
| ?Michael | |
Hugh de P. II=======Avis Wm. de
Gimingham = Juliana
|
(There is some ambiguity
as to whether William or Walter de Grancurt was Ascelina’s father.
See Nos. 18, 45–6. William seems the
more plausible.)
Documents from the 1230’s
and 1240’s suggest that Hugh de Polstead, who is probably the same as Hugh
de P. II above 4, holds between 4½ and 7½ knights’ fees in Burnham
(Norfolk), Polstead (Suffolk), Prittlewell (Essex), and Compton (Surrey).
See map on p. IV–33 of the Mats.
Now the only problem is
to figure out who was doing what to whom when. Of the numerous cases mentioned or
reported, we will focus on four in this class:
|
|
1.
|
10:AssOct98—Hugh de P. one of the knights of the grand
assize
11:Id.—Hugh
de P. one of the four to choose the twelve
|
|
2.
|
3:M95—G. de M. owes one mark
for right: “Geoffrey de ‘Maisi’ [? Mayfield,
Sussex]
owes one mark for right about four hides of land in Winterbourne
[Winterbourne Stoke, Wilts]. And about a half a hide of land in Christian
Malford [Wilts] against Hugh de Polstead.” Pipe Roll 7 Richard I.
4:P96—fine: G. de M. to hold
of H. de P.: “This is a final concord made in the court of the lord king at
Westminster on the Saturday after the Invention of the Holy Cross in the
seventh year of the reign of King Richard before H[ubert] archbishop of
Canterbury, R[ichard fitz Neal] of London, G[ilbert Glanvill] of Rochester,
bishops, H[enry] of Canterbury, R[alph ?Foliot] of Hereford, R[ichard
Barre] of Ely, archdeacons, G[eoffrey] fitz Peter, William de Warenne,
Ric[hard] de Herriard, Osbert fitz Hervey, Simon de Pattishall, Thomas de
Hurstbourne and other barons and faithful of the lord king then present,
between Hugh de Polstead demandant and Geoffrey de ‘Maisil’’ tenant, about
four hides of land with its appurtenances in Winterbourne and a half a hide
of land with its appurtenances in Christian Malford which are of the fee of
the abbot of Glastonbury about which there was a plea between them in the
court of the lord king, to wit: that the same Hugh de Polstead granted to
the aforesaid Geoffrey de ‘Maisil’’ and his heirs all the aforesaid land
with its appurtenances to hold of him and his heirs for the service of one
knight. And for this grant and concord the aforesaid Geoffrey de ‘Maisil’’
gave forty marks of silver to the aforenamed Hugh de Polstead and did him
homage for the aforesaid land.” Feet of Fines, Richard I.
6:M96—G. de M. pays his one
mark. Pipe Roll, 8 Richard I.
8:P98—H. de P. appoints H.
de P. attorney: “Somerset.
Hugh de Polstead puts his son Hugh in his place against the court of
Glastonbury to gain or lose.” Curia Regis Rolls (CRR) 1.
9:P98—Four members of the
court of Glastonbury to bear the record: “A day is given to Gerard de
‘Brohton’’, Richard son of Robert, Geoffrey de ‘Stawell’’ and Hugh Travet
who ought to bear record of the court of Glastonbury between Hugh de
Polstead and Geoffrey ‘del Meisi’ on the octave of St. John [1 July], and
let them come then and bear record, and let Geoffrey be summoned that he
might be there then to hear that record.” CRR 1.
Tentative conclusion: Hugh
tries to sell land to Geoffrey and gets into trouble because he has
bypassed his lord’s court (the abbot of Glastonbury)
|
|
3.
|
36:P05—John orders the suit postponed; previously the
bp. of Norwich had claimed his court (this
is the kind of thing we’ll be talking about next week): “Suffolk.
J[ohn] by the grace of God, etc., to the justices of the bench at Westminster. Postpone
the suit which is in our court before you at Westminster between Robert de Coddenham
demandant and Hugh de Polstead tenant concerning a plea of land in Boxsted
until we order otherwise.” CRR 3.
|
|
4.
|
Burnham (somewhat abbreviated).
15:P99—? covenant.
The record is badly damaged but it
suggests that that one Walter de Grancurt and Hugh son of Hugh de Polstead
are litigating about a covenant that has something to do with a woman named
Juliana. Rotuli Curiae Regis 1.
16:M99—suggests that the
writ is “to show why” (ostensurus quare) he made her a nun. “Hugh de Polstead [and Hugh his son
essoin themselves] against Walter de Grancurt about a plea why he made his
granddaughter a nun by Robert son of Adam.” Pleas before the King or his
Justices 1.
18:M99—Walter G. tells his
story: “Walter de Grancurt complains that Hugh de Polstead, when Juliana
his granddaughter and his heir was in the custody of the same Hugh by the
lord of Canterbury and he before him and the other justices faithfully
promised that he would not marry her without the assent of this Walter and
of his progeny, he [Hugh] of his own will made her a nun unjustly. Hugh
came and defended that she was never made a nun by him but he says that the
steward of the count of Perche [Normandy], as is said, sent for her to his
house, and he doesn’t know what he did with her. Walter says that this Hugh
against the will of the same Juliana and while she was under age made her
take up the habit of religion so that he might obtain the portion of the
inheritance of this Juliana along with her first born sister whom he took
to wife. Hugh proffered a charter of the count of Perche and of M[____] his
countess which testified that they had given the same Hugh Avis the first-born
with her inheritance and that this Juliana before this count and countess
and many others asked if she could with their permission take up the habit
of religion. And Walter says that this could not be because she never
crossed [the Channel] nor spoke with the count or the countess. A day was
given, one month after St. Hilary [13 February] to hear their judgment.”
Rot CR 2.
20–24:HPM00—Juliana appears,
suggesting that she is out of the convent; various essoins and
constitutions of attorneys and the case fizzles out.
20. “Juliana de Candos puts
in her place Walter de Grantcurt against Hugh de ‘Tubari’ and Hugh de
Polstead about a plea why they made her a nun to gain or lose.” CRR 1.
21. “Avis wife of Hugh de
Polstead [and Hugh her husband] essoin [themselves] against Juliana de
Candos about a plea of land … .” CRR 1.
22. “Day is given to Walter
de Grancurt and Hugh de Polstead to hear their judgment one month after
Easter [9 May]” CRR 1.
23. “Walter de Grancurt
essoins himself for sickness in coming to court against the count of Perche
in a plea of a certain girl whose custody he claims by Eustace son of
Richard. The essoiner awaits until his fourth day,
and the count neither comes nor essoins himself. Let the judgment go
without day.” RotCR 2.
24. “Avis wife of Hugh de
Polstead puts Hugh her husband in her place
against Juliana her sister about a plea of a portion of land to gain or
lose.” CRR 1.
39–41:P06—Hugh de P. wins a
novel disseisin brought against him by William de G., but a case brought by
William and his wife Juliana against him continues.
40. “The assize comes to
recognize if Hugh de Polstead unjustly and without judgment disseised
William de Gimingham of his free tenement at Burnham within the assize. The
jurors say that he did not disseise. Judgment. William is in mercy for a
false claim.” CRR 4.
41. “Hugh de Polstead [and
Avis his wife] essoin themselves [with regard to the matter] that is before
the king against William de Gimingham and Juliana his wife about a plea of
land … .”
45–6:P06—More of the story
comes out; the parties have paid for a special jury to be taken on the
question whether Walter de G. “intruded” himself on the land at the time of
the death of Ascelina de Candos; the jury says that he did.
45. “Hugh de Polstead and
Avis his wife by Hugh de ‘Ylleg’’ demand against Walter de Grant Curt one
carucate of land with its appurtenances in Burnham, of which Ascelina de
Candos, whose daughter and heir the aforesaid Avis is, died seised as of
her maritagium given by William
de Grancurt and in which he intruded himself by force and arms while
Ascelina lay in the infirmity of which she died, and he held it thus
violently after her decease and by that intrusion he took from it chattels
which were on that land to the value of twenty marks, and that Ascelina
thus died seised of that land as of her maritagium
and that Walter so intruded himself in that land he [sic] offers to deraign
by consideration of the court. And Walter defends his right, and he says
that Avis has a sister who is not named in the writ and therefore he does
not wish to reply without her unless the court shall have considered, and
since there was mention in the writ of intrusion and he does not know if the
sister wanted to follow. It was considered that he reply because Hugh and
Avis offer the lord king forty shillings for having a jury by lawful men
[on the question] whether this Ascelina died seised of that land as of a maritagium given her by the aforesaid
William and whether this William [?sic] intruded
himself in that land by force and while she lay in the infirmity of which
she died, or not, and the offering is received. And Walter offers forty
shillings for the same … and let William de Gimingham [Norfolk] and Juliana
his wife, the sister of the aforesaid Avis be summoned to come to follow
the jury if they will. … .” CRR 4.
46. “The jury comes to
recognize if Ascelina de Candos, mother of Avis, wife of Hugh de Polstead,
was seised on the day on which she died of one carucate of land with its
appurtenances in Burnham as of her maritagium
which was given to her by William de Grancurt, father of the aforesaid
Ascelina, and if Walter de Grancurt with force and arms intruded himself on
that land while this Ascelina was in her sickness of which she died and
though that intrusion remained on that land after the decease of this
Ascelina. The jurors say that William de Grancurt gave the aforesaid land
to Hugh de Candos in maritagium
with the aforesaid Ascelina, and she held that land as her maritagium all her life; and while
she lay in her infirmity of which she died, fifteen days before her death
Walter came with a multitude of people and put himself on that land and
thus he held it from then to now. It was considered that Hugh de Polstead
and Avis his wife and William de Gimingham and Juliana his wife have seisin
of that land of which Avis and Juliana are the heirs of this Ascelina. And
Walter is in mercy.”
49–52:TM06—Wm. and Juliana
attempt to raise the ante by bringing an attaint proceeding against the
jury.
52. “A day is given to
William de Gimingham and Juliana his wife by their attorney and to Hugh de
Polstead about a plea of rent and about a jury for convicting the twelve on
the octave of St. Hilary by the request of the parties. And let it be known
that all twenty-four are to be attached. And Hugh removed his attorney and
wishes to prosecute in his own person.” CRR 4.
55:H07—the countess of
Perche demands her court.
55. “The countess of Perche
demands her court by William ‘Pachche’ her bailiff on Thursday before the
octave of St. Hilary [18 January] about the suit between William de
Gimingham and Juliana his wife demandants and Hugh de Polstead and Avis his
wife tenants about land in Burnham.”
56–7, 59–63:HM07,
P08—various essoins
66-70, ET08, P09—various
proceedings leading to the compromise
71:P09—Compromise.
Tentative conclusion: The
marriage settlement goes awry because the lord’s arrangements for Juliana
cannot be enforced after the break with Normandy in 1204.
|
|
|
No. 71: “This is the final concord made in the court of
the lord king at St. Edmunds two weeks after Easter in the 10th year of the
reign of King John before [seven] itinerant justices, and other faithful
men of the lord king there present, between William de Gimingham and
Juliana, his wife, demandants, by the same William placed in the place of the
same Juliana for gain or for loss, and Hugh de Polstead and Avis, his wife,
tenants, by Walter de Groten’, put in their place for taking the
chirograph, about forty acres of land with its appurtenances in Burnham
about which there was a plea between them in the aforesaid court, to wit:
that the aforesaid Hugh and Avis recognize all the aforesaid land with its
appurtenances to be the right of the same William and Juliana as Juliana’s
reasonable part which comes to her of the free tenement which belonged to
Hugh de Candos, father of the aforesaid Juliana and Avis, and of Ascelina,
wife of the aforesaid Hugh, and they remitted and quitclaimed for
themselves and their heirs to the aforesaid William and Juliana and the
heirs of this Juliana forever. And
be it known that the aforesaid William and Juliana and Hugh and Avis will
divide the entire tenement among themselves which used to belong to the
aforesaid Hugh and Ascelina, his wife, in Burnham and in [Burnham] Deepdale
in the lands, services, rents, liberties and advowsons of churches, to wit:
[tabulated below]”
|
|
Name
|
Amount
|
Service
|
Scutage
|
% in d
|
Other
|
|
Eloise de Vendeval
|
all service
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
Robert, son of Hugh
|
½ service
|
|
|
|
1/5 kt
|
|
John, son of Ralph
|
service
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh over Hill and Alexander Pingincus
|
all service
|
12
|
160
|
1½
|
|
|
John, the priest
|
all service
|
4
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Sprigy
|
½ service
|
30
|
160
|
3
|
|
|
Richard, son of ?Luthe
|
all service
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
Robert de Brancaster [Norfolk]
|
service
|
12
|
|
|
|
|
William, son of Roger
|
service
|
12
|
240
|
3
|
|
|
William Despan
|
service
|
|
240
|
3
|
|
|
William ?Sisladin
|
service
|
240
|
¼
|
|
|
|
Steven Francigenis
|
service
|
12
|
160
|
2½
|
|
|
Matthew le Curteis
|
service
|
3
|
240
|
¾
|
|
|
Philip de Norton [Norfolk]
|
service
|
24
|
160
|
4½
|
|
|
William Russell
|
service
|
10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366
|
|
|
|
|
|
Extrapolating from this to the entire holding, we get 28 free tenants,
who contribute £1 7s 8d annually in service, and who are responsible for
roughly 36% of any scutage levied (calculated by reducing the scutage
figures to a common denominator and multplying by 2, roughly 20%, and
adding 2/5 of the kt’s fee as a percentage of 2½ knights’ fees, roughly
16%).
|
|
Reginald, Henry and Walter, the sons of the merchant of
Deepdale
|
with their entire tenement and their entire household (t
& h)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matilda, daughter of Sisich
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph, son of Nonyve
|
t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
William, son of Richard
|
t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph, son of Yrich
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goda, the widow
|
from land which she holds of William and Juliana in the
same vill;
|
4
|
|
|
1 a
|
|
Elfled Peps
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Turk
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon Rust
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Snais
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liviva, daughter of the priest
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clement Popi
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh, son of Brun
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Salle
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
William ?Coyiun
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Rei
|
½ t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ulviva, his mother
|
½ t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elviva, Liviva and Avis, daughters of Blench
|
½ t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matilda, daughter of Stirger
|
½ t & h
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hoimund, son of Adelwold
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goda, who was the wife of Harvey Dusing
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matilda, daughter of Mannessune
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alice, daughter of Algar
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wlfwan, daughter of Robert
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alice
daughter of Goldwin
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger, son of Thedwar
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Robert le Neuman
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunnild Purre
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simon, son of Lefwin
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Bus
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Haid ...
|
t & h;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doubling this, it looks like we get roughly seventy
unfree peasant householders.
|
|
the entire croft of the chief messuage with half of the
two parcels which abut on the aforesaid croft toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Wlfuriches’ croft toward the west;
|
|
|
half of the meadow which abuts on the aforesaid croft
toward the north:
|
|
|
and a half of the moor which abuts on the aforesaid
croft toward the north;
|
|
|
half of the entire field which is called ‘Turf’, to wit,
half of the ploughland of ‘Oldesties’ toward the west, half of the four
acres next to the ploughland of ‘Oldesties’ toward the north, and half of
eight acres which abuts on the aforesaid four acres toward the south,
|
6 a
|
|
half of the pasture of ‘Linghill’ toward the south,
|
|
|
half of the ploughland of ten and a half acres on
‘Linghill’ toward the west,
|
5.25 a
|
|
half of the fifteen acres which lie nearer the vill of
Docking [Norfolk]
toward the north
|
7.5 a
|
|
half of three perches which abut on the aforesaid fifteen
acres toward the north
|
1225 sq. ft.
|
|
half of ‘Blacchill’ next ‘Turfdic’ toward the west,
|
|
|
half of the pasture which abuts on ‘Doccingat’ toward
the west,
|
|
|
and half of ‘Guthruneswong’ toward the north,
|
|
|
and a half of the ploughland which lies next to the road
to Docking toward the west,
|
|
|
and a half of the ploughland of ‘Hevekerescrundl’ toward
the west,
|
|
|
half of the pasture next ‘Hevekerescrundl’ toward the
north,
|
|
|
a half of ‘Langedun’ toward the north, half of ‘Turf’...
toward the north; half of ‘Benedictesdal’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of ‘Knithtes Hevedland’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of little ‘Strungelh’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of greater ‘Strungelh’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of little ‘Langedun’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of greater ‘Langedun’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of ‘Cheshohill’ toward the north;
|
|
|
at Deepdale down a perch of land toward the west;
|
272 sq ft.
|
|
half of ‘Tirne’ toward the west; half of ‘Westhill’
toward the west;
|
|
|
half of three perches which belonged to Matilda Brust toward
the north;
|
1225 sq. ft.
|
|
half of ‘Berdemere’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of the entire marsh which abuts on ‘Westhill’ and
on ‘Berdemere’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of the marsh before the gate of Bonde Gris toward
the north;
|
|
|
half of all the land which belonged to Harvey the priest
toward the north;
|
|
|
a half of the land which belonged to Magot toward the
west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Grimescroft’ toward the west;
|
|
|
the entire croft of ‘Edwen’ next to the house of Roger
the clerk;
|
|
|
half of the messuage which belonged to Ascelina de
Candos toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Tuncroft’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Pintellescroft’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of ‘Calcedic’ toward the west:
|
|
|
*half of the water at the church of St. Andrew
toward the west;
|
|
|
half of the three furlongs of ‘Hildeslawes’ toward the
west;
|
10 a?
|
|
half of ‘?Docconnicwong’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Tornhill’ toward the north;
|
|
|
and a half of ‘Blacters’ toward the north;
|
|
|
half of ... Uweshel’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Crocumdal’ toward the west;
|
|
|
a half of ‘Foxloth’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Blacchill’ toward the west;
|
|
|
half of ‘Thirsedol’ toward the west,
|
|
|
half of one parcel of land at ‘Sidesternegat’ toward the
west;
|
|
|
all the land which belonged to Acke,
|
|
|
the entire croft which belonged to Ralph Hulloc;
|
|
|
half a rod of land and four feet at ‘Harnesho’ toward
the west;
|
144 sq ft.
|
|
|
This adds up to roughly 35 separate parcels of land, which are probably to
be added to the 40 acres, which, in turn, is probably half of the main
demesne of the manor. Since so few
acreages are given, estimates of total size are very dangerous, but we are
probably dealing with roughly 200 to 400 acres of demesne.
|
|
half of the advowson of the church of St. Margaret
Burnham;
|
|
|
half of the advowson of the church of All Saints
in the same vill;
|
|
|
half of the mill at the river with half of the liberty
of the water and with all the other appurtenances of the same mill;
|
|
|
a quarter of the whole market of Burnham with a half of
the other liberties pertaining to the aforesaid lands;
|
|
|
half of the entire mill at Winegot with half of the
croft of the same mill toward the west;
|
|
|
half of the meadow and marsh on
both sides of the water of same mill toward the north.
|
|
|
|
The advowsons of 2 churches, 2 mills, ½ a market, and
some water rights.
“Let it be known that the aforesaid William and Juliana granted
to the aforesaid Hugh and Avis and the heirs of Avis,
Hubert de Deepdale t & h and in exchange for this
Hubert the aforesaid Hugh and Avis granted to the aforesaid William and
Juliana, Reginald Cod t & h.
Furthermore let it be known that [if] the aforesaid two
mills, which are of the same fee, should at any time fall down, by the
default of William and Juliana, it shall be allowed to Hugh and Avis to
repair the aforesaid mills out of the common of the aforesaid mills and
[if] by the default of Hugh and Avis the aforesaid mills fall down, it
shall be allowed to the aforesaid William and Juliana to repair the
aforesaid mills out of the common profit of the aforesaid mills.
To have and to hold to this William and Juliana and the
heirs of Juliana of the capital lords of this fee by the service which pertains to the aforesaid lands.”
B. Dodwell (ed), Feet
of Fines for the County of Norfolk, 1201–1215, PRS ns 32 (London 1958) 100–3, no
210.
|
|