Ben Walsh [email protected] @History Ben
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Whose history is it anyway? Finding the common people and giving them a role in the history curriculum OR ‘Packaging the People’ Historical Association Conference 2014 Ben Walsh [email protected] @History_Ben 1 2 Where are the ordinary people in the Norman Conquest? SOURCE A School textbook (Ben Walsh, Empires and Citizens Vol 1) The ordinary people Domesday tells us a lot about the richest, most important people in society. It is not so easy to see what happened to slightly less important people under Norman rule. However, we do know about some people. For example, there was a priest in London called Regenbald. He drew up many legal documents for Edward the Confessor. He also drew up documents for William the Conqueror. This suggests that many of the ordinary officials in the government who did the day-to-day work kept their jobs after the Norman invasion. It is much more difficult to work out how the Conquest affected ordinary people in English villages. Most historians think that the Conquest did not affect them very much. Freemen, villeins and smallholders still worked their lands and their lord’s lands. The only difference was that their lords were Normans after 1066 rather than Saxons. SOURCE B The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle The king gave his land as dearly for rent as he possibly could; then came another man and offered more than the first, and the king let it go to the man who had offered more; then came a third and offered still more, and the king gave it up to the man who had offered most of all. And he did not care at all how very wrongfully the reeves got it from poor men, nor how many illegal acts they did. SOURCE C Domesday Survey 1086 for Wath (1) and Ilkey (2), Yorkshire 3 SOURCE D From Marc Morris, The Norman Conquest, published 2013 Some areas of the country recovered in the years between 1066 and 1086. The average value of manors in Norfolk, for example, had risen by 38%. It would be wrong, however, to read too rosy a picture into such rises because the value of a Domesday manor was the value to its lord in rents, and there is ample evidence to indicate the new Norman lords had racked up rents to intolerably high levels … The Normans appear to have been uniformly rapacious in pursuit of profit: elsewhere the Chronicle laments that ‘the king and his leading men were fond, yea, too fond, of avarice: they coveted gold and silver, and did not care how sinfully it was obtained’. The final question of the Domesday commissioners, as preserved in the Ely Inquest, was whether more could be taken from an estate than was currently being taken.” For this reason, where the Domesday Book shows a fall inmanorial values in areas not associated with widespread ravaging, we can be fairly certain that this was not due to leniency on the part of the landlords. In certain counties it has been shown that the sharpest falls in value coincide quite precisely with brand-new Norman lordships - the kind carved out from scratch, with no reference to previous landholding patterns, One View is that this reorganization process was so disruptive that it caused a drop in economic output. A more likely reason is that new manors had been constructed on a new model, more favourable to the lords and more oppressive for the peasantry For it is also in these counties that we witness dramatic falls in the number of free peasants. In Cambridgeshire, for example, the number of freemen plummeted fiom 900 to 177; in Bedfordshire from 700 to 90, and in Hertfordshire from 240 to 43. At the same time, we discover that the number of servile peas- ants has rocketed. Frequently in Domesday we find the phrase ‘he is now a villein’. Values were only lower in these areas, it seems, because the before and after figures record different realities. Those for the pre-Conquest period had been calculated by combining the incomes of all the various English freeholders on a particular estate; the figures for 1086 by contrast, simply represented the income the new Norman lord derived in rent, having forced these former freemen into financial servitude. This was a bad bargain for the small landowners, but alter the Conquest their bargaining power was not strong. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says at one point that the Normans ‘imposed unjust tolls and did many injustices which are hard to reckon up’. The tenurial revolution, in short, had prompted a social revolution. English society in certain areas at least, was a lot less free after the Conquest than it had been before.” Yet even as lords were driving up profits, they were paying less and less money to the king … As the reign continued, the concessions appear to have increased, so much so that by the 1085 some tenants-in-chief were paying almost no tax at all. 4 Wills and inventories, Tenancy agreements, Court Records etc A list of possessions of William Lene, a villein from Walsham in Suffolk. William was killed in a fire in his barn in 1329. This record lists his belongings. 3 large brass pots; 2 brass pans; basin and jug; table with 3 benches and 1 chair. 2 oxen; 8 cows; 1 bull; 3 calves; 1 mare and 1 foal; 30 sheep; 1 sow and 4 piglets. Granary containing wheat, rye, barley, beans, peas, oats, malt. 7s 8d in money. 3 wooden barrels; 4 vats; 2 tubs. 1 plough; 1 cart with unshod wheels. 3 geese; 1 cockerel; 6 hens. 10 yards of red cloth; 1 griddle; 2 straw baskets; 2 troughs; 1 robe for William’s body; 4 linen sheets; 2 table cloths; 2 trowels; 1 mortar and pestle 12 acres of land sown with wheat Tenancy agreement c1300 Richard Est will pay his lord one quarter of wheat in October. In November he will pay wheat, four bushels of oats and three hens. And at Christmas one cock and two hens and two pennies worth of bread. He will work one day every week ploughing his lord’s land. And he will work a second day a week mowing or reaping, or whatever other work shall be imposed on him by the lord or his bailiff At harvest time he shall work two extra days and on each of those days he works he shall find two other men to work with him at his own expense. Without his lord’s permission he will neither marry his son or daughter [to someone else], nor sell his oxen or calves, nor his horses, neither will he fell the oak or ash trees without permission from his lord. However often he brews he will give one penny to the lord. Tenancy agreement 1386 Stephen Walker of Keteryng shall render to the lord 18 shillings yearly in four. He shall do two ploughings a year and will receive fair warning from the bailiff of when he will be needed. He shall still do week work, except that the lord will find him food and drink. At harvest time he shall reap for two days a week. On one day he shall find one man to work with him, on the second day he shall find two men. The men will be supplied with food by the lord. He shall give 4d to the lord for a horse if he decides to sell it. He shall pay a fine if he decides to marry his daughters [to someone else] and he shall pay the lord for his sons to attend school. 5 Medieval court records This file will help you to tackle Part 1 of the Brainwork activity on page 89 Source 1 Decision from a guild of cloth makers in King’s Lynn, Norfolk in 1258 Roger Aldith, John's son, was charged that he had twice offended against the rules of the gild: he had made a blanket which was partly of good warp [the up and down thread of a cloth] thread and partly of bad warp thread … He had his membership of the gild taken away and was expelled from the gild. Source 2 Judgements made at the local manor court of Walsham in the year 1329. Walsham is a village in Suffolk Matilda Coppelowe, Richard Qualm and Nicholas Kembald were each fined because they did not clean out the ditch above the demesne [the lord’s land] as they promised the hayward [the official who looked after the fences on the manor] they would. William Kembald the younger was fined 12d for keeping from his lord a hen for the last two years. Alice the daughter of Robert Rede is to be placed under the control of the court because she married without permission from the lord of the manor. John Green must return to the court at another time to answer to the lord for allowing his pigs to damage the fences in the meadow. William Hawys was fined 18 shillings for demolishing a house on his land without the permission of the lord. The lord agreed that it should not be rebuilt because nobody dares live there because of thieves. The lord confirmed that William Patel, Nicolad Denys, Walter Qualm, Agnes and Alice Typetrot and Agnes Gooch should all be allowed to inherit their lands without paying a fee to the lord, because that is the custom in this manor [peasants usually did have to pay a fee to inherit their lands]. Source 3 Extract from the London Assizes (Courts) of Nuisance 1341 William de Stanesfeld, parson of St.