https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/es/batel
batel: a boat that is small
An interesting comment here -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainera
"Although most rowing teams were male, evidence from the historical bertsos tells us that female rowers existed, referred to as batelerak in Basque. The name derives from batel, a name for a smaller type of boat with 4 rowers and a cox. Evidence can also be seen in the traditional batelera dantza (batelera dance) which is performed by women with oars."
The trainerilla (Spanish for 'little trainera') has a crew of 6 rowers and one cox, all sitting in a row.
The batel is a smaller boat used close to the coast for a variety of fish, with 4 rowers and a cox.
Medieval Latin.
Forum rules
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 30 days after creation.
Do not post support questions here. Before you post read the forum rules. Topics in this forum are automatically closed 30 days after creation.
Re: Medieval Latin.
Cheers af.absque fenestris wrote: ⤴Fri May 08, 2020 7:33 pm Portuguese is pretty close to Latin and "batel" is likely to be a ship's boat...
Saudações náuticas af
Great Crossing 2.jpg
Your picture reminded me of 'Obelisk', um, no, Google, ah, 'Obelix' and suddenly Asterix in England has appeared on my desktop.
Saudações náuticas. May you have fair winds and following seas.
Now c'mon RollyShed, dancing with oars - please, don't be so silly, nobody dances with oars.RollyShed wrote: ⤴Fri May 08, 2020 11:19 pm "Although most rowing teams were male, evidence from the historical bertsos tells us that female rowers existed, referred to as batelerak in Basque. The name derives from batel, a name for a smaller type of boat with 4 rowers and a cox. Evidence can also be seen in the traditional batelera dantza (batelera dance) which is performed by women with oars."
A traditional Sunday afternoon in England, with smaller oars. I wonder if Asterix et ses amis will encounter anybody dancing with - um, well - anything?
Jon
Re: Medieval Latin.
Because of the Black Death suddenly there was a lot of spare land and far fewer people to work it. This worried the king and no doubt, his earls and lords. On June 18 1349 the Ordinance of Labourers was issued and in 1351 this was backed up by the Statute of Labourers. These pieces of legislation were felt necessary as suddenly the labourers realised that they had ‘marketable skills’. I’m pretty sure that they’d still have had to have worked on their lords land for free, but in their spare time they could wander over to a neighbouring lord, who was short of labour, and offer to milk their cows, cut their corn, etc, for a reasonable wage. Or maybe an unreasonable wage. Balance can be so difficult].
The ‘powers that be’ did not like this so enacted the legislation where wages were fixed at 1346 levels and people were stopped travelling around selling their skills – except in certain areas where they grew things, but didn’t have a residential workforce. It also tried to ‘fix’ food prices. However, lords needed their cows milked etc, and the legislation wasn’t entirely welcomed, or followed.
To try to show a bit of balance, in 1363 some Sumptuary Laws were issued. These were more aimed at what we’d call ‘the middle-class’, who had the cheek to wear clothes better than they deserved. Yep, you had to wear what you were meant to wear! If a king wore, say, ermine, then only a king could wear ermine. If an earl owned a pearl, then only a king and an earl could own a pearl … sorry.
Positively, people were becoming ‘better off’ – even though those 'in power' may not have entirely appreciated that.
OK, that may be a bit unfair. The Middle Ages were a very different time. The king was appointed by God. If he was a good king then he won battles and in ‘46 Edward III had won at Crecy and then at Calais in ‘47. When he had time he would tour around his country and we’d all be in awe of our wondrous king and his huge entourage. During religious festivals he’d hand out alms, which could include feeding a number of poor people and/or handing out cash. He could also pardon anybody for any reason, thus proving what a good bloke he was. We also lived under his protection.
Pardons. A way for the king to prove what a jolly good bloke he was, and a way to make money. If you were accused of something then you could nip off to court and pay a fine to have the accusation annulled. Obviously it wasn’t quite that simple, but the king made a lot of money by ‘fining’ people to get pardons. Or to get married. Or to exchange some land. And other things.
However, a very structured society had reached a tipping point.
So far, Melcombe has appeared in this as a ‘victim’, and in an attempt to provide some more balance in Aug 1369, To the collectors of customs in the port of Melcombe.
Order upon the petition of James Jakemyn merchant of Florence, to suffer him by himself and his servants to bring to the town of Melcombe all his wool bought and purveyed in Somerset and Dorset, and before Michaelmas next to lade and cocket the same in the port thereof, and after paying 40s 8d upon every sack for the customs and subsidies thereupon due, to take it without let to foreign parts, as he has prayed licence to do. Proviso that no wool, woolfells or hides be laded in the said port nor taken over after Michaelmas without the king's special licence.
Wool was Englands main export and – in theory – it was tightly controlled. Melcombe was one of the main ports on the south-west coast.
There may also have been examples of what we might call ‘free market enterprise’. If I was a real historian I’d paraphrase this one.
On Nov 26 1369. To the mayor and sheriffs of London.
Order, under pain of forfeiture on sight of these presents to cause proclamation to be made from
month to month in the city and suburbs of London on the king's behalf forbidding any man openly or secretly to take out of the realm any corn, gold or silver, bows, arrows or other arms and armour under pain of forfeiture of all the lands, goods and chattels as well of the buyers as of the sellers thereof, of the ships conveying the same to foreign parts, and of all else that may be forfeited to the
king, to arrest all corn, gold and silver and arms found after the proclamation in ships to be so taken over, the bodies of the sellers and buyers thereof and of the seamen of the said ships, and the ships, and to keep their bodies in prison without mainprise until further order, certifying from time to time in chancery under their seals the names of buyers and sellers, seamen and ships, the quantity of corn, gold and silver and arms, the true value thereof and of the ships wherein the same were laded; as the king is informed that merchants and others have oft times heretofore taken out of the realm corn, gold and silver and arms, and cease not daily so to do, to the prejudice of the king and the hurt of all his – something or another - contrary to the proclamation, and he would apply a remedy touching the premises. By K. and C.
Communication at it’s clearest. To them though, it probably was clear.
It was also sent to the mayors and bailiffs of a huge number of towns, or where there was no mayor just the bailiffs, and to a huge number of sheriffs.
To me, that seems like ‘traitorous’ behaviour, but Edward doesn’t seem to have felt that. Different times.
In 1372, after the Flemings had returned to our side we were allowed to ask for compensation. This was normal and if ‘piracy’ happened then we could petition the king in order to get said compensation. This is probably why ‘piracy’ wasn’t considered to be ‘piracy’. It was just normal behaviour and we were all under the king’s protection.
This led to things such as a, ‘File of petitions &c. relating to damage done to English shipping by the Flemings since 1343. The petitions are from the following places:- Shaftesbury, Cerne, Bristol, Sherringham Scheld (haven of Blakeney), Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hartlepool, Whitby, Sandwich, Saltfleet, Lynn, Scarborough, Kingston-on-Hull, Bridgwater, Weymouth and Melcombe, Southampton, Fowey, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Shoreham’.
Also in 1372 the pope found himself hard up. He may have taxed meat and wine in France but he definitely taxed his church in England. This from July onwards shows that. In 1373 ‘we’ turned to our king for a remedy.
Busy year, April 4 ‘72, ‘To Philip de Courtenay admiral of the king's fleet from the mouth of the Thames westward, or to his lieutenants in the counties of Dorset, Somerset, Suthampton, Devon and Cornwall. Strict order to cause all seamen in singular the ports of those counties to be arrested and kept under arrest ….’
However, ‘…. the king is informed that great number of the seamen appointed for equipment of the said ships are withdrawing and eloigning themselves in order to fish and for divers other causes, in contempt of the king and to the delay of his passage, whereat he is moved to anger’.
I’m not surprised at his anger as Rodger’s says that ‘in Spring ‘72 a squadron of 12 Castilian galleys commanded by Fernan Ruiz Cabeza de Vaca and Ruiz Diaz de Rojas entered the Bay of Biscay. At La Rochelle on June 23 they intercepted a small English force carrying the earl of Pembroke to take command of Poitou (English once more since 1360). Though Pembroke was carrying £20,000 in gold his squadron was small and unprepared. It seems to have been at anchor or off the harbour of La Rochelle, and the confused accounts of the action suggest that the tide played a crucial part; possibly the English ships were aground at low water, with enough water to float the attacking galleys allowing them to pick off their targets one by one. Most of the English ships were burnt; Pembroke and the gold were taken. This disaster were redoubled when a second Castilian force under Riuz de Rojas combined with a French squadron under Owain ap Thomas* (which had just raided Guernsey) to blockade La Rochelle.’
With the above ‘eloigning’ record, could that explain why Pembroke had such a small squadron? Rodgers continues by saying that, once it sailed, ‘the relieving English fleet was turned back by headwinds’ and La Rochelle surrendered on Aug 15.
We started to build ships and negotiated a peace with the Castilians, which doesn’t seem to have worked as returning to Rodgers ‘the new Castilian Admiral, Fernan Sanchez de Tovar, took 37 ships out of an English convoy loading salt in the Bay of Bourgneuf. The losses were valued at £18,000, possibly the heaviest single loss suffered by England at sea in the fourteenth century’.
*Owain ap Thomas aka Owain Lawgoch (English: Owain of the Red Hand, French: Yvain de Galles), full name Owain ap Thomas ap Rhodri, claimed the title ‘Prince of Wales’, his raid on Guernsey has been interpreted as a rehearsal in preparation for an attack on Wales in ‘73 – which didn’t happen.
I’m not sure what happened next, but on June 10 ‘73 there was an, ‘Order to command all and singular the ships and other vessels arrested for the king's service in any of those ports to be dearrested ….’
But then Jan 6 ‘74, ‘To the sheriff of Cornwall. Writ of aid in favour of Philip de Courteneye admiral of the king's fleet from the mouth of the Thames westward and of his lieutenants in regard to all things which pertain to the office of admiral, directing the sheriff to arrest and keep in safe custody until he shall have further order of the king, the said admiral or lieutenants for their deliverance all found contrary or rebellious therein, and when arrested straightway to certify their names to the said admiral or lieutenants’.
It was also sent to the sheriffs of Dorset and Somerset, Devon, Southampton, Kent, Gloucester, Surrey and Sussex.
At some point in ‘74 Edward III’s health started to deteriorate and so his son, John of Gaunt, started to run the country. Corruption became a greater problem that it had been.
Returning to Corfe on Feb 24 1374 Robert Kentbury, William Brenge, William Grandon, Reynold Deuyas, William Hulle of Middlesex, and William Hygyn of Corfcastell of Dorset, ‘mainprised’ [paid the bail] in favour of;
John Loter the elder, Wilham Gous of Corfcastel, Hugh Rus, Roger Spencer, Edmmid Rus, John Maihewe the younger, John Spore, John Audrebody, John Remston, Edward Loter, Richard Coke, John Loter the younger, William Hopere, John Lynard 'taillour', John Shorham, Thomas Gerard, John Wymond, William Waller the younger and John Kyggel 'masoun'.
This was after Joan the abbess of Shaston* accused them of trespass. It also included an ‘order to set the defendants free if taken’.
* Shaftesbury.
As we’ve seen, Shaftesbury held Kingston – and possibly Overcombe – so she thought that a ‘tresspass’ - a very general term - had happened ‘up there’, but other locals were willing to say ‘nope, didn’t happen’.
As I’ve mentioned him before, in ‘74, in recognition for his great works Edward III granted Geoffrey Chaucer a gallon of wine a day for the rest of his life.
On Feb 4 ‘75 commissions of peace were made in Devon and they were also to inquire about felonies, tresspasses, forstalleries, regrateries, abuses of weights and measures by innkeepers and others and attempts by workmen, artificers and servants against the form of the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm.
Thanks to Wikipedia, regratery (countable and uncountable, plural regrateries)
1. (obsolete) The act or practice of regrating; buying commodities in order to sell them. [14th-17th c.]
Didn’t realise that was illegal – oh well.
‘Forstalleries’. Google thinks it might be Danish or Slovenian, but then doesn’t actually translate it … please help.
On Feb 24 1375 there was a commission of ‘oyer and terminer’ (to hear and determine/judge) in Southampton about ‘many merchants and others’ who’d taken corn to foreign parts, ‘whereby a scarcity has arisen in the realm and daily increases.’
It also went to Dorset, Somerset, Norfolk, Essex, Devon, Gloucester, Northumberland, the East Riding, West Riding and North Riding [Yorkshire], Lyndesey and Holand [Lincoln], Huntingdon and Bristol.
On July 5 William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, William Tauk, Robert le fitz Payn, John de la Hale, Edmund fitz Herbert, Walter Perle, Roger Manyngford, William Payn and Edmund Strode were appointed in Dorset. Probably in connection with that last record.
Back to Edward versus the pope – and in this case his own subjects - on May 11 John Chichestre of Melcoumbe Regis and Richard Fytheler of La Pole were commissioned to ‘make diligent scrutiny’ in all towns and ports in Dorset looking for gold, silver, jewels and letters of exchange taken out of England and all ‘letters patent, bulls … or other things prejudicial to the realm brought into, or taken out of, the realm’.
Hmmm, I wonder what we’d been up to? That’s also the first time I’ve found Melcombe as ‘Regis’.
As said, part of the king’s role was to be generous and on Aug 15 Nicholas Wyttele, one of the king’s huntsmen, was granted 4d a day to be paid by Southampton, while Milton abbey provided the roof under which he lived.
Bearing the ‘forstalleries, regrateries’ and ‘attempts by workmen, artificers and servants against the form of the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm’ record, above, where I think the ‘the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm’ are the Ordinances and Statutes of Labourers, then one of the best named events in English history is about to happen – or maybe it’s started. I’ve ordered the only description of it, and it should arrive in a couple of days.
Oh, sorry, IT, is ‘The Great Rumour’. Love it!
Until then, all I know is that ‘in many Southern counties, discontent increasingly took the form of widespread refusal of services, mounting arrears of rent and outright flight from manors, as well as continued lawsuits over the issue of demesne [homeland] status ... by the 1370’s much of the South and the Midlands was in a state of unrest …’
The ‘powers that be’ did not like this so enacted the legislation where wages were fixed at 1346 levels and people were stopped travelling around selling their skills – except in certain areas where they grew things, but didn’t have a residential workforce. It also tried to ‘fix’ food prices. However, lords needed their cows milked etc, and the legislation wasn’t entirely welcomed, or followed.
To try to show a bit of balance, in 1363 some Sumptuary Laws were issued. These were more aimed at what we’d call ‘the middle-class’, who had the cheek to wear clothes better than they deserved. Yep, you had to wear what you were meant to wear! If a king wore, say, ermine, then only a king could wear ermine. If an earl owned a pearl, then only a king and an earl could own a pearl … sorry.
Positively, people were becoming ‘better off’ – even though those 'in power' may not have entirely appreciated that.
OK, that may be a bit unfair. The Middle Ages were a very different time. The king was appointed by God. If he was a good king then he won battles and in ‘46 Edward III had won at Crecy and then at Calais in ‘47. When he had time he would tour around his country and we’d all be in awe of our wondrous king and his huge entourage. During religious festivals he’d hand out alms, which could include feeding a number of poor people and/or handing out cash. He could also pardon anybody for any reason, thus proving what a good bloke he was. We also lived under his protection.
Pardons. A way for the king to prove what a jolly good bloke he was, and a way to make money. If you were accused of something then you could nip off to court and pay a fine to have the accusation annulled. Obviously it wasn’t quite that simple, but the king made a lot of money by ‘fining’ people to get pardons. Or to get married. Or to exchange some land. And other things.
However, a very structured society had reached a tipping point.
So far, Melcombe has appeared in this as a ‘victim’, and in an attempt to provide some more balance in Aug 1369, To the collectors of customs in the port of Melcombe.
Order upon the petition of James Jakemyn merchant of Florence, to suffer him by himself and his servants to bring to the town of Melcombe all his wool bought and purveyed in Somerset and Dorset, and before Michaelmas next to lade and cocket the same in the port thereof, and after paying 40s 8d upon every sack for the customs and subsidies thereupon due, to take it without let to foreign parts, as he has prayed licence to do. Proviso that no wool, woolfells or hides be laded in the said port nor taken over after Michaelmas without the king's special licence.
Wool was Englands main export and – in theory – it was tightly controlled. Melcombe was one of the main ports on the south-west coast.
There may also have been examples of what we might call ‘free market enterprise’. If I was a real historian I’d paraphrase this one.
On Nov 26 1369. To the mayor and sheriffs of London.
Order, under pain of forfeiture on sight of these presents to cause proclamation to be made from
month to month in the city and suburbs of London on the king's behalf forbidding any man openly or secretly to take out of the realm any corn, gold or silver, bows, arrows or other arms and armour under pain of forfeiture of all the lands, goods and chattels as well of the buyers as of the sellers thereof, of the ships conveying the same to foreign parts, and of all else that may be forfeited to the
king, to arrest all corn, gold and silver and arms found after the proclamation in ships to be so taken over, the bodies of the sellers and buyers thereof and of the seamen of the said ships, and the ships, and to keep their bodies in prison without mainprise until further order, certifying from time to time in chancery under their seals the names of buyers and sellers, seamen and ships, the quantity of corn, gold and silver and arms, the true value thereof and of the ships wherein the same were laded; as the king is informed that merchants and others have oft times heretofore taken out of the realm corn, gold and silver and arms, and cease not daily so to do, to the prejudice of the king and the hurt of all his – something or another - contrary to the proclamation, and he would apply a remedy touching the premises. By K. and C.
Communication at it’s clearest. To them though, it probably was clear.It was also sent to the mayors and bailiffs of a huge number of towns, or where there was no mayor just the bailiffs, and to a huge number of sheriffs.
To me, that seems like ‘traitorous’ behaviour, but Edward doesn’t seem to have felt that. Different times.
In 1372, after the Flemings had returned to our side we were allowed to ask for compensation. This was normal and if ‘piracy’ happened then we could petition the king in order to get said compensation. This is probably why ‘piracy’ wasn’t considered to be ‘piracy’. It was just normal behaviour and we were all under the king’s protection.
This led to things such as a, ‘File of petitions &c. relating to damage done to English shipping by the Flemings since 1343. The petitions are from the following places:- Shaftesbury, Cerne, Bristol, Sherringham Scheld (haven of Blakeney), Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hartlepool, Whitby, Sandwich, Saltfleet, Lynn, Scarborough, Kingston-on-Hull, Bridgwater, Weymouth and Melcombe, Southampton, Fowey, Plymouth, Dartmouth, Shoreham’.
Also in 1372 the pope found himself hard up. He may have taxed meat and wine in France but he definitely taxed his church in England. This from July onwards shows that. In 1373 ‘we’ turned to our king for a remedy.
Busy year, April 4 ‘72, ‘To Philip de Courtenay admiral of the king's fleet from the mouth of the Thames westward, or to his lieutenants in the counties of Dorset, Somerset, Suthampton, Devon and Cornwall. Strict order to cause all seamen in singular the ports of those counties to be arrested and kept under arrest ….’
However, ‘…. the king is informed that great number of the seamen appointed for equipment of the said ships are withdrawing and eloigning themselves in order to fish and for divers other causes, in contempt of the king and to the delay of his passage, whereat he is moved to anger’.
I’m not surprised at his anger as Rodger’s says that ‘in Spring ‘72 a squadron of 12 Castilian galleys commanded by Fernan Ruiz Cabeza de Vaca and Ruiz Diaz de Rojas entered the Bay of Biscay. At La Rochelle on June 23 they intercepted a small English force carrying the earl of Pembroke to take command of Poitou (English once more since 1360). Though Pembroke was carrying £20,000 in gold his squadron was small and unprepared. It seems to have been at anchor or off the harbour of La Rochelle, and the confused accounts of the action suggest that the tide played a crucial part; possibly the English ships were aground at low water, with enough water to float the attacking galleys allowing them to pick off their targets one by one. Most of the English ships were burnt; Pembroke and the gold were taken. This disaster were redoubled when a second Castilian force under Riuz de Rojas combined with a French squadron under Owain ap Thomas* (which had just raided Guernsey) to blockade La Rochelle.’
With the above ‘eloigning’ record, could that explain why Pembroke had such a small squadron? Rodgers continues by saying that, once it sailed, ‘the relieving English fleet was turned back by headwinds’ and La Rochelle surrendered on Aug 15.
We started to build ships and negotiated a peace with the Castilians, which doesn’t seem to have worked as returning to Rodgers ‘the new Castilian Admiral, Fernan Sanchez de Tovar, took 37 ships out of an English convoy loading salt in the Bay of Bourgneuf. The losses were valued at £18,000, possibly the heaviest single loss suffered by England at sea in the fourteenth century’.
*Owain ap Thomas aka Owain Lawgoch (English: Owain of the Red Hand, French: Yvain de Galles), full name Owain ap Thomas ap Rhodri, claimed the title ‘Prince of Wales’, his raid on Guernsey has been interpreted as a rehearsal in preparation for an attack on Wales in ‘73 – which didn’t happen.
I’m not sure what happened next, but on June 10 ‘73 there was an, ‘Order to command all and singular the ships and other vessels arrested for the king's service in any of those ports to be dearrested ….’
But then Jan 6 ‘74, ‘To the sheriff of Cornwall. Writ of aid in favour of Philip de Courteneye admiral of the king's fleet from the mouth of the Thames westward and of his lieutenants in regard to all things which pertain to the office of admiral, directing the sheriff to arrest and keep in safe custody until he shall have further order of the king, the said admiral or lieutenants for their deliverance all found contrary or rebellious therein, and when arrested straightway to certify their names to the said admiral or lieutenants’.
It was also sent to the sheriffs of Dorset and Somerset, Devon, Southampton, Kent, Gloucester, Surrey and Sussex.
At some point in ‘74 Edward III’s health started to deteriorate and so his son, John of Gaunt, started to run the country. Corruption became a greater problem that it had been.
Returning to Corfe on Feb 24 1374 Robert Kentbury, William Brenge, William Grandon, Reynold Deuyas, William Hulle of Middlesex, and William Hygyn of Corfcastell of Dorset, ‘mainprised’ [paid the bail] in favour of;
John Loter the elder, Wilham Gous of Corfcastel, Hugh Rus, Roger Spencer, Edmmid Rus, John Maihewe the younger, John Spore, John Audrebody, John Remston, Edward Loter, Richard Coke, John Loter the younger, William Hopere, John Lynard 'taillour', John Shorham, Thomas Gerard, John Wymond, William Waller the younger and John Kyggel 'masoun'.
This was after Joan the abbess of Shaston* accused them of trespass. It also included an ‘order to set the defendants free if taken’.
* Shaftesbury.
As we’ve seen, Shaftesbury held Kingston – and possibly Overcombe – so she thought that a ‘tresspass’ - a very general term - had happened ‘up there’, but other locals were willing to say ‘nope, didn’t happen’.
As I’ve mentioned him before, in ‘74, in recognition for his great works Edward III granted Geoffrey Chaucer a gallon of wine a day for the rest of his life.
On Feb 4 ‘75 commissions of peace were made in Devon and they were also to inquire about felonies, tresspasses, forstalleries, regrateries, abuses of weights and measures by innkeepers and others and attempts by workmen, artificers and servants against the form of the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm.
Thanks to Wikipedia, regratery (countable and uncountable, plural regrateries)
1. (obsolete) The act or practice of regrating; buying commodities in order to sell them. [14th-17th c.]
Didn’t realise that was illegal – oh well.
‘Forstalleries’. Google thinks it might be Danish or Slovenian, but then doesn’t actually translate it … please help.
On Feb 24 1375 there was a commission of ‘oyer and terminer’ (to hear and determine/judge) in Southampton about ‘many merchants and others’ who’d taken corn to foreign parts, ‘whereby a scarcity has arisen in the realm and daily increases.’
It also went to Dorset, Somerset, Norfolk, Essex, Devon, Gloucester, Northumberland, the East Riding, West Riding and North Riding [Yorkshire], Lyndesey and Holand [Lincoln], Huntingdon and Bristol.
On July 5 William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, William Tauk, Robert le fitz Payn, John de la Hale, Edmund fitz Herbert, Walter Perle, Roger Manyngford, William Payn and Edmund Strode were appointed in Dorset. Probably in connection with that last record.
Back to Edward versus the pope – and in this case his own subjects - on May 11 John Chichestre of Melcoumbe Regis and Richard Fytheler of La Pole were commissioned to ‘make diligent scrutiny’ in all towns and ports in Dorset looking for gold, silver, jewels and letters of exchange taken out of England and all ‘letters patent, bulls … or other things prejudicial to the realm brought into, or taken out of, the realm’.
Hmmm, I wonder what we’d been up to? That’s also the first time I’ve found Melcombe as ‘Regis’.
As said, part of the king’s role was to be generous and on Aug 15 Nicholas Wyttele, one of the king’s huntsmen, was granted 4d a day to be paid by Southampton, while Milton abbey provided the roof under which he lived.
Bearing the ‘forstalleries, regrateries’ and ‘attempts by workmen, artificers and servants against the form of the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm’ record, above, where I think the ‘the ordinances and statutes made for the weal[th] of the realm’ are the Ordinances and Statutes of Labourers, then one of the best named events in English history is about to happen – or maybe it’s started. I’ve ordered the only description of it, and it should arrive in a couple of days.
Oh, sorry, IT, is ‘The Great Rumour’. Love it!
Until then, all I know is that ‘in many Southern counties, discontent increasingly took the form of widespread refusal of services, mounting arrears of rent and outright flight from manors, as well as continued lawsuits over the issue of demesne [homeland] status ... by the 1370’s much of the South and the Midlands was in a state of unrest …’
Re: Medieval Latin.
I wish this thread would "die" I really need to read it ALL! This is so interesting and I am annoyed that I cannot give it due credence. (Sorry people, keep going )
)Fully mint Household
Out of my mind - please leave a message
Out of my mind - please leave a message
Re: Medieval Latin.
OK lsemmens, your wish is my command. Consider it dead.
OK lsemmens, your wish is my command. Consider it going.(Sorry people, keep going
D'you know something, I think 'lockdown' is driving me all sort of looney.
Trying to return to normality - thanks lsemmens, and all the best to you and your family with all you've got going on. Why isn't there an 'empathy' icon?
Jon.
-
RollyShed
- Level 8
- Posts: 2436
- Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:58 pm
- Location: South Island, New Zealand
- Contact:
Re: Medieval Latin.
Yes, I missed finding your oar dancing YouTube link, very good.
I was thinking if men can dance with ribbons, Morris Dancing, I see no reason for women not dancing with oars - and there was your Morris Dancing link too - perfect.
https://www.birdvilleschools.net/cms/li ... AC1607.pdf
In a traditional Basque dance called the batelera, women dance with oars. Historians suggest this is evidence that women participated in rowing competitions in the past. Today, there are a number of women’s rowing teams.
This picture, page 33
"Dances such as the Bateleren Zortzikoa often feature props such as arches, swords, ribbons, or oars."
As for the thread lsemmens, I copy and paste each "episode / chapter(?)" by dorsetUK into a document and read it there and of course, I can refer back to it if needed. Each section dorsetUK does I put the date at the start of it, again for reference.
Yes, I am taking it seriously as so much has filled in the story of those times.
Basically DON'T STOP NOW or we'll send in complaints to a moderator if you do....
or 
I was thinking if men can dance with ribbons, Morris Dancing, I see no reason for women not dancing with oars - and there was your Morris Dancing link too - perfect.
https://www.birdvilleschools.net/cms/li ... AC1607.pdf
In a traditional Basque dance called the batelera, women dance with oars. Historians suggest this is evidence that women participated in rowing competitions in the past. Today, there are a number of women’s rowing teams.
This picture, page 33
"Dances such as the Bateleren Zortzikoa often feature props such as arches, swords, ribbons, or oars."
As for the thread lsemmens, I copy and paste each "episode / chapter(?)" by dorsetUK into a document and read it there and of course, I can refer back to it if needed. Each section dorsetUK does I put the date at the start of it, again for reference.
Yes, I am taking it seriously as so much has filled in the story of those times.
Basically DON'T STOP NOW or we'll send in complaints to a moderator if you do....
or Re: Medieval Latin.
Couldn't agree more.
Thanks for the link, I'm finding the whole Basque 'thing' interesting - whoops - as we're meant to be in the Medieval - Navarre.https://www.birdvilleschools.net/cms/li ... AC1607.pdf
In a traditional Basque dance called the batelera, women dance with oars. Historians suggest this is evidence that women participated in rowing competitions in the past. Today, there are a number of women’s rowing teams.
This picture, page 33
"Dances such as the Bateleren Zortzikoa often feature props such as arches, swords, ribbons, or oars."
Very sadly I have to inform everybody that I've been wrong - just so wrong - about Morris dancing. All I can do is to offer my sincerest apologies and say sorry.
Re: Medieval Latin.
I apologize, too! Fancy! Morris dancing as an Aussie invention! I am truly sorry!!!! Please! Don't beat me?!!!!!
Fully mint Household
Out of my mind - please leave a message
Out of my mind - please leave a message
Re: Medieval Latin.
Re: Medieval Latin.
The Great Rumour book was despatched yesterday, so hopefully here tomorrow, until then ...
First of all I need to go back to May 26 1359 when John Elmerugg was made keeper of the castle of corf and chace of Purbeck by Roger Mortimer, earl of March.
Mortimer was the official ‘keeper’ but he made Elmerugg his deputy. He was followed by Ralph Bagley late in 1361, but Elmerugg was back in charge in Feb ‘63 and stayed so until Jan ‘76.
Then there’s The Great Rumour.
Commission to John de la Hale ‘chivaler’, William Fyoll, William Payne and Thomas de Stoke, to make inquisition in the county of Dorset touching an information that John Loter, William Hugon and others have intruded themselves into a messuage late of John Hayte in Corf, which for certain causes John de Elmerugge, constable of Corfe castle, took into the king’s hands, over the king’s possession.
That’s hardly definitive but I’m wondering if that has anything to do with The Great Rumour.
As constable of Corfe, Elmerugge had control of nearly all of the Isle of Purbeck and he took the messuage [land] into the king’s hand, which means that he thought it was king’s land and should ‘revert’ to him and I think the use of ‘king’s possession’ shows that. Until c1600 nearly all of Purbeck was ‘king’s land’, but it seems more than likely that Loter and Hugon were querying that.
OK that’s a bit weak, and it may just be me finding what I want to find.
Luckily the story expands. On June 2 there was a commission of oyer and terminer to William Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Bryan, Walter Clopton and William Filliol, on information that, whereas the king lately appointed John de la Hale, ‘chivaler’, and others to make inquisition touching those who intruded themselves upon the king’s possession into a messuage in Corf late of John Hayte which John Elmrugge, constable of Corf castle, took into the king’s had for certain causes, and the said commissioners sent one John Shoil to Corf to do certain matters affecting the said appointment, certain evildoers assaulted him, and also John Elmrugge and Gilbert Martyn who came to his rescue and laid such strait ambush for John Elmbrugge that he dared not come to the castle until brought thither by a posse of the country.
Twice now we’ve had … late of John Hayte … which may suggest that Hayte had died, but he could have been disinherited due to some illegal act, but anyway, his land became ‘untenanted’ and for some reason Loter and Hugon thought that they held the ‘rights’. Elmrugge, though, disagreed.
Shoil was sent to Corfe … to do certain matters affecting the said appointment …
English - Oh boy! I think that ‘the said appointment’ must refer to the commission of oyer and terminer, and as terminer means ‘to decide’ or ‘judge’, then I guess that something wasn’t quite clear so they sent Shoil to get further information. Unless he was delivering the judgement.
Whether Shoil ever reached Corfe could be open to debate but at some point he was assaulted. It would be easier if that was at Corfe and Elmrugge and Martyn rushed out of the castle to rescue him, but then were ‘ambushed’, so rode off to, say, Wareham, raised the posse and returned.
Everything must have happened fairly quickly as on June 15 there was a commission of oyez and terminer to William Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Bryan, Walter Clopton and William Filiol touching those who killed John Maheu and Thomas Skynner of Corf at Corf, and those who rescued John Shoyl, who John Canoun, mayor of Corfe, and John Loter, bailiff of that town, would have attached to answer Richard Cok touching a trespass, led him away lest he should be brought to justice over the trespass, and assaulted the said mayor, bailiff and Richard, and William Lenard and others who came to the aid of the mayor and bailiff.
Aha – John Loter the ‘bailiff’, sadly, in other records from around this time there’s John Loter, both ‘senior’ and ‘younger’, so I can’t say if Loter ‘the intruder’ is also Loter ‘the bailiff’. Damn.
At first I thought that’s a bit clearer, but Shoyl, who must also be Shoil, was assaulted, but … those who rescued John Shoyl, who John Canoun, mayor of Corfe, and John Loter, bailiff of that town, would have attached to answer Richard Cok touching a trespass …
That sounds like Canoun and Loter were going to charge Shoyl over a tresspass ‘before’ Richard Cok, who must have been one of the local ‘judges’. In those days there were all sorts of local courts and unfortunately there aren’t any remaining records for ours. To me that’s probably the most convincing bit of evidence that this could be part of The Great Rumour. The locals seem to be asserting what they believed were their rights over the king, but ....
Those who rescued Shoyl … led him away lest he should be brought to justice over the trespass, and assaulted the said mayor, bailiff and Richard, and William Lenard and others who came to the aid of the mayor and bailiff.
RIOT.
But then on Oct 14 there was a pardon to John Elmruge of Aldenham of the king’s suit for the death of John Maheu, the elder, and Thomas Skynner of Corf, wherof he is indicted or appealed, and any consequent outlawries.
The like to the following; Thomas Gerrard of Corf, Gilbert Martyn of Knyghteston, John Strete of Aldenham and William Fraunke of Criche, the younger.
That seems to say that Elmrugge and his friends were, in the eyes of the king, innocent. Did the king’s rights mean more than the locals rights? Seems so.
Any further outcome? Going back to the first record where William Hugon is mentioned alongside Loter. On Nov 26 1376 Hugon was appointed alongside Robert Wantynge, parson of the church of Radeclyve, to take hewers of stone, carpenters and other labourers for the works of Corf castle and put them on the works, and to take land and water carriage for timber and other neccessaries, for the king’s moneys to the amount of 100L to be paid by survey of William Charnill, the younger, [and] John Moulham; and to arrest all contrariants and rebels and imprison them until they find security to serve on the works.
In 1384 … William Hygyn the mayor … of Corfe.
I think that I have to assume that John Elmruge of Aldenham is also the constable of Corfe – it’d be a bit of an odd coincidence if they were different people – wouldn’t it?
Then there’s ‘Aldenham’. Is that Aldenham in Hertfordshire or is it a local spelling of Aldhelm as in St Aldhelms Head?
Naturally I want it to be St Aldhelms Head – a place that has no village – or a church, even thought it’s priest was paid 50s a year by the king! By the way, should you read up on the ‘church’ at St Albans – grrrr Aldhelms – Head, then unless that’s a unique building that must have been built when everybody was completely and utterly smashed out of their faces, then it was not built as a church. Fact. Sorry, but Christian churches have their altar at the eastern end and that building has an eastern corner. Following Pevsner, it was built by the Normans and used as a watch point, and it’s only been a church since 4 Jun 2005. Fairly substantial Roman archaeology has also been found up there and as a prominent point on our coastline I find nothing strange about it being ‘peopled’ - at least until the invention of electricity for the masses.
Whoops – bit of a tangent there!
Also mentioned is ‘Knyghteston’ which could modernise to ‘Knitson’ and then ‘Nitson’, now a farm.
Criche – probably Creech, but whether East or West will have to remain unknown.
Do I think The Corfe Riot is part of The Great Rumour?
It could be ... over to you.
First of all I need to go back to May 26 1359 when John Elmerugg was made keeper of the castle of corf and chace of Purbeck by Roger Mortimer, earl of March.
Mortimer was the official ‘keeper’ but he made Elmerugg his deputy. He was followed by Ralph Bagley late in 1361, but Elmerugg was back in charge in Feb ‘63 and stayed so until Jan ‘76.
Then there’s The Great Rumour.
A bit of ‘naughtiness’ at Corfe. Jan 20 1374.‘in many Southern counties, discontent increasingly took the form of widespread refusal of services, mounting arrears of rent and outright flight from manors, as well as continued lawsuits over the issue of demesne [homeland] status ... by the 1370’s much of the South and the Midlands was in a state of unrest …’
Commission to John de la Hale ‘chivaler’, William Fyoll, William Payne and Thomas de Stoke, to make inquisition in the county of Dorset touching an information that John Loter, William Hugon and others have intruded themselves into a messuage late of John Hayte in Corf, which for certain causes John de Elmerugge, constable of Corfe castle, took into the king’s hands, over the king’s possession.
That’s hardly definitive but I’m wondering if that has anything to do with The Great Rumour.
As constable of Corfe, Elmerugge had control of nearly all of the Isle of Purbeck and he took the messuage [land] into the king’s hand, which means that he thought it was king’s land and should ‘revert’ to him and I think the use of ‘king’s possession’ shows that. Until c1600 nearly all of Purbeck was ‘king’s land’, but it seems more than likely that Loter and Hugon were querying that.
OK that’s a bit weak, and it may just be me finding what I want to find.
Luckily the story expands. On June 2 there was a commission of oyer and terminer to William Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Bryan, Walter Clopton and William Filliol, on information that, whereas the king lately appointed John de la Hale, ‘chivaler’, and others to make inquisition touching those who intruded themselves upon the king’s possession into a messuage in Corf late of John Hayte which John Elmrugge, constable of Corf castle, took into the king’s had for certain causes, and the said commissioners sent one John Shoil to Corf to do certain matters affecting the said appointment, certain evildoers assaulted him, and also John Elmrugge and Gilbert Martyn who came to his rescue and laid such strait ambush for John Elmbrugge that he dared not come to the castle until brought thither by a posse of the country.
Twice now we’ve had … late of John Hayte … which may suggest that Hayte had died, but he could have been disinherited due to some illegal act, but anyway, his land became ‘untenanted’ and for some reason Loter and Hugon thought that they held the ‘rights’. Elmrugge, though, disagreed.
Shoil was sent to Corfe … to do certain matters affecting the said appointment …
English - Oh boy! I think that ‘the said appointment’ must refer to the commission of oyer and terminer, and as terminer means ‘to decide’ or ‘judge’, then I guess that something wasn’t quite clear so they sent Shoil to get further information. Unless he was delivering the judgement.
Whether Shoil ever reached Corfe could be open to debate but at some point he was assaulted. It would be easier if that was at Corfe and Elmrugge and Martyn rushed out of the castle to rescue him, but then were ‘ambushed’, so rode off to, say, Wareham, raised the posse and returned.
Everything must have happened fairly quickly as on June 15 there was a commission of oyez and terminer to William Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Bryan, Walter Clopton and William Filiol touching those who killed John Maheu and Thomas Skynner of Corf at Corf, and those who rescued John Shoyl, who John Canoun, mayor of Corfe, and John Loter, bailiff of that town, would have attached to answer Richard Cok touching a trespass, led him away lest he should be brought to justice over the trespass, and assaulted the said mayor, bailiff and Richard, and William Lenard and others who came to the aid of the mayor and bailiff.
Aha – John Loter the ‘bailiff’, sadly, in other records from around this time there’s John Loter, both ‘senior’ and ‘younger’, so I can’t say if Loter ‘the intruder’ is also Loter ‘the bailiff’. Damn.
At first I thought that’s a bit clearer, but Shoyl, who must also be Shoil, was assaulted, but … those who rescued John Shoyl, who John Canoun, mayor of Corfe, and John Loter, bailiff of that town, would have attached to answer Richard Cok touching a trespass …
That sounds like Canoun and Loter were going to charge Shoyl over a tresspass ‘before’ Richard Cok, who must have been one of the local ‘judges’. In those days there were all sorts of local courts and unfortunately there aren’t any remaining records for ours. To me that’s probably the most convincing bit of evidence that this could be part of The Great Rumour. The locals seem to be asserting what they believed were their rights over the king, but ....
Those who rescued Shoyl … led him away lest he should be brought to justice over the trespass, and assaulted the said mayor, bailiff and Richard, and William Lenard and others who came to the aid of the mayor and bailiff.
RIOT.
But then on Oct 14 there was a pardon to John Elmruge of Aldenham of the king’s suit for the death of John Maheu, the elder, and Thomas Skynner of Corf, wherof he is indicted or appealed, and any consequent outlawries.
The like to the following; Thomas Gerrard of Corf, Gilbert Martyn of Knyghteston, John Strete of Aldenham and William Fraunke of Criche, the younger.
That seems to say that Elmrugge and his friends were, in the eyes of the king, innocent. Did the king’s rights mean more than the locals rights? Seems so.
Any further outcome? Going back to the first record where William Hugon is mentioned alongside Loter. On Nov 26 1376 Hugon was appointed alongside Robert Wantynge, parson of the church of Radeclyve, to take hewers of stone, carpenters and other labourers for the works of Corf castle and put them on the works, and to take land and water carriage for timber and other neccessaries, for the king’s moneys to the amount of 100L to be paid by survey of William Charnill, the younger, [and] John Moulham; and to arrest all contrariants and rebels and imprison them until they find security to serve on the works.
In 1384 … William Hygyn the mayor … of Corfe.
I think that I have to assume that John Elmruge of Aldenham is also the constable of Corfe – it’d be a bit of an odd coincidence if they were different people – wouldn’t it?
Then there’s ‘Aldenham’. Is that Aldenham in Hertfordshire or is it a local spelling of Aldhelm as in St Aldhelms Head?
Naturally I want it to be St Aldhelms Head – a place that has no village – or a church, even thought it’s priest was paid 50s a year by the king! By the way, should you read up on the ‘church’ at St Albans – grrrr Aldhelms – Head, then unless that’s a unique building that must have been built when everybody was completely and utterly smashed out of their faces, then it was not built as a church. Fact. Sorry, but Christian churches have their altar at the eastern end and that building has an eastern corner. Following Pevsner, it was built by the Normans and used as a watch point, and it’s only been a church since 4 Jun 2005. Fairly substantial Roman archaeology has also been found up there and as a prominent point on our coastline I find nothing strange about it being ‘peopled’ - at least until the invention of electricity for the masses.
Whoops – bit of a tangent there!
Also mentioned is ‘Knyghteston’ which could modernise to ‘Knitson’ and then ‘Nitson’, now a farm.
Criche – probably Creech, but whether East or West will have to remain unknown.
Do I think The Corfe Riot is part of The Great Rumour?
It could be ... over to you.
Last edited by dorsetUK on Wed May 13, 2020 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Medieval Latin.
This sounds a bit ‘Great Ruomourish’.
Up in London on May 10 1375, Walter Bonebrok was pardoned for withdrawing his service from Walter Hoper, ‘bladesmyth’, without reasonable cause or licence.
But he was pardoned – maybe he apologised
Then I found this one, which doesn’t appear to have any connection to The Great Rumour.
On Aug 7 ‘75 there was a, ‘Commission to Guy de Briene, 'le piere’, Guy de Briene, 'le fitz', William Latymere, sheriff of Dorset, and Walter Cifrewast, escheator in the same county, to make inquisition in the county of Dorset touching an information that Walter Frampton of Bokelond, who holds for life at a yearly farm of 20L the manor of Biencomme, co. Dorset, which is parcel of the temporalities of the alien abbey of Caen and in the king's hand by occasion of the war with France*, has perpetrated divers trespasses, oppressions, extortions, threats, damages, grievances and excesses on the king's liege tenants of the said manor by colour of his estate therein’.
* During a war with France then ‘English’ churches that were part of ‘French’ abbeys were ‘taken into the king’s hand’, which meant he got their income.
To me, that’s Walter Frampton being naughty by abusing his power over the locals. However the commission must have unearthed something as on Oct 15, Guy de Briene, John de Chidiok, Robert fitz Payn, Edmund fitz Herbert, John de la Hale Roger Manyford, William Payn John Matravers and Stephen Derby were told to find which ‘customs and services the tenants, free, bond and at will, of the manor of Benecombe, which is parcel of the temporalites of the priory of Frompton did in the times of William Naget, the last prior of Frompton, Lawrence de Brioto, his predecessor and other priors’.
Frompton, Frampton, Benecombe, Biencomme, Bincombe, Bokelond, Buckland …. urrgh.
Walter Frampton, possibly from Buckland Ripers, held the manor of Bincombe and both are just outside of Weymouth. In the first record Frampton seems to be suspected of something dodgy. How that was discovered I don’t know. Maybe the ‘king's liege tenants’ petitioned their king, or maybe whoever was administrating the land ‘taken into the king’s hand’ discovered it.
To me, the second record may suggest that the residents were confused about their rights, maybe prompted by the prior of Frampton? Interesting. In such a structured society everybody should have known their rights, but with Bonebrok ‘withdrawing his service’ maybe, just maybe, things were changing. But whether it’s connected to The Great Rumour, will have to wait.
Mr Bonebrok the ‘bladesmyth’ could have made – ribbons at the ready – oars.
Up in London on May 10 1375, Walter Bonebrok was pardoned for withdrawing his service from Walter Hoper, ‘bladesmyth’, without reasonable cause or licence.
But he was pardoned – maybe he apologised
Then I found this one, which doesn’t appear to have any connection to The Great Rumour.
On Aug 7 ‘75 there was a, ‘Commission to Guy de Briene, 'le piere’, Guy de Briene, 'le fitz', William Latymere, sheriff of Dorset, and Walter Cifrewast, escheator in the same county, to make inquisition in the county of Dorset touching an information that Walter Frampton of Bokelond, who holds for life at a yearly farm of 20L the manor of Biencomme, co. Dorset, which is parcel of the temporalities of the alien abbey of Caen and in the king's hand by occasion of the war with France*, has perpetrated divers trespasses, oppressions, extortions, threats, damages, grievances and excesses on the king's liege tenants of the said manor by colour of his estate therein’.
* During a war with France then ‘English’ churches that were part of ‘French’ abbeys were ‘taken into the king’s hand’, which meant he got their income.
To me, that’s Walter Frampton being naughty by abusing his power over the locals. However the commission must have unearthed something as on Oct 15, Guy de Briene, John de Chidiok, Robert fitz Payn, Edmund fitz Herbert, John de la Hale Roger Manyford, William Payn John Matravers and Stephen Derby were told to find which ‘customs and services the tenants, free, bond and at will, of the manor of Benecombe, which is parcel of the temporalites of the priory of Frompton did in the times of William Naget, the last prior of Frompton, Lawrence de Brioto, his predecessor and other priors’.
Frompton, Frampton, Benecombe, Biencomme, Bincombe, Bokelond, Buckland …. urrgh.
Walter Frampton, possibly from Buckland Ripers, held the manor of Bincombe and both are just outside of Weymouth. In the first record Frampton seems to be suspected of something dodgy. How that was discovered I don’t know. Maybe the ‘king's liege tenants’ petitioned their king, or maybe whoever was administrating the land ‘taken into the king’s hand’ discovered it.
To me, the second record may suggest that the residents were confused about their rights, maybe prompted by the prior of Frampton? Interesting. In such a structured society everybody should have known their rights, but with Bonebrok ‘withdrawing his service’ maybe, just maybe, things were changing. But whether it’s connected to The Great Rumour, will have to wait.
Mr Bonebrok the ‘bladesmyth’ could have made – ribbons at the ready – oars.
Re: Medieval Latin.
prout magnum rumorem.
Is what it said in the records.
Dr Rosamund J Faith says that The Great Rumour 'does not appear to have had the broad political aims [of the Peasants Revolt] being concerned rather with the local goals of achieving personal freedom and the abolition of labour services for particular groups of peasants.’
And that to be sure we’re dealing with The Great Rumour, we have to concentrate on places where there are local court records. Things that seem connected may be, but of course, may not be.
Many tenants began to feel that their rights were being undermined as their ‘lords’ seemed to be ignoring their traditional rights – or what they thought were their traditional rights. They started to quote ‘Domesday’ in order to ‘prove’ their rights, but eventually, their claims were dismissed.
Domesday, written 300 years before, was to the peasants a legal document. Fascinating. However in those 300 years new laws had been enacted and, no doubt, new ‘traditions’ established. It also seems that although many peasants had the same idea there doesn’t appear to have been any coordination.
‘In ‘77 there was a petition to the king talking about fears of civil war and treason and of the danger of a Jacquerie or general peasant uprising such as had recently occurred in France. These fears were caused by a specific and odd-sounding peasant movement;
in many parts of the kingdom … the villeins and tenants of land in villeinage who owe services to the lord … have (through the advice, procurement, maintenance and abetting of certain persons) purchased in the king’s court for their own profit exemplifications from the Book of Domesday concerning those manors and vills where the tenants live. By colour of these exemplifications and through misunderstanding them as well as malicious interpretation made of them by the said counsellors, procurors maintainors and abettors, they have withdrawn and still withdraw the customs and services due to their lords, holding that they are completely discharged of all manner of service both from their persons and their holdings.
… To sustain their errors and inventions they have collected vast sums of money among themselves to meet their costs and expenses and many of them have now come to court to secure assistance for their designs.’
The petitioners asked for immediate remedies ‘directed against the said counsellors … as well as the said villeins … and especially against those who have come to court.’
Commissions were set up to investigate these Domesday inspired ‘withdrawls of service’, and using Domesday to ‘sort things out’ wasn’t a new idea, but this new interpretation, which came from counsellors – lawyers – was not to the kings – or his lawyers – liking.
The Peasants, who’d manage to save enough money to hire lawyers, had gone to court and received a judgement in their favour, which their legal advice interpreted as ‘according to Domesday we don’t have to do that’. But according to the lords - ‘the law has changed, suck it up.’
It wasn’t a national movement, but there must have been some coordination – mustn’t there?
Anyway, was Bincombe part of The Great Rumour? It’s a ‘strange’ record, and without further information, at best, it could be on the ‘fringes’, but even that might be going too far.
The Corfe Riot is specifically about who held a bit of land, not a question of service. So presumably not directly involved. Damn.
From a different source, another incident ‘... a disturbing ‘rumour’ was explicitly referred to in a petition of November 1380 complaining about the popular disturbances in York ... In this petition, the commons complain that there was a ‘great and notorious rumour in this present Parliament’ concerning a ‘horrible thing’ which had recently happened in that city – that ‘numerous malefactors from amongst the commons’ of York had accroached royal power to themselves, by false confederacy and alliance amongst themselves, falsely ejected the legitimate mayor and appointed one of their own.’
Not The Great Rumour either, but 1377-’81, maybe even 2, was a very unsettled period.
Oh well, back to invasions.
Is what it said in the records.
Dr Rosamund J Faith says that The Great Rumour 'does not appear to have had the broad political aims [of the Peasants Revolt] being concerned rather with the local goals of achieving personal freedom and the abolition of labour services for particular groups of peasants.’
And that to be sure we’re dealing with The Great Rumour, we have to concentrate on places where there are local court records. Things that seem connected may be, but of course, may not be.
Many tenants began to feel that their rights were being undermined as their ‘lords’ seemed to be ignoring their traditional rights – or what they thought were their traditional rights. They started to quote ‘Domesday’ in order to ‘prove’ their rights, but eventually, their claims were dismissed.
Domesday, written 300 years before, was to the peasants a legal document. Fascinating. However in those 300 years new laws had been enacted and, no doubt, new ‘traditions’ established. It also seems that although many peasants had the same idea there doesn’t appear to have been any coordination.
‘In ‘77 there was a petition to the king talking about fears of civil war and treason and of the danger of a Jacquerie or general peasant uprising such as had recently occurred in France. These fears were caused by a specific and odd-sounding peasant movement;
in many parts of the kingdom … the villeins and tenants of land in villeinage who owe services to the lord … have (through the advice, procurement, maintenance and abetting of certain persons) purchased in the king’s court for their own profit exemplifications from the Book of Domesday concerning those manors and vills where the tenants live. By colour of these exemplifications and through misunderstanding them as well as malicious interpretation made of them by the said counsellors, procurors maintainors and abettors, they have withdrawn and still withdraw the customs and services due to their lords, holding that they are completely discharged of all manner of service both from their persons and their holdings.
… To sustain their errors and inventions they have collected vast sums of money among themselves to meet their costs and expenses and many of them have now come to court to secure assistance for their designs.’
The petitioners asked for immediate remedies ‘directed against the said counsellors … as well as the said villeins … and especially against those who have come to court.’
Commissions were set up to investigate these Domesday inspired ‘withdrawls of service’, and using Domesday to ‘sort things out’ wasn’t a new idea, but this new interpretation, which came from counsellors – lawyers – was not to the kings – or his lawyers – liking.
The Peasants, who’d manage to save enough money to hire lawyers, had gone to court and received a judgement in their favour, which their legal advice interpreted as ‘according to Domesday we don’t have to do that’. But according to the lords - ‘the law has changed, suck it up.’
It wasn’t a national movement, but there must have been some coordination – mustn’t there?
Anyway, was Bincombe part of The Great Rumour? It’s a ‘strange’ record, and without further information, at best, it could be on the ‘fringes’, but even that might be going too far.
The Corfe Riot is specifically about who held a bit of land, not a question of service. So presumably not directly involved. Damn.
From a different source, another incident ‘... a disturbing ‘rumour’ was explicitly referred to in a petition of November 1380 complaining about the popular disturbances in York ... In this petition, the commons complain that there was a ‘great and notorious rumour in this present Parliament’ concerning a ‘horrible thing’ which had recently happened in that city – that ‘numerous malefactors from amongst the commons’ of York had accroached royal power to themselves, by false confederacy and alliance amongst themselves, falsely ejected the legitimate mayor and appointed one of their own.’
Not The Great Rumour either, but 1377-’81, maybe even 2, was a very unsettled period.
Oh well, back to invasions.
Re: Medieval Latin.
Quis Custodiet ipsos custodes.
Re: Medieval Latin.
Hi MurphCID.
Your comment is much more perceptive, wiser and funnier than something I've written about something that happened in 1378. Luckily this post doesn't go that far, so I've still got time to edit it. Thanks.
Edward III was still having difficulties with the pope and on Dec 28 ‘75, Ralph Erghum, ‘doctor of laws’, ‘whom the pope has preferred’ became bishop of Salisbury. But to get the post he had to ‘renounce all words prejudicial to the king contained in the papal bull.’
The pope gets his man, but presumably on Edwards terms. I think.
JIC – around this time ‘bulls’ were, in effect, papal orders.
A bit of local news - on Feb 6 1376 Thomas Hunte, William de Wynford and John Elmebrugge were told to buy 200 ‘piles of plaster’ in Dorset.
I kid you not – 200 cumulos of plastre.
Then they had to ‘arrest ships’, imprisoning those who wouldn’t comply, and ‘bring the plaster to London or Southampton’.
Which type of plaster is unknown, but we have plenty of clay and limestone.
After a long ‘period of decline’ the Black Prince died in ‘76. This furthered the rise of Edward IIIs 3rd son (of five), John of Gaunt. One of his ‘friends’ was John Wycliff who studied at Oxford Uni. Gaunt needed someone intelligent to defend him against some bishops before a Royal Council. He decided that Wycliffe was his man. A good choice, at the time.
I think that I need to include a bit of the international scene. Relations between England and France were tense – really tense. In a move to calm things down, the French king, Phillip VI, decided that he’d agree with the pope and ‘take the cross’, or, go on Crusade. Edward III thought ‘what a good idea’, so arguably, this kept things calm.
‘The cancellation of the crusade by the pope in March 1336 was a major disappointment to Philip VI of France. At the same time it deprived Edward III of a valuable bargaining counter in his relations with France. However the decision also left Philip VI free to redeploy the resources in shipping and manpower he had been gathering for the crusade. Philip VI met representatives of David II of Scotland at Lyon at Easter 1336. They told him that the truces in Scotland would expire in five weeks and reminded Philip of his previous promises to help the Scots. Philip now repeated them and made elaborate plans for an invasion force to land on the east coast of Scotland to replace David II on his throne. If carried through, 'it would have been the largest amphibious operation since the assault on the Nile Delta by the fifth crusade in 1218.' The complexity and the cost of the proposed enterprise already militated against its success, but in the summer of 1336 Edward III made a sudden invasion of Scotland, during which he seized the harbours on the east coast which were most suitable for a French landing and made one all but impossible. Edward left for Newcastle on 11 June with a small force, marched through hostile territory to Stirling and then to Perth. On 12 July he left Perth, burning and wasting the land as he went.’
Historians started to give parliaments nicknames and on 28 April 1376 the ‘Good Parliament’ started. Its members attempted to reform the corrupt Royal Council, through the first use of impeachment. It was dissolved on 10 July becoming the longest Parliament to have sat in England.
Probably as an outcome, on July 23 John de Montecute, Luke Poyages, Thomas West, Bernard Brocas, Ralph de Wolverton and William de Hoghton were told to make inquiries in Southampton that in the Isle of Wight, the commonality of the realm had complained that Richard Lyons of London ‘has committed many extortions, oppressions, duresses and grievances, by colour of letters patent to him, and touching all who have taken out of the county to Scotland or other foreign parts wheat, flour, malt, barley or other corn contrary to the king’s prohibition.’
In Dorset, Robert fitz Payn, John de la Hale, Thomas Blount, John Hamelyn, Walter Perle, John Matravers, Stephen Derby, Roger de Manyford and William Payn were appointed to do the same.
Lyons was imprisoned but was soon pardoned by the king – whoops – sorry - John of Gaunt.
Meanwhile, back in Purbeck, the king discovered that Robert Knolles had freighted a ship called the ‘Welfare’ from Plymouth which met a storm off Purbeck and was wrecked at Kimmeridge.
The Wreck was reported on 5 Sept, then on 10th there was a ‘Commision to John de Foxle, Hugh Tyrell, Walter Haywood, Michael Skyllyng and John de Welton to make inquisition in the county of Dorset touching an information that in the king's castle of Corf, through default of keeping and good rule, a dangerous state of things exist at the present time, and that through like default many trespasses are done in his warren of Purbik; also to find what the detriments in the castle and the tresspasses in the warren are, and by whom these have been caused, how they can best be corrected and to what some they amount, and to certify the king thereof in Chancery.*’
That may not be linked to the Welfare, but it makes me wonder. This certainly is, on July 20 there was a commission of oyez and terminer ‘to Guy de Brian, Robert Bealknap, Robert fitz Payn, Henry de Percehay, William de Luey and Walter de Clopton on complaint by Robert Knolles … the ship was driven by violence of the sea to Kymerych in Purbik, co. Dorset, Thomas Coupe, William Colle of Luton, William Bouche and others entered the ship at Kymerych, carried away goods and assaulted his men and servants.’
The king always needed money and to get that commission it cost Knolles 40s. (£2 if you were born after 1971. Or aren’t British, or really – sorry - don’t like LSD.)
The ‘Welfare’ led to a personal problem as I didn't want to type the whole thing out, and there’s no guarantee that you want to read it, but with a huge thanks, Louise Haywood came to my rescue.
‘... more than a hundred men were involved in robbing the Welfare, a ship from Dartmouth bound for London, which was wrecked on these treacherous ledges.
The merchandise with which the vessel was freighted was worth £2000, and included thirty-two pieces of cloth of gold and two of Baudekin de soy (a silk tissue from Bagdad).
At the trial at Sherborne it was found that Robert Knolles, the owner of this vessel, had been wounded, insulted, and generally badly treated. Not only were the poor fishermen of the village guilty of the outrage, but the Abbot of Cerne himself had ordered the treasure to be seized and taken to "his manor of Kimmeridge, where he retained them for his own use." Many other persons of rank in the neighbourhood were also implicated in the atrocity.’
3rd up from the bottom on Louise’ list, Adam DENYS, one of our members of parliament.
Possibly connected, on Oct 16, Bernard Brocas was appointed as the keeper of Corfe castle and the warren of Purbeck.
* I thought about using the Sept 10 record in my ‘Great Rumour’ bit, but I think it only shows a general ‘mess’ rather than anything specific. That doesn’t stop me wanting to believe, but.
On Nov 26, ‘Robert Wantynge, parson of the church of Radclyve*, to take hewers of stone, carpenters and other labourers for the works of Corf castle and put them on the works, and to take land and water carriage for timber and other neccessaries, for the king’s money to the amount of 100L to be paid by survey of William Charnill, the younger, John Moulham and William Hugon; and to arrest all contrariants and rebels and imprison them until they find security to serve on the works.’
£100 may sound a but of a ‘stingy’ amount for work on a Royal castle, but stone, wood etc came free, so £100 on transport and wages, when a labourer could earn £1.50 a year and a mason £3, could suggest a lot of work.
* Radclyve. Never heard of it, couldn’t find anything about it. Then I spoke with a NT employee about that record – she smiled, saying ‘ah yes, the church of Redcliff.’ A lost church, and presumably, community.
January 17, 1377. The Western Schism – two popes. England recognised the Roman Pope Urban VI over the Avignon Gregory XI.
Re: Medieval Latin.
I didn’t realise how much I could waffle about the years of 1377 and 8, so I’ve split them into two posts.
Jan 27 ‘77. The ‘Bad Parliament’ began. Influenced by John of Gaunt it undid the work done by the Good Parliament in trying to reduce corruption. It also introduced a poll tax.
Feb 20, there were riots in London after Gaunt ‘attacked’ the privileges of the City. March 2, the Bad Parliament ended. May 22, Pope Gregory XI issued five Bulls condemning the opinion of John Wycliffe that Catholic priests should live in poverty like the twelve disciples of Jesus.
On June 10 there was an Appointment made ‘to do the works ordained to be done in the castle of Corf by view and testimony of John de Warmyngton, controller of the works.
The ‘Appointment’ was to William Clavyle and William Hygon, mayor Corf. Back in ‘Great Rumour’, William Hugon had been involved and now he seems to be the mayor – nice!
Things got worse when on Jun 21, Edward III, who’s health had been ‘going downhill’ for a few years, died. He’d been our king for 50 years – very few would have been alive when he was crowned – a new king – hopefully a good one. <shudder>.
On Jun 30 there was a commission to John Darundell, keeper of Southampton, ‘empowering him to see that all its men … are armed … against the king’s enemies whenever danger is imminent …’
On the same day, Edmund, earl of Cambridge, constable of Dover Castle, William Latymer and John Cobham of Kent were ‘appointed to take order for the defence of its coast against the French, the king understanding that they have landed in great force.’
Then on July 2 there was a ‘Writ of aid directed to the people in Southampton and Dorset’ as William earl of Salisbury was ‘appointed to take order for the defence of their coasts against the imminent invasion of the French.’
The Kent record may be a bit over the top, as Rodgers says, ‘on June 24 the combined French, Castilian, Monagasgue and Portugese force sailed for a cruise during which they destroyed Rye, Rottingdean, Lewes, Folkestone, Portsmouth, Dartmouth and Plymouth. In August they returned to ransom the Isle of Wight and burn Poole and Hastings, though they were repelled from the walled towns of Southampton, Dover and Winchelsea. In July barges from Boulogne attacked the Yarmouth herring fishery. Apart from desperate measures of coastal defence there was no English response until October ...’
‘… desperate measures of coastal defence ...’ Before 22 August ‘77 Thomas Haket and Ralph Wolverton, both ‘collectors of the fifteenth in the Isle of Wight’ made a petition in which there were 6 ‘items’ trying to order residents to pay their taxes, and/or return to the Isle and pay their taxes, and/or to pay their taxes and to stop fleeing the Isle.
There was also a 7th ‘Item’ which was to ‘let a commission be made to the petitioners to punish labourers according to the statute lately made and used in all of England which will turn to the great profit of the king.’
This is the sort of thing that makes me wish I had the gumption to study, um, something, cuz if I did then I might be able to work out which statute that referred to. I want it to be the Statute of Labourers, and that the ’caulkheads’ were asking for higher wages, but that’s an assumption.
This may be a minor criticism, but after Edward IIIs death, his grandson, Richard, was crowned on 16 July – and he was 10 years old. The last time something similar had happened was back in 1326/7 when Edward II was deposed, being replaced by his 14 year old son – Edward III. That had led to three years of chaos from which maybe they’d learnt, and maybe the transition was much smoother this time, but as said, John of Gaunt, the earl of Lancaster, had been ‘very influential’ from ‘34/5 but he was not, absolutely not, and never was the king.
Continuing with Rodgers’ ‘desperate measures’ - on July 1st ‘77 the sheriffs of pretty much the whole country were ordered ‘to array and equip all the men of that county and to keep ever arrayed the men-at-arms and archers to resist foreign invasion, according to the form of the like commission of the late king, causing beacons to be set up in the usual places …’
In the Patent rolls there’s then two A4 pages of names with - William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, John Darundell, Robert Rous, Robert le fitz Payn, John Chidyok, Edward fitz Herbert, John Matravers, Thomas Blount and the sheriff, John Delamare, being Dorsets ‘arrayers’.
‘… beacons to be set up in the usual places …’
Alban says that the history of beacons is rather vague as orders may have included mention of ‘fire-alarms’ but were usually about manpower, eg, ‘The watches of 1326, for instance, were made by groups of six men by day and six by night. Four, five or six men were to attend the beacons in 1337. In both cases this was an increase on the three men by day and three by night who were to watch on the coast in 1324. The Statute of Winchester, moreover, had prescribed watches of sixteen men at the gates of cities, of twelve men in boroughs, and of four or six according to the number of inhabitants, in rural townships.
And that, ‘in 1337, for instance, writs were sent to Bartholomew de l'Isle and his associates, 'custodibus terrae maritime in comitatu Suthantonie', and to their fellow keepers in Devon, Somerset and Dorset, which included instructions … to warn the inhabitants of the areas under their command of the arrival of the enemy.’
But how they were warned is left to our imagination – church bells being rung – riders despatched to shout and scream – beacons lit? Maybe some – maybe all.
The first ‘solid’ evidence of a beacon in Purbeck comes from a survey carried out by Ralph Treswell c1600 ?1585?
Oct ‘77, the first parliament of Richard II's reign, ‘the expulsion from England of all enemy aliens was ordained in reply to a commons' petition.’ This seems to have been mainly priests but wasn’t overly successful anyway.
A couple of other petitions were also read out. ‘The commons of the land state that the warden of the Fleet prison allows many of those imprisoned there by plea of debt to leave the prison to buy and sell, and to spend nights away from the prison, so that their creditors can have no recovery against them; they request that the warden be ordered henceforth not to allow any prisoner to leave without satisfying his creditors, except on the king's writ, on pain of forfeiture of his office into the king's hand.
Y’know, just a bit of everyday corruption – maybe not surprising that we peasants felt the need to hear The Great Rumour? However, it was agreed that ‘this sort of thing’ shouldn’t happen.
In the other petition ‘The people of Salisbury request that the king order that all people with lands or tenements in the city should contribute to the cost of building defences to protect the city and its cathedral from the French.’
Salisbury – under attack? - or fearful of attack?
Until, I don’t know when, Salisbury was a port on the river Avon, which meets La Manche at Christchurch. ‘.... it also appears that the river was navigated ... to Salisbury. In 1372, the king ordered that a barge be made at Salisbury ... to resist the malice of his enemies of France. As this order specifically states that the barge be made at Salisbury it must be concluded that the waters of the river Avon were utilised to enable the barge to reach the sea. In 1378 the mayor, bailiffs and good men of Salisbury were given exemption from making a small barge, called a balinger for the king's fleet now at sea.’
Could the French have gotten* as far as Salisbury – I have no idea, but it’s less than 25 miles from Southampton where there’d been a few difficulties – anyhow, Salisburys wish was granted on 5 Feb ‘78, along with a similar one to Winchester, which is less than 20 miles from Southampton – 25 from Salisbury. Was the south of England being invaded in-land? During WW11 ’stop lines’ were set up, could this be an example of that sort of thing?
* I surprised myself by using ‘gotten’. ‘Ill-gotten gains’ sure, but ‘gotten as far as’ - that’s American English – p’raps I’m being infiltrated! Which isn’t English in any country!
Back to 1377, Rodgers ‘… no English response until October, when Boulogne was raided by ships from Calais and the earl of Buckingham sailed from London in an attempt to intercept a Castilian convoy reported to be at Sluys ready to sail for home. His fleet was dispersed by gales and mutiny, but a part of it under sir Thomas Percy did take twenty-two Castilian prizes. In January Buckingham relieved Brest and in the summer a larger fleet under Lancaster sailed to take over Cherbourg, one of the Norman fortresses offered by England’s ally Charles II of Navarre which he was unable to defend. While he was present, Lancaster was able to blockade the Seine, as well as attempting without success to attack St Malo and relieve the besieged Navarrese garrison of Pont Audemer. The Castilian galleys made no attempt to attack his large fleet directly, but as soon as he went home they returned to dominate the Channel. The earl of Arundel’s squadron was defeated as it left Cherbourg, the port was blockaded, and a squadron under sir Peter Courteney which tried to escape was captured. In August the Castilian galleys raided Cornwall, burning coastal towns and levying tribute’.
Jan 27 ‘77. The ‘Bad Parliament’ began. Influenced by John of Gaunt it undid the work done by the Good Parliament in trying to reduce corruption. It also introduced a poll tax.
Feb 20, there were riots in London after Gaunt ‘attacked’ the privileges of the City. March 2, the Bad Parliament ended. May 22, Pope Gregory XI issued five Bulls condemning the opinion of John Wycliffe that Catholic priests should live in poverty like the twelve disciples of Jesus.
On June 10 there was an Appointment made ‘to do the works ordained to be done in the castle of Corf by view and testimony of John de Warmyngton, controller of the works.
The ‘Appointment’ was to William Clavyle and William Hygon, mayor Corf. Back in ‘Great Rumour’, William Hugon had been involved and now he seems to be the mayor – nice!
Things got worse when on Jun 21, Edward III, who’s health had been ‘going downhill’ for a few years, died. He’d been our king for 50 years – very few would have been alive when he was crowned – a new king – hopefully a good one. <shudder>.
On Jun 30 there was a commission to John Darundell, keeper of Southampton, ‘empowering him to see that all its men … are armed … against the king’s enemies whenever danger is imminent …’
On the same day, Edmund, earl of Cambridge, constable of Dover Castle, William Latymer and John Cobham of Kent were ‘appointed to take order for the defence of its coast against the French, the king understanding that they have landed in great force.’
Then on July 2 there was a ‘Writ of aid directed to the people in Southampton and Dorset’ as William earl of Salisbury was ‘appointed to take order for the defence of their coasts against the imminent invasion of the French.’
The Kent record may be a bit over the top, as Rodgers says, ‘on June 24 the combined French, Castilian, Monagasgue and Portugese force sailed for a cruise during which they destroyed Rye, Rottingdean, Lewes, Folkestone, Portsmouth, Dartmouth and Plymouth. In August they returned to ransom the Isle of Wight and burn Poole and Hastings, though they were repelled from the walled towns of Southampton, Dover and Winchelsea. In July barges from Boulogne attacked the Yarmouth herring fishery. Apart from desperate measures of coastal defence there was no English response until October ...’
‘… desperate measures of coastal defence ...’ Before 22 August ‘77 Thomas Haket and Ralph Wolverton, both ‘collectors of the fifteenth in the Isle of Wight’ made a petition in which there were 6 ‘items’ trying to order residents to pay their taxes, and/or return to the Isle and pay their taxes, and/or to pay their taxes and to stop fleeing the Isle.
There was also a 7th ‘Item’ which was to ‘let a commission be made to the petitioners to punish labourers according to the statute lately made and used in all of England which will turn to the great profit of the king.’
This is the sort of thing that makes me wish I had the gumption to study, um, something, cuz if I did then I might be able to work out which statute that referred to. I want it to be the Statute of Labourers, and that the ’caulkheads’ were asking for higher wages, but that’s an assumption.
This may be a minor criticism, but after Edward IIIs death, his grandson, Richard, was crowned on 16 July – and he was 10 years old. The last time something similar had happened was back in 1326/7 when Edward II was deposed, being replaced by his 14 year old son – Edward III. That had led to three years of chaos from which maybe they’d learnt, and maybe the transition was much smoother this time, but as said, John of Gaunt, the earl of Lancaster, had been ‘very influential’ from ‘34/5 but he was not, absolutely not, and never was the king.
Continuing with Rodgers’ ‘desperate measures’ - on July 1st ‘77 the sheriffs of pretty much the whole country were ordered ‘to array and equip all the men of that county and to keep ever arrayed the men-at-arms and archers to resist foreign invasion, according to the form of the like commission of the late king, causing beacons to be set up in the usual places …’
In the Patent rolls there’s then two A4 pages of names with - William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, John Darundell, Robert Rous, Robert le fitz Payn, John Chidyok, Edward fitz Herbert, John Matravers, Thomas Blount and the sheriff, John Delamare, being Dorsets ‘arrayers’.
‘… beacons to be set up in the usual places …’
Alban says that the history of beacons is rather vague as orders may have included mention of ‘fire-alarms’ but were usually about manpower, eg, ‘The watches of 1326, for instance, were made by groups of six men by day and six by night. Four, five or six men were to attend the beacons in 1337. In both cases this was an increase on the three men by day and three by night who were to watch on the coast in 1324. The Statute of Winchester, moreover, had prescribed watches of sixteen men at the gates of cities, of twelve men in boroughs, and of four or six according to the number of inhabitants, in rural townships.
And that, ‘in 1337, for instance, writs were sent to Bartholomew de l'Isle and his associates, 'custodibus terrae maritime in comitatu Suthantonie', and to their fellow keepers in Devon, Somerset and Dorset, which included instructions … to warn the inhabitants of the areas under their command of the arrival of the enemy.’
But how they were warned is left to our imagination – church bells being rung – riders despatched to shout and scream – beacons lit? Maybe some – maybe all.
The first ‘solid’ evidence of a beacon in Purbeck comes from a survey carried out by Ralph Treswell c1600 ?1585?
Oct ‘77, the first parliament of Richard II's reign, ‘the expulsion from England of all enemy aliens was ordained in reply to a commons' petition.’ This seems to have been mainly priests but wasn’t overly successful anyway.
A couple of other petitions were also read out. ‘The commons of the land state that the warden of the Fleet prison allows many of those imprisoned there by plea of debt to leave the prison to buy and sell, and to spend nights away from the prison, so that their creditors can have no recovery against them; they request that the warden be ordered henceforth not to allow any prisoner to leave without satisfying his creditors, except on the king's writ, on pain of forfeiture of his office into the king's hand.
Y’know, just a bit of everyday corruption – maybe not surprising that we peasants felt the need to hear The Great Rumour? However, it was agreed that ‘this sort of thing’ shouldn’t happen.
In the other petition ‘The people of Salisbury request that the king order that all people with lands or tenements in the city should contribute to the cost of building defences to protect the city and its cathedral from the French.’
Salisbury – under attack? - or fearful of attack?
Until, I don’t know when, Salisbury was a port on the river Avon, which meets La Manche at Christchurch. ‘.... it also appears that the river was navigated ... to Salisbury. In 1372, the king ordered that a barge be made at Salisbury ... to resist the malice of his enemies of France. As this order specifically states that the barge be made at Salisbury it must be concluded that the waters of the river Avon were utilised to enable the barge to reach the sea. In 1378 the mayor, bailiffs and good men of Salisbury were given exemption from making a small barge, called a balinger for the king's fleet now at sea.’
Could the French have gotten* as far as Salisbury – I have no idea, but it’s less than 25 miles from Southampton where there’d been a few difficulties – anyhow, Salisburys wish was granted on 5 Feb ‘78, along with a similar one to Winchester, which is less than 20 miles from Southampton – 25 from Salisbury. Was the south of England being invaded in-land? During WW11 ’stop lines’ were set up, could this be an example of that sort of thing?
* I surprised myself by using ‘gotten’. ‘Ill-gotten gains’ sure, but ‘gotten as far as’ - that’s American English – p’raps I’m being infiltrated! Which isn’t English in any country!
Back to 1377, Rodgers ‘… no English response until October, when Boulogne was raided by ships from Calais and the earl of Buckingham sailed from London in an attempt to intercept a Castilian convoy reported to be at Sluys ready to sail for home. His fleet was dispersed by gales and mutiny, but a part of it under sir Thomas Percy did take twenty-two Castilian prizes. In January Buckingham relieved Brest and in the summer a larger fleet under Lancaster sailed to take over Cherbourg, one of the Norman fortresses offered by England’s ally Charles II of Navarre which he was unable to defend. While he was present, Lancaster was able to blockade the Seine, as well as attempting without success to attack St Malo and relieve the besieged Navarrese garrison of Pont Audemer. The Castilian galleys made no attempt to attack his large fleet directly, but as soon as he went home they returned to dominate the Channel. The earl of Arundel’s squadron was defeated as it left Cherbourg, the port was blockaded, and a squadron under sir Peter Courteney which tried to escape was captured. In August the Castilian galleys raided Cornwall, burning coastal towns and levying tribute’.
Re: Medieval Latin.
The people of Weymouth didn’t have a church so had to nip across the river to Melcombe so in ‘77 the bishop of Salisbury granted them permission to build their own chapel as ‘the town had already been raided by a group of Normans, Genoese, Bretons, Picardies and Spaniards on a Sunday’.
I mean, how can you defend your town if you have to pop over to Melcombe to pray?
Also in ‘77 ‘when attacks on the south coast were frequent*.’
‘The commons of Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex, Devon and Cornwall, who have often suffered attacks from the sea from the King's enemies, ask for some good ordinance to be made for defence of the coast, especially for the town of Southampton and the castles of Portchester and Purbeck, whose loss would have severe consequences.’
Hmm, ‘and the castles of Portchester and Purbeck’. Could that imply that Purbeck had more than one castle?
Yep, welcome to Studland castle – probably. [See below].
As ‘ordinance’ gets a mentions . . . Et Philippo Walweyn custodi castri de Corff' pro municione eiusdem castri . . . iiii gunnes, Ml pelotas plumbi pondere cc dimid' xxxv lb.
Oooh, guns.
'... to Corfe Castle of four guns and 1,000 lead bullets weighing 285 lb ... in this entry the weight of ball indicates light ordnance, possibly hand guns ... [The] account for 1375–7 includes an issue of twelve jacks along with partial armours comprising bacinets and aventails, pairs of gauntlets and vambraces, mail shirts and lances for the garrison of Corfe Castle ... Calais was issued with forty wooden crossbows in 1379. Portchester Castle received 750 quarrels with heads and 1,000 headless but fletched quarrel shafts. Corfe Castle received ten new crossbows and 1,000 quarrels.'
That could be open to interpretation – had Corfe been attacked and used up it’s arrows and quarrels? Had Corfes garrison ‘ridden out’ to fight off those pesky invaders? Or was it just a normal restock or upgrade? Sadly, I have no blinkin’ idea, but I do love the thought of Corfe being besieged – so long as all the locals managed to get somewhere safe.
* ‘attacks on the south coast were frequent’. They certainly seem to have been, but, he said guiltily, that record may not actually be 1377. TNA (The National Archive) suggest that it could be, ‘but that it's more safely dated to the late fourteenth century.’ Oh well. 
On Jan 5 ‘78 Henry de Burton was commissioned ‘to search the counties of Southampton, Wilts, Berks and Dorset, by the survey of the sheriffs, for all moneys and other treasures anciently hidden ...’
I’ve seen records like that before, but I’ve still no idea what ‘anciently hidden’ really means.
In Feb ‘78 ‘the inhabitants of Lym’ [Lyme Regis] complained that in 1331, when they were granted the keeping of their town, they’d been ‘rich and substantial merchants’, but their town was now ‘for the most part destroyed and wasted by the sea, and those merchants, with the exception of six or eight, have died or withdrawn’ and that the ‘‘Cobbe’ or ‘Conners’’ had been ‘swept away by the sea’. So they asked for some tax-relief.
I wonder how Lym had escaped the French attacks – unless that wasn’t the sort of thing one talked of in public.
Then I thought about Weymouth and Melcombe. They had no problem saying that they’d been invaded – why?
An oversight. Error. Cockup.
Because one report says that in 1252 Weymouth was made a borough and Melcombe was also made one in 1280, becoming the staple port for wool in 1310. And another report says that in 1310 Weymouth was made a ‘staple port’ for wine, while Melcombe was made a ‘staple port’ for wool – although it might have been in 1318. And in another, it says that Melcombe was made a ‘staple port’ in about 1350, elsewhere though it was 1364. So I thought – what can I do! [useless quitter].
However, staple ports were important because we like wine and exported lots of wool.
I should have mentioned that earlier, as I think it may be easier for a staple port to report that it had been invaded than it was for, say Lyme, which as it had been granted ‘borough’ status had much more self-governance, and of course, responsibility, than a ‘non-borough’ so perhaps it was easier to blame an act of God, rather than the French as having caused the devastation, whereas Weymouth and Melcombe had been made staple ports by the king and he earnt money from their imports and exports so he had the responsibility – or the responsibility could be ‘pushed’ on to him. But that’s me guessing.
TNA says that in 1378 or 9 ‘The mayor and community of Melcombe state that their town, which is held of the king as of his crown, was recently burnt down and completely destroyed by enemies suddenly coming into the country, so that no-one can now live there; they request that they might enclose the town and have pavage and murage and other customs like the people of Southampton, and also that they might be quit of the prise of wines as the people of London are, and also of the farm of the town and all other taxes for a certain time, until the town is rebuilt.’
TNA continue by saying that in ‘79 the king replied ‘With regard to the first article, they were answered in parliament that the King is not advised to grant it. And with regard to the second article, the supplicants are to have the supersedeas requested here until next Michaelmas.’
But there’s an entry in the Close rolls of Dec 12 1378* which reads, ‘Writ of supersedeas until Michaelmas next in regard to the levy of tenths and fifteenths, upon petition of the mayor and commonalty of Melcombe, shewing that the town has been burned by the king's enemies so that no man is dwelling therein; and order to release any distress made upon the petitioners by the treasurer and barons, or by the collectors in Dorset.’
No walls, but they were allowed some tax relief.
* Petty of me – and there are six other, undated, records about the Melcombe issue.
Southampton had already been granted its’ ‘pavage and murage and other customs’ and on April 6 ‘78 Henry Maunnesfeld, Thomas Harpecote, John Pyperyin and Richard Bailyf were told to provide ‘stone, lime, planks, timber, lead and other things’ for the building of ‘a tower with a gate’ in ‘‘Le Oldecastell’ in Southampton’. Naturally they had the ‘power to arrest and imprison the disobedient.’
John Polmont and William Bacon of Bristol were commissioned to pay the workers’ wages and any transport costs.
Maunnesfeld and Harpecote were also commissioned to ‘control the works’, while John de Foxle was commissioned ‘to control and survey the works.’
I wrote something, then rewrote it, then thought – ah, forget it.
At some point in ‘78 Southamptons sheriff was commanded to summon ‘by public proclamation, all persons residing in the Isle of Wight, or who have lands or possessions there, to go there instantly with all their families, to assist in defending the said isle against the expected invasion there by the French’. Similar mandates were sent to the sheriffs of Dorsetshire and Wiltshire.
March 1378. John Wycliffe tried to promote his ideas for Catholic reform by laying his theses before parliament and making them public in a tract. He was subsequently summoned before Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon of Sudbury, at Lambeth Palace to defend his actions, and being a Lawyer, did so.
One thing I need to check is that it’s ‘been said’ that ‘in 1378, burnings and pillaging were said to be the source of impoverishment in Devon, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight.’ Glad to see that Dorset avoided the ‘impoverishment’!
I hope this is returning to The Great Riot of Corfe. On May 6 ‘79 there was a ‘commission to John Darundell, knight, John Matravers, John Ways and Richard Marlebergh to enquire touching the seizure of land, tenements or liberties belonging to the castle of Corf, ancient demesne of the crown.’
Hmmm, I wonder if that does link back to The Riot? At least we’ve got ‘liberties’ and ‘ancient demesne’ - perhaps it does …. but perhaps it doesn’t. It’s circumstantial, there are no court records – move on. Must I? Yep. Stamps foot.
Studland Castle.
‘The Foreland or Handfast Point (SZ 055825) is a high promontory shown on Ralph Treswell's map 1585-6 (see Hutchins p. 580), (or here) as partly occupied by Studland Wood, and by an 'enclosure' further inland called "Castell Leyes" (shown at circa SZ 047823). Coker in 1732 said of this place, "the land stretcheth forth a short promontory furnished with a blockhouse, for the more grace called Studland Castle" (Hutchins). Mills adds that a "castellum de Studlande, the Castle of Studland" is mentioned in 1381 (PiH Papers in BM) (Mills).
Handfast (Point) is probably derived from 'rock' or 'high stronghold' with reference to Studland Castle or an earlier fort here. Battery or bulwark at Handfast Point. Between May 1584 and October 1586 a bulwark or battery was built at Handfast Point. A stone magazine was acquired and a new drawbridge called for. Of the battery, no trace remains (HKW). (PastScape)
Hutchins (1861, 644) records that "there was anciently a castle at Studland" and suggests that King John stayed there when he visited Studland in 1205 and 1213 … [on] William Woodward's map of 1775 although the woodland at "Castle Leyes" had been cut down and replaced with three enclosures called "East, South-East and West Castle". The bridge of land to the stack called Studland Castle is shown as eroded to a thin line on the map. Coker (1732, 16) describes the castle as a "block-house, for the more grace called Studland Castle" and from this it appears that he knew something of the structure of the castle despite the fact that not even the c. 1539 coastal defence map of the south coast shows a castle here (Cotton Collection, British Museum). In the medieval period Handfast Point would have been less eroded and offered a larger building site linked by a wider bridge of land. The site has good views across Studland Bay and the southern approach to Poole Harbour.’
I mean, how can you defend your town if you have to pop over to Melcombe to pray?
Also in ‘77 ‘when attacks on the south coast were frequent*.’
‘The commons of Dorset, Hampshire, Sussex, Devon and Cornwall, who have often suffered attacks from the sea from the King's enemies, ask for some good ordinance to be made for defence of the coast, especially for the town of Southampton and the castles of Portchester and Purbeck, whose loss would have severe consequences.’
Hmm, ‘and the castles of Portchester and Purbeck’. Could that imply that Purbeck had more than one castle?
Yep, welcome to Studland castle – probably. [See below].
As ‘ordinance’ gets a mentions . . . Et Philippo Walweyn custodi castri de Corff' pro municione eiusdem castri . . . iiii gunnes, Ml pelotas plumbi pondere cc dimid' xxxv lb.
Oooh, guns.
'... to Corfe Castle of four guns and 1,000 lead bullets weighing 285 lb ... in this entry the weight of ball indicates light ordnance, possibly hand guns ... [The] account for 1375–7 includes an issue of twelve jacks along with partial armours comprising bacinets and aventails, pairs of gauntlets and vambraces, mail shirts and lances for the garrison of Corfe Castle ... Calais was issued with forty wooden crossbows in 1379. Portchester Castle received 750 quarrels with heads and 1,000 headless but fletched quarrel shafts. Corfe Castle received ten new crossbows and 1,000 quarrels.'
That could be open to interpretation – had Corfe been attacked and used up it’s arrows and quarrels? Had Corfes garrison ‘ridden out’ to fight off those pesky invaders? Or was it just a normal restock or upgrade? Sadly, I have no blinkin’ idea, but I do love the thought of Corfe being besieged – so long as all the locals managed to get somewhere safe.
* ‘attacks on the south coast were frequent’. They certainly seem to have been, but, he said guiltily, that record may not actually be 1377. TNA (The National Archive) suggest that it could be, ‘but that it's more safely dated to the late fourteenth century.’
Oh well. On Jan 5 ‘78 Henry de Burton was commissioned ‘to search the counties of Southampton, Wilts, Berks and Dorset, by the survey of the sheriffs, for all moneys and other treasures anciently hidden ...’
I’ve seen records like that before, but I’ve still no idea what ‘anciently hidden’ really means.
In Feb ‘78 ‘the inhabitants of Lym’ [Lyme Regis] complained that in 1331, when they were granted the keeping of their town, they’d been ‘rich and substantial merchants’, but their town was now ‘for the most part destroyed and wasted by the sea, and those merchants, with the exception of six or eight, have died or withdrawn’ and that the ‘‘Cobbe’ or ‘Conners’’ had been ‘swept away by the sea’. So they asked for some tax-relief.
I wonder how Lym had escaped the French attacks – unless that wasn’t the sort of thing one talked of in public.
Then I thought about Weymouth and Melcombe. They had no problem saying that they’d been invaded – why?
An oversight. Error. Cockup.
Because one report says that in 1252 Weymouth was made a borough and Melcombe was also made one in 1280, becoming the staple port for wool in 1310. And another report says that in 1310 Weymouth was made a ‘staple port’ for wine, while Melcombe was made a ‘staple port’ for wool – although it might have been in 1318. And in another, it says that Melcombe was made a ‘staple port’ in about 1350, elsewhere though it was 1364. So I thought – what can I do! [useless quitter].
However, staple ports were important because we like wine and exported lots of wool.
I should have mentioned that earlier, as I think it may be easier for a staple port to report that it had been invaded than it was for, say Lyme, which as it had been granted ‘borough’ status had much more self-governance, and of course, responsibility, than a ‘non-borough’ so perhaps it was easier to blame an act of God, rather than the French as having caused the devastation, whereas Weymouth and Melcombe had been made staple ports by the king and he earnt money from their imports and exports so he had the responsibility – or the responsibility could be ‘pushed’ on to him. But that’s me guessing.
TNA says that in 1378 or 9 ‘The mayor and community of Melcombe state that their town, which is held of the king as of his crown, was recently burnt down and completely destroyed by enemies suddenly coming into the country, so that no-one can now live there; they request that they might enclose the town and have pavage and murage and other customs like the people of Southampton, and also that they might be quit of the prise of wines as the people of London are, and also of the farm of the town and all other taxes for a certain time, until the town is rebuilt.’
TNA continue by saying that in ‘79 the king replied ‘With regard to the first article, they were answered in parliament that the King is not advised to grant it. And with regard to the second article, the supplicants are to have the supersedeas requested here until next Michaelmas.’
But there’s an entry in the Close rolls of Dec 12 1378* which reads, ‘Writ of supersedeas until Michaelmas next in regard to the levy of tenths and fifteenths, upon petition of the mayor and commonalty of Melcombe, shewing that the town has been burned by the king's enemies so that no man is dwelling therein; and order to release any distress made upon the petitioners by the treasurer and barons, or by the collectors in Dorset.’
No walls, but they were allowed some tax relief.
* Petty of me – and there are six other, undated, records about the Melcombe issue.
Southampton had already been granted its’ ‘pavage and murage and other customs’ and on April 6 ‘78 Henry Maunnesfeld, Thomas Harpecote, John Pyperyin and Richard Bailyf were told to provide ‘stone, lime, planks, timber, lead and other things’ for the building of ‘a tower with a gate’ in ‘‘Le Oldecastell’ in Southampton’. Naturally they had the ‘power to arrest and imprison the disobedient.’
John Polmont and William Bacon of Bristol were commissioned to pay the workers’ wages and any transport costs.
Maunnesfeld and Harpecote were also commissioned to ‘control the works’, while John de Foxle was commissioned ‘to control and survey the works.’
I wrote something, then rewrote it, then thought – ah, forget it.
Sometimes it’s good to admit that others 'just do it better'. Cheers MurphCID.
At some point in ‘78 Southamptons sheriff was commanded to summon ‘by public proclamation, all persons residing in the Isle of Wight, or who have lands or possessions there, to go there instantly with all their families, to assist in defending the said isle against the expected invasion there by the French’. Similar mandates were sent to the sheriffs of Dorsetshire and Wiltshire.
March 1378. John Wycliffe tried to promote his ideas for Catholic reform by laying his theses before parliament and making them public in a tract. He was subsequently summoned before Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon of Sudbury, at Lambeth Palace to defend his actions, and being a Lawyer, did so.
One thing I need to check is that it’s ‘been said’ that ‘in 1378, burnings and pillaging were said to be the source of impoverishment in Devon, Cornwall and the Isle of Wight.’ Glad to see that Dorset avoided the ‘impoverishment’!
I hope this is returning to The Great Riot of Corfe. On May 6 ‘79 there was a ‘commission to John Darundell, knight, John Matravers, John Ways and Richard Marlebergh to enquire touching the seizure of land, tenements or liberties belonging to the castle of Corf, ancient demesne of the crown.’
Hmmm, I wonder if that does link back to The Riot? At least we’ve got ‘liberties’ and ‘ancient demesne’ - perhaps it does …. but perhaps it doesn’t. It’s circumstantial, there are no court records – move on. Must I? Yep. Stamps foot.
Studland Castle.
‘The Foreland or Handfast Point (SZ 055825) is a high promontory shown on Ralph Treswell's map 1585-6 (see Hutchins p. 580), (or here) as partly occupied by Studland Wood, and by an 'enclosure' further inland called "Castell Leyes" (shown at circa SZ 047823). Coker in 1732 said of this place, "the land stretcheth forth a short promontory furnished with a blockhouse, for the more grace called Studland Castle" (Hutchins). Mills adds that a "castellum de Studlande, the Castle of Studland" is mentioned in 1381 (PiH Papers in BM) (Mills).
Handfast (Point) is probably derived from 'rock' or 'high stronghold' with reference to Studland Castle or an earlier fort here. Battery or bulwark at Handfast Point. Between May 1584 and October 1586 a bulwark or battery was built at Handfast Point. A stone magazine was acquired and a new drawbridge called for. Of the battery, no trace remains (HKW). (PastScape)
Hutchins (1861, 644) records that "there was anciently a castle at Studland" and suggests that King John stayed there when he visited Studland in 1205 and 1213 … [on] William Woodward's map of 1775 although the woodland at "Castle Leyes" had been cut down and replaced with three enclosures called "East, South-East and West Castle". The bridge of land to the stack called Studland Castle is shown as eroded to a thin line on the map. Coker (1732, 16) describes the castle as a "block-house, for the more grace called Studland Castle" and from this it appears that he knew something of the structure of the castle despite the fact that not even the c. 1539 coastal defence map of the south coast shows a castle here (Cotton Collection, British Museum). In the medieval period Handfast Point would have been less eroded and offered a larger building site linked by a wider bridge of land. The site has good views across Studland Bay and the southern approach to Poole Harbour.’
Re: Medieval Latin.
I knew that Southampton had a few medieval 'bits', but I'd forgotten - or never knew - how many.
This bloke - whoops - Dan Spencer does it nicely. https://danspencer.info/2019/02/14/a-to ... uthampton/
This bloke - whoops - Dan Spencer does it nicely. https://danspencer.info/2019/02/14/a-to ... uthampton/
Re: Medieval Latin.
From above - ‘In 1372, the king ordered that a barge be made at Salisbury ... In 1378 the mayor, bailiffs and good men of Salisbury were given exemption from making a small barge, called a balinger for the king's fleet now at sea.’
I thought that I should have a look at ‘Safeguard’ and Rodgers says that in response to attacks ‘Squadrons of balingers were ordered to be built in 1373 and 1378 but they were never concentrated as a striking force, and could never have effectively deterred a skilful enemy. Nor could the king’s own ships. From about forty ships early in Edward III’s reign, the royal squadron had fallen to five when he died, of which the last was sold by 1380.’
About the raids – they ‘struck the seafaring and shipowning community, upon whose prosperity and co-operation English naval strength depended.’
And then continues ‘Coastal areas were ravaged and deserted; flourishing seaports like Melcombe in Dorset were reduced to an obscurity from which they never recovered.’
On March 20 1380 commissions were issued ‘to array and equip all the men of that county between the ages of 16 and 60, and to keep them, the men-at-arms, hobelars and archers, in readiness to resist foreign invasion; with power to arrest and imprison the disobedient.’
Nothing new there.
Then there were 3 pages of appointees and Dorsets were: William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Robert Rous, Robert le fitz Payn, John Chidyok, Edmund fitz Herberd, Robert Turbeville, John de Neuburgh, Stephen Derby, Phillip Walwayn, William Payn, Roger Bittesthorn, John Matravers, Thomas Blount and ‘the sheriff in the county of Dorset’, who was Theobald Gorges.
But added to those commissions was this;
‘the like to Robert fitz Payn, knight, Robert Turbeville, knight, Phillip Walwayn, John Fyelton, Roger Buttesthorn and John Moulham, to array men in the Isle of Purbeck co Dorset where danger specially threatens, to set watches and beacons at Swanwyche and elsewhere on the coast, and to compel the repair of walls and other defences thereof.’
Wow! – we seem to have been singled out as needing special attention – why? And did the people of Swanage ‘repair walls and other defences’?
I think I can answer the ‘why’ - although not for another 20 years – but was Swanage a walled town?
I don’t think so. I guess that the repairing of the walls is a catch-all term meaning ‘any walls in the area’, and that building walls around Swanage would have been such a huge undertaking for such a small town and that even though there are no records, surely there’d be something remaining of such an undertaking*.
Plus, what did Swanage have that was so valuable? I’ve no – little? - idea. No, I’ve no idea, but I can guess - although not for another 20 years.
* Records in Swanage from the early/mid 1800’s are ‘plentiful’, and there’s no mention of any walls, or any remains of.
Could Swanage have had walled areas within the town – or local area?
Yes. Pure speculation, but Newton, Godlingston manor and St Mary’s church are ‘candidates’, and if they didn’t have ‘walls’ then the latter two have towers and the earl of Salisbury held ‘Newton in Purbeck’ in 1321.
Just to be awkward there are two ‘Newtons in Purbeck’! There was the one on the shores of Poole harbour, that was commissioned back on 7 Jan 1286, but whether it was ever built is one of those enduring local mysteries – but it probably wasn’t – or at least, not fully – probably.
Then there’s the other Newton, that’s, kind of, ‘in no-mans land’. Is the ‘other’ Newton in Herston, or is it in Swanage – or is it between the two?
In 1897, ‘Newton is an ancient property ... the old grey stone walls, by which it was first enclosed. It is a hamlet in the parish of Swanage, the New"ton", or town, occupying the first rising ground known as Newton "Knap", on the main Purbeck road to Corfe Castle and Wareham. Two or three hundred yards further on comes Herston, a somewhat similar hamlet now grown into a village, and doubtless in its origin the "ton", or holding, of some Anglo-Saxon settler in Purbeck.’
Those ‘old grey stone walls’ are relatively modern, but could they have been built on much earlier ones? Yep – but of course, there’s no proof.
Why does ‘proof’ always get in the way of the better story!
I also want to go off on a huge tangent about Herston, but this about the 14th century and I must avoid – most! – tangents.
Swanages first known church is St Marys, in which ‘Fragments of early 13th-century stonework are preserved in the church but the only mediaeval structure remaining is the West Tower, of the 14th century.’
‘There is no tower arch, but in the E. wall is a wide recess in which is a late 19th-century doorway; in the N. wall is a modern doorway; in the W. wall is a 15th-century window of two cinque-foiled lights with vertical tracery in a two-centred head set in an older door opening. The second storey is reached by an external stairway leading to a restored doorway ... There is no apparent change in the masonry between the 14th-century walling of the lower part and the 17th-century work above.’
That could suggest that the main entrance ‘back then’ was to the second storey. When the French invade, run to the tower, climb up a ladder, pull up said ladder, slam the door. Hope.
‘13th-century stonework’ – and maybe before – as the church was ‘controlled’ by the ‘de Lincoln’ family, who passed it onto the ‘fitz Payns’. In 1251 or 2 ‘… between Margery [nee de Lincoln] who was wife of Roger son of Pagan, complainant, and William de Welles, deforciant, of the advowson* of the chapel of Swanewyz .... to be the right of Robert son and heir of the said Pagan, and of the warrant of the aforesaid Margery concerning her dower .... to Robert and his heirs for ever.’
Robert fitz Payn, or fili pagani, arrived in Dorset c1190. He had two sons, Robert, and Roger who married Margery de Lincoln. Margery and Roger had a son around about 1230, and named him Robert. When, presumably at 21, he ‘came of age’ he seems to have had to clarify his rights about St Marys.
* ‘advowson’ is the right to appoint the priest, which implies control rather than ownership.
Then there’s Godlingston with its wonderful and beautiful round tower.
‘The main S. front has a doorway of c. 1300 with chamfered and trefoiled two-centred head and continuous jambs with shaped stops; Hutchins (I, 669) records a similar doorway, without trefoiling, opposite in the N. wall. The square-headed windows with stone mullions are mainly of the early 17th century. The W. tower, of two storeys with a conical roof, is lit through loops; a doorway to the S. has been blocked and the N. doorway inserted or altered. The tower has stone nesting boxes above the level of the former first-floor ceiling.’
I must be doing something wrong as there's an
that doesn't want to insert itself!
Whoohoo – a round tower in Dorset that isn’t attached to a castle. Bloody lovely!
Built c1300 – in response to invasions? No way of knowing. It could just have been someone showing off – but who? No way of knowing, but if I was forced to place a bet then I’d have a small bet on the final Alfred de Lincoln - but that would take the tower back to before 1264. I’d have a fairly hefty bet on the ‘de Gouiz’ family – probably William, who’s often assumed to be the son of William who married Margery de Lincolns sister, Beartrice - but there’s a very good chance that Beartrice and William didn’t have a son, and the William who inherited their land was a cousin, who stupidly, died in 1299. So it could have been whoever inherited his land.
A fourth candidate is Whitecliff farm, but as with my potential ‘Herston tangent’, I could go on and on about this, but it’s too tangential.
On April 24 ‘80 there was a commission to 15 people about Lyme [Regis] and how it had been ‘desolated by tempests and other misfortunes, that many burgesses have retired and live elsewhere, whereby the few remaining are so impoverished’ that they refuse to pay their taxes.
Then on July 1 they were pardoned, because ‘a great part of it has been destroyed by the sea.’
There may well have been rumours of an invasion in 1380, but Jean de Vienne certainly captured the Channel Islands, burnt Winchelsea and Gravesend and threatened London.
In Sept 1380 French king Charles V died and Rodgers says that his successor, Charles VI had ‘less understanding of sea power, and consequently less understanding of the Castilian alliance.’ Phew!
But in 1383 he did re-ignite the Franco/Scottish ‘auld alliance’.
Before then though, this is one of those records that I neither know the background of, or understand, but on Dec 18 1380 Thomas de la Beer was given ‘Special protection’ as he was ‘despatched on certain arduous business touching the king and the steward of the household in Dorset.’
His protection appears to have been needed to stop him being ‘attached and suffering forfeiture’ – which I think means being found guilty – by ‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, and his fellow justices of the peace in the county, who are to supersede the same.’
And they call that English!
The Steward of the household was John of Gaunt, who may – and I stress may – have made Canford Magna his main home. Canford had been part of the original earl of Salisburys land but he ended up forgetting to have a son, so, with thanks to Wikipedia, Margaret Longespée, 4th Countess of Salisbury suo jure (in her own right), married Henry de Lacey, 3rd earl of Lincoln, who, Wikipedia forget to mention, was Corfes constable from Feb 1301 until March 20 ‘05 when he was replaced by Robert fitz Payn, who was the grandson of the Robert of 1251/2.
Margaret and Henry had the ‘boy problem’ as well, so their daughter Alice became the next Countess. In 1321 Alice’s hubby, Thomas, earl of Lancaster, led the ‘Despenser rebellion’ and eventually forfeited his land, title and life. Alice should have remained as Countess of Salisbury but Edward II could be a bit vengeful, and his son wasn’t always a paragon of virtue.
I'm having a bad day with links, here's Alice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_ ... of_Lincoln
In 1337 the earl of Salisbury was re-created and given to Edward IIIs ‘most favourite’ favourite, William de Montecute, who died in 1344 after being wounded in a tournament. His son, William b1328, d1397, took over and had a son named …. William, who unfortunately was killed in a tournament in 1383.
But whether that record is connected to any Salisbury/Gaunt rivalry is unknown – to me.
My lack of knowledge really does frustrate me and I really should get off my great fat ….
Until then, on Nov 15 ‘80 there was a commission to ‘Robert Turburvyll, John Hamelyn and John Neuburgh, knights, Roger Buttesthorn, John Fitelton and John Moulham, to enquire touching the dissapation, through default of the keepers and constables of the possessions, rents, rights, customs and liberties of the castle and lordship of Corf ...’
??Great Rumour?? ??Upcoming Peasant’s revolt?? ??General confusion and incompetence?? ??My ignorance??
Y’know, I really should get off my great fat ……..
I thought that I should have a look at ‘Safeguard’ and Rodgers says that in response to attacks ‘Squadrons of balingers were ordered to be built in 1373 and 1378 but they were never concentrated as a striking force, and could never have effectively deterred a skilful enemy. Nor could the king’s own ships. From about forty ships early in Edward III’s reign, the royal squadron had fallen to five when he died, of which the last was sold by 1380.’
About the raids – they ‘struck the seafaring and shipowning community, upon whose prosperity and co-operation English naval strength depended.’
And then continues ‘Coastal areas were ravaged and deserted; flourishing seaports like Melcombe in Dorset were reduced to an obscurity from which they never recovered.’
On March 20 1380 commissions were issued ‘to array and equip all the men of that county between the ages of 16 and 60, and to keep them, the men-at-arms, hobelars and archers, in readiness to resist foreign invasion; with power to arrest and imprison the disobedient.’
Nothing new there.
Then there were 3 pages of appointees and Dorsets were: William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Robert Rous, Robert le fitz Payn, John Chidyok, Edmund fitz Herberd, Robert Turbeville, John de Neuburgh, Stephen Derby, Phillip Walwayn, William Payn, Roger Bittesthorn, John Matravers, Thomas Blount and ‘the sheriff in the county of Dorset’, who was Theobald Gorges.
But added to those commissions was this;
‘the like to Robert fitz Payn, knight, Robert Turbeville, knight, Phillip Walwayn, John Fyelton, Roger Buttesthorn and John Moulham, to array men in the Isle of Purbeck co Dorset where danger specially threatens, to set watches and beacons at Swanwyche and elsewhere on the coast, and to compel the repair of walls and other defences thereof.’
Wow! – we seem to have been singled out as needing special attention – why? And did the people of Swanage ‘repair walls and other defences’?
I think I can answer the ‘why’ - although not for another 20 years – but was Swanage a walled town?
I don’t think so. I guess that the repairing of the walls is a catch-all term meaning ‘any walls in the area’, and that building walls around Swanage would have been such a huge undertaking for such a small town and that even though there are no records, surely there’d be something remaining of such an undertaking*.
Plus, what did Swanage have that was so valuable? I’ve no – little? - idea. No, I’ve no idea, but I can guess - although not for another 20 years.
* Records in Swanage from the early/mid 1800’s are ‘plentiful’, and there’s no mention of any walls, or any remains of.
Could Swanage have had walled areas within the town – or local area?
Yes. Pure speculation, but Newton, Godlingston manor and St Mary’s church are ‘candidates’, and if they didn’t have ‘walls’ then the latter two have towers and the earl of Salisbury held ‘Newton in Purbeck’ in 1321.
Just to be awkward there are two ‘Newtons in Purbeck’! There was the one on the shores of Poole harbour, that was commissioned back on 7 Jan 1286, but whether it was ever built is one of those enduring local mysteries – but it probably wasn’t – or at least, not fully – probably.
Then there’s the other Newton, that’s, kind of, ‘in no-mans land’. Is the ‘other’ Newton in Herston, or is it in Swanage – or is it between the two?
In 1897, ‘Newton is an ancient property ... the old grey stone walls, by which it was first enclosed. It is a hamlet in the parish of Swanage, the New"ton", or town, occupying the first rising ground known as Newton "Knap", on the main Purbeck road to Corfe Castle and Wareham. Two or three hundred yards further on comes Herston, a somewhat similar hamlet now grown into a village, and doubtless in its origin the "ton", or holding, of some Anglo-Saxon settler in Purbeck.’
Those ‘old grey stone walls’ are relatively modern, but could they have been built on much earlier ones? Yep – but of course, there’s no proof.
Why does ‘proof’ always get in the way of the better story!
I also want to go off on a huge tangent about Herston, but this about the 14th century and I must avoid – most! – tangents.
Swanages first known church is St Marys, in which ‘Fragments of early 13th-century stonework are preserved in the church but the only mediaeval structure remaining is the West Tower, of the 14th century.’
‘There is no tower arch, but in the E. wall is a wide recess in which is a late 19th-century doorway; in the N. wall is a modern doorway; in the W. wall is a 15th-century window of two cinque-foiled lights with vertical tracery in a two-centred head set in an older door opening. The second storey is reached by an external stairway leading to a restored doorway ... There is no apparent change in the masonry between the 14th-century walling of the lower part and the 17th-century work above.’
That could suggest that the main entrance ‘back then’ was to the second storey. When the French invade, run to the tower, climb up a ladder, pull up said ladder, slam the door. Hope.
‘13th-century stonework’ – and maybe before – as the church was ‘controlled’ by the ‘de Lincoln’ family, who passed it onto the ‘fitz Payns’. In 1251 or 2 ‘… between Margery [nee de Lincoln] who was wife of Roger son of Pagan, complainant, and William de Welles, deforciant, of the advowson* of the chapel of Swanewyz .... to be the right of Robert son and heir of the said Pagan, and of the warrant of the aforesaid Margery concerning her dower .... to Robert and his heirs for ever.’
Robert fitz Payn, or fili pagani, arrived in Dorset c1190. He had two sons, Robert, and Roger who married Margery de Lincoln. Margery and Roger had a son around about 1230, and named him Robert. When, presumably at 21, he ‘came of age’ he seems to have had to clarify his rights about St Marys.
* ‘advowson’ is the right to appoint the priest, which implies control rather than ownership.
Then there’s Godlingston with its wonderful and beautiful round tower.
‘The main S. front has a doorway of c. 1300 with chamfered and trefoiled two-centred head and continuous jambs with shaped stops; Hutchins (I, 669) records a similar doorway, without trefoiling, opposite in the N. wall. The square-headed windows with stone mullions are mainly of the early 17th century. The W. tower, of two storeys with a conical roof, is lit through loops; a doorway to the S. has been blocked and the N. doorway inserted or altered. The tower has stone nesting boxes above the level of the former first-floor ceiling.’
I must be doing something wrong as there's an
that doesn't want to insert itself!Whoohoo – a round tower in Dorset that isn’t attached to a castle. Bloody lovely!
Built c1300 – in response to invasions? No way of knowing. It could just have been someone showing off – but who? No way of knowing, but if I was forced to place a bet then I’d have a small bet on the final Alfred de Lincoln - but that would take the tower back to before 1264. I’d have a fairly hefty bet on the ‘de Gouiz’ family – probably William, who’s often assumed to be the son of William who married Margery de Lincolns sister, Beartrice - but there’s a very good chance that Beartrice and William didn’t have a son, and the William who inherited their land was a cousin, who stupidly, died in 1299. So it could have been whoever inherited his land.
A fourth candidate is Whitecliff farm, but as with my potential ‘Herston tangent’, I could go on and on about this, but it’s too tangential.
On April 24 ‘80 there was a commission to 15 people about Lyme [Regis] and how it had been ‘desolated by tempests and other misfortunes, that many burgesses have retired and live elsewhere, whereby the few remaining are so impoverished’ that they refuse to pay their taxes.
Then on July 1 they were pardoned, because ‘a great part of it has been destroyed by the sea.’
There may well have been rumours of an invasion in 1380, but Jean de Vienne certainly captured the Channel Islands, burnt Winchelsea and Gravesend and threatened London.
In Sept 1380 French king Charles V died and Rodgers says that his successor, Charles VI had ‘less understanding of sea power, and consequently less understanding of the Castilian alliance.’ Phew!
But in 1383 he did re-ignite the Franco/Scottish ‘auld alliance’.
Before then though, this is one of those records that I neither know the background of, or understand, but on Dec 18 1380 Thomas de la Beer was given ‘Special protection’ as he was ‘despatched on certain arduous business touching the king and the steward of the household in Dorset.’
His protection appears to have been needed to stop him being ‘attached and suffering forfeiture’ – which I think means being found guilty – by ‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, and his fellow justices of the peace in the county, who are to supersede the same.’
And they call that English!
The Steward of the household was John of Gaunt, who may – and I stress may – have made Canford Magna his main home. Canford had been part of the original earl of Salisburys land but he ended up forgetting to have a son, so, with thanks to Wikipedia, Margaret Longespée, 4th Countess of Salisbury suo jure (in her own right), married Henry de Lacey, 3rd earl of Lincoln, who, Wikipedia forget to mention, was Corfes constable from Feb 1301 until March 20 ‘05 when he was replaced by Robert fitz Payn, who was the grandson of the Robert of 1251/2.
Margaret and Henry had the ‘boy problem’ as well, so their daughter Alice became the next Countess. In 1321 Alice’s hubby, Thomas, earl of Lancaster, led the ‘Despenser rebellion’ and eventually forfeited his land, title and life. Alice should have remained as Countess of Salisbury but Edward II could be a bit vengeful, and his son wasn’t always a paragon of virtue.
I'm having a bad day with links, here's Alice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_de_ ... of_Lincoln
In 1337 the earl of Salisbury was re-created and given to Edward IIIs ‘most favourite’ favourite, William de Montecute, who died in 1344 after being wounded in a tournament. His son, William b1328, d1397, took over and had a son named …. William, who unfortunately was killed in a tournament in 1383.
But whether that record is connected to any Salisbury/Gaunt rivalry is unknown – to me.
My lack of knowledge really does frustrate me and I really should get off my great fat ….
Until then, on Nov 15 ‘80 there was a commission to ‘Robert Turburvyll, John Hamelyn and John Neuburgh, knights, Roger Buttesthorn, John Fitelton and John Moulham, to enquire touching the dissapation, through default of the keepers and constables of the possessions, rents, rights, customs and liberties of the castle and lordship of Corf ...’
??Great Rumour?? ??Upcoming Peasant’s revolt?? ??General confusion and incompetence?? ??My ignorance??
Y’know, I really should get off my great fat ……..
Re: Medieval Latin.
The Peasants’ Revolt – a bit of background.
As had been agreed in parliament, we already paid a lay subsidy, ‘The grant of a fifteenth and a tenth for the defence of the realm against the Scots and 'other great matters' was made on the last day of the parliament, 23 September 1334. The sums agreed (in the assessment made in 1334) became the basis of a standardized fifteenth and tenth that, while granted periodically as extraordinary taxation, continued to be levied for 300 years. This new assessment increased the overall yield, and the quota system had other advantages as well.' As G.L. Harriss has pointed out, any further tendency of the lay subsidy to shrink was counteracted by stabilising the quota for each county and each vill at a slightly higher figure than the preceding tax of 1332. This avoided delay in negotiating and collecting the tax, and was a further step towards familiarizing the realm with the need for recurrent taxation. It may also have helped to shift the burden rather more onto the shoulders of the peasantry.’
A bit of the local burden.
Basically it was a tax to fund the Hundred Years war, but it wasn’t enough, so the king - John of Gaunt really – decided to use a Poll tax.
The facts about this depend upon who you read – or maybe I’m just demonstrating my pedantry - but some say that everyone over 14 had to pay it, some say everyone over 15 had to pay it, and some say everyone 15+ had to … as that’s two out of three for 15+, I’ll go with that.
Then – was it ‘flat rate’, was it ‘graduated’, did ‘married couple pay less’ - some say yes, some say no - or agree, but not on which of the three poll taxes. (Think I need to buy a few books).
The rates Poll tax are frequently quoted along these lines. ‘The first tax was 4d from every adult (15yrs+), then it was raised to 4d for the peasants and more for the rich, and finally in 1381, it was raised to 12d per adult.’
Locally, it seems to be graduated.
At first we didn’t seem to mind too much, as it was meant to be a ‘one-off’ to fund/bring an end to the Hundred Years war, and it was fairly successful - so was repeated. Running parallel to this was The Great Rumour. The second tax led to a bit more moaning and grumbling, then in 1381 the third Poll tax ignited the already smouldering Peasants’ Revolt.
Although called the Peasants’ Revolt and aimed at taxes, it also was also about corruption, both in gov’t and in the church. Because of the Black Death a lot of priests had died – and we needed priests. ‘Enhanced training schemes’ were established and anyone of ‘landed stock’ could apply. This may have led to, um, less well trained priests.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury, thought that the church was bit corrupt.
‘... in 1378 the commons of England issued many complaints against the clergy that “priests of today within the city, diocese and province of Canterbury, have been so infected with the sin of greed that, not satisfied with reasonable wages, they hire themselves out for vastly inflated salaries.” The archbishop’s response was to raise the wages of all priests to prevent them from falling further into “various fleshy delights, until they are dragged down into the very vortex of whirlpool of evil.” Although there is no proof that the raise in wages reduced the priest’s desire for “fleshy delights” exists, it is important to note that even a high ranking member of the church, such as the archbishop, recognized greed within its own organization even before the revolt in London. This growing greed of the church did not go unnoticed, specifically by a certain defrocked priest by the name of John Ball.’
Ball was the ‘activist’ and in 1380 the ‘theorist’, John Wycliffe, began to translate the Bible into English. There’s no known connection between Ball and Wycliffe, but I like to think that they were demonstrating ideas that were being voiced - especially among ‘the peasants’.
‘Peasants’ - an interesting term - it was the ‘Peasants’ revolt if you were a knight, lord, earl, duke or their wives, a prior/ess, an abbot/abbess, a Prince/ss or a King/Queen. They judged themselves to be the ‘cream’ of society and it seems that they thought everybody else to be a ‘peasant’ or a ‘rustic’.
As an example of how ‘rustics’ felt about the poll tax - it’s estimated that in 1377, 1.4m 15+ people were registered, but in 1381 it was 900K, which equals a third of adults evading the tax.
Presumably, to make sure that the new tax could be collected, from Jan 10 to May 1 ‘81 Commissioners of the Peace were appointed all round the country.
‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Briene, Robert Bealknap, Robert Fitz Payn, John Hamely, Stephen Derby, Walter de Clopton, William Cary and Roger Manyngford, in the county of Dorset.’
On May 30th 1381 Thomas Bampton, arrived at Brentwood in Essex, and summoned the villagers of
Fobbing, Stanford and Corningham to appear before him. Those law-abiding villagers who turned
up were shocked to discover that they would have to pay the tax a second time, and that they would
also have to pay for the people who had failed to turn up. The less law-abiding were probably
prepared and, perhaps not surprisingly, they rioted. Bampton and his men were beaten and driven
from the village.
That’s considered to be the start of it.
Generally, it doesn’t get mentioned that just after ‘Brentwood’, an official group which included ‘a Justice called Master John Legge’ was sent to Kent to deal with the peasants. Legge ‘carried with him a great number of indictments against the people of that area, to make the king rich. They intended to hold their sessions at Canterbury but were turned back by the commons.’
… The London Letter Book records that, by the end of June 14th, ‘hardly was there a street in the
city in which there were not bodies lying of those who had been slain. Some of the houses in the said city were pulled down, others in the suburbs destroyed and others burnt.’
But those two are views of the ‘system’, I’ll leave the peasants view to Sir Tone. Part one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq9sbtFCR8 . Part two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNu7YWay4E4
Around the rest of the country on Jun 23 there was a mandate to the mayor and bailiffs of York ‘forbidding unlawful assemblies, and empowering them to resist and punish the insurgents.’
It was also sent to: the mayors of Kyngeston upon Hull and Newcastle, the bailiffs of Beverley and Scardeburgh, the sheriffs of York, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Norfolk and Suffolk. And also to John [of Gaunt], duke of Lancaster, Henry de Percy, earl of Northumberland, Thomas Roo of Hamlak, John de Nevill of Raby, Roger de Clifford and Richard Lescope, in the county of York.’
Battle of North Walsham happened on the 25th or 6th, generally being seen as the end of the revolt.
As had been agreed in parliament, we already paid a lay subsidy, ‘The grant of a fifteenth and a tenth for the defence of the realm against the Scots and 'other great matters' was made on the last day of the parliament, 23 September 1334. The sums agreed (in the assessment made in 1334) became the basis of a standardized fifteenth and tenth that, while granted periodically as extraordinary taxation, continued to be levied for 300 years. This new assessment increased the overall yield, and the quota system had other advantages as well.' As G.L. Harriss has pointed out, any further tendency of the lay subsidy to shrink was counteracted by stabilising the quota for each county and each vill at a slightly higher figure than the preceding tax of 1332. This avoided delay in negotiating and collecting the tax, and was a further step towards familiarizing the realm with the need for recurrent taxation. It may also have helped to shift the burden rather more onto the shoulders of the peasantry.’
A bit of the local burden.
Basically it was a tax to fund the Hundred Years war, but it wasn’t enough, so the king - John of Gaunt really – decided to use a Poll tax.
The facts about this depend upon who you read – or maybe I’m just demonstrating my pedantry - but some say that everyone over 14 had to pay it, some say everyone over 15 had to pay it, and some say everyone 15+ had to … as that’s two out of three for 15+, I’ll go with that.
Then – was it ‘flat rate’, was it ‘graduated’, did ‘married couple pay less’ - some say yes, some say no - or agree, but not on which of the three poll taxes. (Think I need to buy a few books).
The rates Poll tax are frequently quoted along these lines. ‘The first tax was 4d from every adult (15yrs+), then it was raised to 4d for the peasants and more for the rich, and finally in 1381, it was raised to 12d per adult.’
Locally, it seems to be graduated.
At first we didn’t seem to mind too much, as it was meant to be a ‘one-off’ to fund/bring an end to the Hundred Years war, and it was fairly successful - so was repeated. Running parallel to this was The Great Rumour. The second tax led to a bit more moaning and grumbling, then in 1381 the third Poll tax ignited the already smouldering Peasants’ Revolt.
Although called the Peasants’ Revolt and aimed at taxes, it also was also about corruption, both in gov’t and in the church. Because of the Black Death a lot of priests had died – and we needed priests. ‘Enhanced training schemes’ were established and anyone of ‘landed stock’ could apply. This may have led to, um, less well trained priests.
Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Simon Sudbury, thought that the church was bit corrupt.
‘... in 1378 the commons of England issued many complaints against the clergy that “priests of today within the city, diocese and province of Canterbury, have been so infected with the sin of greed that, not satisfied with reasonable wages, they hire themselves out for vastly inflated salaries.” The archbishop’s response was to raise the wages of all priests to prevent them from falling further into “various fleshy delights, until they are dragged down into the very vortex of whirlpool of evil.” Although there is no proof that the raise in wages reduced the priest’s desire for “fleshy delights” exists, it is important to note that even a high ranking member of the church, such as the archbishop, recognized greed within its own organization even before the revolt in London. This growing greed of the church did not go unnoticed, specifically by a certain defrocked priest by the name of John Ball.’
Ball was the ‘activist’ and in 1380 the ‘theorist’, John Wycliffe, began to translate the Bible into English. There’s no known connection between Ball and Wycliffe, but I like to think that they were demonstrating ideas that were being voiced - especially among ‘the peasants’.
‘Peasants’ - an interesting term - it was the ‘Peasants’ revolt if you were a knight, lord, earl, duke or their wives, a prior/ess, an abbot/abbess, a Prince/ss or a King/Queen. They judged themselves to be the ‘cream’ of society and it seems that they thought everybody else to be a ‘peasant’ or a ‘rustic’.
As an example of how ‘rustics’ felt about the poll tax - it’s estimated that in 1377, 1.4m 15+ people were registered, but in 1381 it was 900K, which equals a third of adults evading the tax.
Presumably, to make sure that the new tax could be collected, from Jan 10 to May 1 ‘81 Commissioners of the Peace were appointed all round the country.
‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Briene, Robert Bealknap, Robert Fitz Payn, John Hamely, Stephen Derby, Walter de Clopton, William Cary and Roger Manyngford, in the county of Dorset.’
On May 30th 1381 Thomas Bampton, arrived at Brentwood in Essex, and summoned the villagers of
Fobbing, Stanford and Corningham to appear before him. Those law-abiding villagers who turned
up were shocked to discover that they would have to pay the tax a second time, and that they would
also have to pay for the people who had failed to turn up. The less law-abiding were probably
prepared and, perhaps not surprisingly, they rioted. Bampton and his men were beaten and driven
from the village.
That’s considered to be the start of it.
Generally, it doesn’t get mentioned that just after ‘Brentwood’, an official group which included ‘a Justice called Master John Legge’ was sent to Kent to deal with the peasants. Legge ‘carried with him a great number of indictments against the people of that area, to make the king rich. They intended to hold their sessions at Canterbury but were turned back by the commons.’
… The London Letter Book records that, by the end of June 14th, ‘hardly was there a street in the
city in which there were not bodies lying of those who had been slain. Some of the houses in the said city were pulled down, others in the suburbs destroyed and others burnt.’
But those two are views of the ‘system’, I’ll leave the peasants view to Sir Tone. Part one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kq9sbtFCR8 . Part two https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNu7YWay4E4
Around the rest of the country on Jun 23 there was a mandate to the mayor and bailiffs of York ‘forbidding unlawful assemblies, and empowering them to resist and punish the insurgents.’
It was also sent to: the mayors of Kyngeston upon Hull and Newcastle, the bailiffs of Beverley and Scardeburgh, the sheriffs of York, Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, Norfolk and Suffolk. And also to John [of Gaunt], duke of Lancaster, Henry de Percy, earl of Northumberland, Thomas Roo of Hamlak, John de Nevill of Raby, Roger de Clifford and Richard Lescope, in the county of York.’
Battle of North Walsham happened on the 25th or 6th, generally being seen as the end of the revolt.
Re: Medieval Latin.
On May 15 ‘81 there was a commission to ‘the king’s uncle Thomas, earl of Buckingham, Thomas, earl of Warwick’ and a few others – I thought that having such important people involved that this must be a ‘biggie’.
They were told ‘to enquire whether the men of Gloucester have the right to throw filth on a plot of land in the town called ‘la Barelond’ near the castle gate, causing a horrible stench, to the great annoyance of people living in and near the castle, and to the peril, in case of insurrection, of the castle itself ...’
So it seems that a castle could be defeated by a pile of pooh!
After the Peasants Revolt, Sir Tone did say that there was retribution, but didn’t go into it.
Remembering that June 26 ‘81 is reckoned to be the end of main revolt, but on that day an ‘Association’ was made between ‘John Matravers, William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Ivo fitz Wareyn, Robert fitz Payn, William Latimer and John Plesy, in the recent commission to deal with the rebels in the county of Dorset.’
That’s a bit awkward as Dorsets keepers of the peace, ‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Briene, Robert Bealknap, Robert Fitz Payn, John Hamely, Stephen Derby, Walter de Clopton, William Cary and Roger Manyngford’ had been commissioned back in May. Was that the referred to ‘recent commission’? Or is there a missing record? However – rebels in Dorset – excellent.
There was also a fair bit of confusion eg, on July 10 ‘Thomas West and John de Roches and their fellows, appointed to chastise and punish certain insurgents against the peace in the county of Suthampton and Wiltesir’, were warned ‘under pain of forfeiture’ that they’d behaved ‘contrary to their duty [when] they have set free from prison … men although indicted for insurrection and not replevisable*, to cause all those so indicted to be taken without delay and kept in prison in safe custody until delivered according to their commission, proceeding with all speed and diligence they may to punish and chastise them. By K.
* ‘Replevisable’ appears to be - an action for the recovery of goods or chattels wrongfully taken or detained.
If the people weren’t ‘replevisable’ then it would cost the jailers to keep them. I wonder if that matters?
July 18 John de Middelton was ordered to ‘deliver to the sheriff of Kent and his fellows appointed to chastise and punish certain rebels there who lately rose in insurrection contrary to the peace, in order that they may proceed to punishment and deliverance of those rebels …’ but things must have been being checked, as they were also told to look out for ‘misprisions for which great numbers of lieges of Kent are indicted it is said.’
Aug 3 To the bailiffs of St. Albans. Order upon their allegiance and under pain of forfeiture on sight of these presents to cause chains of iron to be made, and the bodies of certain traitors and felons adjudged to be there hanged for their misdeeds in this insurrection, and to hang there so long as they should endure, to be brought again to the gallows wherever found and again hanged in chains as aforesaid; as the king is informed that divers evildoers have taken and removed them thence in contempt of the king and contrary to the said judgment.
Gibbeting. Different times, but yuk.
Then on Aug 30 ‘the guardians of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer’ of; Dorset, Westmorland, Worcester, Northumberland, Roteland, Bristol, Cumberland, Herefordshire, Somerset, Notynghamshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Leycestershire, Derbyshire, Cornwall, Salop and Yorkshire, were told to send in their records concerning ‘all things that concern their office.’
The bureaucrats must have been moaning as on Sept 5 ‘81 the guardians of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex, Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Bukinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Norhamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Suthampton, Wiltesir, Gloucestershire, Norffolk and the city and suburbs of London were told ‘under pain of forfeiture, for particular causes moving the king and council, to cease every excuse and send into chancery the tenor of all indictments, records and processes made before them …’
Dec 16 ‘the collectors and controllers in Kent of the subsidy last granted to the king by laymen’ showed that during the recent riots all the paperwork had been burnt, so how could they collect any taxes?
In the ‘81 parliament Richard II asked for another general tax – oh yes he did – but ‘the commons’ said ‘nope’. However, things needed to be discussed and ‘the commons’ were willing to grant a tax on the export of wool. ‘In return for the wool subsidy, the king granted the pardons and general amnesty requested by the commons, although many scores of named 'malefactors' were excluded from it, as was the town of Bury St Edmunds, where the rising had been especially violent. The last few days of the first session also witnessed prolonged investigation in parliament concerning the culpability or otherwise of certain civic officials and others accused of having taken part in the revolts at Bridgewater* (Somerset) and Cambridge. On 13 December, however, since Christmas was approaching and Richard II's bride-to-be, the daughter of the former Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, had arrived in England to be crowned and married, it was decided that the parliament should be adjourned until 24 January 1382.’
‘Many of the commons' petitions were concerned with questions arising from the revolt … There was also much discussion of the dire financial situation in which the government found itself, coupled with suggestions as to appropriate remedies: a shortage of bullion and restrictive mercantile practices were both identified as matters that needed to be dealt with, but the root of the problem was that England was engaged in hostilities on too many fronts, and once again the commons took the opportunity to pray the king to bring the wars to an end, 'so that the poor commons can live in peace and quiet'. This was, however, inevitably easier said than done. Shackled with commitments they could not meet and embroiled in wars from which they could not just slip free, it must have been with something approaching despair that the king and his ministers dissolved the parliament on 25 February.’
Towards the end of 1381, The Anonimalle Chronicle, based in York, says ‘Afterwards the King sent out his messengers into divers parts, to capture the malefactors and put them to death. And many were taken and hanged at London, and they set up many gallows around the City of London, and in other cities and boroughs of the south country. At last, as it pleased God, the King seeing that too many of his liege subjects would be undone, and too much blood split, took pity in his heart, and granted them all pardon, on condition that they should never rise again, under pain of losing life or members, and that each of them should get his charter of pardon, and pay the King as fee for his seal twenty shillings, to make him rich. And so finished this wicked war.’
* The Bridgewater Incident.
Was there justice? ‘The case of William Wigge of Hampshire sheds some light on the means by which the names in the list [of excluded malefactors] were selected. Wigge appeared in king's bench to answer his exclusion from the amnesty, and produced a pardon dated December 20th 1381, only a few days after the general pardon had been promulgated. He also presented a writ close which explained that on February 13th 1382 John Montague and other commissioners against the rebels in Hampshire had delivered into chancery a schedule containing the names of those people from Hampshire who were to be denied the benefits of the general pardon. Wigge's name had been inadvertently placed on this list despite the fact that he had already been granted a pardon. The justices of the king's bench were instructed to let Wigge’s pardon stand. This case indicates that the names of those excluded from the general pardon were supplied by local commissions.’
There may also have been a bit more corruption as on Jan 28 ‘82 Simon de Quyxley mayor of York, Richard Stanton, John Thorneton and John Emlay chamberlains of the Gildehall of that city, received an order ‘under a pain of 1,000 marks’ to turn up and pay what they ‘owed’, as William Tykhill of York, Richard del See, John de Eston, William Belle and Roger de Burton of York, had by complained by petition that ‘it is shewn that at the time of the late devilish insurrection of certain rebels in Kent and Essex they were by the said mayor and others taken by force of arms and imprisoned in the city prison until to save his life and have his deliverance every one of them paid great sums of money to the Gildehall chamber.’
If someone can decipher this one, I’d be very grateful - ‘Feb 20 To Thomas Bradfeld escheator in Cambridgeshire. Order to suffer Richard earl of Arundell to have and take the goods and chattels whatsoever of men within the Isle of Ely and other the lordships of now or hereafter condemned for the late insurrection, and the issues of their lands, according to the king's commission, so that he answer to the king or the bishop according to what shall in this parliament be determined; as upon the bishop's petition, shewing that among other liberties and privileges granted to his predecessors by charters of former kings, confirmed by the king, it is granted that they and their successors shall have the year, waste and chattels of felons, fugitives and condemned persons, and other forfeitures whatsoever which might pertain to the king within the said isle and lordships, as well of men and tenants of others of alien fee as of their men and tenants of their own fee, no justices in eyre of the king or other justices, sheriffs, coroners or ministers whatsoever and no townships meddling therewith, and shewing that divers tenants of the bishopric rising in insurrection with other evildoers contrary to their allegiance are convicted of divers treasons and adjudged to die, wherefore their lands and goods were by Ralph de Wykes late escheator taken into the king's hand contrary to those charters, on 7 August last the king committed the keeping of the lands, goods etc. aforesaid to the earl, and the issues thereof from the time they were taken into the king's hand, until it should be adjudged whether they ought to pertain to the king or the bishop, for that the earl mainperned before the king and council to answer as aforesaid for the issues of the said lands and the value of the said goods and chattels. By C.
The like, mutatis mutandis, to Nicholas fitz Richard escheator in Hertfordshire.’
The bishop of Ely was Thomas Arundel, who was the son of Richard, earl of Arundel, and younger brother of John FitzAlan, 1st Baron Arundel. In 1379 John, ‘Commanding a force with the purpose of bringing relief to the Duke of Brittany, Sir John was compelled to wait for stronger winds. During this wait he decided to take refuge in a nunnery, where his men "took no notice of the sanctity of the place and violently assaulted and raped" those they found inside. Further to this Sir John "allowed his men to ransack the countryside as they liked and to impoverish the people". When the force eventually set out to sea, carrying with them goods stolen from a nearby church and under a pronouncement of excommunication from the wronged priests, the expedition was caught in a storm. Thomas Walsingham reports that during the panic of the storm, Sir John murdered those of his men who refused to make for shore for fear of being shipwrecked upon the rocks. Subsequently, after safely arriving on an island off the Irish coast, Sir John and his boat captain were swept back into the sea and drowned.
According to Walsingham's story, FitzAlan's men profaned a convent at or near Southampton, and abducted many of its occupants. The fleet was then pursued by a violent tempest, when the wretched nuns who had been carried off were thrown overboard to lighten the ships. The vessels were, however, wrecked on the Irish coast, near Scariff according to some authorities, but at Cape Clear Island according to others. Sir John Arundell, together with his esquires, and other men of high birth, were drowned, and twenty-five ships were lost with most of their crews.’
I suppose that I should mention that ‘Froissart's account of the event differs essentially from Walsingham's, in the omission of the story of the desecration of the convent.’
And none of that helps me to understand that record. Damn my tangents!
They were told ‘to enquire whether the men of Gloucester have the right to throw filth on a plot of land in the town called ‘la Barelond’ near the castle gate, causing a horrible stench, to the great annoyance of people living in and near the castle, and to the peril, in case of insurrection, of the castle itself ...’
So it seems that a castle could be defeated by a pile of pooh!
After the Peasants Revolt, Sir Tone did say that there was retribution, but didn’t go into it.
Remembering that June 26 ‘81 is reckoned to be the end of main revolt, but on that day an ‘Association’ was made between ‘John Matravers, William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Ivo fitz Wareyn, Robert fitz Payn, William Latimer and John Plesy, in the recent commission to deal with the rebels in the county of Dorset.’
That’s a bit awkward as Dorsets keepers of the peace, ‘William de Montecute, earl of Salisbury, Guy de Briene, Robert Bealknap, Robert Fitz Payn, John Hamely, Stephen Derby, Walter de Clopton, William Cary and Roger Manyngford’ had been commissioned back in May. Was that the referred to ‘recent commission’? Or is there a missing record? However – rebels in Dorset – excellent.
There was also a fair bit of confusion eg, on July 10 ‘Thomas West and John de Roches and their fellows, appointed to chastise and punish certain insurgents against the peace in the county of Suthampton and Wiltesir’, were warned ‘under pain of forfeiture’ that they’d behaved ‘contrary to their duty [when] they have set free from prison … men although indicted for insurrection and not replevisable*, to cause all those so indicted to be taken without delay and kept in prison in safe custody until delivered according to their commission, proceeding with all speed and diligence they may to punish and chastise them. By K.
* ‘Replevisable’ appears to be - an action for the recovery of goods or chattels wrongfully taken or detained.
If the people weren’t ‘replevisable’ then it would cost the jailers to keep them. I wonder if that matters?
July 18 John de Middelton was ordered to ‘deliver to the sheriff of Kent and his fellows appointed to chastise and punish certain rebels there who lately rose in insurrection contrary to the peace, in order that they may proceed to punishment and deliverance of those rebels …’ but things must have been being checked, as they were also told to look out for ‘misprisions for which great numbers of lieges of Kent are indicted it is said.’
Aug 3 To the bailiffs of St. Albans. Order upon their allegiance and under pain of forfeiture on sight of these presents to cause chains of iron to be made, and the bodies of certain traitors and felons adjudged to be there hanged for their misdeeds in this insurrection, and to hang there so long as they should endure, to be brought again to the gallows wherever found and again hanged in chains as aforesaid; as the king is informed that divers evildoers have taken and removed them thence in contempt of the king and contrary to the said judgment.
Gibbeting. Different times, but yuk.
Then on Aug 30 ‘the guardians of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer’ of; Dorset, Westmorland, Worcester, Northumberland, Roteland, Bristol, Cumberland, Herefordshire, Somerset, Notynghamshire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Leycestershire, Derbyshire, Cornwall, Salop and Yorkshire, were told to send in their records concerning ‘all things that concern their office.’
The bureaucrats must have been moaning as on Sept 5 ‘81 the guardians of the peace and justices of oyer and terminer in Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Surrey, Sussex, Middlesex, Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Bukinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Norhamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Suthampton, Wiltesir, Gloucestershire, Norffolk and the city and suburbs of London were told ‘under pain of forfeiture, for particular causes moving the king and council, to cease every excuse and send into chancery the tenor of all indictments, records and processes made before them …’
Dec 16 ‘the collectors and controllers in Kent of the subsidy last granted to the king by laymen’ showed that during the recent riots all the paperwork had been burnt, so how could they collect any taxes?
In the ‘81 parliament Richard II asked for another general tax – oh yes he did – but ‘the commons’ said ‘nope’. However, things needed to be discussed and ‘the commons’ were willing to grant a tax on the export of wool. ‘In return for the wool subsidy, the king granted the pardons and general amnesty requested by the commons, although many scores of named 'malefactors' were excluded from it, as was the town of Bury St Edmunds, where the rising had been especially violent. The last few days of the first session also witnessed prolonged investigation in parliament concerning the culpability or otherwise of certain civic officials and others accused of having taken part in the revolts at Bridgewater* (Somerset) and Cambridge. On 13 December, however, since Christmas was approaching and Richard II's bride-to-be, the daughter of the former Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV, had arrived in England to be crowned and married, it was decided that the parliament should be adjourned until 24 January 1382.’
‘Many of the commons' petitions were concerned with questions arising from the revolt … There was also much discussion of the dire financial situation in which the government found itself, coupled with suggestions as to appropriate remedies: a shortage of bullion and restrictive mercantile practices were both identified as matters that needed to be dealt with, but the root of the problem was that England was engaged in hostilities on too many fronts, and once again the commons took the opportunity to pray the king to bring the wars to an end, 'so that the poor commons can live in peace and quiet'. This was, however, inevitably easier said than done. Shackled with commitments they could not meet and embroiled in wars from which they could not just slip free, it must have been with something approaching despair that the king and his ministers dissolved the parliament on 25 February.’
Towards the end of 1381, The Anonimalle Chronicle, based in York, says ‘Afterwards the King sent out his messengers into divers parts, to capture the malefactors and put them to death. And many were taken and hanged at London, and they set up many gallows around the City of London, and in other cities and boroughs of the south country. At last, as it pleased God, the King seeing that too many of his liege subjects would be undone, and too much blood split, took pity in his heart, and granted them all pardon, on condition that they should never rise again, under pain of losing life or members, and that each of them should get his charter of pardon, and pay the King as fee for his seal twenty shillings, to make him rich. And so finished this wicked war.’
* The Bridgewater Incident.
Was there justice? ‘The case of William Wigge of Hampshire sheds some light on the means by which the names in the list [of excluded malefactors] were selected. Wigge appeared in king's bench to answer his exclusion from the amnesty, and produced a pardon dated December 20th 1381, only a few days after the general pardon had been promulgated. He also presented a writ close which explained that on February 13th 1382 John Montague and other commissioners against the rebels in Hampshire had delivered into chancery a schedule containing the names of those people from Hampshire who were to be denied the benefits of the general pardon. Wigge's name had been inadvertently placed on this list despite the fact that he had already been granted a pardon. The justices of the king's bench were instructed to let Wigge’s pardon stand. This case indicates that the names of those excluded from the general pardon were supplied by local commissions.’
There may also have been a bit more corruption as on Jan 28 ‘82 Simon de Quyxley mayor of York, Richard Stanton, John Thorneton and John Emlay chamberlains of the Gildehall of that city, received an order ‘under a pain of 1,000 marks’ to turn up and pay what they ‘owed’, as William Tykhill of York, Richard del See, John de Eston, William Belle and Roger de Burton of York, had by complained by petition that ‘it is shewn that at the time of the late devilish insurrection of certain rebels in Kent and Essex they were by the said mayor and others taken by force of arms and imprisoned in the city prison until to save his life and have his deliverance every one of them paid great sums of money to the Gildehall chamber.’
If someone can decipher this one, I’d be very grateful - ‘Feb 20 To Thomas Bradfeld escheator in Cambridgeshire. Order to suffer Richard earl of Arundell to have and take the goods and chattels whatsoever of men within the Isle of Ely and other the lordships of now or hereafter condemned for the late insurrection, and the issues of their lands, according to the king's commission, so that he answer to the king or the bishop according to what shall in this parliament be determined; as upon the bishop's petition, shewing that among other liberties and privileges granted to his predecessors by charters of former kings, confirmed by the king, it is granted that they and their successors shall have the year, waste and chattels of felons, fugitives and condemned persons, and other forfeitures whatsoever which might pertain to the king within the said isle and lordships, as well of men and tenants of others of alien fee as of their men and tenants of their own fee, no justices in eyre of the king or other justices, sheriffs, coroners or ministers whatsoever and no townships meddling therewith, and shewing that divers tenants of the bishopric rising in insurrection with other evildoers contrary to their allegiance are convicted of divers treasons and adjudged to die, wherefore their lands and goods were by Ralph de Wykes late escheator taken into the king's hand contrary to those charters, on 7 August last the king committed the keeping of the lands, goods etc. aforesaid to the earl, and the issues thereof from the time they were taken into the king's hand, until it should be adjudged whether they ought to pertain to the king or the bishop, for that the earl mainperned before the king and council to answer as aforesaid for the issues of the said lands and the value of the said goods and chattels. By C.
The like, mutatis mutandis, to Nicholas fitz Richard escheator in Hertfordshire.’
The bishop of Ely was Thomas Arundel, who was the son of Richard, earl of Arundel, and younger brother of John FitzAlan, 1st Baron Arundel. In 1379 John, ‘Commanding a force with the purpose of bringing relief to the Duke of Brittany, Sir John was compelled to wait for stronger winds. During this wait he decided to take refuge in a nunnery, where his men "took no notice of the sanctity of the place and violently assaulted and raped" those they found inside. Further to this Sir John "allowed his men to ransack the countryside as they liked and to impoverish the people". When the force eventually set out to sea, carrying with them goods stolen from a nearby church and under a pronouncement of excommunication from the wronged priests, the expedition was caught in a storm. Thomas Walsingham reports that during the panic of the storm, Sir John murdered those of his men who refused to make for shore for fear of being shipwrecked upon the rocks. Subsequently, after safely arriving on an island off the Irish coast, Sir John and his boat captain were swept back into the sea and drowned.
According to Walsingham's story, FitzAlan's men profaned a convent at or near Southampton, and abducted many of its occupants. The fleet was then pursued by a violent tempest, when the wretched nuns who had been carried off were thrown overboard to lighten the ships. The vessels were, however, wrecked on the Irish coast, near Scariff according to some authorities, but at Cape Clear Island according to others. Sir John Arundell, together with his esquires, and other men of high birth, were drowned, and twenty-five ships were lost with most of their crews.’
I suppose that I should mention that ‘Froissart's account of the event differs essentially from Walsingham's, in the omission of the story of the desecration of the convent.’
And none of that helps me to understand that record. Damn my tangents!