Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Honor vs Manor
131 views
Skip to first unread message
Ian Goddard
Jun 9, 2016, 9:25:10 AM6/9/16
to
Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the
Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
between the two terms.
I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
two or was there something else involved?
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
between the two terms.
I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
two or was there something else involved?
--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk
Richard Smith
Jun 9, 2016, 9:41:42 AM6/9/16
to
On 09/06/16 14:25, Ian Goddard wrote:
> Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the
> Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
> between the two terms.
>
> I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
> they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
> in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
> had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
> two or was there something else involved?
The Honor of Pontefract was originally a feudal barony, and probably
> Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the
> Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
> between the two terms.
>
> I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
> they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
> in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
> had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
> two or was there something else involved?
retained much of the character of that. I'm not sure the origin of the
Manor of Wakefield, but I can find no mention of it having been a feudal
barony under that name. Is that perhaps the difference?
What role did the sub-manors of Wakefield serve if they didn't have
their own courts? Or were they simply divisions of convenience to ease
the administration of the manor?
Richard
Ian Goddard
Jun 9, 2016, 10:12:56 AM6/9/16
to
On 09/06/16 14:41, Richard Smith wrote:
> What role did the sub-manors of Wakefield serve if they didn't have
> their own courts? Or were they simply divisions of convenience to ease
> the administration of the manor?
They seem to have been split off as knight's fees or parts thereof.
> What role did the sub-manors of Wakefield serve if they didn't have
> their own courts? Or were they simply divisions of convenience to ease
> the administration of the manor?
This certainly applies to some townships which had been part of the free
chase of Cartworth TRE. Three extra townships were added to the remnant
which then became the forest of Holne by the time we see it in the
manorial rolls. It may well have been that the reconfiguration gave
them a more readily manageable forest whilst getting better value from
the slightly less elevated and hence more fertile parts. From an
administrative point of view they remained within the graveship of Holne
(Holme) until the Dukes of Leeds acquired the manor in the early C18th;
they are absent from the survey made after the acquisition so I assume
they were sold off separately. I doubt the graves were sorry to see
them go.
Tompkins
Jun 9, 2016, 10:54:25 AM6/9/16
to gen-me...@rootsweb.com
From: Ian Goddard via [gen-me...@rootsweb.com]
Sent: 09 June 2016 14:25
An honour was a collection of manors, whereas a manor was the basic building block at the bottom of the seigneurial hierarchy. The tenants of an honour were mostly lords of manors, whereas the tenants of a manor were mostly non-lordly agriculturalists.
That's a gross over-simplification, of course, and there were complications and exceptions and blurring at the extremes of each category. The manor of Wakefield seems to have been somewhat exceptional, but I don't know enough about it to say whether it was different from other manors in nature or just in size.
One way in which the distinction between honours and manors was sometimes blurred was the later medieval habit of describing an honour by reference to the manor which was its caput, so that one sees the manor of X, which was parcel of the honour of Y, being described as 'parcel of the manor of Y'.
Matt Tompkins
Sent: 09 June 2016 14:25
>
> Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the
Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
between the two terms.
>
> I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
two or was there something else involved?
>
-------------------------------
> Two of the great estates of N England are the Manor of Wakefield & the
Honor of Pontefract. The question arises as to what's the difference
between the two terms.
>
> I've noticed that although Wakefield has some sub-manors such as Emley
they don't seem to have had their own courts, Emley cases still appeared
in the Wakefield rolls. Sub-manors of Pontefract, such as Almondbury,
had their own courts. Is this the differentiating factor between the
two or was there something else involved?
>
An honour was a collection of manors, whereas a manor was the basic building block at the bottom of the seigneurial hierarchy. The tenants of an honour were mostly lords of manors, whereas the tenants of a manor were mostly non-lordly agriculturalists.
That's a gross over-simplification, of course, and there were complications and exceptions and blurring at the extremes of each category. The manor of Wakefield seems to have been somewhat exceptional, but I don't know enough about it to say whether it was different from other manors in nature or just in size.
One way in which the distinction between honours and manors was sometimes blurred was the later medieval habit of describing an honour by reference to the manor which was its caput, so that one sees the manor of X, which was parcel of the honour of Y, being described as 'parcel of the manor of Y'.
Matt Tompkins
John Watson
Jun 10, 2016, 1:27:13 AM6/10/16
to
The Honor of Pontefract was originally the land in Yorkshire (mainly) granted to Ilbert de Lacy after the Conquest. His holdings in Cheshire and Lancashire became known as the Honor of Clitheroe. On the death of Robert de Lacy in 1193 the honors passed to the daughter of his aunt, Albreda. The younger Albreda married before 1142 Richard fitz Eustace, constable of Chester. Their son John the Constable was succeeded by his son Roger who adopted the name of Lacy. In 1294, Henry de Lacy settled his possessions on himself for life, with remainder to Thomas son of Edmund Earl of Lancaster, who had married Henry's daughter Alice. The Honor of Pontefract thus became part of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Regards,
John
0 new messages