Granges, Halls, Manors etc
ALAN O. WATKINS
difference between a Manor, a Hall, a Grange and a Court.Many appear to
have survived in the UK from the 15-17th Centuries, a lot having become
incorporated physically (or retain the names of demolished structures)
within modern day farms.
Am I right to presume that a Manor was the centre of an administrative
area, where money was generated for the holder of the lordship of that
manor?
Was a Hall simply a means of identifying a building more grandiose than the
neighbouring ones?
Was a Court where legal decisions were made? Or was it simply an enclosed
quadrangle?
And what of a Grange? Why do so few Granges seem to have survived whilst
courts seem to proliferate every couple of miles or so?
Answers, please, to my email address, which is
MTIA
Alan Watkins
Reedpcgen
have a court baron and a court leet. Holdings might fluctuate between simply
being a farm and being considered a manor, depending on various holdings and
appurtenances and record generated. It was almost a fluid thing (where its
status was on the border) until the Stuart reign in England. It could be a
manor or not. And was in times past considered a manor, and in later times
not. Revenue was a major consideration. Sometimes its status was dependent on
the status of its 'lord.' Farms could contain several hundred acres. Manors
could be smaller in size.
A Hall was simply a building worthy of note. There was no other attachment
that would make it a hall, other than people or the occupants considering it a
'hall.' Halls frequently became dilapidated when the domain residence was
somewhere else.
A grange was, I assume from your question, more the house attached to land that
was more like a meadow or arable. It is a 'country house' with the
appurtenances, such as barns, building, orchards, etc. It may have belonged to
a monastery or feudal lord, or after the dissolution of monasteries, been the
holding of the person who purchased the defunct monastery. It was of a lower
status, associated with husbandry (which was below the status of yeoman and
gentleman in the Stuart period).
Farms were chunks of land held integrally that may have been a manor [prior to
the Stuart period], but, due to the splitting of holdings, or selling of the
holdings outright, had no court pertinent left (or had no court pertinent from
the beginning). Manors could devolve into farms when the lord sold it and it
and it no longer generated revenues that would support a court.
The manor was a centre for administration, and created records. Legal
decisions pertaining to the manor and its tenants would be made at the manorial
court. A farm created far less records. A manor would, again, have a court
baron and a court leet. A farm would just have accounts.
And granges existed every couple of miles or so, but usually manors did too.
The difference is in the records they created. There are often several manors
per parish. To examine this phenomenon, just read through the VCH history of
the various counties of England.
This is somewhat vague, but so was the status of holdings when they were
considered a manor in one generation and a farm in another (and even a manor
after that, even when records of a manorial court no longer survive).
pcr
Ph.J. van Dael
count Balderik. She was the daughter of:
Wichman, count in Hamaland, who married Lutgard, daughter of Arnulf, count of
Flanders.
Who knows more about Wichman and his ancestors?
Philip van Dael.
P. Freeman
"ALAN O. WATKINS" <alan-o-...@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>I am a simple, amateur historian. Can someone please advise me what is the
>difference between a Manor, a Hall, a Grange and a Court.Many appear to
>have survived in the UK from the 15-17th Centuries, a lot having become
>incorporated physically (or retain the names of demolished structures)
>within modern day farms.
>
high-status houses, some of which would have been Manor Houses. Their names
may, alternatively, perpetuate the memory of nearby buildings which have
been demolished, and of which these were the Home Farms. If the subject
interests you, you have a wide and fascinating field of research which
will - if you are lucky - shed light on the medieval history of a village,
a shire, or the whole country. If you move into the family history of the
occupiers, you may find this newgroup very helpful - but be sure to return
the compliment by letting us know the family tree down to about 1600,
especially if it has links to any notable gentry families.
>Am I right to presume that a Manor was the centre of an administrative
>area, where money was generated for the holder of the lordship of that
>manor?
>
** What follows is not necessarily correct, and I welcome corrections,
rebuttals, and constructive criticism. Land and law are not my strong
points. It is not, though (I hope) totally wrong. **
The Manor was the land holding, which might be small or large; which might or
might not correspond to the bounds of a village/township and/or a parish.
There might or might not be a dwelling house for the owners or tenants of the
land, which might or might not be their only such place of residence. At the
place where the Lord of the Manor usually resided, there would undoubtedly be
a Manor House; but there might be other houses, in other parts of the
landowner's estates, where a Steward or Seneschal or Bailey took care of
matters. The Steward could hold a Manorial Court in the absence of the Lord
of the Manor. The story of the evolution of Manorial holdings is too complex
even to attempt to summarise here.
>Was a Hall simply a means of identifying a building more grandiose than the
>neighbouring ones?
>
>Was a Court where legal decisions were made? Or was it simply an enclosed
>quadrangle?
>
>And what of a Grange? Why do so few Granges seem to have survived whilst
>courts seem to proliferate every couple of miles or so?
In the village (Hayton) that is the focus of my research, the Big House
where the Lords of the Manor lived is only given a name in documents from
the 1650s onwards. It seems to have been called Rudston Manor, after the
family who lived there. Later, the successor building (newer, grander) was
known as Hayton Hall. It may also have been known as Hayton House (you
omitted the 'House' option).
'Manor' may denote a building with a history going back at least beyond
1600. There are, I think, relatively few modern Manor Houses.
'Hall' usually signifies a building with rather greater pretensions, which
may have been built somewhat more recently. But not necessarily.
'Court' perhaps denotes a set of buildings originally constructed around
a central courtyard. These may perhaps be higher-status than a Hall or a
Manor.
'Grange' usually denotes, in Yorkshire, an outlying (?arable) farming unit
originally owned and run by one of the monasteries. After the Reformation
these farms would have passed into private hands, and the 'grange' identifier
in many cases would have been replaced by the name of the new owner.
HOWEVER ... the whole business of trying to classify and pigeonhole buildings
according to the names they possess or have possessed is fraught with
difficulties. Even in former times, the reason why one high-status building
is a Court and another a Hall cannot always be ascertained unless you have
access to an early map which shows a representation of the building, or to an
archaeological excavation report which shows the layout of the various phases
of construction on the site. This latter would enable you to identify and
(with luck) date the growth and/or decline of the building(s).
Suffice it to say that in medieval and later documents you will invariably
meet with the term "capital messuage", and that that refers to a superior
sort of dwelling which may, perhaps, evolve into a Manor, Hall, etc. - unless,
as frequently happened, it simply disappeared.
I hope this is of some help,
Regards,
Peter Freeman
University of Leeds.