|
Dear One
The story of the modern Sinclair family really starts in ' The land of
Heart's desire' Scotland! All of our Norman history is collective rather that
family. Attributing individual deeds to St Clair, in Normandy is a bit like
trying to catch a small fish is a great barrel of pasta. The history that is
published in your web pages is speculation. Educated guesses!
In the Doomsday Book no Sinclair (St. Clair) is listed. Using
Doomsday Book, it is on line, and other medieval records to prove relationships
is dangerous.. It is useful to know something of the prevailing system of
land tenure. In post-conquest medieval England, land was not owned, in the
modern sense, by anyone but the monarch. Instead it was held by tenants, from
lords (rarely ladies) in return for the obligation to perform some service. The
king at the top of the heap his direct tenants (tenants in chief) beneath him,
and lower still under-tenants of various sizes, down to the peasant farmers who
held a few acres in return for labouring on the land of the local lord. Detailed
though the Doomsday records are it is very difficult to trace a descent from a
Doomsday tenant. Hereditary surnames were rare. It's particularly
important to beware of components of the name which look like surnames, but are
not - although in some cases they later evolved into them. For example, the
tenant of the manor of Norton might be called 'William of Norton' (or 'William
de Norton' in Latin or French). If the manor changed hands, a generation later
we might find the new tenant, even if completely unrelated, called Richard de
Norton. Conversely, if one man held two manors, he might be described as William
de Norton at one time, and William de Sutton at another Characters such as
'Thomas fitz William' can also be dangerous. Originally this was no more than a
French form of 'Thomas son of William' (hence the much later selection of
'fitzRoy' as a suitable surname for the illegitimate son of a king)
. Surnames were undeveloped in the early medieval period, the indexes of printed records and historical texts are often arranged by forename.The mainstay of the feudal system was the manor, an estate on average somewhat smaller than the parish.. Most frequently the service performed for the king by his tenants was military - in this case feudal holdings were measured as so many knights' fees, according to how many knights the holder of the land was obliged to provide. Land might also be held by serjeanty, that is by some non-military service, often in the royal household, or in the case of religious houses by free alms, that is by spiritual service. Land held by a lord himself, rather than by his tenants, was known as
demesne. The same term describes the royal estates (held by the king rather than
his tenants in chief), manors held by tenants in chief rather than
under-tenants, and even the part of a manor held by its lord, rather than
manorial tenants.
Tenants-in-chief raised required contingent of knights by sub infeudation
settled others on lands in return for military service and that could support
single knight known as knight's fee (by the 12th c. estate earning (£20
annually) - economic complement was manorialism: land farmed by serfs who
provided labour service in return for protection from lord of manor
The Norman Conquest brought fundamental change in nature of land holdings
in Anglo Saxon England,
folk determined who owned land under feudalism, no one owned land except king (liege lord); everyone else possessed it lord's manor became a political and judicial unit at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide king kept court with tenants-in--chief tenants-in-chief were William's main royal administrators feudal estates or honours became new unit of government tenant-in-chief expected his vassals to attend his honourial court William created in England Palatinates which is a county in which the
tenant in chief exercises powers normally reserved for the king, including the
exclusive right to appoint justiciar, hold courts of chancery and exchequer, and
to coin money. The kings writ is not valid in a County Palatinate.
{Tenant in chief}, by the laws of England, one who holds immediately of the
king. According to the feudal system, all lands in England are considered as
held immediately or mediately of the king, who is styled lord paramount. Such
tenants, however, are considered as having the fee of the lands and
permanent possession. After Conquest William granted fiefs (baronies) to around
170 knights (barons) who became his vassals (tenants-in-chief) vassals expected
to provide military service and to pay feudal dues. pledged submission and
loyalty to lord (homage and fealty) lord promised to protect and support vassal
Hereditary surnames came into common use in England only gradually in the
centuries following the Norman conquest. Although some hereditary surnames, such
as Bigod, de Warenne and de Vere, do occur in Domesday Book (usually they
reflect the family's place of origin on the continent), they are
the
exception rather than the rule, even among feudal tenants. Scottish equivalent of the English lord or tenant in chief. Scottish lairds
were not always entitled.
Sinclair
refs John McDonald, Production Efficiency in Domesday England, 1086.
London and New
York: Routledge, 1998 H. E. Bell, An Introduction to the History and Records of the Court of Wards and Liveries (Cambridge, 1953). J.W. Molyneux-Child, The Evolution of The English Manorial System Lewes The Book Guild 1987 J Hurstfield, The Queen's Wards, London, 1958 A.-L. Léchaudé d'Anisy and H.-J.-J.-R. de Sainte-Marie, Recherches sur le Domesday ou Liber Censualis d'Angleterre Caen, 1842 -----Original Message-----
From: Spirit One Email <laurel@spiritone.com> To: **Sinclair de la Behottiere <privateers@privateers.org>; <niven@niven.co.uk> Cc: niven@niven.co.uk <niven@niven.co.uk> Date: 04 March 2001 05:56 Subject: St. Clairs of England >Dear Niven,
> I have before me a map titled "England Under William I" from the book >"Atlas of Medieval Europe" edited by Angus Mackay with David Ditchburn >which shows >Prominent tenants placed near important sources of their territorial wealth. >Please indicate which besides Richard of Clare and Odo are other St. Clair >relatives rewarded by King William. > >Alan of Brittany >Hugh d'Avranches >William of Percy >Robert of Mortain >Gilbert de Gand >Ilbert de Lacy >William of Warenne >Roger of Poitou >William Peverel >Rober de Busli >Robert of Stafford >Roger de Montgomery >Ivo Taillebois >Countess Judith >Richard of Clare >Roger Bigot >Geoffrey of Mandeville >Roger d'Ivry >Henry de Ferrers >Eustace of Boulogne >Suen of Essex >Odo >Hugh of Montford >William of Braose >Edward of Salisbury >Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances >Baldwin the Sheriff >Hugh de Port >Bishop of Bayeaux >Audrey de Vere >William Fitzosbern Dear One
Odo and the Bishop of Bayeaux and
the Earl of Kent are the same person. Odo is 1/2 brother of William and is
not a St Clair. Richard of Clare is Richard de St Clair (territorial not
Blood)and is not a tenant-in-Chief. There were 170 tenants in chief.
The territorial rewards flowed from William to the tennents in chief then and on
to the approx 1400 others given
awards > > > |