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
>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
>
>
>