Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:21:30.338Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subinfeudation and Alienation of Land, Economic Development, and the Wealth of Nobles on the Honor of Richmond, 1066 to c. 1300

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Hugh M. Thomas
Get access

Extract

One of the most famous results of the Norman Conquest was the creation of honors, the sometimes vast collections of land given by William the Conqueror to leading followers. These followers then gave land to the Church and subinfeudated land to their own followers, who often granted away land themselves; indeed, the chain of generosity sometimes continued through several levels. Because subinfeudation and alienation of land were so intimately bound up in the creation of English “feudalism” and the development of English land law, scholars have long recognized the importance of this process. Despite great scholarly interest in the process, however, little work has been done to track and quantify the amount of subinfeudation and alienation on secular honors over a long period of time. Scholars have used Domesday Book to produce pertinent figures, but because so much subinfeudation and alienation occurred on the great honors after 1086 such figures tell us little about how much of their land tenants-in-chief granted away and how much they kept over the long haul. Moreover, they tell us little about subinfeudation and alienation of land by rear vassals.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , Fall 1994 , pp. 397 - 417
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A full bibliographic note would be impossible here, but classic works include Frederick Pollock and Maitland, Frederic W., The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I, 2 vols., revised, Milsom, S. F. C. (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar; Stenton, Frank M., The First Century of English Feudalism, 1066-1166 (2nd ed.; Oxford, 1961)Google Scholar; and Milsom, S. F. C., The Legal Framework of English Feudalism (Cambridge, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For figures drawn from Domesday Book, see Wightman, W. E., The Lacy Family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 (Oxford, 1966), pp. 48-49, 151Google Scholar; English, Barbara, The Lords of Holderness, 1086-1260: A Study in Feudalism (Oxford, 1979), p. 139Google Scholar; Mortimer, Richard, “The Beginnings of the Honour of Clare,” Anglo-Norman Studies 3, ed. Brown, R. Allen (Woodbridge, 1980), pp. 131, 134Google Scholar; Stringer, K. J., Earl David of Huntingdon, 1152-1219: A Study in Anglo-Scottish History (Edinburgh, 1985), p. 108Google Scholar; and Fleming, Robin, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991), p. 219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 I prefer the more generic term lord over earl because not every lord of the honor of Richmond received the title of earl of Richmond.

4 Recent work on honors, nobles, and the nobility between 1066 and 1300 includes Alexander, James, Ranulf of Chester, a Relic of the Conquest (Athens, 1983)Google Scholar; Coss, Peter R., “Bastard Feudalism Revised,” Past and Present 125 (1989): 27–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: A Study in English Society, c. 1180-c. 1280 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 24-60; Crouch, David, The Beaumont Twins: The Roots and Branches of Noble Power in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, William Marshal: Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire, 1147-1219 (London, 1990); idem, The Image of Aristocracy in Britain, 1000-1300 (London, 1992); Fleming, Lords and Conquest, Mortimer, “Beginnings of the Honour of Clare”; idem, “Land and Service: The Tenants of the Honour of Clare,” Anglo-Norman Studies 8, ed. R. Allen Brown (Woodbridge, 1985): pp. 177-97; Newman, Charlotte, The Anglo-Norman Nobility in the Reign of Henry I: Tlie Second Generation (Philadelphia, 1989)Google Scholar; Stringer, Earl David; and Thacker, A. T., ed., “The Earldom of Chester and its Charters: A Tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough,” Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society 71 (Chester, 1991)Google Scholar. An older book, which has helped me formulate some of the issues in this article and which has shown the importance of looking at baronial wealth and power over the long term is Painter's, Sidney, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943)Google Scholar.

5 Calendar of Charier Rolls 2 (London, 1906), pp. 42, 44–45Google Scholar. See also Salzman, L. F., ed., The Rape of Hastings, vol. 9 of The Victoria History of the County of Sussex (London, 1937), pp. 2–3Google Scholar.

6 For fuller accounts of the history of the honor and its lords, see Cokayne, G. E., Complete Peerage, 12 vols., revised, Gibbs, V., Doubleday, H. A., and Walden, H. (London, 1910-1957), 8: 779–811Google Scholar; Page, William, ed., The Victoria History of the County of York, North Riding, vol. 1 (London, 1968), pp. 1–12Google Scholar; and Jeulin, Paul, “Aperçus sur le conté de Richmond,” Annales de Bretagne 42 (1935): 263–304Google Scholar.

7 For discussions of the motives of lords in giving out land, see Chew, Helena M., The English Ecclesiastical Tenants-in-Chief and Knight Service (London, 1932), pp. 116-18Google Scholar; Painter, , English Feudal Barony, pp. 29–30Google Scholar; Bean, J. M. W., The Decline of English Feudalism, 1215-1540 (Manchester, 1968), pp. 3–4Google Scholar; Harvey, Sally, “The Knight and the Knight's Fee,” Past and Present 49 (1970): 5–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stringer, , Earl David, pp. 80–81Google Scholar; Mortimer, , “Beginnings of the Honour of Clare,” pp. 119-41Google Scholar; and idem, “Land and Service,” pp. 177-97.

8 Thomas, Hugh, Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs: The Gentry of Angevin Yorkshire (Philadelphia, 1993), pp. 14–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 It is difficult to give an exact figure for subinfeudation, partly because the figures would vary depending on whether one used 1066 or 1086 values. More problematic still is the fact that individual entries sometimes include both demesne and tenant lands without clearly differentiating between them and that in some entries it is impossible to tell the status of the land. For what it is worth, by my calculations the tenants of the honor in 1086 held land worth approximately 35% of the total value of the honor which in 1086 was approximately £1190. Land worth approximately 9% of the total was not subdivided in Domesday Book between lord and vassals, at least in terms of value. Land worth approximately 3% cannot be assigned with certainty to demesne or fees. If one uses 1066 values, which total at approximately £1060, the respective figures are 42%, 13% and 3%.

10 The bulk of subinfeudation had occurred by the middle of the twelfth century, and thereafter the process slowed to a trickle, though it never ceased completely. This is roughly similar to the timing on other honors. For the course of subinfeudation on the honor of Richmond, see Farrer, William and Clay, Charles, eds., Early Yorkshire Charters, 13 vols., Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, extra series (Edinburgh and Wakefield, 1914-1965), 5: 1–16Google Scholar. For the pace of subinfeudation in general, see Keefe, Thomas, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons (Berkeley, 1983), p. 43Google Scholar.

11 Calendar of Charter Rolls 1 (London, 1903), p. 259Google Scholar. The fifteen manors were Catterick, Moulton, Gilling, and Forcett in Yorkshire; Frampton, Wykes, and the soke of Boston in Lincolnshire; Swaf-fham and Costessy in Norfolk; Wisset, Kettleburgh, and Nettlestead in Suffolk; Bassingbourn and Cherry Hinton in Cambridgeshire; and Cheshunt in Hertfordshire. Peter received other lands as well, but these were not recorded in 1086 or were not then in the possession of Count Alan.

12 The soke of Drayton, which corresponded to the later soke of Boston, was collectively worth £90 in 1086. Much of this soke was alienated in fee. Most of the land that was not granted out in fee was granted out at fixed rents, and as inflation and development proceeded, the lords of Richmond would have received a smaller and smaller percentage of the income of such lands. The soke of Costessy was worth £45 in 1086.

13 This survey is printed in Gale, Roger, ed., Registrum Honoris de Richmond (London, 1722), pp. 64–69Google Scholar; appendices, pp. 28-56. The Yorkshire section of this survey is published in translation in Brown, William, ed., Yorkshire Inquisitions of the Reigns of Henry III and Edward I, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 12 (Worksop, 1891): 222-26Google Scholar. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear whether the surveyors were providing information on current values or the values during Peter's lifetime, though the former seems more likely. There are wide disparities between the incomes recorded for demesne manors in this survey and in the inquisition post mortem of John of Britanny executed within a short time. This does cast some doubt on the precision of the figures contained in both documents, but judging from the Yorkshire values in the inquisition post mortem, the demesne values in the latter survey tended to be lower, which would only strengthen the overall argument of this section. Brown, William, ed., Yorkshire Inquisitions, vol. 2, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 23 (1898): 37–41Google Scholar.

14 There are also gaps in the record of demesne income but these do not begin to approach the gaps in the record of the values of subinfeudated and alienated lands.

15 The sixty fees were fees of the honor of Hastings which replaced those fees attached to the Suffolk manors which Peter had exchanged for the honor of Hastings. The castle guard payments for several Hertfordshire fees appear in the survey, but no valuations appear for these fees. For a reference to two fees in Hampshire not recorded in the survey, see Stenton, Doris Mary, Rolls of the Justices in Eyre for Lincolnshire and Worcestershire, Selden Society 53 (London, 1934), p. 231Google Scholar.

16 The omission of the fees of subtenants may be seen by comparison with other surveys. For Lincoln, and Norfolk, , see The Book of Fees (London, 1920), 1: 153-92Google Scholar; The Book of Fees (London, 1923), 2: 1,005-72Google Scholar; and Feudal Aids (London, 1904), 2: 131-34, 391, 400, 411, 415, 421, 442, 444-47Google Scholar. For Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire, see below.

17 Skaife, Robert H., ed., The Survey of the County of York, Taken by John de Kirkeby, Commonly Called Kirkby's Inquest, Surtees Society 49 (Durham, 1867)Google Scholar. The Richmondshire part of this survey was carried out in 1286-87 (p. viii). The carucage assessments in Kirkby's Inquest were not those of Domesday Book but probably of some systematic revision made in the century before Kirkby's Inquest.

18 Even in Cambridgeshire, comparison with the information in Farrer's, WilliamFeudal Cambridgeshire (Cambridge, 1920)Google Scholar, shows that more than two dozen subtenancies of the honor are missing from this survey. Many of these tenancies are small, but a few are fairly large, such as the two hides that Robert de Insula held as a subtenant (in addition to a larger recorded tenancy held immediately of the honor), or the two hundred acres that Robert de Romeley held in Teversham; Rotuli Hundredorum (London, 1818), 2: 407, 434-35Google Scholar.

19 Skaife, , Kirkby's Inquest, pp. 63, 148-86Google Scholar.

20 Sidney Painter estimates that the payments for castle guard for Richmond totaled £80 and though by the late thirteenth century not all payments were actually being made and others had been lost in the exchange for the honor of Hastings it is likely that Peter received more than the £62 recorded in the survey made after his death. In particular, sums from Norfolk were probably not recorded; Painter, , English Feudal Barony, pp. 133-34Google Scholar.

21 See Keefe, , Feudal Assessments, p. 182Google Scholar, for the service of the honor of Richmond.

22 The Cambridgeshire portion of the survey was not very careful about distinguishing between immediate tenants and subtenants; therefore I have relied on the material gathered in Farrer's Feudal Cambridgeshire to distinguish between the two groups.

23 Rotuli Hundredorum, 2: 414Google Scholar.

24 Skaife, , Kirkby's Inquest, pp. 63, 148-86Google Scholar. The sums of individual holdings in villages do not always add up to the total assessment given for the village in the inquest. In analyzing Kirkby's Inquest, I have used only the sums of identifiable holdings rather than those of villages, and thus my sums, which are included in table two, may not agree with the inquest's sums for Richmondshire as a whole. The sums in table two also depend to a minor degree on my interpretation of certain difficult passages or figures; any mistakes, however, would have little effect on the overall picture.

25 Indeed, what is shown above may underestimate the extent of subinfeudation below the highest levels, for in approximately 15% of the tenancies the inquest simply states that so many carucates or bovates are held of a named person, and this general statement may conceal additional mesne tenants.

26 Bean, , Decline of English Feudalism, pp. 40–103Google Scholar.

27 For Peter's retinue see Ridgeway, Huw, “King Henry III and the ‘Aliens,’ 1236-1272,” in Thirteenth Century England 2, ed. Coss, P. R. and Lloyd, S. D. (Woodbridge, 1988), p. 86Google Scholar. Obviously, the make-up of Peter of Savoy's following depended on his preferences but had honorial vassals been willing to join his retinue and serve him actively in return for their existing fees alone he would have been unlikely to refuse such service. As I have shown elsewhere, however, vassals were rarely if ever willing to serve without new rewards after a generation or so had passed from their family's initial enfeoffment, at least from the middle third of the twelfth century onwards; Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs, pp. 21-29. Later holders of the honor were able to use it as a recruiting ground, but only through the use of indentures; Jones, Michael, Ducal Britanny 1364-1399 (Oxford, 1970), pp. 184-88Google Scholar.

28 Stringer, , Earl David, pp. 108, 110Google Scholar.

29 By the 1170s the Mowbrays had only seven demesne manors, albeit very wealthy ones. Greenway, D. E., Charters of the Honour of Mowbray 1107-1191 (London, 1972), pp. xliv, lxxii, lxxiii, and end pageGoogle Scholar.

30 Barbara Harvey has pointed out the heavy impact of subinfeudation on the wealth of Westminster Abbey, though the amount of alienation in the case of the abbey was much smaller than in that of the honor of Richmond; Westminster Abbey and Its Estates in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1977), pp. 70–85Google Scholar.

31 See also my very cursory overview of several Yorkshire honors in Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs, pp. 33-34.

32 Count Alan had an income of somewhere between £630 and £770, probably nearer the latter figure, in 1086; the 1280s survey shows an income of £1,811 and has some gaps in demesne income. Unfortunately, the evidence does not exist to provide a precise index of rising prices between 1086 and the 1280s but David Farmer suggests a four-fold or five-fold rise in the prices of certain basic commodities between 1180, when prices began soaring, and 1330; Hallam, H. E., ed., The Agrarian History of England and Wales (Cambridge, 1988), 2: 718-19Google Scholar.

33 For the development of demesne revenues by individual lords, see Altschul, Michael, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217-1314 (Baltimore, 1965), pp. 71-75, 210-13Google Scholar; Mate, Mavis, “Profit and Productivity on the Estates of Isabella de Forz (1260-92),” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 33 (1980): 326-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Stringer, , Earl David, pp. 114-24Google Scholar. For the switch to demesne farming, see Miller, Edward, “England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: An Economic Contrast?” Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., 24 (1971): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harvey, P. D. A., “The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of Demesne Farming in England,” Economic History Review, 2nd Ser., 27 (1974): 345-59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Postan, M. M., The Cambridge Economic History of Europe (Cambridge, 1966), 2: 585-87Google Scholar. Miller, , in “An Economic Contrast?” p. 11Google Scholar, suggests a link between the effects of alienation and the need for magnates to exploit the remaining demesne estates more intensively.

34 For studies of ecclesiastical estates and honors, see for instance, Harvey, Westminster Abbey; King, Edmund, Peterborough Abbey, 1086-1310: A Study in the Land Market (Cambridge, 1973), pp. 66-69, 81–82Google Scholar; Raftis, J. Ambrose, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey (Toronto, 1957), pp. 97–128Google Scholar; and Searle, Eleanor, Lordship and Community: Battle Abbey and its Banlieu, 1066-1538 (Toronto, 1974), pp. 134-54Google Scholar.

35 Washingborough does not in fact appear in Domesday Book, but a reference to an outlier of the manor suggests that it was in royal hands; Domesday Book, 1: 337Google Scholar.

36 For this fair and fairs in general, see Moore, Ellen Wedemeyer, The Fairs of Medieval England: An Introductory Survey (Toronto, 1985)Google Scholar.

37 Dover, P., The Early Medieval History of Boston, A. D. 1086-1400 (Boston, England, 1970), pp. 1, 21Google Scholar; Platts, Graham, Land and People in Medieval Lincolnshire (Lincoln, 1985), p. 193Google Scholar.

38 Dover, , Boston, p. 3Google Scholar; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 4 (London, 1908), p. 242Google Scholar; ibid., 6 (London, 1913), p. 270; Close Rolls, 9 (London, 1931), p. 93Google Scholar; Close Rolls, 10 (London, 1932), pp. 64, 110-11Google Scholar.

39 Indeed, the former was overrun by wolves at one point in the middle of the century; “Historia Fundationis” of Jervaulx, in Monasticon Anglicanum, ed. Dugdale, William (New ed.: London, 1825), 5: 572Google Scholar.

40 Curia Regis Rolls, 16 vols. (London, 1922-1979), 7: 123-24, 270-72, 278Google Scholar; Parker, Col. John, ed., Feet of Fines of the County of York 1218-1231, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 62 (1921), pp. 2–4Google Scholar.

41 Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 152, 239-41Google Scholar; ibid., 15: 142; ibid., 16: 324, 359, 517. These records do not record the outcome of the cases, but the end result was clearly that the lands were recovered in demesne.

42 For the importance and development of pastoral farming on other lordships, see Donkin, R. A., The Cistercians: Studies in the Geography of Medieval England and Wales (Toronto, 1978)Google Scholar; Bischoff, J. P., “T Cannot Do't Without Counters': Fleece Weights and Sheep Breeds in Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Century England,” Agricultural History 57 (1983): 143-60Google Scholar; Hallam, , ed., Agrarian History, 2: 337-38, 375-76, 395-96, 479-88Google Scholar; Biddick, Kathleen, The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate (Berkeley, 1989)Google Scholar; and Thornton, Christopher, “Efficiency in Medieval Livestock Farming: The Fertility and Mortality of Herds and Flocks at Rimpton, Somerset, 1208-1349,” Thirteenth Century England 4, ed. Coss, P. R. and Lloyd, S. D. (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 25–46Google Scholar.

43 Clay, , Early Yorkshire Charters, 4: 91Google Scholar; Close Rolls, 1 (London, 1902), p. 361Google Scholar. After Peter's death, however, this manor passed to Queen Eleanor rather than to John of Britanny.

44 Gale, , Richmond, appendices, pp. 41, 50, 857Google Scholar. For documents concerning these escheats and sales, see C47 9/1, Public Record Office, London; Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1: 327, 335Google Scholar; Close Rolls, 1: 402Google Scholar; Calendar of Patent Rolls, 3 (London, 1906), p. 497Google Scholar.

45 This income included castle guard payments (£62 or more) and revenue from lead mines, from a court, and from the castle garden (£20).

46 The purchased manor was that of Redenhall; Calendar of Charter Rolls, 2: 10Google Scholar; C47 9/1, Public Record Office.

47 The manor of Swaffham rose in value from £8 to £17; the soke of Drayton rose from £30 to £70, plus an additional £20 collected in taille; Domesday Book 1: 348a; 2: 144aGoogle Scholar. The 1086 demesne had risen in value as a whole by over £150 despite the destruction brought about by the Norman Conquest and in contrast to the tenanted lands which had fallen in value.

48 For quo warranto proceedings carried out through the royal courts in traditional manors, see Curia Regis Rolls, 11: 9, 18, 108, 197, 212, 213, 430Google Scholar. Similar proceedings can be found for manors not in the traditional demesne such as Gayton (Curia Regis Rolls, 16: 310, 333Google Scholar) and Costessy (ibid., 13: 378-79, 454). For grants of markets and fairs, see Calendar of Charter Rolls, 1: 281, 433, 469Google Scholar. There are also grants of markets and fairs for manors in other categories. For the proceeds from a market at Swaffham and a parcel purchased in Cheshunt see Gale, Richmond, appendices, pp. 43, 47. Many lords in this period were seeking royal permission for markets in this period; Britnell, R. H., “The Proliferation of Markets in England, 1200-1349,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 34 (1981): 209-21Google Scholar.

49 Because the information in Domesday Book is so isolated due to the lack of extensive contemporary sources, it is sometimes easy to view it as a fixed point for comparison rather than as a snapshot of a scene that was changing rapidly, but in fact the process whereby land passed from royal hands to the hands of tenants-in-chief and from them to their vassals was far from complete by 1086 and the gifts of these two holdings were part of that process.

50 Britnell, R. H., The Commercialization of English Society 1000-1500 (Cambridge, 1993)Google Scholar.

51 Gale, , Richmond, appendices, pp. 39–40Google Scholar.

52 Bailey, Mark, A Marginal Economy? East Anglian Breckland in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Brown, , Yorkshire Inquisitions of the Reigns of Henry III and Edward I, pp. 131-32, 266-67Google Scholar; Curia Regis Rolls, 13: 152, 239-41Google Scholar; ibid., 15: 142; ibid., 16: 324, 359, 517. The tenants, many of them powerful, did not generally give up without a struggle. Although the hereditary constables lost their control of Richmond castle during the Magna Carta revolt, it was not until between 1268 and 1286 that John of Britanny was able to buy out their claims to the constableship; Clay, Charles, ed., Yorkshire Deeds, vol. 5, Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series 69 (1926), pp. 123-24Google Scholar.

54 See above, note 33.

55 Thomas, , Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs, pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

56 Cokayne, Complete Peerage. The noble tenants were the Bigods, Colevilles of Bytham, the Fitz-Alans of Bedale, the FitzHughs of Ravensworth, the Gaunts, the Criols, the Lascelles, the Lacys, the Lisles of Rougemont, a branch of the Marmions, the Moultons, a branch of the Munchensys, the Nevilles of Raby, the Says, the Scropes, the Tateshales, the dowager countess of Warwick, the Welles, and the Zouches.

51 Kirkby's Inquest and other records indicate that the vast majority of tenants further down the feudal hierarchy, whose incomes were largely unrecorded in the above survey, were less powerful figures, but there were exceptions, such as the Greystokes, who held land in Richmondshire as subtenants; Skaife, , Kirkby's Inquest, p. 165Google Scholar.

58 Peter of Savoy himself drew much income from outside the honor of Richmond. See Ridgeway, Huw, “Foreign Favourites and Henry III's Problems of Patronage, 1247-1258,” English Historical Review 104 (1989): 592 n3, for estimates of Peter's total incomeGoogle Scholar.

59 Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, 9: 491–503Google Scholar. See Pollard, A.J., “The Richmondshire Community of Gentry During the Wars of the Roses,” in Patronage, Pedigree and Power in Later Medieval England, ed. Poss, Charles (Gloucester, 1979), pp. 52–57Google Scholar, for the dominance of this family in Richmondshire, the heartland of the honor, later in the Middle Ages.

60 Cokayne, , Complete Peerage, 11: 531-72Google Scholar; Inquisitions Post Mortem (London, 1913), 8: 17-22, 205-07Google ScholarPubMed.

61 For the sale of land by such lesser landholders, see Coss, Peter R., “Sir Geoffrey Langley and the Crisis of the Knightly Class in Thirteenth-Century England,” Past and Present 68 (1975): 3–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality, pp. 159-205, 277-304; Stringer, , Earl David, pp. 133-38Google Scholar; King, Edmund, “Large and Small Landowners in Thirteenth-Century England,” Past and Present 47 (1970): 26–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Thomas, , Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs, p. 158Google Scholar.

62 If great tenants-in-chief such as the lords of Richmond could expand their income through development, so too could other landlords, though few had quite such great opportunities.

63 Painter, , English Feudal Barony, pp. 171, 178-83Google Scholar.