This chapter examines the extent to which service in manorial office was characterised by relative inclusion of all members of the community or whether official positions were controlled by a narrow elite, and how this changed over time. Through examining the systems by which officials were selected, it finds that communities of tenants had significant power over who was chosen for office owing to traditions of collective liability. A further quantitative analysis of selection patterns reveals a two-tier system. While a significant proportion of the adult male tenant population likely served in office across their lifetimes, an elite dominated office through repeat service across a number of different roles. These findings demonstrate that a single designation of ‘participatory’ or ‘restrictive’ cannot be applied to manorial officeholding, as patterns of selection encompassed both elements. It also reveals little change into the early modern period, challenging a narrative of the rise of the ‘middling sort’.

Honour was an important and enduring element in the moral economy and mattered as much to peasants as to the nobility. ‘Honour’ retained something of the Old English notion of weorđ , entitlement. Association with a lord or estate owner could bestow weorđ but so too could ownership of a full ploughteam. Local saints were often people who were valued for what their piety could achieve for the community. Age could command respect: ‘village elders’ and ealdormann , both have ‘elder’ as their root. Peasant elites also became consolidated as a result of the countryside becoming formally organised from the mid-tenth century for the purposes of dealing with local matters, mainly crime and its policing. Townships were the political worlds of the peasantry and the sphere in which peasant elites operated. A strong emphasis was put on inheritance, a value shared across society.