medieval-atlas/social-and-cultural/418

Transcription

Anglo-Scottish landholding before the Wars of Independence Anglo-Scottish landholding was important for almost 200 years before the Wars of Independence. The wider implications of this phenomenon cannot be pursued here. The most notable cross-Border landowners were the Scots kings and princes. But use of the first map depends on distinguishing between the war gains in England during Stephen's reign (1135-54) and their peaceful acquisitions, which were more characteristic of the relationship between the crowns. This distinction, however, cannot be drawn too sharply since the former included lands recognised by the Scots as being subject to English overlordship, at least for a while. The terri.tories conceded in the north by the treaties of 1136 and 1139 were: Carlisle and its district, probably embracing Westmorland proper -i.e., Westmorland between Stainmore and the Eamont; Doncaster; the earldom of Northumberland except Bamburgh and Newcastle upon Tyne, and exclusive of any right over Hexhamshire and St Cuthbert's Land. All were probably to be held by King David I's son and heir Henry as a feudal vassal of the English crown. Then from 1141 David I and Earl Henry took over as King Stephen's enemies the whole of northern England to the Ribble and the Tees. Under them, William son of King Duncan 11 held three of the great north-western lordships: Allerdale, Copeland, and the honour of Skipton and Craven. The honour of Lancaster north of the Ribble, though granted to the earl of Chester in 1149, apparently remained subject to Scottish power. But by 1157 the English lands had been reduced to the honour of Huntingdon (acquired in marriage by David I in 1113, given to Earl Henry in 1136, and lost in 1141) and, in the north, to the 'liberty' of Tynedale. After Alexander 11 had renounced Scottish claims to the northern counties in 1237, he was granted Penrith with five other Cumberland manors. The superiority of Penrith, Tynedale, and the Huntingdon honour was held by the kings of Scots as tenants-in-chief owing homage to the English crown, although Huntingdon, with the title of earl, was treated as an appanage for Earl Henry's youngest son and his grandson, David (d. 1219) and John (d. 1237). On John's death it was partitioned among coheiresses. The earldom of Chester, John's private inheritance from 1232, remained undivided in possession of the English crown. (The external knights' fees held by John as part of the honour of Chester are not shown.) The last additions came shortly after 1286 for the brief period of John Balliol's effective reign (1292-6). The principal estates King John had previously inherited in England and Scotland are shown on the map which records the main outlines of the AngloScottish estates held by magnates, or major nobles, on the eve of the Wars of Independence about 1290. These men are defined here as earls and important lay barons, proprietors of course in England and Scotland but not necessarily enjoying the same dominant position in both countries. Most in fact held magnate rank only in Scotland where the magnates were generally lords of less substance than their counterparts in England. Any division between 'magnates' and lesser nobles must remain quite arbitrary, and some borderline cases have been included. In about 1290 Anglo-Scottish landowners nevertheless formed a very significant body among the higher nobility of Scotland, as is underlined by their prominence in the recognition of the Maid of Norway as heir to the throne (1284) and the Treaty of Birgham (1290). Almost all the Scottish estates represented are earldoms, 'provincial lordships', or baronies, though some had been partitioned. Again, some of the English baronies shown had been divided into frac. lions, but their lords remained entitled to baronial status. The other English estates are nearly all entire manors, a number being especially important. By varying the size of symbols a very rough guide is provided to the relative extent or significance of individual es tates. .The map unavoidably underestimates the range and impor tance of cross-Border landholding. It obviously excludes lands held about 1290 in Ireland (Hastings, Vesci, Zouche), the Channel Is lands (Wake), and France (Balliol of Bywell, Balliol ofUIT). Other wise, .while the main features of estate complexes can be shown, the recording of actual estates is not exhaustive. Single symbols must also do duty for some large estates which in reality were widely dispersed. That applies particularly to England, with its highly com plicated patchwork of landholding. Similarly, the map cannot even begin to tackle the complexities 'of the redistribution of the Huntingdon and de Quincy lands. In England alone they straggled across some 20 counties. The English lands of some magnates (e.g., Simon Fraser, WiIIiam Melville) remain unidentified; likewise the Scottish lands of Ralph de Tosny. These men have all been ex cluded, as have those such as Andrew MUITay of Petty who may never have realised their claims to English properties. Finally, the map is not designed to do justice to the many cross-Border estates held by the lesser nobility and the Church, though these were often founded through magnate patronage, or to fluctuations in the pat tern of Anglo-Scottish landholding by the magnates themselves. In fact, there is some reason to believe that their influence had already begun to wane by c.1290. 418

  Transcribers who have contributed to this page.

None