Richard's laws in plain English (WAS: Enfeoffment versus Uses)

Yahoo won't let me post this as a reply to your message, so I'm starting a new thread on the same topic.

Marie wrote:
> Hi Carol,
> Here are the texts of the Acts, as promised:-
>
> "An act that the king shall have the wardship of lands in the duchy of Lancaster.
> 19.[23.] In the last parliament held at Westminster on 20 January in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Edward IV [1483], it was ordained, enacted and decreed in the manner and form that follows in these words:

<snip act enacted by Edward's Parliament>

>The king {Richard}, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, by the advice of his lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made."
>
> "An act against secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> 20.[24.] Because great uncertainty, trouble, expense and grievous vexations arise daily among the king's {Richard'] subjects as a result of secret and unknown enfeoffments, in that no man who buys any lands, tenements, rents and services or other hereditaments, or *women* who have jointure or dower in any lands, tenements or other hereditaments,<snip> can be entirely sure or free from doubt and trouble concerning the same because of the said secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> For remedy of which, be it ordained <snip> that every estate, enfeoffment, gift, release, grant, <snip> made or had, by any person or persons of full age, of whole mind, at liberty and not under duress to any person or persons, and all recoveries and executions had or made, shall be good and effectual to him to whom it is thus made, had or given <snip>."

<snip>
> The editor of that part of 'The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England' was Rosemary Horrox, so I imagine it was she who wrote the introduction I quoted in my last post. She is very fair-minded.

Thank you, Marie. And thank you, Rosemary Horrox!

Let me see if I've got this straight. First act, on wardships:
Edward, on his way to becoming a Tudor-style tyrant, had Parliament decree that the wardship of any underage heir in the Duchy of Lancaster would go to him or the queen (I suspect Elizabeth Woodville's hand in this). Richard, despite the fact that he could benefit from this act, believed it to be "to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects" and had it repealed.

Second act, on secret enfeoffments: Richard had Parliament decree that all lands and titles (etc.) should go to the rightful owner and all gifts and grants (etc.) to the rightful beneficiary, with no one secretly selling part of the land, inheritance, etc., to anyone other than the rightful owner or beneficiary. I note that he includes *women* who own land through jointures or dowries in this act.

I hope I have this right. (If not, please correct me.)Legalese, even modernized, gives me a headache. The lawyers, bless them, have to include every single detail or possibility to prevent loopholes.

How can anyone think that a king who proposed such legislation and convinced Parliament to enact it was a tyrant?

Even in Henry VIII's time, someone confronted Cromwell, who said that Richard was a tyrant and a child murderer, with "in his time good laws were made." (That should have given the Tudor followers a clue as to the true nature of the man they were defaming!)

Thank heaven these laws managed to remain on the Rolls of Parliament when Titulus Regius, enacted by the same Parliament, did not!

Carol

--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Yahoo won't let me post this as a reply to your message, so I'm starting a new thread on the same topic.
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Hi Carol,
> > Here are the texts of the Acts, as promised:-
> >
> > "An act that the king shall have the wardship of lands in the duchy of Lancaster.
> > 19.[23.] In the last parliament held at Westminster on 20 January in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Edward IV [1483], it was ordained, enacted and decreed in the manner and form that follows in these words:
>
> <snip act enacted by Edward's Parliament>
>
> >The king {Richard}, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, by the advice of his lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made."
> >
> > "An act against secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> > 20.[24.] Because great uncertainty, trouble, expense and grievous vexations arise daily among the king's {Richard'] subjects as a result of secret and unknown enfeoffments, in that no man who buys any lands, tenements, rents and services or other hereditaments, or *women* who have jointure or dower in any lands, tenements or other hereditaments,<snip> can be entirely sure or free from doubt and trouble concerning the same because of the said secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> > For remedy of which, be it ordained <snip> that every estate, enfeoffment, gift, release, grant, <snip> made or had, by any person or persons of full age, of whole mind, at liberty and not under duress to any person or persons, and all recoveries and executions had or made, shall be good and effectual to him to whom it is thus made, had or given <snip>."
>
> <snip>
> > The editor of that part of 'The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England' was Rosemary Horrox, so I imagine it was she who wrote the introduction I quoted in my last post. She is very fair-minded.
>
> Thank you, Marie. And thank you, Rosemary Horrox!
>
> Let me see if I've got this straight. First act, on wardships:
> Edward, on his way to becoming a Tudor-style tyrant, had Parliament decree that the wardship of any underage heir in the Duchy of Lancaster would go to him or the queen (I suspect Elizabeth Woodville's hand in this). Richard, despite the fact that he could benefit from this act, believed it to be "to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects" and had it repealed.

Hi Carol,
I was also interested at the references in Edward's statute to his queen. I shouldn't be at all surprised if she had been involved in pushing this through. But Edward himself was getting increasingly avaricious and tyrannical. I must admit I'm not one of those Ricardians who see Edward through rose-tinted specs as a shining golden hero, and imagine that Richard would have felt like that about him right to the end. I feel that Richard would have got increasingly disillusioned with him as the years went on.
I agree that it does look like a selfless act on Richard's part. One of many.

I wouldn't like to comment too much on what the second Act was aiming to do - I'll leave that to a legal eagle - but I did seem to notice further up in the rolls for the same parliament the case of a particular abbey that had purchased land then found the purchaser had had it enfeoffed and the abbey couldn't get seisin.

Talking of Richard and Acts of Parliament, there is a nasty murder case in the 1472 role which again seems to show Rchard doing the decent thing. I'll perhaps post about it tomorrow if I get time.

Marie



>
> Second act, on secret enfeoffments: Richard had Parliament decree that all lands and titles (etc.) should go to the rightful owner and all gifts and grants (etc.) to the rightful beneficiary, with no one secretly selling part of the land, inheritance, etc., to anyone other than the rightful owner or beneficiary. I note that he includes *women* who own land through jointures or dowries in this act.
>
> I hope I have this right. (If not, please correct me.)Legalese, even modernized, gives me a headache. The lawyers, bless them, have to include every single detail or possibility to prevent loopholes.
>
> How can anyone think that a king who proposed such legislation and convinced Parliament to enact it was a tyrant?
>
> Even in Henry VIII's time, someone confronted Cromwell, who said that Richard was a tyrant and a child murderer, with "in his time good laws were made." (That should have given the Tudor followers a clue as to the true nature of the man they were defaming!)
>
> Thank heaven these laws managed to remain on the Rolls of Parliament when Titulus Regius, enacted by the same Parliament, did not!
>
> Carol
>

It should be remembered that the feudal system was a pyramid. Though tenants-in-chief (usually the richer nobles) owed feudal dues to the Crown, they received the same from their own tenants. 

Its likely that magnates were having a hard time collecting aids from their tenants (as the use was now common practice), so increasingly resented paying them to the King. In the 16th century, the system was largely dismantled, with lands held from the magnates effectively converted into outright ownership.

Bastard feudalism in essence is the end of feudal military service owed as part of tenantry; instead fees in cash would be paid so that a noble could hire men of the right age as required, rather than rely on the genetic lottery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastard_feudalism



________________________________
From: mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, 8 November 2012, 20:32
Subject: Re: Richard's laws in plain English (WAS: Enfeoffment versus Uses)


 


--- In , "justcarol67" <justcarol67@...> wrote:
>
> Yahoo won't let me post this as a reply to your message, so I'm starting a new thread on the same topic.
>
> Marie wrote:
> > Hi Carol,
> > Here are the texts of the Acts, as promised:-
> >
> > "An act that the king shall have the wardship of lands in the duchy of Lancaster.
> > 19.[23.] In the last parliament held at Westminster on 20 January in the twenty-second year of the reign of King Edward IV [1483], it was ordained, enacted and decreed in the manner and form that follows in these words:
>
> <snip act enacted by Edward's Parliament>
>
> >The king {Richard}, notwithstanding that he believes the said acts to be to his great profit and benefit, believes them to be to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects, and having more affection to the common weal of this his realm and of his subjects than to his personal profit, by the advice of his lords spiritual and temporal and the commons assembled in this present parliament, and by authority of the same, has ordained, enacted and decreed that the aforesaid acts, and each of them, be annulled, repealed and of no force or effect, and that his said subjects shall stand and be at their same liberty and freedom as they were before the same acts were made."
> >
> > "An act against secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> > 20.[24.] Because great uncertainty, trouble, expense and grievous vexations arise daily among the king's {Richard'] subjects as a result of secret and unknown enfeoffments, in that no man who buys any lands, tenements, rents and services or other hereditaments, or *women* who have jointure or dower in any lands, tenements or other hereditaments,<snip> can be entirely sure or free from doubt and trouble concerning the same because of the said secret and unknown enfeoffments.
> > For remedy of which, be it ordained <snip> that every estate, enfeoffment, gift, release, grant, <snip> made or had, by any person or persons of full age, of whole mind, at liberty and not under duress to any person or persons, and all recoveries and executions had or made, shall be good and effectual to him to whom it is thus made, had or given <snip>."
>
> <snip>
> > The editor of that part of 'The Parliament Rolls of Medieval England' was Rosemary Horrox, so I imagine it was she who wrote the introduction I quoted in my last post. She is very fair-minded.
>
> Thank you, Marie. And thank you, Rosemary Horrox!
>
> Let me see if I've got this straight. First act, on wardships:
> Edward, on his way to becoming a Tudor-style tyrant, had Parliament decree that the wardship of any underage heir in the Duchy of Lancaster would go to him or the queen (I suspect Elizabeth Woodville's hand in this). Richard, despite the fact that he could benefit from this act, believed it to be "to the great damage and enslavement of his subjects" and had it repealed.

Hi Carol,
I was also interested at the references in Edward's statute to his queen. I shouldn't be at all surprised if she had been involved in pushing this through. But Edward himself was getting increasingly avaricious and tyrannical. I must admit I'm not one of those Ricardians who see Edward through rose-tinted specs as a shining golden hero, and imagine that Richard would have felt like that about him right to the end. I feel that Richard would have got increasingly disillusioned with him as the years went on.
I agree that it does look like a selfless act on Richard's part. One of many.

I wouldn't like to comment too much on what the second Act was aiming to do - I'll leave that to a legal eagle - but I did seem to notice further up in the rolls for the same parliament the case of a particular abbey that had purchased land then found the purchaser had had it enfeoffed and the abbey couldn't get seisin.

Talking of Richard and Acts of Parliament, there is a nasty murder case in the 1472 role which again seems to show Rchard doing the decent thing. I'll perhaps post about it tomorrow if I get time.

Marie

>
> Second act, on secret enfeoffments: Richard had Parliament decree that all lands and titles (etc.) should go to the rightful owner and all gifts and grants (etc.) to the rightful beneficiary, with no one secretly selling part of the land, inheritance, etc., to anyone other than the rightful owner or beneficiary. I note that he includes *women* who own land through jointures or dowries in this act.
>
> I hope I have this right. (If not, please correct me.)Legalese, even modernized, gives me a headache. The lawyers, bless them, have to include every single detail or possibility to prevent loopholes.
>
> How can anyone think that a king who proposed such legislation and convinced Parliament to enact it was a tyrant?
>
> Even in Henry VIII's time, someone confronted Cromwell, who said that Richard was a tyrant and a child murderer, with "in his time good laws were made." (That should have given the Tudor followers a clue as to the true nature of the man they were defaming!)
>
> Thank heaven these laws managed to remain on the Rolls of Parliament when Titulus Regius, enacted by the same Parliament, did not!
>
> Carol
>

Marie wrote:

> Hi Carol,
> I was also interested at the references in Edward's statute to his queen. I shouldn't be at all surprised if she had been involved in pushing this through. But Edward himself was getting increasingly avaricious and tyrannical. I must admit I'm not one of those Ricardians who see Edward through rose-tinted specs as a shining golden hero, and imagine that Richard would have felt like that about him right to the end. I feel that Richard would have got increasingly disillusioned with him as the years went on.

> I agree that it does look like a selfless act on Richard's part. One of many.
>
> I wouldn't like to comment too much on what the second Act was aiming to do - I'll leave that to a legal eagle - but I did seem to notice further up in the rolls for the same parliament the case of a particular abbey that had purchased land then found the purchaser had had it enfeoffed and the abbey couldn't get seisin.
>
> Talking of Richard and Acts of Parliament, there is a nasty murder case in the 1472 role which again seems to show Rchard doing the decent thing. I'll perhaps post about it tomorrow if I get time.


Carol responds:

Thanks so much, Marie. One last question. What is "seisin" and how is it pronounced?

Carol