Notes on Knighthood

Writing about knighthood by historians and romantics is extensive. There is no way to either read it or review it all. We give five quotations here; a couple of them are fairly substantial.

First, is the call from Edward II requiring persons who were eligible [had the requisite wealth] to take up knighthood.

Then a paper by Pailey Baildon, discusses what was required to become a knight in the context of telling the story of Charles I raising money through fines on families that did not take up knighthood at his invitation. One Boynton family had to pay a fine when they discovered the king's invitation was meant for them.

The next two -- by Charles Moor and Alan Harding -- discuss the number of knights in England in the thirteenth century.

Finally, Peter Coss discusses the lifestyle of the knighthood of the fifteenth century. It is a description that closely mirrors what we know about the Boyntons of that century.

Call to Knighthood

1324-Westminster, 10 May. Rot. Claus. 7 Ed.II. m II. d.

York. --Writ, addressed to the sheriff, commanding him to make a proclamation in full County Court, that all persons holding lands to the amount of 40l per annum, or an entire knight's fee of the value of 40l per annum, and who have held the same for three entire years, of whomsoever such lands should be holden, and who are not now knights, shall take upon themselves the degree of knighthood on or before Michaelmas then next. --The Sheriff is to return the names of the individual so qualified, and he is warned that strict enquiry will be made as to his conduct in the execution of the writ.

1324. --Westminster, 10 May.

York. --Concurrent writ, addressed to the sheriff, commanding him to make proclamation that all persons who intend to take the degree of knighthood, may repair to London on or before Whitsuntide, 3 June, to receive their equipment, as of the king's gift, from the wardrobe.

Palgrave, Francis (1830) The Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons, together with the records and muniments relating ot the suit and service due and performed to the king's high court of parliament and the councils of the real, or affording evidence of attendance given at parliaments and councils, volume the second, printed by command of His Majesty King George IV, p. 385.

W. Paley Baildon, Compositions for Not Taking Knighthood at the Coronation of Charles I.

Among the many illegal and tyrannical devices employed by the monarch, whom it is the fashion to call "the Blessed King and Martyr," to raise money without the authority of Parliament, few gave rise to a more wide-spread feeling of irritation than the ingenious plan of summoning large numbers of subjects to take the honour of knighthood, and fining those who declined the invitation. Like the levy of Ship Money, it was founded on ancient precedent, and similarly subverted from its original purpose to fill the royal purse by a system of organised confiscation.

The majority of the persons who figure as knights in pedigrees and records prior to the sixteenth century did not receive the accolade in recognition of their prowess in the field or their service to the State; the reason for their titular distinction was simply that they were possessed of a certian amount of landed property. All laymen of full age holding one knight's fee or more were, theoretically, at any rate, bound to become knights. The obligation was a part of the feudal system of military tenure; the owner of a knight's fee was, by the terms on which he held, liable to serve the king in war-time with his retainers for a certain period; he was, so to speak, the colonel of a regiment raised and furnished by himself, and as such he must receive from the sovereign the "commission" giving him the necessary military status and authority, that is, knighthood. Hence in latin he is called miles, a soldier, or rather the soldier, the commander of his troop, and in French chevalier, since he rode at the head of his men.

In the early days of the feudal system in England, following on William the Conqueror's military organisation of the country, the matter was fairly simple, but complications must have arisen very soon. Personal service was impossible in the case of old or infirm men, and as early as the reign of Henry II the payment of scutage in lieu of personal attendance was introduced. Then there was the frequent case of a knight's fee becoming divided among coheirs; which, if any, of them was to appear and lead the dependants? Scutage again solved the difficulty, and the coheirs made the payment in proportion to their shares. In 25 Henry III, 1240-1, we find another knotty point decided; if a man held less than a knight's fee, but had in addition an estate in socage, and the two together were worth l20 a year, he was held liable to compulsory knighthood, and Bracton (who died in 1208) thought that l20 of land was in itself sufficient. At a later date the necessity for part of the land to be held by knight service was frankly abandoned, but the qualification of the mere freeholder was raised to l40, at which sum it remained until its final abolition.

Long before the time of the "Blessed Martyr," however, the whole thing was obsolescent, if not actually obsolete. By the fifteenth century it was only resorted to on very special occasions, such as the coronation or similar national festival; by the end of Elizabeth's reign, compulsory knighthood was regarded, even in the law courts, as a thing of the past.

W. Paley Baildon, Compositions for Not Taking Knighthood at the Coronation of Charles I, Miscellanea, Vol. 1, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, 1920, pp. 84-85.

About the number of knights: Charles Moor, Knights of Edward I

The number of Knights' Fees in England in 1166 was, by Dr. J. H. Round in his "Introduction of Knight Service in England," calculated at 5,000 or less, viz. 784 held by the Church, and 3,534 by such of the lay Barons as were included, with an allowance for omissions of the latter. The number a century later and during the following sixty years was probably not less, so that if we reckon 5,000 Fees as the normal number existing between the Barons' War of 1264-5 and the disturbances culminating at Boroughbridge in 1322, it follows that there should always have been in that period some 5,000 Knights in England capable of serving those Fees. There were, no doubt, times of slackness, when men omitted to take up the burden of Knighthood, but King Edward I engaged in several wars, in Wales, Scotland, and the Continent of Europe, and from time to time rounded up his men in no uncetain fashion by sending commissioners to every County to ascertain "who ought to be Knights and are not." thus on 26 June 1278 he bade the Sheriff of Gloucester "distrain those of his bailiwick who have l20 p.a. in lands or a whole Knight's Fee worth l20 p.a., who hold in capite and ought to be knighted, to receive Knighthood before Christmas, and to cause the names of such men to be written in a roll by two Knights of the County and sent to the King." [C.R.] Or Again: "The King has a right to distrain for Knighthood all who have l20 p.a. in lands or a Knight's Fee worth l20 p.a." this right has no new thing, for we read that on 16 Nov 1224 a writ was issued ordering every layman of full age holding one or more Knight Fees and not yet a knight, to take arms and be knighted before the end of Easter 1225. And on 7 June 1233 the lands of Roger de Somery were forfeited because he came not to the King to be knighted last Pentecost. King Edward I, it is true, did not always insist upon his right, as e.g. on 6 May 1285, when, for the good service done in Wales, he bade those having not merely l20 but at least l100 p.a. in lands to be knighted, and on 24 Nov. 1296, when the Justice of Chester was ordered to proclaim that all having l30 p.a. lands or a Knight's Fee worth that sum, and who ought to be Knights, shall take up Knighthood before Whitsuntide [C.R.]. A good example of attempted distraint was furnished by Richard le Brod', who "holds l15 p.a. rents in the Liberty of the Cinque Ports by service of being doorward of Pevensey Castle, and 100/- p.a. rents in the socage without the Liberty, but the Sheriff was unable to distrain him to take the degree of Knighthood because all his beasts had been driven into the Liberty." Many men, as will be seen, paid varying sums to defer Knighthood for a year or more, and some were excused for life, but it seems reasonable to suppose that the majority of those holding the qualifying land were at some time actually knighted. At any rate they were of the knightly class, and though some who were "not quite Who" are included in the Catalogue, the latter may be regarded as at least an imperfect guide to the Landed Gentry of England for the period which it embraces. [pp. v-vi]

...

Men holding certain offices seem to have usually been Knights, such as Sheriffs, Escheators, Constables of Castles, those summoned to Military Councils, many of the Judges, and probably all the Knights of the Shire. Several of the Fideles of Ireland, summoned in or about 1302, were certainly of knightly rank.

It should be remembered, in estimating the probable number of Knights living at that time in England, that beside the 5,000 capable of serving for that number of Fees, there must have been many disabled, infirm, and aged Knights, for these, unlike Sheriffs, Constables, and Escheators, retained their status for life, living on their own lands or sent to Religious Houses for hospitality and sustenance. The Knights sustained in their own persons the chief shock of battle and often, formeost fighting, fell, and doubtless there were supernumeraries and younger men preparing or ready to take their places. The large number who died leaving young children is evidence that war made great havoc in their ranks, and one can scarcely think that their active service lasted on the average more than ten or twelve years, in which case three times 5,000 may have served the first Edward during his reign. If this be so, it is clear that the Catalogue by no means exhausts the list even of those serving in his time.

During the period under review those who bore hereditary titles were the King, the Earls, and a very few of the Barons, such as those of Stafford and Greystoke. Baronies as tracts of land were numerous, and their holders were Barons, greater or lesser, but at least in the Rolls, if distinguished by any title, it is almost invariably Dominus, Sir, which was given to the Knights and to many of the clergy. . . . [p. vii]

...

It will be remarked that lawlessness was present even under the firm hand of Edward the Lawgiver, though much more so under those of his father and son. Quite distinguished men found it difficult to avoid a term in gaol or the temporary confiscation of their lands, for if they did not commit homicide "in self-defence" or "by misadventure," they seem to have been unable to withstand the temptation of trespassing after the King's deer. The penalty was severe, but good service in Wales or Scotland not seldom availed for complete pardon even of the worst offences. [p. xi]

Charles Moor (1929), Knights of Edward I, vol. I, Publications of the Harleian Society, volume LXXX.

More about the number of knights: Alan Harding, England in the Thirteenth Century

By 1300 the number of estates held by knights had fallen far below the number of 6,500 or more knights' fees from which scutage could theoretically have been exacted. William, lord of Kentwell in Suffolk, owing the king the service of ten knights, was admitting in the 1240s that he had lost control of seven of the fees and did not know who held them. At the end of the thirteenth century the number of actual knights has been reckoned at about 1,250 -- a few more than the number with coats of arms in the Parliamentary Roll of 1312, and perhaps twice as many as were useful to the king in war. Another 1,500-2,000 freeholders probably had the economic qualification to become knights. The knightly families of this time were the ones that remained when the growing cost of being dubbed a knight, the expense of providing for an excess of daughters and younger sons, and probably most of all failure to meet the challenge of the 'managerial revolution' which began late in the twelfth century, had weeded out the rest. The chief importance of the land market, which appeared first among the knights, was that it permitted overstretched families to sink down the social scale in a relatively dignified way -- and, as with the peasantry, new families (which did not automatically assume knightly status) to rise by reassembling fragments of their estates.

Alan Harding (1993) England in the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge University Press, p. 196.

...

Life style of knights: Peter Coss, The Knight in Medieval England 1000-1400

The Paston proclamation is nothing less than a roll call of the attributes of gentility, as they were seen in the fiftheenth century. It was deemed necessary to be a lord of the manor with a hall and a court, and to have unfree (or customary) tenants attending that court. it was advisable to have a clearly recognized central residence, preferably located in a settlement from which was derived one's name. One should also have one's own chapel in the manor-house for private worship under ecclesiastical licence, and to be a proven benefactor to monastic houses. It was also essential to hold by military tenure, which was held to have originated with the Conquest when all England was forfeit to the Conqueror and when land needed to be parcelled out to provide knights for the royal army, and to have free tenants who held their lands on the same terms. This meant that they should perform the act of homage, and that they were subject to the same feudal incidents of wardship and marriage (the right to the custody of the lands and person of an heir who succeeded under age and to determine his or her marriage if they were still single) and of relief (a sum of money paid upon succeeding to an inheritance). Furthermore, one needed to be connected by blood and by marriage to many another gentle family, and all of this needed to be authenticated by the correct documentation, going back to at least the thirteenth century.

Peter Coss (1993) The Knight in Medieval England 1000-1400, Alan Sutton Publishing Limited, p. 2.