Magna Carta -- Father and Sons

The turn of the century -- the thirteenth century -- brought good government to the fore. The barons and knights could easily imagine better ways to promote the good of the realm than the actions of John, the king. Arbitrary and capricious were the nicest things they could think to say about him; vicious and spendthrift were not far behind.

They began to consider what would be a better order. Holt spelled out the principle that ran through all of their thinking about the good of the realm.

The men who were responsible for the Great Charter of 1215 asserted one great principle. In their view the realm was more than a geographic or administrative unit. It was a community. As such, it was capable of possessing rights and liberties. Magna Carta was indeed a statement of these rights and liberties, which could be asserted against any member of the community, even and especially the King. (Holt, 1961, p. 2)

The rebellious northerners were leaders when it came to asserting against the king (Holt, 1961). Peter de Brus issued a charter in 1209 that Hugh Thomas (1993, pp. 204-06) argued was more a statement about good governing in England than it was a statement for the Langberg Wapentake, which was its ostensive focus. In the charter de Brus accepted constraints on his actions that closely paralleled the limitations the barons and knights thought should be constraints on the king. Holt gives much the same interpretation in the second edition of his Magna Carta.

The men who witnessed the charter did not hold land from Peter de Brus nor were they from Langberg Wapentake. They would not benefit from de Brus' self imposed constraints. Instead they were men who, a few years later, would be leaders of the opposition, who would rally around the idea of a charter from the king with self imposed limitations.

And Walter Boynton was there. There were ten witnesses, and Walter Boynton was one of them. By 1209 Walter was a senior statesman in Yorkshire life. Forty years earlier he had been a supporter of the Watton Priory as it was struggling to get off the ground. In addition to tending to his own extensive land holdings, he had served as business manager of St. Mary's Abbey, York for several decades, which put him right in the middle of the Yorkshire real estate market. He had served as deputy sheriff. He had been a juror and a justiciar of the court, and he had served as a justice of the king's court during one of its visits to Yorkshire. And he believed in good government -- it seems. He did not live to see his ideas realized, however; before 1215 Walter died. But he had sons.

William was the son and heir of Walter. Ingram was the son and heir of William. They won the war, if not the battle.

The years 1212 through 1217 were busy ones in England. John was attempting to invade France to reclaim lost lands, but the northern barons and knights kept getting in the way. The rebellion got off the ground in 1212, though it was so ill-formed at that point that it became a rebellion only as it developed. John settled affairs enough to cross the channel for France in 1214, but he lost. From 1215 through his death in 1216 the rebellion kept him fully occupied. There were extensive negotiations and advances and reverses on both sides. The northerners kept at it until John died, and then the rebellion fizzled in the spring of 1217. The magna carta had been agreed to in 1215. It had been reaffirmed in 1216. And it was reaffirmed in 1217 as the rebels gave up their revolt.

In fine feudal-England fashion the end of the rebellion was accomplished with documents  -- called reversi. "On submitting the rebel had to seal a charter of fealty. These were made out to a form supplied by the Chancery and some of them were probably drawn up blank in the Chancery ready for the insertion of the grantor's name and the application of his seal." (Holt, p. 38). It was form letter fealty. Then the names of those submitting a charter of fealty were listed in the close rolls or patent rolls. And that is how we know that Ingram was a rebel. His name is on the list -- in the patent rolls.

So, what did Ingram do? First, whatever he did must have been visible enough that he needed to add his name to a rather exclusive list. The list of persons who submitted a charter of fealty -- reversi -- is about 450 long, and it is unlikey that you would put yourself on the list unless you were publicly identified as a person who needed to re-establish fealty. Second, we do not know further. However, Ingram was a knight. He probably did what knights did -- bringing armor and horse and assistants to battle as the rebels fought the king's troops, held castles, protected their lands and attempted to overturn the monarch.

They won the war -- the idea that there were rights and responsibilities which constrained the king was established in the magna carta and was to become the cornerstone of the developing English constitution. They lost the battle with John. If John had lived he might have been deposed by the northerners. But no leader rose in the opposition; they were, instead, united by an idea. When John died and their idea was affirmed they could return to fealty to the king of England and his descendents.

...

Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, A.D. 1216-1225, For His Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1901, p. 89.

Holt, J. C. (1961) The Northerners, Oxford.

Holt, J. C. (1992) Magna Carta, Cambridge University Press, second edition.

Thomas, Hugh M. (1993) Vassals, Heiresses, Crusaders, and Thugs; the gentry of Angevin Yorkshire, 1154-1216, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.