Hi, all. A few very basic questions.

From an IPM, ca 1430:

"...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir.." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]

Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.

1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?

2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?

3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?

Girl57/Jinny W.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> Hi, all. A few very basic questions.
>
> From an IPM, ca 1430:
>
> "...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]
>
> Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.
>
> 1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?
>

This is simple feudalism. Basically (and somewhat simplified) the king owned all the land, which was then held 'of' him through a descending chain of enfeoffments, in exchange for some service. At some point in the past, the Langtons had been enfeoffed Langton Place, they controlled an undivided interest in it, but as 'subtenants', if you will. This document indicates that the people above them in the feudal chain were the Darcys. The inquisition says Langton Place was within the manor of Kirky-in-Ashfield, and the inquisition of Philip Darcy indicates he held Kirkby in chief (directly under the king). That the service owed was such a small part of a knights fee seems to suggest that the intent was for it to be intentionally nominal (one sometimes sees a service of an annual delivery of a rose or a peppercorn).

> 2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?
>

The right to arrange the marriage usually would go with the guardianship, itself granted or sold by the king. Recipients could range from someone with a son who would benefit from marrying an heiress, to someone wanting to milk the estate for all it was worth during the period of the minority, to someone who thought they could make profit by selling these rights on, to royal favorites, or to family members if they were able to come up with enough cash so as to protect the lands and heiresses from all the above. In this case, with the girls being infants with properties in numerous counties and a long time before reaching majority, there likely would have been a lot of interest in acquiring the guardianship and controlling those lands. At least in 1431, we know who held this right - the proof of age of the daughter Elizabeth indicated that her lands were in the possession of the executors of the will of the late Henry, Lord FitzHugh, but he may not have been the person who arranged the daughters' marriages (both were already married in 1431, aged 14 and 13).

> 3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?

Legally, none, unless she was the one to who ended up with the rights (as a favorite or by buying them).

taf

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > Hi, all. A few very basic questions.
> >
> > From an IPM, ca 1430:
> >
> > "...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]
> >
> > Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.
> >
> > 1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?
> >
> This is simple feudalism. Basically (and somewhat simplified) the king owned all the land, which was then held 'of' him through a descending chain of enfeoffments, in exchange for some service. At some point in the past, the Langtons had been enfeoffed Langton Place, they controlled an undivided interest in it, but as 'subtenants', if you will. This document indicates that the people above them in the feudal chain were the Darcys. The inquisition says Langton Place was within the manor of Kirky-in-Ashfield, and the inquisition of Philip Darcy indicates he held Kirkby in chief (directly under the king). That the service owed was such a small part of a knights fee seems to suggest that the intent was for it to be intentionally nominal (one sometimes sees a service of an annual delivery of a rose or a peppercorn).
> > 2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?
> >
> The right to arrange the marriage usually would go with the guardianship, itself granted or sold by the king. Recipients could range from someone with a son who would benefit from marrying an heiress, to someone wanting to milk the estate for all it was worth during the period of the minority, to someone who thought they could make profit by selling these rights on, to royal favorites, or to family members if they were able to come up with enough cash so as to protect the lands and heiresses from all the above. In this case, with the girls being infants with properties in numerous counties and a long time before reaching majority, there likely would have been a lot of interest in acquiring the guardianship and controlling those lands. At least in 1431, we know who held this right - the proof of age of the daughter Elizabeth indicated that her lands were in the possession of the executors of the will of the late Henry, Lord FitzHugh, but he may not have been the person who arranged the daughters' marriages (both were already married in 1431, aged 14 and 13).
> > 3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?
> Legally, none, unless she was the one to who ended up with the rights (as a favorite or by buying them).
>
> taf
taf, thanks so much for insights. These are basics I need to absorb before being able to do almost any meaningful work. While reading a lot to learn these, it also so helps to get these lessons in the context of a real scenario that involves my own ancestors...so much easier to analyze and remember. I appreciate your willingness to define and explain.

In particular, I think it's the "chain of enfoeffments" that's throwing me, within the larger picture of economics and societal and personal relationships in feudalism.

I will look for Philip Darcy's IPM. How did you know his daughters were already married by 1431, and about Lord FitzHugh's will (is this will easily accessible)? Their mother was Eleanor FitzHugh, whose father was Henry (you probably already know this). Margery was married to Sir John Conyers (also this?), son of Sir Christopher Conyers of Hornby, my I-think ancestor. Christopher's daughter Joan married John FitzRandolph, Lord of Spennithorne; their likely-but-not-proven son John is the sticking point in the FitzRandolph line removed from "Magna Carta Sureties."

It seems my hunt for possible clues additional to what's already known is going to take me around many, many bushes...It's already been instructive trying to get a tiny grip on the families whose names appear most often in connection to FitzRandolphs and Langtons: Conyers, Darcy, Revell, Strelley, Willoughby, Zouch, and others. So challenging when one's branch of the family is younger sons of younger sons of younger sons.

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:32:07 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > > Hi, all. A few very basic questions.
> > >
> > > From an IPM, ca 1430:
> > >
> > > "...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess.. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]
> > >
> > > Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.
> > >
> > > 1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?
> > >
> > This is simple feudalism. Basically (and somewhat simplified) the king owned all the land, which was then held 'of' him through a descending chain of enfeoffments, in exchange for some service. At some point in the past, the Langtons had been enfeoffed Langton Place, they controlled an undivided interest in it, but as 'subtenants', if you will. This document indicates that the people above them in the feudal chain were the Darcys. The inquisition says Langton Place was within the manor of Kirky-in-Ashfield, and the inquisition of Philip Darcy indicates he held Kirkby in chief (directly under the king). That the service owed was such a small part of a knights fee seems to suggest that the intent was for it to be intentionally nominal (one sometimes sees a service of an annual delivery of a rose or a peppercorn)..
> > > 2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?
> > >
> > The right to arrange the marriage usually would go with the guardianship, itself granted or sold by the king. Recipients could range from someone with a son who would benefit from marrying an heiress, to someone wanting to milk the estate for all it was worth during the period of the minority, to someone who thought they could make profit by selling these rights on, to royal favorites, or to family members if they were able to come up with enough cash so as to protect the lands and heiresses from all the above. In this case, with the girls being infants with properties in numerous counties and a long time before reaching majority, there likely would have been a lot of interest in acquiring the guardianship and controlling those lands. At least in 1431, we know who held this right - the proof of age of the daughter Elizabeth indicated that her lands were in the possession of the executors of the will of the late Henry, Lord FitzHugh, but he may not have been the person who arranged the daughters' marriages (both were already married in 1431, aged 14 and 13).
> > > 3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?
> > Legally, none, unless she was the one to who ended up with the rights (as a favorite or by buying them).
> >
> > taf
> taf, thanks so much for insights. These are basics I need to absorb before being able to do almost any meaningful work. While reading a lot to learn these, it also so helps to get these lessons in the context of a real scenario that involves my own ancestors...so much easier to analyze and remember. I appreciate your willingness to define and explain.
>
> In particular, I think it's the "chain of enfoeffments" that's throwing me, within the larger picture of economics and societal and personal relationships in feudalism.
>

It throws a lot of people - one occasionally sees the same property attributed to different families during the same period, because they fall on different levels of enfeoffment. Even though the Darcys had enfeoffed Langton Place, they still owed service to the king for it, but this is masked by the fact that it was only a constituent part of the Kirkby manor, but had they enfeoffed an entire manor, they would appear in records such as ipms as owing the king service for the property, while at the same time their feoffees could be recorded in other records as owing them service. An incomplete appreciation for this can lead to a confused understanding of events, and underlies some (but not all) of the problematic reconstructions found in the works of the old antiquarian genealogists (and even some modern ones).

> I will look for Philip Darcy's IPM. How did you know his daughters were already married by 1431, and about Lord FitzHugh's will (is this will easily accessible)? Their mother was Eleanor FitzHugh, whose father was Henry (you probably already know this). Margery was married to Sir John Conyers (also this?), son of Sir Christopher Conyers of Hornby, my I-think ancestor. Christopher's daughter Joan married John FitzRandolph, Lord of Spennithorne; their likely-but-not-proven son John is the sticking point in the FitzRandolph line removed from "Magna Carta Sureties."
>

I found these on HathiTrust, but the site has different accessibility depending on country (and sometimes depending on which computer is being used in the same country), so your access may vary:

IPM Hen IV, vol 2
John Darcy (Ph's father) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn..31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=370
Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=372

IPM Hen V vol 2
Philip Darcy 1419/20: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=128
Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1419: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=130
Eleanor Darcy (Ph's widow; dowery) 1421:: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=249

IPM Hen VI vol 2
John Darcy (Ph's brother, proof of age) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=132
John Langton 1430/31: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=281
John Darcy (Ph's father) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn..31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=404
Philip Darcy 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=405
Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=406
Elizabeth Strangeways (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1431: same page

IPM Hen VI vol 3
Margery (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1433: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=162
Elizabeth Strangeways and Margery Conyers (Ph's daughters, partition assessment) 1460; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=163
John (kinsman) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=346

This is as far as I looked, forward and back. What is going on here - every time there was a change in circumstance, they went back and repeated the inquisitions for old estates for which, due to continuous successive minorities, control had not reverted to the family, so we keep seeing inquisitions for John and his mother Elizabeth, then later Philip, decades after their deaths.

It is the 1431 inquisition on Elizabeth Darcy that names her great-granddaughters by married name and lists husbands in addition to giving ages. Likewise in 1431, we see an age inquest for the daughter Elizabeth under her marriad name, Margery's in 1433 only calls her 'Margery, daughter of Philip Darcy, son of John, Lord Darcy'; her husband is not mentioned (at least, not in the published extract), but immediately following we get the partition they are named as wives of their husbands.

The Eleanor Darcy dowery assignment explicitly includes 1/3 of a piece of land held by John Langton and gives its value. Presumably this represents the widow's dower 1/3 of the entire property he was holding of the Darcys.

Regarding the will of Henry, Lord Fitz Hugh, this is referred to in the proof of age inquest for Elizabeth Strangeways. However, this may not mean he was her guardian. In the much earlier ipm of Elizabeth Darcy in 1412 it reports that the king had granted control of her lands to FitzHugh, so he may have just been controling her dowery and not the entire Darcy inheritance.

> It seems my hunt for possible clues additional to what's already known is going to take me around many, many bushes...

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:26 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:32:07 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > > > Hi, all. A few very basic questions.
> > > >
> > > > From an IPM, ca 1430:
> > > >
> > > > "...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]
> > > >
> > > > Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.
> > > >
> > > > 1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?
> > > >
> > > This is simple feudalism. Basically (and somewhat simplified) the king owned all the land, which was then held 'of' him through a descending chain of enfeoffments, in exchange for some service. At some point in the past, the Langtons had been enfeoffed Langton Place, they controlled an undivided interest in it, but as 'subtenants', if you will. This document indicates that the people above them in the feudal chain were the Darcys. The inquisition says Langton Place was within the manor of Kirky-in-Ashfield, and the inquisition of Philip Darcy indicates he held Kirkby in chief (directly under the king). That the service owed was such a small part of a knights fee seems to suggest that the intent was for it to be intentionally nominal (one sometimes sees a service of an annual delivery of a rose or a peppercorn).
> > > > 2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?
> > > >
> > > The right to arrange the marriage usually would go with the guardianship, itself granted or sold by the king. Recipients could range from someone with a son who would benefit from marrying an heiress, to someone wanting to milk the estate for all it was worth during the period of the minority, to someone who thought they could make profit by selling these rights on, to royal favorites, or to family members if they were able to come up with enough cash so as to protect the lands and heiresses from all the above. In this case, with the girls being infants with properties in numerous counties and a long time before reaching majority, there likely would have been a lot of interest in acquiring the guardianship and controlling those lands. At least in 1431, we know who held this right - the proof of age of the daughter Elizabeth indicated that her lands were in the possession of the executors of the will of the late Henry, Lord FitzHugh, but he may not have been the person who arranged the daughters' marriages (both were already married in 1431, aged 14 and 13).
> > > > 3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?
> > > Legally, none, unless she was the one to who ended up with the rights (as a favorite or by buying them).
> > >
> > > taf
> > taf, thanks so much for insights. These are basics I need to absorb before being able to do almost any meaningful work. While reading a lot to learn these, it also so helps to get these lessons in the context of a real scenario that involves my own ancestors...so much easier to analyze and remember. I appreciate your willingness to define and explain.
> >
> > In particular, I think it's the "chain of enfoeffments" that's throwing me, within the larger picture of economics and societal and personal relationships in feudalism.
> >
> It throws a lot of people - one occasionally sees the same property attributed to different families during the same period, because they fall on different levels of enfeoffment. Even though the Darcys had enfeoffed Langton Place, they still owed service to the king for it, but this is masked by the fact that it was only a constituent part of the Kirkby manor, but had they enfeoffed an entire manor, they would appear in records such as ipms as owing the king service for the property, while at the same time their feoffees could be recorded in other records as owing them service. An incomplete appreciation for this can lead to a confused understanding of events, and underlies some (but not all) of the problematic reconstructions found in the works of the old antiquarian genealogists (and even some modern ones).
> > I will look for Philip Darcy's IPM. How did you know his daughters were already married by 1431, and about Lord FitzHugh's will (is this will easily accessible)? Their mother was Eleanor FitzHugh, whose father was Henry (you probably already know this). Margery was married to Sir John Conyers (also this?), son of Sir Christopher Conyers of Hornby, my I-think ancestor. Christopher's daughter Joan married John FitzRandolph, Lord of Spennithorne; their likely-but-not-proven son John is the sticking point in the FitzRandolph line removed from "Magna Carta Sureties."
> >
> I found these on HathiTrust, but the site has different accessibility depending on country (and sometimes depending on which computer is being used in the same country), so your access may vary:
>
> IPM Hen IV, vol 2
> John Darcy (Ph's father) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=370
> Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=372
>
> IPM Hen V vol 2
> Philip Darcy 1419/20: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=128
> Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1419: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=130
> Eleanor Darcy (Ph's widow; dowery) 1421:: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=249
>
> IPM Hen VI vol 2
> John Darcy (Ph's brother, proof of age) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=132
> John Langton 1430/31: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=281
> John Darcy (Ph's father) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=404
> Philip Darcy 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=405
> Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=406
> Elizabeth Strangeways (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1431: same page
>
> IPM Hen VI vol 3
> Margery (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1433: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=162
> Elizabeth Strangeways and Margery Conyers (Ph's daughters, partition assessment) 1460; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=163
> John (kinsman) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=346
>
> This is as far as I looked, forward and back. What is going on here - every time there was a change in circumstance, they went back and repeated the inquisitions for old estates for which, due to continuous successive minorities, control had not reverted to the family, so we keep seeing inquisitions for John and his mother Elizabeth, then later Philip, decades after their deaths.
>
> It is the 1431 inquisition on Elizabeth Darcy that names her great-granddaughters by married name and lists husbands in addition to giving ages. Likewise in 1431, we see an age inquest for the daughter Elizabeth under her marriad name, Margery's in 1433 only calls her 'Margery, daughter of Philip Darcy, son of John, Lord Darcy'; her husband is not mentioned (at least, not in the published extract), but immediately following we get the partition they are named as wives of their husbands.
>
> The Eleanor Darcy dowery assignment explicitly includes 1/3 of a piece of land held by John Langton and gives its value. Presumably this represents the widow's dower 1/3 of the entire property he was holding of the Darcys.
>
> Regarding the will of Henry, Lord Fitz Hugh, this is referred to in the proof of age inquest for Elizabeth Strangeways. However, this may not mean he was her guardian. In the much earlier ipm of Elizabeth Darcy in 1412 it reports that the king had granted control of her lands to FitzHugh, so he may have just been controling her dowery and not the entire Darcy inheritance..
> > It seems my hunt for possible clues additional to what's already known is going to take me around many, many bushes...
> That can happen. One always has to consider how far down a rabbit hole to allow oneself to be led.
>
> taf
tag, I am just starting to read through your informative and generous response...lots to absorb. One thing that strikes me: did the king have armies of lawyers and accountants to manage issues and revenues from his land? These must have rivalled the Internal Revenue Service!

On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 7:01:06 PM UTC-4, Girl57 wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 2:25:26 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 9:32:07 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 7:40:52 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> > > > On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:10:16 PM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> > > > > Hi, all. A few very basic questions.
> > > > >
> > > > > From an IPM, ca 1430:
> > > > >
> > > > > "...John Langton of Kirkeby, about 9 H. 6, held when he died one mess. called Langton Place, and six Closes, with the appurtenances, of Elizabeth, and Margery, daughters and heirs of [Lord] Philip Darcy, by the service of the hundredth part of a Knights Fee. Richard Langton was then his son and heir." [Lord Philip Darcy had died in 1418, when he hadn't reached majority, and his daughters -- and only children -- were very young.]
> > > > >
> > > > > Langton Hall/Place had been granted to an ancestor of John Langton's in the 13th century.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) What does "...held...OF..." Darcy sisters mean, if Langton Place was already in the Langton family (I assumed they had had an undivided interest in it)? Had Lord Philip or an ancestor held small part of the estate through purchase, grant or inheritance, and now John was managing this portion on behalf of Philip's co-heiress daughters until they married or turned 16? At that point, daughters would get their portions, and the bulk would of course go to Richard, John Langton's son and heir? Does "...by the service of a hundredth part of a Knights Fee" indicate a very small part of the estate?
> > > > >
> > > > This is simple feudalism. Basically (and somewhat simplified) the king owned all the land, which was then held 'of' him through a descending chain of enfeoffments, in exchange for some service. At some point in the past, the Langtons had been enfeoffed Langton Place, they controlled an undivided interest in it, but as 'subtenants', if you will. This document indicates that the people above them in the feudal chain were the Darcys. The inquisition says Langton Place was within the manor of Kirky-in-Ashfield, and the inquisition of Philip Darcy indicates he held Kirkby in chief (directly under the king). That the service owed was such a small part of a knights fee seems to suggest that the intent was for it to be intentionally nominal (one sometimes sees a service of an annual delivery of a rose or a peppercorn).
> > > > > 2) John's IPM says girls were in king's wardship. Re: minors in the king's wardship, did the crown often delegate the arranging of marriages to extended family members/trusted friends of the minors' deceased father (unless the minors were of a wealthy and powerful family, and the crown wanted to decide on alliances)?
> > > > >
> > > > The right to arrange the marriage usually would go with the guardianship, itself granted or sold by the king. Recipients could range from someone with a son who would benefit from marrying an heiress, to someone wanting to milk the estate for all it was worth during the period of the minority, to someone who thought they could make profit by selling these rights on, to royal favorites, or to family members if they were able to come up with enough cash so as to protect the lands and heiresses from all the above. In this case, with the girls being infants with properties in numerous counties and a long time before reaching majority, there likely would have been a lot of interest in acquiring the guardianship and controlling those lands. At least in 1431, we know who held this right - the proof of age of the daughter Elizabeth indicated that her lands were in the possession of the executors of the will of the late Henry, Lord FitzHugh, but he may not have been the person who arranged the daughters' marriages (both were already married in 1431, aged 14 and 13).
> > > > > 3) What role would a female minor's widowed and remarried mother have in decisions about her marriage arrangements?
> > > > Legally, none, unless she was the one to who ended up with the rights (as a favorite or by buying them).
> > > >
> > > > taf
> > > taf, thanks so much for insights. These are basics I need to absorb before being able to do almost any meaningful work. While reading a lot to learn these, it also so helps to get these lessons in the context of a real scenario that involves my own ancestors...so much easier to analyze and remember. I appreciate your willingness to define and explain.
> > >
> > > In particular, I think it's the "chain of enfoeffments" that's throwing me, within the larger picture of economics and societal and personal relationships in feudalism.
> > >
> > It throws a lot of people - one occasionally sees the same property attributed to different families during the same period, because they fall on different levels of enfeoffment. Even though the Darcys had enfeoffed Langton Place, they still owed service to the king for it, but this is masked by the fact that it was only a constituent part of the Kirkby manor, but had they enfeoffed an entire manor, they would appear in records such as ipms as owing the king service for the property, while at the same time their feoffees could be recorded in other records as owing them service. An incomplete appreciation for this can lead to a confused understanding of events, and underlies some (but not all) of the problematic reconstructions found in the works of the old antiquarian genealogists (and even some modern ones).
> > > I will look for Philip Darcy's IPM. How did you know his daughters were already married by 1431, and about Lord FitzHugh's will (is this will easily accessible)? Their mother was Eleanor FitzHugh, whose father was Henry (you probably already know this). Margery was married to Sir John Conyers (also this?), son of Sir Christopher Conyers of Hornby, my I-think ancestor.. Christopher's daughter Joan married John FitzRandolph, Lord of Spennithorne; their likely-but-not-proven son John is the sticking point in the FitzRandolph line removed from "Magna Carta Sureties."
> > >
> > I found these on HathiTrust, but the site has different accessibility depending on country (and sometimes depending on which computer is being used in the same country), so your access may vary:
> >
> > IPM Hen IV, vol 2
> > John Darcy (Ph's father) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=370
> > Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1412: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d00889656z&view=1up&seq=372
> >
> > IPM Hen V vol 2
> > Philip Darcy 1419/20: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=128
> > Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1419: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=130
> > Eleanor Darcy (Ph's widow; dowery) 1421:: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d02126178l&view=1up&seq=249
> >
> > IPM Hen VI vol 2
> > John Darcy (Ph's brother, proof of age) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=132
> > John Langton 1430/31: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=281
> > John Darcy (Ph's father) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=404
> > Philip Darcy 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=405
> > Elizabeth Darcy (Ph's grandmother) 1431: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d023447228&view=1up&seq=406
> > Elizabeth Strangeways (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1431: same page
> >
> > IPM Hen VI vol 3
> > Margery (Ph's daughter, proof of age) 1433: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=162
> > Elizabeth Strangeways and Margery Conyers (Ph's daughters, partition assessment) 1460; https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=163
> > John (kinsman) 1428: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.31951d03176166q&view=1up&seq=346
> >
> > This is as far as I looked, forward and back. What is going on here - every time there was a change in circumstance, they went back and repeated the inquisitions for old estates for which, due to continuous successive minorities, control had not reverted to the family, so we keep seeing inquisitions for John and his mother Elizabeth, then later Philip, decades after their deaths.
> >
> > It is the 1431 inquisition on Elizabeth Darcy that names her great-granddaughters by married name and lists husbands in addition to giving ages. Likewise in 1431, we see an age inquest for the daughter Elizabeth under her marriad name, Margery's in 1433 only calls her 'Margery, daughter of Philip Darcy, son of John, Lord Darcy'; her husband is not mentioned (at least, not in the published extract), but immediately following we get the partition they are named as wives of their husbands.
> >
> > The Eleanor Darcy dowery assignment explicitly includes 1/3 of a piece of land held by John Langton and gives its value. Presumably this represents the widow's dower 1/3 of the entire property he was holding of the Darcys..
> >
> > Regarding the will of Henry, Lord Fitz Hugh, this is referred to in the proof of age inquest for Elizabeth Strangeways. However, this may not mean he was her guardian. In the much earlier ipm of Elizabeth Darcy in 1412 it reports that the king had granted control of her lands to FitzHugh, so he may have just been controling her dowery and not the entire Darcy inheritance.
> > > It seems my hunt for possible clues additional to what's already known is going to take me around many, many bushes...
> > That can happen. One always has to consider how far down a rabbit hole to allow oneself to be led.
> >
> > taf
> tag, I am just starting to read through your informative and generous response...lots to absorb. One thing that strikes me: did the king have armies of lawyers and accountants to manage issues and revenues from his land? These must have rivalled the Internal Revenue Service!

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 9:12:21 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:

> Lots more questions, including: 1) If Cuthbert Langton's family had been enfoeffed in Notts by Darcys for so long, why do some references to Cuthbert say, "...of Middleton, Warwickshire?" Perhaps Langtons were also enfoeffed to Willoughbys, who I've seen referred to as "lords of Middleton," as they also held lands in Notts, Derby, etc.? Was identifying himself this way -- or others id'ing him thus -- a way to reflect long service to that family?
>

This usually indicates their residence (though I have sometimes seen, for example, London residents be identified by their country landholding as a way to distinguish them, as gentry, from the bourgeois). It iss not necessarily their only landholding.

> 2) Were there often, in the same manor/area or county, kin who occupied very disparate positions in various chains of enfoeffment (younger sons of younger sons of younger sons, over generations, alongside those who were tenants in chief -- "right under the king?" And this would have been so partially due to inheritance/lack thereof, and other circumstances/relationships/talents and temperaments of individuals?
>

While there could be younger sons of younger sons of younger sons living in the same area and holding small farms several steps down the enfeoffment ladder, these were often the kinds of people who ended up seeking opportunity elsewhere. They would, for example, find their way into the military, or the London livery companies, or the universities and then the church. They often crop up in other places either in England, the colonies, or in overseas trade. In some cases these can be definitively placed into the tree, in others the connection is based on presumption and arms, without the precise connection being discernable.

> 3) Did families at low end of enfoeffment chain -- and people who farmed for all above -- usually know quite a bit about who was in the chain, and his holdings, and/or mostly about the lord and his relative position among others in the county or the entire kingdom?
>

They would probably know two steps above them, because occasionally the step above them would be occupied by a minor and hence under the control of his/her feudal superior.

There are many lawsuits disputing the relative place in this feudal order. Some of these probably are just people playing silly buggers to get an advantage, but in some cases the exact nature of the feudal relationships seems truly to have been lost track of.

> 4) IPMs: was it common for witnesses to be peers of the deceased, or was there sometimes benefit to getting info/insight from a diverse group?
>

For actual ipms, the witnesses were usually a combination of legal people, royal administrators and people who would be in the know - peers and people higher in the feudal order. This differs from proofs of age, which are included in the same published volumes. These were usually witnessed by a small number of local peers and many more common people who belonged to the same parish and hence remembered the baptism in relationship to dated events within their own families.

> 5) IPMs in time of Henry VIII and after: Have now found some, but they have not yet been published in entirety?

No. The project intending to give complete coverage has gotten from the earliest ipms to part way through the reign of Henry VI (1447), and then there is a gap, followed by a just-published volume for Edward V and Richard III, and long-published series for Henry VII, the last receiving this type of universal coverage. However, there are several other places one should look. First, some county antiquarian societies have published their own volumes that give complete coverage, sometimes as recently as Charles I. Likewise, there was a set published in a genealogical periodical that gave very brief extracts of ipms (mostly death information, heirs and ages) from Henry VIII to Charles I. These are not complete, for two reasons. First, it was based on an incomplete set of notes taken from an incompelte set of records - I would estimate that only about 50% of the people I know to have had an IPM during the period are there. Second, the person publishing them died and so the run stopped, having only gotten to PEY in the alphabet. Finally, there are a set of much older volumes from the early 1800s that are 'complete' through the reign of Richard III but do not have the genealogical information - these name the subject and list the properties involved, but not their holders, heirs ages, or anything else. For a summary of much of what is available online, see here:
http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/ipm.shtml

>I haven't found one for Cuthbert Langton, who d. ca 1522-1538 (though for his father and grandfather) or for Christopher FitzRandolph, who d. ca 1570.. For men like these, who were younger sons of younger sons of landed families...Does this mean that, while they held some lands through inheritance or other acquisition, none were valuable enough to need examining by the escheator?
>

Status as younger sons, not value had anything to do with it. IPMs were carried out for deceased who held land (or were suspected to hold land) directly under royal control. These were mostly people who held any land in chief. However, if the holder in chief was a minor under the king's control, then anyone holding under them would be temporarily holding directly of the king, and their estate would be subject to an IPM (and this could continue further down the feudal chain, though the more rungs one goes down the feudal ladder, the less likely they would all be occupied by minors.

This is why John Langton had an IPM - his Darcy overlords were minors holding in chief, so at the time he died he fell under (temporary) direct royal control, and hence subject to IPM. If the Darcy heirs at the time of Christopher Langton's death was not a minor, his estate would not have been subject to royal oversight, and hence an IPM. There would have been a much simpler process mediated by their immediate overlords, without royal involvement or documetation outside the manorial records.

taf

On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 1:36:39 PM UTC-4, taf wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2022 at 9:12:21 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
>
>
> > Lots more questions, including: 1) If Cuthbert Langton's family had been enfoeffed in Notts by Darcys for so long, why do some references to Cuthbert say, "...of Middleton, Warwickshire?" Perhaps Langtons were also enfoeffed to Willoughbys, who I've seen referred to as "lords of Middleton," as they also held lands in Notts, Derby, etc.? Was identifying himself this way -- or others id'ing him thus -- a way to reflect long service to that family?
> >
> This usually indicates their residence (though I have sometimes seen, for example, London residents be identified by their country landholding as a way to distinguish them, as gentry, from the bourgeois). It iss not necessarily their only landholding.
> > 2) Were there often, in the same manor/area or county, kin who occupied very disparate positions in various chains of enfoeffment (younger sons of younger sons of younger sons, over generations, alongside those who were tenants in chief -- "right under the king?" And this would have been so partially due to inheritance/lack thereof, and other circumstances/relationships/talents and temperaments of individuals?
> >
> While there could be younger sons of younger sons of younger sons living in the same area and holding small farms several steps down the enfeoffment ladder, these were often the kinds of people who ended up seeking opportunity elsewhere. They would, for example, find their way into the military, or the London livery companies, or the universities and then the church. They often crop up in other places either in England, the colonies, or in overseas trade. In some cases these can be definitively placed into the tree, in others the connection is based on presumption and arms, without the precise connection being discernable.
> > 3) Did families at low end of enfoeffment chain -- and people who farmed for all above -- usually know quite a bit about who was in the chain, and his holdings, and/or mostly about the lord and his relative position among others in the county or the entire kingdom?
> >
> They would probably know two steps above them, because occasionally the step above them would be occupied by a minor and hence under the control of his/her feudal superior.
>
> There are many lawsuits disputing the relative place in this feudal order.. Some of these probably are just people playing silly buggers to get an advantage, but in some cases the exact nature of the feudal relationships seems truly to have been lost track of.
> > 4) IPMs: was it common for witnesses to be peers of the deceased, or was there sometimes benefit to getting info/insight from a diverse group?
> >
> For actual ipms, the witnesses were usually a combination of legal people, royal administrators and people who would be in the know - peers and people higher in the feudal order. This differs from proofs of age, which are included in the same published volumes. These were usually witnessed by a small number of local peers and many more common people who belonged to the same parish and hence remembered the baptism in relationship to dated events within their own families.
> > 5) IPMs in time of Henry VIII and after: Have now found some, but they have not yet been published in entirety?
> No. The project intending to give complete coverage has gotten from the earliest ipms to part way through the reign of Henry VI (1447), and then there is a gap, followed by a just-published volume for Edward V and Richard III, and long-published series for Henry VII, the last receiving this type of universal coverage. However, there are several other places one should look. First, some county antiquarian societies have published their own volumes that give complete coverage, sometimes as recently as Charles I. Likewise, there was a set published in a genealogical periodical that gave very brief extracts of ipms (mostly death information, heirs and ages) from Henry VIII to Charles I. These are not complete, for two reasons. First, it was based on an incomplete set of notes taken from an incompelte set of records - I would estimate that only about 50% of the people I know to have had an IPM during the period are there. Second, the person publishing them died and so the run stopped, having only gotten to PEY in the alphabet. Finally, there are a set of much older volumes from the early 1800s that are 'complete' through the reign of Richard III but do not have the genealogical information - these name the subject and list the properties involved, but not their holders, heirs ages, or anything else. For a summary of much of what is available online, see here:
> http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/sources/ipm.shtml
> >I haven't found one for Cuthbert Langton, who d. ca 1522-1538 (though for his father and grandfather) or for Christopher FitzRandolph, who d. ca 1570. For men like these, who were younger sons of younger sons of landed families...Does this mean that, while they held some lands through inheritance or other acquisition, none were valuable enough to need examining by the escheator?
> >
> Status as younger sons, not value had anything to do with it. IPMs were carried out for deceased who held land (or were suspected to hold land) directly under royal control. These were mostly people who held any land in chief. However, if the holder in chief was a minor under the king's control, then anyone holding under them would be temporarily holding directly of the king, and their estate would be subject to an IPM (and this could continue further down the feudal chain, though the more rungs one goes down the feudal ladder, the less likely they would all be occupied by minors.
>
> This is why John Langton had an IPM - his Darcy overlords were minors holding in chief, so at the time he died he fell under (temporary) direct royal control, and hence subject to IPM. If the Darcy heirs at the time of Christopher Langton's death was not a minor, his estate would not have been subject to royal oversight, and hence an IPM. There would have been a much simpler process mediated by their immediate overlords, without royal involvement or documetation outside the manorial records.
>
> taf
taf, I think I'm becoming an audio stuck on the "thank-you" loop. Thank you.. Will be returning to these to read a number of times. Am now eager to start looking at manorial records. Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.

Still having a mighty struggle trying to read documents -- even the ones in English. But keeping at trying to recognize the letters and learn words and phrases common to certain record types.

Also picked up some older copies of the three-volume "Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages." Had seen reviews that these tend to be better than Oxford histories, and quickly flipping through, the discussions look great. Am also finding that materials on feudalism designed for children's lessons are great introductions and primers.

Our American history is so very short. Was thinking this reading about the Queen's Platinum Jubilee. Was fortunate enough to visit Windsor Castle about three years ago and wished I'd had weeks to absorb it all. Here comes loop: Thanks again.

On Friday, June 3, 2022 at 6:17:02 AM UTC-7, Girl57 wrote:
> Am now eager to start looking at manorial records. Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.
>

That is certainly part of it, but these were not royal records. Instead they were held locally, by the family of the lord of the manor, so most never found their way to The National Archives, and some still must be consulted through the families.

taf

On 03/06/2022 14:17, Girl57 wrote:
> Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.

For the manor of Wakefield there is an almost complete series from the
1270s until the 1920s. The Yorks Arch Soc publishes some of them. All
but the most recently published volumes are online at archive.org but
these only scratch the surface. Transcribing/translating (all the early
rolls are in Latin) is a slow process and, of course, the cost of
publishing in print is expensive.

Ian

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:00:01 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 03/06/2022 14:17, Girl57 wrote:
> > Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.
> For the manor of Wakefield there is an almost complete series from the
> 1270s until the 1920s. The Yorks Arch Soc publishes some of them. All
> but the most recently published volumes are online at archive.org but
> these only scratch the surface. Transcribing/translating (all the early
> rolls are in Latin) is a slow process and, of course, the cost of
> publishing in print is expensive.
>
> Ian
Ian, thank you so much. Have a question, re: your comment about only scratching the surface. I checked the National Archives' Manorial Documents Register for manor of Spennithorne, North Yorkshire, here:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/c/F241787

It says, "The summary includes a brief description of the collection(s) (usually including the covering dates of the collection), the name of the archive where they are held, and reference information to help you find the collection."

I took this to mean that this short listing of records is a "one-stop shop...." that it refers to all manorial records known to have survived for the manor of Spennithorne, under the care of all organizational holders (excluding private individuals)...that the National Archives had gathered information from county record offices, local historical societies, etc. to assemble a master list of all records known to survive and where they're held. And if they don't appear in the MDR, they don't exist.

Or, could records additional to those listed in the MDR exist for many manors but haven't been translated, transcribed, or otherwise prepared for use? And that some for Spennithorne might be held by the North Yorkshire Record Office, for example, but wouldn't necessarily show up in a search of its online catalogues?

On 05/06/2022 03:08, Girl57 wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:00:01 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
>> On 03/06/2022 14:17, Girl57 wrote:
>>> Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.
>> For the manor of Wakefield there is an almost complete series from the
>> 1270s until the 1920s. The Yorks Arch Soc publishes some of them. All
>> but the most recently published volumes are online at archive.org but
>> these only scratch the surface. Transcribing/translating (all the early
>> rolls are in Latin) is a slow process and, of course, the cost of
>> publishing in print is expensive.
>>
>> Ian
> Ian, thank you so much. Have a question, re: your comment about only scratching the surface. I checked the National Archives' Manorial Documents Register for manor of Spennithorne, North Yorkshire, here:
>
> https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/c/F241787
>
> It says, "The summary includes a brief description of the collection(s) (usually including the covering dates of the collection), the name of the archive where they are held, and reference information to help you find the collection."
>
> I took this to mean that this short listing of records is a "one-stop shop..." that it refers to all manorial records known to have survived for the manor of Spennithorne, under the care of all organizational holders (excluding private individuals)...that the National Archives had gathered information from county record offices, local historical societies, etc. to assemble a master list of all records known to survive and where they're held. And if they don't appear in the MDR, they don't exist.
>
> Or, could records additional to those listed in the MDR exist for many manors but haven't been translated, transcribed, or otherwise prepared for use? And that some for Spennithorne might be held by the North Yorkshire Record Office, for example, but wouldn't necessarily show up in a search of its online catalogues?
>
>

Where material is held elsewhere TNA can only present information
notified to it and that's up to the holders of the records. This varies.

On a quick check I can see they list various locations where records are
held for the Kibworth villages. From Michael Woods' TV programmes &
book I know Merton College has very extensive records about their
holdings there and they aren't listed.

By comparison they list the Wakefield manorial court rolls and other
manorial material held by the Yorks Arch Soc. They also list material
help by various branches of WYAS, some universities and a number of
other public archives.

Another thing to remember is that archives have limited resources. The
level of description of any collection is going to vary depending on
what resources are available and the priority given to it when material
is acquired - and, indeed, the indexing material with a collection. If
an archive receives an uncatalogued mass of material from, say an old
manufacturing company it might simply list the obvious - account books
for instance - and add an entry for miscellaneous papers which might be
the bulk of the material.

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 5:30:16 AM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> On 05/06/2022 03:08, Girl57 wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 1:00:01 PM UTC-4, Ian Goddard wrote:
> >> On 03/06/2022 14:17, Girl57 wrote:
> >>> Have noticed at National Archives site that many records are held for some manors and just a few for others...I guess this depends on what has survived, and I'm wondering, too, if some small manors perhaps didn't keep records as detailed or complete.
> >> For the manor of Wakefield there is an almost complete series from the
> >> 1270s until the 1920s. The Yorks Arch Soc publishes some of them. All
> >> but the most recently published volumes are online at archive.org but
> >> these only scratch the surface. Transcribing/translating (all the early
> >> rolls are in Latin) is a slow process and, of course, the cost of
> >> publishing in print is expensive.
> >>
> >> Ian
> > Ian, thank you so much. Have a question, re: your comment about only scratching the surface. I checked the National Archives' Manorial Documents Register for manor of Spennithorne, North Yorkshire, here:
> >
> > https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/c/F241787
> >
> > It says, "The summary includes a brief description of the collection(s) (usually including the covering dates of the collection), the name of the archive where they are held, and reference information to help you find the collection."
> >
> > I took this to mean that this short listing of records is a "one-stop shop..." that it refers to all manorial records known to have survived for the manor of Spennithorne, under the care of all organizational holders (excluding private individuals)...that the National Archives had gathered information from county record offices, local historical societies, etc. to assemble a master list of all records known to survive and where they're held. And if they don't appear in the MDR, they don't exist.
> >
> > Or, could records additional to those listed in the MDR exist for many manors but haven't been translated, transcribed, or otherwise prepared for use? And that some for Spennithorne might be held by the North Yorkshire Record Office, for example, but wouldn't necessarily show up in a search of its online catalogues?
> >
> >
> Where material is held elsewhere TNA can only present information
> notified to it and that's up to the holders of the records. This varies.
>
> On a quick check I can see they list various locations where records are
> held for the Kibworth villages. From Michael Woods' TV programmes &
> book I know Merton College has very extensive records about their
> holdings there and they aren't listed.
>
> By comparison they list the Wakefield manorial court rolls and other
> manorial material held by the Yorks Arch Soc. They also list material
> help by various branches of WYAS, some universities and a number of
> other public archives.
>
> Another thing to remember is that archives have limited resources. The
> level of description of any collection is going to vary depending on
> what resources are available and the priority given to it when material
> is acquired - and, indeed, the indexing material with a collection. If
> an archive receives an uncatalogued mass of material from, say an old
> manufacturing company it might simply list the obvious - account books
> for instance - and add an entry for miscellaneous papers which might be
> the bulk of the material.
Ian, thank you; will keep this in mind as I'm seeking records. It must take a lot of time for archives to make order and accessibility out of masses of material. I'm so hoping there's something out there that wasn't available during the last major research of the family I'm looking at.