From these sources, then, came Edward Ill's patronage to his new creations. In many ways, this programme had known no previous equal, connected as it was with the development of a stabilized individual summons list which came to define the parliamentary peerage. Indeed, by taking upon himself the
task of elevating sixty-seven men over the course of the reign and by furthermore having to find the resources to patronize about half of these in order to give them varying
levels of self sufficiency - and the other half to keep them contented - Edward III was doing something quite novel in-the annals of English history.
Unlike today, however, novelty was not necessarily seen as a virtue in the Middle Ages and, in a society bound by,
and indeed dependent upon, the importance of tradition - both concerning land tenure and social status - such a policy by the king was likely to excite comment, if not reaction. But to understand the response Edward's endowment programme elicited, we must first realize that it took place on two
levels - one of individual self interest and the second of
more general contemporary reaction. For the first of these levels there is a wealth of information due to the almost complete survival of the records of the central courts - namely the Courts of Kings Bench and of Common Pleas. These were the ultimate venues whereby contemporaries could show
discontent at what they perceived to be injustices. The amount of individual complaint concerning a grant tended to depend mainly upon the source of the patronage. Some grants,
over. The right for the king to grant annuities from royal revenue sources was probably the most obvious case of this. Though there could be a number of claimants upon a particular source of revenue, and they might have to compete for it with the officer involved, there was rarely any effective
questioning of the fact that the king was perfectly within his power to make such grants to his new men, even when annuity payments were being regularly made out of monies granted by parliament.^ It is therefore unsurprising that these sources ended up being the reserve mechanism when all
other sources of royal patronage were found in some way wanting.2
Wardships and marriages were equally within the king's rights to grant out. For, just as it has been shown that use
of the royal demesne as a source of royal patronage was not
something which the monarch had to shy away from,^ so too was
his use of wardships and marriages viewed as a necessary part of the larger exercise of royal largesse.^ indeed, it was seen as the king's duty to distribute the fruits of these rights as part of the workings of medieval kingship.
Nonetheless, the practical application of the king's feudal rights over his tenants-in-chief could be problematic. For, though no subject would ever deny the king's right to grant ^ See Appendix 5b, especially payments made from
parliamentary tenths and fifteenths. Though there was considerable debate over more general royal use of funds granted by parliament. See also Ormrod, Edward III, 49; Harriss, Kina. Parliament and Public Finance, 313-55.
^ Though there is, in at least one instance, evidence that Thomas de Holland questioned Thomas Bradeston's right to a farm from the town of Gloucester in 1354. See SC8/244/12288. ^ Wolffe, Roval Demesne. 52-75.
out as he wished the bodies and marriages of the heirs of his
tenants-in-chief,5 the delineations of what constituted the estate of any minor or widow was bound to be disputed. Simple jurisdictional rights could cause numerous headaches for the
holder of a wardship. For example, in 1370, Ralph Basset, who held lands in wardship of the heir of John Mowbray of
Axilholm, was ordered to allow the proctor in England of the abbot of Fecamp to exercise, among other rights, his right to ”5 good bucks in time of grease(in gresso) and 5 does in time
of fermison, all whole with their hides" in the woods of
Stanherst and Rippefeld, a right that the abbot had going back to the time of Henry III.® Again in 1370, presumably on or about the time he was granted the wardship, Basset was
ordered to pay to one John Dysworth arrears of 40s., and to pay it to him in future, which John Mowbray had granted the
latter as an annuity for reporting the birth of his daughter.7 Another claim on the wardship of the Mowbray estate came from a religious house of "le Sele" on 12 June 1371 when Basset was ordered to "cause a tithe of all the rents of the barony of Brembre to be paid them", which Basset, according to the monks' petition to the king, was
otherwise unwilling to pay to them.®
But, considering its temporary nature, it is unsurprising
that litigation concerning wardships was generally routine. Indeed, of the two rights, marriage seems to have been the ® According to Walker "because of the clarity of the royal claim and the efficiency of the administration, the king was rarely put to suit about wardships". Walker, 'The Feudal Family and the Common Law Courts', 15.
® CCR 1369-74. 149. ^ CCR 1369-74. 155. ® CCR 1369-74. 238.
more contested - affecting, as it did, not only the
transmission of inheritances but also the fate of dowers, maritagiums and marriage portions. By far the most
controversial marriage grants were those concerning the marriage of a new creation himself. Indeed, considering the
sometimes substantial space in social rank between husband and wife as witnessed in Chapter Three, a new creation had to be ready to defend the wealth connected with his wife from claimants of a variety of backgrounds. In some cases, this involved the dower connected with a widow's previous
marriage. For example, around 1350, Guy Brian married
Elizabeth, widow to both Hugh Despenser and Giles Badlesmere. In the Hilary term of 13 55 the couple started a suit in the Court of Common Pleas against Margery de Roos, sister and coheir to Badlesmere, over a third of the manor of Bradfield Combust (Suffolk).^ The Brians claimed this as dower from Elizabeth's first marriage to Giles de Badlesmere (d.l338). However, Margery claimed that the manor was not part of the dower of Elizabeth, because Giles had not died seised of the manor - the time at which the apportioning of dower usually
took place. Rather, Margery then claimed that Giles had demised the manor to Thomas Verdon for life, so that after
his death the right of reversion of that manor and all connected lands was to descend to all four sisters and coheiresses of Giles Badlesmere, namely Margery herself,
Elizabeth Bohun, Maud de Veer and John, son of Margaret, late wife of John Tybetot. Though Verdon was obviously in fairly firm control of the land as Elizabeth had been pursuing cases
to reclaim her dower portion from him for a number of years previous to her marriage to B r ia n ,t he judges finally seem
to have sided with Brian and his wife, for the property involved was noted as being in the possession of the couple
on the death of Elizabeth in 1359 - only after which it was returned to Margery.
Indeed, considering Giles Badlesmere had died over a decade before their marriage, Brian seems to have had quite a
time assembling his wife's dower, as further cases against the earls of Northampton and Oxford, John Avene1, John
Tibetot, and Thomas Arundel i l l u st rate .B u t dowers were not the only problem for new creations. Life grants of all types could be a barrier to a full realization of the potential of
a wife's estate. In the Michaelmas term of 1337, William de
Bohun, earl of Northampton and Elizabeth, widow of Edmund de Mortimer (d. 133 2) sought against Joan, late the wife of Roger Mortimer, Edmund's father, a third part of the manors
of Dolforwyn, Bettws, Garthmyl, Penrhyn, Aberbechan, Garthgelin, Llanllwchaiarn,- Rundoedelew, Aberhafesp, Edeffryn, Llanitheon, Tregynon, Launcothelan, Manafon, Gaynong, Penebont, Lees, Maunans, Llan, Uchweldrefbettons, Kylkethwyn, Pennowern, Nenee, Ekil, Eberrew, Bryncae-maes-
hir, Rallussa, Eueynor, Llanfair, Egynae, Kilgeygan, Llanmerewig, Broniyond, Bolbro, Bryntalch, Llandyssil,
Newtown, Leyrwyk and Tolnetun, all in Montgomeryshire, as the dower of Elizabeth as a result of her marriage to Edmund.^®
10
CCR 1354-60. 583.
CP40/324/504, CP40/325/163, CP40/343/260. ^2 CP40/369/125; CP40/380/215.
See Appendix 7. CP40/312/446; CP40/314/206. See also CCR 1337-39. 421-22.
Joan, however, claimed that the said lands were hers by the grant of Edmund for her life. In the end it seems to have been decided that Joan did have a right to the land as she died seized thereof in 1359 - three years after Elizabeth, thereby never giving Bohun control over the lands.
But dower or similar grants for the sake of sustaining a widow were not the only things at issue with respect to a
creation's marriage. A new man's rights by his wife's
inheritance could also be a point of contention. A case in point concerns two of Edward's creations, John Kirkton and Ralph Cromwell, and the castle of Tattershall (Lincolnshire) and connected lands. In 1334, John Dryby granted Kirkton Tattershall, apparently by word of mo u t h . T h o u g h Kirkton later obtained royal licence for this g r a nt , he still seems
to have been very nervous about the solidity of his claim
over the lands, and throughout the next three decades made various legal arrangements to make his control as firm as p o s s i b l e . At some point before July of 1364, however, there were the first inklings of trouble over the property, when
the king claimed certain feudal rights over the lands -
though as a favour to Kirkton he quashed this action.i® The important point here was that it was noted that not only did no charter accompany the original 13 3 4 grant, but that none 1^ In the Inquisitions Post Mortem, the lands involved were