ANST - What I learn in

[Timothy A. McDaniel]

Ghia wrote:
> In England, courtesy of
> Wm. the Conquerer, all land belonged to the king. ALL land... if the
> Duke of thus and such rebelled against the king, he didn't drag 100
> underlings with him.

Dukes came later in England than the Continent -- Edward IIIrd's time?

Um, William the Conqueror tried to *make* that the theory (e.g., the
Salisbury oath, where he tried to get all the lords to swear to him as
liege lord regardless of the intermediate lords).  However, feudalism
wasn't all *that* different in England than elsewhere, despite a
generally stronger monarchy.  Great lords had no particular problem
dragging underlings along.  If Warwick, Northumberland, York, Simon de
Montfort, or whoever rebelled, he could count on his retainers.
"Treason" in period didn't mean betraying your country; it was
betraying your oath, especially to your (liege) lord.  This was about
as true in England as elsewhere.

Daniel de Lincoln
-- 
Tim McDaniel.   Reply to tmcd at crl.com
tmcd at tmcd.austin.tx.us is not a valid address.

============================================================================
Go to http://www.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.