[ANSTHRLD] OP question - Court Baronies and Baronies in fief

[Tim McDaniel]

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Jay Rudin <rudin at ev1.net> wrote:
> Theoretically, a legal charter carries the date is was issued, even
> if it announces a legal change that takes place on some other date.

To tangent off to period practice: English charters were along these
lines:

     Notum sit vobis me dedisse
     et hac presenta carta mea confirmasse

     Be it noted that I give,
     and with this my present charter confirm

That is, the charter isn't the document, it's just the receipt.  The
grant happened and has legal force even if the charter burns.

> The way to use our current charters for this is "inaccurately".
> They don't describe the actual legal situation.

To tangent further: there's a story printed in _Henry II_ by
W. L. Warren, quoting a chronicler of Henry II Plantagenet.  From
memory: the abbot of Battle Abbey (Hastings) went to [great lord A --
the judiciar, perhaps] with a decayed charter and asked what to do
with it.  The lord advised the abbot to go to the king's great court
and ask there.  The abbot did, and the king asked his lords what he
should do.  [Great lord B] said, "You should confirm this charter
above all others, for it is the foundation of all our charters, for
none of us would hold our charters except by what befell at Battle."
So the king gave a new charter.  Previously, charters of confirmation
had referred back to and had been dependent on the previous charter,
but he devised a new wording that was not dependent.

<http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=48068> has a
charter of confirmation, with (translated) wording

     Edward, by the grace of God King of England and France, and Lord
     of Ireland, to the Archbishops, Bishops, yadda yadda yadda,
     greeting. We have inspected the Charter of the Lord Edward,
     formerly King of England, Our father, made in these words: [Here
     follows as in the original Charter.]  Now We, ratifying and
     allowing the grant and confirmation aforesaid, do ratify approve
     and confirm them, for Us and Our heirs, as much as in Us lies,
     unto Our beloved and faithful Edward Le Despenser, cousin and heir
     of the aforesaid Hugh, and to the Burgesses and other men and
     tenants of Kerdyf, Usk, yadda yadda, as the aforesaid Charter
     reasonably testifies, and as they and their predecessors hitherto
     have used those liberties and quittances. Witness ...

Hmmm.  I wonder whether Serena might be interested in another research
project ...

I'm also interested to see

     This Charter is in good condition. The initial letter E is neatly
     ornamented with pen and ink drawings of oak slips, basketwork and
     checquy designs, &c., and the capitals of the top line have their
     vertical strokes prolonged upwards and broadened in a fantastic
     manner.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=48065 is another.

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=48063 appears to be
the original charter confirmed at top above.

> I wish I had an easier answer to give you, but the legal situation
> is that this is a charter issued on one date, granting precedence
> from another date.

Sounds not unusual in period terms, then, and the CB-for-LB text takes
account of it.

> (Just be glad that you're not dealing with a harder situation.  One
> person in Ansteorra has a Court Barony with a precedence date that
> isn't either the date he became landed or the date his Court Barony
> was first issued.)
>
> Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin
> Baron of the Steppes, 2-13-1988
> Court Barony, given by the Queen's hand, and with all rights and
> privileges dating from, 9-20-1984, but
> Court Barony, precedence dating from 10-13-1984

OK, I'll bite -- if you ever explained it to me, I don't recall.

Daniel de Lindonio
-- 
Tim McDaniel, tmcd at panix.com