Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 5th, 2018, 03:10 AM   #41
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
I like the bit about removing your daughter from the hands of a ravisher.
I had a giggle at a few of them too!
authun is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 5th, 2018, 03:12 AM   #42
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnincornwall View Post
It's also worth noting that the Visigothic population of Spain was around 10% (estimate). Even less in the lands of Asturias where the Visigoths had difficulty establishing order - precisely where the new Christian kingdoms arose. A few may have moved north, but as time went on it was very fashionable lets say to suddenly find yourself with a Visigothic-sounding name to get on and influence people!
Yes, I remember reading some notes about the concern that they [the visigoths] were not thriving as well as the Iberians. I wish I could find it again.
authun is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 06:54 AM   #43

dreuxeng's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: England
Posts: 1,263

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post
"'So what' !!! .... how are you saying that? Is that causing trouble. Are you going to make my day?"

was not answering the question 'so what?' It is an insincere and meaningless reply. To claim that is was a jocular answer to my question is not convincing.
Yes exactly. Playing the game not convinced is a bit obvious. If you can't allow yourself the civilised idea of accepting anything someone else says in intelligent argument, well, literally, there really is no point. If a reading of the above posts sounds like the same old tepid, stock: claims, counter-claims, accusations, authoritarian shrieks and ungrammatical responses, that i first heard 11-12 years ago on the BBC History Message Board, i kid ye not, then that is the end of that. In the interests of solidarity i think we might agree to disagree.

For the record the Daily Mail ran a similar story about the same time, as did the Independent and a few others. All drawing on an article that first appeared in Country Life magazine, written by a Daily Mail journalist.

The Independent wrote:
'Nearly a third of land in England and Wales is still owned by a small group of aristocrats, research indicated today. Wealthy individuals and their estates are thought to control about 20 million of the country's 60 million acres.' BUT of course they did NOT in any way inherit their lands from the Normans of the immediate post conquest period or any other period. Almost every one of those aristocrats owes their title to a self-made man; probably through service to the crown (government: like being the kings first minister or a chancellor of the exchequer), during the c.18th or c.19th. See previous posts...


The Independent continued:
'The research found there had been a shift in land ownership during the past century away from family estates to corporate estates.'

'It said seven of the 11 largest landowners in modern Britain did not exist 100 years ago, and all of these were corporate estates such as the National Trust.'

Evidently extremely different to the shocking prejudice expressed in the Guardian version.

Country Life has the following:
It’s important to point out that Land Registry deals solely with land, not ownership details. We register land, not “people”, and therefore do not quantify “how much” land is owned by any particular person or company,’ says a spokesperson.'

'More than a third of land is still in the hands of aristocrats and traditional landed gentry. Indeed, the 36,000 members of the CLA own about 50% of the rural land in England and Wales.'

The landed gentry are perhaps the Normans referred to. But again so many of these were self made men. The Herricks of Leicesteshire were simply nowhere in the 1400s. But later two brothers ended up renting 100 acres each and were successful thereafter, and paid there way into land of their own during the opportunities of the 1500s when so much land became available from the dissolution of the monasteries. Self-made men bought into land across the 1600s, 1700s, and the 1800s!

'Of the estates extant in 1872, and which formed almost the totality of the rural world, some were of great antiquity.' And therefore most, not!

Who really owns Britain? - Country Life
dreuxeng is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 07:59 AM   #44

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,775

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naima View Post
Isn't Feudalims kind of a return to the Tribal organization system of precivilized europe?
Reproposing perhaps the Indoeuropean Patriarcal society around a King with the warrior caste ?
That's a good observation and I think true of the Continent. Rome no longer supplied law and civilization, and anarchy resulted. To deal with the anarchy and seek protection from the almost incessant violence, both of invaders and of indigenous outlaws, people grouped themselves around the strong--first family members and then other than family members.
David Vagamundo is online now  
Old January 5th, 2018, 08:13 AM   #45
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,501

Quote:
Originally Posted by Naima View Post
Isn't Feudalims kind of a return to the Tribal organization system of precivilized europe?
Reproposing perhaps the Indoeuropean Patriarcal society around a King with the warrior caste ?
David Vagamundo:
That's a good observation and I think true of the Continent. Rome no longer supplied law and civilization, and anarchy resulted. To deal with the anarchy and seek protection from the almost incessant violence, both of invaders and of indigenous outlaws, people grouped themselves around the strong--first family members and then other than family members.


Feudalsim contains the word 'feud' which suggests a system whereby protection and justice are derived from membership in a family group in which loyalty trumps law.
Chlodio is online now  
Old January 5th, 2018, 08:28 AM   #46

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,652
Blog Entries: 19

It's clear that when the "Roman Civitas" fell down there was a need for order [it's natural]. Which kind of order?

I repeat that the Germanic imposition of a feudal system would have failed if not for the already existing suitable background: the habit of Roman men of power to have "clients".

The mechanism is the same: a pyramid.

In any case, we shouldn't undermine the figures of the bishops [appointed already in imperial age and with wide judicial powers, not limited to the religious environment]. Otherwise we couldn't understand why the Pope and the Emperor fought about who had the right to appoint them.

There were different competing "pyramids" in the feudal world.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 08:30 AM   #47

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 22,652
Blog Entries: 19

To say all, some Germanic populations simply adopted the Roman administration [Ostrogoths], others ignored the conception of administration limiting their action to the conquest of the cities [early Lombards].

So ... I honestly miss to note all this Germanic roots regarding feudalism ...

Just for accuracy: Franks [so not generally all the Germanic invaders] had a conception of pyramidal power and they adopted the Roman administration in a certain way ...
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 01:07 PM   #48
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Belgium
Posts: 1,256

Quote:
Originally Posted by authun View Post
Well the terms are used in english law but I don't know how common they are on the continent where the people tend to have rights rather than the english equivalent of permissions.

Freehold originally meant an estate of free tenure, where a tenure relates to the conditions under which land or buildings are held or occupied. That was the basis of the feudal system in England where a knight might hold land on condition that he supplied men at arms for example. More usual he laid down conditions such as the miller had to give him a percentage of any grains milled and he also required other tenants to have their grains milled at that particular mill. It probably not disimilar to the Gruutshuse in Bruges where the owners controlled the supply of gruit for beer making. If you wanted to brew beer you went to one man who controlled the process. It's how these families became very wealthy.


Freehold today is used to denote a legal estate in fee simple absolute in possession, the most complete set of rights. In Fee Simple the rights of the fee simple owner are limited by government powers of taxation, compulsory purchase, police power, and escheat, and it could also be limited further by certain encumbrances or conditions in the deed, such as, for example, a condition that required the land to be used as a public park, with a reversion interest in the grantor if the condition fails; this is a fee simple conditional. Breaches of those encumbrances and conditions are what the king would use legally take the land away from the family, often for 'being disloyal', ie not supporting the King. Famously, Henry VIII dissolved many monasteries because he was displeased with a faction of the Church being loyal to Rome, rather than to himself. Landed families who backed the king, gained from lands taken from the church for example.
Authun,

thank you very much for these explanations and the example of Henry VIII that I already heard of. I learned from it.
To return to the situation in Belgium from the article I mentioned
https://www.tijd.be/politiek-economi...d-euro/9870835
De Tijd/ Le Vif are a bit the Belgian financial times
From the article:
On the ten richest families (that means fortunes constituted of property and capital) 8 are nobility, but only one is "old land nobility" from the Ancien Régime (from before 1830, I suppose from the time of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands), the 7 others are "new nobility", made nobilty recently by the king. That means a fortune of 68.68 milliard (billion) euro. That means 94.3 % of the ten. The two others De Nul and Huts are not nobilty. In my opinion have these two then only 5.7 % of the 68.68 milliard euro. The family behind AB Inbev (new nobility) has at their own already 46.18 milliard euro.
And 11% of the 500 richest families have 56 % of the total fortune in Belgium in hands.
But these fortunes are not detailed, what is land and what is industry and what is capital...
I have only the impression! (but that is not a scientific way of approach) that most of the old and new nobility have still a lot of land...
I did just research for the baron I mentioned and he has still it seems 2000 hectares land... and it is new nobility nominated by the king.
Perhaps if you do the exercise for each individual noble family (as I have done for the Baron (it is all on internet) you can have an estimation of the actual land ownership of the nobility in Belgium nowadays...?

An anecdote:
the Earl of Wellington still possesses some 1000 hectares near Waterloo as a gift of the then king of the UK of the Netherlands: Willem I.
Some Socialist groups in Wallonia whine already years about that possession...and there was again turmoil about it just before the Waterloo celebration(two years ago? or last year?), where the three goverments would be present: Britain, the former Netherlands from 1815 now The Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg (Benelux) and Germany for the former Prussia...no France, what I found a sad thing. And among others the Earl of Wellington
And the question of the 1000 hectares were again postponed...
And by the way: the tenant farmers are happy with all that while they recieve a "bail?" the longest existing one and the Belgian state is also happy while the honourable Earl pays each year honestly his taxes without trouble...

Kind regards, Paul.
PaulRyckier is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 02:05 PM   #49
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 4,512

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
Yes exactly. Playing the game not convinced is a bit obvious. If you can't allow yourself the civilised idea of accepting anything someone else says in intelligent argument, well, literally, there really is no point.

So, still no answer to my question then. I'll take it you have none.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dreuxeng View Post
BUT of course they did NOT in any way inherit their lands from the Normans of the immediate post conquest period or any other period.
I did not claim that they did and stated that it had changed hands many times since 1066

"Although the freeholds granted by William the Conqueror have changed hands many times since 1066"

Why don't you read more carefully?
authun is offline  
Old January 5th, 2018, 10:48 PM   #50

Haesten's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,528

Spotted this from the earlier link.

"Strikingly, by 1450 the share of "Smiths" at Oxford University, the entry for those wishing to rise to the highest positions in the church and therefore a key indicator of social achievement, was equal to their proportion across the general population.
And by 1650 there were as many "Smiths" in the top 1% of wealth holders as in the general population, suggesting they had been completely assimilated into the elite."

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...in-aristocracy

There's over 1,000 Smith/Smyth/Smythe in the 100 Years War muster rolls, almost all archers, some of the archers became very rich and started there own dynasties.
Haesten is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
feudalism, germanic, influence



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the difference between Feudalism and Bastard Feudalism? grey fox Medieval and Byzantine History 6 November 7th, 2017 07:23 PM
How was European Feudalism different from Japanese Feudalism? grey fox General History 11 October 9th, 2017 04:45 PM
How did Anglo-Saxon Feudalism before 1066 differ from Frankish Feudalism in England? grey fox Medieval and Byzantine History 4 May 4th, 2017 01:06 AM
Feudalism and Bastard Feudalism ballygowan History Help 10 December 30th, 2014 11:19 AM
Augustus' influence on Germanic front Alcibiades European History 2 January 13th, 2012 06:53 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.