| | |
|
HundredMoot 7 - 04 Sep 2014 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="QuestionsBeingAnswered" |
|---|
While reading Baker's Introduction to English Legal History I ran across the term "The Moot" (p.4- Yeah, i takes me a while to read and understand these new history vocabulary). | | | What does this last sentence mean?
| |
<
< | Following the Norman takeover, power, which had been devolved to the earls under a feudal system was once again returned to the King, whose deputies had no more power than he was prepared to give them.English sheriffs were replaced by Normans, mostly drawn from the secondary level amongst William's follower, although the duties held by the sheriff remained largely unchanged save for their holding of authority over the royal castles in their shires. William sought to control the sheriffs loyal to him by granting them office for limited periods of time. Ultimately, however, the office tended to become hereditary. | >
> | Following the Norman takeover, power, which had been devolved to the earls under a feudal system
What does this mean?
Is Norman government, the most completely theoretically feudal in
the history of Western Europe, not "feudalism" for some reason?
was once again returned to the King, whose deputies had no more power than he was prepared to give them. English sheriffs were replaced by Normans, mostly drawn from the secondary level amongst William's follower
, although the duties held by the sheriff remained largely unchanged save for their holding of authority over the royal castles in their shires.
Source?
William sought to control the sheriffs loyal to him by granting them office for limited periods of time. Ultimately, however, the office tended to become hereditary.
Within the lifetime of William? Source?
Last edit seems to have destroyed continuity. How is what follows now an example?
| | | | | | What does this imply about the nature of Norman occupation?
| |
<
< | In the early years of the Norman reign of William and his sons William Rufus and Henry I, the administration was mainly concerned with the raising of royal revenues for avaricious and military pursuits. Particularly, William Rufus (1087 - 1100) was in need of finances to secure his throne in the face of rebellion from the supporters of his older brother, Duke Robert of Normandy, who had been passed over by William for the throne. The fact that Robert was passed over reflects disregard for the principles of royal succession, and could imply that the Normans were in view of England as a private estate rather than a royal monarchy. The struggle against Robert continued under Henry I until Robert's defeat and capture and the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. During this period and increasingly so under Henry I, the administration of justice and finance was closely tied together. From 1009 to 1111, under the Ordinane of the Hundred, disputes concerning land held from different feudal lords were automatically referred to the shire courts, but in reality it was increasingly usual for those who could afford it to seek justice from the King in other types of cases. | >
> | In the early years of the Norman reign of William and his sons William Rufus and Henry I, the administration was mainly concerned with the raising of royal revenues for avaricious and military pursuits.
Editorialization. Wikipedia's neutral point of view principle should be followed.
Particularly, William Rufus (1087 - 1100) was in need of finances to secure his throne in the face of rebellion from the supporters of his older brother, Duke Robert of Normandy, who had been passed over by William for the throne. The fact that Robert was passed over reflects disregard for the principles of royal succession,
What principles of
royal succession are you talking about and where did you source
them in Norman precedent, history, or theory? Why was the
division of the inheritance, however likely to produce struggle,
uncharacteristic of either Norman government or William the
Conqueror?
and could imply that the Normans were in view of England as a private estate rather than a royal monarchy.
What source licensed this implication?
The struggle against Robert continued under Henry I until Robert's defeat and capture and the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106. During this period and increasingly so under Henry I, the administration of justice and finance was closely tied together. From 1009 to 1111, under the Ordinane of the Hundred, disputes concerning land held from different feudal lords were automatically referred to the shire courts, but in reality it was increasingly usual for those who could afford it to seek justice from the King in other types of cases.
Preceding paragraph is full of errors, was apparently not edited, Source?
Continuity was again destroyed by this edit.
| | |
The idea of making the entire hundred liable for undetected crimes was expanded upon for the next 500 years, including the Statute of Winchester (1285) which imposed such liability for undetected robberies. | | | | |
<
< | -- JimParks - 04 Sep 2014
-- GregoryKang - Minor additions on 04 Sep 2014 | | | | |
>
> | -- GregoryKang - 4 Sep 2014 | | |
| META TOPICMOVED | by="EbenMoglen" date="1409786962" from="EngLegalHist.TheMoot" to="EngLegalHist.HundredMoot" |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |