Inheritance Customs and Succession to Land in the Chiltern Hills in the Thirteenth and Early...

Inheritance Customs and Succession to Land in the Chiltern Hills in the Thirteenth and EarlyFourteenth CenturiesAuthor(s): David RodenSource: Journal of British Studies, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Nov., 1967), pp. 1-11Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The North American Conference on BritishStudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/175377 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 23:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press and The North American Conference on British Studies are collaborating withJSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of British Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 23:30:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nacbs

http://www.jstor.org/stable/175377?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Inheritance Customs and Succession to Land in the Chiltern Hills in the Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth

Centuries

Since G. C. Homans first published his accounts of inheritance customs in medieval England,l there has been some revival of interest in this aspect of English social history.2 It has been found that arrangements were less rigid, and hence more varied, than once thought, while it is now clear that regional patterns can often be recognized only as broad generalizations - different practices were sometimes followed in close proximity, even within a single township. Recent work has concentrated on forms of partible inheritance, emphasizing apparent differences between the effects of this and impartible inheritance, and stressing the practical advantages of partibility. In comparison, there are few detailed studies of customs of single son inheritance as followed in a peasant community. The present paper is an attempt to reduce this gap by examining succession to property in the Chiltem Hills, an area of primogeniture, during the thirteenth and early fourteeenth centuries, that is, the period for which adequate documentary evidence is available before the widespread depopulation and social disruptions of the mid-fourteenth century. Chiltem custom was similar to the third of the three main forms of impartible descent outlined by Homans in that it "preserved the principle that a tenement ought to descend to only one son of the last holder, while allowing the holder himself to choose which one of his sons was to be heir."3 Apart from the actual mechanism of inheritance

1. G. C. Homans, "Partible Inheritance of Villagers' Holdings," Econ. Hist. Rev., VIII (1937-38), 48-56; G. C. Homans, English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1941).

2. The work of H. E. Hallam is particularly significant: "Some Thirteenth- Century Censuses," Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, X (1957-58), 340-61; and "Population Density in the Medieval Fenland," ibid., second series, XIV (1961-62), 71-81. R. H. Hilton has outlined the form of partible inheritance that was followed in part of Leicestershire in The Victoria History of the County of Leicester, II, ed. W. G. Hoskins (London, 1954), 170. Kentish custom in so far as it influenced field systems has recently been discussed by A. R. H. Baker, "Open Fields and Partible Inheritance on a Kent Manor," Econ. Hist. Rev., second series, XVII (1964-65), 1-23.

3. Homans, English Villagers, p. 129.



THE JOURNAL OF BRITISH STUDIES

and succession,4 considerable interest attaches to the practical im- plementation of Chiltem custom - how, in fact, descent of property was related to the general economic situation - and especially to an examination, in the Chiltem context, of the contention that partible inheritance tended to favour an increase in population whereas impartibility meant stability of population.

The Chiltem region is a chalk escarpment rising above the clay lowlands of the vales of Oxford and Aylesbury to the northwest and sloping gently southeastwards to the gravels of the Thames terraces and the vale of St. Albans. During the thirteenth century this was an area of arable farming, supplying the London market in particu- lar, but large areas remained under woodland and heath, especially on the higher and more broken country in the southwest and centre of the hills.

Thirteenth-century society was organized from the manor, with free and villein tenants owing rents and services to a lord, based on the standard customary holdings of the virgate, half virgate, ferlingate, and cotland. There was considerable personal freedom. A substantial body of tenants in most manors were freeholders - often one third to one half - and villein works were relatively light, were optional to the payment of a money rent, and were in varying stages of commutation. Demesne farms were worked by permanent labour, supplemented by tenant works, and especially by seasonally hired labour. Although free alienation was not a villein right, bond tenants were in fact usually able to dispose of their land as they wished, unobstructed by custom or lord, provided that this disposition was made through the manorial courts. The peasant land market expanded during the thirteenth century with free and villein tenants alike buying and leasing small pieces of land and sometimes even complete holdings. One result was a greater flexibility in the

pattern of land holding. Some customary units were broken up by sale from them, while others were supplemented by the acquisition of closes and common field strips. Some men were able to build up substantial holdings almost entirely through their activity on the land market, others were consolidating their holdings, and some were acquiring property in a number of townships.

Whereas the thirteenth century had been a time of moderate

prosperity and stable population, the first few decades of the four-

4. "Inheritance" is used in this paper to describe the descent of land customary in cases of intestacy, whereas "succession" refers to descent of property under any circumstances (either by inheritance or by an arrangement made before death).

2



INHERITANCE CUSTOMS AND SUCCESSION TO LAND

teenth century saw the beginnings of a period of economic depres- sion, declining population, and more rapid social change that was to continue into the fifteenth century. By the 1320s engrossment of holdings was well under way, demesne land was being leased out on an increasing scale, and land values were falling, to remain depressed until the sixteenth century. These trends were accentu- ated by the epidemic of 1348-50 which reduced the population in some townships by one half or two thirds. Land holding became concentrated in even fewer hands, and where tenant services still existed, the years after 1350 saw the commutation of all but nominal works and the final dissolution of the old social order.5

Manorial court records and charters show that customs based on primogeniture were applied throughout the medieval Chilterns. A single son - and where detailed evidence exists, it is clear that it was the eldest son6 - inherited land held by the parent at death. Until the eldest son became a father, right to the property would pass down through his brothers, elaborate remainders sometimes being included in grants to ensure this.7 Daughters inherited only in the absence of male heirs. Custom allowed divided claims to land under two sets of circumstances. First, the widow often had a dower right of one third in her dead husband's estate, although in many cases this seems to have applied to, free land alone.8 Secondly, inheriting sisters usually received an equal share in property. At Chesham, for example, four daughters inherited the messuage and fifteen acres of Richard le Wat in 1327,9 while a statement made at the manorial court of Bramfield in 1334 is particularly striking in this respect: "all inheritance in Bramfield, whether Mollond or Werkelond, ought to be partible between daughters when there is

5. For a more detailed account see David Roden, "Studies in Chiltern Field Systems" (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1965), pp. 271-76.

6. For example, inheritance in the family of Robert atte Lee, a villein of King's Walden. BM, Additional Charter, 35774, Additional Roll, 35933. Ralph de Thikeney, a Codicote villein and eldest of the three sons of Bartholomew de Thikeney, inherited from his father about 1291. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 10, lOv, 20v, 21, 24, 30v; Roden, "Studies in Chiltern Field Systems," p. 166. At Missenden, the heir of John de la Westhall was his eldest son, Henry. See J. G. Jenkins (ed.), The Cartulary of Missenden Abbey, Pt. 1 [Buckinghamshire Archae- ological Society, Records Branch, Publications, II] (Aylesbury, 1939), p. 93, No. 97.

7. For example, at King's Walden. BM, Add. Ch., 35718. 8. For example, there are numerous cases concerning a dower third in feet

of fines for the Buckinghamshire Chilterns. M. W. Hughes (ed.), A Calendar of the Feet of Fines for the County of Buckingham, 7 Richard I to 44 Henry III [Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society, Records Branch, Publications, IV] (Aylesbury, 1940).

9. Buckinghamshire County Museum, C.A., St. Mathew 6E. III.

3




no male heir."10 Holdings entered in this way were sometimes held jointly, sometimes divided between the daughters, and occasionally one daughter or her husband bought out her sisters' claims."1 These two exceptions apart, impartibility was the general rule.

The system of inheritance described above was simple, but succession to property could be complex. Inheritance laws operated only in cases of intestacy, whereas the tenant was free to dispose of his land before death between any members of his family or to someone unrelated to him in any proportion that he wished. One Codicote villein preferred to surrender his entire holding (a messuage and fifteen acres) to his daughter rather than allow his only son to inherit.12 Such transfers had sometimes been standardized as wills - a disputed will is mentioned in the Abbots Langley court book as early as 1256,13 the legality of villein wills had been ac-

cepted at Swyncombe by 1279,14 while deathbed surrenders were

being made at High Wycombe before 130015 - but neither the use of wills nor the practice of deathbed surrender was widely adopted until the late fourteenth century. Before this most Chiltem peasants were content to rely on the established forms of transfer by charter or surrender through the manor when determining descent of

property. They were helped by the appearance of two refinements

during the thirteenth century, namely, joint tenure and conditional surrender.

Joint holdings were usually between husband and wife or between parents and child, but also sometimes between brothers and sisters. Tenants surrendered land to the joint holding of themselves and the partner, or related partners entered newly acquired land together.16 In both cases, when one died, the property auto-

matically passed to the other. By conditional surrender, on the other hand, a tenant transferred land to the person or persons whom

10. Hertfordshire Record Office, 40702, Ascension 7E. III. Mollond and W/erkelond in Bramfield probably corresponded to the free and villein tenures of other Chiltern manors. For an explanation of these two terms, see Paul Vino- gradoff, Villainage in England (Oxford, 1892), pp. 183-87.

11. Roden, "Studies in Chiltern Field Systems," pp. 288-89. 12. This was Thomas le Driver. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fol. 49. 13. Library of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, James MSS, 1. 14. Records Commission, Rotuli Hundredorum (London, 1818), II, 758a. 15. L. J. Ashford, The History of the Borough of High JWycombe from Its

Origins to 1880 (London, 1960), p. 46. A particularly early formn of will was the charter made for a Missenden widow naming her son as her heir at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Jenkins, Cartulary of Missenden Abbey, Pt. 1, p. 167, No. 178.

16. This was clearly quite distinct from the form of joint tenure that arose when property descended to co-heirs and that was common in areas of partible inheritance.

4




he had chosen to succeed him on condition that he be allowed to retain use of the property until death.17 Through either of these devices an ageing tenant could delegate responsibility for main- tenance of the holding without relinquishing his right to the land until he died. An alternative form that was sometimes adopted was surrender on condition that the former tenant be clothed, fed, and housed for the rest of his life, perhaps retaining a part of the house or an outbuilding for his own use.18 But, as Homans has noted, legal possession of land itself offered a greater security.19 Probably even more significant was the fact that both joint tenure and conditional surrender made it possible for a tenant to choose his successors while at the same time ensuring his possession of all or

part of his property until death. Only if the holder died without

making such a choice would inheritance laws be effective. There was therefore no legal obstacle to the division of a hold-

ing by a parent amongst his children, arranged to be effective either at death or before. Partible succession was possible even though impartible inheritance was practised, and occasionally the result was a division of property that could easily be falsely attributed to some form of partible inheritance. When Matilda Synoth died in 1338, her messuage and curtilage in Codicote were partitioned equally between her son and daughter. In fact, Matilda had surrendered half the cottage to the daughter nine years earlier on condition that she herself be allowed continued possession of this half for the rest of her life. At death, half of the property thus

passed to the daughter, while the son inherited the other half in the normal way.20 In other Codicote examples, cottages and occa-

sionally small crofts given by parents to the joint holding of two children were divided between them.21 But the property frag-

17. There are numerous examples of joint tenures and conditional surrenders such as these in the court books for Abbots Langley, Library of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge, James MSS, 1; Bramfield, Hertfordshire Record Office, 40702, 40703; and Codicote, BM, Stowe MSS, 849; and in court rolls for Chesham, Buck- inghamshire County Museum, C.A.; Ibstone, Library of Merton College, Oxford, 5210-26; Kings Langley, PRO, SC 2/177/47, 52-55; and Wheathampstead, West- minster Abbey Library, 8937A-42. For some detailed examples see Roden, "Studies in Chiltern Field Systems," pp. 167, 239, 285.

18. For example, the surrender by Adam Person of Bramfield in 1340, Hert- fordshire Record Office, 40703, St. Dionisius 13E. III; by Cristine le Drake and Hugh Cok of Codicote in 1275 and 1309, BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 13, 32; and by Margaret Lyne of Wheathampstead in 1383, Westminster Abbey Library, 8941, St. Barnabus 7R. II.

19. Homans, English Villagers, p. 130. 20. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 52, 63. 21. For example, the cottage given by Robert de London to a son and a

daughter, ibid., fols. 32v, 37v, 78; and the two-acre plot of land surrendered by Peter Doget to two daughters, who received an acre each, ibid., fols. 16v, 17.

5




mented in these ways was small in amount, usually only dwellings were involved, and partition was in any case rarely permanent - generally one tenant acquired the other's share either by purchase or by inheritance,22 sometimes as a result of complicated trans- actions.23

Arrangements for the disposal of an entire family holding between a number of relatives were seldom made in the Chilterns. Fragmentation of the average half virgate (25-30 acres) or ferlingate (10-15 acres) was impracticable, and when descent of the basic family farm was determined before death, it was usually to a single successor. The general pattern was that one son received the main parental holding - probably a customary tenurial unit that had been passed on more or less intact from generation to generation - either by inheritance or by a disposition by the parent in his favour. The other children might each receive a small amount of land, often a cottage or a few acres acquired, it would seem, specifically for that purpose, and not subtracted from the main holding. Laurence, a free tenant of Little Hampden who had at least two sons and two daughters, bought three acres and divided it between the noninheriting son and one of the daughters, while the other daughter was later given half an acre by the brother who had inherited Laurence's holding.24 Similarly, when Roger le Carpenter, a Codicote villein, eventually surrendered the family half virgate to his son in 1312, his two daughters had already been provided for with gifts of land, one receiving a messuage and half an acre in 1295, and the other a cottage in the market place together with five acres a few years later.25 By the early fourteenth century some parents were even able to obtain complete customary holdings for all their children. John Coleman of Ibstone was one of these. In 1297 he entered, jointly with his son Henry, the half virgate that was to form the basis of his holding. By 1313 he also had the

22. As in the two examples above. 23. For example, Geoffrey and Isabella atte Hurne each received separate

halves of the same croft from their parents. When Isabella died twenty-six years later, the croft was reunited because her son John, who inherited her half, was a minor in the custody of Geoffrey, his uncle. This integrity was maintained aftet John came of age through an arrangement by which John leased his part of the field to his uncle for the latter's life, while Geoffrey surrendered his share to his nephew on condition that he himself be allowed this half until he died. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 17, 28v, 32, 41v, 42.

24. Buckinghamshire County Museum, 547/39, 549/39, 558/39. 25. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 23, 24v, 34. The son was William and the

two daughters were Elen and Margaret. The cottage and five acres that Margaret took had earlier been surrendered by Roger to a joint tenure with his wife. Mar- garet later held the same property jointly with her husband, eventually transferring it to the joint tenure of their own two daughters. Ibid., fols. 20v, 69v.

6




entire holdings of two former tenants on lease from the manor, and two years later these were given to his two other children, Alice and John. When John, the father, eventually died, the half virgate automatically passed to Henry who, in turn, surrendered the property to the joint holding of himself and his son.26 The peasants' freedom to acquire land made it possible to provide noninheritors with a holding while avoiding widespread fragmentation of the existing farm. In this respect Chiltern practice was very similar to that in an area such as Kent, where partible inheritance was followed but where the right of free alienation inherent in gavel- kind tenure was used to counterbalance a constant tendency to- wards subdivision.27

The fluid land market in the Chilterns was also important because it was the medium through which sons who received only small parental gifts could build up economic holdings for themselves. Some were even eventually able to acquire a larger farm than the brother who had succeeded to the bulk of the family lands. William Haleward of Codicote was typical of a younger son who made good in this way. He had received only one acre from his father when the latter died in 1311, and yet by leasing property from the manor, by obtaining small pieces of land from other tenants, and by a profitable marriage, he was able to amass a far

larger holding than the ferlingate inherited by his brother.28

Many, however, were never able to accumulate enough land to

support a family, and they, together with unmarried daughters, either joined the ranks of the smallholders and landless men who were found in all townships working locally as hired labour and craftsmen or, failing this, abandoned their cottages to seek opportunities elsewhere. The number of small tenants on a manor was

directly related to local capacity for their employment. Before 1300 few villeins left Codicote because most of those unable to subsist from their land alone were able to support themselves within the township as wage labour on the two manorial demesnes and the larger tenant farms29 or as small traders and craftsmen in the

26. Library of Merton College, Oxford, 5211, 5216, 5217. 27. Baker, "Open Fields and Partible Inheritance," Econ. Hist. Rev., second

series, XVII, 19-20. Hilton has described similar conditions in part of Leicester- shire, in Victoria History of the County of Leicester, II, 170.

28. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 31v, 32v, 37v, 38, 40v, 41, 41v, 44v, 45v, 46, 46v, 48, 51, 54, 55v, 57v, 58, 58v, 61v, 74v, 75. For a detailed account of succession in some individual family groups, see the accompanying Appendix.

29. The two manorial demesnes together contained 634 acres of arable land, and the fact that labour services were relatively light by the early fourteenth century suggests that the demesnes were worked largely by hired labour. BM, Add. MSS, 40734, fols. 1-lv, 15v-16v; BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fol. 124. In 1332 seven villein

7




village market.30 As late as 1332 sixty-one of ninety-eight villeins held five acres or less, about half of these being holdings in the "borough."31 In the small manor of Ibstone, on the other hand, where the chance of employment was much more restricted - it was mainly seasonal work on the manor farm and in the woods - the number of emigrants was higher and the proportion of small tenants correspondingly lower. At the end of the thirteenth century, seven villeins were living outside the township, two with manorial permission, while only twelve of the twenty-six tenants had less than six acres, and at least two of these twelve probably also held land in neighboring parishes.32

Homans has suggested that partible inheritance favoured an increase in population whereas "descent of land to one son should lead to relative stability of population,"33 and H. E. Hallam has shown that net population increases in thirteenth-century Fenland townships were much greater where partible socage was widely followed because partibility meant greater opportunity for the young.34 But the influence of inheritance customs on population growth may have been important only under certain circumstances: where, in the case of partibility, conditions for agriculture were especially favourable and could support a high rural density, as in the Lincolnshire Fens - there even small amounts of land had extensive rights in the marsh; or where, in the case of impartibility, large-scale migration was possible - in Lincolnshire many emigrated to the large trade centres.35 In many parts of medieval England such special conditions did not obtain, and as much of the population as possible would have to be absorbed locally regardless of the form of inheritance followed. As in the Chilterns, the local capacity to support tenants, on the land and otherwise, would often be a more significant factor than their succession to property.

Descent of land was, then, basically the same throughout the Chilterns in the thirteenth century. There were none of the complex local variations found in, for example, the Lincolnshire Fens. Chiltern custom was rooted in primogeniture, but by the thirteenth

tenants each held more than fifty acres of land, and a few years later one tenant holding was as large as 206 acres. BM, Add. MSS, 40734, fols. lv-16; BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 88v-90v.

30. A market charter was acquired in 1286. Cal. Close Rolls, II, 112. 31. BM, Add. MSS, 40734, fols. lv-16. 32. Library of Merton College, Oxford, 5202, 5210, 5211. 33. G. C. Homans, "The Rural Sociology of Medieval England," Past and

Present, No. 4 (1953), 37. 34. Hallam, "Some Thirteenth-Century Censuses," Econ. Hist. Rev., second

series, X, 340-61. 35. Ibid.

8




century this had been so modified by the peasants' freedom of alienation that tenants were virtually able to dispose of their land as they liked, and fairly complex forms of transfer had been devised to facilitate this process. Nonetheless, most still preferred to hand on the basic family holding to a single son, providing other children, where possible, with a small property acquired on the land market. Some of these smallholders were able to become substantial tenants, but many depended on wage employment to supplement their meagre holdings. If local opportunities for employment were small, many emigrated.

DAVID RODEN

APPENDIX

Succession to land in some villein families in Codicote in the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.

The Codicote court book provides an almost complete account of villein land transfers, deaths, and property disputes during the 171 years between 1244 and 1415, from which it is possible to re- construct detailed histories for many peasant families.36 Study of a few family groups in this township illustrates how the combina- tion of two factors - the ease with which tenants could transfer land and flexibility in the descent of property - reacted in practice to produce the pattern of succession that was characteristic of the Chiltems as a whole. The families chosen range from that of a half virgater to that of a small craftsman.

A half virgater: When Richard atte Pirye died, he left a widow, two sons, and a daughter. His half virgate passed to Juliana, the widow - they probably had a joint holding - who remarried in 1284, her new husband taking the family name. He in turn probably died about 1310, for in the following year Juliana surrendered the half virgate to her son Thomas on condition that she could live on the holding until she died. Soon afterwards she remarried. The other son had already received a croft on which to build a cottage from his mother. She now gave him another croft with two cottages. The daughter had been provided for with a messuage and five acres in 1281.

The family of Thomas is in turn interesting. When he died in 1344, the half virgate that he had received passed to one of his four sons. Of the other three, Simon, who appears to have had no

36. BM, Stowe MSS, 849.

9




other land at this time, was given a cottage by his father immedi- ately before the latter died, while the other two sons, Richard and Robert, had both amassed substantial holdings for themselves well before Thomas's death and quite independently of the family. The basis of Robert's holding had been a messuage and five acres leased from Richard for twelve years.37

A ferlingater: The basis of the holding of Henry de Cokreth was the ferlingate that he inherited from his father in 1253. During his lifetime he added to this holding and also occasionally leased out land or surrendered a few pieces. Henry, the eldest son, inherited when his father died in 1303, but he had already been buying and selling land for a number of years following the acquisition of a messuage and five acres in 1284. Another son was given a cottage by his father and later appeared as a chaplain, while one daughter received a parental gift of a messuage and three acres. A daughter who married in 1278 got nothing.38

A cottager and a craftsman: The family of Edward le Couherd was typical of that of many small tenants holding no more than a few acres. Only two children appear in the manorial court records. Thomas inherited from his father when he died in 1316, while a daughter had already received a cottage and a close from her father three years earlier. When she died without issue in 1332, her brother inherited this property.39

Similarly, succession to the land of Osbert the miller was typical of that amongst the families of the small craftsmen of the manor. His holding was small and near to the mill that he worked in the southwest of the parish, but all four children were given some property by their father. The two daughters received three acres and a messuage respectively in 1279 - Alice, who obtained the cottage, had already married and acquired a messuage and one acre independently of her family - and John, the younger son, was given a messuage and two acres. In all three cases, surrender by the father was made on condition that he retained use of the property until death. When Osbert eventually died in 1293, the other son, Martin, who had received no land from his father, claimed the five acres still held at death.40

37. Ibid., fols. 15v, 16v, 17v, 18, 19v, 27v, 30, 32, 33, 33v, 35, 37, 38v, 39v, 42, 42v, 43, 44, 52v, 55v, 56, 59, 59v, 61v, 62v, 67, 69, 70v, 71, 71v, 75, 76v; BM, Add. MSS, 40734.

38. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 5, 7, 8v, lv, 13v, 14v, 16, 17, 17v, 18, 19v, 20, 20v, 21, 21v, 22v, 23v, 25, 25v, 26v, 27, 33, 39v, 48, 52, 56.

39. Ibid., fols. 32, 40, 44v, 50v. 40. Ibid., fols. 5v, 6, 6v, 7v, 8v, 13, 14, 15, 21v, 22v, 23, 28, 29v, 34v, 36, 48v.

10




Two holdings built up on the land market: The pattern of succession was basically the same for holdings comprising a large number of small units recently acquired on the land market as for the customary tenurial units. Between 1294, when his name first appears in the court records, and his death in 1333, Roger le Helder built up a substantial holding entirely by his own efforts. He does not appear to have received any parental land. Property was obtained on lease and permanent release from a variety of tenants. He died leaving at least two sons, one of whom inherited all this property. The other son had no holding until his brother gave him a cottage.41 On the other hand, when a holding had been amassed entirely by leasing from fellow villeins and from the lord, there was no permanent farm to be inherited. The son of Reginald Kynne, for example, became a chaplain - his father was exclusively a lease- holder - while the daughter was provided with a messuage that her mother had received from, her own father.42

41. Ibid., fols. 22v, 23, 23v, 24v, 27v, 31, 32v, 33, 36, 37v, 38, 38v, 40v, 42v, 43v, 44, 44v, 45, 46, 47, 48v, 49, 51, 51v, 52, 52v, 54, 58v; BM, Add. MSS, 40734,

42. BM, Stowe MSS, 849, fols. 18v, 21v, 25v, 26v, 28, 28v, 31, 31v, 32v, 33v, 34, 35v, 38, 42v. This and the other family accounts above are summarized in table form in Roden, "Studies in Chiltern Field Systems," pp. 401-03, 405, 412-19.

11



Inheritance Customs and Succession to Land in the Chiltern Hills in the Thirteenth and Early...

Documents

Transcript of Inheritance Customs and Succession to Land in the Chiltern Hills in the Thirteenth and Early...