Royal Officials in English Monastic Towns: Sharing of Powers
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
Royal Officials in English Monastic Towns: Sharing of Powers
Annotation
PII
S207987840013415-5-1
DOI
10.18254/S207987840013415-5
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Anna Anisimova 
Affiliation:
Institute of World History RAS
State Academic University for the Humanities
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Abstract

The article deals with the role of representatives of royal authority in the governance of a seigneurial town on the example of an English monastic town, i.e. a town under the monastic lordship. Extensive monastic privileges pertaining to a justice system and keeping of peace implied practically complete exclusion of these towns from the jurisdiction of, for example, a sheriff (local administration) or itinerary judges (eyres, representatives of central authorities), although, in reality, it was not the case. The extent of monastic immunity varied, and frequently, despite the proclaimed privileges, royal officials acted in town without, at least nominally, infringing the monastic privileges. There were several different forms of cooperation between royal and monastic officials. Besides, there were also situations when the interference into affairs of the monastery and town was caused by the seigneur’s inability to uphold the order in town (for example, an uprising of townspeople) that could have led to the taking of the monastery and its possessions into the King’s hand.

Keywords
medieval England, monastic town, medieval town, royal power, local power, monastic liberty
Received
27.04.2020
Publication date
31.01.2021
Number of characters
30701
Number of purchasers
1
Views
74
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
1000 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues for 2021
5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References

1. Anisimova A. Urban Legal Culture as Reflected by a Monastic Chronicle (13th-century England) // ISTORIYA. 2019. Vol. 10. Issue 10 (84). URL: https://history.jes.su/s207987840007688-5-1/ DOI: 10.18254/S207987840007688-5

2. Gutnova E. V. K voprosu ob immunitete v Anglii XIII v. // Srednie veka. M., 1951. Vyp. 3. S. 103—125.

3. Baggs A. P. et al. Eynsham: Local government // A History of the County of Oxford / ed. A. Crossley and C. R. Elrington. L., 1990. Vol. 12. P. 142—146.

4. Borough of Rye // The Victoria History of the County of Sussex / ed. by L. F. Salzman. L., 1937. Vol. 9.

5. Cam H. M. Manerium cum Hundredo: the Hundred and the Hundredal Manor // Eadem. Liberties and Communities in Medieval England. Collected Studies in Local Administration and Topography. Cambridge, 1944. P. 64—90.

6. Cam H. M. The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls. L., 1963.

7. Croft J. An Assault on the Royal Justices at Ash and the making of the Sandwich Custumal // Archaeologia Cantiana. 1997. Vol. 117. P. 13—36.

8. Jewell H. English Local Administration in the Middle Ages. Newton Abbot & N. Y., 1972.

9. Searle E. Lordship and Community. Battle Abbey and its Banlieu. 1066—1538. Toronto, 1974.

10. The borough of Reading: The borough // A History of the County of Berkshire / ed. P. H. Ditchfield and W. Page. L., 1923. Vol. 3. P. 342—364.