| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

YateleyCopyholders1287

Page history last edited by PBworks 17 years ago

The inhabitants of Yateley, 1287

 

The Rental of 1287 gives the names of the tenants of the Manor of Crondall, the acreage of their holdings, together with the feudal services the must perform, and their rents and other money payments.

 

In Yateley itself there was only one tenant holding as much as a hide of land, about 100 acres. She is named as Juliana de Aula (Juliana of the hall). In the whole of Crondall manor the other holders of a hide were Robert of Bramshot, and William of Hawley, both copyholders, and Nicholas of Dippenhall, and Robert of Clere, both freemen. Warren de Aula, of Aldershot, held half a hide . He was possibly related to Juliana, even her husband, but at a time when surnames were only just emerging his name may only indicate that he had his own sub-tenants. The Rental actually states that Juliana had tenants, making her the predecessor in title to Richard Allen of Hall Place in the 1567 Customary. Richard Allen had 23 sub-tenants.

 

In 1334 Bramshot and Hawley were included in the taxation with Yateley. So three out of the five largest landholdings mentioned in the Rental of 1287 were taxed in Yateley's assessment.

 

We must not forget the large number of persons working directly on the farms of the Priory of St Swinthun, and the freemen who owed feudal services directly to the Bishop of Winchester. We know who the latter were from returns of Knights Fees. The most prominent in 1284 was Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester, who held Itchell and Cove by Knights Fee. His descendants owned these properties until they were sold in Elizabeth's reign. Knights and clergy were taxed separately. Lay managers of the Priory's farms, or demesne land, may have been included in the Yateley tax assessment. My guess is that in 1334, the Priory's own farms were managed and worked by the monks, so were not included.

 

This analysis thus tends to eliminate all knights, clergy, and freeholders, leaving only the copyholders of Yateley to pay the national taxation. This will be confirmed if we can locate the original returns. We must then explain why these villeins paid so much tax.

 

Back to Mediaeval Fish Farming

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.