The Constitutional Position of the Great Lordships of South Wales

A. J. Otway-Ruthven

doi:10.2307/3678906

The Constitutional Position of the Great Lordships of South Wales

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009

A. J. Otway-Ruthven

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

THE great lordships of the Welsh marches constituted a phenomenon not found elsewhere in the area subject to the kings of mediaeval England, and a comparison with the English palatinates and the great liberties of Norman Ireland reveals some very remarkable features. Many of the powers which the marchers exercised were no doubt taken over from the Welsh princes whom they displaced, but this does not in itself explain why they were able to retain such powers. In Ireland at the end of the twelfth century another Norman conquest produced another series of great liberties in which Norman lords displaced Celtic kings who had exercised the powers of independent rulers, but the lords of the liberties of Leinster, Meath or Ulster were subject to the control of the royal government at Dublin in the same way as the greater English liberties were subject to royal control, and never attained a degree of independence comparable with the position held by the marchers. The difference seems most easily explained as being due to the simple fact that the marcher position was in essentials established in the reign of Henry I, while the Norman conquest of Ireland occurred two generations later, at the time when Henry II was extending the control of the crown in so many directions.

Type: Research Article
Information: Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 8 , January 1958 , pp. 1 - 20

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3678906 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 1 note 1} See Edwards, J. G., ‘The Normans and the Welsh March’, Proceedings of the British Academy, xlii. 155–77Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} 27 Henry VIII, c. 26.

^{page 2 note 2} The history of Wales up to 1282 is best studied in Lloyd, J. E., A History of Wales from the earliest times to the Edwardian conquest (2 vols., 3rd edn., London, 1939)Google Scholar The map of South Wales and the Border in the fourteenth century published by W. Rees (4 sheets, Southampton, 1932) is indispensable.

^{page 3 note 1} Edwards, J. G., ‘The early history of the counties of Carmarthen and Cardigan’, Eng. Hist. Rev., xxxi. 90–8CrossRef Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} The sheriff's account at the exchequer survives in the pipe roll of 1130: Hunter, J., Magnum Rotulum Scaccarium (Record Commissioners 1833), pp. 136–7Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Cart[ae et alia munimenta quae ad Dominium de] Glam[organcia pertinent], ed. Clark, G. T. (6 vols., Cardiff, 1910), ii. 287–8Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} Seyler, C. A., ‘The early charters of Swansea and Gower’, Arch[aeologia] Camb[rensis], 1924, 61–4Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} Cal. Inq. Post Mortem, xii. 311; Cart. Glam., iv. 1326, 1327.

^{page 5 note 2} Ibid., iii. 1056; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1476–85, p. 474.

^{page 5 note 3} Barraclough, G., The Earldom and County Palatine of Chester (Oxford, 1953), p. 31Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 4} I.e. by 27 Henry VIII, c. 26.

^{page 5 note 5} Owen, G., ‘Description of Pembrokeshire’, ed. Owen, H., Cymm[rodorion] Rec[ord] Ser[ies], no. 1, vol. i. 210–11, 170Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 6} ibid., 170–1, 210–11, 451–4, 457–61, 476–8, 485–6.

^{page 5 note 7} Merrick, Rice, Morganiae Archaiographia, ed. Corbett, J. A. (London, 1887), p. 33Google Scholar; Cart. Glam., iii. 543, 565, 990–9.

^{page 6 note 1} Arch. Camb.1870, p. vi; 1883, pp. 145, 148.

^{page 6 note 2} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1300–26, pp. 96–100, 103–6.

^{page 6 note 3} Cart. Glam., i. 38.

^{page 6 note 4} Corbett, J. S., Glamorgan, ed. Paterson, D. R. (Cardiff, 1926), pp. 108–16Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 5} Cart. Glam., iii. 997.

^{page 6 note 6} Ibid., iv. 1554; v. 1642, 1654–5.

^{page 7 note 1} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 1, i. 472–3, 486; no. 7, iii. 36, 38, 48–9, 50, 215, 232; Baronia de Kemeys, Supp. Arch. Camb. (1862), pp. 84–6.

^{page 7 note 2} Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1461–7, pp. 425–6.

^{page 7 note 3} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 7, i. 52; iii. 112; P.R.O. Ministers' Accounts, 1156/22.

^{page 7 note 4} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. I, i. 155, 486–90; Morganiae Archaiographia, pp. 33, 45–7.

^{page 7 note 5} Rot[uli] Parl[iamentorum], i. 30.

^{page 8 note 1} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 9, iii. 176.

^{page 8 note 2} Cart. Glam., iii. 1158.

^{page 8 note 3} Rot. Pad., i. 149; Jones, W. H., History of Swansea and Gower (Carmarthen, 1920), p. 300Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 4} Cart. Glam., iii. 994.

^{page 8 note 5} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 7, iii. 126, 140.

^{page 8 note 6} Ibid., 22, 66, 148, 176, 215.

^{page 8 note 7} Cart. Glam., iii. 1017–19.

^{page 8 note 8} Ibid., iv. 1240.

^{page 8 note 9} Stenton, F. M., The First Century of English Feudalism (Oxford, 1932), pp. 68–9Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} P.R.O., Ministers' Accounts, 1157/4.

^{page 9 note 2} Eva de Braose had left three daughters, and the queen acquired only two-thirds of the lordship, but the third left in the hands of Roger Mortimer does not seem to have affected the position.

^{page 9 note 3} Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 7, i. 45–9. Certain other outlying parts of the county were also affected by the partition.

^{page 9 note 4} For examples of the disputes which arose as a result, see Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., Rotuli Parliamentorum Hactenus Inediti (Camden Third Series, vol. li), pp. 37–8. 39Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 1} Rot. Parl., i. 30–2, 34.

^{page 10 note 2} Rot. Parl., i. 68–9; Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 1, i. 455–7; Baronia de Kemeys, pp. 61–2.

^{page 10 note 3} Rotuli Chartorum, 1, pt. i. 176; Brit. Mus. Add. MS 4790, f. 104d; Cat. Pat. Rolls, 1334–8, p. 429; Rot. Pad. Hactenus Inediti, p. 40.

^{page 10 note 4} Cf. the charter of de Geneville, Geoffrey to his magnates of Meath, c. 1266, Register of Tristernagh, ed. Clarke, M. V. (Irish MSS Commission, 1941), pp. 52–4Google Scholar; Calendar of the Gormanston Register, ed. Mills, J. and McEnery, M. J. (Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, 1916), pp. 5–6, 176–7Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 5} Year Book, 36 Henry, VI, pl. 33Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 1} Y.B., 21 Henry VII, Mich., ff. 33b–34.

^{page 11 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 11 note 3} See below, pp. 17–18.

^{page 11 note 4} Y.B., 36 Henry VI, pl. 33.

^{page 11 note 5} Calendar of Ancient Correspondence concerning Wales, ed. Edwards, J. G. (Cardiff, 1935), pp. 181–2Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} Statute of Westminster I, c. 17.

^{page 12 note 2} See the instances noted in Rees, W., South Wales and the March (Oxford, 1924), pp. 49–51Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 3} See above, p. 8.

^{page 12 note 4} For instance, Wigmore (Rot. Parl., iii. 671; Cal. Close Rolls, 1409–13, p. 207). But the bishop of StDavid's, held pleas by his own writs (Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1327–41, pp. 188–9)Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} Rymer, , Foedera, I, ii. 540Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 2} Registrum Johannis Peckham, ed. Martin, C. T. (Rolls Series, 3 vols., 1882–1886), i. 135–7Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 3} See Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘The native Irish and English law in Mediaeval Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, vii, 13–14Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 4} See e.g. Baronia de Kemeys, pp. 72–4.

^{page 13 note 5} Ibid., p. 71, and see Cymm. Rec. Ser., no. 1, iii. 177.

^{page 13 note 6} Cart. Glam., iii. 831; iv. 1301–2; vi. 2277–8; Corbett, , Glamorgan, p. 229Google Scholar; above, p. 5.

^{page 14 note 1} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1300–26, pp. 103–6 (charters of the Marshals to Tintern); ibid., pp. 475–7 (charter of Walter de Lacy, lord of Ewyas, to Llanthony Prima).

^{page 14 note 2} Statutes of the Realm, i. 226. This was also the position in Leinster and Meath (Rot. Chart., 1, i. 176; Close Rolls, 1251–3, p. 363).

^{page 14 note 3} Baronia de Kemeys, pp. 41–2.

^{page 14 note 4} Cal. Inq. Misc., ii, no. 1095.

^{page 14 note 5} The Welsh Assize Roll, ed. Davies, J. C. (Cardiff, 1940), pp. 309, 315Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 1} Cal. Chart. Rolls, 1341–1417, pp. 14–15.

^{page 15 note 2} Statutes of the Realm, i. 345.

^{page 15 note 3} Cal. Close Rolls, 1374–7, P 420.

^{page 15 note 4} It is sometimes objected that in 1282 Edward I created in his conquests in north Wales new liberties on the model of such liberties as Pembroke or Glamorgan. But apart from the inherent improbability of this, the charters of the new lordships convey no specific liberties whatever: Bromfield is to be held ‘as fully and wholly as David son of Griffin, the king's enemy and rebel, held it’ Ruthin ‘as other neighbouring cantreds are held’ Denbigh ‘with all things pertaining to those cantreds and commotes’. (Cal. Chancery Rolls Various, 1277–1326, pp. 240, 241, 243.) At this period royal lawyers would certainly have been prepared to deny that such ‘general words’ could convey any jura regalia of importance, and it is most unlikely that it was Edward's intention that they should. (Cf. Plucknett, T. F. T., Legislation of Edward I (Oxford, 1949), pp. 38–45, and below, p. 19Google Scholar) Moreover, most of these new lordships were held of the principality, not of the crown (Waters, W. H., The Edwardian Settlement of North Wales (Cardiff, 1935), pp. 87–96Google Scholar See above, p. 14).

^{page 16 note 1} Rishanger, W., Chronica, ed. Riley, H. T. (Rolls Series, 1865), p. 175Google Scholar

^{page 16 note 2} Calendar of Documents relating to Ireland, ed. Sweetman, , vol. ii, nos. 1645, 1670, 1673Google Scholar; vol. iii, no. 525.

^{page 17 note 1} Rot. Part., i. 70–7; Morris, J. E., The Welsh Wars of Edward I (Oxford, 1901), pp. 220–39Google Scholar; Powicke, F M., Henry III and the Lord Edward (2 vols., Oxford, 1947), ii. 678–81Google Scholar; Edwards, J. G., ‘The Normans and the Welsh March’, Proc. Brit. Acad., xlii. 170–4Google Scholar, where the position of the right of private war as an inheritance from the Welsh rulers is clearly brought out.

^{page 17 note 2} Otway-Ruthven, J., ‘Anglo-Irish Shire Government in the thirteenth century’, Irish Historical Studies, v. 5, 7–8Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 1} Placitorum Abbreviatio (Record Commissioners, 1811), p. 109Google Scholar

^{page 18 note 2} Rot. Pad., i. 42–3; Cal. Chan. Rolls, 1257–1300, p. 372; Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1281–92, p. 393; 1317–21, p. 118; Cal. Fine Rolls, 1307–19, pp. 355–6.

^{page 19 note 1} Placitorum Abbreviatio, p. 241; Rot. Parl., i. 148–50. De Braose was un-lucky in holding by charter; all the other southern marchers held by prescription, or, in Pembroke, by grant before the time of legal memory.

^{page 19 note 2} Cart. Glam., iii. 990–9.

^{page 20 note 1} I am greatly indebted to Dr. H. M. Cam, who allowed me to discuss a number of points with her.

Erratum: In the map on p. 2 ‘Walyn's Castle’ should read ‘Walwyn's Castle’.

Article contents

The Constitutional Position of the Great Lordships of South Wales

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests