tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post6135937147533944716..comments2024-03-14T05:56:44.390+00:00Comments on Edward II: Tenants in Chief, Wardships and Inheritance in the Fourteenth CenturyKathryn Warnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-51930185033054669652016-11-19T12:04:52.756+00:002016-11-19T12:04:52.756+00:00Officially the guardian was in charge of the ward,...Officially the guardian was in charge of the ward, though I imagine in some cases s/he was left in her mother's care, especially if very young. There was no overriding rule, though. On the death of Piers Gaveston, Edward II sent his daughter Joan to be raised at Amesbury Priory. A few royal women were nuns at Amesbury, including Edward's sister Mary and niece Joan Monthermer, so Edward probably thought it was a suitable place for his great-niece to grow up. <br /><br />As for the second question, I confess I'm really not sure!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-52033316089384095182016-11-19T11:57:28.999+00:002016-11-19T11:57:28.999+00:00If a tenant-in-chief died, leaving a wife and mino...<br />If a tenant-in-chief died, leaving a wife and minor child, was the guardian responsible for the child's upbringing, or was the mother? Could the mother apply to be the guardian?<br /><br />And did similar rules apply further down the hierarchy (ie if a sub-tenant of a tenant-in-chief died, leaving a minor, did the tenant-in-chief become the child's guardian?)<br /><br />Sean FearUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06026649475860554735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-90872599585199583322016-11-16T12:48:49.987+00:002016-11-16T12:48:49.987+00:00Excellent information once again, swell stuff!Excellent information once again, swell stuff!sami parkkonennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-81934335518543627482016-11-15T13:48:31.271+00:002016-11-15T13:48:31.271+00:00I don't think the fine was ever paid as Verdon...I don't think the fine was ever paid as Verdon died less than six months after abducting and marrying Elizabeth, but absolutely, ordering her to pay a fine under such circumstances would be harsh!Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-83277182273465246782016-11-15T07:15:39.790+00:002016-11-15T07:15:39.790+00:00Just out of curiosity, what happened to a tenant i...Just out of curiosity, what happened to a tenant in chief who was forcibly married? (I'm thinking of the de Clare sister who was abducted). I suppose if her estate now belonged to her husband, she'd end up having to pay the fine either directly or indirectly, but it still seems a bit rough under the circumstances. Sonetkahttp://anneboleynnovels.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-59236962284833286912016-11-12T15:47:06.612+00:002016-11-12T15:47:06.612+00:00Thanks Kathryn!
AlisonThanks Kathryn!<br />AlisonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05851696683279324207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-37648174157757121762016-11-12T11:53:03.777+00:002016-11-12T11:53:03.777+00:00I'm retired but one of my secretarial jobs was...I'm retired but one of my secretarial jobs was for a conveyancing (that's real estate for people outside the UK) wills and probate secretary and - albeit there was a Land Registry reform Act passed a few years ago - terms such as "tenants-in-common" and "joint beneficial tenants" still exist in the owning of property even when it is freehold not leasehold. The above post is an interesting read but I'll have to come back to it and read through it again to take it all in I feel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-10166305122419039932016-11-11T18:06:34.961+00:002016-11-11T18:06:34.961+00:00This post takes me back to my Uni days! Thanks!This post takes me back to my Uni days! Thanks!Anerjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16305237339979790391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-26544591854406149772016-11-11T17:24:29.543+00:002016-11-11T17:24:29.543+00:00For sure it's not a fourteenth-century word, b...For sure it's not a fourteenth-century word, but it would be impossible for me to write blog posts using only fourteenth-century words. I used it for clarity because everyone knows what it means and it avoids awkward circumlocutions - I definitely agree with you on that point! I think it's good to be accurate with language but we also need to consider our readers, and IMHO some people get a little carried away pointing out to writers 'but this word wasn't recorded until 1530', which to be honest I sometimes find irritating.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-3708615734528535702016-11-11T17:18:15.405+00:002016-11-11T17:18:15.405+00:00Interested that you use the term "Dowager &qu...Interested that you use the term "Dowager ". I have too in relation to the 13th and 14th centuries but a lady picked me up on this during a discussion this week saying the term was not in use until 1530. The OED seems to agree with her. What do you think? I would really like to continue using it as it makes explanations much simpler!<br />AlisonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05851696683279324207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19545049.post-61679808484474166012016-11-11T17:10:24.907+00:002016-11-11T17:10:24.907+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05851696683279324207noreply@blogger.com