Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T11:33:13.901Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Royal Supremacy in Ancient Demesne Churches1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2011

J. H. Denton
J. H. Denton
Affiliation:
Lecturer in History, University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a surprising fact that, despite all the energy that has been devoted by medievalists to the relations between the king and the Church, no one has attempted to answer the question: what was the extent of the king's authority in his own parish churches? Naturally the English crown, like the lay lords and like the monasteries and like the bishops, possessed the patronage of churches. How did the triangular relationship of king/bishop/pope operate in practice in the royal churches? Others have addressed themselves to the sacred nature of kingship, to the spiritual capacity of the priest-king. Some have been concerned, for example, with the changing concept of kingship, as was E. H. Kantorowicz, or with the claims that the king possessed the power of healing and could cure scrofula, as was Marc Bloch. These issues and their like pose the problem of bridging the gap between the concept or the claim and the exercise of authority or power. An examination of the history of royal churches provides abundant evidence of claims and counter-claims, but our concern in the end must be with the actual extent and nature of the king's control and jurisdiction.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 22 , Issue 4 , October 1971 , pp. 289 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

1 page 290 note 1 E.g. Cheney, C. R., From Becket to Langton, Manchester 1956, 160Google Scholar and Richardson, H. G. and Sayles, G. O., The Governance of Medieval England, Edinburgh 1963, 186Google Scholar.

2 page 290 note 2 See Howell, M., Regalian Right in Medieval England, London 1962, 171–2Google Scholar. I am grateful to Mr. Philip Saunders for information about churches permanently in the king’s patronage, for example Geddington, St. Mary Grimsby and St. Peter Northampton (e.g. Cal. Patent Rolls 1272–81, 213, 324; 1281–92, 36, 71, 393, 415; 1292–1301, 69, 235; and 1301–07, 343, 395). Single parish churches in the king’s full patronage, which were distinct from the royal demesne colleges, merit further study; but there are no indications that the crown was making any special claims about its rights in such churches.

3 page 290 note 3 Howell, 186, 206–7, and see Gray, J. W., ‘The ius presentandi in England from the Constitutions of Clarendon to Bracton’, English Historical Review, lxvii (1952), 481–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 page 290 note 4 Quoted by Maitland, F. W., Roman Canon Law in the Church of England, London 1898, 106Google Scholar.

5 page 290 note 5 Scarisbrick, J. J., Henry VIII, London 1968, 275–80Google Scholar. Henry VIII’S notion of limiting the authority of the clergy to potestas ordinis, thereby suppressing the potestas iurisdictionis, has a striking parallel in Henry III’s and Edward I’S successful policies towards the royal free chapels. But, in the limited sphere of the ancient parishes, Henry III seems to have aimed at an even greater limitation of the rights of ecclesiastical ordinaries: see below, 300.

1 page 291 note 1 Thompson, A. Hamilton, esp. in The English Clergy and their Organisation in the Later Middle Ages, Oxford 1947, 81–3Google Scholar; and Styles, D., ‘The early history of the king’s chapels in Staffordshire’, Transactions of the Birmingham Archaeological Society, lx (1936), 56–95Google Scholar and ‘The early history of Penkridge church’, Staffordshire Record Society, 1950–1, 3–52.

2 page 291 note 2 Bracton: De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Anglic, ed. G. E. Woodbine, New Haven 1915–1942, iii. 215.

1 page 292 note 1 Below, 300–1.

2 page 292 note 2 Barlow, F., The English Church 1000–1066, London 1963, 156–8Google Scholar.

1 page 293 note 1 The Chartulary of Worcester Priory (Register I), ed. R. R. Darlington (Pipe Roll Society, new ser., xxxviii), no. 265.

2 page 293 note 2 See Lennard, R. V., Rural England 1086–1135, Oxford 1959, appendix ivGoogle Scholar.

3 page 293 note 3 The Chartulary of the High Church of Chichester, ed. W. D. Peckham (Sussex Record Society, xlvi, 1942–3), nos. 62, no, 114–15, 122.

4 page 293 note 4 See esp. Thompson, A. Hamilton, ‘The jurisdiction of the archbishops of York in Gloucestershire’, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, xliii (1921), 85–180Google Scholar.

1 page 294 note 1 Holtzmann, W., Papsturkunden in England, Berlin 1930–52, i. no. 208Google Scholar.

1 page 295 note 1 See Thompson, A. Hamilton, ‘A Gnosall lawsuit of 1395’, The Wm. Salt Archaeological Society, 3rd. ser. 1927, 107–10Google Scholar.

1 page 296 note 1 Innocent III. Opera Omnia, lib. ix, letter 265; Migne, P.L., ccxv, 1097–8. And see Decretals, v. xxxiii. 16: E. Friedberg, Corpus Iuris Canonici, Leipzig 1879–81, ii. 862.

2 page 296 note 2 Acta of Chichester 1075–1207, ed. H. Mayr-Harting, Canterbury and York Society, 1964, no. 149.

1 page 297 note 1 Public Record Office, SC7 (Papal Bulls) 21/11 and 21/18, and Annales Monastici, ed. H. R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1864–9), i. 275–6.

1 page 298 note 1 P.R.O., KB26/161 (Curia Regis Roll for Michaelmas 43 Henry III), m. 7 (translated in The Wm. Salt Arch. Soc., 1st ser. iv, pt. 1 (1883), 140–1).

2 page 298 note 2 W. Prynne, An Exact Chronological Vindication …, London 1665–8, iii. 1234–5 (printing P.R.O., SCI (Ancient Correspondence) 11/94).

3 page 298 note 3 English Royal Free Chapels, appendix vi.

4 page 298 note 4 Ibid., app. v.

1 page 299 note 1 Logan, F. D., Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England, Toronto 1968, 25. 33–5. 177–8Google Scholar.

2 page 299 note 2 See esp. Registrant Epistolarum Peckham, ed. C. T. Martin (Rolls Series, 1882–5), i. 109–10, 147–5, 155–6. 178–85.

3 page 299 note 3 Peter of Blois, Opera Omnia, letter 152: Migne, P.L., ccvii, 443–6. And see Styles, D. in Trans. Birm. Arch. Soc., lx (1936), 67–8Google Scholar.

1 page 300 note 1 English Royal Free Chapels, app. VIII.

2 page 300 note 2 Councils and Synods, ed. F. M. Powicke and C. R. Cheney, Oxford, 1964, ii. 688.

3 page 300 note 3 See esp. Select Cases King’s Bench, ed. G. O. Sayles (Selden Society), iv. 111–22, and The Register W. de Stapeldon and The Register of J. Grandisson, both ed, F. C. Hingeston-Randolph, Exeter 1892–9, passim.

4 page 300 note 4 Select Cases King’s Bench, iii. 190.

5 page 300 note 5 Henderson, C., Essays in Cornish History, Oxford 1935, 93–107Google Scholar.

1 page 301 note 1 Vinogradoff, P., Villainage in England, Oxford 1892, 89–126Google Scholar; Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., The History of English Law, reissue Cambridge 1968, 383–406Google Scholar; and Hoyt, R. S., The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History 1066–1272, Cornell 1950Google Scholar.

2 page 301 note 1 Sel. Cases King’s Bench, iv. 114.

1 page 302 note 1 Councils and Synods, ii. 446–7, and W. Prynne, op. cit., iii. 110.