The first Whitley Charters (6) - some historical background

To recap - John de Montbegon did not exist, but his supposed father Roger de Montbegon certainly did exist, and the name was given in a corrupt way in the Testa de Nevill, perhaps understandably leaving some antiquarians who looked at the Whitley charters confused.

The lands of Roger de Montbegon in the Pontefract honour were those of his mother Matilda. It is difficult to define what was meant by Whitley but there is plenty to suggest that it had been held in the twelfth century from Matilda's father Adam FitzSwain, and by him from the then lords of Pontefract. It seems likely, that Whitley was - a very minor - part of an enormous estate Adam held and which his ancestors had held since 1086 and perhaps since before 1066.

(There is a lot of "stuff" "out there" which one should ignore, including that William de Beaumont, the Whitley grantee, was a member of Adam's family. I do not agree with that.)

Adam had died in 1159 and Matilda was the younger of his two daughters. If we look at who were their representatives or descendants during the reigns of Richard (1189-1199). John (1199-1216), and at the time of the Whitley Charters, we see the unity of Adam's estate breaking down. 

Broadly it looks as though the estate was divided into two halves, for each daughter. The halves may have had their chief places at Mirfield and Brierley, but I don't think that division is rigid or clear. Moreover each half was soon divided again, effectively to people who did not live there and had plenty of landed interests elsewhere!

Do not quote from this since I have over-simplified it and have no doubt made mistakes! Here is the family tree chart as published over 100 years ago in Early Yorkshire Charters vol. III.

The feudal system meant that nobody really owned land. They "held" it from someone further up the chain. Nor I think could it change hands by outright sale. Any "grant" of land would put a new link into the chain.

The chain between the people on the ground, and the chief lord (in this case, of Pontefract), might have numerous links. Adam fitzSwain had been second from the top of that chain, and further down it were perhaps the predecessors of the Dransfelds and Birthwaites.

But since the succession from Adam was by inheritances, I think we could visualise the one strong link in the chain that he once was, being replaced by more and more bits of string, but weaker string each time, until it broke.

No intermediate / middle holders are referred to in these Whitley charters, other than the Dransfelds and the Birthwaites. It is as if the heirs of Adam fitzSwain have ceased to be relevant by the 1230s.

Is that so, and if so, why?

I think it is because of the events of King John's reign (rebellion of northern barons) and the sheer difficulty of recognising divided interests.

The old FitzSwain empire collapsed. Whitley was in one bit of it or the other. Since there were now perhaps dozens of people below the lords shown in the charts above, it would have been very hard to keep a track of who held what!

Rebel baron, or just nuisance

Another factor maybe is attempts by the Crown to confiscate lands of rebel barons, of which Roger de Montbegon is a notable example.

He was a nuisance to king Richard, as shown in the Pipe Roll for 1194 where his lands in West Yorkshire were nominally at least in the hands of a representative of the Crown. 

From Pipe Roll, 6 Richard (1194), p.12

(There can be no guarantee that the mention of Whitley there isn't to somewhere else, as it is a common-enough place-name.)

When John came to the throne Roger de Montbegon was a nuisance to him too. He was one of group of barons who tend to be called "The Northerners," the title of a detailed study by Professor J C Holt some thirty years ago.

Roger was present at Runnymede in June 2015 (the occasion of Magna Carta) and was also at Pontefract in January 1216 to "return" to the king's service, young John de Lacy doing the same.

From Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, i, p. 244. This seems not
to refer to his lands in Yorkshire, but it illustrates the
number of other counties where he had interests!

King John died with a year of the above and his "dear and faithful" Roger de Montbegon was now a nuisance to the young Henry III, whose officials ordered his lands to be delivered to one Robert de Vallibus (Rot. Lit. Claus i., 327), orders which may have made little difference at the local level.  Roger was a bit of a dinosaur by then.

Monks and iron works?

Another historical factor, but one I certainly don't yet understand, is that Byland abbey (sixty miles away, in North Yorkshire) acquired land in or very near Whitley, starting I think in the late twelfth century. A charter of John de Lacy's father Roger Constable of Chester confirms this (no later than 1211) and refers to land at Denby, Briestwistle and elsewhere including an unidentified "Whitacres" (EYC III no.1525). John, as earl of Lincoln, reconfirmed this between 1232 and 1240 (MS Dodsworth 133 f.140; YAJ 6 438; from BL Add Ch 7465); the same sort of date as the Whitley Charters. The monks had a Grange at Denby - at or near the place now called Grange Moor, barely a mile from the site of Whitley Hall.

Property had been given to Byland by both the Birthwaites and the Dransfelds amongst others (eg EYC III nos. 1807-1817) (YAJ 6 438) and eg by one William son of Alan of Whitley (Dodsw. MS 133 f.139). I think it has to do with iron mining. 

I have not yet seen the Byland Cartulary edited by Janet Burton and published in 2004.  There is a collection of Byland charters (BL Add Ch 7409-7482) (mentioned in the context of Denby in Upper Whitley - also cf Yorks Deeds 5 p.29, now BL Add Ch 66799), one of which is that of John de Lacy mentioned just above .

Though the Victoria County History (on Byland Abbey) links these charters to "Danby and Whitby," a number of charters from the BL Add Ch 7409-7482 series mentioned are set out Yorkshire Deeds, 6, nos. 74-80, 155-193,  248-251, and 540-543, and these refer to Denby near Whitley. These contain a few attestations by the William Beaumont of the circa 1250-1270 generation.

Where does this get us to?

There were profound changes during the reigns of Richard and John, and the old feudal structure of Adam FitzSwain's lands was increasingly forgotten about.  This opened up opportunities for big barons such as John de Lacy. He and his stewards would take more direct control and cut out distant middlemen.

Also I think that (a) the old antiquarians' knowledge that Whitley was somehow connected with Adam FitzSwain's lands, and (b) the similarity between the names Muncebote / Mucenbote and Montbegon - perhaps especially the way the latter name was rendered in the Testa de Nevill - go some way towards explaining the muddle.

EMB 26 July 2021