English Licences to Crenellate
FURTHER analysis

For an amateur historian the responses to my list and analysis of the licences to crenellate of England and Wales (Davis, 2006) was most gratifying and has inspired me to further work in this field. Rising to the challenges put in Colin Platt’s ‘Understanding Licences to Crenellate’ (2007a), I have tried to explored the biographical details of as many of the grantees of LCs as possible.

Firstly, however, please note that my previous article grossly over stated the number of ‘fortified’ manor houses granted licences to crenellate as 39% (2006, p. 229). This is because I record all houses granted a LC as ‘fortified’ but other domestic houses are recorded as ‘fortified’ only if an authority has described them as such. There is no absolute definition of ‘fortified’ or ‘defensive’ and these are subjective labels used by different authors for different purposes that can cause contention. A good number of the surviving moats of licensed houses are of a type only rarely described as ‘fortified’. I have not, comprehensively, collected the data on moated houses. Differentiating between gentry status moated ‘manor’ houses and yeoman status ‘homestead’ moats also requires considerable research and analysis. However, based on examination of some online county historic environment records, I estimate that only between 5-10% of gentry status moated houses were built, or rebuilt, in association with a LC^0a. The evidence that all forms of fortified building were mainly constructed without LCs is clear and should stop any remaining suggestion that LCs were a requirement to build any fortified structure, particularly castles.

From the start of scholarly analysis of LCs it has been clear that they were mainly concerned with domestic houses - J H Parker’s 1856 list and analysis of Thomas Duffas Hardy (Turner and Parker, 1859) work on the Rolls was mainly concerned with how the licensed site was described and he showed the commonest description was as ‘manor house’ (mansum) and only very rarely was the term ‘castle’ used. However, the erroneous idea that LCs were a requirement to build castles has taken a strong hold and has caused trouble since. The licence to crenellate ‘Beudesert’ granted to Walter Langton, Bishop of Lichfield in 1306 has been attributed to Beaudesert Castle at Henley in Arden, by D J Cathcart King (Castellarium Anglicanum, Vol. 2 p. 481) and in the Time Team TV programme, although this was never a holding of the bishop, apparently only because a LC ‘had to be for a castle’. The probably actual site was in the bishops chase at Cannock. This may either have been a domestic building on the site of the 15th century, now ruined, Beaudesert Hall or a building within the, nearby, Iron Age hill fort Castle Ring, were medieval foundations can still be seen. The effect this misattribution has had on the interpretation of Beaudesert Castle is unassessed.

John Rickard PhD thesis, published as The Castle Community in 2002, states that the “licence to crenellate is one of the most important sources sources for both castle building and castle ownership”. (p. 26) This assumption that LC’s are to do with castles seems to lead Rickard to state “many did not result in any building work of any nature.”(p. 26) In reality LCs were granted for a diverse range of buildings, from massive castles like Dunstanburgh to modest ‘pele’ towers but most were granted to moated manor houses with thin walls, which were easily demolished and replaced by more fashionable houses over the years. If one accepts the wording of the licences and looks for evidence of a mansum rather than a castle almost all licences do seem to have resulted in some work (except in the few cases of a licence granted for multiple holdings of an individual where work was confined to just one or two sites), although because most sites have not been fully or even partly investigated, apparent archaeological evidence is often slight or absent. Rickard’s comments on ‘used’ and ‘unused’ licences varying across the country, with highest numbers of ‘used’ licences being in the northern border regions and lowest numbers in the south east is explained by the likelihood of surviving remains based on the locally available building materials.¹ Northern stone tower houses compared to flint rubble moated houses of the southern chalk belt. Clearly the increased levels of criminal and military activity in the north, as well as the different building materials, affected the choice of architectural style of elite buildings but this has nothing to do with the application for or granting of LCs. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Stafford Castle

The 19th Century Whig historical agenda still effects some historians. Carole Rawcliffe’s Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry for Ralph Stafford (1301-1372) has the statement that “His forebears had hitherto been prevented by the Crown from building a castle in Stafford, and he had anticipated this singular mark of confidence [a licence to crenellate of 1348 (CPR 1348-50 p. 13)] by entering a contract with a local mason a few weeks earlier.” Recent excavations suggest there was a strong masonry tower on the motte at Stafford before the tower house built by Ralph. (Soden, 2007, pp. 196-98.)

Platt’s Challenge

Platt's historical knowledge and insight maybe useful. Some aspects of the defences of castles, houses, palaces and abbeys were being built, in part, for the reasons he states, although he may be giving too much credence to exaggerated reports of violence (see Coulson, 2003 and King, 2007). However these structure are built with and without licences and Platt does not clearly differentiate between fortified buildings and licences to crenellate. Various troubles could have indeed inspired wealthy people to protect their property and for most this would just be the digging of a moat and construction of a wall. For some the desire to assert status in such times may well have been a motivation to apply for a licence and the increases in insecurity Platt identifies need not be expressed as a desire for increased protection but as a need to assert social status. Indeed there is, in my mind, a distinct overlap here. Insecurity is the prime sub-conscious drive for the need to express social status (consider the cocky adolescent or the mid-life male crisis, expressed in the purchase of a high power motorbike) but what is architecturally expressed is social assertion not fear of attack.

Platt’s challenges to Coulson’s arguments that LCs were fundamentally about prestige rather than about fear of physical violence were;

1. a distribution map should show a more even distribution of licences
2. the granting of LCs over time should show fewer peaks and troughs
3. ‘unassailable evidence that the majority of applicants were status-hungry gentry, and not either noblemen or ecclesiastics of high rank’ (Platt, 2007a, p. 204)

I do not follow the reasoning behind his first two challenges. In both cases the uneven nature shows the distribution is fairly random (although the trend over time to rise until 1348 and then the dramatic fall, slight rise and eventual decline after this date are clear). Even distribution of either or both of these factors could only be explained by a centralised controlling plan, something Coulson clearly argues against. Random distributions are not smooth but distinctly lumpy so in a true random distribution one would expect some areas of 'emptiness' and some clumping, which is what we get.² However, it is true that the distribution map is not truly random. There are underlying geographical and economic factors that effect the distribution. Areas that are poorer and sparsely populated should have less great houses and, clearly, the Pennines and the Devon moors are free from licensed houses. I remain of the opinion that, given some weighting for population density, the distribution of licensed houses is basically random. I do not recognise the patterns of distribution that Platt describes (2007a, p. 204-5). I remain of the opinion that my distribution map and bar chart provide evidence that is consistent with Coulson’s hypothesis.

However, a more detailed analysis of spatial distribution, by a statistician, could be useful. I suspect that this may show that a number of the licensed houses owned by active courtiers and civil servants were within a day’s ride of the court at Westminster. A fine, if unusual example of this, would be Rye House, Stanstead Abbots, Hertfordshire, where a LC is granted to 6 courtiers, led by Andrew Ogard, the chamberlain to then regent, John, Duke of Bedford (CPR 1429-36 p. 288), in 1443 (CChR Vol. 6 p. 38) for what was a newly purchased house (VCH Hertford Vol. 3 pp. 336). The guts of this licence was the permission to empark and this has the feel of a gentleman’s country club, within easy reach of the court^2a.

The one exception to this basically random distribution are coastal towns, which are clearly more likely to have licensed walls than inland towns. These walls may be due to fears of raids from the sea, as suggested by Platt (2007a p. 204), but may also be due to an increased need to control trade, collect taxes and prevent smuggling in these towns. Because chasing down a sailing ship is considerably more difficult than chasing down a caravan of pack animals walls in ports are a more necessary, and cost effective, investment in controlling smuggling and collect duties. The licences, as opposed to the walls, may have functioned as additional authority for the duties collected in these ports. Issues of civic pride are clearly the reason for the more elaborate excesses of many town gateways and probably played a significant part in the building of walls per se. (Coulson, 1995)

The third of Platt’s points is important and should be addressed, although a call for ‘unassailable’ evidence is somewhat extreme. I believe the evidence does show the majority of grantees of LCs were gentry, a few were individuals who had newly achieved gentry status and some were gentry who had newly-achieved baronial or noble status. Relatively few LCs are granted to nobles and, of these few, some are granted to nobles acting on behalf of gentry. The situation with churchmen is less clear and here a significant proportion of grantees are bishops. Here the explanation may have something to do with the use of LCs as a reward for service and the use of bishoprics as a way of paying major government ministers. In effect many bishops were major ministers of state, some being from noble families but others of relatively humble origins, holding the position out of merit and having a particular need to establish their lordly status.

The many functions of licences to crenellate

I began this project with the intent of simply providing some statistical data about the grantees of LC; their age, the number that were MP’s etc. (see Appendix below) However, as I read the biographies of those granted LCs it became clear that each LC has a story of its own and that LCs were used in diverse and different ways, although, almost always, these are fundamentally to do with prestige. I would now mirror the call made by many, especially Sarah Speight (2004), to look at castles as different and diverse and extend this to LCs. I expect the ‘real’ story is one of complexity and diversity in the granting and use of LCs and particularly so in the reasons for applying for LCs. Because the LC did not involve any financial reward and little financial cost and because it had little or no control on an individuals or institutions behaviour or liberty, including control of what they built, it was a tool that was particularly flexible and open to diverse use. The LC, despite its generally stock terminology, was a tabula rasa on which both king and grantee could build new meaning. The stories of each LC can be complex and there were often several functions served by an individual licence, beyond the fact that many LCs were also granted in association with licences to empark and/or other privileges.

Defence

A very few LCs can clearly be attributed to being motivated by defence. One, often overlooked, is the 1402 ‘Licence for the good men of the town of Leomynstre, which is situated on the frontiers of the marches of Wales, to fortify the town with walls, pales and ditches, for defence against the Welsh rebels, and to compel all the men of the town to contribute to the expense according to their means’ (CPR 1401-05 p. 139). The Owain Glyndwr revolt is clearly the sole reason for this licence. How well-acquainted the good men of Leominster were with Westminister-centred medieval law may be at question since a grant of murage was the more usual way to raise money for such defences. No work seems to have been done.

A handful of LCs are for coastal artillery defences. Here the LC is used as a Public-Private Initiative giving royal support, moral and sometimes financial, for private initiatives to build coastal defences. Richard Guldeford’s licence of 1487 (CPR 1485-94 p. 151) for ‘le Camber’, the precursor of Camber Castle, is, fundamentally, a grant of manors to fund the building and operation of an artillery tower. John Corp, a leading Dartmouth merchant and sea captain, is granted, in 1402, a LC for ‘Dertemuth’ (CPR 1401-05 p. 219) most probably the artillery and harbour chain tower at Gommerock. However, his compatriot and possible friend John Hawley was not granted a LC for his larger fort on the other side of the harbour mouth built at the same time and on the bases of the concerns raised by the same Royal Commission. (Devon Perspectives, online) Clearly Corp’s LC was not a requirement for a fortification and it served some other function. Hawley seems to have the more successful of the two man so, perhaps, Corp felt more need for the kudos of an LC or required more incentive to fund the building.

A couple of often quoted LCs, notably that of 1385 to Edward Dallingridge for Bodiam castle (CPR 1385-89 pp. 42, 123), do express defence as a reason for their being granted but such expression has been shown to be an overstated and minor part of the complex of reasons for the grant (Coulson, 1979, pp. 73-90 and numerous subsequent publications by Coulson and others. See Platt, 2007b, for an outline and rebuttal of this ‘Battle of Bodiam’ discussion)^2b. Often suggested as a ‘defensive’ licence is that obtained by wealthy merchant Robert de Reymes for Aydon Hall and Shortflatt Tower in 1305 (CPR 1301-7 p. 328). Aydon, close to the Scottish border, was sacked in a Scottish raid in 1315. The house was purchased in a time of peace and Scottish raids did not recommence until 1311 (Emery, 1996, p. 40). Were it not for the fact that Aydon was sacked this would be an archetypal example of a merchant using an LC as part of acquiring new, gentry, social status. It is only hindsight that makes this licence look defensive. The licenced houses of Northumberland, including Aydon, have recently been explored by Andy King (2007) who concludes these are ‘monuments to the military careers’ of Northumbland’s gentry. I had come to the same conclusion about Aydon before seeing his paper.

Owning a defensible house, licensed or unlicensed, did not guarantee safety and I stand by my earlier statements (Davis, 2006, p. 228) about the symbolic nature of the defences of the moated manor houses that were built, with and without licences, during the period. Clearly the moat and walls had a roll in stopping thieves but crenellations, even if with a wall walk, are only defensive if there are armed men behind them and I expect most of these houses had only a few men servants, with limited military experience, to defend them. In reality these houses could only exceptionally be defended against a band of thieves or raiders, generally a serious attack would result in the family and servants running away and hiding elsewhere. King gives several examples “of Northumbrian castles and towers failing to provide any protection for their inhabitants, even from small raiding parties.” (2007, p. 378). The historic records are full of the legal wrangles about property ownership and the, not infrequent, resorts to (shows of) force to resolve these disputes. With regard to defence, crenellations, without a garrison, were, I repeat, like modern burglar alarms, a mainly symbolic representation of an intent to prosecute. The deterrent effect was not from the phantom garrison, behind the decorative battlements, but from royal forces backing up the sheriffs and justices. Westenhanger Castle, ‘no doubt erected with costal defence in mind’ (Pettifer, 1995, p. 132³), licensed 1343 (CPR 1343-45 p. 106), was not able to resist a band of raiders, lead by Sir John Cornwall, in 1381, who entered at night using ladders. The mistress of the house having to hide herself for protection (Coulson, 1992, pp. 100-1). We know of this assault because of the subsequent legal actions. Sir John Kiriel (Criol), a rare knight banneret not of baronial status, may well have been a man able to mobilise and lead a local defence force but his duties would have kept him away from Westenhanger for much of the time and his house clearly did not have a permanent garrison.

A castle, or any other building, without a garrison is not a fortress regardless of the architectural forms. Andy King estimates the cost of a small garrison of 12 men at over £200 a year ‘at a time when very few English knights beneath the level of the peerage had an income exceeding £200 per annum.’ (2007, p. 381). The numbers of baronial and noble retainers given by Platt (2007b) are useful but when you look at the biographies of these retainers you see how busy many of these men were (They were on commissions, serving as MPs and running their own, not inconsiderable, estates). They could all be summoned together for a great social event, or a military expedition but they were not routinely available to garrison castles. No mention is made of castle guard in the indenture made between Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick and Robery Cuny, esquire in 1467 (Gibbons, 2007, p. 63). The £5 a year paid to Cuny would have made him, and a few local men he could muster available to Warwick for garrison duty only in the most exceptional of circumstances. The real garrisons of even noble castles would be common men and, at even at the very low rate of 4d a day (about £5 a year and at this rate old men fit for very little), there in very limited numbers.

Care must be taken to separate the motivations for obtaining a licence from the motivations for building a house as these are not the same thing. Virtually all the structures licensed would have been built with some defence against thieves in mind, but this was not the motivation for these licences. In my view 20 licences can reasonable be attributed to real concerns about defence, including defence from thieves, although only 5 are for purely defensive structures.

Expression of royal favour

There is a more subtle way in which LCs were a response to a need for defence. The most common response to this insecurity was to ally oneself to a powerful lord and, generally, the most powerful lord in medieval England was the king. Showing that one had royal favour, through obtaining an LC, gained prestige and some sense of security.

All licences had a degree of royal favour about them but some licences were more clearly expressions for especial favourites, particularly those otherwise unpopular, such as a group of Poitevin knights and nobles (Ridgeway, 1989) who came to England following the marriage of Henry III to Eleanor of Provence, in 1236, their leaders were William de Valence and Aymer, Guy and Geoffrey de Lusignan⁴. Most of the minor knights never obtained property but Elias de Rabayn married an English heiress and gained lands. He obtained a LC for Waylim (A manor, probably in or near Lymm Regis, Dorset) in February 1264 (CPR 1258-66 p. 382) after some years of service as Sheriff of Somerset and Dorset.

Of course, at times, a king needed support from his more powerful subjects and would grant favours to these subject of many sorts and these may well include LCs. Alexander Neville, Archbishop of York, certainly had many enemies but by late 1383, when a LC was given for Rest Park near York. (CPR 1381-85 p. 333) Richard II was becoming increasingly isolated. Alexander joined Richard’s intimate court circle in 1385, both men gaining mutual support from this alliance. The use of LCs to bolster royal support might explain some of the features mentioned by Platt, particularly with regard to the Baron’s Wars of Henry III (2007a, p. 205).

A somewhat different form of Royal favour were LCs given during and after disputes which confirmed concession given, under force, by the king. An example of this is the LC granted to John de Eyvil on 20 August 1264 (CPR 1258-66 p. 382) just 8 days after Henry III had been forced to sign the peace of Canterbury after his defeat at the Battle of Lewes. Unlike later kings the clerks of Henry’s Rolls did not usually bother to record by what royal authority a grant was made but this grant is recorded as by ‘King, the justiciary, Giles de Arg[entein] and H. de Borham’. John de Eyvill was leader of the 'disinherited', part of Simon de Montfort forces.

Some people and groups, who were particularly out of royal favour, could also have been using the application for a LCs as part of a campaign to regain favour. The master and brethren of the Knights Templars were granted a LC for a great gate at their manor of la Bruere (Temple Bruer) in 1306 (CPR 1301-7 p. 462). There were tensions between the Knights and the king; Edward I had siezed the Knight's treasury in London in 1302; Templar knights had fought with the Scots at Roslin in 1303. The Templars more international problems ultimately came to a head when they were dissolved by the Pope in 1312. (Addison, 1842)

About 150 properties had LCs where royal favour can be seen as a particularly factor.

Royal control and expression of disfavour

Coulson has done considerable work to show that LCs were not, systematically, used as instruments of royal control, as the late 19th century Whig historians had proposed. However, there are a tiny handful of LCs which suggest some element of royal sensibility was a part of the occasional LC. Two licences granted by Henry III in the tense years before the baron’s war are for palings; Robert de St John 1261 LC for his house at Basing (CPR 1258-66 p. 172), where the Norman ringwork was an existing strong defence, and Roger de St John⁵ 1262 licence for Lagham manor (CPR 1258-66 p. 199), which also had a specific requirement to be faithful to the king. The other half dozen LCs granted, to royalists, at this time have the standard format of walls of stone and lime etc. Both men had served for Henry against Llewelyn in Wales in 1260 and may have requested the LCs as rewards for this service. Henry’s restrictions were, presumably because the men’s sympathies were with the baronial reformers. How could Henry III refuse a request for a licence to crenellate from as ambitious and well connected a knight as Roger (He was married to Hugh Despenser’s sister)? As a new baron Roger may have felt a particular need to build a suitable crenellated house and to confirm his holding of the manor and the exceptional restriction of a paling, rather than a wall, for fortification must have been insulting. It would take a king as arrogant as Henry to put in the proviso about being faithful but another man in Henry’s situation would know he needed as many friends as he could get and would be doing their utmost to not offend an effective soldier like Roger. Roger was to become a leading figure in the baronial cause and a member of the, Simon de Montfort set up, royal Council of Nine. He was killed at the battle of Evesham.

Expression of lordly favour

The 1427 LC for Wycroft (CChR Vol. 6 p. 1) is granted to a group of men, headed by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester. The house was owned by Thomas Brook, who comes low down on the list. Earlier in that year William Bonville of Shute had broken into the house at Weycroft, assaulting the servants. Clearly the support of a Duke, two earls and several knights secured Brook from assault in a way a wall of ‘stones and mortar’ could not. The ‘cost’ may well have been the provision of a hunting lodge for these men to enjoy the park that went along with the LC. John Cobham of Devonshire is granted a LC, at the supplication of Peter de Courteney, his liege lord, for Hever in 1383 (CPR 1381-85 p. 326). This John Cobham was a kinsman of Lord John Cobham of Cobham, of Cooling Castle. Here the reasons for the LC may well be complex and include a response to the Cooling Castle licence of 1381 (CPR 1377-81 p. 596), internal family pressures (Lord Cobham was married to Courteney’s sister) and some political interplay between two powerful politicians, but the wording of the licence shows some relationship between king, lord and retainer. John de Handlo is granted an LC in 1312, on the information of Hugh le Despencer, his liege lord (CPR 1307-13 p. 493). Several other licences have similar such wording.

There were times when royal government was effectively usurped by powerful lords who could then use LCs to recognise their followers. This seems particularly true for Thomas Plantagenet, 2nd Earl of Lancaster (1278-1322). The bureaucratic format of the LC does not show this relationship and sometimes only detailed examination of the biography of licence holders, in combination with good knowledge of the politics of the period, will show such relationships. Since the periods when the kings power was so usurped tend to be seen as periods of unrest the slight increase in the granting of LC to lordly retainers might be seen as responses to that unrest, but the link is distinctly indirect.

At least 24 LCs can be seen as expressions of lordly favour.

Confirmation of ownership

A number of LCs are granted to houses over which there was dispute over ownership or inheritance, or which had been obtained by some method other than family inheritance. Here an LC was a clear royal acknowledgment of ownership and a useful adjunct to other confirmations of ownership. Since disputed ownership of property was a reason for resorting to force I expect many of these houses may well have been defensible, although the LC was of more use in the court room rather than at a siege.

Examples include the licence granted to John de Heslarton for Wilton near Pickering, Yorkshire. The ownership of the manor was disputed in 1293 (VCH of York, North Riding Vol. 2 pp. 438-9) and it was conveyed to Heslarton, via John Lovel, from Roger Bigod after this date. It was then, in 1309, siezed by Gerard Salvayn, serving as escheator north of the Trent, and only returned after parliamentary demands. The affair caused considerable trouble between Thomas of Lancaster (the tenant in chief of Wilton) and Edward II and the bad blood caused does not seem to have ended until the end of Edward II reign (King, 2000, pp. 37-9). This licence is obtained, after the initial troubles of Edward III reign, in 1335 and may represent a ‘putting to bed’ of any remaining doubt about Heslarton’s holding of the manor. The second oldest person granted an LC was Sir William Plompton, who was aged 70 years when granted a licence for his manor house at Plumpton in 1474 (CPR 1467-77 p. 421). He had done many years of service firstly as a soldier and then as an administrator for the Earl of Northumberland, The Duke of Bedford and Henry VI, so a licence as a reward for service and expression of royal favour would seem likely. However, difficulties over the inheritance of the Plumpton's estates, of which much documentation survives as the Plumpton Correspondence (Stapleton (ed), 1839) p. lxxxvi ff), may have also been a factor in getting this LC. His chosen heir, his son from his secret second marriage, did not get firm possession of Plumpton until 1515.

At least 77 properties have LCs which, in part, can be attributed to a concern about the holding or inheritance of the property.

Neighbours

The medieval period was an age when local lords were military men and did resort to violence at times to assert rights and claims^7a. The LC had the prime function of asserting lordly status but, at times, neighbours (most usually civic communities) tried to keep such lords in check. This, very occasionally, effected the wording or granting of LC. The LC, and the revoking of a grant of a LC, then has a function ‘to mollify friction’(Coulson, 1994, p. 125 n119) between neighbours. An example is the 1293 LC granted to Hugo de Frene for Moccas Castle (CPR 1292-1301 p. 23) where the wall is limited to 10 feet height. Given the sort of building normal constructed (mansum not castellum) this restriction is pretty meaningless other than as a symbolic restraint. Hugh seems to have, anyway, ignored the limitation “The Sheriff of Hereford was ordered to seize it [Moccas Castle] on behalf of the king, but the dispute was most probably settled with a fine as the de Frenes continued possession for many years.” (Hereford SMR online)

The LC granted to Fulk Fitz Warine, in 1221, for Whittington Castle has been used as an example of royal control of a ‘suspect’ baron (King, 1983, Vol.2 p. 439n97) but the Close Roll entries (n.b. not Patent Rolls) can also be interpreted as attempts to mollify the concerns of Prince Llewellyn. I suspect the actual reason for Fulk’s application was more to do with confirming his ownership of Whittington after a bitter ownership dispute.

At least 19 properties have LCs which, in part, can be attributed to a need to mollify the concerns of neighbours.

A ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’ element can be detected in many LCs. This, social prestige, aspect of LCs has been explored in depth by Coulson⁸ and recently by Andy King for Northumberland (King, 2007). Often the men receiving licences were in competition with each other for profitable royal positions, such as sheriff. The relationship between the courtiers, John Norris and John Pury may have been more friendly. They were both members of a guild formed in 1451 (CPR 1446-52 p. 576) Pury obtained an LC for Chamberhouse in November 1446 (CChR Vol. 6 p. 72) Norris’s LC for Yattendon (ibid p. 100) is obtained 14 months later.

Pardons

12 English royal licences are granted as a pardon. This has been used to suggest LCs were a requirement. For example of the licence granted, in 1383, to Thomas Hungerford, John of Gaunt’s chief steward and speaker of the House of Commons, David King writes "The fine imposed was only 1 mark; the authorities can hardly have been much incensed at this technical offence." (King, 1983, p. 447n10) This was a fine not an amercement so expressly a fee for the pardon and a fee that would have barely covered the costs of administration. Hungerford’s powerful position, as Gaunt's steward rather than speaker, may have provoked some concern either locally or nationally so that the pardon became needed to alleviate anxiety about his building work. The pardons granted William Paulett, for his government financed artillery tower at Netley (CPR 1547-48 pp. 66-8), and William Petre, for Ingatestone Hall (CPR 1550-53 p. 110), by Edward VI are clearly honourific and represent the child status of the King. The actual grants were given by a regency council of which Paulett was a member and Petre a close advisor. If there was any real negative association with a ‘pardon’ then clearly Paulett would simply have omitted any such reference.

The Decline of the Licence to Crenellate

The fundamental reason for obtaining a LC seems clearly to have been prestige. However, the prestige that a licence held was limited, partly because grants may have been fairly readily available. Before 1348 Edward III was granting LCs in increasing number. In 1335 Robert de Eslington received a LC for Eslington Tower (CPR 1334-38 p. 78). Nothing remains of this tower, although it was recorded as capable of housing a garrison of 20 men in 1509 (Holdis and Towneshyppes), joint smallest garrison in the list; Bibblestone Hall, Northumberland, also recorded in the list as capable of garrisoning 20 men, gives an idea of the relatively humble building that Eslington Tower probably was. I’m not able to identify Robert Eslington but the Eslington’s held the manor by ‘certain local services of the species of serjeantry’ (Mackenzie, 1825 p. 27). Clearly when LCs are granted to such lowly members of the gentry some of the kudos is lost.

Arguably the most prestigious award of later medieval England was to become a Knight of the Garter. The order was created in, that notable date, 1348 after an earlier idea for a larger order of the ‘Round Table’ had collapsed. 390 men became KCs in the years 1348 to 1600 but only 20 of these obtained licences to crenellate.¹⁴ About 150 men obtain licences in the generations around and after the foundation of the order. This would suggest that the licence was much less sought after than membership of the Order of the Garter but still had some prestige for all ranks of the ruling classes from royal Dukes, old noble families like the Staffords and Nevilles and new members of the elite like ‘son of a catchpole’ William Paget. However, virtually all of these LCs were granted in association with some other privilege, usually emparking. The dramatic falling off of the number of licences granted after 1348 was, clearly, the result of the Black Death¹⁵ but the failure of the numbers granted to recover to pre 1348 levels may be explained by an erosion of the prestige of the licence as it was effectively supplanted by chivalric institutions.

On top of this decline in the prestige of LCs, a displacement of the kudos of being part of the military elite entitled to use symbols of military might, by its replacement with a display of military status through chivalric orders is a more general decline, initially slight and never complete, of the military role of the gentry. Increasing numbers of the gentry payed scutage and more none military people, like lawyers and merchants, became members of the gentry¹⁶. The prestige of a LC remained with some gentry but the increase in licences to empark suggests that status became more to be displayed by the privileges of lordship rather then the martial duties. The architectural symbols of lordship increasing became symbolic of classical education rather than military prowess; the Ionic portico rather than the crenellated gatehouse. When the last known LC is granted in 1589 (CPR 31 Elizabeth I - List and Index Society Vol. 300 p. 55 no. 297), tagged onto a licence to enlarge his park, it is to Sir Moyle Finche a steward for the duchy of Lancaster and Kent MP. Although he had a role, as deputy treasurer, in the defence forces organised for the 1588 Armada emergency he was hardly a soldier, although his ‘military’ role, and the slight revival in militarism the emergency provoked, may well have inspired this grant. The 4 centred brick arched, castellated, gateway of the house survives at Eastwell Manor, Kent.¹⁷

Conclusion

I believe Platt’s challenges to Coulson’s explanations of licences to to crenellate is readily responded to. LCs were generally inspired by reasons of social prestige and only rarely by direct concerns about defence. The weight of evidence, based on historical exploration of many individual licences and licence holders, presented by Coulson and others, has persuaded many individuals about the validity of Coulson's basic arguments about LCs in particular and late medieval ‘fortified’ houses (i.e. castles) in general. A better understanding of LCs comes from exploration of the stories of the individuals and institutions granted licences and not from sweeping assumptions based on broad historical themes, some of which, particularly accounts of violence, were and are exaggerated for psychological, social and political reasons. However, this is not to say that Coulson's account of LCs is not without weaknesses which should be more fully explored. In particular, given Coulson’s statement that ‘a licence was prestigious and could be had for the asking’ (Coulson, 1982, p. 70) and was, even when a charge was made, cheap (the equivalent of a few hundred pounds in todays money), what was the reason for so few licences being issued. He informs me that applicants were not vetted and seldom checked (Coulson pers corr), although I expect that, amongst the relatively small group that made up the English gentry some degree of informal vetting would readily occur, even if not always totally effectively. Comparison could be made with grants for markets which, over the same period, are about 5 times greater than LCs. The very comprehensive gazetteer of markets and fairs compiled by Dr Samatha Letters for the Centre for Metropolitan History¹⁸ certainly makes such a comparison a feasible task for someone. Whatever the method used to explore the issue of the relatively rarity of LCs the answer will not lie in a general history of the great and and good of England but in detailed study of the gentry.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the Castle Studies Group for a grant to fund the research on which this paper is based. I would also like to thank Dr Charles Coulson for some helpful comments and Dr Andy King for providing me a copy of his 2007 article and helpful comments. Finally thanks to Craig for reading drafts of this paper and providing much constructive stylistic comment. Any remaining errors of fact and interpretation are my own.