Under construction ...
Main Page: Titles of European hereditary rulers
Grand Feudatories and Royal Authority in France
1. Goldsmith, James Lowth. Lordship in France,
500-1500 (New York, NY : Peter Lang, 2003).
2. Goldsmith, James Lowth. Lordship in France,
1500-1789 (New York, NY : Peter Lang, 2005).
“In the century and a half between the accession of
Philip II in the 1180 and the death of the last Capetian king Charles IV in
1328, the kings, the most dynamic princes, and barons expanded and consolidated
their domains... All the great lords modernized their administrative systems.
The better organized principalities and baronies had an administrative and
judicial apparatus that closely resembled that of royal domain... As earlier,
all of the principalities including the royal domain had three principal
components: the inner core where the kings and the princes exercised the full
rights of lordship directly over their subjects; the rights of protection,
sauvegarde, over ecclesiastical lordships, over towns, and occasionally
over lesser aristocratic lordships; and the rights of feudal suzerainty over
lesser lords” [1: p.199].
“In the thirteenth and early fourteenth century, the
kings took only timid steps to expanded royal sovereignty outside of the direct
royal domain and the sphere of protected churches and towns. The kings and the
princes used feudal practices to reduce the political and military independence
of lesser lords and to raise revenues. Philip II imposed the feudal taxes,
heretofore assessed only on the direct vassals in the royal domain, on the most
eminent principalities and baronies... The kings also expanded their military
and fiscal powers by acting through their vassals. The kings called to arms all
fief holders, not just their direct vassals, in the royal domain, in the royal
apanages, and, with the approval of the princes, in the feudal
principalities. In addition, the kings expanded their fiscal resources through
the avenue of feudal suzerainty. Technically the kings called upon his vassals
for financial aid or aid in lieu of military service. These early royal taxes
required the consent of those taxed, the princes and barons” [1:
“Saint Louis also claimed the right to act as the judge
of last resort on appeal in the event of denial of justice or justice poorly
rendered... By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the kings claimed
ressort et souvereineté, jurisdiction and sovereignty, over the
entire realm... The thirteenth century kings made some very modest efforts to
exercise legislative authority over entire realm. There were very few royal
ordinances at all the thirteenth century and fewer still that applied to the
entire realm. The thirteenth century royal ordinances that extended outside the
royal domain were all the result of extensive consultation with the great
aristocrats. They had the force of law in the principalities because they were
proclaimed with the consent of the princes and because the princes agreed to
enforce them in their own lands” [1: p. 200].
“All told, the actual efforts by the thirteenth century
kings to exercise authority outside of the royal domain, even actions of Philip
IV who was the most absolutist of them all, were quite restrained. The princes
and barons imitated the actions of the kings and expanded their authority by
exploiting the possibilities offered by feudal suzerainty in their own lands.
The dukes and counts claimed exclusive jurisdiction over certain ducal and
comital cases. ... Likewise, the dukes and counts began to call to military
service all fief holders in their territories, even sub-vassals. The dukes and
counts also developed their own system of extraordinary taxation, in part by
exploring their rights as lords of their domains, in part by requesting feudal
aid from their vassals” [1: p.200-201].
“However, the establishment of royal suzerainty over
princes in the kingdom of France and the parallel establishment of the authority
of the princes over the barons in the principalities did not eliminate the
sovereign authority which every lord, whether king, prince, or baron, exercised
over his own domain and over his own subjects. The king did not intervene in the
internal affairs of an independent principality, nor did he exercise direct
authority over the subjects of a major lord... Despite the proliferation of
feudal bonds of dependence in the thirteenth century, the relationship between
the king and the great aristocrats still rested on an ancient cultural and
political tradition that recognized the independent and legitimate governing
authority of all lords, each at his own level. In its essential features, this
cultural and political tradition was the same in the thirteenth century as it
had been in the eighth or the sixth century. The great lords governed France
jointly with the king, and the power that they exercised was a personal,
heritable attribute found only in the members of ruling aristocracy which
encompassed the barons, the great princes, and the king himself” [1:
“The jurists had a different vision of authority...
Authority flowed by delegation from the top down to a neat hierarchy of fiefs or
benefices. The legal experts constructed theories of the state as a permanent
entity... They referred to the crown as the symbol of royal power and proprietor
of the royal lands, the king as an administrator, the holder of an office, and
the royal domain as an inalienable asset” [1: p.201-202].
“Nevertheless, in everyday actions of the kings and
great lords, it was the older cultural and political traditions that still
counted... The king exercised authority in the thirteenth century personally, as
a heritable attribute of his person, like any lord. Kingship, like lordship, was
not an office, but a hereditary right. The royal domain was the king’s
personal possession. In the Middle Ages, it was the king, the princes, and the
barons who exercised authority, not states. Likewise, although the notion of
royal sovereignty suggested a hierarchical ordering of fiefs with the king at
the top, the effective power structure of thirteenth century France, politically
and administratively, was still an untidy juxtaposition of largely autonomous
lordships, some large and many quite small. For the most part, each lordship
functioned as largely independent entity” [1: p.202].
“Certainly the expansion of royal and princely justice
brought the lower seigneurial courts under the ultimate supervision of the royal
and princely parlements... The highest royal and princely courts were
much more likely to intervene in disputes between lords or in conflicts of
jurisdiction between the courts of rival lords than they were to intrude into
the legitimate everyday affairs of the principalities, baronies, and lesser
lordships. The hierarchy of lordships became more sharply defined at every level
in the thirteenth and early fourteenth century...” [1: p.202].
“As the principalities of the Middle Ages took on
territorial integrity and developed a more elaborate administrative apparatus,
the need for various bureaucratic services increased...” [1:
“ ...There can be no doubt that lordship itself was no
longer by the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century quite what it had
been earlier. Politically, power was flowing rapidly to the king and princes.
The gap in revenues between the king and princes on the one hand and the barons
on the other was now so great that the barons could no long behave as if they
were fully equal powers. Increasingly, the barons gravitated to the courts of
the king and the princes where they performed important political, diplomatic,
and military functions as trusted confidants and pensioners. Indeed, often the
leading barons in the royal domain and principalities drew much revenue from
their role as courtiers as they did from their own lordships...” [1:
“Technically, the lordships in 1500 were often
identical to what they had been under Saint-Louis IX in 1250, but socially and
politically much had changed.
Under Saint-Louis, lords in France from princes of the realm
down to village seigneurs, exercised the same sovereign governing authority over
their lands as the king did over his domain. In 1250, lordship was still the
institutional expression of the sovereign authority of a governing aristocracy
which took on concrete form in fiscal institutions, justice, police authority,
military power, and general administration. From the fourteenth century, the
governing authority of the intermediate and lower reaches of the hierarchy of
lords faded in favor of the king and the great princes. Next the great princes
disappeared and by the beginning of the sixteenth century, only one lord
exercised the full sovereign authority of governance, the king of France.
Although dukes and counts pullulated under the old regime,
the dukes and counts of the early modern era were in no way comparable to
medieval princes. They and all of the lesser lords of the old regime no longer
possessed independent, sovereign powers of governance. Lordship survived as a
fiscal institution, as an apparatus of justice, as a vehicle for police
activities and even as an organ of local governance, but the authority of the
lords and their lordships functioned at the sufferance of the king. In the eyes
of the king and his jurists, all lords derived their authority from the
Once the kings had arrogated to themselves the fullness of
sovereign authority, there was no need to press on further to destroy lordship.
Although lordship as a political institution was dead by 1500, as a fiscal,
judicial, and administrative apparatus it was still very much alive. The
seigneuries were patrimonial possessions, but they were incorporated into the
apparatus of state and functioned as public institutions" [2: p.3].