The Council of Manorial Lords

I have noted this question often raised and interesting that AI seems to concur somewhat with my own thinking, that a Manorial Lordship is Nobility. Here is my humble and read opinion. Are Manorial Lordships Nobility? yes, and this is the crux, the title of Lord is a recognised title of Nobility in all of Europe, in fact it is the earliest noble title created in the European system, thus it is unquestionable as it has no other meaning, a Lord is a Lord. It is widely understood throughout Europe that a Lord was a nobleman and as we know, England under both Anglo-Saxons and Normans used the European system with adjustments to the English political landscape at the given time. No Lord was not considered noble; however, he did not have to have been born of noble blood/ birth and that is still the case today, that fact is well proven now in the UK by the members of the life peerage in the current House of Lords now that the Hereditary Peers have been removed from the House of Lords. The Manor is the unit of land in which the Lord governed over, with one or two Courts (Court Leet is not automatic to all Lordships only the Court Baron is) nothing more and nothing less. It was not possible in the England at the time or in Europe to appoint or grant a Manor/Seigneury Fief to a peasant/freeman to rule over, thus it is why a Lord had to rule and thus is automatically Nobility, that is how the class system worked in medieval England/Europe, even the peasants/copyholders in 1258 and centuries later, acknowledged that the Lord was a noble, thus one often reads and no doubt would have heard the words “my noble Lord” which is still heard to this day when addressed formally. Also keep in mind that the Lords of their Manors were often required to support a Knight or two and many depending on the size and wealth of ones Manor. The Knight was below the Lord of the Manor and had to serve not only the King but also the Lord of the Manor, thus this very act raises the Lord to noble status as a Knight was never a noble unless he was also a Lord. The sons of Lords of Manors would often serve in office at the Royal Court or Ecclesiastical Court, not so sons of peasants. It is a complex system and more could be said and stated on this one subject alone, however I doubt this is the time. I may expand more on this later. In regards to Heraldry, all Nobles/Lords of Manor were allowed to petition for a Grant of Arms as were Knights. No peasants were allowed to, even Freeman were not until much later on. The visitation records of the Heralds show this. This again is yet more proof that a Lord of his Manor was considered of Noble status to be allowed permission to petition for a grant of Arms from the King via his College of Arms. It is incorrect in my opinion to state that the 1922 Act that by abolishing copyhold tenure and moving us to statutory freehold ownership, it removed the noble status of Manorial Lords, nor in the 1660 Act did this apply to the Barons. The copyhold tenants may have viewed us as Nobility as there were only a couple of classes in the system. By the 1922, there were quite a few emerging classes, and all wanted their land to be freehold so as not to continue with servitude to the Lord nor be committed to and governed by the Court Leet and Court Baron, hence the changes in law. However, this change in the law with amendments in 1925 and 1926 did not change our noble status, all it changed was the land status, not the Noble status of the title of Lord. Hence why the Title became an Incorporeal Hereditament in the 1922 Act, just like the Barons in Scotland became in 2004. In no way did either of these two titles/dignities have their noble status removed or changed. Our noble status cannot be enforced by law, nor removed by law, but moreover it is an implied noble Status by the very fact and usage of the Title “Lord/Baron” in everyday activities, as they have always been so throughout the history of both Europe and England and hopefully, shall continue to be so used in the future. I will state that it is more a public and media misconception of nobility and or an utter dislike of it as we move more and more to the leftwing/communist political movement throughout Europe, which this political movement has never liked the nobility nor history and thus has aided and abetted this misrepresentation, though oddly our titles are still allowed on Passports and Drivers Licenses, a somewhat juxtaposition. Landed Gentry have no title and thus are not aristocrats, whereas a Lord of his Manor was an Aristocrat/Nobleman, who had the Sovereigns authority to govern his land on behalf of his sovereign. In fact, at the very earliest stages of the formation of what became the House of Lords, it was Lords of the Manors (mostly men who owned many manors) who were invited to become the first Peers to sit in the House of Lords, which often moved around the country to wherever the King was residing, hence why most of the early Hereditary Peers held Lordships of the Manor, as they had many of them, some Peers still hold hundreds to dozens of them. A few of the early Peers created were either learned men who were advisors to the Sovereign which also included the early senior Clergy of important Cathedrals who did not necessarily all hold Manors. Later on as the Feudal system slowly waned, it was more wealthy merchants, industrialist, Prime Ministers, senior Diplomats or military leaders such as Nelson, Wellington etc… large political donors, or large estate owners who were offered Peerages, many who held no Manors at all, thus the connection to the land and the history of the country is not attached to their new Peerage titles. I have seen several publications that stated that a Lord of the Manor and a Feudal Baron are equal and one and the same in status. I agree with this on the grounds that a Feudal Baron could not be created without holding several Manors and the wealth to support his status as a feudal baron (not to be confused with a Hereditary Peerage Baron). The fact is that his baron title was created in the name of his Manor that he as Lord of the Manor resided in proves this fact. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any feudal baron today that does not also hold the Lordship of the Manor of the same name is lesser to that of a Lord of the Manor, as it was the Manor that held the Courts, privileges, rights, minerals underground and the governance, not the Baron title which was more of an honourary status, though all feudal barons had some form of Tenure to the Sovereign which was specifically abolished in 1660. Having said that, I have not found in that Act any mention that the Baron title more commonly known as a dignity or Honour as being abolished, despite what Mr Guy Stair-Sainty publishes in his articles on this subject. In regards to the Drivers Licence, DVLA has allowed the individual to add a Title of Lord, however, a territorial is not allowed on a Drivers Licence unless you change your surname by Deed to include it into your surname. On the British Passport on the Observation page, you can have your Manorial Lordship title included. Again unless you change your surname by Deed Poll to included your Manorial Designation, you cannot add it to the surname on the main identification page of the Passport. On a Marriage or Birth or Death Certificates again the title and territorial designation cannot be added onto the document unless you have changed your surname by Deed Poll. However, in formal writing it is permissible to use the Manorial Territorial designation after the Title (Lord). In regards to signing one’s signature, you can use either surname and Manorial designation or just Manorial designation. In regards to formal usage it would be Lord of? or one can use Lord of the Manor of? or another custom is Lord surname of (Manorial designation) all are quite correct to use and I believe should be encouraged to use in order to keep history alive. I personally use on my Letterhead “Lord Couling of Cowlinge” or in old English “Couling de Cowlinge” In conclusion, I have found no proof in any Act that implied or removed the status of Nobility from the Lord of the Manor. It was and I believe still is merely and automatically implied in my humble opinion from the early creators of the Manorial system that the Manorial Lords were of noble status, which was based upon what I believe was used in the old Kingdoms of Europe when the invading Anglo-Saxons and Normans came crossing the English Channel into early England, hence the use of and granting to the individual the title of Lord before the manorial territorial designation implies nobility. In fact, as surnames were not that common in early history, only being introduced in the 1100s, before that is was more like a nickname or place name you were born from. One could argue the customary practice that one could use Lord (Christian name) of (Manorial territorial name) eg: Lord James of Windsor, and after the 1100s with the addition of a surname and feudalism was still in full practice, one could argue a customary practice of using Lord (Christen name) plus (surname) of (manorial designation) eg: Lord James Smith of Windsor. Certainly within the Counties of England and at Royal Court they would have been addressed as “My Noble Lord”. In all cases the usage of the Manorial Title, the word “of” or “de” must be used to denote the difference between a Peerage and Feudal Nobile title. It is reasonable to reach this conclusion that all legitimate Lords of the Manors are in fact Lords/Seigneury’s of the Realm, which must not to be confused with Peers of the Realm. Amongst the company of noble Manorial Lords, it is not an unreasonable suggestion that one could be addressed just by your territorial designation. I conclude on this note. Couling of Cowlinge