In The history of the county of Derby, ed. by T. Noble, Volume 2 By Stephen Glover, he mentions the term "of old feoffment" which he says was a term used in ancient records which means: "to hold lands & c. which were enfeoffed or possessed by the ancestors of the person alluded to in the record before the death of Henry I", which he states was in 1135. Is this statement still accurate? I just want confirmation or clarification of the meaning. My example is the following: Galfr. de Georz, 30 H 2. (fn. 1) gave account of xxs. that the deed or charter which he had of William de Georz concerning the land of [Lughburgh] should be read in the kings court. Agnes, who was wife of Geoffrey de Georz, 13 Joh. (fn. 2) gave account of 16l. 13s. 2d. for the custody of the lands, &c. Galfr. de Jorz paid two marks for one knights fee in Burton, in the former part of the reign of Henry the third, afterwards Richard de Jorz was found to hold a knights fee of Oliver de Eyncourt, who held it of the king of the old feoffment. Robert Spencer

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:02:38 PM UTC+1, robert.the...@gmail.com wrote: > In The history of the county of Derby, ed. by T. Noble, Volume 2 > By Stephen Glover, he mentions the term "of old feoffment" which he says was a term used in ancient records which means: > > "to hold lands & c. which were enfeoffed or possessed by the ancestors of the person alluded to in the record before the death of Henry I", which he states was in 1135. > > Is this statement still accurate? I just want confirmation or clarification of the meaning. > > My example is the following: > > Galfr. de Georz, 30 H 2. (fn. 1) gave account of xxs. that the deed or charter which he had of William de Georz concerning the land of [Lughburgh] should be read in the kings court. Agnes, who was wife of Geoffrey de Georz, 13 Joh. (fn. 2) gave account of 16l. 13s. 2d. for the custody of the lands, &c. Galfr. de Jorz paid two marks for one knights fee in Burton, in the former part of the reign of Henry the third, afterwards Richard de Jorz was found to hold a knights fee of Oliver de Eyncourt, who held it of the king of the old feoffment. > > Robert Spencer Yes, it is still correct. In 1166, for reasons which are obscure and much debated by historians, Henry II required all his tenants in chief to certify to him in a 'carta' the number of knights' fees held from them which had been created by an enfeoffment made (i) before the death of Henry I, i.e. before 1135 and (ii) after that date. For some time thereafter the two categories were referred to in records as fees of the old enfeoffment and the new enfeoffment. The difference had significance in determining how many knights the tenant-in-chief owed to the king, and how much scutage he should pay. Matt Tompkins

Thank you Matt, your answer is appreciated. Robert Spencer