Church and Land Ownership

Church and Land Ownership

            Feudalism flourished in medieval Europe between the ninth and fifteenth century. The combination of legal and military customs was used to structure the society around relationships derived from land ownership in exchange for service through labor. The involvement of the church in the issues of land ownership cannot be overlooked since the clergy were among the three estates of the realm: the nobility, clergy and the peasantry. The feudal system was brought into England by William the Conqueror. The two historians Roger Wickson and John Arnold share contrasting views on feudalism. According to Wickson for example, the Norman Conquest saw that among the beneficiaries were the great churchmen in wholesale of land ownership. On the contrary, Arnold believes that occasional royal tax spent on foreign wars provided a local service accessible to all.

The church dominates the land ownership in England with the church being given a higher priority of ownership. The church has the right to own land from an individual without any obligation to pay any dues. The initial owner of the land only benefits from prayers by the church. The land was the main landlord in England[1]. According to John Arnold, the domination of the church over the ownership is evident by the way the monarch creates interest in taking over the church. The monarch earns wealth and power from the development of the exchequer, which allowed taxes to be monitored and could “maintain pressure on those who owed them”[2].On the other hand, Wickson states that the Norman conquest was only interested in the wholesale ownership of land and most of the beneficiaries where churchmen. The church controlled almost a quarter of the land with the royal family being the other beneficiaries. Disputes always hit the relationship between the church and the royal family. The main disputes that faced the church and the royal family were the ones between Henry II and Archbishop Thomas, and the one between John and Pope Innocent III. The kings were determined to take over the church just like the former monarchical kings had done.

The church had total control over land and the processes behind the ownership of land. According to Arnold, the election of a bishop was equivalent to the election of a landlord. The bishops were given the priority of managing the land obtained by the church from the church members who would exchange the land for prayers[3]. Lands and estates brought with them not only pastoral and spiritual obligations but also, obligations to the king as Lords. The bishops played a critical role in the decision making concerning land ownership and were obliged to attend all kings’ council meetings[4]. The obligation of the bishops was given based on the fact that he was an important tenant. The church leadership was always committed to the obligations given by the royal family owing to the benefits enjoyed by the church due to a good relationship with the royal family. The monarchy shows greed in the pursuance of wealth, which leads to the downfall of King John. The posts within the imperial administration are sought after by ambition because land ownership is an avenue for status and wealth in the highest reaches of the highest reaches using English church. The church leadership is interested in reforms and has to use the position in tenancy to win the support of the king.

The church solves land disputes. The disputes would arise through different situations that included corrupt landlords and land grabbing. For example, a landlord would be tempted to sell an already sold piece of land or any individual sell land belonging to another landlord without their knowledge. The church was involved in land disputes in different ways. For example, the church could be a victim of land dispute or be on the solution seeking side. As a victim of land disputes, the church would acquire ownership of land from a false owner and be forced to return to the rightful owner in the event of a dispute. On the other hand, the church leadership would form part of the king’s council to handle land disputes. [5]”The solutions concerning land disputes received the support of the royal family because of the royal family’s interest on the land issue”. The church on the other side would help the royal family on the military campaign, which helps on revenue collection. The kings imposed more taxes but received more resistance on tax payment a factor that later made King John lose his credibility.

In sum, the creation of feudalism provided wealth for the monarchy as Wickson points out and increased actual and potential power of the monarchy. However, it can be seen that the Kings over the feudalism period abused the taxation system and the wealth generated. When taxes were taken for the benefit of the church it was more accepted than land taxes, and although Kings thought that the church was easy pickings for wealth, eventually the generation of taxes left King Richard and King John unpopular, diminishing their power. The two historians Roger Wickson and John Arnold share contrasting views on feudalism.

[1] Webber, Mary Teresa. “An introduction to the project ‘Models of Authority: Scottish Charters and the Emergence of Government, 1100-1250’.” (2018).

[2]Huscroft, Richard. “The Norman Conquest: A New Introduction.” 2013.

[3]Wickson, Roger. “Kings and Bishops in Medieval England, 1066-1216.” 2015.

[4]Arnold, John. H. ” belief and unbelief in medieval europe .” 2014.

[5] Watson, Peter. “The Okeovers c. 1100-c. 1300: a gentry family and their cartulary.” PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2017.