Chapter XXXVII: Appendix: X

ROGER "DE RAMIS." (See p. 181.)

The entries relating to the fief of this tenant _in capite_ are probably as corrupt as any to be found in the _Liber Niger_.

The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in this charter and Domesday invariably as _de Ramis_—an inevitable confusion soon arose between it and the name of their chief seat in England, Rayne, co. Essex. Morant, in his history of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne being entered in Domesday and in the _Liber Niger_ as "Raines," the name of the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" (i. 237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, 240). The Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was succeeded by William "de Raimes," who was dead in 1130, when his sons Roger and Robert are found indebted to the Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.). Further, if the _Liber Niger_ (i. 237, 239) is to be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is clear. But when we come to the _cartæ_ of 1166 all is hopeless confusion. There are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex portion, but while the _carta_ of that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" is intelligible, though very corrupt, the other is assigned by an amazing blunder to William fitz Miles, who was merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover, the entries are so similar that they might be easily taken for variants of the same _carta_.

Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 Hen. II.). We there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:—

"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ et IIII _d._ pro Rogero de Ram'.

"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de XII _l._ et XIII _s._ IIII _d._ pro Ricardo de Ram'."

They require some explanation. The sums here accounted for (though it is not so stated) are payments towards "the great scutage" of the year at two marks on the knight's fee. These were in most cases paid collectively by the aggregate of knights liable. Here, luckily for us, these two tenants paid separately. Turning the payments into marcs, and then dividing by two, we find that each represents an assessment of nine and a half knights. Now, we know for certain from the _Liber Niger_ (i. 240) that the assessment of one of these two fiefs was ten knights, and that its holder was entitled to deduct from that assessment an amount equivalent to half a knight. For such is the meaning in the language of the Exchequer of the phrase: "feodum dimidii militis ... _quod mihi computatur_ in X militibus quos Regi debeo." Thus we obtain the exact amount (nine and a half knights) on which he pays in the above Roll.[1150]

But we can go further still. Each of the two fiefs was entitled to the same deduction (_Liber Niger_). Both, therefore, must have been alike assessed at ten knights. We are now on the right track. These two fiefs in the _Liber Niger_ are not identical but distinct; they represent an original fief, assessed at twenty knights, which has been divided into two equal halves, each with an assessment of ten knights. And as with the whole fief, so with some of its component parts. Dedham, for instance, the "Delham" of Domesday (ii. 83) and the "Diham" of our charter, was held of the lord of the fief by the service of one knight. When the fief was divided in two, Dedham was divided too. Accordingly, we find it mentioned in our charter (1142) as "Diham que fuit Rogeri de Ramis, rectum ... fili_orum_ Rogeri de Ramis." It was their joint right, because it was divided between them, just as it still appears divided in the _cartæ_ of 1166.[1151]

But further, why is Dedham alone mentioned in this charter? Because it was that portion of the fief which the Crown had seized and kept, and consequently that of which the restoration was now exacted from the Empress. And why had the Crown seized it? Possibly as security for those very debts, which were due to it from William "de Raimes" (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.).[1152]

Dedham was not the only divided manor in the fief. "Totintuna," in Norfolk, was similarly shared, its one knight's fee being halved. This enables us to correct an error in the _Liber Niger_. We there read (i. 237)—

"Warinus de Totinton' medietatem I militis."

And again (i. 239)—

"Warinus dim' mil'. De Todinton' feodum dimidii militis."

In the latter case the right reading is—

"Warinus de Todinton' dim' mil'. Feodum dimidii militis[1153] de Hiham, quod," etc.

Further, Robert "de Reines" is returned in both _cartæ_ as holding (1166) a quarter of a knight's fee in each fief, "de novo fefamento," apparently in Higham (Suffolk), not far from Dedham (Essex). This suggests his enfeofment by the service of half a knight, and the division of his holding when the fief was divided. It is strange that on the Roll of 1159 he is entered as paying one marc, which would be the exact amount payable for half a knight.[1154]

Thus the main points have been satisfactorily established. The genealogy is not so easy. Our charter tells us that, in 1142, the sons of Roger "de Ramis" were the "nepotes" of Earl Aubrey. From the earl's age at the time they could not be his grandsons: they were, therefore, his nephews, the sons of a sister. Were they the Richard and Roger who, in 1159, held respectively the two halves of the original fief (_Rot. Pip._, 5 Hen. II.)? To answer this question, we must grasp the _data_ clearly. In 1130 and in 1135 the two fiefs were respectively held by Robert and Roger, the sons of _William_. In our charter (1142) we find them, it would seem, held by "the sons of _Roger_," probably of tender years. This would suggest that the Robert (son of William) of 1135 had died childless before 1142, and that his fief had been reunited to that of his brother Roger, only, however, for the joint fief to be again divided between Roger's sons. But the question is further complicated by some documents relating to the church of Ardleigh, one of which is addressed by "Robertus de Ramis filius Rogeri de Ramis" to Robert [de Sigillo], Bishop of London, while another, addressed to the same bishop, proceeds from Robert son of _William_ "de Ramis," apparently his uncle. In 1159 the two fiefs reappear as held respectively by Roger and Richard "de Ramis." In 1165 (_Rot. Pip._, 11 Hen. II.) we find them held by William and Richard de Ramis, and thenceforth they were always known as the fiefs of William and of Richard. The actual names of the holders of the fiefs in 1166 (one of which is ignored by the Black Book and the other given as Robert) are determined by the Pipe-Roll of 1168, where they are entered as William and Richard. Thus, at length, we ascertain that the _carta_ assigned to William "filius Milonis" was in truth that of William "de Ramis," while that which is assigned to Robert "de Ramis" was in truth that of Richard "de Ramis." The entry on this Pipe-Roll relating to the latter fief throws so important a light on the _Carta_ of 1166, that I here print the two side by side.

[1166.]

Hii sunt milites qui tenuerunt de feodo Roberti de Raimes die qua Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, viz:—... Willelmus filius Jocelini II milites Philippus Parage feodum dim. militis. Horum servitium difforciant mihi Willelmus filius Jocelini et Philippus. Simon de Cantilupo detinet mihi Heingeham quam tenere debeo de Rege in dominio meo.

[1168.]

Ricardus de Reimis [_al._ Raimes] reddit compotum de X marcis pro X militibus. In thesauro XXXIII sol. et IIII den. Et in dominio Regis de Dedham i mar. Et debet IIII li. et VI sol. et VIII den. sed calumpniatur quod Picot de Tanie[1155] habet II milites per Regem, et Simo de Cantelu IIos, et Comes Albricus dim., et Phylippus Parage dim.

If, as implied by our charter, the sons of Roger ("de Ramis") were minors at the time of the Anarchy, this would account for Earl Hugh seizing, as recorded in William's _carta_, five of his knights' fees in the time of King Stephen (_Liber Niger_, i. 237).

The later history of these two fiefs is one of some complexity, but the descent of Dedham, which alone concerns our own charter, is fortunately quite clear. Its two halves are well shown in the _Testa de Nevill_ entry:—

"Leonia de Stutevill tenet feodum unius militia in Byh[a]m unde debet facere unam medietatem heredi Ricardi de Reymes et alteram medietatem heredi Willelmi de Reymes" (i. 276).

For this Byham, improbable as it may seem, was really the "Diham" of our charter, _i.e._ Dedham, and the two halves of the original barony are here described (as I explained above) as those of Richard and William. In a survey of Richard's portion of the fief among the inquisitions of John (_circ._ 1212),[1156] we find Leonia holding half a knight's fee in "Dyham" of it, and in a later inquisition we find her heir, John de Stuteville, holding the estate as "Dyhale" (_Testa_, p. 281 _b_). As early as 1185-86 Leonia was already in possession of Dedham, as will be seen by the extract below from the _Rotulus de Dominabus_. This entry is one of a series which have formed the subject of keen, and even hot, discussion. The fact that Dedham is spoken of here as her "inheritance" has led to the hasty inference that she was heiress, or co-heiress, to the Raimes fief. This view seems to have been started by Mr. E. Chester Waters in a communication to _Notes and Queries_ (1872),[1157] in which, on the strength of the entries below relating to her and to Alice de Tani, he drew out a pedigree deriving them both from the "Roger de Ramis of Domesday." Writing to the _Academy_ in 1885, he took great credit to himself for his performance in _Notes and Queries_, and observed, of Mr. Yeatman: "I must refer him to the _Rotulus de Dominabus_ and to the Chartulary of Bocherville Abbey for the true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes."[1158] But the extracts which follow clearly show (when combined with the _Testa_ entry above) that neither Leonia nor Alice were the "true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes," for they were merely under-tenants of that fief, Leonia holding one knight's fee from the tenants of the whole fief, and Alice two knights' fees from the tenants of Richard's portion.

(Lexden Hundred.)

Uxor Roberti de Stuteville est de donatione Domini Regis, et de parentela Edwardi de Salesburia ex parte patris, et ex parte matris est de progenie Rogeri de Reimes. Ipsa habet j villam que vocatur Diham que est hereditas ejus, que valet annuatim xxiiij libras. Ipsa habet j filium et ij filias, et nescitur eorum etas.

(Tendring Hundred.)

Alizia de Tany est de donatione Domini Regis; terra ejus valet vij libras, et ipsa habet v filios et ij filias, et heres ejus est xx annorum, de progenie Rogeri de Reimes.

(Hinckford.)

Alicia filia Willelmi filii Godcelini quam tradidit Dominus Rex Picoto de Tani est in donatione Domini Regis, et tenet de Domino Rege, et de feodo Ricardi de Ramis; et terra sua valet vij libras; et ipsa habet v filios et primogenitus est xx annorum, et ij filias. Picot de Tani habuit dictam terram v annis elapsis, cum autumpnus venerit.

Leonia is indeed stated to be "de progenie Rogeri de Reimes," and so is the heir of Alice (_not_, as alleged, Alice herself), but there is nothing to show that this was the Roger de Raimes "of Domesday." It may have been his namesake (and grandson?) of 1130-35, or even (though probably not) the Roger of 1159. Whether the allusion, in our charter (1142), to Dedham being the "rectum" of the sons of Roger de Ramis, and the fact of its being in the king's hands then and in 1166-68, had to do with a claim by Leonia or her mother, or not, it is obvious that Leonia did not claim, nor did Alice de Tani, to be, in any sense, the heir of either of the above Rogers, though she may have been, as was the case so often with under-tenants, connected with them in blood.

[1150] This instance proves that payment was sometimes made on the net amount due, after making such deduction, instead of being entered as paid in full, with a subsequent entry of deduction.

[1151] The forms "Diham," "De Hiham," and "Heham" are very confusing from the fact that Higham also is on the border of Essex and Suffolk.

[1152] Compare the remission by Henry II., in his charter to the second Earl of Essex, of the Crown's lien upon certain of his manors, dating from the time of Henry I. (see p. 241).

[1153] The words which follow are on p. 240.

[1154] This has a direct bearing on the very difficult question of the assessment of the new feoffment.

[1155] Picot de Tani (1168) stood in the shoes of William fitz Jocelin (1166), having married his daughter Alice (_Rotulus de Dominabus_).

[1156] Printed by Madox as from the _Liber Feudorum_.

[1157] 4th series, vol. ix. p. 314.

[1158] _Academy_, June 27, 1885.