Draft:Knights for the body

This is a draft article. It is a work in progress open to editing by anyone. Please ensure core content policies are met before publishing it as a live Wikipedia article. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs · Article logs · Draft logs. Last edited by MinorProphet (talk | contribs) 3 months ago. (Update) Finished drafting? Submit for review or Publish now

Join in and help expand this draft!

Editorials, 17 August 2020 & 1 May 2021

Major TTD, fool

It's plainly time to

• a) Convert/move all existing indented sources etc. into {cites}, make {sfn}s, and move to the Bibliography.
• b) Make cites in Biblio for all bare refs for CPRs etc, and make {sfn}s. (only 150 years' worth lol)
• c) Fix all other incomplete refs, semi-bare urls etc. as {cite}s.
• d) Make it fairly plain that the first attested Knights of the Body—according to modern [ie 21st century] historians—seem to have been created by Edward IV; and that almost all other earlier references to them (and some later ones) are quite possibly i) the result of ignorance of specific Latin terms by the translators of the Calenders etc.; ii) and/or lack of access to the original contemporary documents (eg those kept in the Tower and examined by Rymer himself in person); iii) and/or the desire to portray historical figures with the most exalted possible title, even though this is generally unwarranted, as is demonstrated below.
• e) Condense various sections with overlapping material re each monarch into maybe just a single sub-section, moving all those negative "0 hits" into a single ref. NB This could well be seen as
  WP:OR
  , although multiple negative results do not confirm the opposite.
• f) Consider creating {{uses sfn}} to explain my preferred reffing style and how to get the best out of it.
• g) Find pix
• h) Is that all? (NB This is the symbol which represents the Gödel number for 0=0 [1]) MinorProphet (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Update

Get help. MinorProphet (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede

The Knights for the body (or knights of the body or knights of the royal body) were prominent

• NB In this draft I indiscriminately use my own abbreviations KftB ('knights for the body'), KotB ('knights of the body') or KotRB ('knights of the royal body'), or similar; plus random capitalisation of these titles.

The duties of the knights with this official or

The knights for the body were expected to be at court for some considerable time (eight continuous weeks under Edward IV)[1] and be at close quarters with the king, not unlike the esquires for the body: the latter were the most personal servants of the king, dressing him, personally him serving at table etc.

On receiving a knighthood, esquires of the body did not automatically become a knight of the body. Some esquires of the body were indeed knights; others preferred to remain un-knighted and to pay a fine to do so.§^[2] Neither was there any inherent right to the position or title: it was granted by the reigning monarch (or their representative), and there was no automatic continuation of the title from one reign to another. E.g. see below Perient, Sir Henry Retford, et al.

The knights also took part in ceremonial state occasions such as royal weddings and funerals: e.g. Henry V's coronation, Edward IV's funeral (see below}, Henry VII's funeral, Edward VI's christening (Pegge, Curalalia somewhere i fink). Queens also had knights for the body, whose wives were sometimes royal

• JSTOR 44946947. NB perhaps expand this

The knights of the body were both intimate members of the royal household, and also maintained important positions in the shires (or in English-occupied France) away from court: they can thus also be seen as part of the king's wider affinity.^[6]

Nomenclature

Sources

• Nicolas, Nicholas Harris, Sir (1831). "Explanation of the Contractions Used in Records". Public Records: A Description of the Contents, Objects, and Uses of the Various Works Printed by Authority of the Record Commission; for the Advancement of Historical and Antiquarian Knowledge. Baldwin and Craddock. pp. 133–5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Hardy, Thomas Duffus, ed. (1835). Rotuli Litterarum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Asservati. Volume 1, part 1. [1201-1216]. Printed by Command of His Majesty King William IV, under the direction of the Commissioners on the Public Records of the Kingdom.

However, as Shelagh Mitchell has demonstrated, there are various shortcomings in the translations into English by the editors of the printed Calendars of the Patent Rolls. These are intended as swift summaries of the contents of the original mediaeval Latin documents, but in some instances the 19th century translators did not take into account their very particular stylistic Latin conventions. Specifically, Mitchell concentrates on the term 'king's knight', and how it fails to distinguish between royal 'chamber knights' of the household who received fees and robes from the Wardrobe, and other 'king's knights', e.g. knights who received a variety of annuities and rewards but seemed to be excluded from the household.^[8]

"...the expression miles regis (‘king’s knight’) appears only very infrequently in contemporary documentation. Rather, where the men styled ‘king’s knights’ in the printed calendars of Chancery documentation – from which Given-Wilson took his lead – appear in the original rolls, the terminology used was miles noster (‘our knight’). More specifically, Mitchell has shown how, in the original rolls, knights who were the retainers of the king were referred to as dilectus et fidelis miles noster N[ame]. Knights who were not retained by the king were, in contrast, referred to as dilectus et fidelis noster N[ame] miles. The subtle yet important difference here was that, in the former case, the individual’s rank of ‘knight’ (miles) was attached to the possessive pronoun 'our' (noster), whereas in the latter case it came at the end of the phrase simply to denote the individual’s rank.^[9][10]

In fact 'king's knight' is a "blanket expression" for three different Latin and French phrases. Modern historians working from the translated and printed calendars as if they were primary source material have tended to take the translated terms at face value, which has led to confusion and contradiction.^[11]

In much the same way the terms 'knight for the body' and similar expressions have also been bandied around by modern historians without necessarily checking against the original manuscript documents; or have even used the term 'knight for the body' when 'king's knight' or similar is printed in the Calendars. See § Richard II (1377–1399) below.

Terminology

This section is necessarily somewhat conjectural, since I have not had the opportunity of examining any Latin text e.g. a calendar dealing with the knights for the body, for example from the time of Henry VI, or Richard III etc. (apart from a small handful of entries in Rymer's Foedera).

The main Latin term used to refer to an individual knight is miles pro corpore regis, which strictly translates as 'knight for the body of the king', where pro means 'for', or 'on behalf of' and takes the ablative case of corpus, namely corpore. The plural is milites, 'knights'. Sometimes the term miles pro corpore domine regis is found, 'knight for the body of the lord king'.

These terms relating to 'knights for the king's body' appear with increasing regularity from around 1400,

The published series of translated Calendars of the Rolls listed above use fairly consistent terms, but it is best to check them against the claims of historians, since they may have been mis-identified. The knights' titles in Latin remain a fairly exact guide to establishing their correct title in English: some of them are given below.[a] All references to 'knights of the body' before c1438 (temp. Henry VI) and 1475 (temp. Edward IV) need very careful checking, and should be treated with extreme doubt if the phrase miles (pl. milites) pro corpore regis or very similar does not appear. In particular, Shelagh Mitchell's work tends to indicate that 'king's knight' ≠ 'knight for the body'.

Other kinds of knights

banneretti hospicii regis - military household knights banneret

milites familiae regis - knights of the household (since at least John c1200 and Edward I c1270)

milites regis - king's knights (temp. Richard II)

milites de camere regis - chamber knights (since mid reign of Edward III c1345/60?)

miles simplex - a plain knight ^[b]

equites pro corpore regis - "knights of the king's bodyguard" (temp. Henry V).^[15] Hmm. Although the Latin term is here rendered as 'knight of the king's bodyguard', how does eques (pl. equites) differ from miles? Du Cange, Eques2 defines eques as "Titulus honorarius militi inferior", an inferior type of miles. And is 'knight for the king's bodyguard' just another (perhaps earlier) expression for 'knight for the king's body'? More hmmm.

milites comitatus -

county constituencies

)

Esquires, etc.

scutiferi pro corpore regis - squires of the body (since at least Edward I and probably much earlier)

armigeri pro corpore regis - king's squires (?)^[c]

sagittarii pro corpore regis - archers of the body - with the archers of the guard they made up the king's bodyguard. Later became Yeomen of the Guard.

See also Du Cange et al., Glossarium mediæ et infimæ latinitatis. Niort : L. Favre, 1883-1887 - Excellent Latin glossary, with some examples from this period.

What they weren't...

1. Knights Banneret^[d]
2. Household knights (but see the Liber Niger of Edward IV, where they are thus described)
3. King's knights
4. 'Chivaler', a late mediaeval term meaning 'knight', equal to Fr. 'chevalier'
5. Knights bachelor
   [NB They may well have been knights bacheler, but this does not equate to being a knight for the body.]
6. Chamber knights
7. Knights of the Carpet^[16] e.g. created the day before Edward IV's coronation
8. Knights retained by a royal fee, possibly for life, but with no other title (see Hefferan p. 81)
9. Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber
   (except Knights for the Body in the Privy Chamber)
10. Knights of the Shire - these were not classed as royal knights. They were supposed to be knighted MPs, but often weren't.^[e] At least one Knight of the Body (Sir John Huddleston) was also a Knight for the Shire under Henry VII - see #Henry VII (1485–1509)
11. Esquires or squires of any sort, although esquires of the body could be knights, and under Henry VIII at least one man became a knight of the body before he was knighted.

• Wood-Legh, K. L. (July 1931). "Sheriffs, Lawyers, and Belted Knights in the Parliaments of Edward III". The English Historical Review. 46 (183). Oxford University Press: 372–388.
  JSTOR 552672
  .

But: "In 1366, a list of 34 persons for whom robes were provided for the Christmas festivities included 23 bachelerii, who appear to have been the ‘chamber knights’. All 13 of those who had served as chamber knights in 1364 featured amongst the 23 men listed as bachelerii, and of the other 10, four can be found serving in the household in either the late 1350s or the 1370s. This correlates well with what J. M. W. Bean found in his research into the registers of the households of John of Gaunt and the Black Prince, where bachelerii was used to denote a core group of knights who were elsewhere described as ‘knights of the chamber’.( 25 J. M. W. Bean, "Bachelor and Retainer", Medievalia et Humanistica, new ser., iii (1972), pp. 117–31.) Allowing for such early variations in language, the 1360s nevertheless stand out as the most important decade in the transformation of ‘household knights’ into ‘chamber knights’."[9]

Peter Coss recaps on Bean's article: the bachelor was "a special kind of retainer associated, whatever the precise provenance of the payments made to him, with service in the household, and enjoying a more intimate relationship with his lord than did other knightly retainers who did not have his status". The term derives from young, landless or near landless, and generally unmarried, warriors who were given bed and board in households in return for military service. "The term, Bean argues, was kept even when the bachelors were given land, as long as they still attended the lords in their households."^[18] Evidence is coming to light that such men were already in receipt of fees from landed estates in the 13th century.^[19]

• Coss, P. R. (November 1989). "Bastard Feudalism Revised". Past & Present. 125 (125). Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society: 27–64.
  JSTOR 650860
  .

The antiquary Simon Pegge, in his Curalalia, published in 1782, [20] seems to have been confused about the relationship between esquires and knights for the body:

"The Esquires of the Body then, Sir, were in the department of the Lord Chamberlain, their duty being, for the most patrt, in the rooms above stairs : they were Gentlemen of birth, or of good alliance, if not of fortune : and though Esquires was the generical appellation, yet they were often knights, which last when spoken of individually, were called Knights of the Body."

As will be shown, this is not in fact the case, but is typical of the confusion which seems to surround the subject.

Functions of the knights for the body

The knights of the body were often influential local knighted landowners who theoretically reinforced the status both of the king, and of the crown as the final arbiter of justice in the kingdom. They were essentially paid local administrators of the king, who received fees (often/usually/up to 40 marks a year) and robes twice a year (cloth in summer and fur in winter).^[f]

The Liber Niger of Edward IV p. 23 "The Kynges Chambyr" allows one mess for "Knights to serve the King of his basen and towel, called for his body" Liber Niger p. 23 goog or Liber Niger p. 23 arch.

Which sounds exactly like the following passage 10 pages later:

"Knyghts of Household, XII, bachelers sufficiant, and most valient men of that ordre of every countrey [ie shire], and more in numbyr yf hit please the king: whereof iiij to be coninually abydyng and attending uppon the King's person in courte, besides the kervers, as above said, for to serve the king of his bason, or such other servyse as they may do the King, in absence of the kervers, sitting in the King's chaumbre and hall, with persones of lyke service, evryche of them have eatyng in the hall, and taking for his chaumbre at none and nyght, one lofe..."etc. re food^[24]

Which means that in this specific case, the Knights of the Household appear to be synonymous with the Knights for the Body... Arrgh

A comprehensive list of the sort of administrative positions they might expect to be appointed to comes from letters patent granted to an esquire who most certainly didn't want to be part of the "central machinery of compulsion":^[25]

26 March 1442: Exemption, for life, of John Taylboys of

order of knighthood and making fine therefore against his will. By p.s. etc.^[28][g]

Aha! "After 1471 Calais occupied an even more focal position for these purposes than before, its personnel making it almost an 'outward office' of the chamber administered by several household men, with the chamberlain himself at their head as lieutenant, handling the bulk of French and Burgundian business51 and organizing the secret service. The Calais garrison was also the perpetuation of the familia regis as a war-band."[32]

By the mid thirteenth century (temp. Henry III) the crown had arrogated to itself the power to compel judicial, administrative and military service from the ranks of the middling economic ranks of the freeholding population, whatever their tenurial obligations. This burden fell on a wide class of men, worth from £1 to £20 a year or more, including knights, squires, vavasours, valets, and even free peasants, among others.^[33] The knights and potential knights, more prominent because of their wealth and greater obligations, are described as the liberi et legales homines of the shires, the "upright, loyal, and knowledgeable" men of each county "whom the crown asked to serve as knights in royal campaigns; to supervise its interests in the counties as sheriffs, coroners, escheators, and foresters; and to perform much of its judicial business as electors and jurors of the grand assize, as the chief members of inquests and perambulations, and as the representatives of the county before the king or central justices."^[33]

Mitchell on p. 95, discussing the chamber knights of Richard II, mentions exactly the same positions they filled as did the later knights for the body - diplomatic missions, keepers of parks, forests and castles, as well as "serving the king of his basin" as described in the Black Book. I would take issue with her on this specific point:

1. Bannerets, serving the king (Edward IV) as kervers (ie carvers) and
   cupbearers
   , are described as "knyghtes of chaumbre", Liber Niger, p. 32; and on p. 33 "In THE NOBLE Edwards dayes worshipfull squires did this service, but now for the more worthy." The expenses of bannerets follow on from this passage, like all the other expenses.
2. Knights of Household, next section, p. 33, [NB NOT chamber knights, but who am I to know?] served the king of his basin. And on p. 23 re the King's Chamber, the knights who serve the king of his basin are described as knights for the body.

For example, even in Henry VII's time, a household ordnance states: "if it please the King to have a pallet without his traverse [ie screens, to ensure privacy] there must be two esquires for the body, or else a knight for the body, to lie there or else to lie in the next chamber."^[34]

Thus, the knights for the body appear to have combined various aspects of the roles of the bannerets, chamber knights, and the household knights, sometimes referred to by the catch-all term 'king's knights' thanks to the laxness of the translation of the calendars. At various times they were chosen for their military prowess, their diplomatic skills, and their administrative ability. The same jobs need doing throughout the centuries, and it's essentially a question of terminology.

As (hopefully) loyal supporters of the monarch in shires throughout the kingdom, they often held responsible and powerful administrative positions in local government around the country. They were rising/powerful landed/land-owning/renting "gentry", although the term is disputed among historians with their own axe to grind...

Hahaha! This is exactly what Mitchell says about the chamber knights of Richard II: "Their functions were not confined to the physical household, but it was their domestic duties which gave them personal contact with the king and this brought an added dimension to their other activities. That they functioned at the very centre of the household as well a in the wider world made them, simultaneously, the core of the household and the central focus of the greater affinity.^[6]

Nevertheless, a number of studies show that monarchs were unwise to trust certain unscrupulous gentry and nobles, however many rewards were heaped on them - e.g. Sir Giles Daubeney.^[35]

"Daubeney's actions also suggest just how tenuous the Tudor hold on power remained until the very end of Henry VII's reign. In particular, they provide another powerful example of the inadequacy of patronage as a device for cementing loyalty. Driven into Henry's arms by the failure of a revolt in which he had apparently participated for purely narrow, territorial reasons, Daubeney later appeared prepared to abandon Henry's son if support for a rival offered greater prospect [of] continued reward. Just as

Stanley (the Lord Chamberlain and Chamberlain) and later Daubeney, that the support of even the most lavishly rewarded subject could not be taken for granted. Indeed, in such cases as these, the main effect of giving a man disproportionate share of favour seems to have been to make him determined to hang on to his privileged position by whatever means, even if that meant betraying the dynasty which from which his good fortune had flowed."^[35]

• Also: attempt to distinguish between 'below stairs' and 'above stairs' within the royal household. The duties of the knights of the body when at court, or on royal perambulations (rather than in their "own countries") appear to have lain within the regal domestic bustle (familia regis) and its
  groom of the stool, etc. See also Order of precedence
  .

‘We have a good king and our imaginations ought to be good to him’: Divided Loyalties Forced on East Midlands Sheriffs, 1580–1640
Richard Bullock in
M. Ward, M. Hefferan (eds.), Loyalty to the Monarchy in Late Medieval and Early Modern Britain, c.1400–1688
Palgrave Macmillan
ISBN 978-3-030-37767-0  (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37767-0

"Notoriously this was a lesson [frequently swapping favourites] that Elizabeth also learned, whether from [her father] or from her own experience cannot be judged. We have grown so familiar with the notion of faction in her age that we forget how little the structure of those groupings has been studied...." (GR Elton, Tudor Govt. - Points of contact III The Court, p. 224) - [but this was in 1976...]

At Edward IV's funeral, "The rider’s armour, the horse, and the horse’s accoutrements were payment. Here, the presentation of achievements was cut cleanly away from the armour and horse offering." - Hmm, Would this have been a knight for the body? - No, it was Sir William AParre, the man of arms, or man-at-arms. See funeral of Ed. IV below.

The Royal Funerary and Burial Ceremonies of Medieval English Kings, 1216-1509
Anna M. Duch  Doctor of Philosophy thesis University of York May 2016
http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/13700/

Timeline of knights of all sorts in the royal households

The knights of the body followed on from previous royal knights, bannerets, chamber knights and household knights (miles noster N), and "king's knights", (noster N miles) (if I have got it right). The esquires and knights of the body did much the same jobs as previous generations of knights, as shown by e.g. Mitchell in her study of Richard II's knightly household. (Mitchell 1998).

Main source:^[36]

Edward I

an upper rank of ‘household bannerets’ (banneretti hospicii regis)

and a lower rank of ‘simple household knights’ (milites hospicii regis/milites simplices),

(+ Edward II, vs Isabella & Mortimer, & Edward III)

Richard II

a core group of ‘chamber knights’ (milites camere regis),

a larger number ‘king’s knights’ (milites regis), retained sometimes for life. + livery badges.

These are often mistaken for knights for the body

Henrys IV & V

minimal mentions of knights for the body, maybe as few as four?

Henry VI

(two reigns)

mix of Esquires and at the start of his reign very few Knights of the Body - large household, maybe just lots of hangers-on?

by c 1450 almost no Knights left ("shorn of almost all his knights of the body")^[37] But I don't fink he ever had many anyway. Plus Henry VI lost his reason - by various accounts he just lost the will to do anything at all, a sort of catatonic exhaustion rather than some raving insanity. Any mention of KftBs at the Battle of Towton?

Edward IV

(two reigns)

Well, Ed. IV created six knights bachelor at Towton, 29 March 1461^[38] See List of Kftbs in Patent Rolls, below.

After Towton in 1461 there were four KftB: in 1466 there were ten: and at least that in 1471, (Battle of Tewkesbury, 1471, start of Ed IV's 2nd reign...) (Morgan 1973) says 20 - probably 30 in 1483. Maybe read that again.

The Liber Niger of Edward IV (1471) mentions knights "to serve the king for his basin and towel, called for his body" and a a few pages later says that the 12 household knights perform this very function, 4 always to be at court. See refs above. 10 are mentioned in the 1478 ordnance (Harl. MS 642)

Fifteen Messe appointed for the king's chamber
§16. ITEM, we will that there be ordained daylie... two messes for knyghtes for the body, two messe for squiers for our bodie... Myers, p. 201

Which I hadn't noticed before - but they are called 'knights for THE body', and 'squires for OUR body'. Aargh. And this is in English, and not translated from Latin or French.

"When the household, and the broader court of which it was part, was so quintessentially a matter of personal relationships, the historian can only hope to see what was going on if [s]he has access to private, rather than public, evidence, and for the Yorkist period this is still dishearteningly fragmentary. A particular difficulty is that there are no extant Yorkist chamber accounts, and whole areas of royal activity are consequently invisible." (Horrox 1998, Review, p. 76, below)

Richard III

who created a few tens of KotBs: and then the

Henrys VII, & VIII

all of who had lots of KftBs, their numbers growing from 50 to 120 or more.

Growth of size of king's retinue esp. Henry VI which was then limited by parliament i fink; retreat from the hall into the Privy Chamber and then the bed chamber (the king's personal apartments) under Henry VII - somewhat smaller circle - more oppressive rule - greater use of the Star Chamber to counter excessive land claims etc. which assize judges were not competent or powerful enough to deal with.

"The growth in size of the household under Henry VI and the Yorkists had inflated the numbers of royal body servants to the point where it was impossible for them all to be on intimate terms with the king. Henry VII’s retreat into his Privy Chamber was a reaction against this trend; he maintained the Yorkist use of the household as a means of giving institutional identity to the king's local allies but also re-established alongside it the much older image of the household as a small circle of intimate servants." (Horrox 1988 p. 75)

Review Article: The English Court.
The Tudor Court by David Loades. The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War by David Starkey
Rosemary Horrox
The Ricardian Volume 8 issue 101 June 1988 74-78
http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/8-101/06.pdf

Mini-summary

In some ways the knights of the body were like the old knights of the chamber (milites de camere regis, temp. Richard II) who were somewhat closer and more trusted representatives of the king, more like diplomats who discussed and settled foreign international treaties - as Shelagh Mitchell shows, the chamber knights were also local administrators of one kind or another, much like the knights for the body from the 1450s onwards.^[39] On the other hand, the household knights were definitely called knights for the body under Edward IV, so it seems at the moment that the KftBs and the Esquires ftB (not part of this article) combined the functions of all the previous royal knights.

Records of knights for the body in the Patent Rolls etc.

Mostly taken from the Calendars of the

Include &/or expand Esquire of the Body#Knights of the Body and Talk:Esquire of the Body by Noswall59 & others.

Edward III (1327–1377)

The Patent Rolls of Edward III have hundreds of refs to 'king's squires' & 'king's knights', but none to 'knights of the body'. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office : Edward III, 1327-1377

Hmm, Sir William FitzWaryne [fitz Warin] was assigned as knight for the body to Edward III's queen Philippa of Hainault in 1349. (Beltz, "Memorials of the Garter, Edward III & Richard II" p. 96 https://archive.org/details/BeltzGFMemorialsOfTheMostNobleOrderOfTheGarter1841/page/n327/mode/2up ) As far as I can discover, Edward III himself had no knights with this title - the next I have found after this early date is Sir Humphrey Stafford junior of Hook, Dorset (d. 1442) at at Henry V's coronation. See below.

Richard II (1377–1399)

Richard II retained around 150 king's knights, some of who were retained under Henry IV. In the original manuscript rolls, they were referred to by the king as miles noster, 'our knight'. The translators of the printed calendars of the rolls used the term 'king's knight'. The equivalent back-translation miles regis is not frequently found in contemporary documents.^[9]

The truth, or something like it.

• After 1377 (Richard II's ascension) the term 'the king's knight' began to be used increasingly in the patent rolls. In Richard II's reign there were 149 such knights. They were men of considerable standing within their local community. (Ingamells 1992, vol 1, pp. 10-11) Latin titles pls?

A question of terminology

The History of Parliament online has a number of entries about MPs who get called 'knights of the body' around the time of Richard II and Henry IV. As far as I can see, the following examples are simply wilful invention.

• Okeover, Sir Philip (d. c.1400), of Okeover, Staffs. and Snelston, Derbys.
  • "His grandfather, Sir Roger Okeover (c1288 - 1337), was a Knight of the Body to Edward III."(NB no ref.)
    • However, this lengthy article about the Okeovers says he was a Knight for the Shire, but no more than a 'chevaler' or 'bachelor', and no kind of Knight for the Body at all.< ref "An account of the family of Okeover of Okeover, co. Staffs." By Major-General the Hon. George Wrottesley. Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Eds. The William Salt Archaeological Society Volume VII, new series. 1904. pp. 25–40. /ref > But as Hefferan points out, 'bachelerii' was used by Edward III in 1366 to describe his chamber knights, so it's likely that Okeover was one of Richard II's many 'king's knights'. ^[9]

• Thornbury, alias Wenlock, Sir John (d.1396), of Little Munden and Bygrave, Herts.
  • "By November 1388, he had risen to become a knight of the body to Richard II, and presumably sat as such in the Parliaments of 1390 (Jan.) and 1391.[9]" [ref 9] CPR, 1385–9, p. 535.
    • But when you actually look at the CPR Calendar of the Patent Rolls, Richard II, 1385-1389, p. 535 it actually says 'Pardon at the supplication of the king's knight, John Thornebury etc."^[40]

• "Sir Henry Retford (c.1354-1409), of Castlethorpe and Carlton (c.1354-1409)
  • "In November 1393 Retford actually joined the royal household, being retained by Richard II as a knight of the body at an annual fee of 40 marks payable for life[...]
    • What is actually written: "November 13 Westminster. Grant, for life, to Henry Retford, knight, because retained to stay for life with the king, for 40 marks a year at the Exchequer. Editorial note: Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because Henry IV granted to him that sum from like issues of the county of Lincoln, 26 February in his second year.CPR, Richard II Vol V, p. 339 - see next entry.
  • "Nor was the new King [Henry IV] disposed to show any animosity towards a man of such wide military and administrative experience. Having proved his loyalty to the Lancastrian cause by fighting against the Scots 'and elsewhere', Retford obtained confirmation in February 1401 of his annuity as a knight of the body." (Temp. Henry IV, 1399 - 1413) 'miles pro corpore regis'?
    • What is actually written: "Feb. 25. Westminster. Grant for life to Henry de Retford, in consideration of his great expenses on the king's service in Scotland and elsewhere, of 40 marks yearly from the issues of the county of Lincoln, in lieu of a like grant to him at the Exchequer by letters patent of Richard 11, surrendered. By p.s." CPR, Henry IV, Part I, 1399-1401, p. 437

Well, this type of retaining is specifically discussed by Hefferan:

"In response [to the passing by the nobles in parliament of the statute of livery and maintenance in 1388, limiting the extent to which livery, both badges and cloth, could be used as a means of retaining], Richard began to retain some of his king’s knights on life contracts. This form of retaining was used only in exceptional circumstances before 1360, as in 1355 when John Staunton was ‘retained by the king for life as a knight of his chamber and one of his household’.[55] After 1387, however, it appears frequently. Seventy men are described as having been retained for life by Richard between 1389 and 1399, while many of those retained prior to this date also moved onto life contracts during this period.56 These life contracts usually took the form of the grant of a royal annuity, attached to which, for the first time, was the specific obligation to act as the king’s formal retainer."[55] CPR, 1353–8, 173 ^[41]

"There was also a notable difference in the personnel retained under the three Edwards and Richard II. Given-Wilson identified four main reasons why the men retained as king’s knights under Richard were chosen: "for personal reasons; because they were prominent members of their localities; because he wished to increase his following in particular parts of the country; and because of their military ability".70 ^[42]

"Household knights were first and foremost military retainers, whereas king’s knights were designed primarily as a way of augmenting royal authority throughout England’s localities."^[43]

Move ref to stuff about parliament "Thus, by September 1397 there were ‘no fewer than 26 fee’d royal retainers [i.e. king’s knights and king’s esquires] in parliament’, although this was, in part, a result of Richard’s extensive recruitment into his affinity at this time.83 Interestingly, the number of Richard II’s retainers that appeared in parliament was the cause of some controversy. Item 19 of the ‘Record and Process’, which detailed the reasons for Richard’s deposition, accused Richard of sending orders to his sheriffs ‘ordering them to send to parliament as knights of the shire men nominated by the king himself’.84 As with Richard II’s distribution of livery badges in the 1380s, the increased politicisation of royal knights in the fourteenth century was not welcomed by all those in the political community of England."^[44]

"During the course of Edward’s reign, the chamber came to replace the hall as the heart of activity in the royal household, and that this should be reflected in a shift from household knights to chamber knights is unsurprising."^[45]

"The fourteenth century is often characterised as the period in which the knighthood’s military supremacy was fundamentally challenged by the increased emphasis on archers on the battlefield, whose ranks were often drawn from the wealthier peasantry (the yeomanry), and the emergence of professional soldiers.94 This trend would certainly account for why the move from household knights to king’s knights also saw the emergence of a rank of king’s esquires, the majority of whom were drawn from the local gentry and yeomanry, and who were almost indistinguishable from the king’s knights in terms of the way in which they were retained and functioned."^[46]

Mini-summary

It seems, then, that every monarch during the late mediaeval period had his own personal retinue of knights, retained for different reasons according to the circumstances of his reign - some military, some specifically political, some to enhance his general standing in the shires. The "change in the language used to describe royal knights", from 'household knights’ to ‘king’s knights’^[47] also appears to be applicable to the change from ‘king’s knights’ to 'knights of the body', since they fulfilled the same sort of functions.

Thus, it seems, the Knights of the Body appear to be the last embodiment of the monarch's personal control over the running of the country.^{[original research?]}

Henry IV (1399–1413)

Not many hits, but no searchable text: Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... ^[48] Henry IV. A.D. 1401–1405. https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr00britgoog/page/n4

• 1401–2. Sir John Pilkington was a knight of the body to Henry IV (1399-1413), according to this ref:^[49] Hmmm, having read my way through years 1401 and 1402 of CPR 1401-1405 up to p. 146, I find on page 37 that said John Pilkington is merely described as a 'chivaler' or plain knight.^[48] There are other references to other 'king's knights', and no other kind of knight: and why he is described as 'knight of the body' is anyone's guess.

Well, having read some more, 'chivaler' appears to be a term applied to retained royal knights,^[50] but there's no excuse for calling him a KftB before

But soft... another English term: knight of the royal body...! Sir Thomas Chaworth, (see also below at #Henry V: 1413-1422) is thus described:

Sir Thomas Chaworth argh

"Although he must still have been quite young when his father lay dying in December 1398, Thomas Chaworth was none the less appointed to execute his will. In the following November he became a trustee of part of the Longford estates, and he soon began to play an important part in the business of local government. Indeed, in June 1401 Henry IV considered it expedient to retain him as a knight of the royal body at a fee of 40 marks, charged upon the duchy of Lancaster lordship of Gunthorpe." The ref, sadly, appears to be PRO DL42/16, "Duchy of Lancaster, Registers" which means not published.^[51]

There are two places with this name: Gunthorpe, Norfolk, in Holt hundred,^[52] and the hamlet of Gunthorpe, Rutland.

If Thomas Chaworth was a 'knight of the royal body' in June 1401 (and where is this related?) why is he described as a plain 'chivaler' on 28 September 1401 as paying a fine to the king by mainprise of 2,000 marks on behalf of Thomas Gousill and his wife, widow of Thomas, Duke of Norfolk? Other 'chivalers' are Hugh Shirley,^[53] and John de Leek, all of Notts.^[54]

And what might be the exact Latin term? Well, if the translation is accurate, the adj. 'royal' (regius) would have the ablative singular form regio since pro takes the ablative, hence the Latin should read miles pro corpore regio ('knight for the royal body') rather than miles pro corpore regis, ('knight of the king's body'). Well I reckon I'm right, but the term miles pro corpore regio just doesn't seem to exist: thus it may perhaps be a fanciful rendering...?

Hmm, the Index to the Close Rolls for the whole of Henry IV's reign has 11 references to Chaworth, (p. 170) but none as knight of the body. Calendar of the close rolls... Henry IV / prepared ... index 1399-1413.

How about the editions in Latin of CPR? ie Calendarium Rotulorum Patentium in Turri Londinensi Calendar of the Patent Rolls in the Tower (in Latin). Printed by command of His Majesty George III in pursuance of an address of the House of Commons of Great Britain. 1802

June 1401 is (according to the table of Regnal Years in Sir Thomas Hardy's invaluable "Syllabus to Rymer's Foedera", Vol 2, p. lvi https://archive.org/details/cu31924007439221/page/n61/mode/1up) 2. Henry IV.

Well, in Calendarium Rotulorum, 2 Henry IV (1399) starts on p. 236...and continues for four sets of patents (Quarta Patent' de Anno 2^o Regis Henrici Quarti.) - but despite it being quite entertaining, there appear to be absolutely no hits for KoRB at all. Obviously it is only a very selected Calendar of the contents, as the editorial preface makes clear - lots of entries about abbotts and priories;

Sooo, the English version calls him 'steward of the household'. (28 May, CPR as per above, p. 445) NB 'Steward' is an ancient and honourable title.^[55]

Thomas Percy, 1 Earl of Worcs.

Why do I bother? Well the article about the said Thomas Percy is wafer-thin - doesn't even mention the capture of Richard II at

Hmm, 6 July 1401 (Henry IV) - grant to the king's knight Ralph Rochefort [NB Knight for the Body in 1438, Henry VI] the custody all lands late of Robert Coyne and Hugelina his wife, decd. during the minority of their son Robert, 40/- a year etc. p. 446 https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr16offigoog/page/n457/mode/1up

8 February 1401 - commission to Humphrey Stafford, 'chivaler' & others, enquire marriage of John Popham and Walter, Romseye's daughter etc. p. 458 https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr16offigoog/page/n469/mode/1up

lol 30 January 1401 - to John Brook et al., sheriffs of Horsham, to arrest John Bukke, Robert Beykingham, Martin Leson and Thomas 'Jonesservant Bukke', and bring them before the king wherever he may be in England with all speed. By the Chancellor with the assent of William Gascoigne, the king's chief justice, because they are scoffers and gamblers. p. 458 https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr16offigoog/page/n469/mode/1up

Henry V (1413–1422)

All 2 vols: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100188846

51 hits for 'king's knight', none for 'knight for the body' Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry V. Vol, 1, A.D. 1413-1416 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c3393878&view=1up&seq=5

47 hits for 'king's knight', none for 'knight for the body' Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry V. Vol, 2, A.D. 1416-1422 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c3393879&view=1up&seq=5

• However, an internet search for "knight of the body to Henry V" shows that there may have been knights of the body at Henry V's coronation in 1413, e.g. Sir Humphrey Stafford junior of Hook, Dorset (d. 1442) ("of the silver hand"):^[56]
  • Wedgwood, Josiah C., D.S.O. (1919). "Parliament of 1406". In The William Salt Archaeological Society (ed.). Staffordshire Parliamentary History from the earliest times to the present day: Vol. I (1213-1603). (3 volumes). Collections for a History of Staffordshire (3rd series). London: Harrison and Sons, Printers in Ordinary to his Majesty.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link),

I vaguely wonder if this was a ceremonial appointment for the coronation only, since there seem to be few other references to such knights in, e.g. CPR before Henry VI. I realise there are other sources other than CPR, but they appear to give at least some clue as to how many there were at any period.

Haha!

Ralph Rochefort, 1st mentioned as KftB under Henry VI, - Also earlier a Kt under Henry V - (complete list of knights, Dodd, Appendix 1) - Humphrey Stafford is alphabetical number 58.^[57]

(The said) Sir Thomas Chaworth was Knight of the royal body (WHEN?) - but in 1411 he, Leche and others were imprisoned in the Tower for their part in trying to persuade Henry IV to abdicate (lol).^[58]

Sir John St. John had begun Henry IV's reign in receipt of a 100 mark annuity, but by 1406 he was retained as a knight of the body by the Prince;[71] the esquire, Hugh Mortimer, also had a £60 annuity from Henry IV, but...^[59]

"Of the newcomers to the affinity, some were promoted as a result of their service to the Prince: Sir Humphrey Stafford, Sir Robert Whitney and the esquire Peter Melbourne fall into this category."... "It is now possible to show that Henry's early affinity was not exclusively a military affinity..."^[60]

Sir

BUT... nothing about Sir Humphrey Stafford jun. of Hook at all - but [another] Sir Humphrey Stafford received 5 lengths.... [of cloth for Henry IV's funeral I FINK?] ^[62] - this may be a false lead...? Nothing particularly about Knights for the Body actually present at H V's coronation... even more aargh.

Royal knights in bold in Dod's Appendix - six knights received six lengths of cloth each - Archbishop of Canterbury and other top men received 12 lengths.^[63]

• Well, since I'm trying to discover the earliest named KotB's, the obvious thing to do is to transcribe all the names in bold and check 'em out, neh?

Henry VI (1st reign) (1422–1461)

Reigned 1 September 1422 – 4 March 1461.

All 6 vols: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011983740 The on-screen appearance of the Hathitrust website depends on your browser. There doesn't seem to be a box for selecting a page: just edit the url, e.g. seq=240 - NB this is the pdf page number, not the printed page...

Jos. Wedgwood

In his History of Parliament (1936), Wedgwood has this to say:

"Henry VI's household, as reduced in 1455, included two carvers, knights and four Squires of the Body. He had been shorn of almost his Knights of the Body except four. [NB they didn't figure in the household Ordinance - Ordinances of the Household of Henry VI, in the 33rd year of his reign, 1455 Then, or later, Knights of the Body were being paid £50 a year (comparable with £1,500 a year now). Squires got half this, and both had extras. Ninety Knights of the Shire were Squires of the Body, and sixty were at some time also Knights of the Body. Many of the ninety are included in the sixty, for the Esquires got knighted in due course and remained "Of the Body". Most got this Court preferment after, not before, they had been elected to parliament. ... It is curious that the class, style and title died out under the Tudors. The Bodyguard or Yeomen of the Guard, and a profusion of titular rewards, probably replaced both service and attraction."^[37]

This confused me for a long time, since there very few KftBs during Henry VI's time. "He had been shorn of almost his Knights of the Body except four" is slightly strange, because I have only found three during the whole of his reign anyway, dating from 1438 - Rochefort, Botiller and Leynthale. Or is he saying that there were considerably more KftBs that I haven't come across yet? (It is also important to remember that Henry VI lost his reason in 1453 for more than a year, and at other later times as well. And when he regained his reason, it was utterly disastrous for the kingdom.) So it appears that Wedgwood was enumerating all the knights of the shire who at any time were ever KftBs, not just temp. Hen VI. There are only 21 or so hits for 'knight of the body' in this 1936 work [History Of Parliament (1439-1509)] But is he also saying that the Esquires of the Body who were knighted remained Esquires "Of the Body", or that they became Knights of the Body...? Many of them were under Henries VII and VIII, so probably the latter.

Knights of the Body under Henry VI

NB Oops, I failed to make it obvious to which text the following refs are connected: I don't remember whether they refer to the text above or below. A minimum of checking should make it obvious...

Lots of hits for 'king's knight', 0 hits for esquires or knights of or for the body. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry VI. Vol, 1, A.D. 1422-1429 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158009518282&view=1up&seq=5

47 hits for 'king's knight' 42 hits for 'knight of the shire', neither esquires nor knights of or for the body. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry VI. Vol. 2, A.D. 1429–1436. (1907) https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr01blacgoog/page/n4

5 hits for 'knight for the body', 3 different men:

• 6 January 1438, Kenilworth - Ralph Rochefort, when he first came to serve the king, was granted 100 marks a year, as other knights for the body have, the manors of Benstede and Wauton (Warton?) only providing 50l. a year, the king to make it up by 25 marks a year at the Exchequer of Westminster etc. p. 238
• 10 March 1438 - grant to Ralph Botiller, KftB, of manor of Southam, Glos, and fee farm of Pynnockshyre, £16 7/6 payable by
  abbot of Hayles
  , Glos. p. 154
  • 8 March 1439 - Grant, for life, to Ralph Botiller, knight for the body, of the office of king's standard bearer, with the accustomed wages, fees, and profits and with 100l. a year from the death of William Haryngton, knight, standard bearer to the king's father, out of the revenues of the commote of Turkelyn, co. Anglesey, by the hands of the sheriff, “raglotiers, ringilds or other ministers or farmers of the said commote. By p.s.
  • 30 Dec 1440 - Grant to Botiller and John Noreys esq. to be keeper & captain of Conway - surrendered 1441 to Botiller and Boold - p. 497
• 15 February 1441 - Grant in survivorship to Roland Leynthale (Lenthall) one of the king's knights for the body, and Thomas Stanley, knight, controller of the household, of 40l. yearly from the issues of the manors of Hawardin and Mahaudesdale; in lieu of a grant to the former of a like sum from the manor of Risburgh, surrendered. By p.s. and dated as above. p. 513. (Lenthall went to France with Henry V in 1415, fought at Agincourt, married Margaret, da. of 11th Earl of Arundel)

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry VI. Vol. 3, A.D. 1436-1441 https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt/search?q1=%22knight%20for%20the%20body%22;id=uc1.31158013013296;view=1up;seq=7;start=1;sz=10;page=search;orient=0

• "September 10, 1441. Creation, by advice of the council, of the king's knight Ralph Boteler king's chamberlain, and his heirs male as barons of Sudeley, co. Gloucester ; and grant to them of 200 marks yearly out of the issues of the county of Lincoln. By p.s. etc. Vacated because otherwise in this year.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry VI. Vol. 4, A.D. 1441–1446. https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr00blacgoog/page/n13/mode/1up

• November 21, 1441. Grant in survivorship to Ralph Botiller (Boteler), knight for the body, lord of Westminster. Suddeley, and Bartholomew Boold, esquire, of the keeping and captaincy of the town of
  Conewaye
  , North Wales, to hold themselves or by deputy, taking 8d. a day for themselves and 4^. a day for each of eight soldiers, assigned by them for the safe keeping of the town, at the Exchequer of Caernarvon by the hands of the chamberlain there, with all other profits and commodities thereto belonging; in lieu of a grant thereof to the former and John Norreys, esquire, surrendered. By p s. etc. (p. 27) NB This is the only mention of a knight for the body in this volume.
  • Boteler's widowed daughter-in-law
    Edward IV, invalidating his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, and legitimising the usurpation of Richard III

Some people really didn't want to be part of the "central machinery of compulsion"[25] at all:

• 26 March 1442: Exemption, for life, of John Taylboys of
  order of knighthood
  and making fine therefore against his will. By p.s. etc. (p. 58)

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Henry VI. Vol. 4, A.D. 1441–1446. https://archive.org/details/calendarpatentr00blacgoog/page/n37/mode/2up

No hits for knights either of or for the body, 73 hits for 'king's knight', approx 45 'esquire for the body'. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry VI. Vol. 5, A.D. 1446–1452. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031079539;view=1up;seq=5

No hits for knights either of or for the body Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, Henry VI. Vol. 6, A.D. 1452–1461. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31158013042337&view=1up&seq=7

Sir Edward Hull

In 1448 Sir John Fastolf lost his Norfolk manor of Titchwell to Thomas Wake and Sir Edward Hull, "through Hull's superior influence as Henry VI's knight of the body (by 1445) and membership of the tight circle of royal intimates."(Castor, p. 150)^[65]

You simply have to check every single bloody ref, so:

Sir Edward Hull elected to Order of the Garter 7 May 1453 - not installed, (died next year 3 Sept 1453, taken after fighting in France with Shrewsbury at

So, Hull doesn't appear to have been a Knight of the Body at all.

• See also Arthurian Literature XII edited by James P. Carley, Felicity Riddy - "Malory's Morte d'Arthur", pp. 138-9 https://books.google.com/books?id=2HjgoDCF6ogC&pg=PA139

Major argh

Arresting mismatch of names of KftBs in CPR thus far, compared to Shaw's Knights of England Vol. 2. At first glance, it would appear that no KftBs up to this point were actually dubbed Knights Bachelor. Obviously Shaw's book appeared in 1903, and nearly 120 years have passed: maybe much more work has been done since then. What about all the king's knights of Richard II etc.? Plenty of hits for them in CPR so far, why so few in Shaw's list? Maybe they weren't necessarily dubbed knights bachelor, merely called to serve in his household? Perhaps another look at Mitchell and Ingamells etc...

Shaw is very specific as to who appears in his list of Knights Bachelor.

"In accordance with this [variations in two writs of Edward I: the first is described as a writ for the assumption of knighthood; the second is described as a writ of military summons], I argue that the writ for the assumption of knighthood simply established a census or roll or register of persons liable to military duty. It did not affect the status, the social dignity of the soldier (miles). His social status was only enhanced when, later, the added ceremony of dubbing was applied to him. [...] The only conclusion in my mind is that the summons to knighthood was not a summons to a ceremony to a dubbing, but only a summons to the rendering of a military or feudal duty." Thus, "But if this whole body was not so much composed of knights in esse [ie knights in being] as of soldiers (milites) or knights in posse [ie potential knights] then the list of Knights Bachelors of England will be confined to the list of actually dubbed knights. And no more than this is really what all the existing MS. lists give us. The only existing records of the mediaeval Knights Bachelors of England consist of lists of actual dubbings. " (Shaw, Knts of Engl., Vol 1 Intro, pp xlv–xlvi). That this record [MS lists gathered by Shaw and others] (whatever it was) was not on the lines of the later register of knights is shown by the fact that it frequently comprised knights who had not paid their fees to the college. (See note, Vol. II., p. 26, infra.)

But it seems very strange that of the knights of the body I have tentatively listed so far in this main section, apparently none are listed at all by Shaw (I may have missed some of course, and many of his entries include "and many others"). My very first impression is that at least some knights for the body up till this point may not in fact been dubbed bachelor knights, but some other kind of miles, e.g. 'merely' worth a knight's fee: and various points noted in previous sections might tend to support this. Or not. See below, #Who, or what, was a knight?

Edward IV (1st reign) (1461–1470)

Reigned 4 March 1461 – 3 October 1470 (after Battle of Towton)

No hits for 'knight of [or for] the body' 40 hits for 'king's knight, 12 for 'esquire of the body'. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Edward IV. A.D. 1461–1467. (1897) https://archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr14offigoog/calendarpatentr14offigoog_djvu.txt

NB 'of the body' is apparently a slight mistranslation by the editor(s) of the Calendar of the phrase pro corpore regis - I feel it really should be 'for the body', unless the original Latin says de corpore regis. Hmmm. However, the Liber Niger (i fink) actually uses the English phrases 'knight of the body' and 'esquire for the body'. Hmmm.

Well, according to William Shaw (ok, in 1903) Edward IV created six knights bachelor at Towton, March 29 1461:

After Towton in 1461 there were four KftBs (Morgan 1973): in 1466 there were ten: and at least that in 1471, Morgan says 20 - probably 30 in 1483.

Does Morgan name any of the knights for the body? If so, were they among the six just named? Yes, (Morgan 1973) does name them. Devereux, Hastings, Howard and Montgomery are the four knights for the body, and all were among the six knights bachelor created at Towton.

This is vaguely interesting, or worrying, because these just-named four are the very first milites in William Shaw's list of Knights Bachelor (Knts of Eng., Vol 2) who match up with any of the knights of the body I have previously listed from CPR or other sources up to this point.

Hmmm, as Shaw says (somewhere above), the records of the Knights Bachelor are the records of those who were actually dubbed knights. See also below in the section 'So who was a knight?' In some cases, basically anyone with a sword (or hauberk) on horseback. As that section shows, in the early mediaeval period, the Barons (i fink I am right) could call anyone a knight, esp. when in military service under them. Such knights were provided by their enfeoffed 'lesser nobles', and could be 'a knight' for just a few months in their entire life.

{{Thinks}} It may be just possible that in a similar way the king could call anyone 'a knight', even if not dubbed (the belting ceremony may have simply marked their passing into early manhood); all they needed was a sword as a symbol of their authority; and the term 'knight of the body' could have been applied to such men, named by the king as KftB, but never actually dubbed by the king. Hmmm. Only a knight can create another knight. When either barons or lesser knights took men into their military service, would (or could) they have dubbed them themselves? Quite possibly. So you go up to court, already knowing how to behave like a knight,dubbed by your lord 'in his own country', and armed with a sword: is there any need for the king to dub them? Possibly not, since you can't make a knight twice. "Once a knight, always a knight." Nope, "Once a king, always a king, but once a knight is enough ― Ian Fleming, From Russia With Love. </thinks>

More on Edward IV's first knights of the body

Of Duke Richard's prominent servants, "those surviving most were found a suitable niche in the outer circle of the new affinity as king's knights (William Herbert, Walter Skull), several combining this with service to the duke's widow (John Clay as her chamberlain, Walter Devereux as steward of her lands in Herefordshire)."^[70]

"The previous chamberlain John Neville lord Montague was replaced by William Hastings "whose father, a long-serving but unremarkable retainer of Duke Richard, had successfully commended him to the duke at his death in 1455; in blood and land William had no standing of his own but owed his advancement to being attached to Edward when 7th earl of March."^[70]

William Port replaced Humphrey Bourchier lord Cromwell (son of

"As a group these seven have no peculiar coherence; in origins they were widely diverse and reached Edward's service in quite individual ways; they differed from their fellows only in the degree to which they possessed the features characteristic of their type. Their sartorial exemption was clearly the personal choice of the king from among those whose service to him was for life."[73] Where did the bit about the eleven go...? Found it, see Richard III.

Actually, D.A. Morgan's paper on the Yorkist affinity was one of the very first things I read about the knights for the body, and I mostly skimmed through it. Now I come to re-read it in light of everything else I've read in the meanwhile, it's stuffed full of interesting detail, including the missing Yorkist household accounts (deliberately omitted, not just 'missing' as per Horrox). Is there anything similar for later reigns?

Henry VI (2nd reign) (1470–1471)

Reigned 3 October 1470 - 11 April 1471, 191 days.

Edward IV, (2nd reign) (1471–1483)

Reigned 11 April 1471 – 9 April 1483

• 13 January 1472 - John Pilkington, one of the knights of the body,^[74] son? of Sir John Pilkington, who wasn't, see above.^[j]
• 3 September 1473 - Humphrey Talbot, knight of the body (CPR 1467-1477 p. 396)
• 1476, Edward IV. Approx 12 genuine refs (at last!) to about 7 knights of the body: Grey, Montgomery, Stanley, Talbot, Ralph Hastings, Trussell, Chamberlain. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office ... Edward IV and Henry VI A.D. 1467–1477. (1900) https://archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr05blacgoog/calendarpatentr05blacgoog_djvu.txt

"The inscription tells us that in the 1475 invasion of France he [Sir Humph. Talbot, Marshal of Calais] contributed for the first quarter 10 men-at-arms and 100 archers (for which he was paid £298 0s 6d). At that time he was a Knight of the Royal Body, but is not described as a Banneret." https://murreyandblue.wordpress.com/tag/sir-humphrey-talbot/ A talbot hound for a Talbot knight....? Murrey and Blue. But a blog.

• Edward IV - 2 December 1474 - "Power for John Morton, keeper of the Rolls of Chancery, sir Thomas Mountgomery knight of the K.'s body, and William Hatclyff, the K.'s secretary, to treat with the emperor Frederick (III) for an alliance against Lewis, (Louis) usurper of the crown of France. Westm." O{rig edition}. {xi - missing in Syllabus} p. 834. and H{ague edition}. V. p. iii. 52. (Syllabus Index p. 706)
  • Hmmm, Hardy's index is faulty in this case, it's Original vol. XI, p. 836, and Hague vol. V part iii, page 53 And...........oh, surprise, he's not called knight of bugger all, just plain militis. This sort of thing is particularly disheartening. In Hardy's index p. 266, Montgomery is mentioned on pp 706, 707, 710 & 717... Shall we have a look?
  • Well, p. 707 points us towards H v. iii. 68, and on p. 68 3 November 1475 we get just this phrase that Shelagh Mitchell pointed out, "Delecto et Fideli suo, Thomae Mongomery, Militi": which apparently means that he was not a retained royal knight, otherwise he would be described as dilectus et fidelis miles noster N[ame].^[9] More opprobrium.
  • p. 710 18 December 1478 - H v. iii. 97 - Mongomery, KG, et al. to treat with the duchess of Burgundy - And here, at last, he is described as "Thomae Mongomery, pro Corpore nostro ac Ordinis nostri Garterii Militis" - Knight for our Body and of our Order of the Garter. Well, that's no excuse for calling him KotB previously when he certainly wasn't. Rymer obviously used his final title.
  • p. 717 11 August 1484 - H v. iii. 148 - treating with Maximilian duke of Austria & Burgundy - and described as above.

Also, two meals a day for knights of the body, whereas the Lord Chamberlain and other lords only got one. (Myers p. 201)

• Eleven men were exempted from the
  Apparel Act of 1483 (drafted in 1482 (22 Edw. 4), passed in 1483 (1 Ric. III)) which limited certain types of clothing to specific classes. e.g., No man below the rank of knight was to wear velvet in his doublet or gown, and "no agricultural worker or other laborer or servant of an urban craftsman, or the wife of such a man, was to wear clothing made from cloth costing more than 2s. a broad yard." ^[75]
  Seven of these eleven were knights of the body.
• These knights are: Sir Thomas Montgomery[76], Sir Thomas Burgh, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Sir John Donne^[77], Sir William Parr (died 1483)^[78], Sir Thomas St. Leger (executed 1483)^[79], Thomas Bourchier (Constable of Windsor Castle 1472), (p. 126), and a Sir Thomas Grey (p. 127). Master Oliver King, the king's secretary; Master John Gunthorp, dean of the king's chapel; and Sir John Elrington, treasurer of the king's household (briefly KotB under Richard III but d. late 1483.^[80] It may be that it was the king's wish to have "these eleven distinguished men of his household available in resplendent garb, to enhance the setting in which he himself was to be viewed."^[81]

Funeral of Edward IV

d 9 April 1483.

I think that all the knights named here were all knights for the body, see Sir Richard Savage below under Richard III.

"And on the Wednesday the xvij day of the moneth aforesaid, the corps was conveyed into the abbey, borne by divers knyghtes and esquiers at were for his bodye ; that is to saie, Sir Edward Standley, Sir John Savage,^[k] Sir Thomas Worthley,^[82] Sir Thomas Mullineux,^[83] Wellys, John Cheyny,^[84] maister of the kinges horse, Water Hongerford, Guy of Wolston, John Sabacotes, Thomas Tyrell, John Riseley, Thomas Dacre, John Noreys, Boys de Brytaill, Christofer Colyns,..." ^[85]

A few days later, at St. George's Chapel, Windsor (built by Edward):^[86]

"And Glocestre and Buckingham herauldes, with Ruigecrosse, Roseblache, Calais, Guynes, Barwike, and Harington, pursyvauntes, went the knyghtes and esquiers for the body to the chirche dore for to receyve of Sir John Cheyny, maister of the horse; the man of armes, which was Sir William AParre, armed at all peces saving he was bareheded, having an axe in his hand, the pomell doneward, and thus companyed to the quere dure, wher he dyd alight. And the decon toke the horse which was traped with a riche traper of the kinges armes, wher the lord Audeley and the lord Ferrys receyved the man of armes, and with the forsaid company of knyghtes and esquiers, herauldys and pursyvauntes, accompanyed him to his offring : which done, every lord in mornyng habet offred for hymself, and after that dyverse other noble knyghtes officers, &c."^[87]

Edward V (1483)

Reigned 9 April 1483 – 25 June 1483, 78 days

Sir John Cheyne attempted to free Edward from the Tower along with Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor. The failed plot involved setting fires in London as a distraction while Henry and her Bro-in-law invaded from France.^{[citation needed]}

The Deposition of Edward V
Author(s): Charles T. Wood 
Source: Traditio, Vol. 31 (1975), pp. 247-286
p. 260
Published by: Cambridge University Press 
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27830988

Margaret Beaufort (Henry VII's mum) was granted an papal indulgence in 1494 which recognised her as the patron of the Cult of Jesus in England. Hmm, another article to post (eventually?) about the chapel of the Guild of Jesus in the crypt of St. Paul's Cathedral (NB my user draft).

Cheyne was also one of the leaders of

"At one point during the mêlée, Richard III actually managed to get close enough to Henry to make an attempt on his life. He killed his standard bearer, William Brandon, so Sir John Cheney rode in to retrieve the Standard and put himself between the Royal rivals. King Richard managed to unhorse him by whacking him round the head with a broken lance." This struck the crest from his helm and, when he fell unconscious to the ground, his head was laid completely bare. Stunned for a time, he recovered to find Henry Tudor safe but his own protection lacking a helmet.[88]

However, the following anecdote is almost certainly untrue:^[89]

"So, it is said, he took his sword and cut the skull and horns from a bull's carcass, which happened to be lying nearby, and placed them on his head instead. He was later granted the bull's scalp as his family crest."^[88]

After Bosworth, he was made a Knight for the Body, Constable of Christchurch and of Southampton, and Keeper of the New Forest.

Cheneys and Wyatts
Wyatt, Stanley Charles.
date=1959
p=26
url=https://archive.org/details/cheneyswyatts00wyat/page/26/mode/2up
place=London
printed by Carey and Claridge, Chelsea

Richard III (1483–1485)

"It is uncertain how John Harrington first came to the duke of Gloucester’s attention, but it is possible that family ties played a role. At least two of his kinsmen (Sir Robert Harrington and his brother Sir James Harrington) were retained by Richard in the 1470s and after his accession became knights of the body, while Sir James’s son John was appointed an esquire of King Richard’s household." p. 25

Richard III and the Origins of the Court of Requests 
Hannes Kleineke 
The Ricardian, volume 17 June 2007
http://www.thericardian.online/the_ricardian.php#2007

"Where Loades does turn to the household he is less at ease, notably in his extraordinary suggestion that the knights of the body had disappeared by 1494 and were resurrected by Henry VIII [pp.46-7]. He had only to open the relevant volume of the Calendar of Patent Rolls to find any number of knights of the body mentioned in the period during which he claims that ‘there is no reference to them’ [p.220, n.3l]. The basis of his argument appears to be that the knights are not mentioned in a household ordinance of 1494 — but then nor are they explicitly mentioned in the Black Book of Edward IV's household, except insofar as some of their number were used as carvers, and yet there is independent evidence of their importance at court in that reign."

Hmm, how is "Knights to serve the King of his basen and towel, called for his body" (as discussed at #Functions of the knights for the body) not explicit? OK, the words "Knight of the Body" don't actually appear...

Review Article: The English Court.
The Tudor Court by David Loades. The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War by David Starkey	
Rosemary Horrox
The Ricardian Volume 8 issue 101 June 1988 74-78
http://www.thericardian.online/downloads/Ricardian/8-101/06.pdf

Names of a number of 'knights for the royal body' of Richard III:

• Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, Volume 9. Appendix II - 1 Ric. III, p. 2, 1483-4 First Part of the Calendar of the Contents of the Patent Rolls, deposited in the Chapel of the Rolls. Printed by William Clowes and Sons for HMSO, 1848 (pp. 32ff and 97 ff) https://books.google.com/books?id=G0OpPhdsTrgC&dq=%22+Knight+of+the+royal+body%22&pg=RA2-PA38

(try also pg=RA2-PA32???)

50 hits for 'knight of the body', 13 hits for 'knights of the body'. Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III - A.D. 1476–1485. (1901) https://archive.org/stream/calendarpatentr12offigoog/calendarpatentr12offigoog_djvu.txt

• Eleven men were exempted from the
  Apparel Act of 1483
  (drafted in 1482 (22 Edw. 4), passed in 1483 (1 Ric. III)) which limited certain types of clothing to specific classes. e.g., No man below the rank of knight was to wear velvet in his doublet or gown, and "no agricultural worker or other laborer or servant of an urban craftsman, or the wife of such a man, was to wear clothing made from cloth costing more than 2s. a broad yard." (Reeves, p. 119) Seven of these eleven were knights of the body.

The Foppish Eleven of 1483
A. Compton Reeves
Medieval Prosopography
Vol. 16, No. 2 (Autumn 1995), pp. 111-134 (24 pages)
Published by: Board of Trustees of Western Michigan University through its Medieval Institute Publications
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44946993 

• These knights are: Sir Thomas Montgomery (p 120), Sir Thomas Burgh, Sir Thomas Vaughan, Sir John Donne (p 123), Sir William Parr (died 1483) (p 124), Sir Thomas St. Leger (executed 1483) (p 125), Thomas Bourchier (Constable of Windsor Castle 1472), (p. 126), and a Sir Thomas Grey (p. 127). Master Oliver King, the king's secretary; Master John Gunthorp, dean of the king's chapel; and Sir John Elrington, treasurer of the king's household (briefly KotB under Richard III but d. late 1483 (p. 130) . It may be that it was the king's wish to have "these eleven distinguished men of his household available in resplendent garb, to enhance the setting in which he himself was to be viewed." (Reeves, p. 132)

• August 1484 (2 Richard III): Thomas Mon[t]gomery, knight of the body and of the Garter was commissioned (with others) to make a peace and trade treaty with Maximilian, duke of Austria and Burgundy.^[90]

"Sir John Savage, son of another Sir John, was also the grandson of Thomas, Lord Stanley. He was made a KB in 1465 at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. As knight of the Royal Body, he was one of those who bore the coffin at the King’s (Ed IV) funeral in 1483. We do know that he was at Tewkesbury,2 but not at what other battles until Bosworth. [see above, Ed. IV]

• Greensmith, Lawrence T. (June 1977). "Coats of Arms of some Ricardian Contemporaries: Two at Bosworth" (PDF). The Ricardian. 4 (57): 20–22.

Henry VII (1485–1509)

Reigned 22 August 1485 – 21 April 1509

• Knight for the body - 11 June 1488 - Reynold Bray (p. 228)
• Knight for the king's body - 9 July 1492 - Roger Tocotes (p. 389)^[91]

Calender of the patent rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office 1485–1494. (Henry VII pt 1) https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293027026362;view=1up;seq=240

• 30 hits 'knight of the body': Calendar of the patent rolls, preserved in the Public Record Office 1494-1509 (Henry VII pt 2) https://books.google.com/books?id=YWlQAQAAMAAJ&q=%22knight+for+the+body%22 Hmm, this book deals with 1559 = Hen VIII, mistake somewhere. This the HathiTrust version

"The manor and castle of Sudeley, &c., being in the hand of Henry VII by the death of his uncle, by letters patent, dated 4 Sept. 1505,[1] a grant was made to John Huddleston, Knight of the Royal Body, for life of the manor and lordship of Sudeley, together with the advowson of the church, and lands, &c., in Sudeley, Todryngton, Stanley, Grette Gretton, Catesthorp, and Newnton in co. Gloucester, described as late the property of Ralph Boteler and Alice his wife, and of a rent of one hundred shillings per annum, payable to the king for the herbage and pannage of Sudeley Park; etc. [1] Patent Rolls, 21 Henry VII, Part iii, m. 16.^[92] Huddlestone (c. 1442 - 1 January 1512) was also Constable of Gloster castle and Knight of the Shire for Glos. See also Sir John Huddlestone on Geni.com.

Also I have also come across refs to "Esquires for the Royal Body", so it may have been an idiosyncrasy of the translators.

Well, Henry VII made lots of KftBs, 94 knights received black robes for Henry VII's funeral most of whom held 'household rank'. (Luckett, Crown Offices, p. 224-5) Hmm, this list appears in Letters & Papers of Henry VIII, Vol 1 Pt 1, second edition, pp 11-19. But not a single mention of a specific knight for the body, just knights in any old order.

Henry VII and VIII greatly expanded the number of squires & knights of the body, so that 'the household' == 'the affinity', apparently to consolidate their rule in the shires, during a time of relative national & international peace & stability after the French wars. But Henry VII's rule was fairly tenuous almost right to the end - he required bonds to guarantee the knight's behaviour, with surety from 4 other men. [Ref somewhere above]

Quote above, somewhere: - In the end, the Tudors created far too many Knights for the Body for there to be any sort of meaningful personal contact with the king.

Henry VIII (1509–1547)

Reigned 22 April 1509 – 28 January 1547

Are the patent rolls for Henry VIII missing? (Thus many instances of "knight of the body by 1533" etc.) Nope, "Letters & Papers of Henry VIII". All volumes are on BHO (yech), + some on Archive.org

Henry VIII has 113 KftBs listed in 1516: Letters & Papers, Vol II Pt 1, No. 2735, pp 871-2 [pdf 1164] (8 Henry VIII, anno 1516).

• Grants in June 1509: 7 . Sir John Rysley, knight for the Royal body. Exemption, for life, from serving on juries, &c. Greenwich. Lett. Pap. 1 Hen. VIII https://archive.org/details/letterspapersfor11lond/page/46/mode/2up

• Henry VIII - 20 [27?] July 1509 - Grant to sir Thomas Boleyn, knight of the body, of the custody of the exchange in Calais and of the foreign exchange in England. Otford. O[rig]. xiii. 258. H[ague] vi. p. i. 4. (Syllabus Index p. 741) Well, we know he was a KotB, and since there wansn't any other kind of knight under Henry VIII, that's OK. Sort of.

H8 stayed with a number of KftBs during the various royal progresses: by 1520 Sir Edward Darell had been KftB early in H's reign; Henry Norris, later Groom of the Stool which became the most important position of the Privy Chamber; Sir Edmund Tame at FF (NBB the "onlie begetter" of this entire article); Sir John Seymour at Wolfhall in 1520, also KftB, not died until 1536.^[93]

The Privy Chamber

Needs a précis making...

"During September 1518 Henry VIII created a new and prestigious post in the royal household, that of Gentleman of the privy chamber,[3] to which he appointed a number of his closest companions, Edward Neville, Arthur Pole, Nicholas Carew, Francis Bryan, Henry Norris and William Coffin, men who had been informally frequenting the privy chamber suite for a number of years [and known as the 'Minions'...] Yet within nine months four of them, Neville, Carew, Bryan and Coffin, in company with a number of other courtiers, Sir John Peachy, Sir Edward Guildford, Sir Henry Guildford and Francis Pointz, were dismissed from their offices and sent to posts beyond the court in disgrace." [3] D. R. Starkey, 'The king's privy chamber, 1485-1547', 1975 PhD thesis, Cambridge.^[94]

"In short the minions were proving themselves to be conceited and obnoxious young men whose contempt for anything which was not in the latest, French, fashion, coupled with their unseemly overfamiliarity with Henry, were antagonizing the more conservative elements at court." ^[95] It was, then, their behaviour, and not their politics which may well have been the problem.

Wolsey arranged for their replacements:^[96]Richard Jerningham, prev. King's Spear, Sir Richard Weston, Sir Richard Wingfield and Sir William Kingston - they were all KotBs by 1519, the last 3 had served under H7. ref Starkey, 'Privy chamber', p. 112./ref ... "the minions being gone, the crown took the simple expedient of transferring from the nearest body of suitably experienced men to fill the gap." (Walker pp 6-7) The 'youths of evil counsel', were removed and replaced by men whom Edward Hall described as the more sober 'sad and auncient' Knights of the Body.30 [30] E. Hall, Chronicle (London, 1809), p. 598.^[97][98]

This resulted in a complete financial and administrative reorganisation of the Privy Chamber.

Ahaha! "Concurrent with this came a distinct upward turn in the social background of the privy chamber staff, who became a more distinctly elite group. This, coupled with the clearly deliberate decision to allow the minions' replacements to carry their former titles with them and become the 'Knights of the Body in the privy chamber' , rather than merely 'Gentlemen', suggests that what was undertaken was a determined renovation and upgrading of the privy chamber intended to produce, as the memoranda suggested, an institution more suitable for the protection and display of the person of the sovereign."^[98]

In February 1520, Sir Richard Wingfield became one of the Knights of the Guard of the royal bodyguards, and in a cover letter drawn up by Wolsey, the cardinal emphasized that Henry could not make anyone an ambassador to France, except for a person "closest and pleasant to himself".^[99]

Richard Jerningham died in February or March 1525, Sir Thomas Boleyn was ennobled in June, and Wingfield died in Toledo on a mission to the Spanish court in July. Kingston d. September 1540 and Weston in August 1542.

Edward VI (1547–1553)

Reigned 28 January 1547 – 6 July 1553

• 1548 (m. 17) One hit, Richard Jerm[n]yngham, & his wife Anne now Lady Russell (married to the 1st Earl), but R.J. was left over from Henry VIII and apparently deceased? Yes, Richard J. d. 1525.

Calendar of the Patent Rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, Edward VI, A.D. 1549–1551. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293102388695;view=1up;seq=16

• 19 July 1550: John Russell Earl of Bedford (8th or 9th?) Ha! the 1st: John Russell, 1st Earl of Bedford 'knight for the body' left over from Henry VIII

Calendar of the patent rolls. Edward VI vol. 4 1550–1553. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=msu.31293027026404;view=1up;seq=18

Summary?

Sooooo:

• Sir William FitzWaryne was Knight for the Body for Queen Philippa under Edward III in 1349.
• There are some refs to KftBs in the Hist of Parliament website temp. Richard II, most of which appear to be at best misleading. Specifically, the term 'king's knight' seems to be freely interchangeable with 'knight for the body' - they may have done the same things, but the Latin terms are incontestably different. Why?
• Sir Thomas Chaworth, 'knight for the royal body', Henry IV, 1401. Also under Henry V 1413. But apparently not listed in Shaw, Knts of Engl. vol 2 (Bachelors)
• Sir Humphrey Stafford (and others?) was KftB at Henry V's coronation in 1413.^[100]
• Ralph Rochefort in 1438, Ralph Botiller in 1439 and Roland Leynthale (Lenthall) in 1441 are some of the earliest to be mentioned as 'knights for the king's body' (miles pro corpore regis) under Henry VI.
• Then more proper mentions of knights of the body appear in c1472, temp. Edward IV;
• Some of these continued under Richard III, who had made more (up to 100?)
• Such as were not slain at or after Bosworth in 1485 carried on under Henry VII, who created many more.
• Henry VIII also had lots, created
  Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber c1518 article needs a heavy-duty update..
  - the expulsion of the 'minions' resulted in the only four 'Knights of the Body in the Privy Chamber' being appointed by Wolsey. Were more KftBs were created after that date? Keep looking... Henry 8 d. 1547. And that's about it.
• It seems, furthermore that none were created under Edward VI (1547-1553), with Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset as Lord Protector during Edward VI's minority, + 16 executors: out of whom John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland rose to the fore & had Somerset executed on trumped-up charges.^[l]
• And since Mary was unlikely (i imagine) to favour her dad's supporters after the
  Dissolution
  1536–1541: and Elizabeth I governed in a different way altho' I haven't investigated much, yet.

Thus, (assuming that Richard II didn't actually have any, despite many mentions in Wedgwood's Hist. Parl) they generally seem to have come into existence after c1400 (Henry IV); and I'm seems almost every other monarch had them at some point up to perhaps the earlier years of Henry VIII. The last ones appear to have been created during the reign of Henry VIII (r. 1509-1547).

[Vague uninformed thoughts]: Since the knights were paid a royal retainer, consisting of yearly fees and two sets of robes per year (summer and winter), they appear in the accounts of the royal wardrobe. These accounts are distinct from those of the Royal chamber, whose Chamberlain oversaw the kings personal household Royal household, and also distinct from those of the Exchequer,^{[citation needed]} which kept the accounts for the king's government.

Conclusions so far

Having ploughed my way through various ancient records and current academic history sources dealing with pretty much every reign from Edward I to Elizabeth I, it seems fairly certain that the knights of the body were only in existence from c 1400 to c1520, Henry IV to Henry VIII. There are a number of references to them before Henry VI (inc. Henry IV, Henry V), but in a number of cases (esp. Richard II) their actual titles may have been mis-identified or misrepresented by modern editors or authors.

• A few are mentioned under Henry IV, e.g. Thomas Chaworth, 1401.
• A few knights of the body are mentioned during Henry V's time, at his coronation.
• Henry VI only had around four (Wedgwood Hist. Parl. p. xxx and CPR) e.g. Ralph Rochefort in 1438, Ralph Botiller (Boteler) in 1441.
• Edward IV had 38 KftB at some stage during his reign: 10 in 1468; 20 in 1471, probably 30 in 1483.(Morgan, King's Affinity in Yorkist England, p. 13) More on the Foppish Eleven, eight of whom were KftB and who all been carried over from Henry VI (Morgan pp 14-15)
• Richard III had roughly 50 KftBs, and four king's knights. Several are named as being at Bosworth, although only two died that day, and all the rest continued under Henry VII.(Luckett, Crown Offices p. 225)
• 94 knights received robes for Henry VII's funeral most of whom held 'household rank'. (Luckett, Crown Offices p. 224-5) Hmm, this list is in Letters & Papers Henry VIII, Vol 1 Pt 1, second edition, pp 11–19. There is not a single mention of a specific knight for the body, just knights, in the list. They are all jumbled up in no particular order. Mind you, with the old king dead, they would all have ceased to be knights of his body, and their letters patent would have needed to be confirmed by Henry VIII - or not. Well, it would be trivial to check the names against the following list:
• Henry VIII has 113 knights of the body listed by name in 1516 (Letters & Papers Vol II Pt 1, No. 2735, pp 871-2 [pdf 1164]) (8 Henry VIII, anno 1516) - I wonder how many had been rolled over?
• The position of Gentleman of the Privy Chamber was created in 1518 (Hen VIII), with just four KftBs appointed in 1519 by Wolsey. I'm not at all sure that Sil is the best ref here..."by combining esquires of the household and knights of the body."^[5]
• "The last of all my knights": Sir James Boleyn (ref Sir James Boleyn (Bullen), (c.1480-1561), of Blickling, Norfolk (d. 1561)), possibly the last KftB to die. And NOT his brother Sir Thomas...

Doing some very rough maths, there could have been around 100 total by the end of Richard III's reign, and maybe 150 more under Henry VII and Henry VIII, making very approximately 250 in all.

Specific knights

In attempting to identify the 'real' knights I have come across many actual examples of knights for the body, many with their own WP article, and some or many should probably be incorporated into the relevant section for each reign.

But, as Shelagh Mitchell stated in the introduction to her dissertation (and here I quote from memory), "...it is not my intention to provide potted histories..."^[101]

Also, there will be plenty of mentions of KftBs and WLs in other articles, some will be wrong (and woe betide the editors who thought that Hugh Conway was worthy of preservation), and some will need blue blinks.

Extended background material

NB This whole section has no immediate bearing on the main subject of this article (namely, the knights for the body), but few articles on Wikipedia seem to deal with the subjects discussed in any detail. For someone with little knowledge of the mediaeval period at all, it's been interesting finding out. Quite a lot of the material may well need to be partially merged with other articles.

Who, or what, was a knight?

MAKE SECTIONS, fool!

NB This sub-section mostly deals with the period before around c1450~1470 when the knights for the body came into existence in any great numbers.

So, when did barons lose the power of making someone a knight, or even just accepting them into service if they had the readies (or merely the fighting ability) and just _calling_ them a knight??? Well, enquire within, and it shall be answered unto you... perhaps.

Most interesting and enlightening essay:

• Scammell, Jean (July 1993). "The Formation of the English Social Structure: Freedom, Knights, and Gentry, 1066–1300". Speculum. 68 (3). University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of America: 591–618.
  JSTOR 2864967
  .

Excellent analysis of the beginnings of knighthood slightly before the Norman invasion and how it developed in England in the following century. As I had been thinking just earlier today, miles simply means 'soldier'. There was no "knightly class" (whatever that means, vide Hicks below, § Emergence of the gentry) in England before 1086, and very few middling landholders.^[102] In Anglo-Saxon society there were slaves, serfs, and lords. Slavery only ended in England towards the very end of the 11th century.^[103] There were very few free men (freemen) until c.1170.^[104]

The knight was only a knight (miles) when in possession of a sword, which belonged to his lord.^[105] A coat of mail was hugely expensive, and also belonged to the lord, and possibly the horse as well.^[103] Many knights were plain servus (pl. servi), simply servants called upon (or rather, ordered) to fight.^[106]

"Dubbing merely meant giving a knightly outfit. It did not alter a man's juridical or social status. If he lost his armament, a man ceased to be a knight until he was reequipped. Before the 1180s men of high rank were sometimes ceremonially armed as an acknowledgment of power, or in youth as a declaration of manhood. But they were not "made knights." Thus William I dubbed (armed) his son Henry in 1086, but the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, S.a., did not use the word "knight."^[106]

"The curious naming of scutage (before 1100) from the shield, rather than sword or lance, suggests the possibility that it was usual in Norman England between 1066 and 1100 for men called out to act as knights to report for service with little more than this comparatively cheap piece of defensive equipment."^[107]

• Random thought: if scutage derives from scutifer what about the surname Armitage from armiger? For later... MinorProphet (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And most importantly, if you really wanted to be a knight, the ownership of a sword and perhaps mail was paramount:

"The knights' first step to independence had to be individual ownership of the equipment commonly identified as knightly—an economic problem most probably solved by noneconomic means: gift, capture, or luck. The cost of the mailcoat alone was enormous."^[107]

Jean Scammell thus defines eight distinct categories of knight c1100 under three main headings:^[108][m]

• 1. "Knights" with free land
  • 180 land-holding Barons mentioned in
    tenants-in-chief for tax ('geld' as in Danegeld, see Hide
    ). Only "knights" in a purely military sense.
  • Knights with
    enfeoffed lands held through military service, and able to provide their own arms and a coat of mail, per loricam. Still counted as servus. Their sons might be able to achieve inheritance of the land after the breakup of the geld manors and thus become estate holders, able to command a knight's fee
    .
    • And thus -aha!- although knighthood itself is not hereditary, if your (eldest) son inherited perhaps the greater portion of your house, goods, chattels, and especially lands worth eg 20l a year or more [and more especially a sword...?] he would have found himself with the status of at least a potential knight (in posse). Knighthood itself cannot be passed on from father to son, but wealth can, the possession of which in itself entitled the hériteur (hah!) to be called upon to serve as a knight. Interesting perhaps: was the possession of swords limited in any way during this time?
  • Knights who were armed by their lord, and thus were only knights when armed. Still liable to labour and had to struggle for personal freedom.
  • Occasional, agrarian knights, holding free land but through specifically military tenure. Maybe knights for just a few weeks in their whole lives. Like everyone else, liable to be called up in a crisis.
• 2. "Knights" holding unfree, villein land and owing labour services and servile dues for the land
  • Men holding c300 acres of land, upon which their villeins worked to support him. Possibly classical feudalism.
  • Professional soldiers, born serfs, armed and rewarded for their military ability; living in the lord's castle, with perhaps a very small plot of villein land as a reward. Considered to be permanent knights. Temptation to abscond and become a free lance.
• 3. Landless "knights", fully professional soldiers
  • Aha, the original household knights, completely without land and living in their lord's castle etc. at their lord's whim - "precarious knights".^[109]
  • Their opposite, free lances with their own arms and armour who had escaped lordship and were professional mercenaries, perhaps with some independent means, with freedom of movement.

The church also had its own knights: Domesday Book records the abbeys of Peterborough, Shaftesbury, Bury St. Edmunds, Oxford, Warwick and Evesham all offering some sort of landed support or enfoeffment for their stipendiary knights (some were mercenaries) with their own arms and horses, and some degree of maintenance when they were with the king's army.^[110] Not all knights had to have swords: a charter of Henry I mentions knights who served with hauberks, but they probably received less.^[111] Sally Harvey shows that the lesser, landless or household knights were often found guarding castles in counties such as Sussex and Kent, and in marcher counties like Herefordshire.^[112]

• Harvey, Sally (November 1970). "The Knight and the Knight's Fee in England". Past & Present. 49 (49). Oxford University Press on behalf of The Past and Present Society: 3–43.
  JSTOR 650206
  .

" Mercenaries, household knights, and occasional (agrarian) knights supplied the flexibility that has allowed the Norman settlement to look like a system, and even a feudal system. They supplied a military capacity that had nothing to do with military tenure, one that allowed a century to elapse before knight service was regulated."[113]

And how, one might ask, was that achieved? Well...

It seems that

And "Bracton" De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae ('On the Laws and Customary Practice of England'), was created c1220~1236 by working lawyers dealing in the royal courts with the struggles of small landholders to keep a hold on their land and be recognized as free. It specified three ways of achieving personal freedom with the assistance of one's lord: manumission; or doing homage; or possessing a [royal?] charter including the words "to have and hold freely, quietly and peacefully to him and his heirs."^[114]

"Most far-reaching: a knight who has the standing of a free man may, "Bracton" says, answer the charge that he is a villein by claiming privilege as a knight (fol. 198b; 3:104). If his claim is successful, he is free forever. Knighthood could then in these circumstances make a statuliber permanently free. This is not the same as saying that all knights are free, or that every knight is a statuliber [one who has the standing of a free man], or that knighthood and villeinage are incompatible. What it proves is that there were still c1220~1230 (the time when this was written) knights who had no other defense to the charge that they are unfree than an assertion that they are knights—and that knighthood now carried practical, juridical implications. It was accepted by the king's courts that knights who seem free are free."^[114]

Well, this all tends to point towards the end of the right of earls and barons to call their own servants "knights", or to define them as such, especially if they owned arms and mail.

Beginnings of knighthood as a condition of something...?

Aha - lots of long quotes, but very persuasive, concise and meaningful:

"So while seignorial administration in England used, and indeed insisted on, unfree manorial reeves, the expanding royal government was staffed by free clergy chosen for reliability and talent. The twelfth-century progress in national institutions was largely their achievement. Their presence defined the opportunities of the laity in central government. The clergy largely monopolized the royal financial administration and Chancery until the sixteenth century. But during the twelfth century, the church's canon law increasingly excluded clergy from participation in any legal process involving death. Since capital punishment was normal for many offenses, and until Henry II's reforms land ownership was

tried by battle, justice was left to the laity."^[114] "The routine implementation of justice at all levels created a seminal working link between the king's government and the lesser men in the localities. The affinity between the gentry and the common law became their mutual strength and the hard core of the unwritten English constitution."^[114]

Later on, only knights could serve on juries and grand assizes, but not everyone wanted to. See also (Waugh 1983).

• Waugh, Scott L. (October 1983). "Reluctant Knights and Jurors: Respites, Exemptions, and Public Obligations in the Reign of Henry III". Speculum. 58 (4). University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of America: 937–986.
  S2CID 159868579
  .

The population grew considerably during the 13th century, along with the productivity of the land: from c1000 to the 13th century the seed yield ratio of cereals almost doubled from 1:2.5 to 1:4.[115] Prices also rose, causing inflation. Small manors (under 200 to 300 acres) became the norm in many southern counties, and by 1300 there were 3,000 landholders worth over 20/ a year (the knight's fee). And then the 1241 distraint of arms by Henry III, covered above: "Regardless of birth, service, occupation, or tenure, knight-worthiness in England became a fluctuating monetary threshold ominously resembling a tax assessment. [...] The 1242 Assize of Arms: all those with sixty marks in chattels or fifteen pounds in land to have horse and hauberk. In 1278 knighthood was incumbent on possessors of land worth twenty pounds a year."^[116] Also see (Powicke 1950).

"But as Parliament was established, the knights were put with the burgesses, [i.e. the townspeople and merchants], and not the nobility. This structural expression of contemporary perception must be definitive as to the status of knights, and to the relation of nobility and knights, in the mid-thirteenth century."^[116]

"But the landholders had a role in local administration, which, although it did not require their recruitment by the king personally or necessarily any direct working relationship with him, nevertheless made them instruments of royal government. In the local public courts, knights (and knight-worthy persons) prohibited, tried, punished, and exerted influence without needing royal favor, or a specific royal grant to do so, and without impairing the public nature of those courts."^[116]

Thus the 1254 attempt by Henry III's regents to

Knighthood was expensive, demanding and optional. A new class of class-free people grew up with a few hundred acres and a manorial court. "Other terms were needed which implied dignity, stability, and heredity—and covered ill-defined membership and lack of definitive function. The first use of "Gentlewoman" known to the Oxford English Dictionary was in 1230; "Gentleman" followed in 1275; "Gentility" not until 1340; and the first known user of "gentry" was Geoffrey Chaucer's Wife of Bath in 1386."[118]

Thus Scammell places Henry II as the midwife at the centre of the birth of the gentry, with the petty assizes and the concept of statuliber. Common lawyers applied to the concept of possession (not ownership) to land tenure and personal liberty. By the time of Henry III this concept had become so entrenched, and there were so many independent landholders (freeholders) all over the country that it became impossible to tax them without their being consulted.^[119] "A large number of knights now had arms in their own permanent possession. The taxing without their consent of people who have the ability to resist tends to be hazardous." (lol) ^[117]

But when?

Make sections, fool

Well, finding out exactly when the monarch reserved to him or herself the exclusive right to ennoble a man is taking considerably longer than I might have imagined.

In the end I think that the

More on knighthood

This from Page:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu/884 Knighthood, EB1911, p. 855

"Nicolas, Orders of Knighthood, vol. ii. (Order of the Bath) pp. 19 seq.... It is given as “the order and manner of creating Knights of the Bath in time of peace according to the custom of England,” and consequently dates from a period when the full ceremony of creating knights bachelors generally had gone out of fashion. But as Ashmole, speaking of Knights of the Bath, says, “if the ceremonies and circumstances of their creation be well considered, it will appear that this king [Henry IV.] did not institute but rather restore the ancient manner of making knights, and consequently that the Knights of the Bath are in truth no other than knights bachelors, that is to say, such as are created with those ceremonies wherewith knights bachelors were formerly created.” (Ashmole, Order of the Garter, p. 15). See also Selden, Titles of Honor, p. 678, MAKE CITES, fool  Done and the Archæological Journal, v. 258 seq." - Although the Archæological Journal is online, the volume number is not given and I cannot find this article.

• Nicolas, Nicholas Harris (1842). History of the Orders of Knighthood of the British Empire: etc. (4 vols). London: Published for John Hunter by William Pickering and John Rodwell. Vol. 1 • Vol. 2 • Vol. 3 • Vol. 4

• Selden, John (1672). Titles of Honor (3rd, carefully corrected ed.). London: Printed by E. Tyler and R. Holt for Thomas Dring.

• Ashmole, Elias (1672). The Institution, Laws & Ceremonies of the Most Noble Order of the Garter. London: Printed by J. Macock for Nathaniel Brooke, at the Angel in Cornhill.

It is a maxim of the law indeed that, as Coke says, “the knight is by creation and not by descent,” (EB1911 p. 856) "On the continent of Europe the degree of knight bachelor disappeared with the military system which had given rise to it. It is now therefore peculiar to the British Empire, where, although very frequently conferred by letters patent, it is yet the only dignity which is still even occasionally created—as every dignity was formerly created—by means of a ceremony in which the sovereign and the subject personally take part. Everywhere else dubbing or the accolade seems to have become obsolete, and no other species of knighthood, if knighthood it can be called, is known except that which is dependent on admission to some particular order."

Selden 450ff, 636, esquire 687 Scotland 703 Gentlemen by patent 722

In France an esquire could ask his lord to be made a knight: "A lors doit venir devant luy & demaunder; Chivalier au nom de Dieu & de Sainct George donnez moy le Ordre; & le dit Chivalier ou Chiefe de guerre doit tirer l'eſpee nue vers le dict demaundeur & doit dire en frappant trois fois ſur iceuly; Je te fais Chivalier au nom de Dieu & de mon Seigneur Sainct George, pour la foy & Juſtice loyalment garder & l'egliſe, femes, Veſues, ('veuves', widows) & Orphelins defender.(Selden p. 455)

"In theory, the knight was the defender of widows and orphans; but in practice wardships and marriages were bought and sold as a matter of everyday routine like stocks and shares in the modern market." ("Knighthood", EB1911, p. 859}

In France too, in Selden's time only the king could confer the honour of knighthood by creation, although "not only Princes and great Dukes and Counts, but some of less notes also being knights; the Counts of Flanders, Nevers and such more." In Provence and Breaucaire burgesses and tradesmen could be knighted by Barons and Prelates. Selden 3rd ed. pp 456–7 But the king heavily fined the Counts and the knights involved. In France the highest grade of knights were called Chevaliers Bachelier, being bachelier only until raised to the order of chevalier. (Selden p. 458}

"It has been the general opinion, as expressed by Sainte Palaye and Mills, that formerly all knights were qualified to confer knighthood.[5] [...] and the sounder conclusion appears to be, as Sir Harris Nicolas says, that the right was always restricted in operation to sovereign princes, to those acting under their authority or sanction, and to a few other personages of exalted rank and station.[1] (Orders of Knighthood, vol. i. p. xi.)

In several of the writs for distraint of knighthood from Henry III. to Edward III. a distinction is drawn between those who are to be knighted by the king himself or by the sheriffs of counties respectively, and bishops and abbots could make knights in the 11th and 12th centuries.[2](Selden, Titles of Honor, p. 638.) At all periods the commanders of the royal armies had the power of conferring knighthood; as late as the reign of Elizabeth it was exercised among others by Sir Henry Sidney in 1583, and Robert, earl of Essex, in 1595,^[n] while under James I an ordinance of 1622, confirmed by a proclamation of 1623, for the registration of knights in the college of arms, is rendered applicable to all who should receive knighthood from either the king or any of his lieutenants.[3] Many sovereigns, too, both of England and of France, have been knighted after their accession to the throne by their own subjects, as, for instance, Edward III. by Henry, earl of Lancaster, Edward VI. by the lord protector Somerset, Louis XI. by Philip, duke of Burgundy, and Francis I. by the Chevalier Bayard.(Knighthood EB1911 pp 857–8)

• doi:10.1080/00665983.1913.10853228
  .

And a damming view of chivalry: "Freeman’s estimate comes far nearer to the historical facts than Burke’s: “The chivalrous spirit is above all things a class spirit. The good knight is bound to endless fantastic courtesies towards men and still more towards women of a certain rank; he may treat all below that rank with any decree of scorn and cruelty. The spirit of chivalry implies the arbitrary choice of one or two virtues to be practised in such an exaggerated degree as to become vices, while the ordinary laws of right and wrong are forgotten. The false code of honour supplants the laws of the commonwealth, the law of God and the eternal principles of right. Chivalry again in its military aspect not only encourages the love of war for its own sake without regard to the cause for which war is waged, it encourages also an extravagant regard for a fantastic show of personal daring which cannot in any way advance the objects of the siege or campaign which is going on. Chivalry in short is in morals very much what feudalism is in law: each substitutes purely personal obligations devised in the interests of an exclusive class, for the more homely duties of an honest man and a good citizen” (Norman Conquest, v. 482). [ie The History of the Norman Conquest of England: The effects of the Norman conquest. (1876) page 323 By Edward Augustus Freeman] (All from EB Knighthood p 858)

On my vague idea of creating a complete list of Knights for the Body, the words of William A. Shaw in the preface to his The Knights of England pp. ix–x in collating the records of knights bachelor will serve as a warning: "No words of mine can convey an adequate idea of the welter, chaos, confusion and contradictions of these manuscripts. The names of Knights are given with every possible variation, the lists disagree perpetually amongst themselves in the order of the names, and the dates assigned to the battles or other occasions on which knighthoods occur, are in the majority of cases totally incorrect. In the attempt to collate these manuscripts and to verify them from extraneous sources, I have spent four painful years, and I regard the outcome as the most distressingly unsatisfactory piece of historical work I have ever set my hand to."

Selden, Titles of Honor, 3rd ed., pp 636 ff:

"The Perfons that gave this dignity antiently were fometimes Subjects (and thefe gave it without any fuperiour Authority granted to them) as well as Sovereigns. (p. 638)

"And it is obfervable that in fome old Writs of Summons , or distringas, for taking the order of Knighthood, a diftinction is made that fome fhould come ad recipiendum a Nobis (from the King) Arma Militaria, and others, being not Tenants to the King, fhould be fummoned or diftrained ad fe milites faciendos , or ad arma fufcipienda. And in l one I obferve that thofe of the fecond kind are to be diftrained quod tunc sint ibi parati ad recipiendum Arma de quibuscunque voluerint. In which form the Writs went to all the Sheriffs of England."

Which, if my Latin is correct, means that men could make themselves knights (ad se milites faciendos), or by accepting arms (ad arma suscipienda). And those of the second kind "because in that time they should be ready thereupon to receive arms from whomsoever they wished." (quod tunc sint ibi parati ad recipiendum Arma de quibuscunque voluerint)

Selden distinguishes between courtly and sacred ceremonies. The courtly (militem facere) included the girding with a belt, and spurs; later simply dubbing, the accolade. The sacred included offering the sword at the altar, and in pre-reformation Common Prayer books there is a form of blessing the sword of new knights (Benedictio Ensis novis militis) (Selden p. 648–9). See also "The Benedictio Novi Militis and the MSM"

Selden (p. 689) says that esquires were created by letters patent as far back as Richard II. He also mentions Squires of the body in his own time.(p. 690)

I think we have it, at last, expressed in everyday English by William Shaw, The Knights of England, Introduction p. xl. He uses the term miles as I was thinking earlier, as 'soldier'. However, his words are so expressive and concise that they almost defy paraphrasing or compression. Nevertheless, the book is on Archive.org and people will be able to read it for themselves. The rest consists of Shaw's words:

"Intentionally using non-technical terms for the moment, I may express my view as follows : The feudal system centred round the idea of a military force settled on the land in a certain way or by a certain tenure. All the constituent members of that military force were milites in the sense of being warriors or horse soldiers, but they were not originally milites in the sense of being knights as being admitted by a certain ceremony into a certain dignity. They were horse soldiers merely, and their tenure of their lands was a soldier's tenure. Throughout the 11th and 12th centuries, therefore, I would not translate the generic term miles as knight but as horse soldier. This would apply equally to Anglo-Saxon times."

"From the 9th to the 12th century I take it there was only one species of, or means of approach to, knightly honour, viz., that which arose by creation by means of those solemn ceremonial rites which, as I have said, were subsequently elaborated into the ceremonial of the Bath. Outside this restricted class the large body of thegns or milites were soldier tenants simply. But from the 12th century a change takes place."

"Originally the Anglo-Saxon "cniht" was a boy, a servant or a military follower; then the term gathered dignity and in the latter half of the 11th century it designated a military rank next beneath that of the thegns, and, finally, from the commencement of the 13th century it assumes though by no means uniformly) the full meaning of the name of a distinct dignity attaching to the profession of arms and to military tenure." (Shaw, Introd. xli)

"Hitherto the King's tenants in chief had been milites, soldier tenants, battalere, or battaliers,* or fighting tenants simply. Henceforth they, or a certain portion of them, were to constitute a distinct rank possessed of a distinct dignity, which, whilst being less in esteem than the ancient ceremonial dignity of knighthood, was to be derived from it or partially assimilated to it in matter of form and approximated to it in substance. The entry to this dignity was given by a simpler form, only one of the several ceremonies which characterised the older ceremonial knighting being used, viz., that of the mere striking by the sword, but alongside of this there had to be in the grantee the necessary qualification of a tenure in chivalry from the Crown. Whilst it is possible to lay one's finger on the approximate time of the introduction of knighthood by simple dubbing (viz., the middle of the 13th century), it is not possible to define sharply and clearly the steps in the process of evolution by which the military tenant became differentiated from the dubbed knight. That evolution implies (what the slightly earlier introduction of scutage also implies) that the feudal system was breaking down, that the military tenant was ceasing to be a professional warrior and was coming more and more to be a landed man."

"Roughly speaking, therefore, we may say that through the earlier medieval period up to the middle of the 13th century the idea of military tenure as constituting knighthood predominated over that of ceremonial admission by dubbing, whilst in the later middle ages the idea of ceremonial admission by dubbing prevailed over that of military tenure. In modern times the conception of knighthood is purely ceremonial. Is is conferred by a mere ceremony, and has no relation whatever to military tenure of land from the Crown."

"1. The sole order of knighthood from 880 to 1250 was the highly ceremonial investiture which developed into the order of the Bath.

"2. From 1250 onwards the dignity of knighthood by dubbing is introduced. The whole body of properly qualified military tenants-in-chief is theoretically entitled to this dignity. When he assumes that dignity or submits to accept it the miles or battelier holding by military service becomes a knight battelier or knight bachelor, and henceforth miles is the accepted term for a knight bachelor, and when once the term miles has obtained this hard and fast meaning it ceases to be applied to the wider generic body of military tenants. Finally, whilst the whole body of tenants holding by knight's service was theoretically entitled to assume knighthood it came to be more and more a distinct act depending on the will of the Sovereign.

Whilst some few accepted the honour eagerly at his hands the main body of military tenants remained indisposed to assume it doubtless because they regarded it as a form of emphasising or re-enacting the military character and burden of the tenure. Periodically, therefore, we find the Crown calling upon the tenants to assume knighthood and fining them for not obeying."

"It became, therefore, quite an established practice on the part of the Crown to issue proclamations calling on the tenants-in-chief to assume knighthood and then to levy fines upon or to accept compositions from those who refused to obey. This practice was observed by the Sovereigns of England down to the days of Charles I."

In July 1603 James I held a mass dubbing of 500 persons summoned to Whitehall for the purpose. But it reveals

"the nature of the process which had been going on under the surface. In the first stage of that process the Crown had attempted to arrest the decay into which the feudal tenures were falling. This it attempted to do by, let us say, periodically renewing, or keeping up-to-date the registration of the tenants in chivalry. As it was the object of the tenants to evade such registration, they shirked the assumption of knighthood. But when the tenures had hopelessly decayed, when parliamentary grants had superseded the mediaeval scutage and tallage, etc., and when the Crown's feudal privileges had sunk to such items as wardship, relief, etc., then the qualification of the 40L per annum on lands had come to be a social qualification carrying very little of the old feudal obligations. The distinction of knighthood was therefore no longer attended with the feudal obligations which made the medieval tenant shun it."

"The abolition of the feudal tenures in the middle of the 17th century (Tenures Abolition Act 1660) swept away at the same time this feudal privilege of a right to knighthood hitherto existing in the 40L. per annum tenant. Accordingly from the days of The Restoration there has remained only the sole and simple conception of knighthood as a personal dignity conferred by the ceremony of dubbing by the Sovereign or his deputy. When this change had been effected it became an easy and not incongruous act to confer upon civilians what was originally a purely military dignity. To-day the dignity of knight bachelor is in great measure civilian in character."

"...there is a precedent question which will require solution at the hands of medievalists. That question is this : What is the exact meaning of the conventional phrase used in the writs of summons to knighthood, arma militaria suscipere? Does it mean that the tenant should present himself to the King to receive from him in a ceremonial way the arms proper to the degree of knighthood? If so, that would be an

shire-reeve), the King's representative in a shire or county

, anciently a baron's 'own country'] in a census, or register, or roll, or schedule. I incline to the latter view", for reasons given.(Shaw, Introd, xliv)

"The ancient laws of chivalry maintained that the process of knighting could be performed by anyone who was himself of the degree of a knight. Certainly the commanders of the King's armies possessed and used the authority of creating knights as will be found in many places in the present volume. The power which still remains in the

lord lieutenant of Ireland of creating knights is a survival of this ancient law of chivalry. This power was called in question by the Admiralty in 1821, but it was decided in 1823 by the judges that the lord lieutenant does possess since the union of Great Britain and Ireland the same power of conferring the honour of knighthood which he did [as the King's deputy] whilst Ireland was a separate kingdom. Irish knights, therefore, rank for precedence with English knights simply according to seniority of creation. In a similar manner the power of knighting was held to be inherent in the warden of the Marches

in the 16th century. Again, the Crown may delegate its power of creating knights by a specific commission. Numerous instances of this occurred under Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth [see Rymer, Foedera xv., p. 350].

"A similar precedent was followed by James II. in 1686 (when the duke of Albemarle as lieutenant general and general governor of Jamaica was empowered to confer knighthood on such persons, not exceeding six, as he should think deserving), and by his present Majesty in the commission empowering H.R.H. the duke of York to create knights on his colonial tour."

Thus Shaw.

Max Lieberman, reviewing the literature, asks the same questions about "who was a knight" without coming to any conclusions at all. As usual, there is no consensus among historians, whose jobs in part depend on arguing amongst themselves.^[121]

• Lieberman, Max (April 2015). "A New Approach to the Knighting Ritual". Speculum. 90 (2). The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Medieval Academy of America: 391–423.
  JSTOR 43577349
  .

"When Adam delved, and Eve span, who then was the gentleman?" John Ball at Blackheath, during the Peasants' Revolt, 1381 - haha, Scammell quotes this at the end of her paper.

As Elizabeth I's Lord Burleigh said, "What is gentility but ancient riches?"^[116]

There is a dispute about who 'the gentry' were, and when and how they are supposed to have emerged. Possibly not needed at all, except with some refs.. The previous sections clear up many of my comments below, so maybe remove any lack of my understanding over what he's talking about...

• Professor Michael Hicks, review of The Origins of the English Gentry by Professor Peter Coss.(Coss 2005) Reviews in History, No. 402. April 2004. Accessdate: 17 August 2020.

"The gentry were thus 'a kind of lesser nobility' whom, as K. B. McFarlane long ago suggested, were what remained when the parliamentary baronage were defined in the fourteenth century."

"It was under Henry II that Hugh Thomas has identified many features familiar later, such as bastard feudalism, bastard feudal perversions of justice, county solidarity, and service to the crown. To these Coss adds heritability of land and primogeniture, the development of toponymic surnames, hereditary heraldry, chivalry, the restriction of the title dominus to knights and the formal dubbing of knights, and the proliferation of seals amongst even the petty knights (milituli). An exclusive knighthood was being born. Horizontal ties become more visible. 'Heraldry belongs to a highly aristocratic world', he writes. 'A fully chivalric knighthood was born'.(Coss 2005, p. 37)"

"The number of knights fell during the thirteenth century, from perhaps 5000 to a quarter of that number, as military service declined and the costs of knighthood both in time and money increased. Most families of milituli gave up being knighted. They thereby resigned themselves to reduced status - presumably reluctantly, since knighthood carried a social cachet and 'few people relish downward mobility'.(Coss 2005, p. 95) Those who still opted to become knights became an exclusive elite of those with coats of arms, fully conversant with 'the panoply of ideas surrounding chivalry' that they shared with the magnates, with whom they were associated most memorably at the 1306 Feast of the Swans."

As an aside: "It was presumably because many lords did not keep stocks of arms that in 1181 it was necessary for the Assize of Arms to attempt to ensure a minimal body of weapons by requiring lords to have, not a knight, but a knight's equipment for each knight's fee that they have in demesne. Like the popularity of paying scutage rather than doing military service, this proves unquestionably the demilitarization of Anglo-Norman society. Moreover, since arms made the knight, the decline of arm stocks would automatically produce the much-discussed reduction in number of knights against the demographic trend."^[122]

"It was the wars of Edward I that created more tasks to be performed, that caused an 'explosion of commissions' of array, subsidy, and the peace, and that brought the shires under the rule of 'amateur landlord-magistrates' that endured until 1889 and beyond. By 1307 most knights held such 'major local office'. As partners in county government, they had royal authority to control their tenants; and as county communities they petitioned together to parliament. The percolation down to the esquires and eventually to mere gentlemen of their knightly culture and its symbolism, such as heraldic seals, crystallised the gentry into an elite group clearly demarcated from peerage and peasantry alike."

The above is Coss's argument as Hicks understands it. Hicks then criticises it:

"If only then were the inactive drones weeded out, in office for prestige rather than service, if many fifteenth-century commissions and most commissioners were inoperational, what evidence has Coss that appointments equated to actual activity around 1300? [...] There were unquestionably more horizontal than vertical ties in all periods and the former did ultimately supersede the latter, but surely long after 1350. Even for the fifteenth century, few historians accept Christine Carpenter's argument that witnessing deeds was as potent a tie as retaining. [NB See Carpenter extracts above, I think she says some useful things about the period before the KftBs...] All of Coss' knights were lords, all his gentry were masters, employers, and heads of households, and all commanded men, as did their successors into the seventeenth century and beyond. Lordship over the gentry and by the gentry had centuries yet to run."

Hicks continues: " Since rank and status at all times depended on command of manpower and wealth, which derived principally from land, surely aristocrats before 1250 could remark the differences in local standing that resulted just as decisively as did their counterparts in 1565, Peter Laslett's early modern villagers, or Richard Gough at Myddle in 1698?" [Who?]

"Even the development of exclusive knighthood may not have been such a profound change. There were certainly more gentry families circa 1500 than knights circa 1200. Many families worth £20 a year chose to be distrained rather than accept promotion. If their assessment of the pros and cons - an assessment shared by most of their peers - placed material prosperity and survival ahead of status, as Coss indicates, it also demonstrates that knighthood was not worth much pain. Most heirs of milituli surely retained such other aristocratic attributes as leisure, hospitality, and ideology as Chaucer's Franklin evidently did. A generation later he would have counted as a gentleman. Some who paid fines to avoid knighthood accepted it when really honourable, on the field of battle or at royal hands: witness all those northerners who had paid their fines and yet accepted knighthood on the Scottish campaigns of 1481-2."

Coss replies (13/11/2009, 5 years later???), without saying much of interest for this article, but he articulates what I had been wondering:

"And most commentators on medieval society that I know of believe that territorial power was a primary motive among magnates, whether one is talking of the twelfth century or the fifteenth. John Watts, for example, has written recently that the 'dream of every nobleman was surely the unchallenged rule of the locality, in which case everybody would be, in some sense, a part of his following' and Helen Castor that the 'aim of every magnate was to defeat or neutralize by accommodation the regional pretensions of his rivals in order to achieve or maintain control of his "country"(4). [4]. John Watts, Henry VI and the Politics of Kingship (Cambridge, 1966), p. 67; Castor 2000, p. 100"

Well, the historians' argument of nomenclature about who the gentry actually were, and when they emerged doesn't really concern this article, and although the general info about why there were generally fewer knights is useful, I find Coss's distinction between 'nominal' and 'actual' knights interesting.^[123] He talks about the distraint of Edward I's time: those worth 20/ a year, chevalers with a horse and coat of mail etc. - he calls them milituli, petty knights^[124] - but they were no less a knight than one with 40/ a year. [Yes, but what about those with 200/ a year?] Coss examines 97 Warwickshire knights who participated in the grand assize between 1221-1232, but around 30 had what he calls "minor interests" and ignores them. He also cites Anne Polden's study of 89 Buckinghamshire knights in the 13th century, many of who were equally reclusive. Bla bla, but of 39 families who survived into the 14th century, only 16 were "knight bearing".^[125] But but but obviously knighthood is not hereditary: and as far as I know sons of knights couldn't just ask the king to be knights:^[o] but the constant strife in the kingdom and abroad made it likely that there would be another distraint from the king.

In fact, the opposite obtained: the sons of knights were most likely required to be knights themselves, even if they didn't like it, through distraint; and thus subsequent scutage, tallage etc. which was seen as personal revenue for the king. When the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 was passed, Parliament voted a large sum to the crown to compensate.

And then he goes on about a knight who was refused permission to visit a supposed case of bed-sickness because "he was from a household and had no land".^[126] [i.e. he was a landless knight who lived in the household of his lord. See Scammell's definitions above.] And then Coss distinguishes between property-holding knights and landless household knights; and suddenly we are at court with the 'household knights' of King John: how different were they from household knights in the magnates' "countries"? He says that Church (Church 1999) doesn't quite know how they got paid.

• Coss, Peter (2005). The Origins of the English Gentry (illustrated, reprint ed.). Cambridge University Press.
  ISBN 9780521021005
  .

Ahhh, Church (Church 1999, p. 30) says that Robert Tybotot held a knight's fee of the Earl of Derby in Wymondham and Thorpe, Leics. In 1209 he received a donum of 2 marks when he went to Scotland as a knight of the King's household, but was back in the Earl's service as one of his knights by September 1216.

And Coss carries on about this 'knightly class' which Hicks pours scorn on: but he talks about the belted knights and the dubbing ceremony;^[127] about the distraint of 1241 which applied to anyone with land worth 20/, not just military tenure (of their enfeoffed lord???), not just tenants-in-chief...^[128] And again, sons of knights seeking to avoid knighthood in the distraints of 1256 - but it was expensive, because as a knight you needed two esquires...^[p] But Coss also says that the king probably dubbed very few knights - they came into his service as fully-fledged knights, having presumably received their training and dubbing elsewhere.^[129] See William Shaw infra, who asked just this question in 1903: he wondered whether it was simply a question of enrolling, ie placing their name on a list (perhaps with the county sheriff), and not necessarily of travelling to wherever the king pleased, to be either belted or dubbed, etc.

As I see it, in many ways the royal household merely aped the household and affinity of the earls and barons in their "countries", who surely had a stronger hold on their own lands than did the king over the whole realm, whose claim to the throne was often at least tenuous, bordering on 'outsider' status. Richard III was particularly beholden to ordinary people, championing their cause in law as an inherent aspect of his kingship. See The Ricardian passim. ^{[citation needed]}

Argh. And again the question: at what point did barons cease to dub knights (or treating them as knights?) When did the monarchs reserve to themselves (or their appointed representatives) the exclusive right to confer nobility? It's not at all obvious.

Ahahaha! Asking the right question using the right words leads to the Fount of honour.

Who ran the country, and how?

Well, exactly. It's really quite complicated, and in each reign from Edward IV to Henry VIII the way the country was governed (if at all) changed considerably.

The Court and parliament, aka central government

From c1455 to 1487 the

• Constant domestic and foreign wars - there was barely any period when some sort of war wasn't going on - Hundred Years' War, Wars of the Roses, War of the League of Cambrai
• If the king wasn't in the country he needed strong representatives to maintain power
• Feuding barons - Despencer war - Nevilles - Percys - Lancaster - York - More murders in Staffs. & Derbys. than rest of country together at one point
• Magnates as judges dispensing favouritism rather than Common Law
• Monarch's tenuous hold on power
• Insecurity of the throne
• Breakdown of law and order
• Need for reliance on those you couldn't necessarily trust, even if you paid them handsomely and rewarded them with positions of power & influence
• Royal progression around the country, or at least around the south & Midlands
• Rebellion or insurrection probable either by greater or lesser nobles or even ordinary people
• Even Henry VII & VIII faced numerous outbreaks of discontent or worse
• In local administration, gradual replacement by lesser nobility and gentry of peers and higher nobility - they needed outward signs of office
• Monarchs who gained power by force of arms, invasion etc. had their magnate noble enemies executed: their lands reverted to the crown - chance for re-distributing wealth and power

"In G. R. Elton's words, "The true Court of our imagining could not exist until the Crown had destroyed all alternative centers of political loyalty or (to emphasize another function of the Court) all alternative sources of worldly advancement."[4] This elevation of the monarch's Court was gradually accomplished by the Yorkists and especially the early Tudors. As the central government came to exert more influence in the localities, both the leaders and followers of the existing territorial magnate factions had to cultivate ties with the Court, if only to avoid being trumped by those who did have such connections. And as the power and the stock of patronage commanded by the Crown increased, the attraction of the Court for anyone with a cause or a career to advance grew accordingly." [4] G. R. Elton, "Tudor Government: The Points of Contact. III. The Court," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., v26 (1976): p. 212. DOI 10.2307/3679079 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3679079 , cited in

Court Factions in Early Modern England 
Author(s): Robert Shephard 
Source: The Journal of Modern History, Dec., 1992, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Dec., 1992), pp. 721-745 
Published by: The University of Chicago Press 
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2124905

"[Thomas] Cromwell faced the rivalry which ready access to the King's person gave to gentlemen of the Privy Chamber and solved the problem by staffing that department [private secretaries] with men of his choosing; while late in Henry VIII's reign the Privy Chamber virtually drove secretaries from that field. Once again, it is clear that in the conduct of politically meaningful business distinctions between courtiers (holders of Court office) and administrators, real enough in terms of appointment, tenure, function and often also life-style, are less significant than the distinction between Crown officers above and below the line that divided politicians from mere civil servants." (Elton p. 217)

"The crises of Henry VIII's reign, for instance, were really all crises at Court; even the Pilgrimage of Grace fits that description when it is remembered that it was the work of noblemen who either resented exclusion from the Court (Northumberland, Hussey) or wished to transform the Court (Darcy)."(Elton, p. 222)

Thus the peers ran central government, and various rebellions led by nobles and magnates broke out when they felt they were being denied their part in national decisions (e.g. Richard, 3rd Duke of York vs Henry VI and thus Edward IV; 4th Howard Duke of Norfolk and 2nd Devereux Earl of Essex were executed.) [Even the Pilgrimage of Grace was the protest of disaffected nobles - see above.] The nobilitas minor ran the townships and parishes in the shires as JPs, in an "uneasy relationship with the urban chartered corporations." By 1587 (temp. Elizabeth I - a little later than the period of the Knights for the Body), there were 1,500 JPs and perhaps another 1,000 more influential people, inc. powerful widows; thus a mere 2,500 people actually ordered the shires on behalf of the monarch.^[130]

NB! Population of England & Wales in 1599 was 4.0 million.

better source needed] Thus the whole population was effectively ordered by a mere 0.000625 of its "elders and betters". But, plus, don't forget that since Anglo-Saxon times i fink, English society had been essentially self-ordering - eg frankpledge

, by which in a community all are personally responsible to and for all, to keep the peace and bloody well behave, or we'll all cop it, OK?

"The chief cause of the continued faction strife lay, however, elsewhere—in the King himself. If faction enabled the politicians to use him (as it did), he also found in it the obvious means for preventing any one of them from imprisoning him. This appears to have been entirely deliberate. Unlike his father (so far as I can tell) and his elder daughter, Henry VIII purposely kept his Court divided. He had his favourites, and thanks to the existence of the Privy Chamber they played important roles in the national politics of the day; but Henry saved himself by so frequently swapping favourites that no faction ever won outright—or none, at least, until in his last decline the Seymour faction took the sceptre from his failing hands."(Elton, p. 224)

Presidential Address: Tudor Government: The Points of Contact. III. The Court 
G. R. Elton 
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 1976, Vol. 26 (1976), pp. 211-228 
Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal Historical Society 
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/3679079

"Tudor politics was ritualistic, and those rituals called from its leading actors to be actors in a literal sense, putting on bizarre costumes, and holding the centre of stages, moving and gesturing in particular ways." Some monarchs, like Henry VI, were incompetent at this; others like Edward IV, Henry VIII and Elizabeth were good at it; Henry VII, personally retiring, put on plenty of expensive Court display.^[132]

Administration of the shires

<finks>

In order to run a country you need local administrators. Although some academic works dealing specifically with the knights for the body have been written such as (Morgan 1973), information can also be also gleaned from other scholarly studies dealing with either mid to late mediaeval law and order, the gentry, and the various royal households of the period.

The intro to Tudor Rebellions (cited above) discusses The Commonwealth of England, by Thomas Smith written in the 1560s. Smith considered four simplified categories of power below the monarch:

1) The nobility, subdivided into the nobilitas major...

[ NB! which by c1400 - i fink - had evolved into the hereditary parliamentary peerage^{[citation needed]} (answer above somwehere, probably K. B. McFarlane?) ],

...and the nobilitas minor, subdivided into knights, esquires and gentlemen.

2) Burgesses and citizens of towns of varying sizes.

3) Yeomen, for Smith the most important in ordering the shires.

4) Those who did not rule; but some had lately become churchwardens, constables and ale-conners (previously a job done by more important people, Smith complains.)^[133]

The Knights of the Body, then, sometimes seem to have acted as physical bodyguards to the king, his most trusted companions and friends who surrounded him in battle and slept outside his door at night. This would be typical of Henry VII, whose hold on the throne was tenuous; they also received various Crown appointments: to be justices of the peace or circuit judges; sheriffs; appointed to commissions of array, oyer and terminer, and gaol delivery (yet another article to be written...); constables of castles, wardens of forests and parks, running the King's estates. There were also positions in France, especially

According to Shelagh Mitchell, in Richard II's time, it was the sheriffs who acted as the linchpin in formalising the role of the royal household in the shires. Esquires could be also be appointed to shrieval office, which anyway only lasted for a year or two. Sheriffs in some shires were hereditary. Not every shire had a sheriff appointed by the King. On a formal level, the temporary county government was administered from the royal household, representative of a permanent centre.[134] On p. 132 Mitchell includes a map of England showing which shires had household knights as sheriffs. Would be interesting to see how many more shrievalties were occupied by knights of the body in later times...

"It was not until the later fifteenth century that it became routine for many of the greater gentry to be appointed to the commission of the peace. Even then, only a small number attended regularly, and this seems to have remained true until, with the huge growth of regulation of all kinds during the sixteenth century, the sessions became the hub of county government. Until then, there was no single locus of shire administration, and responsibilities were dispersed among a number of public and private officials. The latter were especially important at the lower end, where the discipline of lordship, exercised through the manor, [and

manor courts] had yet to be fully supplanted by the crown."^[135]

"Is a man a member of the elite who has a large income but does not draw anything like all of it from the county where he happens to have been taxed? Given that the greater gentry tended to have the most widespread lands, this was a distinct possibility. Does he belong to the elite by virtue of being a knight, a distinction used by Payling [Simon, Political Society] which fails him when he does not allow for the decline in willingness to be knighted during the course of fifteenth century?"[136] [NB Which I have mentioned elsewhere...]

"Figures [number of esquires and knights in Warwickshire] from 1500 are somewhat misleading; a count taken ca. 1510 would produce a larger number of knights (part of a movement back towards knighthood dating from ca. 1470) and probably a larger number of manors in the hands of the elite (Carpenter, Locality and Polity, pp. 85-88)."^[137]

Aha! This may go some way towards explaining what I had already noticed: namely, that Henry VI had almost no knights for the body i fink & Edward IV didn't have any until his readeption in 1471: some people really didn't want to be part of the "central machinery of compulsion". But plenty of 'king's knights'...

Good definition of gentry/gentility:

"In the early modern period, things are now being made much worse by the need to take the far more numerous and growingly articulate "middling sort" into account. Medievalists are probably safe to stop at the gentleman/yeoman boundary where the qualification to act as juror and elector lay, and, in practice, they can usually limit themselves to the bottom rung of gentlemen, since access to the political world in this period was largely confined to those with manorial lordship over men, the basic definition it seems of gentility.52 [52] includes E. Powell, Jury Trial at Gaol Delivery in the Late Middle Ages."^[138]

"Certain basic points about the late medieval polity are now generally recognized. First, the judicial process, which protected land, was the most important and potentially the most contentious part of royal governance for landowners. Secondly, all government functioned with a large measure of delegation. [I hate bold, but it occasionally does serve a purpose]: The operation of the law was therefore very much determined by local power structures, rather than—as was to be the case under the Tudors and Stuarts—by royal interference. Consequently, this was not normally a court-centered polity, and was not a time when a career could routinely be made as a court noble;74 [74] The exceptions, Richard II and Henry VI, prove the rule. [75] Men who rose by service at court did not usually become great in the country unless, like Cromwell, they were able to use their influence to acquire landed power."^[139]

Also, Carpenter notes that in a number of areas eg

In scholarly county studies, politics has been "subsumed into office holding, local conflict and resolution, or some similar category. Consequently, the crucial issue of the effectiveness of the link between center and locality has been squeezed out, as belonging to that alien excluded world of politics, along with the nobles who acted as the pivots between center and periphery."[142]

• JSTOR 176051
  .

Although knights and squires of the body shared a similar title, their functions were quite different. The squires of the body (scutiferi pro corpore regis) were part of the royal household, and had always been the most personal servants of the king since at least the time of Alfred?find ref insert talk page stuff

Also update Esquire of the Body with other stuff in notes, e.g.

• household esquires (scutarii hospicii regis) squires of the king's guests? hospitality?

Knights of the shire

The knights of the body appear not to be like the

The knights of the body, although they seem to have filled local positions of authority, didn't usually sit in Parliament.^[citation needed] This was left to the Knights of the Shire - but they were not royal knights. Richard II attempted to have some his king's knights returned as knights of the shire (ie MPs), which wasn't too popular.REF PLS  Done (Hefferan 2019, p. 94) see #Richard II (1377–1399) Sir John Huddleston, a knight for the body, was also a knight for the shire under Henry VII (see #Henry VII (1485–1509), but this seems to have been somewhat rare.

• Certain functions of the knights of the body seem to be similar to the military household knights going back to at least the time of Edward I. But a very long way back...
• After c1360-1385, Edward III fought less and less on the battlefield in person. The essentially military household knights (some 50 in number), seem to have disappeared fairly swiftly since they only went to war with the king. (See also Powicke - deffo outline how in times of war (ie quite often) any land holder worth over 20 pounds [or marks] a year was required by law to become a knight, travel to Westminster, and become a knight in a mass dubbing ceremony by the king)^[144]
• Church says that Given-Wilson overstates the military function of the household knights, and that they had rather more to do with the purely domestic side of things.^[145]
• The household knights seem to have been replaced by the knights of the chamber. Also,
  Parliament stepped in around this time and forced a reduction of Edward's expenses.Ref pls?