Well, I just got another email from my new favorite Englishwoman, Jenny Moran (ok, with a name like Moran, maybe she's my new favorite Irishwoman). And the plot thickens. I asked her why, if this was a Frankpledge, did the back side of the document seem to talk about land. And while I was thinking the land was collateral for the pledge, she now says that the term Frankpledge, by the year 1690, became a more general term used on documents of all sorts. In view of the other language on the document, it now looks like this might in fact be a deed for a land transfer (I want my land, damn it).
The latest marked-up version of the document is here.
Link to previous post on this saga.
Dear Mr Aravosis,
Thank you for your e-mail of 17 March 2005 - we are happy to help.
It is difficult for us to say without seeing the whole document; however, research in reference books suggests that in later years (meaning from the early sixteenth century onwards) the view of frankplpedge and the other work of the manorial court came to be known as one and the same. Many documents were headed in this way - and yours seems to begin View of Frankpledge with (cum is the Latin word) Court Baron. The word following cum is Cur- and the final letter has a tail on the end, indicating that it has been abbreviated. This will be Curia - the Latin word for court.
The Court Baron dealt with land transfers and enforced payments, whilst the Court Leet dealt with minor law and order matters and agricultural administration. This would seem to tie in with the contents of the document. 1690 would certainly be very late for a traditional view of frankpledge unless the manor was extremely traditional!
The Thomas Percivall you found may be the one on the document, however, unfortunately such connections are nearly impossible to prove!
Yours sincerely,
Jenny Moran
