In medieval England your social class defined your role in society in a way that is now hard for us to imagine. It dictated what you could and could not do. And, in most people’s minds, it even signalled your value as a human being. Social mobility was not impossible, but it was highly restricted. Your bloodline, rather than merit, usually played the biggest role in dictating your fortunes in life.
At the top of medieval English society sat the king, the ultimate executive power and head of government. Government policy was not only set by the king but was heavily dependent upon his competence and drive for its implementation.
At the opposite end of society was the vast majority of the population. Farmers and common labourers. Most were serfs whose rights were highly restricted. Such people were tied to their lord’s service, unable to change jobs without their lord’s consent. Their lord even had the power to dictate whom such people married.
Between these two extremes, a complex hierarchy of social class existed. In this feature, we’ll take a close look at this hierarchy and what it meant in terms of how medieval English society operated.
The King
The king sat at the pinnacle of the medieval society. An effective and strong king was essential for the smooth running of the kingdom. After Magna Carta, English kings were not absolute autocrats, but they still held considerable executive authority. What is more, they held power for life.
The king acted as head of the government, appointing whosoever he wished to his council. This council acted as his personal advisors and essentially served as the government cabinet. The council acted as the primary executive authority in the land, working with the king to formulate and execute government policy. Together with the king, the council would draft key legislation to present to parliament.
During the Middle Ages, the crown received regular income from the royal estates and from various indirect taxes (primarily duties on the wool trade). This provided enough income for the day to day running of the king’s household and the court. There was no regular income from direct taxation but, in times of war, the king would petition parliament to levy just such a tax. Parliament potentially had the power to block such requests but only rarely did so.
The king and his court may not have held absolute power in theory but in practice they often did.
Magna Carta and Parliament
When King John signed the Magna Carta, the kings of England ceased to be absolute autocrats. The crown effectively conceded that there were certain legal constraints on its exercise of power. All kings, from 1215 onwards, were therefore bound to act only within the limits of the powers defined by Magna Carta.
The charter guaranteed certain church rights. It also enshrined the right to legal process for the citizens of England. From this point onwards, the king couldn’t just arrest and execute anyone he chose without due legal process. The charter also limited the ability of the king to raise taxes. Direct taxation now had to be approved by a council of barons (which in time became the medieval parliament).
However, the king remained the head of state and the primary executive power. This was no democracy. Magna Carta had been introduced to protect the rights of the barons from an over powerful monarch. It was certainly not designed to enfranchise the mass of common folk. In the early C13th only the nobility was initially represented in the parliament. Later, after the second Barons’ War, Edward I extended the franchise to allow some commoners to serve in parliament. However, only wealthy commoners of higher social status qualified for selection as MPs and the majority of ordinary folk had no vote in their election.
The Nobility
Immediately beneath the king in the social pecking order was the nobility. The most senior nobles were the dukes and duchesses who, almost invariably, were relatives of the king. Those who held a ducal title represented the highest echelon of the nobility and were mostly always drawn from amongst the king’s brothers, uncles and cousins.
Below the dukes were the earls, still senior members of the nobility, if not so illustrious. And below the earls were the barons, who made up most of the noble class.
The nobility of medieval England was a privileged elite. During the C14th there were no more than between 50 and 80 holders of noble titles at any one time. They also represented the richest and most powerful landowners. They had a huge influence over what went on within their lands since the local gentry would look to them for patronage and favour. The nobility had the power to introduce ambitious men to Court and influence who received appointment to important offices. Crucially, they had the power to protect their retainers and allies from enemies. Senior members of the nobility might well be appointed to the king’s council, to command armies or act as governors of wealthy provinces.
It was through his nobility that a king ruled. And, as one of the houses of the English parliament, the nobility had an important say over taxation.
Knights
It is a common misconception to see knights as noblemen. Knights could be noblemen, but they could also be commoners. The king decided who was conferred with the honour of a knighthood. It was an honorific martial title, bestowed on those selected to serve at the forefront of battle in times of war. Knights were expected to be soldiers and leaders in war and often won their knighthood on the basis of being just that. Although, as the Middle Ages wore on, knighthoods were increasing awarded for distinguished service in fields other than war.
The king could knight any of his subjects, regardless of who they were. In practice, however, the vast majority of knights were drawn from the nobility and from the richest and most powerful families of the gentry class.
Those commoners who were elevated to a knighthood were important men. They were usually always wealthy and powerful landowners in their own right. They may well have served in important civic offices such as alderman or bailiffs, and they might even have been members of parliament. Some, of course, continued to achieve the honour of knighthood via a successful military career throughout the Middle Ages.
In the C14th England had no more than around 1000 knights drawn from the ranks of the commons. Aside from the nobility, these men were the most powerful men in the country.
The Gentry
Commoners who sat at the top of social ladder were the gentry. They were manorial landlords (and landladies) who led their local communities. For most rural peasants, their local lord of the manor was more likely to be a member of the gentry than a noble.
The gentry often looked to the local nobility as patrons. In times of war, they played a key role in raising armies. A letter from the Duke of Norfolk to Sir John Paston, issued prior to the battle of Bosworth, illustrated exactly how this process worked. Norfolk expected Paston to recruit men locally, fit them in Norfolk’s livery and march them to join with Norfolk at a pre-arranged muster point. No doubt Sir John was just one of several important local lords whom the Duke had called to arms.
Not counting those who achieved the more illustrious status of knighthood, there were around 10,000 such gentlemen and esquires in C14th England. These were still highly privileged, and generally very wealthy people. In a pre-black death population of around 5 million, the total number of people belonging to the social elite (nobility or gentry) was astonishingly small. Only around 0.2% of England’s population.
Yeoman/Franklins
The yeoman class represented the most respected members of the common classes who were not properly members of the gentry. Originally many of these people held important positions as retainers in the household of noblemen and manorial lords. Some might be employed as estate managers or take responsibility for raising a militia in times of war. Some might serve as the lord’s gamekeeper, as a trusted messenger or as master of the lord’s stables.
Many people who would have been considered franklins were moderately successful city merchants and tradesmen. This included people belonging to respected professional occupations such as lawyers and master craftsmen.
In general, these people were often seen as a ‘better’ class of commoner, honest, hardworking and trustworthy. They were a cut above the ‘great unwashed’, lacking the crude rusticity that was widely associated with the lower classes.
Robin Hood was universally portrayed as a yeoman in the Middle Ages. His background was clearly one of a forester, perhaps a gamekeeper, who’d turned to banditry. His reputation with the bow reinforced this image, since the longbowmen of Crecy and Agincourt were primarily drawn from the yeoman class. This allowed Robin to be portrayed as a man of the people but, crucially, as a commoner of ‘better stock’. Robin was no rustic simpleton, but he was still ‘one of us’.
Husbandmen
Husbandmen were freemen (an important distinction in medieval England) but were nevertheless members of the mass of the commons. Included within this class were such people as small shopkeepers, market traders and skilled tradesmen. Most were rural farmers, renting their lands from the local lord. And many of these were no richer than their villein neighbours.
Indeed, if you were to visit a rural manor in medieval England you might find yourself hard pressed to distinguish between a husbandman and a villein. Both were likely to be farmers. Both rented their lands from the local lord. Indeed, both may well rent around the same amount of land and appear to be of similar means. But there was one important difference: the husbandman was free.
Around 75-90% of the population were rural peasant farmers and agricultural labourers. A substantial proportion of these would have been husbandman, although the majority were probably villeins occupying a slightly lower rung of the medieval social ladder.
Villeins
The majority of people in medieval England were rural peasants. And the majority of these were villeins – serfs, tied to their lord’s service.
A villein was bound to work on their lord’s land for life. They would rent a strip of farmland, which provided a (usually) meagre income for themselves and their families. However, they were also obliged to offer service to their lord, usually in the form of labour. To fulfil this obligation, they would work on the lord’s land for a certain number of days each year, sowing and harvesting his crops or performing general tasks of agricultural labour.
Villeins were not able to leave their lord’s service without permission unless they purchased manumission. A lord would nevertheless value his villeins, since they provided a source of income. For this reason manorial lords and their estate managers were always keen to ensure their villeins used their land productively. Land with no adult male tenant stood a greater risk of becoming unprofitable, so lords often intervened to force any widows to re-marry. The lord even had the right to choose a husband for such women, regardless of the woman’s wishes.
The Underclass
Some people were even less fortunate than the villeins. These were desperately poor and not tied to any particular manorial estate. Many were itinerant labourers of no fixed abode who simply picked up what work they could from wherever they could find it. Without the protection of a manorial lord, they were highly vulnerable. A lord valued his villeins, since he had a permanent economic relationship with them. The itinerant rural workforce was, however, expendable cheap labour.
Of course, if such folk were unable to find work, they might easily become beggars or fall into vagabondage. Itinerants were always viewed with suspicion by a community and very often scapegoated when some crime or other was committed.
Rustics and Crude Men
Difficult as it may be for us to appreciate, medieval society was strongly beholden to the view that social class equated to social worth. It largely defined whether people thought you were likely to be of good character and whether you were regarded as a person of significance. If you were born of good stock, it counted for a lot. If you were born into one of the lower classes, you were likely regarded as a crude rustic, whose views and opinions were of little value. The assumption was that you were unworthy of holding any important office. Neither should you have any meaningful say in the government of the land.
Medieval writers (all of whom come from the educated privileged classes) frequently refer to the mass of common people with an element of disdain. They are often described as ‘rustics’, ‘ignorant’ or ‘crude’. After the Peasants’ Revolt was repressed, Richard II is recorded as saying of the lower classes “Rustics you were and rustics you are still.” Such a sentiment would have found widespread support amongst the nobility and gentry of the time. As far as most such people were concerned, Richard was simply stating common sense.
The Church
The Church was a major feature of medieval life and, as a result, those who were part of this institution sat outside the secular world. Nevertheless, the Church had its own hierarchy that mirrored the general class system.
At the top of this hierarchy sat the archbishops, bishops and the richest abbots. These were powerful men who were usually drawn from the ranks of the nobility and gentry. A good career for a second or third son of a noblemen might be found in the church. If he did well, such a son might expect to be made a bishop or even an archbishop.
The abbots of some of the larger monastic communities (such as Westminster or Glastonbury) were as rich as any earl and masters of extensive manorial estates. Such men might even hold a permanent seat in the parliament that came with their ecclesiastical office.
Lower ranking clergy also held a social status analogous to the secular classes. Cathedral canons and archdeacons held a status similar to a knight. Wealthier rectors were regarded as on a par with the gentry. Vicars in smaller rural parishes were on a par with the local yeomanry. Poorer friars and lesser clergy held a status similar to husbandmen.
A successful career in the church often led to secular as well as ecclesiastical power. Archbishops and bishops frequently served in the king’s council.
Social Mobility
Social mobility was restricted and difficult but nevertheless possible in medieval England. In theory the king could make anyone a knight and grant anyone he chose any noble title he chose. However, he almost always did so within the bounds of customs and traditions that frowned upon anyone being elevated too far beyond their station.
Thus, elevation through the social classes generally occurred over the course of generations rather than overnight.
The Bonville family were elevated to the nobility in 1444 when William Bonville became Baron Bonville of Chewton. William came from a powerful family who’d held significant estates for several generations. William’s father and grandfather had both been important members of the gentry class. The elevation from gentry to nobility had taken decades and several generations to achieve.
Sometimes, of course, favourites of the king could experience a meteoric rise in their fortunes. However, when this happened, it usually raised many eyebrows across the establishment. Such individuals were often regarded as grasping upstarts. Their sudden rise to prominence was generally resented and even ridiculed by senior members of the establishment.
The Duke of Suffolk, who became Henry VI’s chief advisor, was often resented because his great grandfather had been a wealthy wool merchant, rather than a noble. As far as the mid-fifteenth century establishment was concerned, this was enough to flag Suffolk as a nouveau riche upstart.
Social Change
The rigid class system of medieval England did change, becoming less inflexible over time. Wealthier yeoman came to own significant tracts of land, breaking down the old distinctions between their class and the gentry. And after the Black Death, depopulation led to an acute labour shortage. This suddenly made peasant labour far more valuable. Desperate landowners were increasingly willing to poach labour from neighbouring lords. A blind eye was often turned as to whether such labourers were legally freed from their old lord’s service.
Attempts were made to resist these changes. In 1349, parliament passed the Ordinance of Labourers Act, specifically:
Because a great part of the people, and especially of workmen and servants late died of the pestilence, many seeing the necessity of masters, and great scarcity of servants, will not serve unless they may receive excessive wages.
Ordinance of Labourers, 1349
The act attempted to prevent employers from hiring excessive numbers of labourers or paying them too much. Other laws, from around the same time, even attempted to regulate who could wear fur (since this was a sign of wealth and status). Wearing fur was banned for anyone below the rank of lady or knight.
Naturally, these measures failed. It was like King Canute attempting to stop the tide coming in. The fundamental laws of supply and demand rendered such measures ineffective as soon as they were passed.
Progress
By the dawn of the early modern age much had changed. The old system of feudal villeinage had largely broken down. Stresses caused by labour shortages following the Black Death had proven an irresistible agent of change. Nevertheless, villeinage in various forms (though rare) survived the Middle Ages. The practice continued in the form of copyhold tenure and was not finally abolished until as late as 1925!
The increasing wealth of the yeoman/franklin class blurred the line between such people and the old gentry. As the early modern age wore on this created an enlarged and increasingly influential middle class.
At the start of the Middle Ages the king had been an autocrat. However, thanks to Magna Carta and parliament, the late medieval kings had to operate within an agreed framework of customs and laws. Nevertheless, the king remained the supreme executive authority.
The king would not lose his grip on executive power until the civil war of the mid-C17th. Most men continued to be denied the vote until the late C19th, and women were denied a vote until the early C20th.
Much had changed by the end of the Middle Ages. However, England remained a very long way away from being a democratic society with anything resembling meaningful social mobility.
Keep up to date with our stories…
If you like reading our work and would like to keep up to date with the latest stories and news from our blog page, you can follow us on Facebook. We always announce any news and promote new stories as they are published here:
https://www.facebook.com/MedievalHistorian
If you are interested in life and society in medieval times, you might be interested in some of my related articles…
Law and Order in Medieval England
Medieval Summer Folk Traditions
Parliament and the Birth of Democracy
The Landscape of Medieval England
The Rise of the Medieval Church
References and further reading
Images
Court of King’s Bench anon c1460 (via Wiki Commons)
King John signing the Magna Carter – Arthur C Michael (via Wiki Commons)
Merchants using scales to weigh and bargain, from the manuscript De Universo Monte Cassino MS Casin 132 1022-32 (via Wiki Commons)
Reeve and Serfs Queen Marys Psalter 1310 (via Wiki Commons)