RE: Knightly class

Dear CED,

What a pleasure to read a civil post on this subject line.

<
"Ironically Douglas Richardson's comment on that - that de Burgh came
from the knightly class, not the gentry - was correct, though not in the
way that he intended. However I did find the thrust of Mr Richardson's
argument, that de Burgh's associations (to various earls and bishops, I
think it was) point to him as coming from the upper echelons of that
knightly class, persuasive."

In an otherwise good posting those two sentences are out of place and, I
assume, written without research on the background of Hubert de Burgh
and his elder brother, William de Burgh.

There are no known knights in the family of these brothers until the two
themselves come into view. When they do so, both appear to have been
household knights with no provable land holdings. The rise to power of
the two brothers was the result of close personal connections with the
household of King John, before he came to the throne.

If you have evidence of their "coming from the upper echelons of that
knightly class," please provide it to us. If you rely upon Richardson's
postings, do so at your own risk.>>

1. When Douglas Richardson said that de Burgh came from the knightly
class, he was using the term to mean a small exclusive social strata
sandwiched between the mass of the gentry and the titled nobility. His
intention was to show that de Burgh's origins lay not in the mere gentry
but in a knightly class just one step below the titled nobility.

I first pointed out that this was an anachronistic use of the terms,
since at that time there was no gentry, and the knightly class was a
very broad one roughly equivalent to the gentry of later periods. My
next comment was: given that in the late 12C the knightly class WAS the
gentry, the statement that de Burgh came from the knightly class must be
correct, BUT it now has the opposite meaning to that which Douglas
Richardson intended! It actually negates his argument. I would have
thought you would have enjoyed the irony.

2. I didn't say I had evidence that de Burgh came from the upper
echelons of the knightly class (to be honest I have very little interest
in his origins). What I did say was just a passing comment that I found
the argument to that effect put forward by Douglas Richardson
persuasive. It was an argument based on de Burgh's multiple family
connections to bishops, earls etc (I was ignoring the connections to
knights because at that period knighthood did not have the social
exclusivity it later had) - I'm not sure whether you're saying that
those connections did not actually exist, but if they didn't, then
clearly the argument would lose all persuasive force.

Though on looking again at the list of family connections, I do notice
that they could all equally well have resulted from de Burgh's rise to
power as from his family background. I suppose it would take careful
analysis of their timing to decide which.