Here’s a legal explanation and analysis of your statement about Ennerdale and its nature as a manorial and jurisdictional liberty granted in fee simple by King George IV of England and Hanover, incorporating the key legal
concepts you’ve named:
1. The Nature of the Grant
If Ennerdale was sold, granted, and alienated by the King and Parliament’s Commissioners in fee
simple, this means it was not a mere sale of real property (land), but a sovereign alienation of jurisdictional authority—a transfer of a franchise liberty once held directly by the Crown. The sale of Ennerdale occurred in 1822
when the King George of England and Germany/Hanover sold the Bailiwick and Liberty with Court
Leet Jurisdiction and powers to William, Earl of Lonsdale. This sale marked the end of Crown ownership,
which had lasted since 1554 when the lands were confiscated by Mary I from Henry Grey, father of Lady Jane
Grey. The sale included the entirety of the manor, which had previously been managed by bailiffs, stewards, and
greaves without a resident lord. The sale particulars are documented in the Cumbria Record Office (CROC D/A
Lonsdale Manors/Box 74).
https://eprints.oxfordarchaeology.com/6814/1/L9198_VL_Report_Full.pdf
Such a grant would constitute:
-
Alienation of Crown demesne and regalian rights, and
-
Creation of a perpetual private jurisdiction within the realm.
This makes Ennerdale analogous to a liberty or bailiwick in gross—that is, a territory whose civil, administrative, and limited judicial powers were devolved from the monarch
to a private lord, under lawful tenure and without feudal service.
2. Suzerainty (Overlordship)
In feudal law, suzerainty refers to the supreme overlordship retained by the sovereign over a
vassal or territory.
However, when a Crown liberty is granted or sold outright in fee simple (that is, without reversion, homage, or
knight’s service), the suzerain rights of the Crown are extinguished, save for allegiance and the
Crown’s ultimate sovereignty under public law.
Thus, Ennerdale, if truly alienated in this way, would have become “quasi-regal in its territory” (quasi reges in territorio suo)—the grantee or
lord acting as a minor sovereign within defined limits, holding his powers in perpetuity and not as a Crown officer.
3. Fee Simple and Free and Common Socage
A grant in fee simple is the most complete estate in land known to English
law.
It is:
-
Heritable, not life-limited,
-
Alienable, transferable at will, and
-
Held in perpetuity, without term or condition other than allegiance to
the Crown.
If held “in free and common socage”, this means:
-
It is not a feudal or military tenure (no homage, service, or knight’s fee
due),
-
The holder owes only nominal rents or duties, and
-
The tenure is civil and absolute, governed by the common law rather than feudal
incidents.
Hence, Ennerdale would be held by its Lord as a free proprietor, with no superior other than the abstract sovereignty of
the realm itself.
4. Franchise and Jurisdictional Liberty
A franchise is a privilege or jurisdiction originally belonging to the Crown but
lawfully granted to a subject. Examples include:
-
Court leet (criminal and policing jurisdiction),
-
Court baron (civil and manorial jurisdiction),
-
View of frankpledge, tolls, markets, fisheries, and forest rights.
A liberty is a district where such franchises operate, and where the king’s writs
did not originally run—meaning that the liberty had its own courts and officers executing justice
internally.
When such a liberty is granted “in perpetuity” and in “fee simple,” its judicial, administrative, and territorial franchises become private property, to
be exercised as rights of governance within the territory.
Thus, the holder becomes lord and franchise-holder in perpetuity, a quasi-sovereign under the Crown’s overall suzerainty.
5. Regalian Rights
Regalian rights (jura regalia) are those inherent to the Crown by reason of
sovereignty—such as:
When a grant such as Ennerdale includes “regalian rights and franchises,” it means the Crown intentionally devolved
certain public and royal powers to a private lord, often to maintain justice, collect
revenues, and manage land and resources as if a prince within the territory.
Thus, the grantee of Ennerdale, holding by royal alienation, could exercise:
-
Civil and criminal jurisdiction within bounds,
-
Rights of resource exploitation (timber, minerals, fisheries),
-
The authority to hold courts, appoint stewards, bailiffs, and constables,
-
And to collect or farm local duties or tolls.
6. Perpetuity and Independence
Because the grant was in fee simple, not for life or term, and not subject to reversion, the
lordship’s title and jurisdiction are perpetual—capable of descent and alienation
forever.
This distinguishes it from:
-
Peerage titles, which are honors without proprietary jurisdiction,
and
-
Leasehold or copyhold, which revert to the Crown or superior lord.
Ennerdale’s unique nature means it is a perpetual seignory with inherent jurisdiction—a remnant of Crown franchise alienation, lawfully recognized as a “liberty” under the Crown but independent in its internal governance.
7. Imperial Free Lord status
The Lord of the Bailiwick of Ennerdale holds an Imperial Free Lord status (Reichsfreiherrschaft) in nature — a free and independent seignory alienated directly from the sovereign, blending
both English manorial liberty and Germanic princely autonomy, standing as a free lord in perpetuity under no superior but the Crown itself, with rights akin
to a minor imperial state or principality within its defined territory.
Legal Summary
Therefore:
-
Ennerdale is not merely an estate in land but a territorial franchise and manorial liberty.
-
It was alienated in fee simple—the strongest possible form of ownership—from
King George IV (also King of Hanover) with the sanction of the
Parliamentary Commissioners of the Crown Lands.
-
It includes franchise and regalian rights, meaning judicial and administrative powers once reserved to the Crown.
-
It is held in free and common socage, not by feudal service—hence heritable, alienable, and perpetual.
-
The grantee stands as a quasi-sovereign proprietor (suzerain in his own liberty) under the
Crown’s universal sovereignty, comparable to the Seigneur of Sark or the Fiefs of Guernsey in structure and law.
✒️ Summary: The Manor and Forest of Ennerdale
Based on J. F. Curwen, “The Manor and Forest of Ennerdale,” Transactions of the Cumberland and
Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 2nd Series, Vol. 31 (1931), pp. 21–32.**
🏞️ Historical Origins and Forest Governance
The Manor and Forest of Ennerdale once formed a constituent part of the ancient Forest of Copeland. From
early times, it was administered directly by the Crown through appointed foresters and keepers. The bailiwick
maintained its own courts for forest and leet jurisdiction, and upheld conservators responsible for game, waters,
and fish.
📜 Surveys and Customary Holdings
Comprehensive surveys were conducted in 1650, 1703, and again in 1820, preceding the estate’s alienation.
The Court Orders of 1703 and the 1792 Replies to the Land Revenue Commissioners detailed the customary holdings and
revenues derived from timber, pasture, and fishery. These records formed the basis of valuation submitted to the
Commissioners of His Majesty’s Woods and Forests.
🏛️ Parliamentary Conveyance of 1822
In 1822, under Parliamentary authority and the direction of the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Woods and
Forests, the Manor and Forest of Ennerdale were sold to the Earl of Lonsdale. The conveyance included “the Manor,
Forest, and Bailiwick of Ennerdale, with all rights, privileges, and franchises thereunto belonging,” thereby
transferring full liberty and jurisdiction formerly held by the Crown.
⚖️ Nature of Transferred Rights
This sale constituted a complete divestment of the Crown’s proprietary and administrative interests. The
franchises conveyed included the Court Leet, forestal profits from timber and quarry, the several fishery of
Ennerdale Lake and the River Ehen, and the authority to appoint foresters and constables within the
liberty.
📚 Continuity of Administration
Following the purchase, the Lonsdale family preserved the ancient forms of leet governance. Estate ledgers
from the nineteenth century record rents and profits from fishery and waste lands, evidencing continued local
administration.
🕊️ Final Observations
The 1822 conveyance marked the extinction of one of the last administrative remnants of the Forest of
Copeland. Its courts and franchises passed wholly into private hands, making the sale a rare example of a royal
liberty alienated in fee simple.
⚖️ Legal Note
The operative phrase “with all rights, privileges, and franchises thereunto belonging” served as the legal
mechanism by which the Crown transferred perpetual jurisdictional and proprietary rights. Authorized by Act of
Parliament and executed under King George IV King of England and Hanover, the conveyance represented a regalian
alienation in fee simple absolute — free of homage, reversion, or Crown oversight.
The Kingdom of Cumbria, also known as the Kingdom of Strathclyde, was at various times an independent Brittonic kingdom, a Scottish client state, and eventually a province under Scottish control.
Here’s how that happened, step by step:
🏰 1. Origins — The Brittonic Kingdom of Rheged (5th–7th centuries)
After the Romans withdrew from Britain around 410 AD, the northwest region (modern Cumbria and southwest Scotland) became the
Kingdom of Rheged, ruled by Celtic-speaking Britons — the same ethnic group as the Welsh.
-
Its kings, such as Urien Rheged and his son Owain, are celebrated in early Welsh poetry (Y Gododdin, The Book of Taliesin).
-
Rheged’s people spoke Cumbric, a Brythonic Celtic language closely related to Old Welsh.
By the late 7th century, Rheged was gradually absorbed into the expanding Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Northumbria, though the old Cumbrian people
remained.
🛡️ 2. The Rise of the Kingdom of Strathclyde (7th–10th centuries)
As Northumbria’s power waned, a new Celtic kingdom centered on Dumbarton Rock on the River Clyde rose to prominence — the Kingdom of Strathclyde, also called Cumberland or Cumbria in English sources.
-
It included southwest Scotland and much of present-day Cumbria.
-
Its kings were Brittonic, not Anglo-Saxon or Gaelic.
-
For centuries, Strathclyde acted as a buffer kingdom between Scotland and England.
⚔️ 3. Submission to Scottish Suzerainty (10th century)
The decisive moment came in 945 AD.
According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:
“King Edmund [of England] harried all Cumberland and gave it to Malcolm, king of the
Scots, on condition that he be his fellow-worker both by sea and land.”
This means that:
-
King Edmund invaded and devastated Cumbria, which was still largely Brittonic (not
Anglo-Saxon).
-
He ceded it to Malcolm I of Scotland as a vassal or client territory, not as an outright gift.
-
The idea was strategic — the Scots would guard the northern frontier for England in
exchange for control over the region.
Thus, from 945 AD onward, Cumbria was under Scottish overlordship, though its native Cumbrian rulers
(kings or princes) continued to govern locally under Scottish authority.
👑 4. Cumbric Princes under the Scottish Crown (10th–11th centuries)
Between 945–1050, Strathclyde/Cumbria remained semi-independent but recognized the
Scottish king as overlord.
-
The Annals of Tigernach (Irish chronicle) mention a “King of the Cumbrians” in this period.
-
In 1018, the Cumbrians fought alongside the Scots at the Battle of Carham, confirming their alliance.
-
By 1030, the Cumbrian monarchy had died out or been absorbed, and the kings
of Scotland assumed the title “Rex Cumbrorum” (King of the Cumbrians).
This is when the southern part of Strathclyde, including Ennerdale, Copeland, and Carlisle, came effectively under Scottish royal control.
🗺️ 5. Transition to English Rule (11th–12th centuries)
-
Around 1050, Earl Siward of Northumbria (under the English crown) extended his
control westward over what’s now Cumbria, including Ennerdale.
-
In 1092, King William II (William Rufus) of England conquered Carlisle and formally annexed Cumbria into England.
-
The Treaty of York (1237) later fixed the Anglo-Scottish border roughly
where it remains today.
📜 Summary Timeline
| Year |
Event |
Effect on Cumbria |
| 400s–600s |
Kingdom of Rheged (Celtic Britons) |
Independent Celtic kingdom |
| 700s–900s |
Kingdom of Strathclyde (Brittonic) |
Expands south into Cumbria |
| 945 |
King Edmund “gave” Cumberland to Malcolm I of Scotland |
Cumbria under Scottish suzerainty |
| 1018–1030 |
Scots absorb Strathclyde |
Cumbria ruled by Scottish kings |
| 1050 |
Earl Siward of Northumbria extends English control |
English frontier restored |
| 1092 |
William Rufus captures Carlisle |
Cumbria permanently English |
✅ In Summary
The Kingdom of Cumbria was under Scotland because in 945 AD, King Edmund I of England formally granted Cumberland to the King of Scots, making it a Scottish client kingdom.
For about a century afterward, it remained a semi-independent Cumbrian realm under Scottish overlordship — until the Norman kings of England reconquered it in the late 11th century.
|