6

In the Spanish/Austrian Low Countries a change in the ancient coat of arms of a seigneurie could not be made except by authorization of sovereign. The coat of arms of a noble family could be appropriated by the purchaser of its seigneurie if he or she obtained letters patent from the sovereign. (Clark, Samuel., State and Status: The Rise of the State and Aristocratic Power in Western Europe, p170)

What difference is between "seigneurie" and "manor" in a feudal system?

  • Did you do a google search and notice that the first is French and the second English? – Mark C. Wallace Mar 5 '14 at 15:27
  • 1
    I have added the source. You are right Mr. Wallace. Is it possible they are the equivalent terms in conception but relate to two different regions? – user64617 Mar 5 '14 at 16:39
  • 2
    At that level of detail, I suspect so. Although within the narrow context of the quote, I think the equivalent English term might be Armiger. Note that unlike the example you cite, English arms are controlled by the College of Arms. – Mark C. Wallace Mar 5 '14 at 17:24
  • I have added more details... we should remember that in here we are not faced with a heraldic matter per se, but also at first the nature of owning the possessions (in the case: lands) leads us to the heraldic matter. I mean that the matter of ownership is prior to the heraldic matter in here. – user64617 Mar 5 '14 at 18:38
  • 1
    In the English system it is entirely possible to be armigerous but landless (Esquires and Banneret Knights); I don't know if there are other examples. "Manor" however refers only to the land - multiple Manors can be held by the same armiger. – Mark C. Wallace Mar 5 '14 at 20:33
3

A manor was a basic feudal unit of land, granted by the king to an underling and to his successors in perpetuity. Once it was granted by the king, it did not need to be re-granted every time it changed hands.

As you noted, a seigneurie was a title and coat of arms, with a piece of land attached. This title (including the land title) could not be transferred without the consent of the king, meaning that every prospective successor would have to "reapply" to the king for the title.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.