--- Nathan Hook nhook@bemail.org wrote:
As I understand it feudalism was a system where the King owned everything and then delegated land down to the nobles who in turn delegated it to the knights who delegated it to the peasants, in return for service
Yes.
The best example of this of course is 1066 when William took all of England by right of conquest. He owned all of it, but divied up parts to various Norman followers who were essentially tenants. They could hold the land for generations, paying rent for the right to freehold it for the King, but did not own it themselves.
Yes. But as time went on various people promised various bits of the country to others "in perpetuity to them and their heirs" creating the compromise system known as 'bastard feudalism', traces of which survive today. Esp. in London, strangely.
Which over the centuries I guess lead to the war of the roses
Not, really the War Of The Roses (which was really no such thing) was a series of quite nasty *dynastic* battles fought over forty or so years. Not a lot to do with ownership of land. More to do with blood and recognition of it.
ooooh, it's all that Richard II's fault...
wf
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/