Jump to content

Talk:Royal forest

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Forest Law

[edit]

Quotes —

  • "William the Conqueror, a great lover of hunting, established the system of forest law"
  • "William I, original enactor of the Forest Law,"

Does this not refer to just England, or was he leading Europe? (RJP 08:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

It's a good point. I am the person who originally created the article, and I confess I wrote it from a completely Anglocentric point of view (although I didn't add the quotes above), and the best I could manage to generalise it a bit was "The practice of reserving areas of land for the sole use of the aristocracy was common throughout Europe during the mediaeval period." It would be great if someone who is familiar with the European aspect of Royal forests could add to/edit the article. --Lancevortex 10:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have put in an introductory note to draw attention to the wealth of possibility for expansion into the rest of the world. If anyone feels strongly that it should not be there, it is easily removed. (RJP 08:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Are the following places royal forest or have they ever been such?
Bere Alice Holt Wolmer Chute Clarendon
I think some at least, are crown property, in the hands of the Forestry Commission and managed by Forest Enterprise but have they been royal forests in the medieval meaning of the term? (RJP 10:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The notion is rather confused, apparently; see [1]. I've left them there for now; hopefully the author of the aforementioned will publish something definitive in the near future. Choess 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I think most of those named were royal forests. In the 19th century, it was desired that the forests should be managed better and their management passed to new state bodies, and ultimately to the Forestry Commission. I think this measn that they are crown (i.e. government) property, but I am not sure whther they are technically part of the Crown Estate. Some were sold off by Charles I and others were inclosed more recently. A section could usefully be added on what happened to Forests after the medieval period, but it would probably be necessary to fork off the list of forests. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested expansion done (but without forking list). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Notion of William the Bastard being the instigator..pschaaa!

[edit]

Forest law existed within these isles for long before the Norman usurper decided to come here. It was only twisted to keep the robber Barons happy. HOWEVER, Saxon kings were just as bad. Brendandh 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found a reference for this so I'll add it Jim Killock (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introductory Definition

[edit]

It seems that the initial blurb related to the term at hand should encapsulate the definition rather than referencing it's historical context. The explicit meaning is not noted until the second paragraph and thus interferes with easy lookup. Does anyone agree?Proveyrhuman (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if additional changes have crept in since 2008, but I can't find a definition anywhere in the opening paragraph. We're told that it is an area of land, and that it has different meanings in England, Scotland, and Wales. But we're not told what those meanings are, or what they might have in common. The first paragraph needs to state the definition as concisely as possible. Chalkieperfect (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf

[edit]

Some one (not logged in) has recently altered the date of the extinction of the wolf from 13th to 15th century. No reference is cited. Can one please be added? I have also flagged up this issue on Gray wolf. I know extinction was later in Scotland than England, but this article relates to Royal Forest in England, and so should give the date for extinction in England, not that in the Scottish Highlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

London

[edit]

Some one has just added London to the list of Forests. Is this really right? I know that places like Wanstead Flats (now part of London) were in Epping Forest, but surely there was no Forest of London (listed as London). This is probably vandalism (a joke?), but I am insufficiently sure to revert it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the edit as it strikes me as highly dubious. If the contributor can provide a source then they're welcome to put it back in. Lancevortex (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept was introduced by the Normans to England in the 11th century?

[edit]

According to Manwood 1615 the first "English" Forest Law recorded, was that of Canutus/Canute/Cnut, Westminster 1016. Surely that is not Norman, but Dane Law.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that may well be right, but it would be good to find a contemporary secondary reference for this Jim Killock (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary to Manwood or Canute? :-) I think all scholars accept the existence of Cnut's Forest Charter, see for instance the website linked to this page http://info.sjc.ox.ac.uk/forests/StatutesWebVersion.htm However, I'm sure they all base that on Manwood. I'll add another historical reference source to the page, Gilbert, who discusses the matter from a different perspective in his opening chapter. Cnut is a very real precedent to "Norman" forest law introduced into the British islands. They, the Danes and the Normans, may well have both shared a Scandinavian influence in law, in which property of land tended to subvert the principle of res nullius. I believe "The concept was introduced by the Normans" is incorrect.--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feckenham Forest:-"The legal origins are not recorded, but it was a royal forest in the time of Edward the Confessor and his predecessors. Forest law itself was established under King Canute in 1016.[1] The forest boundaries were extended greatly during the reign of Henry II, expanding from 34 to 184 square miles. The forest boundaries were reduced back in 1301."
  1. ^ Humphreys FSA, John (1920). "Forest of Feckenham". Transactions and proceedings. 44–45. Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeology Society: 115–132. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

    2. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably that: <<Forest law itself was established under King Canute >> has to be reconciled with the fact that Cnut's forest law as cited by Manwood, and others, is a forgery known as Pseudo-Cnut dating likely from the 12th century, F. Liebermann 1893 "On the Instituta Cnuti Aliorumque Regum Anglorum". However, there appears to be other evidence that the Danes did have a form of forest law, so why blame the Normans for introducing/instituting it in the British Islands?--Richard Hawkins (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)(with a Gallic shrug)[reply]

    Chase and Forest

    [edit]

    The list of forests mentions a distinction between a Chase and Royal Forest. A Chase seems to be similar in purpose, but could be owned by non-Royals, and had a (somewhat) different legal regime. Additionally, when a Chase ws owned by Kings, it seems to have been known as a "Royal Chase" and it is unclear what practical difference existed. In several cases: Malvern Chase, Cannock Chase the status is unclear: Royal Forest, Royal Chase, or just Chase owned by Royals?

    Does anyone have any good information about this we could use to make this clearer in the article? Jim Killock (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 3 external links on Royal forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Interaction with Common Law?

    [edit]

    The term 'Common law' only appears twice in this article to tell us royal forests were completely outside the common law. I think a bit more could be written on how they interacted with Common Law. The article states that the highest court was the Court of Justice-seat, which is the only one that could pass sentence, yet only mentions offenders against Forest laws. What about other laws? If I live in a Royal Forest and murder or steal or make any other infraction against the Common Law or statutes passed by Parliament, what happens to me? LastDodo (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Cors(e) Forest and Corse Lawn (Chase) Gloucestershire

    [edit]

    These are missing from the table GoldenWest65 (talk) 10:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "'Court of attachment" listed at Redirects for discussion

    [edit]

    The redirect 'Court of attachment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 29 § 'Court of attachment until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_forest&oldid=1216251170"