After William the Conqueror subjugated the English Saxons in 1066, he naturally set about two important tasks to consolidate his grip on the English throne. The first was to import a system of law of which he approved. Secondly, to reward and therefore gratify important Norman nobles without whose help he would never have won the throne, and with whose enmity his grip was perilous.

These paramount considerations laid the basis for the feudal system, the foundations for which were in place under the Saxon kings but were built upon and modified by the invading Normans.

It is necessary to look briefly at what the "pure" feudal system consisted of, so as to consider to what extent the real actions transformed the Lord-Tenant relationship.

The ultimate owner of all land was (and still, in legal theory, is) the King. He rewarded his pre-eminent followers by handing out tracts of land to them. These barons would be his tenants-in-chief. They, in turn, would hand out areas to their knights, who would give some to their peasants to occupy. Although this is an oversimplification, it gives the basic idea of the feudal pyramid: King at the top, peasants at the bottom. So, in theory at least, no-one "owned" any land, except the King, they merely had possession (sesin) of it, and this was only given after homage had been sworn to the respective lord. Furthermore, in exchange for this tenure of the land, the tenants would have to provide services for the lord, initially military, but increasingly financial. In any case, these limited "rights" to the land would be withdrawn on death and the lord could choose another tenant. However, as we shall see, this "pure" system was not without its complications, and these only increased with the onset of the real actions.

If there was a problem with the land, it was to be resolved under the system of seigniorial justice. The peasants (often villeins, people only just above the status of slaves) would go along to the Lord’s manorial court, the halimote. If the disputing parties were both lords, they would go to the County Court. This can be seen by reference to the charter of Henry I. The problem was that the lord had huge influence over these courts, and so it would not be over-eager to displease him. In theory, this feudal system lasted for hundreds of years, and elements still exist today, but in reality, by the thirteenth century it was cracking.

The catalyst for change was "The Anarchy" of King Stephen’s reign. Stephen was succeeded by the great administrator Henry II, and it is highly likely that he wished to restore lands to everyone who had been dispossessed during the lawlessness of his predecessor's time on the throne. A bid for popularity, is, after all, the first thing any new ruler makes.

It is at this point that we come to the real actions and the effect the emerging common law had on the feudal system. The change was subtle at first, perhaps not meant to be permanent, and as Baker points out, it is unlikely that Henry intended the results to be as fundamental as they were. However, willingly or not, the seeds were sown for the destruction of the feudal system.

The first blow was struck by the writ of right: the first sign of royal intervention in what had hitherto been a purely Lord-Tenant contract. Despite its many shortcomings (proof was by battle, requirement of the writs of pone and tolt to move you into different courts, and the fact that the "essoins" [excuses] could be used as permanent delaying tactics,) the importance of the writ of right came in its command, by the King to the Lord that "without delay you do full right" to the tenant in respect of the land about which there had been a complaint. Furthermore, should the lord resist, as well might one who took his feudal contract seriously, the King reserved the right to take control himself: "And if you will not do so, let the sheriff... do it, that we may hear no more about this for want of right." This combination of command and threat was crucial in precipitating the downfall of the feudal system, for in intervening, the King was lessening the lord’s power. The writ implied that there was another set of rules that the court should follow, and furthermore, in it’s exhortation to "do right", it implied that the tenant had property rights, which begins to sound more like ownership, than pure feudal possession. The fact that the tenant would have "a writ of right directed to the lord" (Glanvill) from the King effectively removed the lord form the picture. Inheritance, not feudal loyalty, begins to be more important. Indeed, a person who was not in seisin may quite possibly claim to have a right to some land. Of course, the process was a long and gradual one, but the lord’s power had begun to slip away. There has been a great deal of dispute over the intention and purpose of the writ of right. Maitland sees it as a proprietary action which gives an owner a superior right to someone in possession, whereas Milsom sees it all in the feudal context, meant more to help the system function correctly and recover from the disorder of Stephen’s reign, rather than destroy it. Whatever the truth, it seems certain that the tenant’s position is moving closer to that of owner, but possession of the land at that particular time is not necessarily the most important issue in settling questions of title.

The lord’s power to choose a tenant was further curtailed and made subject to review with the advent of the petty assizes. These were doubly important because they introduced a kind of investigatory "jury" to look into the problem, and left the question of title open to historical investigation.

The first of these, introduce in 1166 by the Assize of Clarendon, was novel disseisn. This had many advantages over the somewhat flawed writ of right, as it introduced a quick and easy investigative procedure that did not involve battle. It asked one question: was the applicant on the land and has he been recently and unjustly ejected from it? More importantly, the writ was addressed from "The king to the sheriff..." :there is no mention of the lord. If the applicant had a genuine complaint, he would be restored to the land and then wait for the next visit of the king’s assizes.

Again , there has been a hisoriographical dispute over the use of novel disseisn. Maitland and Simpson see it as being used when someone was "unjustly and without judgement" disseised of their land by a rival peasant. Milsom, however, sees it in the context of the feudal pyramid, to be used against the lord, when he unjustly ejects the tenant. Whichever is true, the result is the same: the lord’s power is bypassed and the tenant’s position is once more looking more like that of an owner.

The second of the petty assizes was that of mort d’ancestor. This was introduced by the Assize of Northampton in 1176, and it too asked a simple question: "whether W. , father of the aforesaid A, was seised in his demesne...on the day he died...and whether the same A is his nearest heir". Once again, this simple question was to be answered by an "investigative jury" of twelve men, and if they answered in the affirmative you had a right to be seised. Crucially, this applied when you had never had possession of the land, for whatever reasons. It is clear that this writ was a major step in setting right to inherit above the lord’s right to choose who had possession of his land: closer by far to ownership. It was initially aimed specifically against the lord, who in future could only give formal acceptance to his new tenant: the inheritance was now automatic.

The idea of a feudal contract was certainly in its dying days: not only was the lord’s power bypassed by the King’s courts, but his influence was on the wane too, as tenants gained increased rights.

Another writ giving increased powers of "ownership" to the tenant was the Writ of Entry, or rather writs of entry, for you could choose which one you needed for your particular problem. The process was very similar to the Writ of Right, in that it was looked at by a "jury", but without that writ’s numerous disadvantages. One would have to claim that a tenant’s right to be on the land was flawed. After the 1267 Statute of Marlborough, the time restrictions were removed and a medieval dig through history was once more allowed. It became more and more predominant as the unbearably cumbersome Writ of Right fell away. Moreover, the trawl through history that this permitted went further than even the "owners rights" conferred by the petty assizes. What they both had in common was the direct access to the King’s courts; once more cutting out the lord and his feudal trappings.

However, despite the fact that the real actions dealt crushing blows to the feudal system of possession only, they were not the only factors.

One should also, as Baker points out, consider custom. Whilst it is readily admitted that this alone cannot create a legal right, it should be remembered that the lords did not at any point really act as "autonomous despots", but through their feudal courts. These courts followed, or tried to follow, pre-existing local custom, which not only restricted the lord’s power, but gave them a reason not to arbitrarily override them: any rulers power is consolidated by regulation. In any case, the custom of inheritance had a great effect long before the real actions came along. Close friends and family would have an expectation of succeeding a tenant on the same terms, which could not be ignored if sesin had been given in these terms. Again, whilst there was no legally binding right here, it would have been influential.

It also became increasingly possible to alienate land, by means of subinfeudation and substitution. Now, whilst this need not make any difference to the lord or to the feudal system, it is still an indication of the way tenants increasingly acted as owners. These ideas of alienation and inheritance do not sit well with the idea of a personal feudal contract

However, as Pollock and Maitland point out, it is doubtful whether the "pure" feudal system ever existed in its idealised form: in any case it certainly didn’t after the time of William I. As they point out, the services owed to each party in the lord-tenant relationship were seldom onerous, and were very often nominal. Moreover, the lord would not be able to recover his land unless he kept an efficient court, which not all did. Furthermore, in the eyes of third parties, the tenant represented the "owner" of the land. In any case, these authors see it as doubtful as to whether the writs were meant to assert a proprietary right, or merely a possessory right. However, they cannot help conceding that mort d’ancestor is a "blow aimed at feudalism", as it strikes directly at the lord. This was certainly a step removed from the "antithesis of ownership" (Baker) that the original feudal system represented.

To conclude, whether or not this perfect system ever existed, it was certainly a very different creature by 1200. The combined forces of custom, the petty assizes and the realities of land management all conspired to make the tenant much closer to being the "owner". However, as mort d’ancestor in particular shows, his possession at that time was not the most important factor in settling questions of title, as it was quite possible for someone to claim "ownership" without ever having been seised of the land. One thing, however, is certain, as Baker says: "the principal effect of these common law remedies was that by the thirteenth century the tenant was in reality the owner of the land.".