Original Post 2022/11/24
Updated 2022/11/29
The only changes are additions, marked in bold.
So I saw this post from @Vogon this morning.
I remember that I've seen "time Immemorial" being exactly some specific old date before and laughed at it too, but today I decided to do some research. The year 1189 sounds arbitrary but it was probably sensible when it was first decided. So I go to Wikipedia to the article for "Time Immemorial" and see that they say 1189, then I go to the citation for that date. And it's just some rando? No offence meant to Professor Kunal M. Parker of the University of Miami, as published in the UC Irvine Law Review, but the cited article, Law "In" and "As" History: The Common Law in the American Polity, 1790-1900, just offhandedly mentions the date, without establishing where that date derives from. Quote:
The “memory of man” was formally stated to extend no further back than 1189 C.E., but this precise chronology belies the uses to which the formula was typically put.
Alright then, where was it stated? By who? I'm sure the rest of the article is very good, and he's respectable enough that one could probably assume that he's correct without checking, but this isn't helpful to me. I want to know where this comes from, in law. So I DuckDuckGo it and find this article from Manorial Counsel, a shady website that sells Titles. However, it does point me in the direction of "The Statute of Westminster 1275" so I go looking for that.
The First Statute of Westminster, from 1275, consists of 51 chapters covering all kinds of law. It was passed under Edward I, the one who expelled the jews. Edward I was King of England from 1272 to 1307. He was succeeded by his son, Edward II, who was very possibly a homosexual, and preceded by his father Henry III who reigned from 1216 to 1272. Henry III was preceded by his father, King John, the one from Disney's furry Robin Hood, who reigned from 1199 to 1216. John was preceded by his elder brother Richard I, a.k.a. Richard the Lionheart, who reigned from 1189 to 1199 and left no heir. Notice the 1189, that's very important, we'll come back to that later. This made Richard I the uncle of the father of Edward I, the king at the time of the statute.
Of the 51 chapters of the First Statute of Westminster, only one is still in effect: chapter 5, which concerns free elections. We'll return to that later. The relevant chapter here is Chapter 39: Limitation of Prescription. The original text is in French, and I am using this 1810 translation, although I could have used this earlier translation with the long ſ.
AND Forasmuch as it is long time passed since the Writs undernamed were limited; It is Provided, That in conveying a Descent in a Writ of Right, none shall [presume] to declare of the Seisin of his Ancestor further, or beyond the time of King Richard, Uncle to King Henry, Father to the King that now is; and that a Writ of Novel Disseisin, [of Partition,] which is called Nuper obiit, have their Limitation since the first Voyage of King Henry, Father to the King that now is, into Gascoin. And that Writs of Mortdancestor, of Cosinage, of Aiel, of Entry, and of Nativis, have their Limitation from the Coronation of the same King Henry, and not before. Nevertheless all Writs purchased now by themselves, or to be purchased between this and the Feast of St. John, for one Year complete, shall be pleaded from as long time, as heretofore they have been used to be pleaded.
So I think that is where 1189 comes from, it's when Richard I became king. Why did they choose that date? I have no idea! Richard I was a bad king in hindsight, but he might have been very respected back then. And it was 86 years ago, that's a pretty long time. As good as any, I guess. As long as you assume that all record keeping will be perfect from now, the reign of Edward I, to whenever in the future. Remember, if the law needs to be changed, it can be. You shouldn't treat bad laws from a long time ago, or the people who wrote them, as perfect, just because they're old.
Part 2: What Date Did Richard I Become King
And you didn't even realise you were in part 1! The post referenced the 6th of July as the date of time immemorial, but I've also seen the 3rd of September quoted. I also wondered if those dates were in the Julian or Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian calendar was not invented until 1582, so presumably it's Julian. However, that date would retroactively be around seven days out from the Gregorian date.
What I found was a more interesting question: what date did Richard I become king? His Wikipedia article currently lists him becoming king on the 3rd of September. However, as any good royal explainer will tell you, a monarch ascends to the throne immediately upon the death of the previous monarch, not at the coronation. Richard I succeeded his father, Henry II, the one who wanted to be rid of that turbulent priest. Richard was the eldest (surviving) son of Henry, and therefore the heir apparent. Henry and Richard did not get along. John was apparently the favourite of Henry and his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Henry allegedly refused to recognise Richard as his heir. To be fair to him, it does sound like Richard sucked. Henry died on the 6th of July 1189, right after a battle against the forces of Richard and the king of France. So it probably wasn't the smoothest transition of power, but regardless, I would probably consider Richard coming to power on that day.
One more thing, what date was Richard coronated? Wikipedia says the 3rd of July. The Encyclopedia Brittanica claims that "Richard received Normandy on July 20 and the English throne on September 30." I have been using A Brief History of British Kings & Queens by Mike Ashley (not the sports direct guy) as a reference, and that book gives the 2nd of September as the date he was crowned. So again, I don't know. Looking for sources for dates from the 12th century goes beyond my knowledge, I'm sorry. I just wouldn't even know where to begin looking. And there are more things to go that I don't know.
New content: It turns out that after sleeping on it, I can do more research and find more answers. My main worry is that if I left the posts in my drafts, I'd never post it, so I rushed it out in the evening. But upon taking another look, the Brittania article cites sources (down in Further Reading) so I got back to reading! They recommend Richard the Lion Heart by Kate Norgate from 1924, which they describe as "a very full, somewhat old-fashioned narrative, strongly based on chronicle and other recorded sources" which is exactly what I'm looking for. Norgate describes the coronation starting at page 97. Here is an extract: (CW: Antisemitism)
Richard's coronation is in one way the most memorable in all English history, for it is the occasion on which the form and manner of crowning a king of England were, in every essential point and in most of the lesser particulars, fixed for all after-time.
The court festivities lasted three days, and the manner in which they were conducted presented a marked contrast to the rough, careless, unceremonious ways of the court of Henry II. The banquet each day was as stately and decorous as it was lavish and splendid. Clergy and laity were seated apart, and the former had the place of honour, being at the king's own table. Richard had further emphasized the solemnity of the occasion by a proclamation ordering that no Jew and no woman should be admitted to the palace. Notwithstanding this, certain Jews did present themselves at the doors on the evening of the coronation-day with gifts for the king. The courtiers of lower rank and the people who crowded round robbed them, beat them, and drove them away; some were mortally injured, some slain on the spot. The tumult reached the ears of the king in the banqueting-hall, and he sent the justiciar and some of the nobles to suppress it; but it was already beyond their control. A great wave of anti-Jewish feeling swept through the city; before morning most of the Jews' houses were sacked;
So much to unpack there. Remember at the next coronation: this is what English tradition is. It's bad! It feels to me that Norgate is praising the event too much, considering it became a violent, antisemitic riot. Maybe I should read this whole book... Nah. Getting back on topic, Norgate has beautiful citations. These point me towards two contemporary accounts by Gervase of Canterbury (page 457) and Ralph de Diceto (page 68) and they both list the date of the coronation of King Richard I of England as the 3rd of September. That's good enough for me! Presumably the contradictory dates are just mistakes, but if anyone disputes anything I've written, I'd love to hear it in the comments! I'm not a historian, or a lawyer, I don't know anything, I'm just using publically-available sources to the best of my ability. End of Update
Part 3: Is the 1189 date even still law?
Earlier I mentioned that only one chapter of the First Statute of Westminster is still law. What happened to the rest? A whole 30 of them were repealed by The Statute Law Revision Act 1863. That act scrubbed out lots of "Enactments which have ceased to be in force or become unnecessary." and took with it our beloved Chapter 39. So, why? The Prescription Act 1832 suggests that a claimant no longer needs to prove that something has existed since "time immemorial" and instead a period of 60 years, or sometimes even less, is sufficient.
Very little official government information references the concept of time immemorial. In a search for "immemorial" from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ I found 19 results. These included the Prescription Act, 8 pieces of inherited EU legislation and 3 pieces of Northern Irish legislation. The only other reference to the word from before 1863 was the introduction to The High Peak Mining Customs and Mineral Courts Act 1851 which I have not read in full, but from the introduction seems to be irrelevant. There are 191 results for "1189" after excluding EU legislation, but as that is a number, it is hard to filter out what, if anything, is important.
I have found one government document that unambiguously refers to the 1189 date, although I could do more to check for references. This advice note from 2003 warns that it "is not an authoritative interpretation of the law". It also only refers to the 1189 date to say that it is irrelevant.
This leaves me at a point where I don't know how to proceed without committing even more of my time. Some legislation refers to time immemorial still, so it probably has some legal definition. And it might well be 1189. It might be in some law somewhere. But I have no idea how to find this without either reading too much legislation or emailing random people who know anything about the law to try to get expert opinions. I can't do any more research! Well I could, but I don't want to.
Final Thoughts
I don't know anything. About the law. There are so many words and concepts that I don't understand that I've just hoped aren't too important. While writing this I found two blog pieces that cover some of the same stuff I have, here and here. They both mention that the phrase "time immemorial" is used constantly to refer to times that aren't that long ago, relatively. In a practical sense, I think 100 years ago is probably time immemorial; nobody remembers it. Neither of them reference that the relevant legislation has been repealed, though. Again, it might be somewhere else. Maybe I could have avoided wasting all this time if QI had made a thread? If Twitter had never existed? If she hadn't raised the beans in the first place?
The Wikipedia article references some US case law, such as a case where "time immemorial" dates back 20 years. Goldfish brain. I'm not sure if either extreme is good: there's an exact date that represents it, or that I could potentially remember time immemorial. Twenty years is time memorial! Again, the solution is somewhere in the middle, about 100 years. Look at me, doing centrism. Balance, balance.
But legally, I don't think the 6th of July 1189 is time immemorial. Anymore. Not since the 19th century. Well, it would be, nobody remembers the day, or what the weather was like, but it's not the definition.
It was a Thursday.
Extra: I really appreciate everything I've cited in this post, but especially Wikipedia, The Internet Archive and Brittanica. If you enjoyed this, please consider donating to Wikipedia or The Internet Archive, just follow their links, or subscribing to Cohost Plus! The Internet Archive is currently doing a gift matching thing, where whatever you donate is tripled, until the end of the year. Thanks for reading, bye!
