Medieval landlords in cities?

[Dr TPK]

I'd need some historical advice for my pseudo-medieval game (3.5. Greyhawk).

One of the PCs wanted to buy a property in a large city, one of the few metropolises. I said that he can buy the property, but renting the property is allowed only to the members of nobility. This was accepted without any hassle or argument, but I wanted to search more about the subject. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to confirm or invalidate my idea. Can you help me?

[Worgwood]

Not that I'm an expert, but as far as I understand (again, not an expert), in a medieval/feudal society, property was associated with title/status, and you might need permission to buy from the ruling lord if you're not buying from him directly.

Certain property might also come with a family associated with it, who become your dependents - they pay you a portion of whatever it is they produce or earn as tax, and in return your'e responsible for their protection. Basically, the property comes with renters attached. Some of that might also go to the ruling lord (in this case the lord of the city).

Since your player owns the property, he's probably got some status associated with that. If not, I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to rent it, as long as he's cutting the ruling lord a share - if he's making money, they're making money too.

Editing for clarity and brevity.

[Vitruviansquid]

There is no standard medieval European policy on holding land in cities, as medieval Europe is a large time/place with a lot of heterogeneity in governance and separate cultures with their own traditions.

It was a thing for some cities to be directly beholden to the monarch alone and exist outside of the feudal structure, it was a thing for cities to exist within the feudal structure, and it was a thing for cities to be completely independent.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

This might be useful - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold_(law), in particular the first note.

I could easily see richer merchants diversifying into property - and/or if there's significant industry, industrialists building houses near the factories to put their workers into, with some of their wages stopped for rent (for example, the terrace housing of a lot of northern English cities, especially places like Manchester and Leeds), guilds renting out dwellings closely located together to guild members, and maybe well to do storekeepers renting out the floor above their shop if they've property elsewhere. And of course, the state/ruler itself might be a landlord - officers of the city guard, tax collectors and so on might have houses provided in lieu of some part of what they would normally earn as a salary.

[Saladman]

Cities quite often stood outside of normal feudal structures anyway, but 'squid is correct about there being no one standard arrangement.

It is the case that in the real world, land ownership and rental income was a stronger source of income in the old world and the medieval economy than it was in the new world and the modern market economy. So that formed a major part of the practical income of our nobility, but it was also the ambition of the nouveau rich to set themselves up the same way. (When we started settling America, the ambitious big money men kept trying to secure their fortunes by making themselves landlords, and their tenants kept just moving and clearing their own land.) That may be the source of your impression.

Something I found interesting (but not specific to cities) is that the middle ages made more use of long term leases than we do. Land implied status, power, and income, and not everyone wanted to sell if they could help it. But you could see leases as long as 99 years, where the property wouldn't revert until both parties were dead and their heirs were involved.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Something I found interesting (but not specific to cities) is that the middle ages made more use of long term leases than we do. Land implied status, power, and income, and not everyone wanted to sell if they could help it. But you could see leases as long as 99 years, where the property wouldn't revert until both parties were dead and their heirs were involved.

Or, if you're going to apply that to a fantasy world, 2000 years if they're Elves.

[VoxRationis]

To my knowledge, in a feudal society, almost everyone is a renter (often paying through services or goods in kind), and very few people own land, these people being the nobility. It's kind of backwards to state that you would have to be a noble to rent, but not to buy outright. Of course, as mentioned previously, cities often were separate affairs.

[Maglubiyet]

Seems you don't really need any historic precedent for a fantasy world. What seems to hold true everywhere, though, is the golden rule -- those with the gold make the rules.

Maybe the PC's could buy a noble title, arrange a sub-lease arrangement with a noble, or just bribe the right people. Rules tend to get more flexible as long as the right people's purses get a little heavier.

Oh wait...you wanted support for your idea, right?

[Another_Poet]

As others have said, it varied widely. But I would add this: no matter what the official position is, if you have an extra attic space or a carriage house or a servant's quarters, and there are people looking for lodging who have money to pay, that space is getting rented out. Maybe it violates some lord's privilege, but people are frequently willing to take a risk if it pays cold hard cash.

To that I would add myriad ways of getting around it - taking in the needy lodger "as a servant," or offering them lodging in exchange for an indentured period (quasi-slavery), or as their "patron" and they get lodging but are expected to support you politically, or a million other combinations....

Both of these - illegal renting, or offering a bedroom with conditions attached - make for some potential story hooks.

"Renter? No, gov'na, she's an orphan I took in out of pity.... 'course, she's gotta pay her food and clothing expenses, best she can seein' as she's just a lowly weaver..."

[eleazzaar]

To my knowledge, in a feudal society, almost everyone is a renter (often paying through services or goods in kind), and very few people own land, these people being the nobility.

Yeah, you could say that, but "rent" it wasn't usually renting like we think of it.

Families often lived in the same house for generations. The local noble was owed certain dues, services and fees acording to tradition and law-- but you could just as well see that as a "tax".

On a local feudal manor, (when the holding was small enough to be managed) the lord was often more like a modern land-lord, in charge of taking care of everything.

As metioned cities were often ruled differently from the countryside, and had a charter that allowed self-rule to a point.


The idea that only nobles would be allowed to rent sounds pretty unusual to me-- but no doubt you could find some precident in history.