English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

This paper examines two issues: misconceptions concerning English law in high medieval Ireland; and the invention and mutation of an exceptio (objection) in court which was based on a fabrication. The plea, or defensive claim, was that the plaintiff in a court case was an unfranchised Gael (Hibernica/Hibernicus) and therefore could not sue a civil writ in the English king’s royal courts in Ireland. This pleading has led some historians to surmise that all Gaels were unfranchised in English Ireland without a personal grant of access from the crown of England. The plea also claimed that only five Gaelic families were allowed to sue in the royal courts. Each time the plea was made, it changed, and after sixty years a defendant claimed that the ancestors of the then current king (Edward III) had granted access to English law only to five Gaelic families. There are many problems with this claim.

The myth of the ‘five bloods': from fiction to legal custom in the English royal courts in fourteenth-century Ireland