Juels and ornamentes convenyent to his property roiall. ”30 the worry to keep up the king’s “estate roiall” (status regis), an idea approximately such as royal rank or dignity, leads Fortescue to his valuable thesis, which explicitly hyperlinks royal dignity to land and finally to a fairly various type of “estate”—namely, the curiosity in land that identifies the temporal courting of a common-law tenant to the land of which she or he is possessed. the steadiness and dignity of the Crown, Fortescue argues, rely on the soundness of Crown land and landed profit throughout time, those being the required ability wherein the king “mey top have adequate and perdurable livelod ffor the sustentacion off his property. ” to assure this balance, Fortescue recommends that there be reserved completely to the Crown’s use a reservoir of land able to generating a continual “livelod” for the king. 31 moment, as J. A. man explains, Fortescue aimed to “reduce the family aspect in govt, in prefer of a council of the imperative office-holders within the realm. ”32 consequently he recommends that, for the extra effective supervision of his land, the king create a operating council with salaried individuals beholden to him by myself, in addition to a extra effective royal carrier run at the precept of “one guy, one office,” excepting these servants just about his individual, for whom it will likely be permissible to “have in ther contrays a parkershippe ffor ther disporte whan thay come whom [home]. ”33 of their cognizance to financial balance and the form of royal information, the 2 elements of Fortescue’s polemic therefore count on the argument Skelton makes in detrimental shape in the course of the dramatic illustration of depraved servants who disperse a prince’s wealth, while they disperse his authority by means of concentrating 56 bankruptcy One all royal workplaces of their personal palms: “chose out ii. , iii. , of like you love best,” Colusyon tells Magnyfycence; “Plucke from an hundred, and gyve it to thre” (ll. 1769, 1774). the relationship among Skelton and Fortescue is going deeper than having the royal family as their shared polemical objective. Fortescue stands at first, and Skelton close to the top, of a technique that remodeled Crown land from a nearly advert hoc resource of familial and family source of revenue right into a significant income and, as a result, into the vital website for the adjudication of royal dignity (status regis) with recognize to the wider public curiosity (status regni). 34 whilst Skelton asks in his play how a guy “may have welth . . . / Ay to contynewe and styll to undergo” (ll. 14–15), the matter posed is therefore exact in strength to Fortescue’s try to position family funds and royal dignity on an everlasting footing for the typical solid. In Skelton’s play, accordingly, the it seems that widespread and philosophical illustration of Fortune, who “can bothe smyle and frowne, / Sodenly arrange, and sodenly solid downe” (ll. 2529–30), has certain topical price in that it reproduces a virtually century-old political query of the way to stabilize the “estate royal,” such that its current health and wellbeing could symbolize, too, as health.