Definition
In old English law, grantz (also rendered grands) referred to noblemen or grandees — the highest-ranking members of the feudal aristocracy. The term appears in historical legal texts as a descriptor of the magnate class whose status, privileges, and obligations were recognized and regulated by English law. It has no operative meaning in modern Anglo-American law and survives only as a historical term of classification.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Grantz is a term a researcher is unlikely to encounter outside of medieval and early modern English legal materials. It appears most often in texts touching on feudal tenure, the obligations of the great lords to the Crown, and the constitutional history of Parliament. Researchers working in those areas should be aware that the term refers specifically to the noble class as a legally cognizable category — not merely as a social distinction — and that their privileges and duties (including attendance in Parliament and military service) had legal content.
The consistent chain of authority across all four source dictionaries — Black's (both editions), Rapalje & Lawrence, and Bouvier — traces back to a single source: Jacob's Law Dictionary. This narrow provenance means the definition has not been independently verified across multiple historical sources; it reflects Jacob's usage, which itself drew on medieval English practice. Researchers should treat grantz as a term of art from feudal constitutional law rather than private law.
No modern doctrinal significance attaches to the term. It will not appear in case reporters, statutory codes, or contemporary secondary sources. Its research relevance is limited to legal history, constitutional history, and the study of feudal land tenure.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
All four source dictionaries are in complete agreement, both in substance and attribution. Black's Law Dictionary (1st and 2nd editions), Bouvier's, and Rapalje & Lawrence each define grantz as "noblemen or grandees" and each cites Jacob's Law Dictionary as the sole authority. There is no divergence, no elaboration, and no attempt by any of the sources to extend the term beyond its historical meaning.
The uniformity of attribution to Jacob is itself a research signal: this is a term preserved from medieval legal vocabulary rather than one that developed through case law or treatise commentary. Historical dictionaries offer nothing beyond the single-sentence definition.
---