/u/TheGreenReaper7's extensive rundown of "feudalism" here cites Reynold's assertion that feudalistic vassalge can largely be traced to the development of legal codification which appears with the expansion of centralised bureaucratic states from the twelfth century onwards in continental Europe, but of course there's a definite argument to be made for the emergence of just such a state in pre-Conquest England. Molyneux in particular emphasises the first half of the tenth century as a period defined by essentially a colossal power grab on the part of the Cerdicing royal dynasty compared to their continental contemporaries.

Starting with the development of the bureaucratic system underpinning the establishment of Alfred's burghal network, the late ninth and tenth centuries see a vast increase in the power and authority of the English kings, and the codification of those relationships with clearly defined terms and conditions in the charter texts. One interesting phenomenon of Æthelstan's reign is a series of charters confirming the land tenure of estates purchased by religious institutions from the Danes, alongside a wider series confirming earlier grants of rights or privileges. In essence, this is a process of normalising de facto land ownership and privileges within a de jure framework that essentially establishes an act of homage where previously none had existed. The use of charter terms is far from unique, of course. Ganshof's work - largely critiqued by Reynolds in particular - hinged on the use of charter terms to establish vassalage relationships by the Merovingians and Carolingians in France, but in England this is accompanied by an expansion of royal offices and sites and an expansion of bureaucracy. Asser's Vita Ælfredi makes it clear that those Ealdormen who weren't able to meet the demands could readily be replaced. The reign of Cnut also establishes some interesting precedents: many charters are for the confirmation of previous privileges and an interesting example is S954, which confirms the land holdings and privileges of St Mary's, Exeter, the institution's previous record having been lost during a Danish attack in the course of Cnut's invasion. This reconfirmation establishes the relationship as one that exists implicitly between the two institutions of Church and Crown, rather than as a personal one with the King himself.

There are, of course, some differences between England and the stereotypical 'feudal' model, which perhaps actually serve to emphasise the importance of the relationships of homage and constantly re-negotiated hierarchies emphasised by Reynolds over the previous more defined models. English charters tended to confer the ownership of land in perpetuity rather than establishing temporary bounds for a discrete period. By the eleventh century, this ends up with the curious precedent where Edward the Confessor actually isn't the largest land-owner in England, which should in theory destabilise a traditional hierarchical feudal model but serves to illustrate the importance of homage and adherence to a relationship with the institution of monarchy rather than necessarily the personal power of the monarch. Freemen are an interesting point of debate: the highest tier of peasant farmer, who owned their land directly rather than as tenants of a lord, Freemen constituted some 14% of households at the time of Domesday Book but are in steep decline post-Conquest, with 75% of them in Circuit 3 having been deprived of their land as per research carried out by the University of Hull Open Domesday project. This is often argued to be a facet of the imposition of Norman feudalism by land-grabbing invaders, but may not be the case. Freemen occur far more frequently in Danelaw areas which is itself a reason for debate. Some believe that freehold was simply more common a phenomenon under Danish rule, perhaps itself established by conquest, but a model advanced by Palmer and Hadley contends that the use of freehold in the Danelaw was itself a relic, with the expansion of English royal power in Wessex and Mercia in the ninth and early tenth centuries being fundamental in eroding many of the previous liberties of individual landowners in the interests of establishing a more bureaucratically coherent and centralised system. To that extent, the further erosion of the freeman class post-1066 likely does represent a further continuation of a centralising English policy rather than an imposition by the new ruling class.