Edition January 2024  (previous edition November 2022)

©Malvin Mitchell and Keith Baldwin

 
Timeline 1042-1400    Back to Intro       Next Page (Timeline 1400-1600)

(note; The Early History of Beckenham by Len Hevey is a recommended read alongside this for pre-history and up to the 14th Century but is out of print)

As a preamble to this section we insert these references to early charters of AD 862 and 987 relating to the area  of Oxted but refers to Beckenham and environs. The reference to Domesday may relate to various 'survey' materials from which Domesday was drawn up. The charters would have presented various transcription difficulties and it would appear that the reference to "Oxted to Beeham (?) Mark" could be a misread of Becham (often a spelling variation of Beckenham). the 'Marks' may have been road junctions but as roads were no more than tracks perhaps a waymarker or signpost was placed at junction points. Keston Mark as a place name survives to this day. Kangley Bridge and a point on Stumps Hill would later pretty well  mark the edge of Beckenham Manor. However, a lot of speculation is included and much would change after 1066. All further complicated by the  apparent translation from Anglo-Saxon.

1042-1066 King EDWARD THE CONFESSOR (The reigns of monarchs will be inserted to add perspective along with some events)
Following the death of Harthacanute, Edward the Confessor restored the rule of the House of Wessex to the English throne. A deeply pious and religious man, he presided over the rebuilding of Westminster Abbey, leaving much of the running of the country to Earl Godwin and his son Harold. Edward died childless eight days after the building work on Westminster Abbey had finished. With no natural successor, England was faced with a power struggle for control of the throne.

We do not have any evidence of Beckenham from this time apart from the Domesday Book entry but as Domesday refers back to the time of Edward the Confessor his period of reign may be relevant. Theoretically its possible that Eskil or his relatives was Lord of the Manor of Beckenham at this time, .

1066 - HAROLD II, you should have learnt this at school...The Battle of Stamford Bridge, Battle of Hastings and all that. According to Domesday, Anschil or Eskil was the Lord of Beckenham in 1066 and before, paying tax to King Edward the Confessor. Spellings differed according to old English, Latin or French versions.

1066 - 1086 King William I (the Conqueror)

1066-1086 was a period of turmoil which has been well researched by others but culminated in the Great Survey or Domesday in which William wanted to determine what taxes had been owed during the reign of King Edward the Confessor thereby allowing William to reassert the rights of the Crown and assess where power lay after a wholesale redistribution of land following the Conquest.

The Domesday survey was carried out by commissioners holding sworn inquests in local courts, where they asked fixed questions of local men. For each property, each question was asked three times, to cover changes over time. Since the conquest various landowners were dispossessed, some cooperated with the Normans and retained their property and in some cases increased it. The Domesday recorded the situation after much of this turmoil. The commissioners asked how land had been held:

The questions included: (replies inserted from data)

as it had been on the last day of the reign of Edward the Confessor (5 January 1066) – this is abbreviated in Domesday as TRE

as it had been when it was granted by King William

as it was in 1086 (when the survey was taken)

What is the manor called?     Beckenham

Who held it in the time of King Edward? Anschil / Eskil of Beckenham

Who holds it now?    Ansgot of Rochester

How many hides (a land measurement)? 8 carucates (960 acres?).  Hides and Carucates are thought to be  similar but varied depending on the area and type of land cultivated.

How much has been added or taken away from the manor?

How much has or had each freeman and each sokeman?

How many plough teams? 8

How many freemen, sokemen, villans, cottars and slaves? 22 villagers, 8 smallholders and 4 slaves

How much wood, meadow and pasture?  12 acres of meadow

How many mills and fisheries?      1 mill no fisheries

How much was the whole worth in 1066, and how much now (1086)?   £9,  £9,  £13

In the beginning of the Domesday survey, Anschillus de Bacheham (Anschil/Eskil of Beckenham) is said to have had the liberties of sac and soc (jurisdiction) within his lands, in the Lathe of Sutton at the time of Edward the Confessor but by 1086 Ansgot of Rochester is subtenant under Odo Biship of Bayieux. Ansgot holds various other manors in Kent and an Ansgot is described as Chamberlain to William Rufus who succeeded William the Conqueror.

Is it beyond any possibility that Anskil could have been restyled as Ansgot?  Some debate has surmised that Ango-Saxon names were translated into Norman/French versions.

Beckenham is recorded as having 34 households, 22 villagers, 8 smallholders and 4 slaves.  Domesday excluded land held by the crown or church. As the carucates are estimated at about 1000 acres and Beckenham is later measured at over 3000 acres then significant land is assumed to be held by the Crown or Church.

In 1066 Anschil (Eskil) was landholder to the lord King Edward but Odo is still recorded as tenant in chief in 1086 with Ansgot of Rochester subtenant despite Odo's apparent fall from grace. It is interesting to note Danish names appearing (Bigga & Eskil) in an area not noted for Viking invasion but this implies a mixed population.

Bishop Odo was a maternal half-brother of William the Conqueror who was a trusted royal minister, even acting regent in William’s absences, but in 1067 he was found to be defrauding both the crown and diocese of Canterbury and a number of properties were sequestered. In 1082 he was imprisoned for planning a military expedition to Italy and all of his lands were taken back by the King. He remained in prison for 5 years only released by King William on his deathbed but never regained any power. He is reputed to have later taken part in a rebellion to replace William Rufus (William II) but was allowed to leave Kent for Normandy and his land in England was forfeit to the crown. Hevey states that Beckenham remained in the king's hands until the reign of King John.

1086 - Domesday Book entry for Beckenham, Hasted had transcribed: In Brunlei hundred Ansgotus de Rochester holds of the bishop (of Baieux/Odo) Bacheham. It was taxed at 2 sulings. The arable land is eight carucates. In demesne there are 2 carucates, and 22 villeins, with 8 borderers, having 8 carucates and a half. There are 12 acres of meadow, and 4 servants, and 1 mill, and wood for the pannage of 60 hogs. In the time of King Edward the Confessor, and afterwards, it was worth 9 pounds, now 3 pounds. Anschil held it of King Edward.

8 Carucates or Ploughlands are estimated to be 120 acres each, ie 960 acres. A plough team is said to be 8 oxen.

The much later Foxgrove map of 1766 copied from 1720 records that "20 great beasts of Foxgrove" were grazed on land alongside the Ravensbourne. The Manor of Beckenham map of 1623 shows land of 936 acres but excludes Foxgrove, Langley and Kelsey etc but does include woodlands on the manor. So Domesday's coverage requires clarification. An ideal position for a mill would have been on the Beck in Kelseys where the river descends through the two lakes though other positions on the Beck may have been utilized for mill ponds. A windmill once stood on Bromley Hill but nothing definite can be identified for Domesdays description. But a mill at Glassmill Lane nearer or in Bromley has always been there and another mill nearby called Monks Mill can be found on some old maps.

A more modern translation of Domesday describes Land of Bishop Odo of Bayeux

Households: 22 villagers. 8 smallholders. 4 slaves.
Ploughland: 8 ploughlands. 2 lord's plough teams. 8.5 men's plough teams.
Other resources: Meadow 12 acres. Woodland 60 swine render. 1 mill.
Annual value to lord: 13 pounds in 1086; 9 pounds when acquired by the 1086 owner; 9 pounds in 1066.
Owners:
Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Bishop Odo of Bayeux.
Lord in 1086: Ansgot of Rochester.
Overlord in 1066: King Edward.
Lord in 1066: Eskil.

A matter of some debate is the location of the mill. Some have said that the lake at Kelsey would have been an ideal position. A mill used to be within Sympson’s but on the Beckenham side of the boundary sometimes referred to as Monk’s Mill. Also the mill at Glassmill Lane is a candidate. Under the Domesday record for Wickham (West Wickham) another mill is listed which might be the windmill at Keston? Since that mill was later part of the holdings of the Langley estate. A windmill also stood on or near the site of the Bromley Court Hotel when it was Lodge Farm but in Bromley which had 1 mill at the time of Domesday in 1086. 

1086 - Langley/West Wickham: The Beckenham, West Wickham and Hayes parish boundaries meet within Langley Park estate. If we take it that Langley was not identified in the Domesday survey, being confused with Hasted's 'Lasela' which turns out to be Seal near Sevenoaks, then some of Langley may have been part of West Wickham in Domesday with the following entry.  Maps indicate the parish boundaries having Langley Place estate partially in Wickham, the 1750's Raymond map of Langley and the OS 1860/70's Kent sheet XV illustrate boundaries.

[West] Wickham was a settlement in Domesday Book, in the hundred of Helmestrei (later renamed Ruxley) and the county of Kent.

Households: 24 villagers. 13 slaves. Land and resources Ploughland: 2 lord's plough teams. 4 men's plough teams. Other resources: Woodland 10 swine render. 1 mill, value 1 shilling and 7 pence. 1 church.Valuation Annual value to lord: 13 pounds in 1086; 6 pounds when acquired by the 1086 owner; 8 pounds in 1066.

Owners 

Tenant-in-chief in 1086: Bishop Odo of Bayeux.

Lord in 1086: Adam son of Hubert.

Overlord in 1066: King Edward.

Lord in 1066: Godric son of Karli.

Whatever the outcome of Domesday, locally only Beckenham, Bromley and West Wickham were recorded. Lewisham to the north is of interest as a bordering neighbour. But several factors may limit the detail provided by Domesday. The Sulings or areas able to be ploughed were not fixed in size and the area of ploughable land was influenced by soil types. There was presumably more woodland as a resource for building material and fuel. The population of Britain has been estimated at 1.25 to 2 million or less than 1/30th of todays. A website related to Domesday quotes:

The total population of England in 1086 cannot be calculated accurately from Domesday for several reasons: only the heads of households are listed; major cities like London and Winchester were omitted completely; there are no records of nuns, monks, or people in castles. The population of England at the time of Domesday has been tentatively estimated at between 1¼ and 2 million. However, these figures are much lower than the 4 million people there are estimated to have been in Roman times.

Lincolnshire, East Anglia and East Kent were the most densely populated areas with more than 10 people per square mile, while northern England, Dartmoor and the Welsh Marches had less than three people per square mile. This is because many villages had been razed by the conquest armies.

Len Hevey compares the estimates of Domesday with the Tithe map of 1838 and finds that the total area is within 150 acres by comparison of 3300 acres (Domesday) and 3439 acres (1838 Tithe). This would also indicate that all the land was under 'Beckenham Manor' before Foxgrove, Langley, Kelsey and other properties were carved off.

1086 - Peverel of London; Two manors in Kent which in 1086 belonged to Ansgot de Rovecestre did not pass to his descendants. Instead they became merged with the package of lands, mostly in Essex, which in 1086 belonged to Rannulf Pevrel. It is not known how this happened. One guess might be that Ansgot married his daughter to Rannulf’s son, giving her these two manors as her marriage portion; but there are other imaginable explanations. At all events, the entire holding lapsed to the king on the death of Rannulf’s son Willelm. It came to be known as the honour of Peverel of London. The manors in question are Beckenham and Stoke (i.e. the portion of Stoke which did not belong to the church of Rochester). Half of Beckenham (the northern half) seems to have been held in domain until being granted out by Henric II: the first recorded owner is Willelm fiz Erneis (occ. 1168). The other half of Beckenham (the half which came to be called Langley Park), together with Stoke, became the property of a family whose name, in its earliest appearance, is Malesmæins (R1, fo. 186r); I take that to mean males meains, ‘pain in the wounds’. (But thirteenth-century scribes spell the name in various ways, not seeming to know or care about its etymology.) That surname attached itself to the manor in Stoke.
http://www.durobrivis.net/survey/db-ke/09-baronies.pdf
substantiating evidence is perhaps needed.

1087-1100 King William II (Rufus)

1086-1096 Ansgot of Rochester, who held the Manor of Beckenham and several other manors in Kent and other counties is thought to have died during this time. (source: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1991)

Two manors in Kent which in 1086 belonged to Ansgot de Rovecestre (Rochester) did not pass to his descendants. Instead they became merged with the package of lands, mostly in Essex, which in 1086 belonged to Rannulf Pevrel. It is not known how this happened. One guess might be that Ansgot married his daughter to Rannulf’s son, giving her these two manors as her marriage portion; but there are other imaginable explanations. At all events, the entire holding lapsed to the king on the death of Rannulf’s son Willelm. It came to be known as the honour of Peverel of London.

The manors in question are Beckenham and Stoke (i.e. the portion of Stoke which did not belong to the church of Rochester). Half of Beckenham (the northern half) seems to have been held in domain until being granted out by Henry II: the first recorded owner is Willelm fiz Erneis (occ. 1168). The other half of Beckenham (the half which came to be called Langley Park), together with Stoke, became the property of a family whose name, in its earliest appearance, is Malesmæins (R1, fo. 186r); I take that to mean mal es meains, ‘pain in the wounds’. (But thirteenth-century scribes spell the name in various ways, not seeming to know or care about its etymology.) That surname attached itself to the manor in Stoke. In the 1130 Pipe Roll WILLIAM de Tresgoz (Tregoz) sheriff of Wiltshire renders an account of the farm of the land of William Peverel of London including “in repairing the houses and parks and spinneys and fishponds 115s and in enlarging the park of Beckenham 18s”. In the 1139 pipe roll William de Tregoz is still farming the lands of William Peverell of London.

William de Peverell was a staunch supporter of King Stephen, he was imprisoned with him in 1141, and about 1152 Henry II dispossessed him of all of his lands most likely because of his support for Stephen against Henry.

[1] Battle Abbey Roll http://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/library/Battle%20Roll/battle_abbey_roll3/battle_abbey_roll3.html
nb; errors have been found in the Battle Abbey Roll so some care should be taken.

1100 - King Henry I until 1135. Henry Beauclerc was the fourth and youngest son of William I. Well educated, he founded a zoo at Woodstock in Oxfordshire to study animals. He was called the ‘Lion of Justice’ as he gave England good laws, even if the punishments were ferocious. His two sons were drowned in the White Ship so his daughter Matilda was made his successor. She was married to Geoffrey Plantagenet. When Henry died of food poisoning, the Council considered a woman unfit to rule and so offered the throne to Stephen, a grandson of William I. (source: www.historic-uk.com)

1100 – An ancient deed states: William de Insula to all men of Kent, French and English and in particular (nominatim) to the men of Beccaham, greeting. Know that I have granted to Christ Church, London, and the canons there, the land of Beccaham, which was Reginald Gahit's, which he held by service of a half knight, and which Picot Empasterat gave to the same church, William, Reginald's heir, agreeing; to hold of me and my heirs as freely as Picot held the same, and this by service of a half knight. Witnesses: Cecily, his wife, Rodbert, his son, Geoffrey, the chaplain, William of Lincoln. Kent. Endorsed:—[-] Becheham[-] Becham. (source: National Archive, BHO Ancient Deeds)

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/ancient-deeds/vol5/pp214-228

William de Insula is said to be the same as William de Lisle

And this 12th Century Ancient deed;  Grant; Grant in frank almoin by William de Insula, with the consent of William his heir, Cicely the grantor's wife, and the rest of his children, to the canons of Christ Church, London, of the land which Robert de Witecroft held of him in Becham. Witnesses:- Prior Bernard of Dunestaple, Geoffrey, chaplain of the said William, Robert de Cornhello, and others (named): [Norf.]. Twelfth century. Ref. E 40/5493 (TNA and BHO)

Curiously BHO have linked it to Norfolk where there is a town called Becham. That is thought to be an error.

Such grants of lands to religious orders would effectively pass the income from rents to the order and chains of letting and sub-letting would emerge down to the occupant and cultivator of any land. Picot can be found as a reference connected with Norfolk or Cambridge but Gahit has not returned any results from searches.

 1107 or later - Grant by David, son of John, son of Alexander de Orpintun [Orpington], to Holy Trinity Priory, London, of his rights in lands at Beckenham and "Clayherst". Kent (source NA)

Holy Trinity Priory, Aldgate, was the first religious house to be established inside the walls of London after the Norman Conquest, in 1107–8 (by Empress Mathilda); one of the earliest Augustinian houses to be established in England; and the first to be dissolved, in 1532. By 1200 the precinct north of Leadenhall Street and just inside Aldgate was filled with imposing stone buildings, including a large and architecturally impressive church which was the burial place of two of the children of King Stephen in the middle of the 12th century. London’s first mayor, Henry FitzAilwin, was buried in the entrance to the chapter house. In the 16th century the monastery was owned by the Duke of Norfolk, second only to Queen Elizabeth in power, who was executed in 1572 for his part in plots surrounding Mary Queen of Scots. (source; mola.org.uk)

1129 - In the late 1120’s Hamo (Haimo II) sheriff died without heirs. His land (which also included Camberwell) was divided between Robert Earl of Gloucester and Robert de Crevicoeur (Calvados) Lord of Chatham. This could be the part of Beckenham which was in the king’s hands in 1130 (To the earl of Gloucester 41 s. In the king's demesne of Beckenham 2 s. 4 d.), but the rest was probably already owned by the family which gave its name – Mal es meains, ‘Pain in the wounds’ – to the manor in Stoke.

Walter son of Odo paid a fine in 1129/30 to secure his inheritance in Lincolnshire from the Countess of Chester as a beneficiary of Ivo Taillebois. Walter is also recorded as witness to a charter by William de Lisle granting Beckenham to Quarr Abbey circa 1130 (held at Belvoir Castle).

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bviFDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22earl+of+gloucester%22+odo+bayeux&source=bl&ots=JETGaHJQSf&

sig=ACfU3U1SIP-G_LvqPZ8R5nxt_fW1Q0yo2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE-8313sTmAhWhmFwKHTPkBJ8Q6AEwD3oECA4QAQ#v=onepage&q=beckenham&f=false page 67

http://www.durobrivis.net/articles/landowners.pdf (E 372/1, p. 68)

(Honour of) Peverel of London, 3 sulungs for Beckenham. Two of the manors which in 1086 belonged to Ansgot de Rovecestre followed a separate trajectory: Beckenham and Malmaynes in Stoke. They fell to the king with the rest of the lands of Willelm Pevrel of London, who had presumably acquired them by marriage. Honour of Peverel of London, alias honour of Hatfield Peverel, Essex (Sanders 1963, 120).

1134/5 – Foxgrove? This document must be from the change of King Henry I to Stephen when Henry's daughter Matilda was regent or empress for a short time having been named as heir by Henry but deposed in favour of Stephen. From a Latin document requiring more translation attributed to 1141. The Empress Matilda confirms the gift of land in Beckenham (Kent) from Picot empastorator. The mention of Claiherste has led us to associate it with what becomes Foxgrove Manor. Further supported by the mention of grazing land for oxen which is mentioned on the much later Foxgrove map of 1720/1766

Latin text: M(athildis) imperatrix H(enrici) regis filia et Anglorum domina baronibus justiciartio vicecomiti et ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis dc Kent salutem. Sciatis me concessisse ecclesie Christi Lund(onie) et canonicis deo ibidem servientibus in elemosinam in perpetuum, pro animabus patris et matris mee et pro salute anime mee, terrain quam Picotus empastorat(or} eis dedit in villa de Bekaham, et vii solidatas terre quas Picot(us) emit de hominibus ejusdem ville. et viii solidatas terre Aestmundi. et terram de Claiherste cum omnibus rebus, locis, consuetudinibus et libertatibus ad easdem terras pertinentibus liberas et quielas ab omnibus rebus excepto servitio dei. Preterea concedo eis pasturam decem bou{m) inter meos boves in plano et in bosco. et x porcos sine pathnagio, et super hoc prohibeo super forisfactum meum ne aliquis sit ausus hominibus vel rebus ad predictam ecclesiam pertinentibus aliquam injuriam vel contumeliam inferre, quia nolo quod ecclesia jus suum vel libertatem in aliquo tempore meo perdat. Testim(onio) Rodb(er)to com(ite) de Glo[ecestria] . . . cancel[l]ario.

Translations from online which although inaccurate give some idea of the gist. Archaic English Latin is said to be idiosyncratic;

Mathilda Empress Henry the king's daughter and the English lady barons sheriff and ministers and all the faithful of their French and English of Kent health. You may know me concessisse of the church of Christ in Lund(onie) and the canonical god there servers as alms in perpetuity, for the souls of the father and mother mee and for the health of the anime mee, terrain than Picotus empastorator them gave in the village of Bekaham, and seven shillings worth of land which Picotus purchased from men of the same town. and eight shillings worth of land Aestmundi. and the ground of Claiherste with all the things, places, customs and freedoms of those countries appurtenances free and quielas from all things except service to god. Moreover, I grant them food ten herds between my oxen in the plane and in the bosco. and ten pigs without pathnagio(pannage), and over this hindu over forisfactum my not someone is a daring men or things to the saying of the church from any injury or abuse to inflict, because I don't want that church to her right or freedom in any time of my loses. Testim(onio) Rodb(er)to com(go) of Gloucester. . . cancel[l]some scholars, based on

Mathilda Empress, Henry’s daughter, and the English barons Just/justiciar lady ordered the officials and all the faithful, French and English of Kent health/safety. Know that I have granted to the church of Christ (Christchurch), London and the canons of the god in the same place those who are serving in alms for ever, for the souls of my father and of my mother and for the salvation of the my soul, that the land of  Picotus empastorat (or} yield to them in the town of twenty years, and the seven shillings' worth of land, which picot (us) bought from among men of the same town. hundred and eight shillings' worth of land Aestmundi., and the earth out of Claiherste, with all the things, places, customs, and liberties to those lands, a matter that, free and quiet away from all these things, excepto the service of God. in addition, I grant them their pasture, ten? ou { iii) between the piano and my cows in the woods. and ten pigs without pathnagio (pannage); Testiment(signed) Robert of Gloucester, chamberlain.

...and from a descriptive catalogue of ancient deeds; A. 6688. Grant by M [atilda] the empress, daughter of King Henry, and lady of the English, to the canons of Christchurch, London, in frank almoin, for the souls of her father and mother, and for the welfare of her own soul, of the land which Picot Empastorator gave them in Bekaham, and land to the value of 7s. yearly which Picot bought from the men of that town, and Æstmund's land, to the value of 8s. yearly, and the land of Claiherste, together with pasture for ten oxen among the grantor's oxen, and ten hogs without pannage. Witness:—Robert, earl of Glo [ucester], the chancellor. [A.D. 1141.]

Aestmund has defied identification, Claiherste may include Foxgrove Manor at this time and the reference to ten oxen may refer to the land on the Foxgrove Manor map which states 'great beasts of Foxgrove' in 1720. A grant from the crown does endorse the fact that the land was under the direct ownership of the crown.

1135-1154 King Stephen (The Anarchy as the crown was disputed between Stephen and Henry's daughter Mathilda)

Undated but during Stephen's reign: London Holy Trinity Priory: Stephen King of England of all men, French and English of Becham (Beckenham) health. Know that I have granted, for the life of King Henry and other ancestors, the Holy Trinity London and canons in the country serving Claherst by paying five shillings per year. The land that was Estmund for eight shillings and six pence per year. so do not make any, that insult to injury or let it be. According to Hubert, the chamberlain. At Westminster.

From a latin document which read; 

Confirmation of the land at Clayhurst and Estmund‘s land

S(tephanus) rex Angltorum) omnibus hominibus suis Francis et Anglis de Becham salutem. Sciatis me concessisse. pro anima regis Henrici et aliorum antecessorum meorum, ecclesie Sancte Trinitatis London(ie) et canonicis in ea deo servientibus terram suam de
Claherst  per v solidos  reddendo (sic) inde per annum. Et terram que fuit Estmund per viii solidos et vi denarios reddendos per annum. Quare volo et precipio quod ipsi teneant eam bene et in pace, et libere et honorifice eam teneant (sic) in bosco et plano et pratis et pasturis et omnibus aliis rebus. ita ne ulla eis injuria vel contumelia fiat. Teste Huberto camerario. Apud Westmonasterium.

Source: Regesta Regum Anglo Normannorum 1066-1154

In the 12^th Century there are two grants made to Holy Trinity (Christchurch) Priory in London of lands in Beckenham (including Cleyherst) by Walter son of (Count?) Gilbert & David son of John son of Alexander of Orpington.

Another document from Stephen's reign: Stephen, king of England R. . . Malmains and man of Becham health. Know I have granted the canon of Holy Trinity London the ground of  Claiherst at XII pence per year. I want to advise that, in peace and honor office he holds, they may have no wrong done to them on that.Testement/signed Hubert Chamberlain. In Westminster

1154-1189 King Henry II (son of Mathilda the daughter of Henry I and grandson of Henry I)

1176 or 1160 – Penge; Westminster Abbey Charters; (But maybe 1160; year VI Henry the younger) 298. Grant by Abbot Walter to William son of Ernis, of land at Penge (Surr.), for thirty years. Chapter, Westminster 29 Sept. 1176.

Sciant omnes ad quos littere iste pervenerint quod ego Walterus, Dei gratia abbas Westmonasterii, et conventus eiusdem loci, communi assensu concessimus Willelmo filio Ernisii terram illam que est extra nemus nostrum de Pange, sicut aqueductus designat usque ad propriam terram prefati Willelmi, et a nemore archiepiscopi Cantuariensis usque ad parcum de Becham; tenendam de nobis pro xx solidis per annum, scilicet: x solidis ad Pascha et x ad Festum Sancti Michaelis, usque ad xxx annos. Post illum vero terminum, remanebit terra illa ecclesie nostre in eo statu in quo fuit die qua eam predictus Willelmus suscepit, nisi heres ipsius Willelmi obtinere possit apud abbatem et conventum ut deinceps teneat sicut antecessor tenuit. Si vero infra prefatum terminum decesserit sepedictus Willelmus, heres ipsius tenebit usque ad memoratum terminum. Hanc autem conventionem fideliter tenendam juravit idem Willelmus in capitulo nostro, tactis sacrosanctis evangeliis. Facta est autem hec conventio inter nos anno vi coronationis Regis Henrici iunioris, et martirii Beati Thome, ad Festum Sancti Michaelis. His testibus: Magistro Nicholao et Jordano, clericis abbatis; Gilleberto de Wandelesuurtha; Ricardo de Berching'; Radulfo camerario abbatis; Henrico de Winton; Henrico de Limeseia; Eudone filio Ernisii; Hugone Carbunel; Roberto de Martinivilla; Radulfo de Bruhill'; Ricardo Aguillun; Roberto clerico de Becham et Osberto fratre eius; Willelmo presbitero de Beccham et multis aliis.

MS: WAM LII.
10.5 × 9.3 cm. Seal missing. Endorsed: Penge (15C).
Note: No copy because the transaction would have been out of date before any cartulary was made.

(Source BHO)https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol25/pp144-159

Well, my Latin is non existent but I can make out Robert clerk of Beckenham, Richard Aguillon and William priest of Beckenham. Also this online translation gives the gist.

Know all to whom from one letter to another this have reached that I Walter, by the grace of God (Abbot of Westminster) abbas's archaeology, and the meeting of the same place, the common consent concessimus William fitz Ernisii country that is outside the forest (Pange), we sing, o, as the aqueduct designates(stream boundary) up to a proper ground aforementioned of William, and a tree of the archbishop of Canterbury down to the park about Becham (Beckenham); to hold of us for twenty shillings per year, namely: 10 at the staple at Easter and 10 at the Feast of St. Michael up to thirty years. After that the limit will remain the land of those of our church in a position where it was the day on which it aforesaid William received, unless the heir of of William to obtain a can with has and log in to the forward hold as the ancestor held. If, however, below aforementioned term has died (expired) sepedictus William, the heir of the hold up to had a limit. This agreement faithfully hold sworn the same William on the article and our, touching sacred gospels (sworn on the Bible). You made this meeting between us in the year vi (six) coronation of King Henry the younger, and martirii(martyr) of the Blessed Thomas, the Feast of Saint Michael. With these witnesses: Master Nicholao and Jordano, clergy, abbot; Gilleberto of Wandeleswrtha; Ricardo de Berching'; Ralph camerlengo abbot; Henry of Winton; Henry of Limeseia; Eudo the son Ernisii; Hugh Carbunel; Robert de Martinivilla; Ralph of Bruhill'; Ricardo Aguillun; Robert the clerk of Becham and Osberto brother of his; William priest of Beccham and many others.

At the dissolution of the monastaries in 1539 we may find that these lands passed into private hands, see 1544/45

1189- King Richard (the Lionheart) until 1199

1199 - King John until 1216

1204 - Land in Penge; 330. From the Calendar of Fines, Surrey; Final concord between Abbot Ralph, plaintiff, and William de Ginnes and his wife Matilda, defendants, concerning a carucate of land in Battersea (Surr.), and the wood and land of Penge (Surr.). Curia Regis, Westminster. Easter term 1204.

Latin text; Hec est finalis concordia facta in curia domini regis apud Westmonasterium a die Pasche in j mensem, anno regni Regis Johannis quinto, coram Gaufrido filio Petri, Ricardo de Her[iet'], Simone de Pat[es]hull, Eustachio de Faucunb[er]g, Johanne de Gestling, Osberto filio Hervei, Godefrido de Insula, Waltero de Creping', justiciariis, et aliis baronibus domini regis tunc ibi presentibus, inter Radulfum abbatem Westmonasterii, petentem, et Willelmum de Ginnes, et Matildem uxorem suam, tenentem, de una carucata terre cum pertinentiis in Batricheseya sicut aquaductus designat usque ad propriam terram predicti Willelmi, et a nemore archiepiscopi Cantuariensis usque ad parcum de Beke[n]ham. Unde placitum fuit inter eos in prefata curia, scilicet: quod predicti Willelmus et Matildis recognoverunt totam predictam terram cum pertinentiis esse ius ipsius abbatis et ecclesie Sancti Petri de Westmonasterio. Et pro hac recognitione et fine et concordia predictus abbas concessit predicto Willelmo et Matildi et heredibus ipsius Matildis totam predictam terram cum pertinentiis, tenendam de ipso abbate et successoribus suis inperpetuum per liberum servicium viginti solidorum per annum pro omni servicio, reddendo ad duos terminos anni, scilicet: ad Pascha decem solidos, et ad Festum Sancti Michaelis decem solidos. Et pro hac concessione predicti Willelmus et Matildis remiserunt et quietum clamaverunt predicto abbati et successoribus suis totum ius et clamium quod habuerunt in bosco et in terra de Pange de se et heredibus ipsius Matildis inperpetuum, ita quod predictus abbas et successores sui possint facere voluntatem suam de predicto bosco et terra sine contradictione predictorum Willelmi et Matildis et heredum ipsius Matildis: ita tamen quod predictus abbas concessit predicto Willelmo et Matildi et heredibus ipsius Matildis communam herbagii in bosco suo de Pange de omnibus propriis averiis de Bekenham, exceptis capris et alienis averiis, quamdiu boscum clausum non fuerit. Et preterea idem abbas concessit predictis Willelmo et Matildi et heredibus ipsius Matildis triginta porcos in predicto bosco quietos de pannagio et omnes alii porci et omnia averia de Bekenham removeantur de predicto bosco de Pange quamdiu pessio durat, scilicet: inter Festum Sancti Michaelis et Festum Sancti Martini. Et si forte contigerit quod predictus abbas vel successores sui predictum obscum de Pange clauserunt predicti Willelmus et Matildis et heredes ipsius Matildis habebunt in predicto bosco pasturam ad quadraginta animalia et ad centum oves et predictos triginta porcos quietos de pannagio. Et si forte contigerit quod idem abbas vel successores sui de predicto bosco essartare voluerint licet bene facere eis hoc sine contradictione predictorum Willelmi et Matildis vel heredum ipsius Matildis sed tamen remanebit de predicto bosco et herbagio non sartato quod idem Willelmus et Matildis et heredes ipsius Matildis habeant sustentacionem ad predictos triginta porcos et ad quadraginta animalia et ad centum oves. Et idem abbas cepit homagium ipsius Willelmi de predicta terra in eadem curia.

Translation: (not accurate but you get the gist and bear in mind that Matilda and Maud can be the same name or person. Some words have defied translation) This is the final agreement in the king's court at Westminster on Easter one month fifth year of King John, before Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Richard Her [descryed '], Simon of Pat [are] Hull, Eustace of Faucunb [e ] G, John Gesding, Osbert son Hervey Godfrey Island, Walter Creping, judges, and other barons of the king but was present, between Ralph abbot of Westminster candidate, and William of Ginnes and Maud his wife, holding; carucate of land with their belongings in Battersea aquaductus as he points to the native countries of William, the archbishop from the grove to the park de Beke [n] ham. Hence it was a plea between them in the aforesaid court, that is: William and Maude acknowledged that all the said land with their belongings and be right at the Abbot of St. Peter of Westminster. And for this acknowledgment and the end, and the concord of the aforesaid abbot was granted to the said William and Matilda, and the heirs of Matilda: the whole of the aforesaid land with its appurtenances, to be held from the abbot and his successors for ever, by his free service of twenty shillings by the year instead of all the service, which may be rendered, at the two ends of the of the year, namely Easter ten shillings, and the Feast of Saint Michael in ten pieces. so that the aforesaid abbot and his successors, that they may do the will of his own in the woodland, and the earth, without contradiction by the aforesaid William and Maud, and heirs of the same Maud, on condition, however, that the aforesaid abbot was granted to the said William and Matilda, and the heirs of Matilda: the common of herbage in his wood of Pange (Penge) of all the de Beckenham be driven with their own, with the exception of the goats, and other men's cattle, as long as the wood is shut up, did not happen (not enclosed?). And, furthermore, the same abbot granted to the aforesaid William and Matilda, and their heirs of him, Maud, and thirty pigs in the wood with all was quiet among the pannage of the, and all the other swine fed, and all the beasts of the de Beckenham be removed from the wood with de Pange, as long as pessio lasts, that is, between the feasts of Saint Michael, and the Feast of St Martin. And if you happen to do so, that the abbot or his successors, in the woodland essartare they wish, even though to do good, to them, this is without a contradiction of the aforesaid William, and Maud, the or the heirs of the same Maud, but, however, will remain in the woodland and also the herbage does not sartato what is the same, William, and Maud, and the heirs of Matilda: they have a maintenance at said thirty to forty pigs and animals and a hundred sheep. The Abbot received homage from William the land in the same court.

It seems that this is disputed though: Otuel (Othewel) de l'Isle notifies the king's justices, who are probably on eyre in Kent, that the prior and canons of Holy Trinity Aldgate, London hold half a knight's fee in Beckenham from him and that it is against his will and unjustly that Alexander de Orpington (Orpenton), the latter's son John and Osbert Huitdeniers (Uitdeniers or Eightpence) entered that land; Otuel excuses himself and sends his son Otuel to bear witness.

From a Calendar of Ancient Deeds: To the justices of the lord king, Otuel de l'Isle, (Othewel de Insula) greeting. Know that the prior and canons of Holy Trinity, London, hold some land in Beckenham from me in fee and heredity by the service of half a knight, as they held from my father and from my brother William and as our charters testify. And therefore I want you to know that neither Alexander de Orpington nor his son John or Osbert Huitdeniers have entered that land through me, but against me and without my consent and unjustly and against all reason, and therefore I send my son Otuel to bear witness of this and I myself would have come to this day if I had not been retained by old age and serious illness. If, however, it should be necessary in some place and at some time, I shall come and stand with the prior and the canons and do what I have to as the lord of the land which they hold from me, as mentioned before. Farewell.

Osbert Huitdeniers is thought to have been both sheriff of London and justiciar at different times. He was a relative of Thomas a Becket and employed him as a clerk on leaving school about 1140. He was responsible for negotiations with Empress Matilda as representative for the Angevins. He held land by Robert Earl of Gloucester (one of many illegitimate sons of Henry I) who may have been responsible for dealing with lands confiscated from Odo

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/london-record-soc/vol25/pp175-185

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nuYYo5XSlrMC&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=huitdeniers&source=bl&ots=Imxwb6qHvf&

sig=ACfU3U3XAlQAMjlYmun9qPo0NEDhaK4kQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSn9-x1MTmAhVPTsAKHbHVCTMQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=huitdeniers&f=false

ENGLISH LAWSUITS FROM WILLIAM I TO RICHARD I. VOLUME II: HENRY II AND RICHARD I (NOS 347-665) (No 580)

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/ancient-deeds/vol3/pp238-251 National Archives E 40/5937

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bkGpFhiPtIEC&pg=PA212&lpg=PA212&dq=osbert+huitdeniers&source=bl&ots=OqofJ1ndOv&

sig=ACfU3U37skWqTarv6rlGLf6ALWJKa7AtRg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQjLPY2sTmAhVChlwKHT-IATkQ6AEwC3oECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=osbert%20huitdeniers&f=false

1215 - Magna Carta

1216 - King Henry III until 1272

1227 -  Of the following we have not been able to identify Picotus Empascorat, perhaps Empascorat is a redundant position but no latin translation has been found Picot may be a variation for Pyknot which is a name occurring in records and  of course the original document may have been mistranscribed? The names of Brambeleg and Wigewikam tempt one to associate Bromley and West Wickham but the original latin presents several problems.

Inspeximus and confirmation by Henry III of 998 (below) mentioning specifically that Holy Trinity is free from subjection to the church of Waltham and confirming especially the gift of Algate with the soke and £25 blanch from the city of Exeter payable at the exchequer by the sheriff of Devon, their land at Leyton and the custody of the hospital next the Tower [f. 180v] and their lands in Bracking granted by King Stephen and Queen Matilda and other lands of the honour of Boulogne (Bolon(ie)), namely the land of Berkeden(e) of the gift of Richard de Anesteye and the land of Corneye and the church of Lefstanechirch of the gift of Hugh Triket and the chapel of Alsiswyk of the gift of Richard son of William; confirmation of their lands and rents in Bekeham and Clayherst of the gift of Picotus Empascorat with the liberties there granted by the Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I; confirmation of the following gifts; of Roger son of Brian and Matilda his wife, 2 carrucates of land in Hoddenho and Trockyng; of Robert de Gatton, his land in Hamstede as Gilbert de Bradele held it of him at fee-farm; of Hubert the queen's chamberlain 4 librates in the manor of Brackyng; of Richard Wallensis 81½ acres of land and 4 acres of meadow in Brackyng with the services of Augustine the son of Wlwardus, Edith the widow and Richard Cruyland; of Ralph Hareng 25½ acres of land in the field of Heston and the meadow belonging to this tenement and the service which Robert the Smith (faber) of Heston was accustomed to pay annually; of William Blemund all his wood with the heath (bruera) as are enclosed by trenches (fossatis) in the parish of St. Pancras in Kentissetune next the plot (partum) of the bishop of London on the south and of William Uggel and his heirs and their services; of Ralph Triket a croft called Hogue or Hocus and a small piece (morcellum) of land next his barn (horreum) in Brambeleg and Nortmado 'et Spareweham et wildam et Wigewikam' and land formerly of Eadmund and Hugh son of Baldwyn, Hugh's house (managium) with an adjacent field; of Richard son of Osbert a certain place in which a mill was situated in Brambeleg which mill was one of four mills next to that of the nuns of Stratford on the east; of Robert Burell 10s. rent in Brambeleg; of William de Pyrho 16s. rent from a mill called the Monks' Mill in Brambeleg; of Ralph de Heyrun and William Thrisse and William de Berkyng 42 acres of land and 1 acre of meadow and an annual rent of 15s. 6d. and ½ lb. of pepper in Edelmeton; of William, earl of Essex and earl Geoffrey his father his land of Selegeford and 1½ hides in Brambeleg; of Richard de Lucy 20s. rent in Newton and all the land which Godfrey Beifuin his servant (serviens) held a day and a night (una die et una notte) in the manor of Leesnes; of Henry de Furnell and Theobald de Brackyng the mill of Brackyng; of Henry de Corneya land and meadow and a rent of 37d. which he had in Corneya and Widihale; of [f. 181] Peter de Bendeng 10s. of quit rent from land in Bilesherse; of Hubery de Anestie and Denise his wife 9s. of quit rent from the mill of Kaldecote; of Nicholas de Catesber[y] and Katherine his wife 11 acres in Catesbiry; of Thomas de Bordesdon 9 acres of land in Bordesden; of Hugh de Marines 17 acres 1 rood of land and the service of Stephen le Wayte and his heirs in Westmel(n)e; of Richard son of Robert 1¼ virgates of land with pasture in Westmelne and the service of Geoffrey his brother from half the land of the donor's father; of Henry de Scalar(us) and Joan his daughter 9½ acres of land in Widihal; by the permission and confirmation of Earl William de Mandavill forty cartloads of brushwood from the wood of Enefeld; of Walter de Mandevill the church of Brumfeld with its lands and all tithes; and of the same Walter the church of Nuteleg and its lands and all tithes; witnesses, E[ustace] bishop of London, J[ocelin] bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, R[ichard] bishop of Salisbury, Hubert de Burgh justiciar, Ranulf earl of Chester and Lincoln, William de Eynesford, Richard de Argent(an) the king's steward, Stephen [f. 181 v] de Beg(ne), Henry de Capella and others, given under the hand of R[alph] bishop of Chichester, chancellor, at Westminster 8 Feb. 1227.

Margin: Carta iiij^a.

C.Ch.R., i, 3; Monasticon, vi, 153–4.

998. [1121–2] Notification by Henry I that the canons of Holy Trinity shall be free from subjection to other churches; that the canons may close the road between their church and the wall of the City; the king grants them £25 p.a. blanch from the farm of Exeter in free alms, also Alegate with the soke; grant of the English Cnithenegild with all lands and liberties both within the City and without; the canons and their men to hold with all liberties and free customs with sac and soc and toll and team and infaganethief, quit of all gelds, scots, wites, assizes, sheriffs' aids, suits of shires and hundreds [f. 179v] and leets and hustings and of pleas and plaints; hidages and tallages, military service and riding service (de excercitibus et equitacionibus), journeys (de oneribus expedicionum), keeping watch, work on castles, parks, bridges, stews, walls, enclosures, toll on carts, obligation to provide carrying service (summagio) and shipping service, the building of royal residences and of all secular service and exactions, all toll in any market or fair and of all tolls on journeys by road, bridge or sea throughout the kingdom; and the canons' men shall plead only in the canons' court and they shall not be impleaded for any tenement except before the king or his chief justice (capituli justiciario meo); the canons and their men are in the king's special protection; witnesses, Ranulf the chancellor, G. de Clinton, Ralph Basset, at Northampton.

1227 - Birth of Henry Malmaines; eventually landlord of Langley; A family tree extract;

Henry FitzAilwin m Margaret

  dd. 1212

|     Alan FitzHenry m Orabilis de Mayhamme

|     |     Henry Malmains (changed from FitzHenry)

|     |       bd. 1227

|     |       dd. 1262

|     Peter FitzHenry

|     |     Joan FitzHenry m William Aguillon

|     |     |     Robert Aguillon

|     |     Margaret FitzHenry (aka Cheyney)m Ralph de Clere

|     Thomas FitzHenry

|     Richard FitzHenry

1244 – Foxgrove or Kent House; Having made some connection between Aguillon and Bardolf to Foxgrove this grant of land may relate but Len Hevey attributes to Kent House;  

"l Robert Aguillon son of William Aguillon have given granted and devised by this my present deed confirm to the friars and sisters of the Hospital of St. Katherine by the Tower of London all that land with everything appertaining thereto which I had the power to grant from the said William Aguillon my father and his wife Joan in the village of Bekaham [Beckenham]. l give everything to the same which l had or had the power to have in men and men’s services in rents and in lands and in houses in wood and in plain in fields and pastures in roads and boundaries, in hedges and ...... .. in pools and fishponds etc. and everything thereto without diminution. The friars and sisters of the said hospital rendering to me and my heirs or assigns annually for all service exactions etc. belonging to me or my heirs one half of the appropriate livery over the said land at Michaelmas without any impediment except Lords Capital services, that is to say eleven shillings sterling quarterly. I, Robert and my heirs will warrant the said land with all thereto pertaining to the said fiiars and sisters of the said hospital against all men and women forever and will acquit against the heirs of the said William Aguillon of all services and exactions etc. for the said services i.e., half the appropriate livery as above written. And it is to be noted that if the said Robert or his heirs cannot warrant the said land to the friars and sisters of the said hospital, then he shall be obliged to make an exchange of other of his lands in England to the value of the said land. For this grant concession mid demise and warranty acquittance and confirmation of the present deed the said friars and sisters have given the said Robert 16 marks of silver."

 
1250 - Beckenham Manor Park, (The lands around the manor, not Beckenham Place Park which occupies the land of Foxgrove Manor) was medieval and already established by the 1250s when mentioned in the land grant (in the British Library) by Sir Richard de la Rochelle to the Hospital of St Katherine next the Tower of London. In this grant the land included Beckenham Park, heriots and reliefs in the village of Beckenham, and the course of Hawk's brooks 'running from my park of Beckenham towards the land of the friars and sister of St Katherine with Hawk's brooks running from it.'.

The Landscape Legacy of Deer Parks in Kent & Bromley – Susan Pitman
Susan's book identifies several places which formed deer parks including Langley nearby. The later 1623 map showing fields or areas called Spring Park, Alder Park, Park Close and Rounds Park imply fenced areas (emparked) and some parts were more wooded such as Stumpshill wood. The Hawks brooks is the ancient or original name for the Beck River but some questions arise as to whether 'running from' means downstream in the direction of Lewisham. The northern boundary of the park formed the Parish boundary until this day.

1254 - Henry III granted free warren in his lands in Kent, Wiltshire & Essex and weekly markets & annual fairs at Wokenden (South Ockendon) and Market Lavington to Richard de la Rokele at the behest of Sir John Fitz Geoffrey Justiciar of Ireland and uncle of Richard.
After the battle of Evesham the Earl of Gloucester took the Manor of Beghenham value £40 but restored it to him in 1265.

From Magna Carta Ancestry by Douglas Richardson 2^nd Ed. 2011: In 1254 at his instance (Sir John Fitz Geoffrey), the king gave a charter to his nephew, Richard de la Rokele, for free warren in Richards demesne lands in the counties of Kent, Wiltshire and Essex and Market Lavington Wiltshire.

Fitz Geoffrey was justiciar for Ireland, a position which the Rokeles acquired later.

1257 – A reference to Amfrey de Beckenham rector of the church of Hodleg

1260 - Richard de la Rokele, his position as justiciary of Ireland would determine he is an absentee landlord.
Oct. 28. Tower of London.
Protection with clause, for two years, for Richard de Rupella justiciary of Ireland.

 1262 - Richard de la Rokele; South Wokenden, Essex; Grant of Free Warren? Though this relates to Rokele's estates in Essex it has been taken to imply Rokele had free warren on all his lands probably due to his status from his office in Ireland. And a lease to St.Denis for life as Rokele was justiciary in Ireland and absent from his lands in England. The internet translation has to work around the intricacies of old Latin as written by English/French scribes.  Therefore we have to perform another translation to decypher the gist of the meaning ie freedom to hunt in the forest which without the kings permission was forbidden.

Cum Ricardus de la Rokel' nuper dimiserit et concesserit Ricardo de Sancto Dionisio manerium de Wokindon', quod est infra metas foreste regis Essex', habendum et tenendum tota vita ipsius Ricardi de Sancto Dionisio cum omnibus libertatibus ad manerium illud pertinentibus, ac nos per nostras literas patentes dudum concesserimus prefato Ricardo de la Rokel' quod per totam forestam nostram predictam fugare possit leporem, vulpem, tessonem et catum et eos libere capere et asportare quo voluerit sine impedimento nostri vel ballivorum nostrorum foreste predicte ut dicitur, volentes prefato Ricardo de Sancto Dionisio graciam facere specialem vobis mandamus quod quamdiu idem Ricardus de Sancto Dionisio teneat manerium predictum ipsum libertatem predictam per totam forestam predictam Essex' secundum quod in predictis literis nostris patentibus continetur habere et ea uti permittatis sine impedimento vestri vel ballivorum nostrorum foreste predicte sicut predictum est, ac si idem Ricardus de la Rokel' manerium illud in manu sua teneret. Teste rege apud Westmonasterium iiij. die Maii.(BHO)

Translation from the internet; When Richard de la Rokel 'had lately been put away (gone to Ireland?) and he has granted to Richard de St Denis along the manor of Wokindon', which is done within the bounds of the forest of the king of Essex, we have to have and to hold for all the life of him, Richard of Saint-Denis along with all the liberties pertaining to the manor belonging to it, even as we do by means of our letters patent been granted to Richard de la Rokel 'that all our forest aforementioned drive can charm the fox tessons the market and of freely capture and carry away the wish without hindrance by us or any of our said forest is said to want to Richard of St Denis thanks to a special command that so long as the same Richard de St Denis hold the manor itself freedom above all through the forest of Essex to that obtained in our letters patent is included, and that permit without interference from you or any of our said forest as previously indicated and , if the said Richard de la Rokel 'manor in his own time. Witness the King at Westminster four. May.

1265 – The Battle of Evesham: The battle of 1265 was about the power of the king and the way he exercised it. This issue had troubled England throughout the 13th century. It had been taken for granted that government was the business of the king, helped by various officials. It was also accepted that he should rule justly and with the support of his barons. However, there was no clear idea what should be done if he mis-used his authority. See 1266 Beckenham Manor taken by the Earl of Gloucester and restored to Rokele

1266 – Beckenham Manor; Len Hevey quotes from a Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous which we revisited and found William le Hanet should read William le Hauek as per the 1334 Lay Subsidy Roll and perhaps relating to the Hawks Brook which is an ancient name for the Beck River.

“No one in the Hundred was a rebel. Ralph de Brumlee (piscator) fisher, holds in the parish of Brumlee 12 and a half acres worth 3s a year. Richard de Wikcumbe (Wickham) of London had in the Hundred 18 acres worth 3s. The Earl of Gloucester took the Manor of Beckenham after the Battle of Evesham and kept it until the Saturday after Michaelmas and then restored it to Richard de la Rokele whose it was before. It is worth 40 pounds per year. The Michaelmas rent £4.5s.5p halfpenny was taken by Ralph Stumbleshulle the said Richard’s reeve. Collectors on the king’s behalf were William le Hauek and Ralph de Langele.” 

As I have speculated elsewhere, Stumbleshulle looks similar to Stomeshulle (Stumps Hill?) and the description of him as “reeve” to Richard de la Rokele. A reeve is variously described as an estate manager or overseer of peasants. Langele is also recorded in the Lay Subsidy Roll.

1267 - Beckenham Manor; Confirmation of a lease for life by Richard de Rupella (Rokele) to Henry le Waleys, citizen of London, of the manor of Bekeham, except the advowson of the church of that manor. Sept. 25. Shrewsbury. (BHO; Patent Rolls Henry III)

Waleys, also referred to as WALEIS, WALLEIS, or GALEYS died in 1302.

Taken by some to be a purchase but Beckenham Manor later passes from Rokele/Rupella to the Brun/Bruyns

Henry le Waleys held Beckenham Manor 1267. This appears to be on a lease as Henry le Waleys acquired Beckenham Manor from Richard de Rupella(de la Rokele). In fact Richard, who died about 1276, was succeeded by his son Philip whose daughter Maud/Matilda took the manor with South Ockenden, Essex in marriage to Sir Maurice Bruyn. According to Hasted and Philipot they state that Isolda a daughter of the Rokeles being a maid of honour of Queen Eleanor was married to William Bruyn/Brune but this has been disproven. See 1295 Inquisition Post Mortem Richard de la Rokele.

Therefore the manor must have been leased to Henry le Waleys.  Waleys rose to be Sherrif of London in 1270 and Lord Mayor of London in 1273, 1281 and 1298 and granted some income from Beckenham to a religous order of nuns. le Waleys name is derived from the fact he is believed to have migrated from Wales. 

[1] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hmfZlJ4hi-0C&pg=PA334&lpg=PA334&dq=waleys+beckenham&source=bl&ots=p5WlZZSa2q&sig=ACfU3U3nUtMVJ_9r8K6S0Ht1zQqWlfQhZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjapuupuNrmAhVPQhUIHfC1At4Q6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=waleys%20beckenham&f=false

[2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1540-6563.2008.00217.x

[3] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/inquis-post-mortem/vol2/pp133-141
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_le_Walleis

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Waleys,_Henry_le

1272 - King Edward I until 1307

1272 - Grantor: Peter de Stokes, Rector of the church of Beckenham. Grantee: Henry le Waleys, citizen of London. PLACE OR SUBJECT: Grant of land, etc., in the parish of St. Mary Woolnoth. COUNTY: London. (TNA)

This only evidences the name of the Rector of Beckenham and that he held land in the Parish of St. Mary Woolnoth in the city of London, possibly by permission of a higher ‘Beckenham landlord’? There are other references to land in Beckenham being connected to other land in the city via grants and leases.

1274/5? - Kent Hundred Rolls: Beckenham and Foxgrove; translation of a Latin document in the National Archive taken from http://www.kentarchaeology.ac/khrp/hrproject.pdf

Edward I returned from crusade in 1274 to a kingdom where the crown had been weakened by civil war during the baronial reform period of 1258-65, and where there was extensive local government corruption. According to the heading of the Kent Hundred Rolls, inquiry was to be made into the king’s rights which had been usurped by lay and ecclesiastical lords, and into the excessive demands of sheriffs, escheators and coroners, and also of bailiffs and other officials, whether royal or seigniorial. Many of the encroachments on royal rights, often dating from c.1258-65, were the result of the expansion of royal government and justice in the thirteenth century. As new royal procedures developed, lay and ecclesiastical lords did their best to take them over for their own use, in order to strengthen their hold over their tenants. Henry III had ordered an inquiry into franchises in 1255, and Edward I throughout his reign was intent on building up the rights and powers of the Crown. He and his lawyers considered that all judicial rights belonged to the Crown, and any private liberty or franchise had to be backed up by royal warrant. He was, moreover, a reformer of law and justice, and realised that discontent among his subjects might lead to protest and rebellion. On the other hand, justice and good government would increase his prestige and his revenues.

The transcribed entry from the Roll is as follows “Bromley Hundred - The jury say that Beckenham manor was at one time in the lord king’s hand and now Sir Richard de Rupella holds it of the lord king in chief by the service of one knight and they do not know by what warrant. They also say that half the hundred of Bromley is in the lord king’s hand and it is worth 6s. each year and the other moiety of the same hundred are in the bishop of Rochester’s hand but they do not know what it is worth each year. Then they say that a certain land called Foxgrove [Beckenham par.] in the vill of Beckenham is of the lord king’s fee and now John Malemains holds that of Sir Robert Agillon (Aguillon) by the service of a fourth part of one knight’s fee, but from what time or how it was alienated they do not know. Then they say that half the hundred of Bromley was withdrawn by the bishop of Rochester who holds the half hundred for 10 years and it is worth 10s. each year, with loss of 20s. each year to the king. Then they say that the archbishop of Canterbury has the assize of bread and ale and other liberties, as has often been said before but they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Rochester and Sir Richard de Rupella have chace and warrens in their demesnes from ancient times but they do not know by what warrant. Then they say that Adam de Walais, then the bailiff, took 18d. from Ralph de Langel for removing the same man from one assize. money from them for remitting the same summons. Then they say that Hamo de la Forstall gave a certain sum of money more than the ancient farm of this lathe, to Sir Henry Malemains, the sheriff, and because of this he greatly oppressed the people and country unjustly and Alexander de Cateford and Richard de Halifield, who were bailiffs after the said Hamo, acted in the same way and they say that the said Richard took 10s. from Henry de Ponte falsely accusing him of robbery, for a similar reason he took 10s. from Walkelin de Ponte, 2s. from Adam Fidel and 3s. from Richard de la Denne. Then they say that Master Richard de Clifford, the escheator, took possession of Beckenham manor for the lord king by declaring that Richard de Rupella was dead (5 Edward I) and afterwards he took 1 tun of wine, price 1 mark, from Henry le Walais (Waleys) who held the same manor at farm, before he was able to hold and have the term of his farm. Then they say that the same Master Richard, the escheator, caused the greatest destruction in the archbishopric of Canterbury at the time of its vacancy, but they do not know how much. Then [he took] 6d. from Walkelin de Ponte for a similar reason, 4d. from Henry de Ponte for a similar reason and for a similar reason the same Adam took money, corn and timber beyond measure from many men of Bromley hundred. Then the same Adam falsely summoned the men of this hundred at Guildford and afterwards took much.

Jurors for the Hundred of Bromley: Hundred of Bromley John of Foxgrove, John Wymer, Gilbert of Raunesden, Ralph de Perre, Lambert Russel, Ivo de Reyerse.”

(Kent Arch. Soc.)

Of the names mentioned here we have record of Rupella/Rokele in several references. de Langel is mentioned in a later Lay Subsidy Roll, Malmains is in other references as is Walais/Waleys. Of the jurors John of Foxgrove may have been written 'de Foxgrove' or 'de Foxegrave' in the Latin text but not necessarily the family from whom the manor derived its name, rather the other way round? This is among the insights we can get from contemporary documents and accounts. Escheators are officers who take care of the Crown's interests. The escheator was responsible for reclaiming property for the crown where a legal heir did not exist. Richard de Rupella (Rokele) did not die until 1276 and had a legal heir in his son Philip.  Absences may have been due to wars and crusades or foreign duties as the Rokeles held posts as Judiciar in Ireland for the king. And there was an heir in Philip de la Rokele. The actions of Richard de Clifford seemingly gave rise to characterisations such as the Sherrif of Nottingham in Robin Hood. Len Hevey has linked Robert Aguillon to Hugh Bardolf through family intermarriage (see 1324) Robert’s daughter Isabella marrying Bardolf.

However, the jurors declare that Beckenham Manor belongs to Sir Richard de Rupella(Rokele) but is farmed by Henry le Walais and that John Malmaines holds Foxgrove of Sir Robert Aguillon. At about this time Henry le Walais/Waleys is Mayor of London, it is reasonable that he would lease the manor from the Rokeles who as we say are mostly absentee landlords. Len Hevey concluded that Aguillon acquired Foxgrove by marriage to Joan Parmenter who was granddaughter to Henry Fitzailwyn, first mayor of London,  who had acquired it from William de Insula but certain missing documents make this a bit of a mystery.

1276 – Beckenham Manor; Richard de Rokeley (de la Rokele) died seised of this Mannor of Beckenham, in the fifth year of Edward the first (1276)The original Etymologie of Rokeley extracted

from Rochel in France.  (Philipot).

Although similar to Ruxley there is apparently no connection as Ruxley is derived from the family of Rokesle but there are instances of confusion between the two names. Philipot derived his source from the following Calendar of Post Mortem Inquisitions

Post Mortem Inquisition; Richard de la Rokele. Writ to Ralph de Sandwyco the king's steward, 8 April, 5 Edw. I. Kent. Inq. 14 April, 5 Edw. I.(1276)
Becghenham. The manor, held of the king in for 1 knight's fee.
He died on the morrow of St. Nicholas in the said year. Philip his firstborn son, aged 30 and more, is his heir.
Writ to Richard de Holebroc, the king's steward, 8 April, 5 Edw. 1.
Essex. Inq. (undated.)
Crustwick. The manor, held of the king in chief by service of 12d. yearly.
Wokindon Rokele. The manor, held of the earl of Hereford for 1 knight's fee.
Heir as above. (Philip)
(BHO)

The Rokeles were mostly absentee landlords and were either in Ireland or Essex or perhaps on crusade with King Edward, see the 1274 Kent Roll account.

1277 - Fine Rolls, Edward I; May 7th at Westminster; Order to Richard de Holebrok, the king’s steward, to deliver to  Philip de la Rokele, son and heir of Richard de la Rokele, tenant in chief, the lands late of his said father, he having done homage

1277 - Fine Rolls, Edward I; July 18th Chester; Philip de la Rokele, 40 marks, one knight’s fee (paid to the crown, 1 mark = 13/8d x 40 = £26.66p)

1280 – Penge/Battersea; Inspeximus by Edward I of a charter granted by his father Henry III on 1 July 1235 to Westminster Abbey, confirming previous grants of lands (unspecified) and privileges. It appears that this relates to the Abbey's tenure of the manor of Battersea, [26 Nov 9 Ed. I [1280]] including Penge. See A. Giraud Browning and R.E.G. Kirk The Early History of Battersea p. 39 Inspeximus (literally 'We have seen') is a word sometimes used in letters-patent, reciting a grant, inspeximus such former grant, and so reciting it verbatim; it then grants such further privileges as are thought convenient. The term letters patent in its most general form refers to a letter delivered open with the royal seal attached, designed to be read as a proclamation. The following details come from 'Calendar of the Charter Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office Vol II. Henry III - Edward I 1257-1300. 1906 P 238. "This is a confirmation of a charter, dated at Westminster, 10 November, 50 Henry III, being a renewal of a previous charter [dated at Woodstock, July 1, 19 Henry III. (1235)] made because the abbot and convent of Westminster during the late disturbances in the realm were constrained by the citizens of London by a charter sealed with the seal of their chapter to renounce in favour of the said citizens all the liberties granted by the king in Middlesex; witnesses, Gilbert de Clare, earl of Gloucester and Hereford, John de Warenna, earl of Surrey, Hugh le Bygod, Philip Basset, Roger de Mortuo Mari. Robert Walerand, Robert Aguillon, William Belet, Walter de Burges. "The terms are recited in the third line of the enrolled charter from the previous charter. That charter comes from the 'Calendar of the Charter Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office Vol I. Henry III 1226 - 1257. 1903 Pp 208-209.' An excerpt from the charter is as follows:

'Grant to the church of St Peter, Westminster, (Westminster Abbey) and the glorious King Edward, the king's spiritual patron, and to Richard, abbot of Westminster, and the monks there, of all lands, men, alms, things, rents, possessions, and cells made or to be made to them, or in any way acquired or to be acquired; and the said church and abbot and monks and cells shall hold all their churches, men and possessions with all liberties, free customs and quittances in wood and plain, in meadows and pastures, wates and mills, ways and paths, stanks and stwes, marshes and fisheries, granges and thickets (virgultis), in borough and without, and elsewhere, in feast-tide (festo) and without, with soc and sac, thol and theam, infangenthef, utfangenthef, wsgeldthef, hamsocn, grithbrig, blodwite, infang and forfang, fythwite and flythwite and ferdwite and angwite and leirwite and larceny, and fine for murder or larceny, and forstal, within time (tempus) and without, with all causes that are or can be; and the said church, abbot and monks, and cells shall be quit of all amercements, all scot, and geld, and aids of kings, sheriffs, and their ministers, of amercement and fine of the county, of hidage, carucage, danegeld, horngeld, wapentake, tallage, lestage, stallage, schewing, miskenning, mundbrig, burghbrig, shires and hundreds, swainmotes, pleas and plaints, assizes, views and summonses, carriage of treasure (thesauro ducendo), wards, ward-penny, aver-penny, hundred-penny, borthal-peny, tithing-penny, works of castles, parks, walls, stews, and bridges, closures, murages, carriage of treasure (opum careyo), sumpter-service, ship-service (navigo), building of royal houses, and all kinds of works; nor shall their woods be taken for these or other works; nor shall their corn or that of their men or anything else be taken for the provisioning of castles; and they shall freely and without cheminage or other interruption take of all their woods for their own use nor therefor be amerced for waste; and all their lands and purprestures already made, and all their essarts and those of their men, who are not earls or barons, both those already made and those to be made in the future with the king's licence, shall be quit of waste, regard and view of foresters and and of all things pertaining to the forest; and they and their men shall be quit of the expeditation of their dogs; and shall also be quit of every toll in every market (foro) and in all fairs (nundinis), and in all passage of bridges, waters, ways and of the sea through all the realm, and wherever the king can grant these liberties; and all their merchandise and that of their men shall likewise be free in such places; and the said abbot and monks shall have view of frank-pledge, and in all their lands and holdings plea of wither-nam and fines for licence to agree; and if any of their men, who is not an earl or baron, for any crime ought to lose life or limb, or shall have become a fugitive and refuse to abide judgement, or shall have committed any other crime for which he ought to lose his chattels, whether the justice is in the king's court or elsewhere, the chattels shall go to the abbot and monks, who shall take seisin of such chattels in such cases without impediment from the king's sheriffs and baliffs, and in other cases where the king's baliffs could have seized chattels into the king's hands; moreover all animals called 'weyf' found in their fee shall belong to them, unless any one have followed the said animals and can prove they are his, and unless the said animals have been followed and demanded within a proper time according to the custom of the country; and if any of the tenants of the said abbott and monks or of their cells shall forfeit his tenement, they may put themselves in seisin of the said fee and possess the said fee with its appurtenances, notwithstanding the customary year and day's possession of the lands of felons and fugitives due to the king; and if any of their tenants or men, saving earls and barons, be amerced before the king, his justices, sheriffs, constables, foresters, their baliffs, or other ministers of the king for any cause, crime or forefeiture the abbott and monks shall have all the amercements (mercias et amercismenta) and fines for licence to agree and the distraints for them; and if such amercements and fines shall have been collected, they shall be repaid at the Exchequer by the view of the treasurer for the time being; nor shall any of these liberties be abrogagated by non-user; and no one shall trouble the said abbott and monks or their cells, or put them in plea of any tenement save before the king or his justices; and no one shall enter their fees or hold their lands save by the assent of the abbot for the time being; and all these liberties are granted in frank almoin, with all liberties, that the power of the king can grant to any religious house, for the soul of King John and the king's anscestors and successors; and no justiciar, sheriff, constable or forester shall meddle with the lands of men of the said abbot and convent against this charter, because the king has taken the said abbot and monks, their men and possessions into his protection.' (source;BHC)

This land belonging to the Abbott of St.Peter’s (Westminster Abbey) will be revisited in other entries by leases and the dissolution of the monastaries. The terms 'sac and soc' etc are the right to hold court and apply penalties including capital punishment in some cases. We can see the rights of the Abbey are far reaching. The inclusion in the transcript of some latin terms in brackets shows that the original document was written in latin.

1282 – This could be a house with some grounds or a smallholding. TNA Reference E 40/15755 Grant by Richard Forestar [Forester] to Ellice, daughter of Henry Martyn of Southwark, of the tenement which he had from Druco del Esthalle, his brother, in the parish of Beckenham. Kent. 11 Edw I Grant by Ellice Martyne to Hugh de Hertbayton of the lands, etc, which she held in inland(in hand?) in Beckenham, of the gift of Richard le Forester. [after 11 Edw I]

see 1288

 
1285/86 – Robert Aguillon (d’Aguillon) Post Mortem Inquisition. His heir is Hugh Bardolf. See 1274 where the Kent Roll describes Foxgrove as being held of Robert Aguillon by John Malemains. Foxgrove is not mentioned in this inquisition unless included in some other property. But as a transcription describes ‘fragments’ which could include errors and omissions we have to submit to the later evidence where Bartholomew Burghersh has Foxgrove ‘held of ‘ Thomas Bardolf, the  son and  heir of Hugh Bardolf and Isabel/Isabella. Please note also the land in Surrey which is Addington, Keston, Farley etc and other connections to Aguillon and Bardolf will relate.

1288 - Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds; Grant by William Peverel, mercer, of London, to Simon de Wychingham, mercer, of the same, of all the tenement in Bekenham, which he had of the demise of Richard de la Esthalle, paying certain rents to the prior and convent of the Holy Trinity, London, and to others (named). Witnesses:- Sir Ralph de Sandwyco, warden of London, William de Hereford, and Thomas de Stanes, sheriffs of the same, and others (named): [Kent?]. [16 Edward I.] Reference E 40/4891 (TNA/BHO?)

see 1282; Druco do Esthalle, same property?

1294 - Beckenham Manor; Post Mortem Inquisition; 258.PHILIP DE LA ROKELE. Writ, 5 Oct. 23 Edw. I.(1295) inq. 18 Oct. 23 Edw. I.
ESSEX. Wokyndon. A messuage &c., 400a. arable, 24a. meadow, 30a. pasture. 10a. heath, a windmill, 33s. 10d. rent of free tenants, 8l. 6s. 2d. rent of customers, and works, with geese, cocks and hens, held of Humphrey de Bonn earl of Hertford (sic) by service of 3 1/2 knights’ fees.
Maud his daughter, aged 10, is his next heir.
KENT.inq. Friday after St Luke, 23 Edw. I. Beghenham. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief by service of a knight’s fee.
Herst. 40a. arable held of the abbot of Westminster by service of 20s. yearly.
Heir as above, aged 9 1/2 years.C. Edw. I. File 71. (8.)

 Regretably the extent of Beckenham Manor though given in the document is not recorded in this transcription. The 40 acres of Herst were probably in Penge as  Westminster Abbey was the landlord at this time. The measures in acreages are probably estimates based on carucates or part thereof but without seeing the original document even if we could decypher it we must take the measurements on trust. A herst/hirst/hurst can be a wooded area, clearing in a wood or eminence.

Philipot stated that Richard de Rokeley(Rokele) was succeeded in the Possession of Beckenham Manor by Philip de la Rokeley, and he held it likewise at his Death, which happened in the 23rd year of Edw. the first,(1294) and left it to his Sole Daughter and Heir Isolda de la Rokeley matched to William Bruin, by whom She had Issue Sir Maurice Bruin, Chamberlaine to K. Edw.the third, honoured with the Summons to Parliament as Baron amongst the Peers of this Realm, also sheriff of Essex second year of Henry VI (Philipot)
But  evidence in the post mortem inquisition shows that Philipot is wrong about Isolda and it was Maud de la Rokeley, daughter of Philip, later married to Maurice Bruyn/Brune who carried Beckenham Manor and Wokyndon(Ockendon, Essex) to the Bruyn family. The confusion may lie in the fact that Maud was a minor and the father of her future husband, William Brun was married to Isolda but it doesn't fully answer the difference. Evidence shows that Maud, aged 9.1/2 here was married at about age 12 and may already have been a widow when marrying Maurice Bruyn. Betrothals and marriages were often performed on adolescents to ensure inheritance of property.
Philip is survived by his widow Joan who holds the land in dower during her daughter's minority or until married. Joan remarries to Richard Chiggewelle and the daughter Maud becomes his stepdaughter and ward until her marriage to Maurice le Bruyn.

The National Archive has reference to a Post Mortem Inquisition: Philip de la Rokeley, 23 Edward I (1294) Beghenham Kent the manor (extent given) held of the king in chief by service of a knight’s fee. Herst 40a of arable held of the Abbot of Westminster by service of 20s yearly. Heir Maud his daughter  aged 9 and a half. The transcription below from BHO is informative.

 National Archives – Kent Hundred Rolls 1274/5

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/en/download/Calendar_of_Inquisitions_Post_Mortem_and_Other_Analogous_Documents_v3_1000689559.pdf

 
1295 – The Manor of Wokyndon, now South Ockendon, is closely tied to the Manor of Beckenham through the Rokeles and subsequently the Bruns.

Nov. 8.Udimore. To the same. Order to deliver to Joan, late the wife of Philip de la Rokele, tenant in chief, 17l. 2s. 5d. yearly of land and rent in the manor of Wokyndon, co. Essex, which the king has assigned to her in dower.

1299 – Evidence of a complaint; Bardolf seems to be the target of several attacks against his property and whether William Brun (d.1301?) is the one who is the father of Maurice who holds Beckenham Manor at this time is of some interest?
May 1. Stamford.

Association of Lambert de Trikingham, in the room of William Haward, who is attendant on the king's business elsewhere, with Ralph de Shirle, in a commission of oyer and terminer, directed to the latter, touching a complaint by Hugh Bardolf that John Hanecok of Lamele, William Hanecok, Robert Oldwyn, Simon Ragaud, John Vigerus and Simon his brother, John le Tayllur, William Brun, Simon Bate, John son of Prisca, Hugh son of Matilda, John Bolting, Nicholas son of Ralph, Henry son of Walter de Lamele, Ralph Ragaud and Richard de Blakeburne broke the gates of his manor of Stok Bardolf, carried away his goods, and assaulted his men. (BHO)

1300 – Beckenham Manor, Kent; Proof of age of Maud, sometimes called Matilda Rokele. Married Maurice le Brun carrying Beckenham Manor and other property from the Rokele family to the Brun/Bruyn family.
Inquisition:  MAUD THE WIFE OF MAURICE LE BRUN, DAUGHTER AND HEIR OF PHILIP DE LA ROKELE.
Writ to the escheator to take the proof of age of the said Maud, 14 Oct. 28 Edw. I.

Proof of age of the said Maud, [made in the presence of Richard de] Chigewell to whom the king has committed the wardship of the lands &c., 16 June, 29 Edw. I (defective). Adam de Cheveninge, knight, aged 60, John de Scadbury, aged 40, Thomas de Ma……, William de Renhale, aged 50, Adam ate Forest, aged 50, Ralph Eylmer, Robert Ydany, aged 50, William Franseis, aged 40, Simon ate Grove, aged . ., John Jory, aged 40, Peter Billok, aged 50, and Richard Humfray, aged 60, say that the said Maud was four[teen] on the day of St. Denis last, but they have no evidence but by the relation of the country, for she was born in Ireland.

This Inquisition tells us the status of Maud (sometimes Matilda) as ward of Chigewell(Chyggewell) and implies her age at marriage to Maurice. Medieval marriages could take place from the age of puberty generally accepted to be 12 for girls and 14 for boys.  Maurice’s father Sir William died circa 1300 and Maurice’s birth date is only estimated so he may have been of similar age but he is described as aged 30 in 1307 so aged 23 in 1300? As this is the time of Sir William’s death the marriage may have solidified inheritance and increase in estates by joining the Bruyns Hampshire estate with the Rokele Kent and Essex estates. Also see 1307 for William’s wife Isolda/Iseult’s Inquisition Post Mortem for the estate at Rouenore, Hampshire. The local names here of Eylmer, Franseis and Humfray may indicate Maud resided locally. Scadbury and Chevening are also names associated with nearby locations.  In 1294 Maud was described as 9.1/2 or 10 years of age on the Inquisition of the death  of her father.

1301 - We have a slight conundrum here in that the Manor of Beckenham was held by the Rokeles but the Battle Abbey Roll by the Duchess of Cleveland differs. But as that Roll was written in 1889 we might assume it perpetuates some inaccuracies which originated in Philipot and repeated in Hasted. The descriptiojn of two daughters, Maud and Isolda is superceded by modern day interpretations describing Maud as the only daughter marrying Maurice Brun and Isolda as the wife of William Brun but of no known family name, described as of the house of the queen.

The Inquisition Post Mortem of 1294 seems to clarify the situation if accurately transcribed. I can only discount much of the information in the Battle Abbey Roll as being drawn from inaccurate sources.

 The Battle Abbey Roll publication states:

"Rokell : from Rochelle in the Cotentin. "In 1130 Humfrid de Rochella had lands in Dorset; in 1165 we find William de Rochelle in Essex (Rot. Pip. Lib. Niger). The former witnessed the charter of William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, founding Walden Abbey" (Mon. i. 460).—The Norman People. South-Okendon, or Wokyndon, in Essex, took its name of Rokele from its ancient owners. The above-mentioned William held it in the reign of Henry II. of Hugh de Eu, under Geoffrey de Mandeville: "in some deeds he is styled William de Eu. Probably he married a daughter of Hugh, and so came into this manor. The capital Seat was a stately one, not far from the Church, on the right hand side of the road leading to Warley and Burntwood."—Morants Essex. He was succeeded by Sir Richard de la Rokele, at whose death in 1222, the manor was confirmed to his son, to be held by knight's service of Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford. There were only two more heirs; the last, Philip, died in 1295, leaving two daughters and coheirs, Maud and Isolda. Maud was married to Lord Grey; and "Isolda brought Wokyndon Rokele in marriage to Sir William de Brune, of the Bed-Chamber to King Ed. I., who was so much in favour with that Prince, that he gave him the Manor of Beckingham in Kent: And his wife, Isolda, who was Lady of the Bed-Chamber to Queen Alianor, obtained also from her several lordships."—Ibid, The arms of Rokele were Lozengy, Gules; whereas the De la Rochelles of Normandy (according to Drouet-Darcq's Armorial de la France) in 1360 bore two bends Argent with seven escallops.

The name is found in several other counties. Grangevilles Rockells, in Norfolk, was granted in the thirteenth century by Sir Richard de Rokele (perhaps the same who was seated in Essex) to Reginald de Kareville, as the marriage portion of his daughter Alice.—Blomfield. Richard de la Rokele, joint Lord of Flitcham-cum-Appleton, Oulton, and Walton, was knight of the shire in 1311 and 1314; and Godfrey de la Rokele held at Colney, Tibbenham, and Aslacton, in the same county in 1316. Besides these, I find mentioned in Palgrave's Parliamentary Writs, Humphrey de la Rochelle, of Frilsham and Marsham, Berkshire; Robert de la Rokele of Astwood in Buckinghamshire, Martin de la Rokele, one of the Justices appointed in that county in 1309; and John de la Rokele, of Holland in Yorkshire, one of the "Fideles" of Ireland, who received a writ of military summons in 1322. Another Essex manor, Coggeshall Rokells, bore their name."

William Bruyn died in 1300/01 and the 1295 entry says Philip de la Rokele's daughter Maud was 9 at that time. The source material for the Battle Abbey Roll cannot be investigated but the post mortem inquisition record (see 1295) throws some doubt upon it ie. "Maud his daughter aged 9.1/2".

1302 - Manor of Beckenham (lease?): GRANTOR: Executors of Henry le Waleys, citizen of London. GRANTEE: Nuns Minoresses (Juliana, abbess). PLACE OR SUBJECT: Grant, indented, of a tenement called `Bekenham' in the city of London. COUNTY: London. (National Archive).

There is reference to Henry le Waleys acquiring Beckenham Manor with associated property in the City. Given that several Beckenham incumbents were Mayors or Aldermen of London this is very likely. Various transfers of property over the years may have added or separated parts of the Manor. As we believe the manor to have been leased and sub-leased on a regular basis then this grant looks like le Waleys donating rents to the Priory/Prioress.

Maud de la Rokele who was heiress to Beckenham Manor would be about 16 years of age. The possibility exists that the Rokeles or Bruyns leased to Henry le Waleys who then sub-leased. Bearing in mind that the Rokeles and Bruyns treated Essex estates as a primary base along with the properties in Hampshire with Beckenham being mainly an income generator from rents.

1303 - Langley?: John de Malmains said to have possessed Langley is sued for debt by inquisition. From a Latin document, source: National Archive. Whether a connection exists is speculative.
Debtor: John Malmaines {Malemeyns}, knight, of Kent [held parts of fees in Eastry Hundred, Kent], and William de Brenton {?Brampton] of Kent.
Creditor: Geoffrey de Conduit, citizen of London.
Amount: £30.
Before whom: John le Blund, Mayor of London; Henry de Leicester, Clerk.
First term: 22/07/1303
Last term: 22/07/1303
Writ to: Sheriff of Kent
Sent by: John le Blund, Mayor of London; Henry de Leicester, Clerk.

1304 – Foxgrove: Hugh Bardolf’s death; his wife Isabella surrenders some property to the crown but Foxgrove passes down to her son and heir, Thomas. Numerouse references relate to Bardolf’s properties all over the country which pass to Isabella and her heirs.

This image from a Calendar of Close Rolls Edward I for 1305 includes Addington, Surrey. We have not found an Inquisition Post Mortem for Hugh Bardolf who had been an absentee landlord spending time overseas on campaigns and holding divers lands under the crown he was high up on a chain of enfeoffments evidenced by Bartholomew Burghersh being enfeoffed to him. See 1324 Chyggewell and Thomas Bardolf etc.

1306 – Calendar of Charter Rolls

Another spelling or transcription variation for Beckhenham. Hasted recorded these rectors for the church and the footnote for Bush has yet another spelling variation for Beckenham. There are some grounds for doubting the accuracy as a John Martham was parson circa 1387 Richard II whom Hasted did not list. Also the implication that the demesne lands may have been more extensive than the later Glebe lands visible on map evidence.  The rector of Beckenham apparently often occupied the position as local lord of the manor it seems because the landlord was absentee ie. Robert de Marny leased to Martham. In this case although it is not clear which lands Busshe has as demesne, as king's clerk he is in possession of lands held by the Crown?

John Matham, in the reign of King Henry I. ?? error for Martham? To be compared with Borrowman’s record.
William de Knapton, anno 22d Edward I. (fn. 31)
John Bush, anno 35 king Edward I. 1306. (fn. 32)
John Martham 1387 King Richard II (not in Hasted)
William Danyell, alias Malham, obt. June 24, 1458. (fn. 33)
Henry Sherelocke, clerk, buried May 3, 1541.
Peter Racwiche, buried Dec. 16, 1545.
Nicholas Rokewood, 1551.
Robert Coozine, alias Cuyshen, 1552.
John Smith, buried Sept. 15, 1557.
Hugh Tayler, buried Oct. 16, 1560.
Hugh Calverley, buried July 4, 1576. (fn. 34) Peter Punter.
William Skinner, LL. D. 1628, obt. 1644. (fn. 35) Sequestered? Mentioned in
Thayers fine record see 1644.
John Storer, in 1650. Put in by Parliament
Roger Clisold, in 1659, obt. Aug. 15, 1676.
William Asheton, D. D. 1676, obt. Sept. 9, 1711. (fn. 37)
Holland, D. D. obt. Dec. 30, 1730.
Thomas Clerk, 1731.
William Fraigneau, A. M. 1765. (fn. 38)
William Rose, A. M. 1778, the present Rector. (fn. 39)

Borrowman lists rectors in his publication and surmises that early rectors or parsons would have employed vicars or priests to perform religious duties as they were likely to be landowners as was the case with John Martham who was ‘lord of the manor’ during his tenure.

1307 - King Edward II until 1327

Source; Calendar of  Inquisitions Post Mortem Edward II

BHO transcript; Rouenore. [The manor] (extent given) held of the king in chief by serjeanty of finding a man ad municionem for forty days in time of war, which serjeanty is rated at 40s. to be rendered at the king’s exchequer.
Migham. The manor (extent given), held of the king in chief as of the honour of Camel, now in the hands of Queen Margaret, by service of 1/2 knight’s fee.
Perle. The manor (extent given), held of John de Sancto Johnne by service of 1/4 knight’s fee.
Maurice le Brun, her son, aged 30, is her next heir.

This inquisition is perhaps the source of some confusion of the Manor of Beckenham coming to the Bruns which happened when Maurice her son married Maud Rokele circa 1300 (see inquisition). In this inquisition Isolda whose maiden name is unknown, as widow of William le Brun d.1301 holds the manor of Rouenore (in dower?) which passes down the Brun line with Beckenham and Wokendon from the next generation.

 
1308 - Penge/Kenthouse but connected to Joan Rokele, wife of Philip de la Rokele by her second marriage to Richard Chyggewell?:

Close Rolls; March 20.Westminster. John Tolomer came before the king, on Friday next after the feast of St. Benedict the Abbot last past, and sought to replevy to Robert de Chyggewelle his land in Batricheseye, taken into the king's hands for the said Robert's default before the justices of the Bench against Walter Fraunceys. This was signified to the said justices.

March 23.Westminster.The same John came before the king, on Friday next before the feast of the Annunciation, and sought to replevy(recover seized property) to himself the land of the said Robert in Batrichesseye and Beghhonham, which land was taken, etc.  (BHO)

 Robert Chyggewelle was the son of Richard Chiggewelle (Chikewelle?) who had married the widowed Joan de la Rokele, Joan dies in 1324 holding the land for life. As Joan’s daughter Maud/Matilda had married Maurice le Brun then the land reverted to Maurice. See 1324 post mortem Joan Chyggewelle.

 1308 - Repair of church at Beckenham. Trespass, cutting down of trees. William Bush parson of Beckenham v. John de Ponton, Richard de Langele sr, Ralph de Steineshull,(Stommeshulle?) William son of Richard de Langele sr, Walter le Lunge, Adam Wythel, William Fraunceys, John Anketyn, William de Berkhamstede, Robert de Langele, Henry Altherman, Richard Aylmere, Ralph Aylmere, Thomas Aylmere & Gilbert de Crokedenne. John de Ponton, Richard de Langele sr, and Ralph de Steineshull justify as wardens of the work of the church of Beckenham; because the interior of the church needed repair, they with the others as parishioners of the church and by the consent, license, and will of the parson cut the trees and took them to the church to repair the church. No verdict. [30]

http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/KB27no194/bKB27no194dorses/IMG_0430.htm

The transcript of the name Ralph Steineshull from the image at the above hyperlink could be wrong or a variation and it may be Ralph Stomeshull which we believe is the same as Stommeshulle which appears in the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1334 and we have speculated that it connects with the latter day placename of Stumpshill  also recorded as Stoms Hill by Rocque on his map. Robert Borrowman (1910) recorded this in relation to William Bush who was parson of St.George’s in 1310.

 
1312 – Sympson’s Place before it acquired that name as recorded by Horsburgh:

Post Mortem Inquisition; WILLIAM DE BLIBURGH. Writ, 12 March, 6 Edw. II. Inq. made at Bromlegh on Sunday, 18 March, 6 KENT.

Bromlygh. A messuage, 2a. garden, 1 1/2a. wood, 3a. 3r. meadow, 26a. arable, and 3a. alder-wood, held of the bishop of Rochester by service of rendering 5s. yearly and suit of court.
Hese. 4 1/2a. pasture held of the prior of Christ Church, Canterbury, by service of rendering 1 1/2d. yearly.
Beghenham. 2a. wood and 20a. arable, held of Maurice le Brun by service of rendering 5s. 4d. yearly.
Agnes de Blyburgh, aged 35, the wife of Richard de Donlee, and daughter of Amy (Amie) sister of the said William, is his next heir; the jury know not of any co-heirs.

SURREY.Inq. Saturday after Holy Trinity, 6 Edw. II. Rutherhuthe. A messuage with 2 gardens, and 15a. 1r. land, held of the prior of Bermondeseie by service of 8s. yearly.
Hacchesham. 5a. land held of Roger Bavent, service unknown.
(Unspecified.) 1/2 mark rent of assize received yearly from John de la Barre.
Agnes the wife of Richard de Donleghe, aged 31, is his next heir.

LINCOLN Inq. Saturday the eve of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, 6 Edw. II. Bliburgh. A void place held of the king, as of the manor of Wylughton now in the king’s hand which was of the Templars, by service of 2d. yearly; a messuage and 4 bovates land, held of Elizabeth daughter and heir of Roger de Scotre, who is in the king’s wardship, by service of 2s. yearly; a grange and 3 bovates land, and a ruined wind-mill, held of Warin de Bassingburn by foreign service; 2s. yearly rent from a tenement which Peter Westyby holds, held of Gilbert Caus by service of a pair of gloves yearly.
Imania his aunt, aged 50, whom William de Deping married; Agnes, the wife of Richard de Dunle, aged 40, daughter of Emma another aunt; and Nicholas de Dunom, aged 22, son of Alice daughter of the same Emma, are his next heirs.

 This indicates Bliburgh is a sub-tenant of Maurice le Brun for a relatively small piece in Beckenham but one could guess that the land might be connected on the Beckenham, Bromley, Hayes borders approx. 62 acres in all. However we find on later maps that land holding were not always contiguous, having outlying fields and plots. The names Bliburgh and Donlee could be researched further. Bliburgh/Blyburgh held Simpsons Place in Bromley and reputedly had a licence to crenalate or fortify his house. It’s not known but one could assume the Beckenham and Hayes property to have been bordering his Simpsons Place property.
(BHO/E.L.Horsburgh) See 1328

1317 - Sydenham Manor; A road diversion  and enclosure of land; Sydenham;  Patent Rolls:March 10. York. Licence, after inquisition ad quod damnum taken by Master Richard de Clare, king's clerk, escheator beyond Trent for John Abel to enclose a way leading from Gadeford (Cadeford/Catford) to Beghenham (Bekenham) under his dwelling place of

Cypenham (Sippenham/Sibenham/Sydenham) in Leuesham (Lewisham) for the enlargement of his said dwelling place, provided he make another sufficient way in his own soil containing 70 perches of land in length and 24 feet in width.
A  route from Catford  to Beckenham might  follow today's  Perry Hill and via Sydenham High Street or Kent House Road. A perch is 5.1/2  yards x 70 =  385  yards.  We need to identify John Abel's land in Sydenham  and  385 yards is not  a great deal relative to the distance between Catford and Beckenham.

This John Abel seems to be the same who is escheator empowered to carry out duties for the king and mentioned in other Patent Roll and Close Roll entries around this date.

 
1318/19 – Beckenham Manor and Maurice Bruyn; Len Hevey records the account roll for Beckenham Manor held at Essex Record office as part of the Bruyn papers (remember they held Ockenden Manor). Hevey states that Maurice’s main residence was Beckenham at this time and analyses the account roll in great detail. Rent makes up a good deal of the income and there is an expenditure of £1 rent to the Abbot of Westminster which may relate to Abbey lands near Penge/Battersea. For this item of expenditure we can refer to William Bruyn’s death and post mortem inquisition in 1362 where 100 acres of heath is held of the Abbot of Westminster. Sources: Hevey and Essex R.O.

1318 – Calendar of Charter Rolls: Free Warren  

 "Langley in this Parish is a second Seat of eminent Account, which was in elder Times the Possession of John de Malmains, who obtained a Charter of Free-Warren to his Lands in Bekenham, in the twelfth year of Edward the second." (source: Philipot).

 
Free warren is a type of franchise or privilege conveyed by a sovereign in medieval England to an English subject, promising to hold them harmless for killing game of certain species within a stipulated area, usually a wood or small forest. A 'king's clerk' was a variable position to act for the crown often in an ecclesiastical position ie John Busshe as rector of Beckenham was also king's clerk.

Hasted tells us: This place (Langley) afterwards came into the possession of the family of Malmaines, who were settled at Waldershare in this county, in the time of the Conqueror. John de Malmaines obtained a charter of free warren for his lands in Begenham, in the 12th year of king Edward II (1318/19) which was renewed to Henry Malmaines, of Cliffe, in the 3d year of king Edward III (1330). It appears by the Book of Aid, in the 20th year of King Edward III (1347) that Nicholas Malmains held half a knight's fee of the king in Begenham. He died, in the 23d year of that reign, possessed of much land in this county; (fn. 23) before the end of which, the property of this manor was transferred by sale to Langley, a name most probably taken from this place, though the family itself has been long since extinct. These Langleys of Beckingham were, most probably, a distinct family from those of Knowlton in this county, who were originally descended from a family of that name in the county of Warwick. (Hasted) But refer to earlier presence of Langleys/Langeles in 1274.

1319 – Foxgrove or Kent House? A record from Edward II's time; July 2nd York; Enrolment of deed of John de Poton of Beghenham acknowledging receipt from Master Henry de Clyff of 20l. for Michaelmas term, 12 Edward II., in full payment of 200 marks due to him from Henry for certain lands in Beghenham that Henry had of his feoffment. Witnesses; Sir William de Ayremynne; Master John de Blebury; Michael de Wych'; Walter de Scorby; Thomas le Vendour of York. Dated at York, 4 July, in the above year.Memorandum, that John came into chancery at York, on the said day, and acknowledged the above deed. (BHO etc)

1321 - Foxgrove  and/or Kent House; Westminster August 20th; Enrolment of release by Peter son of John de Poton of Beghenham to Master Henry de Clif, clerk, of his right in the lands that belonged to the said John in Beghenham, which Peter had of John's gift. Witnesses: Sir Robert de Bardelby, Geoffrey de Welleford, Adam de Brom, Thomas de Evesham, clerks; William Scot; Adam de Nova Haia; Robert de Scardeburgh; Robert de Pontefracto. Dated at Westminster, Thursday after the Assumption, 15 Edward II. Memorandum, that Peter came into chancery, on the said day, and acknowledged the above deed. (BHO etc)

1322 – Inquisition Post Mortem; Foxgrove? Hugh Bardolf probably held Foxgrove by inheritance and marriage to Isabel (nee Aguillon) and this inquisition evidences Isabel(Isabella)‘s death and heir to other manors. The nearest to Foxgrove mentioned here is Surrey (Addington). As some parts of Foxgrove are later shown to be near outlying parts of Addington manor some connection cannot be discounted especially since the transcript says ‘extent given’. The heir, Thomas Bardolf leases Foxgrove and other property to Bartholomew Burghersh as Burghersh’s post mortem inquisition states Foxgrove held of Thomas Bardolf.

ISABEL, LATE THE WIFE OF HUGH BARDOLF. Writ, 28 May, 16 Edward II.

HERTFORD. Inq. 16 June, 16 Edward II. Watton. The manor (extent given), held for life, by the gift of Master James de Moun by fine levied in the king’s court with remainder to Thomas Bardolf and his heirs, of the king in chief by service of a petty serjeanty, viz.—finding the king in his Welsh war a footman with bow and arrows for forty days.
Stapelford. 5a. meadow, and 13s. 4d. rent, with the advowson of the church, held for life of Humphrey de Boun, late earl of Hereford, service unspecified.
Thomas Bardolf, aged 30 and more, is her next heir.
SUSSEX. Inq. Tuesday after SS. Peter and Paul, 16 Edward II. Plumpton. The manor, with 40a. land, 10a. meadow, and a water-mill at Fletchyng, held for life of Thomas son and heir of Hugh Bardolf, by the gift of William Bardolf his grandfather, by service of 1d. yearly, with reversion to the said Thomas.
Berekompe. The manor held in dower of the inheritance of the said Thomas.
Berewyck and Wyngeton. 12l. rent held for life, of the heirs of Hugh de Castr’ by service of a clove gillyflower yearly, by the gift of James de Mohun, with reversion to the said Thomas.
Thomas her son, aged 30 and more, is her next heir in blood.

SURREY. Inq. 31 August, 17 Edward II.(1343) Adynton. The manor (extent given), held for life only of the king by service of making a dish called ‘maupigernoun’ at the king’s coronation, with remainder to the said Thomas and his heirs by fine levied in the king’s court between the said Isabel and Master James le Moun.
Heir as above.

SOUTHAMPTON. Inq. Thursday after St. James, 17 Edward II. Grutham. The manor (extent given), held for life, of the inheritance of the said Thomas, of the earl of Surrey, service unknown.
Heir as above, aged 50.

NORFOLK. Inq. 23 July, 17 Edward II. Scrouteby. The manor, held for life, of Laurence de Huntyngfeld, service unknown, by the gift of Master James le Mooun by fine levied in the king’s court, with remainder to the said Thomas and his heirs.
Heir as above, aged 40 and more.

 
1324 – Beckenham (de Brun), Foxgrove (Bardolf)? Kenthouse (Lewisham)?;
Post Mortem Inquisition; JOAN, LATE THE WIFE OF RICHARD DE CHIGGEWELL alias DE CHYKEWELLE. (Joan was also widow of Philip de la Rokele and mother of Maud/Matilda Bruyn)

Writ, 15 October, 18 Edward II. Inq. Sunday after All Saints, 18 Edward II. Beghenham. A messuage and 140a. land, which the said Richard acquired to himself, the said Joan, and the heirs of the said Richard, held for life by the said Joan of Maurice de Brun by service of 11s. yearly, and rendering 1lb. pepper to Thomas Bardolf yearly; and 120a. land held for life, by acquisition (de acquisito) with the abovesaid Richard, of the said Maurice by diverse services.
Leuesham. 40a. land similarly held for life of the prior of Leuesham by service of 12s. yearly.
Robert his son, aged 40 and more, is next heir of the said Richard. (BHO)

Other evidence shows Kenthouse on the Lewisham/Sydenham borders underpinning my view that this relates to Kenthouse. This is among the many assumptions we are tempted to conclude. This 140a matches Kenthouse in 1346

Richard de Chigwell was an owner of ships, quays, mills and had a large staff of agents and an alderman. They handled hanseatic timber, cloth, wool, wine and massive quantities of grain. He held property in 6 London parishes as well as in Kent & Essex and was the third highest taxpayer in 1292. He died in 1306. Joan, his wife, was daughter of Simon de Gardino and appears to have died in 1324 and her will survives. He was appointed wardship (as godfather) to Maud daughter of Philip de la Rochelle (Rokele/Rupella) and she is supposed to have married Maurice le Bruyn by 1300.  

On evidence it would seem that Maud (aka Matilda) married Maurice at the age of about 14, there is evidence of an inquest about this. An Isolda (Isuelt) appears to have been married to Maurice’s father Sir William Bruyn and therefore to be mother of Maurice.  

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hmfZlJ4hi-0C&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=%22richard+de+chigwell%22+kent&source=bl&ots=p5XkU2S92r&sig=ACfU3U1FEKCAVwl_xOoEOGMKGM_Gj7LsEA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvn4qYo9PoAhWLasAKHXy5A8sQ6AEwAnoECAsQLg#v=onepage&q=%22richard%20de%20chigwell%22%20kent&f=false

https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/essex/vol7/pp117-126

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=inFEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA97&dq=maurice+le+bruin+marriage+age+inquiry&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj67KbXut7oAhUJCsAKHU2nBTAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=maurice%20le%20bruin%20marriage%20age%20inquiry&f=falsehttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w4MgAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA214&dq=isolda+bruyn&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixuo2ertPoAhUKAcAKHW3QDLIQ6AEIazAI#v=onepage&q=isolda%20bruyn&f=false

1325 – Showing that Henry de Clyf held an office of state as did several landlords of Beckenham estates;
Memorandum, that, on 4 July, the king at Westminster, in the presence of Master Robert de Baldok, archdeacon of Middlesex, his chancellor, and of others of his council, committed to Master Henry de Clyf, his clerk, the custody of the rolls of his chancery, to have in the same manner as others have had the same custody hitherto; and Henry, on the following day, in the great hall of Westminster, at the marble stone, took oath to execute the office well and faithfully, in the presence of Sir Robert de Bardelby, William de Clyf, William de Herlaston, Adam de Brom, and other clerks of the chancery; and Sir Richard de Ayremynn, then keeper of the aforesaid rolls, there delivered to Henry the keys of the chests wherein the said rolls are kept. [Parl. Writs.]

1327 - King Edward III (until 1377)

1328 - Part of Beckenham Manor, possibly Woolseys Farm and Sympson’s Place (see 1312 and 1333); Post Mortem Inquisition: WILLIAM LE LATYMER, LE LATIMER, or LATIMER.  Writ, 2 March, 1 Edward III.  Inq. 11 March, 1 Edward III.  Asshe. The manor (extent given), held of the heir of John de Mouubrai by service of a quarter of a knight’s fee and rendering at the said heir’s manor of Ryerhs (Ryarsh) for the ward of the castle of Rochester 24s. yearly.
Bromlegh. 2 messuages, lands, and a water-mill (extent given), including a tenement called Blakebrok, held of the bishop of Rochester by service of 8s. yearly, and doing suit at his court of Bromlegh every three weeks; and 3a. of marsh pasture held of the prior of Christchurch, Canterbury, by service of 4d. yearly.
Beghenham. 57a. arable and 3a. marsh pasture, held of Maurice de Brun by service of 10s. 3d. yearly, and doing suit at his court of Beghenham every three weeks.
William his son, aged 26 years, is his next heir.

Ash and Ryarsh are some distance away but the Bromley and Beckenham parts match Sympson’s Place which could have been called Blakebrok (Blackbrook) prior to being named Sympson’s by Robert Symson later. This shows a tenancy under Maurice de Brun (le Bruyn) for part of Beckenham Manor which could be land acquired via Richard le Lacer and  possibly becomes Woolseys Farm later. Marsh pasture implies a waterside position. Doing suit at court is unclear whether it meant taking part in proceedings or a periodic payment, perhaps both? However this three weekly procedure could imply le Brun holds something akin to a magistrate’s court and is in residence at least regularly at Beckenham. Similarly, Latimer had the obligation for the same service to the Bishop of Rochester at Bromley. Identifying this along with the 1312 reference as Sympson’s Place, Bromley would make sense with the mill (Glassmill or Monks Mill) and the marsh areas along the Ravensbourne. In 1333 William Latimer is referred to as exchanging the land.

The source from Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1991 speculates that Robert Latimer was connected with Ansgot of Rochester circa Domesday 1086 and may have been English rather than Norman and possibly acting as an interpreter. I'm speculating that William may be descended or related but the description 'le Latimer' could imply it’s applied to anyone able to interpret/write in Latin.

1328/29 – A Lay Subsidy Roll taxation found and recorded by Len Hevey holds names similar to the later 1334 Lay Subsidy but with some differences, not least in some spelling variations. We rely on Len’s transcription from the document held in the National Records Office. In 1334/5 the sum raised was £7/6s/2d compared to the £5/7s/8.25d here. The Lay Subsidy was a tax on moveable wealth ie not land.

1329 - Foxgrove etc.  July 12th Chichester; Grant of special grace to Henry d Clyf and his heirs. Free Warren in all their demesne lands in Begenham co. Kent, and Grove co. Nottingham.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000086172677&view=1up&seq=143

1330 Langley purchased by Henry de Cliffe, "to whom they accrued by Purchase from Malmains, in the third year of Edward the third;(1330) but stayed not long in the Tenure of this Family. (see 1319) (Philipot and Hasted).  But is this questionable as a will for de Cliffe of 1331 leaves Foxgrove to a nephew with no mention of Langley or any other Beckenham property unless of course Foxgrove included Langley at this time.

Henry de Cliffe is mentioned in https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wtoPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA246&dq=henry+de+Cliffe&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCmYeJn43mAhWKT8AKHRfOCwIQ6AEIKjAA

Henry de Clyf is listed in the Lay Subsidy Roll for Beckenham in 1334 as a landowner as are the Langley family. Philipot, repeated by Hasted say that the Langley family purchased the Langley estate in 1377 so we are still looking for the documentary evidence for the lands owned by de Clyf and before him by Malmaines

1331 - Foxgrove; The will of Henry de Cliffe (Clyf). Among several legacies of money and belongings he says; to Henry the son of John de Clyff, to whom I assign my manor of Foxgrove, and other lands and tenements in the Bekenham, see 1325. Tenements can be land ‘held of another’ ie rented and Foxgrove later becomes Burghersh’s ‘held of’ Bardolf.

This will describes Henry wishing to be buried in the diocese of York perhaps indicating that Foxgrove was not his domicile. His position (or one of them) is King's clerk . As de Cliffe (Clyf) has been linked to Langley by some writers it remains unclear whether other lands and tenements in Bekenham include Langley or parts of it. De Clyf is described as ‘clericus’ described as keeper of the kings rolls (records). Although the online translation says ‘wife’ at one point that is believed to be because of the transcription of the latin text and should probably read ‘after my death’ instead of ‘after my wife’ where the heir de Clyf’s nephew is left certain livestock at Foxgrove. The latin text is copied in the appendices for anyone who has a better grasp of archaic English Latin. A common mistranslation is for ‘cupam’ as ‘Whiskey’ which I believe should be a cup or chalice ie ‘unam cupam deuratum’ a gilt cup or chalice?

“In the name of God. Amen. I, Henry de Clif, clerk (clericus), sound mind and sense by the grace of God, desirous of the inevitable human condition? to take precedence over the debt, and to store the goods and property of my property in this manner. First of all, I commend my soul to the mercy of God and Savior Jesus Christ; and I wish that my body should be buried in the Priory of Drax, if within the diocese of York. let me leave. I also bequeath for funeral expenses 40 li. and in the distribution of the poor, 40 marks. I also bequeath to the Friars Priestesses of York. 40 s. Likewise to the minor brothers in the same place 40s. To the brothers BM of Monte Carmel 40s. ; and to the brothers of St. Augustine there 40s. Likewise to the brothers of the same rows, residing in London, to wit, to any order Also I bequeath to John de Clyff, my brother, twenty marks, one whiskey(cupam), and one silver cup, and a hundred hoe, and four oxen from the store at Haplesthorp; so, however, that if it should happen that no stock of this kind will be there at the time I pass, I wish that the same John could demand nothing of such stock by virtue of the aforesaid lieutenant, nor would my executors be bound to pay him anything for the same stock. Likewise to Emma his wife, 40s., one silver cup and one leathern. Also Isabella, daughter of the aforesaid John and Emma, ​​for her marriage, 20 li. Also William, Richard, John, Robert, Nicholas, Walter, and James, sons of the aforesaid John de Clyff, twenty marks (LXX in the text could be 70 marks), to each of them ten marks; and I wish that the said money be delivered up, according to the disposition of my executors, to some good men in order to safeguard the work of those boys until they have come to such an age, that they know how to govern and govern themselves. Also I bequeath to William Fassard and his wife Amy 20 marks; so that they will replace what they have written of me by which I have granted them ten pounds by reason of the testament, or of the last month's will. I also bequeath to Isabel, sister of me, twenty marks, so that she restores the document which she has of me by which I have granted her ten pounds, by reason of the testament, or of the last will of the month. I also read to Ralph about Ha. . . ham and to Isabel his wife, five marks and one silver whiskey, beyond those ten marks which I would otherwise have paid them (by reason of) mese. Also I bequeath to Julianre, to the son of my sister Amise, five marks and one silver cup, beyond those ten marks which otherwise would be paid to him in the name of last mese. I also bequeath to Cecily, my sister, ten marks, and one robam. I also bequeath Matilda, daughter of Henry de Seslieford, (Sechford?) in aid of her marriage, ten marks. I also bequeath to the Prioress and Nuns of Brasted ten marks. Also I bequeath to Alice de Clyff, a nun of the same house, ten marks. Item to the prioress and nuns of Halywell 9s. Item to the prioress and nuns of Clerkynwell 40s. Likewise, to the nuns of the Friars Minor outside Algat 40s. I also read to the Lord John of Saint Paul that he gilts one whiskey and one aquarium, one horse, and one leathern with one clover. I bequeath to lord John de Tyddeswell ten pounds, one whiskey gilt (unam cupam deuratum), and thirty ewes from the stock of Welton, and one horse. Also I bequeath to Robert de Balen tenth gilt whiskey Ixxx (80?) ewes and one horse. Also I bequeath to Sir Nicholas of the Fountains ten marks, one whiskey of silver, and the horse which he rides. Also to John de Balen one whiskey gilt, one silver cup, one leather, and one purse. To the lord William of Brauncewell one whiskey(cupam) and one silver cup. I also bequeath to Edmund de Bubvyth, clerk, five marks. Also Thomas de Clyff, clerk, five marks. Also John Wallace and Alice his wife, one gilt whiskey and one silver cup. Also I bequeath to Robert de Hacktorp (Hakkethorp ??) twenty marks; and I wish that they should be delivered to the lords John of St. Paul and John of Tyddeswell, to be guarded for the work of the said Robert. Likewise to Henry the son of John de Clyff, to whom I have assigned my manor of Foxgrove, and my other lands and tenements in Beckenham, to be had after my wife/death (post mortem meam, wife would be ‘uxor’) a hundred ewes of the same stock, eighteen oxen, six cows, and six oxen, if they are found in the same place (Foxgrove?) at the time of death, or the price of the same, if not found: likewise the winter seed which was sown in the same lands, and ten marks for necessary providing for his own there; likewise the carts, plows, and other furniture of the house in the same place at the time of my death. Item to Walter de Kirkeby one hundred shillings. Item to Peter de Clyff one hundred shillings. Item to John de Lund one hundred shillings. Also Eustachio Morton ten marks. Also I bequeath to Richard Lellen of Hemingburgh ten pounds, and one of my robes. Item to Robert le Baker four shillings. Item to William Mortayne twenty shillings. Item to Roger de Staflbrd thirty shillings. Also I bequeath to William de Clyff, waiter, forty shillings. Item Nicholl le palefrayman forty shillings. Item to Robert de Brakenholme thirty shillings. Likewise to Jacob, a waiter. thirty shillings. Item Tliomfe de Bain Thirty shillings. Item to John de Hampton, waiter, forty shillings. Item to William Swayne, waiter, twenty shillings. Item Peter de Clif, waiter (garcioni – servant/attendant?), twenty shillings. Item to Thomas atte Grene twenty shillings. Item to William of Waltham one mark. Item to John Heret, ten shillings. Item to Nicholas Pickard ten shillings. Item to John Cogges ten shillings. Item to William Masch ten shillings. Item Thomaj pajetto de stables (page/groom?) a half mark (dimidiam) Item Ralph pajetto de camera(page/servant) one mark. Also I read to distribute among the poor parishioners of Haplesthorp sixty solids. Also among the poor parishioners at Wichton sixty shillings. Also among the poor peasants of Alebury one hundred shillings. Also I read in the church of the Blessed Mary of Salisbury ten marks. Item of the construction of the church of Beatte Marine Lincoln ten marks. Item ten marks for the construction of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Chichester. I also wish that one hundred shillings, which lord Adam of Osgodby, whose testament I am executor, bequeathed to the Holy Lands as a reserve, are to be paid in the same subsidy. I also bequeath to Adam of Clift forty shillings. Also at Lucse of Hemingburgh forty shillings. Item to John de Haplesthorp, clerk, forty shillings. Item to Adam Youn forty shillings. Item to Nicholas Mitford forty shillings. I also bequeath to the Prior and Convent of Drax, for my burial, ten shillings; and I wish that one perpetual chantry of the remainder of my goods there for my soul be ordained according to the disposition of my executors (unless) by me while it was ordained.”

A reminder that archaic latin by English scribes is idiosyncratic.

1333 - Foxgrove; Foot of Fine (267) York: From Michaelmas in three weeks 7 Edward III. Q: Master Henry de Clyf, clerk. D: John de Saint Paul and John de Tyddeswell. The manor of Foxgrove, one messuage, three carucates of land (3x120acres?), 14 acres of meadow, 38 acres of wood, 29s. ½d. rent in Beghenham [Beckenham].  To hold to Master Henry for life.   Remainder to (1) Henry son of John de Clif and the heirs male of his body. (2) Hugh son of John de Balne and the heirs male of his body.  (3) the heirs of Master Henry.

A carucate of land is estimated to be that which can be ploughed by one team of oxen in a year, about 120 acres. The map of Foxgrove of 1720 describes a place where 20 great beasts (oxen) of Foxgrove were kept. Henry de Clyf described as a clerk (clericus) here is taken to mean a judge in medieval times.

see http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/FinesArticle.pdf for explanation of Feet of Fines (Final Accord, in three parts, the 'foot' being held by the Treasury. a conveyance of property). The Querant is acquiring property from the Deforciant so Saint Paul and Tyddeswell are the executors of Henry de Clyf’s will in 1331 and this fine is conveying the property to Henry de Clyf’s nephew, Henry the son of John de Clyf.

1333 - Court of Chancery; Debtor John de Vienne of Beckenham, of Kent. Creditor John Jakelot, butcher of London. Amount £40. Before whom: John de Pulteney, Mayor of London, Henry de St Osyth. (National Archive).

Vienne derived from a placename in France. £40 would have been a large sum of money. We can only remain curious about the reasons for such a debt. 

1333 – Bromley (Sympson’s Place); Enrolment of release by Conan son of Henry, knight, to Richard Lacer, citizen of London, and Juliana his wife, of his right in the manors of Biomlegh (Bromlegh) and Blakebrok and in all their appurtenances, which Conan had by the gift of William le Latimer, knight, in co. Kent, in exchange for the manor of Liverton, to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the accustomed services. Witnesses: Maurice de Brune, Bartholomew Fanacourt, William Carbonel, knights, Thomas de Bakewell, Thomas Herwald, Robert de Ely, William Moraunt, Henry Darcy of London. Dated at Bromlegh, co. Kent, on Sunday, after the octaves of the Purification, 7 Edward III. Memorandum, that the said Conan came into chancery at York on 5 March and acknowledged the preceding deed. (BHO, Bromlegh mistyped or mistranscribed)

Conan has acquired the properties from Latimer whom earlier was renting the properties from the Bishop of Rochester (Bromley) and Maurice le Bruyn (Beckenham Manor). We can assume that the phrase “to hold of the chief lords of the fee by the accustomed services” means that Richard Lacer is bound to the same conditions as Latimer was in 1328 and passed on to his son William Latimer. This connects to Lacer/Bruyn and Marny some years later and Maurice Brune the same as Bruyn. Maurice Brune was the father of William Brune/Bruyn who married Richard Lacer's daughter Alice. See 1312, 1328 and 1365.

1334/5 -  Beckenham (all of); Lay Subsidy Roll Taxation record: This source of information may give some clues to the derivations of local names. In the list of names we find John and Ralph Stomeshulle from which could be derived Stumpshill, Cleyhurst is a basis for Clay Hill, Langel and Langele as the source of Langley and Eylmer for Elmers End, Humfray for Humphrey. Then it gets less obvious: ie Hauek for Hawk as in Hawksbrook? The Roll has 48 names for Beckenham paying a total of £7.30 in tax.

Some of the names in the Lay Subsidy Roll are mentioned in Philipot’s and Hasted’s histories, such as Bruyn and Langley. We are at the mercy of other researchers who may find and publish other records be bearing in mind that information may be in old English or even Latin. (source:https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/KRV/18/3/140.htm )

Philipot had stated about Langley, “the name and place: before the going out of Edward the third,(1377) I find the Propriety invested by Sale in Langley, to which Family the Foundation of that House owes in part its Original, on which they ingraffed their own Name.”

However, in the Kent Roll of 1274 it is recorded that; “they say that Adam de Walais, then the bailiff, took 18d. from Ralph de Langel for removing the same man from one assize. money from them for remitting the same summons.” (see 1274) and this would imply that the Langel/Langleys were already resident in the area much earlier.

What other information can we glean from the Lay Subsidy Roll? The levy was apparently on moveable wealth and not land or buildings so Le Bruyn as the Lord of the Manor was presumably the wealthiest. Langele(Langley)/Langel together account for 12shillings, almost the same as de Clyf and these are associated with Langley and Foxgrove. Kelsey at this time is thought to be part of the Manor. William le Back is thought to be of Backs Lane which became convoluted to Becks Lane between Penge and Elmers End. The Cleyhursts accont for 10shillings and 4pence for what could be land around Foxgrove.  We might assume these extended families could be managing a collection of small farms. Langley in the 18^th century was divided into 4 or more farms and Beckenham Manor in the 1760’s is described as being leased to the surrounding landowners. The Eylmers together also account for about half as much as Bruyn presumably for the possessions at Elmers End.

1338 – Unidentified messuages, Thomas Snodylond acquires land from de Vyene and Bygot in these Feet of Fines (358) York: In the octave of the Purification of the Blessed Mary 12 Edward III. Q: Thomas de Snodilond parson of Saint Botulph’s church next Billyngisgate, London. D: John de Vyene and wife Joan. One messuage, 30 acres of land, 6 acres of wood, moiety of one acre of meadow in Beghenham. To hold to Thomas and his heirs. Warrant against the heirs of Joan. Thomas gave 20 marks. (see 1333 John de Vien debtor)

 (360) York: From Easter in three weeks 12 Edward III. Q: Thomas de Snodylond. D: Bartholomew Bygot and wife Mabel. One messuage, 24 acres of land, 1 acre of meadow and 6 acres of wood in Begenham. Quitclaim to Thomas and his heirs. Warrant against the heirs of Mabel. Thomas gave 20 marks. (source; Kent Archaeology

1346 - Beckenham/Foxgrove?; Book of Aid to the Black Prince (Archaeologica Cantana) mentions Joan/John Rokesle and John de Foxegrave; ASSESSMENTS IN KENT; Hundred de.BromKegh.e et Weghenhatn (Beghenham.)
de heredibus Johanne de Rokesle et Johannis de Foxegrave pro dimidio feodo quod predicti Johanna et Johannes tenuerunt in Beghenham Summa xlj s.viij. d. pro j f. et xvi parte j. f. 

https://www.kentarchaeology.org.uk/Research/Pub/ArchCant/010%20-%201876/010-13.pdf

translation; on behalf of the heirs of John (Joan) de Rokesle and a half of the fee of John de Foxegrave Beghenham that the aforesaid Joan and John have taken hold of in the sum of xij s.viij. d. for j f. and sixteen point j f

Hasted attributes this to John Rokele and Foxegrave as an early foundation of Foxgrove but Joan Rokele had died in 1324 after remarrying Richard Chyggewell and no other Rokeles are recognised but the document mentioning RokeSle most likely links this with the Rokesles of Ruxley origin. As Foxgove had earlier references as a place then John de Foxegrave could derive his name from the place rather than the place deriving its name from him. A John de Rokesle (d.1361) was Lord of the Manor of Lullingstone and John de Foxesgrave was in the Lay Subsidy Roll for Aylesford. See also 1274 Kent Hundred Rolls where John de Foxgrove is a juror and various injustices were carried out in King Edward's absence.

 
1346 - Kent House: April 26.Westminster.
Enrolment of deed testifying that whereas Master Henry de Clyf, clerk, deceased, lately granted by his deed to Henry de Seccheford, now deceased, and Alice his wife to hold a messuage, 140 acres of land called Kenthouse in Beghenham, co. Kent, of him, rendering 40s. yearly to him, so that if Henry and Alice should die without an heir of their bodies, the messuage and land should remain to Hugh son of John de Balne, and Master Henry granted by his deed to Hugh the said 40s. yearly, Hugh has released to Alice, who now holds the messuage and land, the said 40s. rent and all his right and claim in the messuage and land. Witnesses: Sir Maurice le Brune, Sir William le Brune, knights, John de Huntyngfeld, Peter Godesone, Andrew de Seccheford, Hugh le Hatter of Croidon, John le Mazon of Beghenham. Dated at Beghenham on Wednesday after St. Mark, 1346.
Memorandum that Hugh came into chancery at Westminster on 27 April and acknowledged the preceding deed. (BHO)

 Henry de Clyf died in 1333 leaving Foxgrove and other tenements in Beckenham to his nephew also named Henry de Clyf. Presumably the ‘other tenements’ are Kent House and Seccheford is tenant or feoffee paying the rent. This transcription can be taken to read that Hugh de Balne had it free from the rent and passed it to Alice Seccheford, widow? The le Brune’s (Bruyns) are acting in a local administerial role as lord of the manor of Beckenham. In 1334 Seccheford is shown paying tax in the subsidy roll. By 1355 Foxgrove is held by Bartholomew Burghersh in turn held of Hugh Bardolf. Could Hugh Bardolf be the same as Hugh de Balne?

 
1346 – Sympson’s Place, Bromley; Richard le Lacer is Mayor of the City of London. Resides or has property in Bromley and is father of Alice Lacer who married Sir William Bruyn of Beckenham Manor. Lacer acquired what is believed to be Sympson’s Place etc (See 1312, 1328, 1333)

1347 - The Black Death.

Linked by Len Hevey to the decline of Beckenham Manor and the possible ruin of the manor house at this time. The Black Death, subesequently identified as bubonic plague did not disappear completely and there were periodic outbreaks. Although the 'Great Plague of 1665' was most notorious we have the accounts of John Evelyn the diarist describing 'pestilences'. Coupled with other diseases such as smallpox, measles, typhoid, typhus, whooping cough, diptheria etc etc. then the death toll was high keeping the population growth in check. Evelyn also describes years of crop failures due to variation in climate such as either extremely cold, wet or dry summers and  arctic winters freezing crops in the ground and resulting in 'Frost Fairs' on the frozen Thames. More suitable in this timeline in the 17th Century but certainly these variable conditions occurred throughout history. Some protagonists in this history timeline are believed to have succumbed to plague but can only be assumed by the time of their deaths coinciding with known outbreaks. To return to Evelyn he describes the deaths of several of his children due to fevers which might be scarlet fever or associated with the other diseases.

1347 – Foxgroves earliest date attributed by Philipot who states: Foxgrove is the last place of Account in this Parish, it had in elder times Proprietaries of this Sirname; for I find John de Foxgrove paid respective Aid for it in the twentieth year of Edward the third (1347), at making the Black Prince Knight.

But the 1274 Kent Roll records an earlier reference to John of Foxgrove who was a witness.

 
1355 - Manor of Beckenham: Philipot describes Beckenham under Sir Maurice Brun/Bruin but in our account we dispute by what means the Bruns acquire the Manor from intermarriage with the Rokeles, “Sir Maurice Brun, Chamberlaine to K. Edw. the third, honoured with the Summons to Parliament as Baron amongst the Peers of this Realm,who by a Right derived to him from his Mother, was possest of Beckenham Manor at his Death, in the twenty ninth of Edward the third, (1355) and transmitted a wide and spreading Revenue to his Posterity here, at Southokenden in Essex, and at Roumere in Hantshire, which last was given in Appendage to a younger Son, from whom the Bruins of Athelhampton in the County of Dorset, are lineally descended. But when after a fair continuance this Family had flourished at this Place, the Distaffe prevailed against the Speare,” (female heirs only) (source: Philipot) (see Henry Bruyn and his daughters, Alice and Elizabeth)

Recent (2020) evidence may challenge this as the 'right derived' to Beckenham Manor may be from his wife, Maude de la Rokele according to family tree information. His mother Isolda may be of unknown family name and is said to be of the house of Queen Eleanor from another source (Victoria History/BHO/Rowner Hants) who was the mother of Maurice and not apparently from the Rokele family.
This 1355 Post Mortem Inquisition raises a question as it says Beghenham, the manor held of the king, perhaps because the 'held of the king' passed from Philip de la Rokele  via his daughter Maude. But does not use the same phrase for Wokyndon Rokele.

Inquest Post Mortem of MAURICE LE BRUYN or LE BRUNE Writ, 24 March, 29 Edward III. Inq. taken at Derteforde, 27 March, 29 Edward III.
Beghenham. The manor held of the king in chief by service of a knight’s fee; 100a. heath (Penge Common?) held of the abbot of Westminster by service of 20s.
He held no more lands in the county.
He died on 17 March last. William his son, aged 40 years and more, is his heir.
Writ, 24 March, 29 Edward III. Inq. taken at Wokyndon Rokele, 1 April, 29 Edward III. Wokyndon Rokele. The manor (extent given), with the advowson of the church, held for life by the law of England after the death of Maud, sometime his wife, of the inheritance of William, their son and heir, of the earl of Hereford by knight’s service.
He held no other lands &c. in the county.
Date of death and heir as above.
Writ, 24 March, 29 Edward III. Inq. taken at Suthfarham, Wednesday in Easter week, 29 Edward III.
Fordyngbrigg. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief of the honour of Camel by service of a third part of a knight’s fee.
Rowenore. The manor (extent given) held of the king in chief by service of the serjeanty of rendering 40s. yearly in the castle of Winchester.
Tycchefeld. A liberty called ‘Crofton’ within the hundred, held of the earl of Rychemond, service not known.
He died on Tuesday after St. Gregory, 29 Edward III. William le Bruyn, knight, aged 30 years and more, is his heir.
(Source BHO)

1355 - Foxgrove:  Bartholomew de Burgherssh the Elder, Lord Burwash dies in possession of Foxgrove and several other properties. He died on 3 August last. Philipot recorded that Lord Burwash held Foxgrove but the record below shows he held it of Thomas Bardolf. This taken from the Inquisition Post Mortem maybe contradicts who holds Foxgrove in 1355 as Burghersh is renting or leasing various parts, held of Thomas Bardolf, William Bruyn, Richard le Hauek and the Abbot of Gaunt? It is an example of the leases and sub-leases that were common. As Bartholomew the Younger, his son, is heir the terms of the ‘lease’ may be ‘at will’ or for heirs and assigns as we find described in later wills. Perhaps the documentary evidence for  Burghersh acquiring full ownership of Foxgrove is missing as later evidence for the Bardolf family show they had no property in Kent or Surrey i.e. William Bardolf inquisition post mortem 1385 and Thomas Bardolf had land confiscated for his attainment for treason. Richard le Hauk may be the source of the name “Hawksbrook” which is applied to the river Beck and names such as Hawksbrook Mead appears on maps in the viscinity of Langley/Kelsey.

Inquisition. taken at Mallyng, Monday the feast of St. Matthew, 29 Edward III.(1355) Foxgrove. The manor held of Thomas Bardolf by service of 6s. 8d. yearly, the abbot of Gaunt by service of 5s. yearly, William Bruyn, knight, by service of 56s. 6d. yearly, and of the heir of Richard le Hauk by service of 16d. yearly. He died on 3 August last. Bartholomew de Burgherssh, knight, his son, aged 26 years, is his heir.
Writ, 13 August, 29 Edward III.

 Full content: Inquisition Post Mortem BARTHOLOMEW DE BURGHERSSH THE ELDER.Writ, 6 August, 29 Edward III.Inq. taken at Mallyng, Monday the feast of St. Matthew, 29 Edward III.

Shoford. The manor held of the archbishop of Canterbury by service of a fourth part of a knight’s fee, of the prior of Ledys by service of 5s. yearly, of Robert Vynter by service of 2s. 10d., and of Thomas Colpeper by service of 8d. yearly.
Chidyngston. The manor held of the same archbishop by service of 6s. 1 1/2d. yearly, of the abbot of Gaunt by service of 23 3/4d., of Reynold de Cobeham, knight, by service of 18s. 2 1/2d. yearly, of John de Beauchamp, knight, by service of 3d. yearly, Ralph de Frenyngham, knight, by service of 14s. yearly, Oliver Brokas by service of 5d. yearly, John Cook by service of 11d. yearly, Robert Chaloner by service of 2s. 3d. yearly, and the heirs of Robert de Hanedenn by service of 10 1/2d. yearly.
Heandenn. The manor held of Ralph, earl of Stafford, by service of 56s. 11d. and six hens yearly, Ralph de Frenyngham, knight, by service of 36s. 1 1/2d. yearly, Otho de Grandissono, knight, by service of 7s. 9 3/4d. yearly, John de Cobham, knight, and Oliver Brokas by service of 3s. yearly, Alan de Chelescombe by service of 14d. yearly, and Robert Bothel by service of 8d. yearly.
Foxgrove. The manor held of Thomas Bardolf by service of 6s. 8d. yearly, the abbot of Gaunt by service of 5s. yearly, William Bruyn, knight, by service of 56s. 6d. yearly, and of the heir of Richard le Hauk by service of 16d. yearly.
Plumpstede. The manor held jointly with Elizabeth his wife, to them and the heirs of the said Bartholomew, of the abbot of St. Augustine’s, Canterbury, by service of 52s. yearly, Giles de Beauchamp, knight, and Nicholas Burnel, knight, by service of 12s. 1d. yearly, John son of Humphrey de Cobham, by service of 4s. 4 1/2d. yearly, and of the church of Plumpstede by service of 2s. 7 1/2d. yearly.
He died on 3 August last. Bartholomew de Burgherssh, knight, his son, aged 26 years, is his heir.
Writ, 13 August, 29 Edward III.

1356 was the year of the Battle of Crecy.

 1357 – Elmers End; records are scarce regarding the Elmers or Aylmers of Elmers End especially regarding the descent of the property between the 14^th and 18^th Centuries.

TNA ref; C 241/136/125 Debtor: Thomas Aylmer of Kent of Beckingham.
Creditor: Thomas Fermbaud, knight [held part of a fee in Battlesden, Manshead Hundred, Beds]
Amount: £40.
Before whom: Simon Fraunceys, Mayor of London; Andrew Aubrey, Clerk. When taken: 19/05/1356
First term: 02/06/1356 Last term: 29/09/1356 Writ to: Sheriff of Kent Sent by: Henry Picard, Mayor of London; Thomas de Brisworth, Clerk.
Endorsement: London' Coram Justic' de Banco in XV Trinitatis. 1357 Apr 20

 
Also 1357 and possibly linking Burghersh as holder of Foxgrove Manor (see 1355 Foxgrove|) Thomas Aylmer is cited as co-debtor with the Herci’s; TNA ref C 241/135/6 Debtor: John de Herci, knight, of Notts. [Family held part of a fee in Weston, Thurgarton and Lythe Wapentake, and a fee in Grave, Bassetlaw Wapentake] William de Herci of Wellum of London, and Thomas Aylmer, Chamberlain of Bartholomew Burghersh, the elder, Creditor: John atte Noke, and William Sevensterne, citizens and brewers [merchants] of London.
Amount: 50marks.
Before whom: Thomas Leggy, Mayor of London; Andrew Aubrey, Clerk.
When taken: 03/11/1354
First term: 05/04/1355
Last term: 05/04/1355
Writ to: Sheriff of Notts
Sent by: Henry Picard, Mayor of London; Thomas de Briseworth, Clerk.

Endorsement: Before the Common Pleas in the quindene of Easter. Notts. 1357 Feb 3
As Burghersh had died in 1355 perhaps Thomas Aylmer lost his position as Burghersh’s chamberlain.The legal process took 2 to 3 years.

 
1358 - Beckenham Manor Document Transcription; (the first part gives us the name of the parson of Beckenham and indicates that several advowsons and livings from parishes or manors could be held by one churchman)
Fine levied in the octaves of St. John the Baptist, 31 Eds.III. (1358) between William de Bruyn, Knt, and Alice his wife complainants (by Edmund Barnabe, the attorney of the said Alice), and Robert Sanlo (de Sancto Laudo), parson of beghenham, deforciant, touching the manor of Wokyndon Rokell the advowsons of the church and chapel of the same town, and of the hospital of St. John de Broke.
Deed poll of Joan late wife of Thomas de Overton, and daughter of the late lord William Bruyn, knt, dated 20 Mar. 45 Eds. III.,(1372) releasing to Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, her (Joan’s) mother, and her (Joan’s) brothers Ingram and Richard, all claim on the manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), Rounore, Migham (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset).

Fine levied in the octaves of the Purification, 50 Edw.III., (1377) between Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, Complainants, and Warren de Eyrdale and Joan his wife, deforciants, touching a messuage and lands in Stifford, and two parts of the advowson of the church of the same town.

Deed poll of Ingram Bruyn, son and heir of William Bruyn, knt., dated Tuesday next after the feast of St.John the Baptist, 1377, granting to Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife (the grantor’s mother), the said manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), and advowson of the church of the same town, the manors of Rounor, Fordyngbrigge (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset). [Norman].

Deed poll of Ingram Brun, dated 1 July 1377?, discharging Robert de Marny from the covenants of a certain indenture made 15 Nov., 48 Edw.III (1375) (between dame Katherine de la Pole, late wife of William de la Pole, knt., and his son Edmond de la Pole, knt., of the one part and the said Robert de Marny, knt.. of the other part.

Fine levied in the octaves of the Holy Trinity, 12 Ric. II., (1389) between the said Robert de Bourton parson of Southwokyndon, John Coly, parson of Stifford, and John Martham, parson of Bekenham, complainants, and Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife, deforciants, touching the manors of Forthingbrigg and Rouenore, and lands in Forthingbrigg and Brouneandevere, and the advowson of the church of Rouenore, (Hants), the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), and Bekenham (Kent). And the advowson of the church of the same manor.

Tripartite indenture, dated 2 Mar,. 16 Ric. II., (1393) whereby (after reciting the previous deeds, etc., as well as the death of the said John Colyn) John Martham, parson of  Bekenham, limits the manor and advowson of the church of Bekenham (Kent), and the manor of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and a toft and plough-land called Godeshull, in the town of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), to Robert de Marny, for life, with remainder to Ingram Brun in tail maile, in default to the said William de Marny, and the other remainders noticed in the preceeding deed.

Power of attorney, dated 2 March, 16 Ric.II., (1393) from the said John Martham parson of Bekenham to William Aylmar and John Payne, to deliver seizing of the lands mentioned in the preceeding deed to Robert de Marny, kt.

1360 - 28th November, Close Rolls of Edward III; Writing of William Brun knight, granting to Richard atte Seler and John Maryns citizens of London and to their assigns a yearly rent of 20l. to be taken of his whole manor of Bekenham co. Kent and of all other his lands there at Easter and Michaelmas by even portions, with power of distraint if the same be in arrear; and William has paid 6d. down in name of seisin. Dated London, 28 November 34 Edward III (1360).

Writing of William Brun knight, granting similarly to Richard atte Seler and John Maryns and to their assigns a yearly rent of 40l. to be taken of his whole manor of Southwokyndon co. Essex and of all other his lands there. Dated (as above).Memorandum of acknowledgment of the foregoing writings, 30 November.

Indenture, made at London 1 December 34 Edward III, between Sir William de Brun knight and Dame Alice his wife of the one part and Richard atte Seler and John Maryns citizens of London of the other part, witnessing that Sir William and Dame Alice have granted and to farm let to Richard and John and to their assigns the manor of Southwokyndon and all other their lands in Southwokyndon co. Essex for fifteen years, rendering 60 marks a year in the church of Southwokyndon within the quinzaine of Michaelmas and the quinzaine of Easter by even portions, and at the end of that term Richard and John shall leave the houses within the close of the said manor in good repair against wind and rain; and William grants that Richard and John and their assigns may cut, lop and carry timber, wood and brushwood as much as they please in all his woods in Bekenham co. Kent when they please during all that term for all expenses to be made in regard to houses, mills, palings, bridges, hays, dikes and enclosures whatsoever in the manor and lands aforesaid and for fuel therein, and shall have ingress and egress in the said woods for that purpose, and that all costs incurred by them thereupon from Michaelmas next for one whole year shall be allowed them in their payments; William and Alice will warrant them the premises during the term aforesaid; they will not sell, alien nor charge the same or any parcel thereof to any person during that term, and if Richard and John suffer distraint by reason of any annuity or charge or for any service in arrear Sir William will within six weeks return the same and make full restitution for their damages and costs; he will not oust, impeach, damage or disturb them of their bargain; and whereas by his writing he has granted them a yearly rent of 40l. in the said manor and an annuity of 20l. in his manor of Bekenham, Richard and John grant that, if Sir William perform the covenants in this indentured contained, those annuities shall be void. French.Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 1 December. (BHO)

1360 - Beckenham Manor; Regarding Sir Robert de Marney, (see 1358 release to Robert de Marny)

During a respite from military service, the rapacious Sir Robert set his sights on the extensive Bruyn estates. In 1360 he had obtained from Sir Williamn (not Maurice an error in History of Parliament, Alice Lacer married William Bruyn) Bruyn and his wife, Alice, an annual rent of £40 from their manor of South Ockendon, Essex, having already acquired (1358) all their interests there and at Beckenham in Kent for a period of 15 years. Bruyn died two years later, and in 1363 Marney joined the widow in purchasing, for £200, the wardship and marriage of her son Ingram Bruyn, heir not only to the estates in Essex and Kent but also to Ranston (Dorset) and Rowner (Hampshire). He then married Alice and persuaded Ingram when he came of age in 1375 to confer on them the whole of his inheritance for term of their lives. Meanwhile, Marney had negotiated Ingram’s marriage to the elder daughter of Sir Edmund de la Pole*, brother of the future earl of Suffolk. Marney’s alliance with Alice Bruyn had also brought him very substantial properties in London and Kent which she inherited after the death of her father, Richard Lacer, a wealthy mercer and former mayor of the City. Even before her marriage to Marney, Alice had entrusted her property to his feoffees, who in 1365 assisted him to negotiate with her sister Katherine, widow of John atte Pole of Shoreditch, a partition of the Lacer estate in his favour. The Marneys sold some of these holdings in 1374 and settled a few others on Ingram Bruyn in the following year. (Source: History of Parliament, recommended read of the full article)

This is an example of interesting information but with the errors or mismatches in information that we have to sort through. Although the description of de Marneys activities is enlightening some names do get transposed. Marney was second husband of Alice le Lacer, widow of William Bruyn. This extract says Maurice Bruyn but I think that is an error based on other sources. William’s father Maurice died in 1356 and William’s Inquisition Post Mortem is in March 1362, he died February 1362.

Alice Lacer was daughter of Richard le Lacer, Mayor of London and resident of Bromley (Sympson’s Place? before it acquired that name and including what became Woolseys Farm, Beckenham?)

1361 - History of Essex/South Ockendon which features in the histories of the Bruyn and Tyrell famililes; Cal. Inq. p.m. iii, p. 163; cf. Cal. Close, 1360–4, 142: the lessee of S. Ockendon may take timber at Beckenham for the repair of S. Ockendon dwellings.

1362 - Beckenham Manor; Death of Sir William le Bruyn. His wife Alice shortly afterwards marries Robert de Marny who assumes control of the estates during the minority of William’s heir Ingram aged about 8. Not only had Robert de Marney acquired the rents from Bruyn estates some time earlier but upon William le Bruyn's death he married the widow Alice le Lacer and purchased the guardianship of the son Ingram Bruyn.  See history of parliament online https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1386-1421/member/marney-sir-robert-1319-1400

WILLIAM BRUYN, knight. Writ, 8 March, 36 Edward III (1362). Inq. taken at Wokyndon Rokele, 26 March, 36 Edward III.
Essex; Wokyndon Rokele. The manor (extent given), with the advowson of the church, held by the said William jointly with Alice, his wife, by a fine levied in the king’s court, of the earl of Hereford by knight’s service. The extent includes a leet on Tuesday in Whitsun week.
He held no other lands &c. in the county.
He died on 24 February last.(1361) Ingram (Ingeramus), son of the said William and Alice, aged 8 years and more, is their heir. Writ, 8 March, 36 Edward III.

KENT. Inq. (indented) taken at Beghenham, 19 March, 36 Edward III.Beghenham. The manor (extent given), with the advowson of the church, held of the king in chief by service of one knight’s fee. Also 100a. heath, held of the abbot of Westminster, as of his manor of Batricheseye, by service of rendering 20s. yearly.
He held no other lands &c. in the county.
Date of death as above. Heir as above, aged 8 years last Christmas.Writ, 8 March, 36 Edward III.

(100a of heath probably Penge Common)

DORSET. Inq. (indented) taken at Blaneford, Monday the morrow of Palm Sunday, 36 Edward III. Randolfston. The manor (extent given), held jointly by the deceased and Alice his wife, who survives, to them and the heirs of their bodies, by gift of Maurice Bruyn, father of the deceased, whether with the king’s licence or not the jurors know not. The manor is held of the king in chief by knight’s service.
He held no other lands &c. in the county.
Date of death and heir as above.
Writ, 8 March, 36 Edward III.

SOUTHAMPTON. Inq. made at Fordyngbrigg, 6 April, 36 Edward III. Fordyngbrigg and Migham. The manor (extent given), held of the king in chief, as of the honor of Camel, by service of a third part of a knight’s fee.
Roghenore. The manor (extent given), held of the king in chief by service of grand serjeanty and by paying 40s. yearly at Winchester castle.
Crofton. A liberty so called, in the hundred of Tichefeld, held of the earl of Rychemond by knight’s service, but by what portion of a fee the jurors know not.
(fn. 2) Candover. A messuage and a carucate of land containing 100a. arable, held of the abbot of Hyde by knight’s service, but by what portion of a fee the jurors know not.
Date of death and heir as above. C. Edw. III. File 168. (27.)

The extent of the Manor of Beckenham was researched by Len Hevey and his transcript should be referred to.

 
1362 – March, Beckenham Manor et al, Patent Rolls of Edward III. Whithors appointed as a 'guardian' of William Bruyn's property.

1363 – Beckenham Manor et al. February; Patent Roll Edward III; Alice le Lacer, widow of William Bruyn licence to remarry and she marries Robert de Marny. It was customary for widows to marry often to suitors who wanted to acquire their land. This is an unusual instance of the widow getting a licence to make her own choice. However, having read about de Marny's exploits her choice is somewhat questionable.

1365 - Beckenham (Manor), Woolseys Farm or Sympson’s Place, Bromley. but more likely miscellaneous properties from the estate of Richard le Lacer who was father of Alice (now Marny) and Katherine (now atte Pole); Quitclaim 24/06/1365 Quitclaim from Robert de Marny, Alice his wife, and Robert de Bourton, recently sacristan of the church of Canterbury, of Leyre Marny, and John atte Bregge, to Katherine, widow of John atte Pole of Shoreditch, James Walsshe, clerk, and Gilbert Neal, clerk relating to lands and tenements formerly of Richard Lacer (the older and younger) in Bromley, Beckenham, Hayes, Chislehurst and Lewisham, Kent
[2 broken seals] (source; BromleyHC) See 1333.

1365 – Foxgrove (and Kent House?); A transaction apparently reversed in November the same year.
Memorandiim of acknowledgment,  9  June.
Writing  of  Thomas  Daldoun  knight,  giving  to  Sir  Walter  de  Pavely knight,  his  heirs  and  assigns,  a  yearly  rent  of  401.  of  all  his  manors and  lands  in  Kent  payable  at  Midsummer  and  Christmas  by  even portions,  with  power  to  distrain  for  arrears.  Witnesses:  John Kiriel,  John  de  Clynton,  Stephen  de  Valoyns,  Lawrence  de  Brenlyf, Thomas  Moraunt  knights,  John  Colpeper,  William  Appuldcrfeld,  Thomas Colpeper.     Dated  Henden,  10  June  39  Edward  III.     French.  
Memorandum of acknowledgment, 12 June.

 Charter  of  Thomas  Daldoun  knight,  granting  with  warranty  to Thomas  de  Houngreford  and  John  de  Gildesburgh,  their  heirs  and assigns,  the  manor  of  Burgherssh  with  the  members  of  Hegclond and  Pesemerssli (Peasmarsh)  with  the  appurtenances  in  Sussex  as  fully  as  he  the said  Thomas  Daldoun  ever  had  the  same.  Witnesses:  Alan  de Buxhull,  William  de  Ecchyngham,  John  Seintclier  knights,  Richard Hurst,  William  Tank,  John  Dasshebournham,  Roger  Dasshebournham.

Dated Burgherssh (Burwash), 10 June  39  Edward  III.     French.

Memorandum of acknowledgment,  12  June.

 39  EDWARD  III.  179

1365.  Membrane 25d — cont.

Indenture  made  at  London  between  Sir  Bartholomew de  Burgherssh knight  and  Sir  Thomas  Daldoun  knight,  being  the  defeasance  of  a  statute merchant  whereby  tlie  said  Sir  Thonuis  is  bound  for  2,000  marks, upon  condition  that  from  this  day  forth  Sir  Thomas  shall  not  sell  nor to  farm  let  any  of  the  manors,  nor  parcel  thereof,  nor  any  land  he  has or  which  may  come  to  him,  save  by  will  of  Sir  Bartholomew,  that  he shall  be  ready  to  enter  into  the  warranty  of  the  manor  of  Burgherssh toward  Thomas  de  Houngreford  and  John  de  Gildisbury,  and  without delay  or  debate  to  be  traverser  whensoever  by  them  vouched  in  a  writ concerning  the  said  manor  which  Sir  Bartholomew  shall  bring  against the   said   Thomas   de    Houngreford     and     John.       Dated     London,

 11 June 39 Edward III.     French.

 Memorandum  of  acknowledgment  by   the  said   Bartholomew,

And later in 1365 - November; Burghersh and Pavely are connected through family intermarriage and 'members and parcels' connected with the manor of Burghersh might include Beckenham/Foxgrove land. There are several other references to Aldoun giving with warranty other manors to Walter de Pavely. At this time Foxgrove is closely associated with the Burghersh ‘Manor of Burghersh’. As earlier evidence describes Burghersh ‘holding Foxgrove of’ Thomas Bardolf maybe there is some possibility that de Aldoun was associated with Foxgrove from Thomas Bardolf but this is mild conjecture at best.

Charter of Thomas de Aldoun knight, giving with warranty to Sir Bartholomew Burgherssh knight, his heirs and assigns, his manor of Burgherssh with all lands, rents, services etc. thereto belonging. Witnesses: William Hichyngham, John Waleys, John Seint Cler knights, Richard Hurst, John de Asshebournham, Roger de Asshebournham. Dated Henden co. Kent, 3 November 39 Edward III.Writing of Thomas de Aldoun knight, being a quitclaim with warranty to Sir Bartholomew Burgherssh knight, his heirs and assigns, of the manor of Burgherssh with all lands etc. thereto belonging. Witnesses (as the last). Dated Henden co. Kent, 5 November 39 Edward III.

Memorandum of acknowledgment of the foregoing charter and writing, 6 November.
(BHO)

Indenture of accord between Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh and Sir Walter de Pavely of the one part and Sir Thomas Daldoun (de Aldoun) of the other part touching certain debates and pleas between them moved, that the said Sir Thomas, by fine levied by himself and his wife and otherwise as counsel shall appoint, shall assure to Sir Bartholomew the manor of Burghersh and all members and parcels thereto pertaining discharged of all charges save the lordship of the fee; that the said Sir Walter has released a yearly rent of 40l. which Sir Thomas granted to him and to his heirs for release of certain manors claimed by Sir Walter as his heritage in tail; that he shall also release to Sir Thomas the reversion of the lands of his heritage on his father's side, and not on his mother's side, which ought to come to him in case Sir Thomas should die without issue male of his body, for which release Sir Thomas shall enfeoff Sir Walter and his heirs for ever of the manor of Stoutyng, the appurtenances, members and parcels thereof, with 10l. issuing of parcel of the manor of Boughton and the tenants thereof (who shall be specified by name), of that part (if any) which is not entailed; that so soon as Sir Walter shall be by Sir Thomas enfeoffed of 50l. of land and rent in Kent in a manor of so much clear value by extent, without impeachment of entail or other action or charge, so that Sir Walter shall new build or repair the houses thereof and Sir Thomas shall pay his costs in so doing, Sir Walter shall again enfeoff Sir Thomas of the manor of Stoutyng and the rent aforesaid as fully as he had the same by feoffment of Sir Thomas; and that for performance of this bargain Sir Walter shall give Sir Thomas 100 marks, which sum is fully paid. French.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties, 6 November.  (BHO)

1369 - Foxgrove Enfeoffment. The Kings College Archive at Cambridge University has document from 1369 which is an enfeoffment for land including Foxgrove: Enfeoffment by Bartholomew of Burwash to Walter Parely(Paveley), knight, William Steel, Wlliam de Wyndrove, clerks, Thomas Hungerford and John de Gildesburgh, of manors of Braundon (Warwickshire), Haydor (Lincolnshire), Grantchester and Barton (Cambridgeshire), Plumsted, Foxgrove, Hendon, Chedingstone (Kent), Burghersh, Byssh (Sussex), Kersatton (Surrey), Crakemersh (Staffordshire), Boxworth advowson (Leicestershire), hospital in St Peters Parva by Pouleswaif (London) and reversions of manors of Sibelithingham (Essex), Mildenhale (Wiltshire) and Bekeswell (Essex). The seal of Bartholomew of Burwash is attached. Enfeoffment is the granting of land in exchange for a pledge of service. Maybe to provide men at arms but it is recorded that Paveley served in the retinues of both Burghersh the elder and the younger. Burghersh had joined the Black Prince in the expedition, in 1355. He was one of the most eminent of the commanders of the invading army. But Burghersh died in 1369 so this enfeoffment took place almost on his death bed. He had a daughter Elizabeth married to Edward le Despencer

174 (f.62, no.vii). Henden. 1 Feb. 1369. Charter of Bartholomew de Burgherssh granting with warranty to Walter Paveley, knight, William Steele and William Wyndesore, clerks, Thomas Hungerford and John de Gildesburgh, the manors of Brandon, Warwickshire, Haydor, Lincolnshire, Grantchester and Barton, Cambridgeshire, Plumstead, Fox Grove, Henden and Chiddingstone, Kent, Burwash, Sussex, Carshalton, Surrey, and Crakemarsh, Staffordshire, the advowson of Market Bosworth, Leicestershire, and his house in the parish of St. Peter, Paul's Wharf, in London, with the reversion of the manors of Sible Hedingham, Essex, which Walter Paveley holds for life, of Mildenhall, Wiltshire, which Thomas Hungerford holds for life, and Bexfields, Essex, which John de Gildesburgh holds for life. Witnesses: Stephen Valoignes, Lawrence Brenlee, Thomas Moriaunt and Thomas Coum (?), knights, John Colpeper, William Apulderfeld, James Pecham.

The two entries above illustrate how Foxgrove was bound up in the extended estates of its owners.

1370 – Foxgrove (from Philipot) “is the last place of Account in this Parish, ........Bartholomew Lord Burwash, and he held it at his Decease, which was in the twenty ninth year of Edward the third (1356). and from him it descended to his Son Bartholomew Lord Burwash, who in the forty third year of the abovesaid Prince (1370), passed it away to Sir Walter de Paveley, and in his Family it remained untill the latter End of Richard the second, (1399) and then it was conveyed to Vaux of the County of North-Hampton, and there made its abode untill the latter End of Henry the sixth (1461)”

 But the previous entry explains that Burghersh passes enfeoffment and warranty to Paveley which is not a clean transfer of property but more of a lease. Also, see 1384 where Burghersh’s widow Margaret Gissors remarried to William Burcester is in possession of Foxgrove. Pavely is a kinsman to Burghersh through marriage to his cousin Maud Burghersh.

1371 - Writing of Joan who was wife of Thomas de Overton and daughter of Sir William Bruyn knight, being a quitclaim with warranty to Sir Robert de Marny knight, Dame Alice his wife mother of the said Joan, Ingelram and Richard brothers of the said Joan, and the heirs and assigns of the said Ingelram and Richard, of the manors of Southwokyndon co. Essex, Bekynham co. Kent, Rounore and Migham co. Suthampton and Randolveston co. Dorset, now held by the said Sir Robert and Alice. Witnesses: William Essex, John Sely, John Maryns, John Gravele, John Essex, Robert de Bourton parson of Southwokyndon, John de Shropham chaplain, William Mepeshale, Philip atte Bregge. Dated London, 20 March 45 Edward III. (BHO)

Robert de Marny had married the widow Alice of William Bruyn Lord of Beckenham Manor, the manor returns to Ingram/Ingelram Bruyn, presumably on Robert or Alice's death. Alice's maiden name had been le Lacer.

Copied from 1358 - Beckenham Manor Document Transcription; (the first part gives us the name of the parson of Beckenham and indicates that several advowsons and livings from parishes or manors could be held by one churchman)
Fine levied in the octaves of St. John the Baptist, 31 Eds.III. (1358) between William de Bruyn, Knt, and Alice his wife complainants (by Edmund Barnabe, the attorney of the said Alice), and Robert Sanlo (de Sancto Laudo), parson of beghenham, deforciant, touching the manor of Wokyndon Rokell the advowsons of the church and chapel of the same town, and of the hospital of St. John de Broke.
Deed poll of Joan late wife of Thomas de Overton, and daughter of the late lord William Bruyn, knt, dated 20 Mar. 45 Eds. III.,(1372) releasing to Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, her (Joan’s) mother, and her (Joan’s) brothers Ingram and Richard, all claim on the manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), Rounore, Migham (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset).

Fine levied in the octaves of the Purification, 50 Edw.III., (1377) between Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, Complainants, and Warren de Eyrdale and Joan his wife, deforciants, touching a messuage and lands in Stifford, and two parts of the advowson of the church of the same town.

Deed poll of Ingram Bruyn, son and heir of William Bruyn, knt., dated Tuesday next after the feast of St.John the Baptist, 1377, granting to Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife (the grantor’s mother), the said manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), and advowson of the church of the same town, the manors of Rounor, Fordyngbrigge (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset). [Norman].

Deed poll of Ingram Brun, dated 1 July 1377?, discharging Robert de Marny from the covenants of a certain indenture made 15 Nov., 48 Edw.III (1375) (between dame Katherine de la Pole, late wife of William de la Pole, knt., and his son Edmond de la Pole, knt., of the one part and the said Robert de Marny, knt.. of the other part.

Fine levied in the octaves of the Holy Trinity, 12 Ric. II., (1389) between the said Robert de Bourton parson of Southwokyndon, John Coly, parson of Stifford, and John Martham, parson of Bekenham, complainants, and Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife, deforciants, touching the manors of Forthingbrigg and Rouenore, and lands in Forthingbrigg and Brouneandevere, and the advowson of the church of Rouenore, (Hants), the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), and Bekenham (Kent). And the advowson of the church of the same manor.

Tripartite indenture, dated 2 Mar,. 16 Ric. II., (1393) whereby (after reciting the previous deeds, etc., as well as the death of the said John Colyn) John Martham, parson of  Bekenham, limits the manor and advowson of the church of Bekenham (Kent), and the manor of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and a toft and plough-land called Godeshull, in the town of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), to Robert de Marny, for life, with remainder to Ingram Brun in tail maile, in default to the said William de Marny, and the other remainders noticed in the preceeding deed.

1372 - Beckenham and Bromley, Woolseys Farm?; Lease from Robert de Marny, Alice his wife, Robert de Bourton, parson of South Wekyndon, and Philip atte Bregge, to Roger Prest and John Thornkyn of 2 crofts of which the west is on the London Road, Bromley by the field of the Bishop of Rochester, and a croft called the Rachel, a croft called Chellefeld, the Mellebroke, 2 crofts called Jonestone, Cilmynesbroke and a croft, and land called Mersshland, Bromley (formerly of Richard Lacer, citizen of London) Lands of Richard Lacer in Beckenham, south of Westbregg Street, land, tenement and customs of .... [missing] Walcy, Bakeresland, and meadow in Bladyngdonemed

 (Bromley Collections)

Alice who was widow of William Bruyn  was daughter of Sir Richard le Lacer d.1361. If Richard had no sons then his lands descend to any daughters and their husbands. Or the land was part of a marriage settlement. But Richard had a son by the same name and another daughter Katherine. The property of Richard Lacer was divided between the two sisters. We conjecture whether this could be related to Woolseys Farm (Walcy) the descent of which  is vague until 1693 and 1705 when it becomes Peter Burrells

Quitclaim is a transfer of property and this transfers Beckenham Manor from Bruyn to de Marny. As I have said, de Marny was an avaricious individual who is described as being quite ruthless in his actions.

And this Memorandum evidences the same. 51 Edward III. Memorandum of acknowledgment, 30 June this year. Ingram Brun, son and heir of William Brun knight, to Robert Marny knight and Alice his wife, mother of the said Ingram, and to his said mother's heirs and assigns. Charter with warranty of the manor of Southwokyngdon co. Essex, the manor and advowson of Bekynham co. Kent, the manors of Rounor and Fordyngbrigge co. Suthampton and Randolveston co. Dorset. Witnesses: Ralph Seyntleger, Thomas Tyrell knights, John de Gyldesburgh, Thomas de Belhous, John Stodaye. Dated Tuesday after St. John Baptist 1377. (source BHO)

1377 - Langley purchased by the Langley family according to Philipot so acquiring its name. "for before the going out of Edward the third,(1377) I find the Propriety invested by Sale in Langley, to which Family the Foundation of that House owes in part its Original, on which they ingraffed their own Name, which hath flourished under that Title ever since, though the Family be withered away and gone, the last of which Name at this place was Ralph Langley, who with Roger Twisden, Stephen Monins, Edward Monins, John Edingham or Engham, Richard Edingham, John Berton of Cotmanton in Shouldon, John Berham, John Betenham of Shurland in Pluckley, and others, Gentlemen of prime Rank in this County, were summoned to appear before Robert Poynings and John Perry, in the twelfth year of Henry the sixth,(1434) to disclaim the Title of the House of York, and this Ralph died in the year 1451,(source; Philipot). This "sale" for 1377 looks  like a Final Accord which we have not found  to confirm but we find the name Langele or Langel mentioned significantly earlier, Ralph de Langele 1266..

Fine levied in the octaves of St. John the Baptist, 31 Eds.III. (1358) between William de Bruyn, Knt, and Alice his wife complainants (by Edmund Barnabe, the attorney of the said Alice), and Robert Sanlo (de Sancto Laudo), parson of Beghenham, deforciant, touching the manor of Wokyndon Rokell the advowsons of the church and chapel of the same town, and of the hospital of St. John de Broke.
Deed poll of Joan late wife of Thomas de Overton, and daughter of the late lord William Bruyn, knt, dated 20 Mar. 45 Eds. III.,(1372) releasing to Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, her (Joan’s) mother, and her (Joan’s) brothers Ingram and Richard, all claim on the manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), Rounore, Migham (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset).

Fine levied in the octaves of the Purification, 50 Edw.III., (1377) between Robert de Marny, knt., and his wife Alice, Complainants, and Warren de Eyrdale and Joan his wife, deforciants, touching a messuage and lands in Stifford, and two parts of the advowson of the church of the same town.

Deed poll of Ingram Bruyn, son and heir of William Bruyn, knt., dated Tuesday next after the feast of St.John the Baptist, 1377, granting to Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife (the grantor’s mother), the said manors of Southwokyndon (Essex), Bekenham (Kent), and advowson of the church of the same town, the manors of Rounor, Fordyngbrigge (Hants), and Randolveston (Dorset). [Norman].

Deed poll of Ingram Brun, dated 1 July 1377?, discharging Robert de Marny from the covenants of a certain indenture made 15 Nov., 48 Edw.III (1375) (between dame Katherine de la Pole, late wife of William de la Pole, knt., and his son Edmond de la Pole, knt., of the one part and the said Robert de Marny, knt.. of the other part.

Fine levied in the octaves of the Holy Trinity, 12 Ric. II., (1389) between the said Robert de Bourton parson of Southwokyndon, John Coly, parson of Stifford, and John Martham, parson of Bekenham, complainants, and Robert de Marny, knt., and Alice his wife, deforciants, touching the manors of Forthingbrigg and Rouenore, and lands in Forthingbrigg and Brouneandevere, and the advowson of the church of Rouenore, (Hants), the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), and Bekenham (Kent). And the advowson of the church of the same manor.

Tripartite indenture, dated 2 Mar,. 16 Ric. II., (1393) whereby (after reciting the previous deeds, etc., as well as the death of the said John Colyn) John Martham, parson of  Bekenham, limits the manor and advowson of the church of Bekenham (Kent), and the manor of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and a toft and plough-land called Godeshull, in the town of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), to Robert de Marny, for life, with remainder to Ingram Brun in tail maile, in default to the said William de Marny, and the other remainders noticed in the preceeding deed.

Power of attorney, dated 2 March, 16 Ric.II., (1393) from the said John Martham parson of Bekenham to William Aylmar and John Payne, to deliver seizing of the lands mentioned in the preceeding deed to Robert de Marny, kt.

1377 - King Richard II until deposed in 1399

1379 – Kenthouse; Marriage of Thomas Exton (d.1420) to Joan Frambald. Although it was his second marriage, to Joan, the daughter and coheir of Maud Frambald, which made him really wealthy. From her mother she inherited shops and tenements in the London parishes of St. Michael le Querne, St. Leonard and St. Alban, as well as a messuage called ‘le Kenthouse’ and other land in Battersea, Lewisham and Beckenham. In February 1389, Joan’s father granted Exton and his feoffees an annual rent of £10 for the next 20 years, although Frambald’s sudden death and the temporary reversion of his estates to the Crown meant that the annuity fell almost immediately into arrears. The division of Maud Frambald’s London property between Joan Exton and another of her kinsmen, Robert Conyngesburgh, was finally settled after much argument in February 1390. Source; History of Parliament online;Thomas Exton.

1380 - Sundridge and Beckenham etc; Close Rolls; Memorandum of acknowledgment, 8 February this year.William Spenser otherwise called Forneux citizen and fishmonger of London to Andrew Pykeman citizen and fishmonger and Joan his wife, who was wife of Robert Forneux citizen and fishmonger of London, their heirs and assigns. Quitclaim of the manor of Sundresshe and all other lands in Brumlegh, Beghenham, Chiselherst, Modyngham and elsewhere in Kent, with woods, rents etc., wards, marriages etc., which the grantor, John Litle late citizen and fishmonger of London, and Peter de Meldoun had by feoffment of the said Robert. Dated 1 February 4 Richard II. See 1386 Pykeman to Cressewyk

1380  - Foxgrove; after disposal of Foxgrove by Pavely? Thomas de Aldon was second husband of Maud Burghersh after William Paveley died hence so Walter Paveley heir and his sons Walter & Thomas who died young so reverted to Maud and then to her child by Thomas.

 A Writ regarding Walter Pavely, knight, was issued on 5 August 4 Richard II [1380] after which an Inquisition was taken in Kent at Eylesforde, on the Monday after the Assumption, later that month which found that Walter died on 16 December 1379, his heir was unknown, and he was not seised on the day of his death of any lands etc. in Kent to the jurors' knowledge, because long before his death he granted the manors of Bocton Allulf by Wy, Syffleton and Brampton, with all other his lands etc. in the county to William Wyndesore, clerk, John de Gyldysburg, William Topclyve and others by charter and they have seisin. A second Inquisition was taken at Wy, on Friday the feast of St. Bartholomew, 4 Richard II which found he was seised of the under-mentioned manor and advowson on the day of his death, to him and the heirs of his body, by virtue of a gift and feoffment made by Robert Brok, clerk, and John Gasselyn to his grandfather Walter Pavely, knight, and Maud, the latter's wife, daughter of Stephen de Burghesshe, and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to the Maud and her heirs. Maud, after the death of Walter, her husband, married Thomas de Aldon, knight, and they, by a fine levied in the king's court, gave the manor and advowson of Bokton Allulph, held of the king in chief, as of the honor of Boulogne and other lands etc. in Kent to William atte Welle, then parson of the church of Pette, and Philip Breton, and their heirs, and the said William and Philip, by the same fine, granted the premises to Thomas and Maud and the heirs of their bodies, with remainder to Maud and her heirs. Thomas and Maud had issue Thomas de Aldon, knight, living in 1380, and the manor and advowson remain to him by the above gift. Thomas de Aldon, knight, Maud's son and heir, is next heir to the manor and advowson because Walter died without heir of himself.

 1380's & 1390's a series of cases of debt against him indicates he may have sold Burwash, Plumstead & Foxgrove.

1381 - Peasants' Revolt, also called Wat Tyler's Rebellion, (1381), A result of the Poll Tax of 1377

1382 – 140 acres is similar to Kent House but William de Weston is mentioned in 1384 Manor of Grouelond and Lewelond? (276) Octave of St John Baptist 6 Richard II Q: William de Weston and wife Joan D: William de Saundeby and wife Elizabeth 2 tofts, 140 acres land, 20 acres wood and 25s rent in Bekenham. Quitclaim from William de Saundeby and Elizabeth and the heirs of Elizabeth to William de Weston and Joan and the heirs of William. William de Weston and Joan gave 100 marks. (Kent Arch.) see 1384 Weston to Vannere

Much later on the Burrell map from Knepp Castle we can see Weston’s Land on Croydon Road and Beckenham Road whether by coincidence or not.

1384 – Elmers End / Kelsey? Grovelands is a field on the later 1735 Kelsey map;

(461) Octave of Trinity 8 Richard II Q: Henry Vannere citizen and vintner of London, William Clouyle and John Cornwaleys D: William de Weston and wife Joan Manors of Grouelond and Lewelond in Bekenham. Quitclaim from William de Weston and Joan and the heirs of William to Henry, William Clouyle and John and the heirs of Henry. Warrant against the heirs of William. Henry, William Cloyle and John gave £100. (Kent Arch.)

Also see William Brograve v Thomas Horne re Grovelond in 1495

1384 – Duplicate of the previous entry or not?? Foot of Fine (DC 131) Trinity in 15 days 8 Richard II - Kent and Surrey Q: Henry Vannere citizen of London, William More citizen of London, John Rote citizen of London D: William de Weston and wife Joan A messuage, 200 acres land, 20 acres meadow, 8 acres wood in Begenham and Lewesham co. Kent and 12 acres land in Batreseye co. Surrey. Quitclaim from William de Weston and Joan and the heirs of Joan to Henry, William More and John and the heirs of henry. Henry, William More and John gave 100 marks. (Kent Arch.)

1384 - Penge/Kenthouse/Elmers End? The borders of Beckenham, Lewisham and Battersea meet in the general area of Penge and Kent House. The acreage mentioned is very similar to other descriptions of Kent House Farm but I may be jumping to conclusions. Earlier entries for 1381 mention Weston in connections with Groveland which can be traced to a fieldname near Elmers End.

“Begenham” can be read at the end of the 5^th line.

1384 – Foxgrove Manor; Plea Roll; Thomas Haithorp (Hakkethorp?), George de Bursalle and Thomas le Walsh sued William Burcester(d.1407) and his wife Margaret (d.1/7/1393) for the Manor of Foxgrove. Margaret had been widow of Sir Bartholomew de Burghersh (4^thLord Burghersh). The implication is that Margaret as widow of Bartholomew de Burghersh carried Foxgrove to the possession of William Burcester. But Haithorp, Bursalle and le Walsh were husbands of the daughters of Henry de Clyf(Cliffe) the nephew who inherited Foxgrove in 1332 on the death of his uncle also named Henry de Cliffe. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&lpg=RA2-PA507&dq=%22elizabeth%20de%20say%22%20thomas&pg=PA369#v=onepage&q=foxgrove&f=false

The family tree in the Plea Rolls shows how Henry de Cliffe d.1332 had a brother John who's son Henry had one son, Hugh, and three daughters. The son Hugh apparently died without issue and the three daughters' surviving husbands sued for shared ownership of Foxgrove. This is complicated as the manor appears to have been held by de Cliffe and Bartholomew Burghersh at the same time Margaret. This requires more clarification. Suffice it to say that these possessors appear to be absentee landlords having little to do apart from derive rents from the property. William Burcester was at one time Sherrif of Kent and said to live at Lesnes (see extract below) so had some local interest.

https://fmg.ac/resources/scanned-sources/category/78-tgb-13
I assume the plaintiffs won as in 1399 Hakkethorp(Haithorp) quitclaims Foxgrove to Elizabeth, wife of Edward le Despenser

1385 – Foxgrove; re WALSH, Sir Thomas (bef.1346-1397/8), of Wanlip, Leics. Thomas le Walsh is named in the previous 1385 entry above as a joint plaintiff against Burcester.
Peds. Plea Rolls, ed. Wrottesley, 164. Little is known about his mother’s family, save that her great-uncle was Master Henry Cliff (d.c.1334) the former keeper of the privy seal and of the rolls of Chancery. In 1385 Walsh and certain kinsmen on his mother’s side brought a suit against Sir William Burcester* and his wife Margaret (Lord Burghersh’s widow) for possession of the Burghersh manor of ‘Foxgrove’ in Kent, but they proved unsuccessful. Source; History of Parliament;

1385 – Birth date from Proof of age Maurice Bruyn document 1406? And see 1407 Ingram Bruyn’s Inquisition Post Mortem. Horndon on the Hill by South Ockendon. 24 Sept.Maurice son and heir of Ingram Bruyn was born at South Ockendon and baptised in the church there on 14 September 1385, and was therefore aged 21 on 14 Sept. last [sic]. The jurors say that they remember this for the reasons given:
John Quynton, aged 45 years and more: Maurice was placed to nurse to the wife of John Jann, carpenter, at Aveley by South Ockendon, and John built him a house at Aveley in that year.
Thomas Turvylle, 54: on the second day after the baptism Maurice was put to nurse at Aveley, and he was sent to the same place by Alice wife of Robert Marny, knight, aunt of Maurice, to see how Maurice was kept and nursed, and he received a gold ring for his trouble.
William Ardale, 49, knows the date by a charter of feoffment of John Smyth by which he bought a croft in Stifford by South Ockendon from John Smyth in that year and had seisin.
John Arundell, 50, was sent on that day by Alice Marny, the aunt, to Robert Marny, then lord of South Ockendon, in London to tell him of the birth, and he was given 20s. for his trouble.
Robert Bolyngton, 50: on that day Alice Wykes(?) granted him 10 a. in Rainham by charter and he had seisin.
John Duddelee, 50, was a servant of Robert Braibrook, then bishop of London, who sent a white palfrey as a gift by him, and Alice Marny gave him 6s.8d. for his trouble.
Edward Caumbre, 60, saw Robert Burton, parson of South Ockendon, the godfather, give Maurice a silver goblet with a gilt cover on the day of the baptism.
Richard Byrle, 49, was at South Ockendon and saw John Broun, goldsmith of London, give Maurice a silver gilt …
John Salman, senior, 60, carried a torch from the manor to the church for the baptism and held it by the font.
William Love, 49, was retained as carpenter on that day by Ingram Bruyn to build a new chamber in the manor of South Ockendon and received 10s. from him.
John Payn, 50, when Maurice was at the church saw Henry Somer driving a cart with a pipe of red wine past the churchyard to the manor and rejoicing and delighting in the birth of Maurice… in such excitement Henry Somer neglected the cart … so that the wine was totally lost.
John Sculle, 48, … was then chief butler of Robert Marny, then lord of South Ockendon, and Robert Est, his clerk of accounts, gave him 10s. for his good services to the godfathers and godmother.

This was instrumental in determining the inheritance of Beckenham Manor in the Brun/Bruyn family after the involvement with the de Marny estates through Alice Brun’s second marriage. Without a proven heir the estates may have reverted to the de Marny heir. The underlying information about staff at South Ockendon adds some substance.

1386 – Undefined property but Pykeman is mentioned in connection with acquiring the Manor of Sundridge and divers other land in 1380; Foot of Fine; (517) Michaelmas in one month 10 Richard II Q: William Cressewyk of London, John Chaueryng diere and Thomas Lyncolne citizen and fishmonger of London D: Andrew Pykeman citizen and fishmonger of London and wife Joan 2 messuages, 400 acres land, 12 acres meadow, 70 acres pasture, 120 acres wood, 30 acres heath and 8s rent in Bromlegh, Chiselhurst, Bekenham and Eltham. To hold (as to the messuage, 282 acres land, 8 acres meadow, 47 acres pasture, 108 acres wood the rent and heath) to William, John and Thomas and the heirs of John. To remain (as to 60 acres land, 4 acres meadow, 20 acres pasture and 12 acres wood in Bromlegh held by John Dryuer for the life of Joan, 10 acres land in Bromlegh held by Emma Abel for the life of Joan, 8 acres land and 3 acres pasture in Bromlegh held by Thomas Renewell [?Reuewell] junior for the life of Joan, 5 acres land in Bromlegh held by Alexander Preest carter for the life of Joan, 8 acres land in Bromlegh held by William Southwell for the life of Joan, 7 acres land in Bromlegh held by Richard Abilet for the life of Joan, 15 acres land in Bromlegh held by Andrew Yonge for the life of Joan and 5 acres land in Bromlegh held by Simon Huchoun for the life of Joan of the inheritance of Joan with reversion to the heirs of Joan) to William, John and Thomas and the heirs of John after the death of Joan. Warrant against the heirs of Joan. William, John and Thomas gave 200 marks. (Kent Arch) see 1380 Pykeman ‘Manor of Sundridge etc.’ The amount of land in Beckenham isn’t mentioned and maybe is a very small part of this transaction.

1387 - Beckenham Manor; 06/05/1387 Letter of attorney granted by Robert de Marny, knight, and Alice his wife, to John Coo and John Payne to deliver seisin of Robert de Bourton, parson of South Wekyndon (Ockendon), John Colyn, parson of Stifford, and John Martham, parson of Beckenham relating to the manor of Beckenham, Kent, and advowson of the church; the manor of Rovenore, Hants., and advowson of the church; the manor of Fordingbridge, Hants., with one toft and one carucate of land; the manor of Randolvestone, Dorset; one toft and one carucate of land in Brown Candover, Hants
[One seal] (Bromley HC)
Seisin is a transfer of land, in this case temporary as the property reverts to Ingram Bruyn at a later date. Borrowman describes this as a disposed of or mortgaged (more likely a form of lease) and says 500 marks was paid by the clerics for the advowsons. Borrowmans record of the parsons of St.George’s adds some substance here.

1387 – Old Court Manor? A few references naming Bromlegh, Chiselhurst, Beckenham and Eltham can be linked to parts of Old Court Manor which was based in Greenwich. This may be a sub letting or lease as enfeoffments could constitute several layers ie like sub letting rented property. One meaning of Frith is a wood or forest generally so Frythe or Frith Wood is mentioned in other references and in some cases near Pickhurst Green although this links a Frith wood to Chiselhurst. Unidentified land in Beckenham and Bromley but Marny mentioned who was linked to Beckenham Manor and his part in this may be as ‘Lord of the Manor’ acting in an administrative role. It is impossible to identify the exact locations but land in Beckenham ending up in the possession of Morden College is thought to have been part of Old Manor property.

Memorandum; William Cressewyk of London, John Claveryng 'dyere' and Thomas Lincolne citizen and fishmonger of London to Andrew Pikeman citizen and fishmonger of London and Joan his wife and to their assigns during their lives and the life of the longest liver, with remainder to John Sibille citizen of London and his assigns during his life, remainder to Andrew his son and to the heirs of his body, remainder to Margaret daughter of John Sibille and to the heirs of her body, remainder to the right heirs of John Sibille. Indenture of demise of all the messuages, lands, rents and services with reversions, suits of court etc. in Bromlegh, Chiselhurst, Bekenham and Eltham co. Kent which the grantors had by feoffment of the said Andrew and Joan, as by a fine levied in the king's court at Westminster in 10 Richard II may appear, also of the land and wood called the Frythe in the parish of Chiselhurst which they had by feoffment of John Fyge citizen and fishmonger of London; and covenant that the said Andrew and Joan and the survivor and their assigns shall not be impeached for waste, nor John Sibille and his assigns, and that the executors of the said survivor shall have an easement in the premises for one year after the death of such survivor for removing and disposing of their corn, stock and moveable chattels thereupon. Witnesses: Sir Robert Marny knight, Geoffrey Newenton, Richard Tobynden, John Fyge, John Elys. Dated Bromlegh, 1 March 10 Richard II.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the said William and John Claverynge, 19 March.

 
1388 - Kent House or Manor of Kenthous: National Archive; Creditor: Nicholas Heryng, of Kent, now deceased. Amount: £300.
Before whom: William Walworth, Mayor of the Staple of Westminster.
When taken: 17/10/1379
First term: 25/03/1380
Last term: 25/03/1380
Writ to: Sheriff of Kent Sent by: Chancery.

Endorsement: William Guildford, Sheriff, replies that John Leeg is dead, but all his lands and tenements, goods and chattels have been extended and seized into the King's hands. William Brantingham was not found in the bailiwick and he has no property there. Date given for return to Chancery: 25/11/1388. M(ichaelmass).2: Extent made at West Craye, Fri. 16/10/1388 before William Guildford, Sheriff of Kent. John Leeg had on the day of the recognisance in Beckenham [Bromley and Beckenham Hundred] the manor of Kenthous worth 20s. a year after expenses and 2 services. William Brantingham had nothing in Kent.

“Manor” in this sense is just a house and related land and not in any way a legislative jurisdiction. Nicholas Heryng is not mentioned elsewhere in connection with Kent House but a Thomas Heryng is connected in some transactions. There is some possibility that Heryng was leasing to Leeg?

1389 – Beckenham Manor; Court of Common Pleas. Plea of Covenant; Robert de Bourton, Robert de Marny are new names related to Beckenham Manor and Church but see 1387. (source:  http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_289_55.shtml#187

Robert de Marny’s wife Alice is the remarried widow of Maurice le Brun, previously Alice le Lacer. Marny has a reputation of acquiring property and in this case by marrying the widow of the Lord of the Manor of Beckenham. The Manor will eventually return to Alice’s son Ingram le Brun. The following indicates that Robert de Bourton acquires the right of Beckenham Manor and advowson from Robert de Marny and his wife. We have found that often these Fines (Final Accords) state ‘for ever’ but properties return to the original landlord indicating that some form of lease is agreed.

CP 25/1/289/55, number 187.Image of document at AALT
County: Hampshire. Dorset. Kent. Place: Westminster.
Date: One week from Holy Trinity, 12 Richard [II] [20 June 1389]. And afterwards one week from St Michael, 13 Richard [II] [6 October 1389].
Parties: Robert de Bourton', the parson of the church of Southwekyn[Ockendon], [John] Colyn, the parson of the church of Stifford', and John Martham, the parson of the church of Bekenham, querents, and Robert de Marny, knight, and Alice, his wife, [deforciants].
Property: The manors of Forthyngbrigg' and Rouenore and 2 tofts and 2 carucates of land in Forthyngbrigg' and Brouncand[ouere and] the advowson of the church of Rouenore in the county of Southampton and the manor of Randolueston' in the county of Dorset and the manor of Bekenham and the advowson of the church of the same manor in the county of Kent.
Agreement; [Robert de Marny] and Alice have acknowledged the manors, tenements and advowsons to be the right of Robert de Bourton', as those which the same Robert, John and John have of their gift, to hold to Robert de Bourton', John and John and the heirs of Robert, of the chief lords for ever.
Warranty: Warranty by Robert de Marny and Alice for themselves and the heirs of Alice.
For this: Robert de Bourton', John and John have given them 500 marks of silver.

1 mark was valued at 13shillings and 4pence or 2/3rds of £1  so  about £332  which was a considerable sum in 1389

1389 - Around the time of John Martham 'parson' of Beckenham.  The connection of John de Elme with Lambeth and Braested  implies a different person, but cannot be discounted as an alternative name for Martham but the description of Parson and Rector may be interchangeable or different at this time when Catholicism was the only church. To have “cure” indicates the position of Curate?
1389.10 Kal. Dec. St. Peter's, Rome.
(f. 79d.) To John de Elme, rector of Lamhethe, in the diocese of Winchester. Extension of successive dispensations on account of illegitimacy—(i) to be ordained and hold two compatible benefices, one of them having cure, but not being in a cathedral, after which he obtained Bekenham, in the diocese of Rochester; (ii) to exchange that church and such other benefice without cure for two other similar or dissimilar mutually compatible benefices, one of them with cure, after which he resigned Bekenham for Bradestede, in the diocese of Canterbury; (iii) to exchange Bradestede for a similar of dissimilar benefices with cure, to be held along with such benefice without cure, after which he exchanged Bradestede for Lamhethe— so that he may hold three or more other mutually compatible benefices, even if one have cure, or be a canonry and prebend in a cathedral church, and may exchange them as often as he please for similar or dissimilar mutually compatible benefices. His illegitimacy need not be mentioned in future graces. (BHO)

 
1389 Beckenham Manor; Foot of Fine; see previous entries for 1389; (DC 187) Octave of Trinity 12 Richard II; Octave of Michaelmas 13 Richard II - Southamptonshire, Dorsetshire and Kent Q: Robert de Bourton parson of Southwckyndon church [Essex], John Colyn parson of Strafford church [Essex] and John Martham parson of Bekenham church [Kent] D: Robert de Marny chevalier and wife Alice Manors of Forthyngbury and Rouenore, 2 tofts and 2 carrucates land in Forthyngbury and Breamorandon and the advowson of Rouenore church co. Southamptonshire; the manor of Randolueston co. Dorsetshire; and the manors of Bekenham and the advowson of the church of the same manor co. Kent. To hold to Robert de Bourton, John and John and the heirs of Robert. Warrant against the heirs of Alice. Robert de Bourton, John and John gave 500 marks. (Kent Arch.)

This must relate to a lease as Alice was widow of Sir William Bruyn subsequently married to de Marny and the Manor of Beckenham eventually returned to Ingram Bruyn, son of Alice and William.

1389 – Believed to be land belonging to Old Court Manor Greenwich which descended to John Morden and Morden College; Foot of Fine; This unidentified estate and the Middleton name appear in other entries, probably includes the site of ‘Morden College’ land in Beckenham which John Morden acquired from Charles II;

(685) Morrow of the Ascension 13 Richard II Q: Thomas de Bland D: Hugh de Midelton and wife Elizabeth 7 messuages, 280 acres land, 8 acres meadow, 40 acres wood and 28s rent in Estgrenewych, Leuesham, Kettebroke, Eltham, Chesilherst, Charleton, Beckenham and le Lee. To hold to Thomas and his heirs. Warrant against the heirs of Hugh. Thomas gave 200 marks. (Kent Arch)

See 1399 and 1414. One has to understand the history of Old Court Manor and its evolution out of the Manor of East Greenwich.

 
1391/2 – Feb 20 1392; Close Rolls; John Martham parsonof Bekenham and lord of the manor of Bekenham to William de Marny, son and heir of Robert de Marny knight his heirs and assigns. Gift of all services due to the said parson as lord of the manor for great number of lands in Bekenham sometime of Richard Lacer citizen of London and now held by the said William and quitclaimed with warranty of such services and of the lands aforesaid. Westminster 27 February.

 Indenture between John Martham parson of Bekenham and lord of the manor of Bekenham and Robert Cuttulfe of Belchangre called Volere witnessing a grant with warranty for life to the said Robert for good service now and hereafter done to Sir Robert de Marny and Dame Alice his wife as a yeoman of his estate ought to render to his master of all easements of the Houses in the Lodge called “Parkgate” of Bekenham pasture for two kine and four pigs going freely throughout the park, a bushel of good wheat every week and 30s a year to be taken of the said manor for raiment and for his salary of all which seisin has been given to him. Witnesses; Ingram Brun knight, William de Marny, John Body, Thomas de Merston, Walter Colman. 4 February 16 Richard II (French)

This adds a little background to the period in which John Martham is both parson and lord of the manor of Bekenham until it returns to Ingram Brun

 
1392 – Foot of Fine; (839) Morrow the Ascension 16 Richard II; Octave of Trinity same year 103 Q: Walter Pounde pouchmaker and John Stomelhole D: John Pye of Estgrenewyche and wife Isabel ½ of a messuage, 6 acres land and of 7 acres wood in Bekenham. Quitclaim from John Rye and Isabel and the heirs of Isabel to Walter and John Stomelhole and the heirs of Walter. Warrant against the heirs of Isabel. Walter and John Stomehole gave £20. (Kent Arch.)

Walter and John Stomelhole/Stomehole is possibly Stommeshulle as in the Lay Subsidy Roll and a possible source of the name Stoms Hill / Stumps Hill?

 
1393 - March 15th; John Martham, Parson of Beckenham may have been a knight and had significant influence in Beckenham and beyond at this time with the Bruyns and de Marnys.
John Martham parson of Bekenham to Robert de Marny knight and his assigns during his life, with remainder to Ingram Brun knight and the heirs male of his body, remainder to William de Marny son and heir of Robert and to the heirs male of his body, remainder to Maurice Brun knight, his heirs and assigns. Indenture tripartite of gift with warranty of the manor and advowson of Bekenham co. Kent, the manor of Forthyngbrigge co. Southampton, a toft and one carucate of land in Forthyngbrigge called 'Godeshulle,' and the manor of Randolveston co. Dorset, which by charter enrolled in chancery the said Ingram gave to the said Robert and Alice his wife, mother of the said Ingram, and to the heirs and assigns of the said Alice, and by fine levied in the king's court the said Robert and Alice gave to Robert de Bourton parson of South Wokyndoun, John Colyn parson of Styfford co. Essex and John Martham and to the heirs of Robert de Bourton, Robert de Bourton having made a quitclaim thereof to John Colyn and John Martham, their heirs and assigns, and John Colyn being dead; and covenant that Robert de Marny and his assigns may during his life without impeachment make waste in all houses, woods etc. to the premises pertaining. Dated 2 March 16 Richard II.
Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties in chancery at Westminster, 2 March.

John Martham (as above) to William Aylmar and John Payn. Letter of attorney, appointing them to give Robert de Marny knight seisin of the manor and advowson of Bekenham, the manor of Forthyngbrigge, a toft and land there called Godeshulle, and the manor of Randolveston. Dated (as the last).
Memorandum of acknowledgment by John Martham (as above).
(source: BHO)

Also; John Martham parson of Bekenham co. Kent and lord of Randolveston co. Dorset to Amice sometime wife of William Hore. Charter with warranty of a yearly rent to be taken during her life of all his lands etc. in Randolveston; and in name of seisin he has paid her 6d. in part payment of the first term. Witnesses: Robert de Marny, Ingram Brun knights, William de Marny, Thomas de Merston, Walter Colman. Dated 6 November 16 Richard II.
Memorandum of acknowledgment (as before), 2 March.
Indenture made between John Martham parson of Bekenham and lord of the manor of Bekenham and Robert Cuttulfe of Bilchangre called Volere, witnessing a grant with warranty for life to the said Robert, for good service now and hereafter done to Sir Robert de Marny and Dame Alice his wife, as a yeoman of his estate ought to render to his master, of all easements of the houses in the lodge called the 'Parkgate' of Bekenham, pasture for two kine and four pigs going freely throughout the park, a bushel of good wheat every week, and 30s. a year to be taken of the said manor for raiment and for his salary, of all which seisin has been given him. Witnesses: Ingram Brun knight, William de Marny, John Body, Thomas de Merston, Walter Colman. Dated 4 February 16 Richard II. French. Memorandum of acknowledgment by the parties (as above), 2 March.


1393 – Beckenham Manor; Tripartite indenture, (See 1358); dated 2 Mar,. 16 Ric. II., (1393) whereby (after reciting the previous deeds, etc., as well as the death of the said John Colyn) John Martham, parson of  Bekenham, limits the manor and advowson of the church of Bekenham (Kent), and the manor of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and a toft and plough-land called Godeshull, in the town of Forthingbrigge (Hants), and the manor of Randolveston? (Dorset), to Robert de Marny, for life, with remainder to Ingram Brun in tail maile, in default to the said William de Marny, and the other remainders noticed in the preceeding deed.

Power of attorney, dated 2 March, 16 Ric.II., (1393) from the said John Martham parson of Bekenham to William Aylmar and John Payne, to deliver seizing of the lands mentioned in the preceeding deed to Robert de Marny, kt.

 
1393 – John Foxegrove; Calendar of Patent Rolls, Richard II;  The Archbishop of Canterbury apparently fined or penalised and later pardoned for allowing the escape of the named felons. We cannot discount the possibility that this John Foxegrove is related to earlier entries such as a descendant of the 1274 mentioned Foxgrove/Foxesgrave.

1399 - King Henry IV until 1413

1399 - Foxgrove (by Philipot) is the last place of Account in this Parish, .....succeeded Bartholomew Lord Burwash, and he held it at his Decease, which was in the twenty ninth year of Edward the third (1356). and from him it descended to his Son Bartholomew Lord Burwash, who in the forty third year of the abovesaid Prince (1370), passed it away to Sir Walter de Paveley, and in his Family it remained untill the latter End of Richard the second, (1399) and then it was conveyed to Vaux of the County of North-Hampton,

What we discover is that many of these transfers are to do with family intermarriage and inheritance, often complicated by lack of male heirs and sometimes divisions of property between daughters.  

1399 – Believed to be land belonging to Old Court Manor Greenwich which descended to John Morden and Morden College;  These diverse properties are unidentified so far but a separate thread of research could follow Ralph Nevill? The extent of the Beckenham and Lewisham land is also unknown but in Beckenham a small site near Langley later belongs to Morden College as a bequest from John Morden who acquires Old Court Manor from Charles II. The Earl of Westmorland and the mention of John Norbury tempts us to connect with the area of Norbury. Hugh Middelton only has a lease for life. See1389 and 1414 

 Next Page (Timeline 1400-1600)

Back to Intro