Derivation of the Name Danvers

From the foregoing pages we learn that the ancient name of the Norman village from which the Danvers family took their surname was Alvers, and that they therefore were called after it, de Alvers.  This name in appearance and sound differs considerably from the name as now written, and it may be interesting to trace the changes through which de Alvers became converted into Danvers.  The first change was that of the l into u, a change very common at the time, and especially so in the case of proper names, thus, Alta Ripa became Dautrive, de Albineio became Daubeney, Albericus Aubrey, the name of the village of Alvers, became Auvers, and that of its lords either de Alvers or de Auvers.  Next the e of De was omitted and D became the first letter of the name, which was then written Dalvers or Dauvers—we do not remember to have seen the name written with D’, D’Auvers, in any ancient record; certainly that was not the usual method of spelling it.  Then Dauvers was written in the contracted forms, Daus or Dauers.  Further, it must be remembered that the v had no character of its own, it was written as a u.  But for the m the n and the u we have in the ancient MS. just three or two straight strokes.  Dauvers would be written Da, then four strokes for the u and the v, and then ers.  But the eye alone is unable to determine in what way these strokes are to be read; the name might be Dauurs or Danuers, Dauners or Danners.  The recently-printed transcript of the Liber Rubeus states that Rad de Anvers, circa 1210, held the fifth of a fief in Hattune, Middlesex, and it gives as alternatives of the name, Auvers, Anvers, Aunvers, Avers, Alverso and Alvers.

In the year 1297 Sir Thomas Danvers was summoned to military service as de Anuers, de Auners, Danvers, Daunvers.  De Alvers and de Auvers were the oldest forms of the name, next Dauvers, with its contracted forms Daus and Dauers; then we have de Aunvers, de Anuers, and rarely de Anners, and Dauvers, Danuers, Dauners, Danners.  De Anuers or Danuers were the more common forms; the u was pronounced as a v, and the bearer of the name was called Danvers.  There can be little doubt that Danvers was the name of the family at least as far back as Robert, the son of William Danvers and Emma Chevalchesul.  By the way, in the latter name we have another example of the change of the l to u—Chevalchesal, the more ancient form, became Chevauchesal.  The Berkshire family very commonly introduced another letter into the name, and were called Daunvers; this was no doubt the name by which Sir Thomas, Sheriff of Oxford and Berks, was known in the time of Edward I, and his descendant, William Daunvers, the last male representative of that line, who died in the year 1439, had the name so engraved upon his seal.  Another form of the name, commonly used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was Davers; that is, the contracted form of the name Dauers, written without the mark of contraction—George Davers, of Calthorpe, so signs his name in the Lay Subsidy Roll of the year 1566, and William Davers, of Culworth, is so called in the Lay Subsidy Roll of the year 1534.  In comparatively recent times the Culworth family wrote their name d’Anvers.  John Danvers, who died in the year 1642, was probably the first to do so.  However, the younger branch of the family which sprung from Daniel Danvers, John’s uncle, spelt their name in the ancient way.

DANVERS AND TALEMASCHE FAMILIES CIRCA 1210

And now to return to the history of the Tetsworth family, taking it up about the year 1210.  William Danvers, his wife, Emma, and her brother, Robert Chevauchesul, are dead, and Robert Danvers, son of William, is ‘dominus de Tettesworde.’  Richard Talmasche and his wife, Amicia or Avicia, rule in the manor-house at Stoke-Talmage, and his sister Claricia is married to Alanus clericus de Tettesworde.  How shall we translate the word clericus?  Does it denote Alan’s profession, or, as has been assumed, his surname?  His profession, we think, for in the original register the word clericus, many times repeated with Alan’s name, is written with a small c, while the initials of the proper names are in capitals, thus: ‘Alanus clericus et Claricia uxor sua.’  Moreover, were clericus a proper name, the Clerks would be the most numerous family of the period, for a Christian name, such as Alanus, with the appended word clericus, may be found in almost every ancient deed.  Clericus simply meant that Alan was a clerkly person; he may have been a lawyer, or he may have been a Clerk in Holy Orders.  Nor is the fact of Alan’s marriage evidence against the latter alternative.  The feeling of the people amongst whom the married clergy lived appears to have upheld such unions; moreover, many rectors and vicars, possessing the very moderate requirements needful for the first tonsure, took minor orders, and those only, and were called clerics, enjoyed the privileges of their order, and held Church preferments which often were hereditary.  Such clerics could not, however, say Mass, hear confessions, or preach, and they therefore employed for the spiritual work of their parish a vicar or curate, who often was but badly paid.  It is not, therefore, improbable that Alan was the cleric of Tetsworth, while the William, priest of Tetsworth, who appears in the charters, may have been his curate.

Contemporary Events

Robert Danvers, or ‘de Anuers,’ as his name is written in the charters, was, at the period of which we are writing, married, and, as we learn from the register of Eynsham Abbey and from other sources, had four sons—Geoffrey, William, Nicholas and Ralph.  His rightful lord was Hugh Wallys, or Wells, Bishop of Lincoln, but the Bishop had been driven from the kingdom, and was living at Pontigny with Archbishop Langton, while in his place William de Cornhull had charge of the temporalities of the see.  Simon was Abbot of Thame, and for him and for his brethren the time was one of trouble and sadness, for it was the King’s constant endeavour to revenge himself upon the Archbishop by vexing the Church of England, and especially did he lay a heavy hand upon the Cistercian brethren, to one of whose houses, that of Thame, he was often a near neighbour.  But, indeed, the whole land was suffering from the results of the King’s evil ways, for, in consequence of the ‘interdict’ which had been placed upon the kingdom ‘from Berwick to the Channel, from the Land’s End to Dover, the churches were closed, the bells silent; the only clergy who were seen stealing silently about were those who were to baptize new-born infants with a hasty ceremony, those who were to hear the confession of the dying, and to administer to them, and to them alone, the Holy Eucharist.  The dead (no doubt the most cruel affliction) were cast out of the towns, buried like dogs in some unconsecrated place—in a ditch or a dung heap—without prayers, without the tolling bell, without funeral rite.  Those only can judge the effect of this fearful malediction who consider how completely the whole life of all orders was affected by the ritual and daily ordinances of the Church.  Every important act was done under the counsel of the priest or the monk.  Even to the less serious the festivals of the Church were the only holidays, the processions of the Church the only spectacles, the ceremonies of the Church the only amusement.  To those of deeper religion . . . to hear neither prayer nor chant . . . with no saint to intercede, no sacrifice to avert the wrath of God . . . souls left to perish or but reluctantly permitted absolution in the instant of death.’ 3.1 And yet, though the interdict thus cruelly affected the people, and though John by his tyranny had estranged their hearts, his own strength and courage appeared to be unbroken; his friend John de Gray, Bishop of Norwich, remained faithful, and he was ably sustained in carrying out his plans by his Chancellor, Robert de Gray, who had bought his office by a payment of 5,000 marks.  And indeed, so far as John’s personal feelings were concerned, the interdict gave him little trouble; had he not always scoffed at priests and turned his back upon the most holy rites?  Yet, though daring in his impieties, the King was strangely craven in his superstitions, and never went a journey without hanging a chain of relics about his neck.  Not that he depended wholly on them for his safety, for he took care to add as a guard a strong force of mercenary troops, which accompanied him in his constant journeyings. 3.2

To the Tetsworth villagers the King’s cortège must have been only too common a sight as he travelled from the Tower or from Westminster to Oxford, or during this shorter excursions from Oxford, Wallingford, or Dorchester, places where he often stayed, or from his houses at Woodstock and Brill.  With dread they would hear of his approach, and ill news would it be to Robert Danvers that the King would dine at his house.  Quite recently the injustice and cruelty of the King had been brought, as it were, to the very doors of the villagers, when the students of Oxford dispersed to their homes, exasperated by the punishment of two of their number, who by the King’s command were hung because of the accidental death of a woman at Oxford.  And it is probable that the misrule of the King brought to Tetsworth many unwelcome visitors— wandering parties of mercenary troops from Oxford or Wallingford, and robber bands which had begun to infest the country.  From such enemies it was the duty of the lord to defend his villagers, while the operations of the civil war between John and his barons, which often focussed in the neighbourhood of Tetsworth, would oblige Robert Danvers to arm and enrol himself on one side or the other.

ROBERT DANVERS

About the year 1220 Robert’s eldest son Geoffrey married, and to him, as dowry for his wife Sara, Robert gave one and a half knight’s fiefs in Tetsworth, which formerly formed a part of the inheritance of Robert Chevauchesul.  It is likely that at this time Robert left Tetsworth, returning to the ancestral house at Bourton, and we find him signing as a witness 3.3 with ‘his son Geoffrey to a charter of this period, which was given by Simon, son of Roger de Bourton, to Chaucombe Priory.’ And, too, it was about this time, when Robert was growing old, that he wondered, as did all good Christians in those days, in what way he might dispose of a part of his worldly goods for his soul’s welfare.  To Thame Abbey he had already given a portion of the lands in Tetsworth which came to him from his mother’s family, and it is likely that after dowering his son Geoffrey’s wife he had little or no land left at his free disposal in the neighbourhood.  Moreover, the church of his paternal village, Little Bourton, 3.4 belonged to the Benedictine Abbey of Eynsham, and at Fanflore (now Fawler), some five miles from Eynsham, both he and the abbey owned land, and therefore he determines that for the good of his own soul, and for the souls of his ancestors and of his heirs, he will make over to the abbey the land in question.

Eynsham Abbey

Of Eynsham Abbey scarce a vestige remains, but, as in the case of Thame Abbey, the register is preserved, and is amongst the muniments of Christchurch, Oxford, 3.5 to which some of the possessions of the abbey were ultimately transferred.  Even in the time of Robert Danvers the abbey was an ancient foundation, built and endowed for the Benedictines by Aylmer, Earl of Cornwall, about the year 1000.  For a time the abbey seems to have been deserted, Stowe in Lincolnshire becoming in the year 1091 the abode of the fraternity.  But in the year 1109 Robert Bloet, Bishop of Lincoln, restored the church and buildings, and removed to it the abbot and monks of Stowe.  As in the case of all the Benedictine monasteries, this of Eynsham was a centre of intellectual activity, in which young men were taught and prepared for life, while to children was imparted the little learning which the fashion and the needs of the day demanded.  In the cloisters such as those of Eynsham ‘the rumours, guesses, and stories of the day, the strange fortunes of kings and kingdoms were reported, commented on, picturesquely dressed up and made matter of solemn morals or of grotesque jokes, as they might be now in clubs or newspapers.  Here went on the literary work of the time; here with infinite and patient toil, the remains of classical and patristic learning were copied, corrected, sometimes corrupted or ornamented; here, and here almost alone, were the chronicles and records kept year by year, so scanty, often so imperfect and untrustworthy, yet on the whole, so precious.’ 3.6

In characters bright and clear were those ancient records written, the monasteries rivalling one another in the beauty and neatness of their penmanship, and imparting to the records a distinctive character of style and material which still enables an expert to recognise the work of the various scriptoria.

Returns to Bourton

And to Eynsham Abbey Robert Danvers takes his way, and confides to the friendly ear of the abbot his wish to convey to him and to his brethren certain lands in order that prayers might be duly offered in their church for the welfare of his soul and for the souls of his ancestors and heirs.  And after a few days he revisits the abbey, and meets there a company of friends—Peter Thalemasche from Stoke, and Robert de Sydenham, and William Blount from Sydenham and Haseley, and from Charlbury his relatives Gilbert and Richard Taillard, and Hugh le Poer from Ottendun, and from Bourton Thomas de Bourton, whose ancestor had given to the abbey the church of Little Bourton, and these, ‘with many others,’ witness Robert Danvers’ signature to the deed, of which a copy will be found in the appendix to this chapter.  By it he conveyed to the abbey in perpetuity lands and tenements in Fanflore which belonged to him as his share of the inheritance of Robert Chevauchesul, free of all service, saving the rights of the King, and saving certain rights, which are specified, of his sons Nicholas and Ralph, and of his son and heir, William.

The charter was renewed by Robert’s son William, by his grandson Robert, and some hundred and fifty years after the first Robert’s death by his great-great-great-grandson, Richard Danvers of Epwell, for it was essential to the value of such a charter that it should be from time to time repeated, lest, as the witnesses died out and became forgotten, the validity of the deed might be questioned.

And the deed signed, Robert returns with a lightened heart, and prepares himself for death.  He has lived through troublous times: he recollects the day when, in his boyhood, the news came to Tetsworth of the Archbishop’s murder before the altar at Canterbury, and the rebellion of the King’s sons as a consequence of the deed.  Robert had seen the coronation of Richard, quickly followed by his departure for the Holy Land, the usurpation of his brother John, and the troubles which followed thereupon; the death of Richard, and the seventeen years of the reign of him of whom it was said that, ‘Foul as it is, hell itself is made more foul by the presence of John!’

But, mindful of those who were to follow him, Robert Danvers could console, himself in the hope that now there was promise of peace and happiness for the kingdom.  Those great Englishmen, Hubert de Burgh, the Justiciar, and Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, ruling in the young King Henry’s name, were with a strong hand restoring law and justice to the people; the barons were in course of being subdued; the foreign soldiers were being driven from the land; and the kingdom had been freed from the presence of the Papal Legate, who, since John’s shameful submission to the Pope, had ruled as overlord in the government of the realm.

CONTEMPORARY EVENTS

Separation from Normandy

In Robert’s day, too, had come about the separation of his own and of other families from the fiefs which they had held in Normandy.  Members of the family might, by making their submission to the French King,3.7 still exercise some sort of jurisdiction over their Norman fiefs, but practically they were lost to them, for the descendants of the knights who fought at Senlac had became Englishmen and the subjects of King John, whom Philip Augustus had expelled from Normandy.  And yet, though this loss may have been considerable to many English families of Norman origin, the thoughtful amongst them must have realized that this separation from Normandy conduced to the independence of England and to the strengthening of the nation’s life.

Magna Carta

In Robert Danvers’ day, also, the Great Charter of the rights of the people had been won from the King, and doubtless in the security of his own personal rights, and those of his neighbours and dependents, he had happily realized that the King might no longer at his will levy aids and scutages, and that no man might be molested, imprisoned, or punished but by the judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.  And in his own neighbourhood, notwithstanding the persecutions and anarchy of the period, there had been a manifest progress in the social life of the people; and in evidence thereof Robert had witnessed at Thame and Haseley and Sydenham, at Swalcliffe and Bloxham and Hanwell, and in other villages around, the building or enlargement of many churches—churches which are still reckoned amongst the glories of our land.

SONS OF ROBERT OF BOURTON

Geoffrey Danvers

In a charter which has been quoted, Robert Danvers speaks of his second son William as his heir, Geoffrey the eldest son having died during his father’s lifetime.  But in virtue of the one-and-a-half fiefs which Geoffrey had received as dower for his wife, he became a military tenant of the Bishop of Lincoln, and as such appears in a document, which has been copied into the Testa de Nevill,3.8 which gives the names of the Bishop’s tenants about the year 1220.  That Geoffrey died about this time we learn from two deeds, which are amongst those entered in the register of Eynsham Abbey, and of which copies are placed in the appendix to this chapter.  By the first of these Geoffrey gives to his wife, Sara, the lands which his father had given to him on his marriage with her, and the second deed is one executed in the year 1224, after Geoffrey’s death and after his widow’s marriage to Henry de Kenesworth.  The first of these deeds was a ‘charter,’ the second a final concord or ‘fine.’ The charter was the old and somewhat clumsy method of conveying land, while the fine was the outcome of the discovery that no title to property was so good as one that had been contested and settled in a Court of Justice, and that a fictitious suit would serve all the purposes of a real one for the need in hand.

In the case in question, a suit is raised in the Court at Westminster between the Abbot of Eynsham and Henry de Kenesworth, appearing for his wife Sara, late wife of Geoffrey Danvers; and as the result of the hearing, Henry and Sara recognise the right of the Abbot to the land in question, while in consideration of the agreement, end (fine,3.9 hence the usual name of such a deed) and concord the Abbot pays to Henry and Sara nineteen marks, and William Danvers, as brother and heir to Geoffrey Danvers, recognises the right of the Abbot to the land which his father Robert Danvers had given as dowry to Sara.

Nicholas and Ralph Danvers

The younger sons of Robert de Anuers were Nicholas and Ralph, of whom the former settled at Fanflore, where we shall find his descendants.  Amongst the Fanflore charters in the register of Godstow Abbey are two of William Blount to the abbey, one of which is witnessed by Rich. de Prescote, Fulke Basset, Will. Ulger, Nicholas Danuers, and Will de Bodicote.  The other is witnessed by both Nicholas and Ralph Danuers, Fulk Basset, Will. Ulger, Thom. Smart, and Will de Bodicote.  The witnesses are those who are found signing with William Danvers in charters to Chaucombe Priory, and serve, therefore, to identify Nicholas and Ralph as the younger brothers of William.

William Danvers

William Danvers succeeded his father Robert abut the year 1223, at a time when Henry III was still in his minority, and Hubert de Burgh, the Justiciar, and Archbishop Langton were practically the rulers of England.  Shortly after his accession to the estates William Danvers renewed his father’s charter to the Abbey of Eynsham, and at the time that he did so the names of the witnesses evidence that he had made Bourton his home, for they are the names of North Oxon people.  The registers of Thame Abbey and of the Priory of Chaucombe bear evidence of the same nature, and indeed, after the time when William’s father and uncles gave their charters to the Abbey of Thame, we do not find members of the Danvers family signing as witnesses to charters in the Thame register, whereas out of the small number of the charters3.10 of Chaucombe Priory, close to Bourton, which have been preserved, the signature of William Danvers is appended in no less than five.  William’s son and heir, another Robert Danvers, was, moreover, distinctly ‘Robert Danvers of Bourton.’

In the Close Roll3.11 of 9 Henry III we find a William de Auners going on service to join Richard, the King’s brother, who commanded the English army in France; and further, we find William’s name in a very interesting manuscript now in the possession of Queen’s College, Oxford, which contains, amongst other documents of the see of Lincoln, two lists of the Bishop’s tenants.  The manuscript in question was written about the year 1300, and is in fine condition, forming a thick folio volume.  It contains two principal lists of the tenants of the see of Lincoln, the first of which, compiled in the tenth year of the confirmation of Bishop Hugh the Second, i.e., in the year 1225, is a very full one, containing, besides a list of those who held military fiefs, a complete list of all other tenants, their names, occupations, rents, and the conditions of their tenures.  The second list—that of the year 1300—includes only the names of those holding fiefs.  The Rev. Dr Magrath, the Provost of Queen’s College, was good enough to transfer the manuscript for our use to the Bodleian Library, enabling us to examine it at leisure, and to obtain copies of that portion of the manuscript which refers to the hundreds of Thame and Banbury.

HUNDREDS OF THAME AND BANBURY

Fiefs Held of the Bishop of Lincoln

The lists of fiefs held of the Bishop of Lincoln are as follows:

Thame 100 for A.D. 1225 and A.D. 1300

1225 Robert de Vipont (veteri Ponte), as heir of his wife Idonea, one fief in Bocland.

1225 Thomas Granville (Graneuel), one fief in the same place.

1300 Rob. de Clifford and Idonea de Leyburn, two fiefs in Blokeland (Rob. de Clifford married Isabel, eldest daughter and co-heiress of Rob. de Vipont.  Idonea, her sister married 1, Rog. de Leybourne; 2, John de Cromwell).

1225 William de Eyneford, two fiefs in Stoke.

1300 Will. de Kirkeby, two fiefs in Stoke, near Aylesbury.

1225 Henry de Colville (Colleuile), on fief in Ettendone and Mortone.

1225 Peter Talemasche, one fief in Tettesworth.

1225 William Danvers (de Anuers), one fief in Tettesworth.

1300 Robert Danvers (Danuers), heir of Peter Talemache, two fiefs in Tettesworth.

1225 Herbert Quatremain, one fief in Weston and Estcote.

1300 John de Feudus, one fief in Escote.

1225 Bartholomew Foliot, half a fief in Stoke.

1300 Henry de Bruly, half a fief in Waterstoke.

1225 Walter de Clifford, two fiefs in Midleton (Milton).

1300 William Jugge, third part of two fiefs in Milton.

1225 Henry Doily, one fief in Estcote.

1300 Richard de Louche, two parts of two fiefs in Milton.

1225 William, son of Osbert, 5th part of a fief in Thame.

1300 Ric. de Leuek, 5th part of two fiefs in Thame.

1225 Heirs of Joceline de Stowe, one virgate of land in Thame, which belongs to a half fief in Stowe.

Banbury 100

1225 Robert de Chaucombe, two fiefs and three parts of a fief in Burton, Wardington, Rilse, and Dene.

1300 Dominus John de Segrave, two fiefs and three parts of a fief in Burton, Wardington, Rislee, Dene.

1225 Robert de Vipont, one fief and a half of the heritage of his wife Idonea in Burton and Prestcote.

1300 Rob. de Clifford and Idonea de Leyburn, one fief and a half in Burton and Prestcote.

1225 Simon de Croperia, one fief in Croperi, Kildesby and Sutteford.

1300 Henry de Cropry, one fief in Cropry, Shutford and Kildesby.

1225 Ric. de Williamscote, one fief in Williamscote. Ralph, son of Robert . . . one fief in Wardington and Cleidone.

1300 Henry de Williamscote, one fief in Williamscote.

1225 Ralph de Wicham, three fiefs in Wicham, Swaleclive, Eppewelle and Fanflore.

1300 Rob. de Wikam, three fiefs in Wikam, Swaleclyve, Eppewell and Fanflore.

1225 Thomas de Granville, one fief and a half of the heritage of his wife Johanna in Burthon and Sutteford.

1300 Heirs of Dominus Will de Bermyngham, one fief in Shutford.

1225 Rob. de Druis, two fiefs in Erdington.

1300 Abbot of Eynesham, two fiefs in Erdington.

1225 Peter Talemasch, half a fief in Swaleclive and Fanflore.

1300 Will de York (de Eboraco), third part of a fief in le Lee.

1225 Roger Lyons (de Leonibus), 4th part of a fief in Wavercourt.

1300 John de Lyons, 4th part of a fief in Warkworth.

1225 William de Anuers, half a fief in Swaleclive and Fanflore.

1300 Robert Danuers, half a fief in Swaleclive and Fanflore.  He is to do homage for this fief at Banbury.

In the earlier MS.—that of the year 1225—a list of the free tenants follows that of the feoffees, and in the hundred of Thame the first-mentioned is Roger, son of Lete, who holds three virgates of land in Thame, for which he pays 18s.  yearly; he is also to carry the Bishop’s letters (brevia) to Banbury, Bugedene (Bugden, the Bishop’s seat in Hunt.), to Buleswade (in Bedford), and to Woburne.  When required he is, with the Bishop’s bailiff, to carry his lord’s money, the first day at his own cost, and subsequently at the cost of the Bishop.

Another of these tenants is Robert Marescallus, who holds a hide of land in Westone, ‘the gift of the Blessed Hugh’ (St Hugh, Bishop of Lincoln 1186-1200, canonized in 1220) at a yearly rent of a pound of pepper.  The jurors say that Robert returned this land in open court to William de Bleis, Bishop of Lincoln (1202-1206), who then granted it to Robert for his life.

The free tenants are seven in number, holding 14½ virgates, and the sum of the rents is 73s. 2d.

Next follows a list of the burgesses.  The ‘burgages’ of Thame are seventy-six in number, each paying twelvepence per annum.

Tenures of the Bishop’s Tenants

Next follows a list of the villeins, or virgarii, as they are sometimes called.  They are in Westone eleven in number, holding in all sixteen virgates at a total rental of £4. Amongst these Claricia (probably Quatermain), widow, holds a virgate of land in Westone for five shillings rent to farm.  Claricia owes one day in winter and one day in quadragesima to plough for the Lord Bishop.  And to mow the meadow of the Bishop for three days till nine o’clock, and in the same manner to collect the hay (or fodder) for three days, and to carry the hay for one day and a half.  Also to mow the Bishop’s corn for three days with two men, who are to be fed by the Bishop, and to carry half a cart-load of wood, or to pay one penny, also to find forage for two horses of the Bishop as often as he shall come there between the feast of St Martin and Hockeday.  And when it shall be necessary to go with a horse and sack with food for the Bishop to Oxford, Wallingford, Wicumbe, Eilesbirie (Aylesbury).  When the said woman is put to work, work is due from her through the whole year—namely, for one week on two days and for another week on three days—and, moreover, if necessary, she is to make an average on any Sunday.  Also one day in winter and one day in quadragesima to plough for the Bishop as she would for herself, and to carry food for the Bishop as above, and to have her food if the Bishop shall come there.  If any horses or cattle belonging to her are born she may not sell them without the consent of the Bishop’s bailiff.  Also she owes ‘merchet, heriet, and leirwite,’ and a fine for her land after her father’s death, and aid to her lord when necessary, and he so wills.  If she truly works as above she will be quit of the said rent.

The remainder of the villeins hold their virgates upon terms very similar to those of Claricia.  The jurors go on to say that the above tenants ought, for each Sunday that shall come in autumn, to reap one perch (particata) of the Bishop’s corn in the following week, but if he works on Sunday he is quit of reaping the said perch.  Also, he is to carry timber, going one day and coming the other, to the Bishop’s hall and grange.

In Thame, Peter the miller holds a virgate of land at a rent of eight shillings and four hens, and he is to carry a cart-load of wood, or pay twopence.  He is also to pay for pannage (feed of swine on acorns, etc. in the woods) at the rate of a penny for each pig above a year old, and a halfpenny for one younger.  He has also to mow, reap, carry as in the case of Claricia, and he is also to make for the Bishop a quarter of malt, getting from his lord underwood or litter as fuel wherewith to dry the malt.

The tenures of the other tenants in Thame vary little, but they are apparently accommodated to each man’s business.  Thus, Henry faber (smith) has to find iron and prepare iron work for four carts.

At the end of the second list of the Queen’s College MS. is added as follows:

‘Forma homagii faciendi

Jes deueuk vostre home de vye et de membre et de terrien honur du tenement ke

de vous tenk et fey et leaute vous porteroy sauf la foy nostre seingneur le Reys.

Postea faciat fidelitatem hoc modo.

Ke ies vous serroy feans et leans et leanment vous frey

les servitur duives tenk issy me eyde dues et les seyntz.

Which may be translated thus:

‘I become your man in life and limb and worldly honour for the tenement I hold of you. 

I will in return pay you fealty and loyalty, saving the faith due to our lord the king.

‘I will be faithful and loyal to you, and will loyally do you the service I hold due,

so help me God and the saints.’

WILLIAM DANVERS OF BOURTON

Such were the words with which William Danvers did homage and swore fealty, first to Hugh Wallys, Bishop of Lincoln, and, on his death, to the great and learned Robert Grostête, who succeeded Hugh in the see.

Robert Grostête

To William Danvers, Robert Grostête was no doubt well-known, and not merely as his suzerain, since for some years before Grostête’s promotion to the Bishopric he was a teacher of theology in the Franciscan school at Oxford, and by his learning and his eloquence drew crowds of students to the University.  His learning, the country knight may scarcely have appreciated, but with Grostête were the Preaching Friars, who, in town and country, amongst high and low, rich and poor, superseded in their spiritual functions the parochial clergy of the day, and by their sanctity and the power of their preaching, produced results very wonderful amongst all classes of people.  In the year 1235, Grostête was consecrated Bishop of Lincoln, and at once set himself to reform the abuses of the clergy, secular and monastic, of his diocese.  He refused to institute foreigners or unfit persons to benefices—‘rascal Romans’ he would have none; and he drew upon himself the anger of the Pope by refusing to induct his nephew, a young Italian, to a canonry in Lincoln Cathedral:  ‘An awe was he to the Pope, a monitor to the King, a lover of truth, a corrector of prelates, a director of priests, an instructor of clergy, a maintainer of scholars, a preacher to the people, a diligent searcher after truth, and most exemplary in his life.’ 3.12

Richard Danvers

William Danvers died it would seem prior to the year 1246.  His eldest son and heir was Robert, of whom more presently, but William appears to have had another son, Richard—the Richard Danvers who, in the Rotuli Hundredorum of 1278, is one of the King’s Commissioners for the Hundred of Thame, and, excepting Robert, had a property larger than other members of the family in Tetsworth.  This, too, is doubtless the Richard Danvers3.13 who appears in a friendly suit with his mother, Matilda, and with Richard Thalmasche, regarding land in Tetsworth, which was Matilda’s dower, and was to revert to Richard Thalmasche.  This Matilda was, we believe, sister to Richard Thalmasche and his brother Peter, and wife to William Danvers; so that if Peter Thalmasche and his brothers died childless, William’s son Robert Danvers, would become his heir; and we are told, in the list of tenants of the Bishop of Lincoln, of the year 1300, that Robert Danvers was heir to Peter Thalmasche.

ROBERT DANVERS

That William Danvers was succeeded by his son Robert we have abundant evidence.  Robert calls himself William’s son in the charter,3.14 a copy of which is appended to this chapter, and the signature of the first witness to the charter is that of Robert de Wicham, who was contemporary with Robert Danvers, as we learn from the Bishop of Lincoln’s rolls and elsewhere, while Robert de Wicham’s father, Ralph, was contemporary with William Danvers.  Moreover, while the Roll of the Hundreds of 1278 mentions many members of the Danvers family, Robert’s estates are far the largest, and he is ‘dominus de Tetteswurd.’  In Fanflore, too, it is he who confirms to the Abbey of Eynsham the land which his grandfather Robert gave to the monks.  He, too, was heir to Peter Thalmasche, which proves him to have been the eldest member then living of the family; and we find in other charters3.15 Robert Danvers, in point of time, succeeding William.  We may add that Vincent in his pedigree of the family, asserts that Robert Danvers of Bourton was son and heir of William Danvers.

Contemporary Events

The earliest record3.16 that we have of Robert Danvers is in the year 1272.  Born about the year 1225, during his childhood began the six-and-twenty years of miserable government which followed upon the death of Langton and the fall, in the year 1232, of Hubert de Burgh, the great Justiciar.  Robert was still a young man when the national party again obtained life and strength under the leadership of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, and Robert Grostête, Bishop of Lincoln, and no doubt Robert Danvers, holding his fiefs of the Bishop of Lincoln, and connected by family ties with the Earls of Leicester and Gloucester, was found on the side of the patriotic party.  Nor would Grostête’s death in the year 1253 alter this, for Grostête’s successor in the see was Richard de Gravesend, another of the great Churchmen who supported the national party under the leadership of the Earl of Leicester.

Rotuli Hundredorum

Yet, whatever may have been the political views and action of Robert in his early days, he was, doubtless, amongst those who in the year 1272 hailed with joy the accession of Prince Edward to the throne.  The King was in the Holy Land when his father died, and did not return to England till the year 1274.  On his return he speedily discovered that during the troubles of his father’s reign great abuses had sprung up in the disposal of the Crown lands, and one of his first acts was to order the formation in every hundred of a commission which was to inquire into all rights of manors, warrens, fisheries, tolls, and markets, and into the conduct of the sheriffs and other Crown officers.  After four years the Commissioners delivered their reports, and these were embodied in the Rotuli Hundredorum, a record second only in extent and importance to that of Domesday record.  Amongst the Commissioners in Banbury Hundred were Robert Danvers of Bourton, Robert de Wickham, Simon of Croppredi, Gilbert, son of the clerk of Burton, William de la Lee, Richard de la Lee, Lawrence of Herdwick, William of Morton, Nicholas Taillard of Charlbury, Richard Halthein, and William Algers.  Richard Danvers, who, we believe, was Robert’s younger brother, occupied a like position in Thame Hundred.

The Commissioners sent in their reports in the year 1278, and then followed the trials which were ordered to test the justice of the claims which had been asserted in the Roll of the Hundreds.  ‘Quo warranto?’—by what warrant hold you your lands?—was the demand made to many of the great nobles, and the reply of one was probably in effect that of others: ‘This my sword is my title-deed.  With it my ancestors won the land, and with my sword will I keep it.’ And the politic Edward saw that it was not wise to press the claims of the Crown.  But, apart from the question of its value at the time it was compiled, the Roll of the Hundreds is now of great service to those who are interested in the genealogy of the thirteenth century.

Conservator of the Peace

A few years later, and the King’s love of justice and order again found work for Robert Danvers and his fellows under the ‘Statute of Winchester,’ in virtue of which Robert would became a ‘Conservator of the Peace,’ and as such would be employed in enforcing the provisions whereby the national police were restored, each district became responsible for crimes committed within its bounds, highways were secured against robbers, the duty of watch and ward in walled towns was enforced, and the gathering and arming of the local militia was regulated.

Robert Danvers cannot have married later than the year 1260, for at the time of the compilation of the Roll of the Hundreds he had, as we learn from the roll, a daughter, Petronilla, old enough to hold land of him in Swalecliffe.  He had, as we also learn from the roll, considerable landed property.  First, there were the paternal estates in Bourton, a portion of which was held on the tenure of castle-guard—in time of war the possessor was to hold the Castle of Banbury for thirty days at his own cost.3.17  In Swalecliffe Robert Danvers held one of the three manors into which the parish was divided, and it is curious that there were three ladies ‘Petronilla’ in the village—Petronilla Danvers, Petronilla de La Lee, and Petronilla, with not quite so euphonious a surname, wife of Richard Spigurnel.  Petronilla de La Lé, or Lee, was wife or daughter to the Sir William who was one of Robert’s colleagues in the commission, and, as we learn elsewhere, Sir William’s daughter married Robert de Wykham.  We shall find that another of the family, grand-daughter probably to Sir William, married the grandson of Robert Danvers.

Epwell

Besides the two manors already mentioned, Robert held that of Eppewell, Ipswell, or Epwell as it is now known, a little to the north of Swalecliffe, while in South Oxon he had the manor of Tetsworth and land at Cheselhampton and Fanflore.  But he himself appears to have lived at Bourton, the ancient seat of this branch of the family, while in Tetsworth the family was represented by Richard Danvers.

Bourton

Little Bourton is about two miles north of Banbury, and is situated on the high ground which overlooks the valley of the Cherwell, and immediately opposite to it, on the slope which forms the Northamptonshire side of the valley, is the site of Chaucombe Priory, with the monks of which many generations of the Danvers family were kindly and intimately related.  The present so-called manor-house of Little Bourton is situated at the east end of the hamlet, overlooking the valley beyond, and very probably it occupies the site of the manor-house of Robert Danvers, all traces of which have, however, quite disappeared.  The hamlet has now no church, nor can we discover any record of one, excepting in the ancient rolls and volumes of the Bishops of Lincoln3.18 and in the register of Eynsham Abbey.  There, as early as the year 1263, we find the Abbey of Eynsham presenting to the church of ‘Parva Bourton,’ and there are many records in the institutions to the same effect subsequently.  Charter 107 of Eynsham Abbey is the gift of the Church to the Abbey by Alexander de Bourton, with consent of his son William.  On the first  page of the chartulary is a list of the churches confirmed to the Abbey by St Hugh of Lincoln, and amongst them is that of Pva Burton.  Therefore, at one time a church must have existed in the hamlet, which was probably a more considerable place in ancient times than it now is.

One mile north of Little Bourton is Great Bourton, also overlooking the Cherwell Valley and commanding the road which descends to Cropredy Bridge and thence to the north through Daventry.

SIMON DANVERS

Robert Danvers was succeeded by his eldest son Simon, who, in his grandson’s charter to Eynsham Abbey, is called ‘son and heir of Robert,’ and we find Simon at this period taking Robert’s place.  Thus in the Rolls of Parliament, A.D. 1316,3.19 he is summoned to military service as one of the Lords of Bourton, Tetsworth, Swalecliffe, Ipswell, Wickham, Drayton, and Stodham; and in the same year, 1316,3.20 he confirms to the canons of Chaucombe the rents of the lands and tenements which they held of him in Bourton.  We have also the authority of Vincent for this succession, and he gives Simon’s armorial bearings (but, unfortunately, not the tinctures)—four bendlets, in chief three escallops; and this, we may remark, is the shield which we find given to Simon’s grandson Richard in a charter which will be mentioned presently.

We have several other authentic notices of Simon Danvers, as, for instance, on the last page of the register of Thame Abbey, where a list is given of the tenants holding lands in the Danvers and Thalmasche fiefs in Ippeswell and Tetsworth.  In the Danvers fief, Simon Danvers is the principal tenant, and next to him Richard Danvers.  Roger and Agnes Danvers have also holdings.  In the Thalmasche fief, Simon Danvers, Roger Danvers, and the heirs of Richard Danvers hold land.

Alice and Isabel Danvers

Then amongst the Oxford fines we find two in which Simon Danvers makes arrangements regarding his property.3.21  In the thirteenth year of Edward II, Simon and his wife Alice settle an estate for life, in Parva Bourton, on a certain William Danvers junior, but it does not appear what relationship William bore to Simon.  However, after the death of Simon and his wife, the ownership was to pass to Simon’s son and heir John and his wife Elizabeth.  In fine No. 22 of the following year (14 Edward II), Simon gives lands to Geoffrey de Stokes and Alice his wife, with remainder to their son Geoffrey, while to William de Rufford and Isabel his wife an estate is also given.  There can be little if any doubt that Alice and Isabel were Simon’s daughters.  Geoffrey de Stokes belonged probably to the Wicham family, old allies of the Danvers, one of whom, Robert de Wicham, the colleague of Robert Danvers, was also known as Robert de Stokes.3.22  No small source of difficulty to genealogists is in the difference in the names which in these early times were given to the same person—thus in one deed Simon Danvers may be called Simon de Bourton, while in another he may be called Simon de Tetsworth.

The last authentic notice that we have of Simon Danvers is in the year 1327, when he appears in an Oxon Lay Subsidy Roll3.23 as of Parva Bourton, and he probably died within three or four years of that date.  Simon lived through a memorable period of English history, for, born about the time that the first Edward came to the throne, he lived through his reign and that of his unhappy son, and died in the early part of the reign of Edward III.

Military Service

We have already noticed that Simon Danvers is mentioned in the Rolls of the Parliament which sat at Lincoln in 1316; one which was summoned by the King for advice and assistance against the Scots, who, since the defeat of the English at Bannockburn, had not ceased to ravage the Northern counties.  Writs were made out ordering every village to furnish one stout footman, armed with sword and bow and arrows, sling and lance, while the King summoned all the military service due to him, and amongst others Simon Danvers and his neighbour and friend William de La Lee, ‘lord of Shutford and La Lee.’  In the following June they and their companions-in-arms were to muster at Berwick, and together these neighbours may have left for the North.  That Simon had been knighted is not certain, but he was a gentleman entitled to wear coat-armour.  His weapons would be spear and sword and dagger, while his defensive armour would be the hauberk of mail such as his ancestor wore at Senlac, but not at this period carried in the shape of a hood over the head.  The fashion of the time was that it should reach only above the shoulders, while the neck was guarded by a curtain of mail which hung from the bascinet or helmet and fell down over the hauberk.  To the hauberk also had been added greaves of steel as a protection to the legs, and brassarts for the arms, while the chest was further defended by steel plates.

With the knights would travel their own armed attendants, and with them the footmen whom their villagers had been called on to provide.  Through Leicester they would take their way to York; the little band of men gathering strength as it went, by the accession of those who from all parts of the kingdom were converging upon the northern road.  Strength in numbers they needed, for after passing York the party was always open to attack from bands of Scots, while a bad cause, weak leadership, half-hearted loyalty, and the remembrance of Bannockburn, had so demoralized the soldiers, that it was said a hundred Englishmen would flee on the approach of a half-dozen of their enemies.  Certain it is, that not all the troops which Edward could raise, backed by Papal countenance and aid which he sought, were able to defend the northern counties from the inroads of the Scots.  Whether Simon Danvers was at the fall of Berwick, and was amongst the English knights who were there captured and held to ransom, we cannot say; yet the necessity for selling estates to pay a heavy ransom would explain the clearly marked difference between the poor estate of Simon’s son and heir and that of his wealthy grandfather, Robert.

JOHN DANVERS OF EPWELL

Simon Danvers was followed by his eldest son, John, who is mentioned in the fine of the year 1319, which has already been quoted.  John was at the time married, and can therefore scarcely have been born later than about the year 1295.  He succeeded to a very much reduced inheritance, owing in part to the provision which his father had made for his daughters, and in part, we suspect, to alienation by sale of some of his property.  John Danvers was no longer John of Bourton, the title which his ancestors had borne since the period of the Conquest; he is now ‘John of Eppewell’, the manor which, together with land in Napton, his father gave to him on his marriage with Isabel de La Lee.  Epwell seems to have become the property of the family in the time of John’s grandfather, Robert, and with the family it remained till, on the death of another Robert Danvers in the year 1467, it went to one of his heiresses.

Marriage to Elizabeth de La Lee

In the fine which has just been mentioned, the name of John’s wife is given as Elizabeth, but she is called Isabel in the charter which we shall quote immediately, and Vincent also states that her maiden name was Isabel de La Lee.  There is, however, no real discrepancy here, for Elizabeth was the English equivalent of the Latin word Isabella.  The fine is in Latin; the only English word in it is Elizabeth, which the clerk who wrote the fine used as a translation of Isabella.  Wright, in his Court-hand Restored, gives as the English  of Isabella—Isabel, Elizabeth.

The charter just mentioned is preserved, amongst the Rawlinson MSS.3.24 at the Bodleian Library.  It is dated at Banbury, the Tuesday before the Feast of St Gregory, in the . . . year of the reign of Edward III, but, unfortunately, the year has been omitted by the copyist.  The charter is clearly a deed of settlement made at the time of the marriage of John Danvers and Isabel de La Lee, and may be translated as follows:

‘Know all men that I, Simon Danuers, of bur .  .  .’ (the ‘ton’ is obliterated) ‘have given to John Danvers my son, and to Isabel, daughter of William de La Lee, his wife, all the lands and tenements which I have in the village and fields (villa et in campis) of Epewelle, in county Oxon, and in the village and fields of Napton, in county Warwick, to have and hold.  Witnesses, John of Bloxham, Richard of Hawedene, Thomas of Sybford, Richard de Aula, Eppewell (sic), William Halthem of the same, Richard Gallyn of the same, Thomas Sandford of Banbury, John Astrop, Richard le perdoner de Brodicotte, et aliis.’

Parliamentary Writ

The name of John Danvers is found in two other well-authenticated documents.  The first of these is a Parliamentary writ of 15 Edward II (1321),3.25 in which he is associated with his neighbour, Nicholas Trymonel, of Prestcote, in a matter of military service.  The other document is a Lay Subsidy Roll,3.26 of 22 Edward III (1348).  The roll in question gives the names of persons holding knights’ fees in some of the hundreds of Oxfordshire, and consists of six membranes, all more or less injured by age and damp.  No. 4 contains the list for the Hundred of Thame, and is, perhaps, in worse case than its companion membranes.  On either side a large triangular patch of obliteration extends from the corners towards the centre, where the apices of the triangles very nearly meet, but in the interval appear the names of ‘John Danvers of Ipswell,’ and of Roger Danvers.

Lay Subsidy Roll

Roger Danvers was no doubt the Roger who appears in Tetsworth in the Lay Subsidy Roll of 1327, and the individual who, in the Inquis. Nonarum, of 1340, appears as an inquisitor in the Thame Hundred.  He is the last of the family of whom we find notice as living in Tetsworth, and as we shall not again have to refer to that ancient seat of the Danvers family, a list of the villagers who appear upon the roll may not be without interest.  The demand was for a twentieth, and under it Roger Danvers and his fellow villagers paid as follows:

John Andreu 0s 12d

Richard le Walsch 0s 22d

Alicia Wattes 2s 0d

John Gasor 2s 0d

Thom. Somer 2 0d

Matilda de Lounge 6 0d

William Irlande 0 18d

Roger Asker 0 20d

Sarra Aldeys 2s 6d

Emma Asker 0s 20d

Robert Gunne 1s 2d

William Wynd 2s 6d

William Sowelle 0s 8d  

John Manicorn 0s 18d

John de Lachefford 0s 18d

Matilda Andreu 0s 16d

Alicia de Aldeburi 0s 1d 

John de Barton 4s 0d

Roger Danuers 2s 2d

Edward Henr’ 4s 6d

Agnes Hardynge 2s 2d

John Potinge 4s 0d

John Wynde 0s 14d 

John Hameden 2s 0d

John Juliane 0s 4d

William Andreu 0s 14d

DE LA LEE FAMILY

The family of de La Lee, to which John Danvers’ wife belonged, derived their name from La Lee, a hamlet in the parish of Swalecliffe.  We learn from the Roll of the Hundreds that Sir William de La Lee had land in the hamlet, and from the same source that the Vicar of the Mother Church was in the habit of celebrating Mass at a chapel in La Lee three times weekly.  Sir William was on the commission with Robert Danvers.  His wife’s name was Agnes, and they were buried in the church of Chacombe Priory.  Petronilla de La Lee is also mentioned in the roll as holding land in Swalecliffe, and Katherine de La Lee, of the same family, married Robert Wykham, of that village.

In the year 1316 William de La Lee is summoned as one of the lords of La Lee and Shutford, and in the year 1347 he appears in a Lay Subsidy Roll3.27 in Swalecliffe.  This William appears to have been the son of William and Agnes, of the Roll of the Hundreds,3.28 and was probably the father of Isabel, the wife of John Danvers.

EPWELL

At the time of the marriage of John Danvers, his wife’s family were living at Swalecliffe and the neighbouring village of Shutford, and doubtless the marriage was celebrated at one or the other place.  Both villages are near to Epwell, which was to be the future home of the married couple, and was for many generations to designate their descendants.

Epwell lies in a hilly district, about seven miles to the north-west of Banbury.  The road to the village, passing through Shutford, with its Norman church and picturesque manor-house, now rising, now falling, gradually mounts to where Epwell Church, at an elevation of five hundred and eighty feet, stands at the highest point of the village.  The village may be described as ‘many hilled,’ so irregular is its surface; to the north-east of it are Ipswell and other hills rising to a height of about seven hundred feet, and to the west of the village is another elevated ridge.

To the east of the church is the village green, and to the east of this again is the manor-house.  Below and on the north side of the church is the village well, or spring, rising from beneath the edge of a huge flat boulder.  The spring is a copious one, and its water, as the villagers assert, excellent.  From it, no doubt, the village takes its name, ‘Eppan-Wyll,’ the well of a Saxon name Eppa, becoming Eppëwelle, and then Epswell3.29 or Ipswell and finally Epwell.

The church, dedicated to St Anne, is a chapel under Swalecliffe, and was probably built about the same time as the chancel of the Mother Church.  It consists of chancel, nave, a tower on south side of the nave, and a small south aisle opening into the nave, which was probably once the possession of the lord of the manor.  The chancel has its old timbered roof, coeval with the church, and an east window of three lights and an early Decorated piscina.  On either side the east window are brackets for the images of saints, and on the north side the window is a niche for the same purpose.

Manor-House

The present manor-house is of the period of Elizabeth or James I, but we think includes portions of an older house, and its position and arrangement, and the known plan of country houses of the time of Edward III, enables one to venture on a description of the dwelling of John Danvers.

The buildings of the house and offices formed a square, the north side of which was occupied by the stables, while the west side of the quadrangle was formed by the hall, from the end of which a wing ran eastwards, forming the south side of the quadrangle, which was completed on the east by a moated hedge or wall.  To the south of the building were, as now, the garden and orchard, while a road separated the house from the village green.  The hall was probably provided with a vaulted lower story, and the entrance to the hall and to the upper rooms of the south wing would be by means of a flight of steps in the south-west angle of the court.  Opening into the hall at its south end would be the kitchen and buttery, while the remainder of the wing was occupied by the private rooms of the family.

The hall would be provided with a fireplace and chimney, and with a dais, on which would be a table dormant (fixed) for the family and guests of good degree, while the table for the inferiors would be simply of boards resting upon trestles, which could be removed at night, when the rush-strewn floor formed the sleeping place for the servants and chance guests.  The windows were deeply splayed, with seats on either side, and were closed by shutters.

Contemporary Lifestyle

In the sleeping chambers of the family the furniture of the period was still of a very rude kind, a bedstead, curtained at the head, on which was laid a bed of flocks or feathers, with bolster and pillows of the same, with linen sheets, and thick coverlets of wool or fur.  Over all was placed the counterpointe, or counterpane, often of rich stuff, and the pride of the lady of the house.  Then the lady’s room would have fireplace and chimney, and a bench with arms and back, and besides this, one or more chests for clothing and valuables.  The windows would be glazed and curtained, and the walls hung with tapestry.  Apparently, the most completely furnished room in a house of the sort was the kitchen, and a contemporary writer (Alexander Neckham) gives us a list of the articles it should contain—a table for mincing herbs and vegetables, pots, tripods, pot-stick, and pot-hook, pestle and mortar, caldron, frying-pan, gridiron, posnet or saucepan, a dish, a platter, a saucepan, hand-mill and pepper-mill, and a mier, which seems to have been used for crumbling bread.

The family rose at daybreak, or shortly after, but the serious business of the day did not commence till after dinner, which was served in the forenoon.  Having first washed their hands, the members of the family sat down to dinner in pairs, to a table covered with a cloth and laid with salt-cellars, drinking-cups and spoons.  The guests used their own knives when the fingers needed aid.  There were no plates, but each couple was provided with a ‘tranchoir,’ a thick slice of bread, on which the meat was placed, and on which, if needful, it was cut with the knife held in one hand, while the other hand served as fork.

The food was abundant and varied, soup or a potage forming the first course, to which followed the meats, beef and mutton and pork, and following these, lighter dishes, such as rabbit and game, and lastly puddings and pastry of various sorts.  Beer was the usual beverage at the meal, but after dinner, when the family and guests had again washed their hands, wine was served.  After dinner the household dispersed to their occupations—the master to his farm, or his justice-hall, or to hunt, or hawk or play bowls—while the ladies gossiped and spun, or played chess or tables, or amused themselves with minstrel or juggler.  There seems to have been no lack of business or amusement till supper, which was served when the day began to draw in, and was a meal very much of the same nature as the dinner, but of a lighter sort.  After supper the whole household went early to bed, for the lights of the period were poor and expensive, and the houses were but ill-fitted to keep out the evening cold.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER THREE

FEET OF FINES, OXON., 31 HENRY III (1246), NO. 126

HEC est finalis concordia facta in Curia domini Regis apud Oxon’ a die Sancte Trinitatis in tres septimañ Anno regni Regis Henr’ filii Regis Johannis Tricesimo primo.  Coram Rog’o de Thurkelby, Gilberto de Preston, Magistro Simone de Wanton et Johanne de Cobbeham, Justic’ Itinerant’ et aliis d’ni Regis fidelibz tunc’ ibi presentibz Inter Ricardum Talemache petentem et Ricardum de Anuers tenentem de dualz partibz unius virgate terre cum pertinenciis In Tettesworth.  Et inter eundem Ricardum Talemache petentem et predictum Ricardum de Anuers quem Matill’ de Anuers Mater predicti Ricardi de Anuers vocavit ad Warrentiam et qui ei warrantavit de tercia parte unius virgate terre cum pertinenciis in eadem villa.  Et unde recognitio magne assise summonita fuit inter eos in eadem Curia.  Scilicet quod predictus Ricardus Talemache recognovit totam predictam terram cum pertinenciis esse ius ipsius Ricardi de Anuers.  Et pro hac recognitione fine et concordia predictus Ricardus de Anuers concessit predicto Ricardo Talemache medietatem predictarum duarum parcium cum pertinenciis quam exigebat versus eum.  Habend’ et tenend’ eidem Ricardo Talemache et heredibus suis de predicto Ricardo de Anuers et heredibus suis imperpetuum.  Reddendo inde per annum dimidiam libram peperis.  Et faciendo inde forinsecum servic’ quod ad predictam medietatem que ei per istum finem remanet pertinet pro omni servicio et exaccione.  Et preterea predictus Ricardus de Anuers concessit pro se et heredibus suis quod medietas predicte tercie partis cum pertinenciis quam Matill’ de Anuers tenuit in dotem in eadem villa die quo hec concordia facta fuit de hereditate ejus de Ricardo de Anuers post decessum ipsius Matill’ remaneat predicto Ricardo Talemache et heredibus suis tenenda simul cum predicta medietate predictarum duarum partium cum pertinenciis sicut predictum est de predicto Ricardo de Anuers et heredibus suis per predicta servicia imperpetuum.

ASSIZE ROLL, NO. 699, MEMBRANE 24

Ric’ Talemasch petit versus Ric’ de Auvers quem Joh’ de Auvers voc’ ad Warentiam et qui ei war’ duas partes unius virgate terre cum pertiñ in Tettewurth.  Et versus eundem Ric’ quem Matill de Auvers voc’ ad Warentiam et qui ei war’ terciam partem unius virgate terre cum pertiñ in eadem villa ut Jus suum etc’ et unde quidem Hug’ pater suus fuit seisitus in dominico suo ut de feodo et Jure tempore domini Regis qui nunc est, capiens in espletia ad valenc’ dimid’ marc’.  Et de ipso Hug’ descendit jus predicte terre isti Ric’ qui nunc petit ut fil’ et heredi.  Et quod tale sit jus suum offert etc’.

Et Ric’ veñ et defendit Jus predicti Ric’ Talemasch et seisinam predicti Hug’ et totu etc’.  Et ponit se in magnam assisam domini Regis et petit retornati fieri utrum ipse majus Jus habet in predicta terra an predictus Ric’ Talemasch et predictus Ric’ de Auvers similiter.  Et Bard’ de Cestreton, Gilb’s de Hida, Wido fil’ Rob’ et Regiñ le forester quatuor milites sum ad eligend’ xii ad retornand’ in forma predicta veñ et eligerunt istos, scilicet Roald fil’ Alañ Rob’ Ba .  .  .  .  Reginald de Albo monasterio, Rog’ de Harpedeñ, Will de Englefeld, Galfr’ de Chanfy, Rob’ de Mapeldureham, Will Quatremains, Andr’ le Blind, Will le Moyne, Will de Stalebroke, Rog’ Gernun, Thom de Valoynes, Will de Paris, Gilb’ de Brascy, Rog’ del Amary.

j.  marc’.

Postea Concord’ sunt et Ric’s de Auvers dat j.  marc’ pro licencia Concord’ p plegium predicti Ric’i Talemasche et hunc Cyrographum.

CHARTERS XXIV AND CLXXXXII

EYNSHAM ABBEY CHARTULARY

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum pernenerit Robertus de Anuers salutem.  Nouerit vniuersitas uestra me de assensu heredum meorum dedisse concessisse et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse pro salute mea et omnium antecessorum & heredum meorum Deo & Beate Marie de Eynesham & monachis ibidem Deo seruientibus in puram & perpetuam elemosinam totam terram que de feudo Roberti le cheualchesul iure hereditario ad me descendere poterat.  In uilla de fanflore scilicet medietatem totius tenementi quod idem Robertus habuit in eadem uilla.  In bosco, in plano, in pratis, in pascuis, in aquis, in uiis, in semitis, in introitibus & exitibus, in omnibus libertatibus & liberis consuetudinibus intra uillam & extra.  Tenendam & habendam libere & quiete sine omni seruicio seculari, saluo seruicio Domini Regis.  Salua Nicholao filio meo & heredibus suis tertia parte Dominici mei in predicta uilla quam ei concessi tenendam ab eisdem monachis.  Reddendo eis annuatim quatuor solidos pro omni seruicio Saluo seruicio Domini Regis, videlicet ad festum sancti Michaelis duos solidos & ad Natale Domini duos solidos.  Salua etiam Radulfo filio meo & heredibus suis dimidia uirgata terre in eadem uilla quam ei concessi tenendam a predictis monachis.  Reddendo eisdem annuatim vnum par calcarium uel tres obolos ad pascha pro omni seruicio saluo seruicio Domini Regis.  Pro hac autem donatione concessione & confirmatione dederunt mihi predicti monachi decem marcas argenti.  Et tam ego quam heredes mei predictam terram predictis monachis warantizabimus contra omnes homines.  Quod si facere non potuerimus eis competetis eschambium in aliis tenementis nostris faciemus.  Et hoc fideliter obseruandum tam ego quam Willelmus filius vel heres meus pro nobis & heredibus nostris affidauimus.  Quod ut Ratum sit & firmum presenti scripto sigillum meum apposui.  Hiis testibus Petro thalemasche, Hugone le Pouter, Willelmo Blundo, Gileberto Tailard, Willelmo filio Baldewini, Ricardi Tailard, Johanne Janitore Auenello, Roberto de Sidem, Thoma de Berton, Ricardo Pull clericis, Willel mo Russel.  Et multis aliis.

CLXXXXIII & 202

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens scriptum peruenerit Willelmus de Anuers salutem in Domino.  Nouerit vniuersitas uestra me concessisse & presenti carta confirmasse pro salute anime mee & omnium antecessorum & heredum meorum deo & sañcte Marie de Egnesham & monachis ibidem deo seruientibus in puram & perpetuam Elemosinam totam terram que de feodo Roberti de Cheualchesul ad Robertum quondam patrem meum iure hereditario descendere poterat in uilla de fauflore scilicet medietatem totius tenementi quod idem Robertus le cheualchesul habuit in eadem uilla, in Bosco, in plano, in pratis & pascuis, in aquis, in uiis, in semitis, in introitibus and exitibus, in omnibus libertatibus & liberis consuetudinibus intra uillam & extra.  Tenendam and habendam libere & quiete ab omni demanda & seruicio seculari.  Salua Nicholao fratri meo & heredibus suis tertia parte Dominici in predicta uilla quam pater meus ei dederat & concesserat tenendam de eisdem monachis pro quatuor annuis solidis pro omni seruicio saluo seruicio Domini Regis.  Salua etiam Radulfo fratri meo & heredibus suis dimidia uirgata terre in eadem uilla quam pater meus ei concessit tenendam de predictis monachis.  Reddendo eis annuatim vnum par calcarium uel tres obolos.  Et sciendum quod predictus Nicholaus frater meus concessit & dedit predictis monachis post decessum patris mei in puram & perpetuam elemosinam sex denarios annuos ad incrementum superius memorati redditus sui vnde soluet eis decetero imperpetuum ipse & heredes sui quatuor solidos & sex denarios ad duos terminos scilicet duos solidos & tres denarios ad festum sancti Michaelis & duos solidos & tres denarios ad pascha.  Sciendum quoque quod predictus Radulfus frater meus habuit in eadem uilla de fanflore alteram dimidiam uirgatam terre ex dono me vnde mihi soluere tenebatur duodecim denarios annuatim pro omni seruicio saluo seruicio Domini Regis.  Et ego totum seruitium & homagium eiusdem Radulfi & heredum eius dedi & concessi abbati & monachis de Egnesham saluo seruicio Domini Regis, vnde idem Radulfus & heredes sui soluent imperpetuum monachis memoratis sex denarios ad festum sancti Michaelis & sex denarios & vnum par calcarium uel tres obolos ad pascha pro omni seruicio saluo seruicio Domini Regis.  Pro hac autem Donacione concessione & confirmacione dederunt mihi predicti monachi tres marcas argenti.  Et tam ego quam heredes mei predictam terram cum omnibus supra memoratis predictis monachis warantizabimus contra omnes homines & feminas.  Quod si facere non potuerimus eis competetis eschambium in aliis tenementis nostris faciemus.  Et hoc fideliter obseruandum ego Willelmus pro me & pro heredibus meis affidaui.  Quod ut ratum sit & firmum presenti scripto sigillum meum apposui.  Hiis testibus Willelmo Blundo, Willelmo fratre Domini Abbatis, Waltero capellano de Enesham, Nicholao de Anuers, Petro de Walcot’, Humfrido Duket, Petro de Haywod, Henrico de Lechtoñ.  Et multis aliis.

CLXXXXIIII

Hec est finalis concordia facta in Curia Domini Regis apud Westmonasterium in Octaba sancte trinitalis anno Regni Regis Henrici filii Regis Johannis nono.  Coram Martino de Paterhill, Thoma de Mulaitoñ, Thoma de Heydeñ, Roberto de Lexintoñ, Galfrido le Sauuag’ & aliis Domini Regis fidelibus tunc ibi presentibus.  Inter Adam Abbatem de Egnesham petentem per fratrem Willelmum de Mora monachum suum ponit loco suo ad lucrandum uel perdendum et Henricum de Keneswrth & Saram uxorem eius tenentes per eundem Henricum ponit loco ipsius Sarre ad lucrandum uel perdendum de Dimidia Hyda terre cum pertinentiis in fanflore vnde placitum fuit inter eos in eadem Curia.  Scilicet quod predicti Henricus et Sarra recognouerunt predictam terram cum pertinentiis esse jus ipsius abbatis & illam remiserunt & quietam clamauerunt de se ipsi abbati & successoribus & Ecclesie sue de Egnesham imperpetuum.  Et pro hac recognitione remissione quieta clamantia fine & concordia predictus abbas dedit predictis Henrico & Sarre nouemdecim marcas argenti.  Et hec concordia prefecta fuit presente Willelmo de Anuers fratre & herede Galfridi de Anuers quondam uiri ipsius Sarre qui recognouit predictam terram esse jus ipsius abbatis & Ecclesie sue de Egnesham vt illam quam idem abbas & Ecclesia sua habent ex dono Roberti de Anuers patris ipsius Willelmi qui predictam terram post dederat predicte Sarre in dotem cuius warantus idem Willelmus est.

In the margin:

Sciant presentes et futuri quod ego Galfridus de Anuers dedi & concessi & hac presenti carta mea confirmaui Sare vxori mee totam terram illam que eschata fuit Roberto de Anuers patri meo in hereditate de Roberto cheuachesul scilicet vnum feodum militis & dimidium & quam predictus Robertus de Anuers pater meus dedit mihi ad dotandam predictam Saram tenendam omnibus vite sue in liberam dotem.  Ego Galfridus & heredes mei warantizabimus totam predictam terram predicte Sare.  Hiis testibus Roberto de Piscle, Roberto filio Amauri, Hugone de Bereford, Rogero de Bereford, Roberto Wandard, Allano de Fulewelle, Roberto de Bodenden & multis aliis.

Confirmacio Ricardi de Anuers de terris in fanlore in quo relaxantur omnia seruicia secularia.

Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presentes litere peruenerint Ricardus de Anuers de Ippewell filius & heres Johannis filii & heredis Simonis filii & heredis Roberti de Anuers salutem in domino.  Cum Galfridus, abbas de Eynesham, teneat in Fanlore omnia terras & tenementa sua ibidem de me & heredibus meis preter certa terras & tenementa in eadem villa que ipse tenet de Thoma Wychame de Swalclyue Noueritis me statum predicti abbatis quem ipse habet in omnibus & singulis terris & tenementa infra villam predictam de Fanlore ratificasse & confirmasse eidem abbati & successoribus suis imperpetuum tenedum de me & heredibus meis omnia & singula terras & tenementa que ipse tenet de me infra villam predictam sibi & successoribus suis imperpetuum in liberam puram & perpetuam elemosinam quiete ab omnibus seruiciis secularibus & consuetudinibus.  Et ego predictus Ricardus & heredes mei eidem abbati & successoribus suis omnia predicta terras & tenementa que idem abbas habet in villa predicta warantizabimus erga me & heredes meos tam ita quod nullo modo versus alios teneamur warantizare et etiam ego predictus Ricardus & heredes mei acquietabimus predictum abbatem & successores suos erga dominum Episcopum Lincolniensem & alios capitales dominos quoscunque de quibuscunque seruiciis que illa terras seu tenementa concernunt que idem abbas de me tenet in villa predicta.  In cuius rei testimonium presentibus sigillum meum apposui.  Hiis testibus Thoma ffretewelle, Johanne Carswelle seniore, Henrico Sauage armigero predicti abatis, Ricardo Ouerton, & multis aliis.  Date decimo die Octobris anno regni regis Ricardi secundi post conquestum Anglie nono.

RAWL. MS., BODLEIAN, B. 283 (folio 20b)

Omnibus ad quos presens scriptum pervenerit Robertus filius Willelmi de Anuers salutem in Domino.  Sciatis me concessisse et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse Deo et ecclesie beate Marie et monachis de Brueria in liberam et perpetuam elemosinam vnam hidam terre in villa et territorio de Sualcliue cum mesuagio et omnibus aliis aisiamentis libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus in pratis pasturis viis et semitis et cum omnibus pertinentiis, illam videlicet hidam terre quam Randulphus de Rumcli eis dedit et carta sua confirmauit.  Hanc igitur prefatam hidam terre cum omnibus pertinentiis suis volo quod predicti monachi habeant et teneant de me et heredibus meis in perpetuum bene et in pace libere et quiete ab omnibus sectis curiarum hundredorum hawehundredorum et shirorum et ab omnibus seruiciis consuetudinibus homagiis feuditatibus et demandis secularibus.  Reddendo annuatim mihi et heredibus meis duos denarios ad Natale domini et alteri domino feudi duos denarios ad eundem terminum et solum scutagium quando currit quantum pertinet ad tantum tenementum in eadem villa.  Ita quod nec ego nec heredes mei de cetero aliquod auxilium exigere potuimus de dictis monachis vel eorum successoribus ad faciendum filium militem vel filiam maritandam nec aliquid aliud aliquo modo contingens excepto solo scutagio sicut predictum est.  Et ego et heredes mei warantizabimus adquietabimus et defendemus omnia predicta cum omnibus pertinentiis suis predictis monachis et eorum successoribus inperpetuum contra omnes gentes.  Et vt hoc sic firmum et stabile inperpetuum presenti carte sigillum meum apposui.  Hiis testibus Johanne filio Guidonis de Wikinton, Roberto de Wicham, Waltero persona de Swalecliue, Stephano de Dunthorne, Roberto de Sibbeford, Ricardo Withsend, Johanne Kachelewe, et multis aliis.

NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE

3.1 Milman’s Latin Christianity, vol. v, p. 274.

3.2 Duffus Hardy’s Itinerary of King John.

3.3 Amongst the miscellaneous charters (Augmentation) at the Record Office are two giving land to Chaucombe Priory by Simon, son of Roger de Bourton.  One—vol. xv, No. 274—has amongst the witnesses Rob. de Auners and his son, Galfrid, de Auners.  The other—vol. xx, No. 251—is witnessed by Phil de Croperi, Fulc. Basset, Ric. de Prestcote, Ric. de Williamscote, and others.

3.4 The church of Little Bourton was given to Eynsham Abbey by Alexander de Bourton with the consent of his son William (Charter No. 117, Eynsham Abbey Register).  The charter is not dated, but it was confirmed by Bishop Hugh (St Hugh) of Lincoln, 1186-1200.  See charters Nos. 23 and 55, and also, on p. 1 of the register, a list of churches belonging to the abbey.

3.5 We are greatly indebted to the courtesy of the Dean and Chapter of Christchurch for giving us every facility for studying this valuable manuscript.

3.6 Dean Church’s Life of St Anselm, p. 53.

3.7 J. H. Wiffen’s House of Russell, vol. i, p. 99.

3.8 Testa de Nevill, (p. 120).

3.9 Two copies of the proceedings were made upon a sheet of parchment, room being left between to allow of the copies being sundered, each with corresponding deeply indented edge.  The fines as now preserved are usually upon slips of parchment about three inches in depth and twice as long.  Hundreds of thousands of them remain, and may be referred to at the Public Record Offices.  They are for the most part bound in books, each containing fifty fines, in which the fines are chronologically arranged and numbered.  The fines of each county are kept separate, but those which refer to two counties are placed under the heading of ‘Divers Counties.’  These fines are of immense value to the genealogist and county historian, but for want of indexes the labour of searching them is in the case of most of the counties very great.

3.10 Three of these are at the Record Office, Miscellaneous Charters, Augmentation, vol. xv, No. 272; vol. xvi, No. 149; vol. xx, No. 140.  Amongst the muniments of Lincoln Cathedral, Banbury charters, one of Rob. Prior of Chaucombe to Robert Grostête (1235-1253).  One at British Museum—Additional Charters, No. 7,518.

3.11 Rotuli Lit. Claus., vol. ii, p. 58.

3.12 Willis, Cathedrals, vol. iii.  See Dr Lingard’s History of England for a truer estimate of Bishop Grostête’s character.

3.13 Oxon fine 126 of 31 Henry III (1246) and Assize Roll, No. 699, M. 24.

3.14 In the mentioned charter (Rawlinson MS. Bodleian, B. 283, f. 206) of Robert, son of William Danvers, Robert confirms to the monks of Bruerne a hide of land in Swalecliffe given to them by Randolph de Rumeli, and the connection between Robert and Randolph is explained by a charter which is preserved in the Record Office, which shows that this hide of land was given to Randolph de Rumeli by Robert Chevauchesul.  It was, therefore, as heir of Robert Chevauchesul that Robert Danvers confirmed this grant.  Another charter of the same series (Ancient Miscellaneous Charters (Augmentation), Record Office, vol. v, No. 34, and vol. xiv, No. 8) is that of Will. de Rumeli, heir of Randolph de Rumeli, in which he gives land in Sualcliffe to the same abbey.  Amongst the witnesses to both these charters are the names: Will. de Fifhide, Robert de Middleton, Rad. de Sibford, Roger de Berthon, Roger Golafre, witnesses whose names, together with the calligraphy of the charters, fix their date at the latter part of the reign of Henry III or the beginning of that of Edward I (c. 1270).  No. 157 in Eynsham Abbey Chartulary is one of Alex. de Rumeli, whose son John is buried in the Abbey Church.  Amongst the witnesses are Robert Chevauchesul and William and Randolph de Rumeli.  Matthew de Rumeli and Robert, son of Alan de Rumeli are mentioned in early charters of Bittlesden Priory.  Harleian. MS., 4,714, f. 53.

Amongst the charters (Banbury) in muniment room at Lincoln is one given by Thomas of Abingdon to Richard de Gravesend, Bishop of Lincoln, while a Richard was Archdeacon of Oxford 1263-1273.  Amongst the witnesses are Robert Danuers and Simon de Cropperi.

B. M. Additional Charter, No. 7,519, is a deed of gift by Gilbert de Walcote of Little Burton to Chacombe Priory.  Witnesses, Thos. de Williamscote, Rob. Danuers, Simon de Cropperi, Walter de Prescote.

Record Office, Miscellaneous Charters, Augmentation, vol. v, No. 60, Rob., son of Osmond de Williamscote to Chaucombe.  Rob. de Auners amongst the witnesses, vol. vi, No. 239.  William de la Lee to Chaucombe.  Rob. Dannuers and Simon de Cropperi amongst the witnesses.  See also same series, vol. xix, No. 277; vol. xx, No. 238 and 140 and 251.

Record Office, Ancient Deeds, vol. i, B. 840, charter of Rob. de Auners to Chaucombe Priory.  Simon de Cropperi amongst witnesses.

Miscellaneous Charters, Augmentation, vol. xx, No. 145.  Peter, son of Richard Thalemasche, gives land in Swaleclive to the monks of Bruern, land which Richard had from Robert Chevauchesul.

Other charters of the series in which members of the Cropredy or Danvers families appear are vol. vii, No. 53, of 29 Edward I (1300); vol. viii, No. 161; vol. ix, No. 134.  In this Robt. de Auners is of Burton, also in same vol., No. 246; vol. xii, No. 138.

3.15 Charters of Chaucombe Abbey, Record Office; Danvers Charters at British Museum; Eynesham Abbey Register, Banbury Charters, amongst Lincoln Cathedral muniments.

3.16 Patent Roll of 1 Edward I (1272), concerning lands in Little Bourton.

3.17 Rotuli Hundredorum.

3.18 See page 3–3.

3.19 Parliamentary Writs, and Nomina Villarum, in Harleian MSS., 4, 081, 2,195, 6,281.

3.20 Calendar of Ancient Deeds (R.O.), vol. i, B. 724; and Record Office, Miscellaneous Charters, Augmentation, vol. xiv, No. 21 (9 Edward II, 1315), Simon Danvers of Little Bourton to Prior of Chaucombe; also vol. xvi, charter 149.

3.21 Fine is not numbered, but is the fifth in the book.

3.22 Beesley’s History of Banbury.

3.23 Lay Subsidy Roll, Oxon., 161/10, probably 34 Edward I (1305), Richard and Moncio (Montacute?) Danvers in Falkelor (Fanflore, Fawler).  In same roll Rob. Danvers in Bourton Parv. and in Ippewell.  Roll 161/9, 1 Edward III (1327), in Tetsworth Richard Danvers, in Bourton Parv. Simon Danvers.  Oxon. Roll, 161/46, 2 or 4 of Richard II (1378 or 80), Robert and Rosa Danvers have small holdings in Bourton Parv.

3.24 Rawlinson MSS. (B. 283, p.21) at the Bodleian Library. 

3.25 Parliamentary Writs, vol. ii, div. 2, p. 544.

3.26 Lay Subsidy Roll, Oxon 161/29.

3.27 Lay Subsidy Roll, Oxon 161/21.

3.28 In the 34 Edward I  (1305), Oxon fine, No. 209, Will de La Lee and his wife Isabel sell land.  Oxon fines of 36 and 42 Henry III (1251 and 1257), William de La Lee buys land in Shutford and in Banbury, and in 22 Edward I (1293) Will de La Lee and his wife Agnes buy land in Banbury.  Amongst the ancient charters, vol. xviii, No. 255, charter in Nich. de La Lee to monks of Bordesley, and again Aug. No. 245, vol. x, Peter, son of Nicholas de La Lee gives land in La Lee to Bruerne Abbey; and amongst the charters in the Thame Abbey register is one of Geoffrey de La Lee giving land to that abbey.

In Burke’s Armory and in Dodsworth MSS., No. 5, p. 111, the arms of de La Lee are: or, a fess embattled between six martletts gules, three and three.

3.29 From the substitution of the strong genitive es for the weak an.  So Mr W. H. Stevenson, to whom we are indebted for the etymologies of Epswell and Tetsworth.

Top

Digital edition first published: 1 Mar 2020             Updated: 17 Jul 2023                garydanvers@gmail.com