A HISTORY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE 



MANDEVILLK. Quar- 

 terly or and gules. 



Bishop of Lincoln. Geoffrey died before 1269" 

 leaving his son John de Mandeville as his heir. The 

 manor and parish seem to have taken their name from 

 Geoffrey de Mandeville, but his family did not hold 

 the fee for long, since John 

 held no lands in Bucking- 

 hamshire at his death." In 

 1284-6 M his moiety was held 

 by John de Kirkeby, Bishop 

 of Ely, but it has not been 

 traced how he obtained it. 

 Shortly afterwards he granted 

 it to his brother William de 

 Kirkeby and his wife Chris- 

 tiana for their lives." William 

 died seised in 1301 or 1302," 

 and Christiana held it alone 

 in 1 302-3 M and I3I6. 60 William de Kirkeby was his 

 brother's heir ; 61 hence on Christiana's death some 

 time after 1 3 16 61 the Bishop of Ely's moiety of Stoke 

 Mandeville passed to the heirs of William. He had 

 no children and his lands were divided amongst his 

 four sisters, 63 Stoke Mandeville forming part of the 

 share of his eldest sister Margaret. She had married 

 Walter Doseville, 64 but both she and her husband pre- 

 deceased Christiana. Her eldest son John died with- 

 out direct heirs, 65 and Hugh Doseville his brother 66 

 succeeded to the moiety of the manor, which seems to 

 have been settled on Hugh in I3I3- 67 In I3I4 68 he 

 enfeoffed Master John Doseville and Robert Dose- 

 ville and the heirs of Robert of its reversion. Robert 

 was in seisin in I332, 69 when Robert son of William 

 Grimbaud, the descendant of another of the heiresses 

 of William de Kirkeby, claimed a moiety of the manor 

 of Stoke Mandeville from him. Hugh Doseville was 

 called to give warrant'.-/ but the suit was indefinitely 

 postponed, as one of the parties was under age. 



The Dosevilles, however, were not dispossessed, since 

 in 1 346 " Nicholas Doseville had succeeded Robert. 

 The manor appears to have undergone a further sub- 

 division, since three tenants appear, and the Dose- 

 villes held only a half of a knight's fee. 78 Nicholas 

 Doseville seems to have been the last of that name to 

 hold the moiety of Stoke Mandeville manor, and possi- 

 bly left two daughters as his heiresses. The moiety 

 seems to have been the inheritance of Joan the wife 

 of Robert Derwahhaw and Cecilia the wife of Sir 

 Robert le Straunge. 7 * In 1372 the latter complained 

 that she had been disseised of the manor of Stoke 

 Mandeville by Robert Derwalshaw and Joan, but in 

 1374" Robert le Straunge and his wife and her heirs 

 quitclaimed a moiety of the manor to Derwalshaw and 

 Joan and her heirs. These latter granted the rever- 

 sion, to fall in on their deaths, to John de Kyngesfold, 

 who in turn sold it to Alice Ferrers the celebrated 



mistress of Edward III. 75 She deputed John Bernes 

 and others to receive her interest from Robert Derwal- 

 shaw 76 on the understanding that they should re-en- 

 feoff Robert and Joan for their lives. This was done, 

 but on the attainder of Alice Ferrers the moiety of 

 the manor was seized by the king's escheators, 77 though 

 she had no right in it, but only in the reversion. She, 

 however, also held two-thirds of a messuage in Stoke 

 Mandeville 78 of Robert Derwalshaw. In 1378" 

 Robert, his wife having died, obtained restitution of 

 his moiety to hold for life without paying rent, on 

 condition that he kept it without waste. The rever- 

 sion was vested in the king, 80 who, however, granted 

 it in 1380 in fee simple to Sir Willi.im de Windsor, 81 

 who had married Alice Ferrers. To whom it after- 

 wards passed does not appear. Sir William apparently 

 held no lands in Buckinghamshire at his death, 83 

 and the family of Brudenell seem to have obtained 

 possession of this moiety of Stoke Mandeville at 

 this time. It seems possible that it was known as 

 the manor of Newbury. Edmund Brudenell, the 

 eldest son of William Brudenell of Aynho and 

 Raans, 8 * was a Clerk of Parliament during the reigns 

 of Edward III and Richard II, and is said 84 to have 

 held the manor, but it is not mentioned in his will, 

 dated 21 June 1425. His only daughter and heiress 

 Alice ** became a nun, and his lands in Stoke Man- 

 deville may have passed to his brother Henry, whose 

 descendant Francis Brudenell of Stjke Mandeville 

 died seised of the manors of Newbury and Oldbury in 

 1 60 1 .** The two manors were held together from 

 this time, and the manor of Newbury followed the 

 same descent as Oldbury (q.v.). 



In 1254" Geoffrey de Mandeville held the view 

 of frankpledge in Stoke Mandeville and paid l8/. a 

 year for the right. In 1616-17 Edmund Brudenell 

 obtained a grant of view of frankpledge to be held 

 twice a year for his tenants in StoKe Mandeville, 

 Ellesborough, and Little Kimble. 88 The Clarkes of 

 Ardington also held view of frankpledge and many 

 other rights. 89 William de Kirkeby " obtained a grant 

 of free warren in his demesne lands in Stoke Hailing, 

 a hamlet in the parish, from Edward I. 



The manor of BURLETS apparently took its 

 name from the family of Burley who held land in 

 Stoke Mandeville in the early part of the 1 4th cen- 

 tury. It seems to have been held at that time 

 of the Kirkebys, but afterwards, about 1346, of the 

 Bishop of Lincoln himself. In 1304" Peter de 

 Leycestre died seised of lands in Stoke Hailing, held 

 of Robert de Burley and his heirs, and in 1 3 1 3 9S 

 the same Robert obtained certain lands in Stoke 

 Mandeville from William Billy. In 1346 93 William 

 de Burley's name appears as paying the feudal aid 

 due from one knight's fee in Stoke Mandeville, 



61 Exarfta e Rot. Fin. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 



495; 



5a Cal. Inf. p.m. Ediv. /, no. i 54. 



Feud. Aids, i, 86. 



*7 Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. I, no. JI. 



*8 Ibid. 



69 Feud. Aids, i, 98. jbid. , 1 2 . 



61 Chan. Inq. p.m. 18 Edw. I, no. 37. 



"Feud. Aids, i, 112. 



88 Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. I, no. 31 ; 

 Abkre-v. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), i, 123. 



4 Ibid. 



De Banco R. Hil. 5 & 6 Edw. II, m. 

 152. 



68 Ibid. Trin. no. 286, m. 139 d. 



' Feet of F. Bucks. Mich. 7 Edw. II. 



8 Ibid. 8 Edw. II. 



69 De Banco R. 286, m. I39d. 



7 Ibid. 



71 Feud. Aids, 1,123. 



7 Ibid. 



7' Assize R. 1477, m. 46. 



7< Feet. off. Bucks. East. 47 Edw. III. 



" 5 Cal. Pat. 1 377-8 1, p. 226. 



76 Ibid. 7? Ibid. 



7 8 Chan. Inq. p.m. I Ric. II, no. 30. 



7 Cal. Pat. 1377-81, p. 226. 



* Ibid. 



81 Ibid. 503. 



88 Chan. Inq. p.m. 8 Ric. II, no 38. 



362 



88 Collins, Peerage ofEngl. (ed. Brydges), 

 iii, 488. 



84 Lipscomb, Hist, of Bucks, ii. 



86 Collins, Peerage (ed. Brydges), iii, 438. 

 88 Lipscomb, Hist, of Bucks, ii, 447 ; 



Pedigree of Brudenell from Cardigan MSS. 



8 7 Hand. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 20. 



88 Pat. 14 Jas. I, pt. 13. 



89 Recov. R. Mich. 2 Geo. IV. 



90 Chart. R. 89, m. 3, no. 23 (24 

 Edw. I). 



91 Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 42. 

 Feet of F. Bucks. Trin. 6 Edw. II, 



nos. 17, 1 8. 



93 Feud. Aids, i, 123. 



