I 2 KING JOHN S HOUSE AT TOLLARt) ROYAL. 



property of Geoffrey de Mandeville, who married the divorced 

 Queen. There is an order made in 17 John, to Hugh de Nevil, 

 which shows that the King still had his chase at Cranborne, 

 though the manor of Cranborne with its chase was then the 

 property of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The order is to the follow- 

 ing effect: — 17 John. The King to Hugh de Nevil, order to 

 make a perambulation to know what was the King's chase (in 

 Dorset) and what was the chase of Geoffrey de Mandeville, to 

 wit, the chase which William, Earl of Gloucester formerly held, 

 also to make a like perambulation of the forest of Cranborne 

 and Chittenden between the King's chase and the chase which 

 the Earl of Gloucester had held. 



Did the King build the house at ToUard when he divorced his 

 Queen and so lost the manor house of Cranborne with its chase ? 

 It looks very like it. The confusion which seems to exist 

 between the King's chase at Cranborne and the chase of the 

 manor of Cranborne might be capable of this explanation — that 

 when the King was in possession of the manor of Cranborne he 

 afforested lands on the Tollard side of it and so extended the 

 chase of the manor, making a royal forest of it — (the King acted 

 in this manner all over England, and caused much misery 

 thereby) — and, when the manor of Cranborne with its chase 

 passed out of his possession, he built the house at Tollard as a 

 hunting lodge for the afforested lands which he had added to 

 the chase of Cranborne Manor, but which were now separated 

 from it, and had become the King's chase or forest of Cran- 

 borne, the old name of Cranborne being retained. 



Again, an old map of the chase plotted in 161 8 shows only 

 one park within the short bounds of the chase, and that one 

 park the one attached to this house at Tollard. Whom would 

 the King allow to enclose a park in the midst of his chase 

 against his own deer ? The existence of this park at an early 

 date seems to show that this house was a royal house, at least 

 when this park was enclosed ; so it seems that the tradition 

 which affirms that this is King John's house is based on 

 reasonable grounds. 



