EDWINSTREE HUNDRED 



ASPENDEN WITH 

 WAKELEY 



a manor.2^ After the Norman Conquest Alward's 

 land had passed to Count Eustace of Boulogne, and 

 was held of him by Robert.^'' This holding cannot 

 be traced after this time, and it was probably 

 appurtenant to the neighbouring manor of Berkesden 

 (q.v.), which Robert held of the count. 



Eddeva the Fair's lands in Wakeley became part 

 of the possessions of Count Alan of Britanny and 

 were held of him by Ralph. ^' Count Alan held also 

 the manor of Munden,^^ and the overlordship of the 

 manor of Wakeley appears to have descended with 

 that manor until the end of the 13 th century, when 

 it was held by the Furnivals, lords of the manor of 

 Munden, at which suit of court was owed.^^ Ralph, 

 the tenant in fee of this holding in 1086, seems to 

 be identical with Ralph Pinel the predecessor of the 

 Lanvalleys,'*^ for in 1 1 94 his lands in Wakeley had 

 descended to William de Lanvalley.^* The Lanvalleys 

 appear to have subenfeofFed their lands to the Fitz 

 Ralphs before this date,^^ and these lands probably 

 were amalgamated with the Fitz Ralphs' other holding 

 in Wakeley. This was the fee which in Saxon times 

 was held by Edric. In 1086 it formed part of the 

 possessions of Hardwin de Scales, and was held of 

 him by Theobald,^' ancestor of the Fitz Ralphs. At 

 the beginning of the 13 th century Hardwin's des- 

 cendants were holding in service in Wakeley,^* but 

 after this there is no further record of their tenure 

 here. Theobald, who was holding the manor of 

 Hardwin in 1086, appears to have had a son Fulk, 

 who was succeeded by his son Theobald.'* He was 

 holding the manor of Wakeley with his wife 

 Amphyllis in 1 1 94 with reversion to his son Fulk and 

 Eleanor his wife.'^ In 1277 Ralph Fitz Ralph of 

 Broadfield (grandson of Fulk) was lord of Wakeley, 

 but by this time a tenant had been subenfeofFed.'^ 



Ralph Muschet was holding the manor of Wakeley 

 of Ralph Fitz Ralph in 1277.'* His father Richard 

 Muschet had also held land in Wakeley.'' Ralph's 

 heirs appear to have been Joan wife of Luke de 

 Tany and Sybil wife of John de Montfort, who 

 were holding the advowson in 1308.*" In 1309 

 Joan and her husband conveyed all their right in the 

 manor to Robert de Kendale and his wife Margaret,^! 

 and in 1 3 1 1 Robert presented to the church jointly 

 with Ralph Muschet's widow Joan.*^ Robert was 

 granted free warren in his manor of Wakeley in 



K.KNDALK. Argent a 

 bend 'vert and a label 

 gules. 



March 1317-18,^' and in i 320 he received a quit- 

 claim of all right in the manor from Sybil and John 

 de Montfort.^'' Robert died in 1330.*'' His wife 

 Margaret held the manor for 

 her life,^" and on her death in 

 1347^' it descended to their 

 son Edward de Kendale. He 

 died in January I 372-3^^ and 

 his wife Elizabeth in 1375.^" 

 Her eldest son Edward having 

 died without issue earlier in 

 the same year, Wakeley de- 

 scended to her second son 

 Thomas Kendale, clerk,''' who 

 barely survived his mother a 

 week, and the manor then 

 passed to his sister Beatrice 

 the wife of Robert Turk." 



Beatrice appears to have died before her husband, 

 who in 1400 died seised of the manor, which de- 

 scended to his only daughter Joan the wife of John 

 Waleys.*^ John Waleys died in 141 8 ^' and Joan in 

 1420, when her Hertfordshire property, including 

 Wakeley, descended to her four daughters and co- 

 heirs, Beatrice the wife of Reginald Cokayn, Joan 

 the wife of Robert Leventhorp, Agnes Waleys and 

 Joan Waleys.** 



In 1428 Reginald Cokayn and the other heirs 

 (unnamed) were holding Wakeley,** but the manor 

 ultimately passed to the second 

 daughter Joan, who married 

 secondly Nicholas Morley.*^ 

 Joan Morley appears to have 

 died before 1452, but her 

 husband was then still living.*' 

 He died apparently before 

 1454, for in that year Richard 

 Morley presented to the 

 church.*^ The manor after- 

 wards came to Robert Morley, 

 the son of Nicholas and Joan.*' 

 He died in 1 5 1 6 ; his son 

 Thomas had died before him, 

 and Wakeley descended to his 



grandson Thomas Morley, a minor.^" He held the 

 manor until his death in January 1 557-8. "^^ His 

 heir was his son Thomas,^^ but he appears to have 



Morley. Sable ajleur 

 de Us or coming out of a 

 leopard's head argent. 



25 V.C.H. Herts, i, 320. This arrange- 

 ment suggests a sub-division among 

 brothers ; see ibid. 289. 



^* Ibid. 321a. 



^ Ibid. 320. 



28 Ibid. 319. 



29 Feet of F. Herts. 6 Edw. 1, no. 70 ; 

 see Assize R. 323, m. id.; Chan. Inq. 

 p.m. 49 Edw. Ill (ist nos.), no. 74 ; see 

 V.C.H. Hens, iii, 124. 



3" See Morant, Hist, of Essex, i, 440. 



31 Abbre'v. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 2. 



32 Ibid. 



33 V.C.H. Herts, i, 340A. 



3* Abbre-v. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 98. For 

 pedigree of the Scales see manor of 

 Wyddial. 



35 Dugdale, Mon. v, 369. See manor 

 of Broadfield, Odsey Hundred, for descent 

 of this family. 



36 Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), z. 



3' Feet of F. Herts. 6 Edw. I, no. 70. 

 For the overlordship of the Fitz Ralph 

 family see Cal. Inq. p.m. 1-9 Edtv. Ill, 

 209 ; Chan. Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV, no. 36. 



For descent of the Fitz Ralphs see the 

 manor of Aspenden. 



38 Feet of F. Herts. 6 Edw. I, no. 70. 



39 See Anct. D. (P.R.O.), A 5194, 

 7214. 



*" Clutterbuck, Hist, and Antiq. of Herts. 

 iii, 349. 



<' Feet of F. Herts. 2 Edw. II, no. 28. 

 Edward de Kendale, who presented to 

 the church in 1309 (Clutterbuck, loc. 

 cit.), was probably holding in trust for 

 Robert. 



*2 Clutterbuck, loc. cit. 



■•3 Cal. Chart. R. 1300-26, p. 379. 



■'■' Feet of F. Herts. 14 Edw. II, 

 no. 332, 



*5 Cal. Inq. p.m. 1-9 Edw. Ill, 209. 



*6 Ibid. ; see Clutterbuck, loc. cit. 



" Chan. Inq. p.m. 2i Edw. Ill, 



*i Ibid. no. 9; ; see Feet of F. Div. 

 Co. 50 Edw. Ill, no. 146. 



52 Chan. Inq. p.m. 2 Hen. IV, no. 36. 



'3 Ibid. 6 Hen. V, no. 11. 



" Ibid. 3 Hen. VI, no. 35 ; see De 

 Banco R. 651 (2 Hen. VI), m. 128. 



35 Feud. Aids, ii, 446. 



56 SaJi. Arch. Coll. XX, 60 ; Visit, of 

 Sussex (Harl. Soc), 47 ; Berry, Suss. 

 Gen. 173. 



5' See Feet of F. Herts. 31 Hen. VI, 

 no. 161. 



58 Clutterbuck, op. cit. iii, 349. Richard 

 Morley is not mentioned in any of the 

 pedigrees. He appears to be the Richard 

 Morley called in 1470 'late of Aspenden, 

 alias late of London' [Cal. Pat. 1467-77, 

 p. 203). 



59 Suss. Arch. Coll. xx, 60 ; Visit, of 

 Sussex (Harl. Soc), 47 ; Berry, loc. cit. 



3» P.C.C. 23 Holder ; Chan, Inq. p.m. 

 (Ser. 2), xxxi, 98. 



61 Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxxlv, 

 160. 



62 Ibid. 



21 



