During these turbulent 14th century years the male succession to the barony was lost. The Chalfont St Giles Manor of the Barony was divided between the daughters of the first marriage to Joan Pecche. She died before 1331 and four daughters survived her, Joan, who married Hugh Wake, Sarah who had a son called Adam Basing, Cecilia, whose son Theobald Grossett was also an inheritor and Constance the youngest daughter. From 1349 onward this manor is no longer connected to Wolverton and there do not appear to have been any claims against the major estate. John’s second wife was also called Joan and she bore two daughters, Margery and Elizabeth and a son Ralph who died young in 1351. Margery was at that time betrothed to John Hunt of Fenny Stratford and she married him in 1352.
Elizabeth in the meantime married William Cogenhoe of Cogenhoe Manor in Northamptonshire, and they signed a deed in 1378 to the effect that if they had no heirs, their portion of the Wolverton estates would be granted to Sir John Cheyne of Isenhampstead Chenies. The reasons for this are not obvious but I have hinted before they may have been cousins. The Isenhampstead family, who later adopted the name Cheyne, were certainly prominent in Buckinghamshire and even at this date were still a rising family. William and Elizabeth de Cogenhoe did have two children, William and Agnes. The elder child, William died in 1389 and his son died in 1399, still a minor. The heir to the estate was Agnes, who John Cheyne promptly married in 1400 to cement his interest in the Cogenhoe manor and the portion of the Wolverton estate.
In the meantime Margery produced one heir, Joan Hunt who married John Longueville of Billing and it is here that the Longuevilles enter the Wolverton story. Even though John Hunt died before 1365, Margery remarried and outlived two further husbands, dying herself in 1383.
At this stage what was left of the Wolverton barony was divided between Joan the wife of John Longueville and John Cheyne and his wife Agnes. She died in 1421, but they had one son, Alexander. He had no issue, and at the death of John Cheyne in 1445 their portion of the Wolverton manor was restored to the other half of the family, by now in the person of George Longueville.
For just over a century the Wolverton Manor had been a divided inheritance. It is hard to see at this distance in time whether or not it made any difference. Presumably it made none to the ordinary peasant but it must have had an impact on the income of the lord of the manor. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the building of a tower at St Mary Magdalen begins soon after this date when the manor was finally re-unified.
While the de Wolverton family were in decline, the de Longueville family were on the way up. Manno le Breton, founder of the de Wolverton line, had acquired large estates after the Conquest which were later assessed at 15 knights’ fees in service: that is he had fifteen principal knights under his patronage, each of whom would have had a manor or part of a manor to support himself and his family and indeed his ability to arm himself for potential combat – no mean expense.
The de Longuevilles by contrast appear to have started their life in England as knights but initially without any grant of land. They emerge on the record in the 12th century, a century after the Conquest in the Manor of Overton in Huntingdonshire, part way between Oundle and Peterborough. The manor only has one entry in the Domesday Book of 1086 but the holdings are shared between Eustace the Sheriff and the Bishop of Lincoln, Eustace having the larger share.
This quite large manor was divided into two parts, which later assumed the names of Orton Longueville and Orton Waterville after the holding families of the 13th century. It was subinfeudated, possibly by 1135, to Roger and John, both “men of Eustace”. One or the other may be the ancestor of the de Longuevilles but there is no documentary evidence to make that connection. All we know is that the de Longuevilles hold this manor as one knight’s fee to the Lovetoft barony. The Lovetoft Barony appears to have comprised the holdings of Eustace the Sheriff although in the murky world of 12th century records any lineage with Eustace is unclear.
This information does at least help us to place this de Longueville family. Their heritage was modest but over a period of centuries they appear to have established themselves as a middling rank family with some landed resources. The Orton Longueville family emerges from obscurity with Henry who held the fee in 1166. Henry had at least three sons of record but his heir was Reginald who died before 1219. His son John became the tenant and he died before 1265 leaving one son Henry as a minor. In the practice of the day Henry became a ward until he became of age, under the protection of his overlord Roger de Lovetoft, who was then able to enjoy the revenue from the manor. Henry was married to Roger’s daughter Petronilla and thus able to advance himself.
Some genealogists have tried to connect these Longuevilles with the great magnate, Walter Giffard de Longueville. There is no direct evidence for this although the name might offer some clue about the connection. Longueville was and is a village near Dieppe and Walter Giffard, who was one of William’s great barons certainly originated from Longueville. It is a reasonable supposition that Walter Giffard brought with him several members of his extended family, but there is no evidence to allow us to conclude that our Longuevilles were in a direct line. It can be considered likely that the Orton Longuevilles came to England with the conquering army and were rewarded to a degree commensurate with their station. The assumption that they were descendants of Walter Giffard appears to have originated with an 18th century genealogy which confused Walterus de Longueville of Overton with Walter Giffard de Longueville, and may indeed have originated from the family itself in an attempt to burnish their lineage. Unfortunately more than a few genealogists have repeated this error.
Another coincidence that may lead to potential confusion is the presence of the manor of Newton Longueville some few miles away. This manor, originally Newton owes its appendage to Walter Giffard who assigned the income from this manor to the Abbey of Longueville. The name pre-dates the arrival of the Longuevilles in Wolverton and has never had any connection with the Wolverton family.
Exactly how and why part of the family moved from Orton to Little Billing is unknown. What we do know is that a John de Longueville acquired the Manor in 1301. At the same time, in 1302, a John de Longueville and his wife Margaret inherited the manor of Orton Longueville, but this couple had only a daughter for an heir and she married Gerard Braybrooke. Orton Longueville thereafter descended through this line. It therefore seems to me that the John de Longueville of Little Billing is a different person altogether, with no obvious connection to the Orton de Longuevilles other than a name. This does not mean that there is no connection, but simply that we do not have the concrete evidence to draw that conclusion.
There are even hints that the de Longuevilles were already established in Northamptonshire. Prior to his acquisition of the manor in 1301 he granted some land in Little Billing to St John’s Hospital in Northampton. This was not the action of a man without resources. Later in 1323 he founded the Austin Friars in Northampton. He could not be the John de Longueville who inherited Orton Longueville from his parents, Henry and Petronilla since he died in 1316. The Little Billing John Longuevile may not be directly descended from Henry and Petronilla.
It is possible, and even likely, that he descended from a younger brother of Henry and therefore both Johns share a common grandparent.
In the 14th century there were three, possibly four, ways to acquire land – through inheritance, though marriage and through service. The fourth possibility, through direct purchase, cannot be totally ignored, but in this case is less likely. The Longuevilles of Orton do not at this time appear to be that wealthy. The facts that we do know is that the title to the manor was transferred (alienated to use the terms of the time) to Sir John Longeville in 1301 and there was a so-called foot of fine to put this on record.1 The rather odd name comes about because these transactions were usually recorded on a single sheet of parchment, on which three copies of the deed were made – one on the left, one on the right and one at the foot. Each part of the document was cut with wavy lines so that the originals could be matched without forgery. The two parties to the agreement kept the right and left hand copy and the court retained the foot. They are called fines because the agreement was a final concord – fine for short. Thus the court records, which are in most cases the only surviving records, became known as feet of fines.
The Manor of Billing was part of the small barony of Winemar the Fleming, the same man who held Hanslope in 1086. The descendants of Winemar, who took the name Preston, after Preston (Deanery) which they also held, appear to have run out of male heirs and in 1284 it was in the hands of the widow Alice de Preston. What happens after that is not altogether clear but Longueville may have come into the Manor through marriage to one in the female line of the de Prestons.
We know from record that Henry of Orton was put into wardship as a minor. He was the heir and there were estates to manage. A younger son with nothing to inherit may well have been given over to the custody of a related family and it may have been this that brought the young John to Little Billing. There will have been no need for any record, which is why we have none, but he must have acquired some wealth somehow, possibly through a will from his relative but if no feudal holdings were involved there would be no need for royal intervention and a local deed would have been sufficient. We must assume that this was lost.
An 18th century genealogy traces the later Wolverton Longuevilles from a Thomas Longueville of Little Billing. The precise relationship with the John mentioned above is not recorded. He could have been either a son or grandson He married Beatrix Hastings and they had at least one son, Thomas. This Thomas married Isobel, and he died in 1361. They had a son John and his son, also John was the one who married Joan Hunt and thereby came into the Wolverton inheritance.
The de Wolverton line, as we have seen, produced no male heirs after the death of Ralph de Wolverton, then only a small boy, in 1351. At this point the great Barony of Manno was broken up. Chalfont St Giles and Padbury were settled on the four daughters of John de Wolverton’s first marriage and Wolverton and Wyke Hamon (Wicken) divided between Ralph’s elder sisters, Margaret and Elizabeth.
Margery married John de Hunte of Fenny Stratford, and gave birth to a daughter, Joan, who becomes important later. In the meantime, Elizabeth had married William de Cogenhoe
Margery outlived her first husband, then a second, Roger de Louth and a even third, Richard Imworth, but not the fourth, John Hewes, who after 1393 granted his interest to John de Longueville and his wife Joan.
This is the beginning of the Longueville story in Wolverton which was to last until 1713.
The de Longuevilles repeated the longevity of the first Wolverton ruling family and survived for over 300 years. Sir Frank Markham expresses the view that "successive generations of de Longuevilles followed two main lines of policy, first the acquisition of estates formerly held by priories, and second the enclosure of the common land of their manors." I will return to these two points later.
Sir John de Longueville, who had married Joan Hunt, the heiress of Wolverton, was born in 1351. In the succeeding years the division of the estates of the barony between the surviving daughters and their husbands led to some complicated dynastic settlements. The Wolverton estate eventually fell into the hands of Joan and her husband John de Longueville, probably after 1393. The new Lord of Wolverton moved there upon his wife’s inheritance while continuing to maintain the Little Billing manor, which they passed on to their eldest son. The house at Wolverton however became the chief seat of the Longuevilles from this time forth.
We have no idea what sort of building was there in the 14th century, but we can assume, given the relative wealth of the de Wolvertons, that it was a splendid enough manor house for the period. From surviving knowledge of domestic architecture of that time, the house at Wolverton probably had a great hall, where all the activities of the house took place, including sleeping places for the servants. By the end of the 14th century the house could have been enlarged by at least one wing to give the family more privacy. At this time the house may have been “L-shaped”. Kitchens were usually housed in a separate building set away from the great hall, as a precaution against the all too frequent risk of fire. We do not know if this house was of timber or stone construction; all we can presume is that there was a house there and it was of a standard befitting its occupants.
Sir John was energetic in seeking office. He was Sheriff of Buckingham in 1394 and no doubt took the opportunity (as did all holders of this office) to enrich himself and his family. His son George served as a member of Parliament for Buckinghamshire and was Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1430. If we accept John’s date of birth as 1351, then this John de Longueville lived a very long life, dying as he did in 1439. In any case his presumed father, Sir George Longueville, was murdered in 1357, so the birth of his son would have to be before that year. But his longevity meant that his heir, Sir George was already advanced in years at the time of his inheritance. He in turn lived to 1457. The succession once again becoes involved and difficult to unravel.
He had two sons - Richard, the eldest, by his first wife Elizabeth, and a younger son, George, the issue of a second wife, Margaret. Richard must have died in the some years earlier, but he already had a son, Richard, who by rights ought to have inherited according to the rules of the age. However, this Richard also died before 1458, possibly before his grandfather, and Sir George made his younger son George, heir before he died in 1458. The younger Richard had a son, John, who was an infant at the time and this may explain why the old Sir George bypassed him in favour of his second son, George. There would have been sound motives for this. As a minor John would automatically become a ward of the king who could then sell the wardship to someone who would take responsibility for the upbringing of the boy, and, more attractively, enjoy the revenues from the estates. Sir George’s manoeuvre may have been a tax avoidance scheme, because by naming his second son, who had already achieved his majority, he would only have to pay a fine of a fixed amount to the crown. Wardship was a much more expensive proposition and carried the risk of someone else plundering the estate for twenty years. Accordingly George was confirmed in the livery of his estates by Edward IV in 1461. The disinherited John did not at all subscribe to the notion that he should accept his lot and upon obtaining his majority began to pursue his rights. He must have had a clear case because on October 14 1479 the king’s court made this order at Woburn.
licence for John Longvile son and heir of Richard Longvile, esquire, tenant in chief, to enter freely without proof of age into all castles, lordships, manors, honours, lands, fee- farms, annuities, reversions, farms, rents, services, hundreds, offices, fees, views of frank-pledge, courts, leets, sheriffs' turns, liberties, franchises, fairs, markets, jurisdictions, stews, fisheries, warrens, knights' fees, advowsons and other possessions and hereditaments in England and Wales and the marches of Wales of which his father or any other of his ancestors was seised and which should descend to him on their death, saving to the king homage and fealty.2
He is still treated as a tenant-in-chief, even though the barony had lapsed for over a hundred years. The ancient rights established in 1066 prevailed.
A court order was one thing, but displacing the incumbent was quite another. George was unwilling to move and must have resolved to ignore the order because in 1485 John, probably in exasperation, made a forcible entry to the Manor and asserted his rights as he perceived them. It had taken him six years since his majority to get to this point; George was intractable, having the confidence that possession was nine-tenths of the law. What sort of menaces were involved we can only imagine but John must have made his point successfully, because upon George's death in 1499 John had in his hands a document renouncing any claims by George and his heirs on the manor. The probable agreement that they reached in 1485 was that George could enjoy the manor until his death provided that everything came to John and that there were no further claims from George’s heirs.
This John, who was knighted, lived to the good age of 83 (although in one place he is accorded the great age of 103) and took the family into the 16th century. He appears to have behaved somewhat like Henry VIII but without the ability to divorce his wife. His first wife bore only one surviving child, a daughter Anne. With no prospects for a son Sir John took up with Anne Saunders who produced no fewer than four sons - Thomas, Arthur, John and Richard. Thomas pre-deceased his father and Arthur was named as his heir. His illegitimacy was apparently no bar to inheritance although it was noted by contemporaries:
Langeville an 103 yeres old made his landes from his heires general to his bastard sunne Arture. The yonger bastard is now heir.3
The one legitimate child, Anne, married John Cheyne of the Chenies manor in Chalfont St Giles from the family that had already established close connections with the de Wolvertons and the prospect of uniting the two manors, which were once part of the Wolverton barony must have been considered; however, Sir John de Longueville decided to will everything to his illegitimate son Arthur, who accordingly inherited in 1541. In the following year he secured himself from any claim by his half sister and her children and descendants.
Arthur Longueville was the one who acquired Bradwell Priory, which had been originally endowed by the Baron Meinfelin in the 12th Century. It had latterly been the property of Cardinal Wolsey but after his downfall it reverted to the crown. From here it was sold to Arthur Longueville.
The "younger bastard" died in 1557 leaving his widow Anne to manage the estate until his son Henry came of age. Henry died in 1618. The period was a momentous one for the Manor because land enclosures were largely effected during this century - a policy instigated by Arthur and pursued more assiduously by his son Henry.
----
1 Feet of Fines Northants. 30 Edward I, no. 415.
2 Inquisitions Post Mortem 19 Edw IV m. 17. Oct 14 Woburn
3 Lucy Toulmin Smith. The Itinerary of John leland in or about the Years 1535-1543, Vol II, p.23
We have no idea what sort of building was there in the 14th century, but we can assume, given the relative wealth of the de Wolvertons, that it was a splendid enough manor house for the period. From surviving knowledge of domestic architecture of that time, the house at Wolverton probably had a great hall, where all the activities of the house took place, including sleeping places for the servants. By the end of the 14th century the house could have been enlarged by at least one wing to give the family more privacy. At this time the house may have been “L-shaped”. Kitchens were usually housed in a separate building set away from the great hall, as a precaution against the all too frequent risk of fire. We do not know if this house was of timber or stone construction; all we can presume is that there was a house there and it was of a standard befitting its occupants.
Sir John was energetic in seeking office. He was Sheriff of Buckingham in 1394 and no doubt took the opportunity (as did all holders of this office) to enrich himself and his family. His son George served as a member of Parliament for Buckinghamshire and was Sheriff of Northamptonshire in 1430. If we accept John’s date of birth as 1351, then this John de Longueville lived a very long life, dying as he did in 1439. In any case his presumed father, Sir George Longueville, was murdered in 1357, so the birth of his son would have to be before that year. But his longevity meant that his heir, Sir George was already advanced in years at the time of his inheritance. He in turn lived to 1457. The succession once again becoes involved and difficult to unravel.
He had two sons - Richard, the eldest, by his first wife Elizabeth, and a younger son, George, the issue of a second wife, Margaret. Richard must have died in the some years earlier, but he already had a son, Richard, who by rights ought to have inherited according to the rules of the age. However, this Richard also died before 1458, possibly before his grandfather, and Sir George made his younger son George, heir before he died in 1458. The younger Richard had a son, John, who was an infant at the time and this may explain why the old Sir George bypassed him in favour of his second son, George. There would have been sound motives for this. As a minor John would automatically become a ward of the king who could then sell the wardship to someone who would take responsibility for the upbringing of the boy, and, more attractively, enjoy the revenues from the estates. Sir George’s manoeuvre may have been a tax avoidance scheme, because by naming his second son, who had already achieved his majority, he would only have to pay a fine of a fixed amount to the crown. Wardship was a much more expensive proposition and carried the risk of someone else plundering the estate for twenty years. Accordingly George was confirmed in the livery of his estates by Edward IV in 1461. The disinherited John did not at all subscribe to the notion that he should accept his lot and upon obtaining his majority began to pursue his rights. He must have had a clear case because on October 14 1479 the king’s court made this order at Woburn.
licence for John Longvile son and heir of Richard Longvile, esquire, tenant in chief, to enter freely without proof of age into all castles, lordships, manors, honours, lands, fee- farms, annuities, reversions, farms, rents, services, hundreds, offices, fees, views of frank-pledge, courts, leets, sheriffs' turns, liberties, franchises, fairs, markets, jurisdictions, stews, fisheries, warrens, knights' fees, advowsons and other possessions and hereditaments in England and Wales and the marches of Wales of which his father or any other of his ancestors was seised and which should descend to him on their death, saving to the king homage and fealty.2
He is still treated as a tenant-in-chief, even though the barony had lapsed for over a hundred years. The ancient rights established in 1066 prevailed.
A court order was one thing, but displacing the incumbent was quite another. George was unwilling to move and must have resolved to ignore the order because in 1485 John, probably in exasperation, made a forcible entry to the Manor and asserted his rights as he perceived them. It had taken him six years since his majority to get to this point; George was intractable, having the confidence that possession was nine-tenths of the law. What sort of menaces were involved we can only imagine but John must have made his point successfully, because upon George's death in 1499 John had in his hands a document renouncing any claims by George and his heirs on the manor. The probable agreement that they reached in 1485 was that George could enjoy the manor until his death provided that everything came to John and that there were no further claims from George’s heirs.
This John, who was knighted, lived to the good age of 83 (although in one place he is accorded the great age of 103) and took the family into the 16th century. He appears to have behaved somewhat like Henry VIII but without the ability to divorce his wife. His first wife bore only one surviving child, a daughter Anne. With no prospects for a son Sir John took up with Anne Saunders who produced no fewer than four sons - Thomas, Arthur, John and Richard. Thomas pre-deceased his father and Arthur was named as his heir. His illegitimacy was apparently no bar to inheritance although it was noted by contemporaries:
Langeville an 103 yeres old made his landes from his heires general to his bastard sunne Arture. The yonger bastard is now heir.3
The one legitimate child, Anne, married John Cheyne of the Chenies manor in Chalfont St Giles from the family that had already established close connections with the de Wolvertons and the prospect of uniting the two manors, which were once part of the Wolverton barony must have been considered; however, Sir John de Longueville decided to will everything to his illegitimate son Arthur, who accordingly inherited in 1541. In the following year he secured himself from any claim by his half sister and her children and descendants.
Arthur Longueville was the one who acquired Bradwell Priory, which had been originally endowed by the Baron Meinfelin in the 12th Century. It had latterly been the property of Cardinal Wolsey but after his downfall it reverted to the crown. From here it was sold to Arthur Longueville.
The "younger bastard" died in 1557 leaving his widow Anne to manage the estate until his son Henry came of age. Henry died in 1618. The period was a momentous one for the Manor because land enclosures were largely effected during this century - a policy instigated by Arthur and pursued more assiduously by his son Henry.
----
1 Feet of Fines Northants. 30 Edward I, no. 415.
2 Inquisitions Post Mortem 19 Edw IV m. 17. Oct 14 Woburn
3 Lucy Toulmin Smith. The Itinerary of John leland in or about the Years 1535-1543, Vol II, p.23
