The Succession
The rule of Manno, Baron of Wolverton, must have been a long one and the indications are that he lived to an advanced age. He came to England in 1066 as a leader of men and a successful warrior and he had enough status to be rewarded by William with a barony. His birth can be estimated at any time between 1040 and 1045 and if he lived to 11141 he must have been at least 70 years old. His successor was Meinfelin. Meinfelin himself lived to about 1154 or 1155, so his three-score and ten years (if he achieved them) would place his birth in the region of 1085, when Manno was at least 40. The record of Manno’s immediate family does not exist. We do not know the name of his wife nor how many sons and daughters he had. We know only the name of his heir, Meinfelin, possibly, but not necessarily his son. Meinfelin appears on record in 1125 as Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire and we know that he died in or around 1155.2 There are three key dates only: 1086, when we know of Manno and his land holdings, 1125 when Meinfelin was Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire and 1155, when the Pipe Rolls of Henry II make reference to Hamon, son of Meinfelin. We therefore have clear evidence that Hamon is Meinfelin’s son and heir. The rest is guesswork.3
If, as I remarked earlier, we can reasonably infer a birth date of no earlier than 1040, there is a span of almost 115 years between the estimated birth of Manno and the death of Meinfelin. It is possible that Meinfelin was Manno’s son, either by being the youngest, or by being a son of a second marriage, but we should also entertain the possibility that he was a grandson and that he may have inherited the barony as his own father died before Manno passed on. There is a 13th century document which appears to confirm the succession but does not establish a father-son link between Manno and Meinfelin. It records a grant of land for the chaplain (presumably at the new chapel at Stony Stratford) from the Lord William, and one of the conditions is that prayers are spoken on three days a week
for himself, his wife Helwisia, Mayny, Maynfeling, Beatricia, Hamon son of Meynfeling and Annable Mauduit and Hamo son of Hamo and the spirits of the faithful departed.4
Pointedly, it does not identify Maynfelyng as the son of Mayny.
As with eveything about Manno, there are no satisfying conclusions one can reach from scarce facts. Meinfelin was born almost 20 years after the Conquest and it would be surprising indeed if there were not older siblings born between 1066 and 1085. How then did he succeed to the Barony? One explanation may be that older brothers (if indeed they existed) died before their father without issue. Another, which sounds more plausible to me, is that Meinfelin was the eldest son of the eldest son, and this man died before Manno, leaving Meinfelin as the heir.
The second baron, Meinfelin, was appointed to the important position of Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire between 1125 and 1129. We can therefore assume that he was a significant and powerful figure in the region and that his position enabled him to augment and consolidate the wealth of the Barony. We can also learn from a later document that Meinfelin married into the de Warenne family. William de Warenne, who held some land in Buckinghamshire, became Earl of Surrey and as one of William the Conqueror’s closest companions, was a very powerful figure. The deed cited above, in the briefest of references, does give her a name - Beatrice. The union would indicate that Meinfelin was of sufficient status to enter into the marriage.
Apart from these fleeting references our information about Meinfelin is also scant. His appointment to the lucrative office of Sheriff tells us that the family was by this time well enough established and powerful enough to be respected in this role. King Henry I obviously felt that Meinfelin could be trusted. The Sheriff was responsible for the administration of justice in the county – the shire reeve - and before the emergence of a specialised judiciary, the sheriff would preside over courts in the county where the king’s interest was at stake. Local justice was administered by the local Lord or the Church. More serious cases were the province of the king’s justice. The Sheriff was often charged with the collection of taxes when they were levied. In both functions the sheriff would take some part of the money collected as his fee for the service, so the position of Sheriff was beneficial to the holder, and tolerated as long as one was not too greedy, which could bring its own penalties.
The rule of Manno, Baron of Wolverton, must have been a long one and the indications are that he lived to an advanced age. He came to England in 1066 as a leader of men and a successful warrior and he had enough status to be rewarded by William with a barony. His birth can be estimated at any time between 1040 and 1045 and if he lived to 11141 he must have been at least 70 years old. His successor was Meinfelin. Meinfelin himself lived to about 1154 or 1155, so his three-score and ten years (if he achieved them) would place his birth in the region of 1085, when Manno was at least 40. The record of Manno’s immediate family does not exist. We do not know the name of his wife nor how many sons and daughters he had. We know only the name of his heir, Meinfelin, possibly, but not necessarily his son. Meinfelin appears on record in 1125 as Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire and we know that he died in or around 1155.2 There are three key dates only: 1086, when we know of Manno and his land holdings, 1125 when Meinfelin was Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire and 1155, when the Pipe Rolls of Henry II make reference to Hamon, son of Meinfelin. We therefore have clear evidence that Hamon is Meinfelin’s son and heir. The rest is guesswork.3
If, as I remarked earlier, we can reasonably infer a birth date of no earlier than 1040, there is a span of almost 115 years between the estimated birth of Manno and the death of Meinfelin. It is possible that Meinfelin was Manno’s son, either by being the youngest, or by being a son of a second marriage, but we should also entertain the possibility that he was a grandson and that he may have inherited the barony as his own father died before Manno passed on. There is a 13th century document which appears to confirm the succession but does not establish a father-son link between Manno and Meinfelin. It records a grant of land for the chaplain (presumably at the new chapel at Stony Stratford) from the Lord William, and one of the conditions is that prayers are spoken on three days a week
for himself, his wife Helwisia, Mayny, Maynfeling, Beatricia, Hamon son of Meynfeling and Annable Mauduit and Hamo son of Hamo and the spirits of the faithful departed.4
Pointedly, it does not identify Maynfelyng as the son of Mayny.
As with eveything about Manno, there are no satisfying conclusions one can reach from scarce facts. Meinfelin was born almost 20 years after the Conquest and it would be surprising indeed if there were not older siblings born between 1066 and 1085. How then did he succeed to the Barony? One explanation may be that older brothers (if indeed they existed) died before their father without issue. Another, which sounds more plausible to me, is that Meinfelin was the eldest son of the eldest son, and this man died before Manno, leaving Meinfelin as the heir.
The second baron, Meinfelin, was appointed to the important position of Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire between 1125 and 1129. We can therefore assume that he was a significant and powerful figure in the region and that his position enabled him to augment and consolidate the wealth of the Barony. We can also learn from a later document that Meinfelin married into the de Warenne family. William de Warenne, who held some land in Buckinghamshire, became Earl of Surrey and as one of William the Conqueror’s closest companions, was a very powerful figure. The deed cited above, in the briefest of references, does give her a name - Beatrice. The union would indicate that Meinfelin was of sufficient status to enter into the marriage.
Apart from these fleeting references our information about Meinfelin is also scant. His appointment to the lucrative office of Sheriff tells us that the family was by this time well enough established and powerful enough to be respected in this role. King Henry I obviously felt that Meinfelin could be trusted. The Sheriff was responsible for the administration of justice in the county – the shire reeve - and before the emergence of a specialised judiciary, the sheriff would preside over courts in the county where the king’s interest was at stake. Local justice was administered by the local Lord or the Church. More serious cases were the province of the king’s justice. The Sheriff was often charged with the collection of taxes when they were levied. In both functions the sheriff would take some part of the money collected as his fee for the service, so the position of Sheriff was beneficial to the holder, and tolerated as long as one was not too greedy, which could bring its own penalties.
Since there is no record of any complaint against Meinfelin and neither is there evidence of any great wealth, it might be fair to assume that he conducted himself in his role without a great deal of excessive peculation. He certainly had sufficient surplus wealth at his death to endow the Priory of Bradwell in his will, a foundation that was to last for four hundred years, although it never became a rich priory. The first two barons, whatever their precise relationship, lived long lives, and the third baron, Hamon, comes into the inheritance some time before 1155.
----
1 A date suggested by Frank Markham.
2 Great Roll of the Pipe. 2-4 Henry II, 22. (Rec. Com.)
3 Hyde puts the death of Manno at 1110 on the basis of “some evidence”. Markham offers 1114 with no evidence. VCH Bucks. refers to VCH Northants i. p 368, 374, 385.
4 Bodleian, dd. Radcl. Deed 49, undated but before 1246.
The Third Baron
The third baron, Hamon (d 1184) also left his mark by making a bequest of part of the manor of Thornborough to the Priory at Luffield. Luffield had been founded by Robert de Bossu, earl of Leicester, earlier than 1133 and was the first priory in the county. As such it took a senior role in the affairs of the Bradwell Priory. This Hamon also gave his name to Wicken (Wick Hamon) and Stoke Hammond. He was the younger of two sons that we know of, the elder being Alan, who pre-deceased him.
We know a little more about him than his father or grandfather because the records of the reign of Henry II are more carefully recorded. He appears in fines for scutage (“shield money” paid to the king in lieu of actual military service)1 In 1161 he is assessed £50 against his 15 knights- not a small sum of money it has to be said - and again for the same amount in 1162. In 1166 he is listed with the names of the fifteen knights for which he he is responsible.
In 1176 he appears again in the rolls to pay a fine of £100 for the very serious crime of hunting in the king’s forest. This was a common enough transgression and the issue of hunting was a bone of contention between the king and his nobility. The king had reserved most of the forest, that is land for hunting, for himself and set heavy penalties against those who hunted on his forest. Sometimes these forests swallowed up huge territory. Almost half of Hampshire, for example, was covered by the New and Bere Forests. In North Buckinghamshire and South Northamptonshire the Whittlewood and Salcey Forests took over many acres. The barons remained resentful that their hunting activities were restricted. In addition the land was economically unproductive.
It was easy to stray. Hamon’s land at Wicken bordered Whittlewood forest which was a royal reserve so it was almost a casual crime, wittingly or unwittingly, to move on to the king’s territory.
Hamon died in 1184 or thereabouts for the barony fell into the hands of the king, as was the practice when the heir was in a minority. The rotuli for Michelmas 1185 records Hamon as recently dead “obiit die Veneris ante Acsensionum” or May 23rd. 1185 and leaving a widow and a son aged 20. The King’s exchequer accounts for £10 18s. 1d. from the issues of Hamon’s landholdings and a further £2 for Wyke Hamon, now known as Wicken. These are probably the earnings for part of the year. Since there is no further mention we may assume that Hamon’s son, also named Hamon, came into his inheritance shortly after on payment of an entry fine to the king – again customary practice. Often these relief fines were paid in instalments but it appears that in 1190 he still owed £62 6s. 8d. to the crown. This same brief record also tells us that Hamon had four sisters, one of whom was a nun. This is a rare instance in those early centuries of recording the existence of siblings who could not inherit the main estate.
We also learn from the same document that Hamon had married Matilda,2 a daughter of the powerful William Mauduit, sometime chancellor. She had brought the manor of Fyfield in North West Hampshire into Hamon’s hands as her marriage portion. It remained with the de Wolvertons until 1280 when it fell into the king’s hands, possibly for payment of a fine. Maud was given the manor of Stoke for dower as a widow and it is possibly at this time that the suffix Hamon (later Hammond) became attached to it. This record shows us that Meinfelin had entered the orbit of Earl Warenne. Hamon, son of Hamon, son of Meinfelin was very well connected. Somehow, little of this rubbed off on the Barons of Wolverton.
This information does enable us to arrive at an actual year of birth for Hamon fitzHamon, 1164. And so at the age of 21, at the king’s command, he married Agatha Trusbut, daughter of Sir William Trusbut. William Trusbut, according to Orderic Vitalis, came from very humble parentage but clearly had talent as he was raised to an Honour of 10 knight’s fees by Henry I, putting him more-or-less on a footing with Hamon son of Meinfelin. Not one of William Trusbut’s four sons had issue and the estate was divided between two daughters, Agatha and Rohese. In 1995 Hamon paid a fine of 300 marks to the treasury for his share in the inheritance. What these lands were is unclear as there is no further mention of them.
It is possible that the de Wolvertons did not gain in the long term from this inheritance, because Agatha, who must have been widowed by 1198, was scooped up in marriage to William de Albini from Clifton Reynes. William was about 30 at the time and Agatha, who was by now 38, was his second wife. That the inheritance went with her is shown through William’s payment of a fine of 600 marks to the King upon his marriage to Agatha and his absorption of her inheritance. She probably had a more exciting life with William who was part of the baron’s uprising against King John in 1201 and who, in 1217, held the command of Rochester Castle against the siege of the king. For his rebellion he forfeited his estates to the Crown but regained them from John’s son, King Henry III.
During her 13 year marriage to Hamon, Agatha bore at least two sons, William and Alan. Both succeeded in turn to the barony, as William had no heirs. William makes his appearance in the Red Book of the Exchequer in 1211, when he is required to pay scutage, which would indicate that he was of age to do military service, but chose to pay the fine instead. Thus his birth year can be estimated as 1190 or earlier.
The last reference to Hamon son of Hamon paying scutage is in 1198, which might help to confirm his early death in that year at the age of 34. The cause is unknown.
It is very difficult from fragmentary facts to gather some concept of personality but we do appear to be entering a period with William, of gradual erosion of the family’s prestige. Sir Frank Markham considers them “a feeble lot” and this is a fair judgement. While contemporary families were aggressively pursuing greater power and land ownership, the de Wolvertons, as they were now beginning to style themselves, were content with what they had. Compared with some of the thrusting barons of the 13th and 14th centuries, even nearby families like the de Greys or the d’ Albinis, the de Wolvertons seemed content with their status and kept a low profile. And who is to say that it was a bad policy? Many ambitious barons paid for their elevation with their lives; some even lost both their lives and their estates for their posterity. The de Wolvertons, by not venturing for risky acquisitions, at least held on to what they had. In consequence the people of Wolverton enjoyed a comparatively placid existence. They were, like everyone, subject to famine and disease, but at least they were not the victims, from the time of the Conquest onwards, of rapine and devastation.
The fines for failure to meet their military obligations demonstrate William’s lack of interest in advancement. In the 13th century, the only way to improve family fortunes was to perform some useful service for the king and look for reward. William showed no interest in this. He makes the record in the rolls during the reign of King John in 1215 when he had to pay 50 marks to recover his lands after losing his rights for failure to provide military service. The same thing happened again in 1223, during the reign of Henry III.
A similar lack of ambition centres around the status of Bradwell Priory, founded by his great grandfather, Meinfelin. Little effort was made to advance the interest of this Priory and it was during this period it became a cell of Luffield Priory with corresponding secondary status.
Many deeds from the time of William’s tenure survive; they all relate to land transactions on the manor. The early ones are undated and many of these deeds are difficult to place in context. However, for the first time since Domesday, we have documents which can afford us a little insight into the workings of the manor. The deeds were kept because of their legal importance and were passed on from generation to generation through the Longuevilles and finally to the Radcliffe Trust. This chest of documents was deposited in the Bodleian library in 1923. Each transaction of land or property is carefully written as a deed and witnessed on the appropriate occasion by various important retainers.
William married a woman called Hawise. Nothing is known about her origin. There were no surviving sons although there is a reference in one of the deeds to Hugh of Wolverton dominus and I would take him to be a son of William. Hugh must have died before 1247. Certainly when William died in 1248 he had no surviving male issue and he was succeeded by his younger brother Alan.
----
1 This was beginning to be a good arrangement for both sides - the baron could be excused military service and attend to his other affairs and the king could use the money to hire mercenaries, who in many ways were more dependable.
2 She is named as Matilda or Maud here but the Wolverton deed, cited earlier, calls her Annabel. Both names must refer to the same woman.
The third baron, Hamon (d 1184) also left his mark by making a bequest of part of the manor of Thornborough to the Priory at Luffield. Luffield had been founded by Robert de Bossu, earl of Leicester, earlier than 1133 and was the first priory in the county. As such it took a senior role in the affairs of the Bradwell Priory. This Hamon also gave his name to Wicken (Wick Hamon) and Stoke Hammond. He was the younger of two sons that we know of, the elder being Alan, who pre-deceased him.
We know a little more about him than his father or grandfather because the records of the reign of Henry II are more carefully recorded. He appears in fines for scutage (“shield money” paid to the king in lieu of actual military service)1 In 1161 he is assessed £50 against his 15 knights- not a small sum of money it has to be said - and again for the same amount in 1162. In 1166 he is listed with the names of the fifteen knights for which he he is responsible.
In 1176 he appears again in the rolls to pay a fine of £100 for the very serious crime of hunting in the king’s forest. This was a common enough transgression and the issue of hunting was a bone of contention between the king and his nobility. The king had reserved most of the forest, that is land for hunting, for himself and set heavy penalties against those who hunted on his forest. Sometimes these forests swallowed up huge territory. Almost half of Hampshire, for example, was covered by the New and Bere Forests. In North Buckinghamshire and South Northamptonshire the Whittlewood and Salcey Forests took over many acres. The barons remained resentful that their hunting activities were restricted. In addition the land was economically unproductive.
It was easy to stray. Hamon’s land at Wicken bordered Whittlewood forest which was a royal reserve so it was almost a casual crime, wittingly or unwittingly, to move on to the king’s territory.
Hamon died in 1184 or thereabouts for the barony fell into the hands of the king, as was the practice when the heir was in a minority. The rotuli for Michelmas 1185 records Hamon as recently dead “obiit die Veneris ante Acsensionum” or May 23rd. 1185 and leaving a widow and a son aged 20. The King’s exchequer accounts for £10 18s. 1d. from the issues of Hamon’s landholdings and a further £2 for Wyke Hamon, now known as Wicken. These are probably the earnings for part of the year. Since there is no further mention we may assume that Hamon’s son, also named Hamon, came into his inheritance shortly after on payment of an entry fine to the king – again customary practice. Often these relief fines were paid in instalments but it appears that in 1190 he still owed £62 6s. 8d. to the crown. This same brief record also tells us that Hamon had four sisters, one of whom was a nun. This is a rare instance in those early centuries of recording the existence of siblings who could not inherit the main estate.
We also learn from the same document that Hamon had married Matilda,2 a daughter of the powerful William Mauduit, sometime chancellor. She had brought the manor of Fyfield in North West Hampshire into Hamon’s hands as her marriage portion. It remained with the de Wolvertons until 1280 when it fell into the king’s hands, possibly for payment of a fine. Maud was given the manor of Stoke for dower as a widow and it is possibly at this time that the suffix Hamon (later Hammond) became attached to it. This record shows us that Meinfelin had entered the orbit of Earl Warenne. Hamon, son of Hamon, son of Meinfelin was very well connected. Somehow, little of this rubbed off on the Barons of Wolverton.
This information does enable us to arrive at an actual year of birth for Hamon fitzHamon, 1164. And so at the age of 21, at the king’s command, he married Agatha Trusbut, daughter of Sir William Trusbut. William Trusbut, according to Orderic Vitalis, came from very humble parentage but clearly had talent as he was raised to an Honour of 10 knight’s fees by Henry I, putting him more-or-less on a footing with Hamon son of Meinfelin. Not one of William Trusbut’s four sons had issue and the estate was divided between two daughters, Agatha and Rohese. In 1995 Hamon paid a fine of 300 marks to the treasury for his share in the inheritance. What these lands were is unclear as there is no further mention of them.
It is possible that the de Wolvertons did not gain in the long term from this inheritance, because Agatha, who must have been widowed by 1198, was scooped up in marriage to William de Albini from Clifton Reynes. William was about 30 at the time and Agatha, who was by now 38, was his second wife. That the inheritance went with her is shown through William’s payment of a fine of 600 marks to the King upon his marriage to Agatha and his absorption of her inheritance. She probably had a more exciting life with William who was part of the baron’s uprising against King John in 1201 and who, in 1217, held the command of Rochester Castle against the siege of the king. For his rebellion he forfeited his estates to the Crown but regained them from John’s son, King Henry III.
During her 13 year marriage to Hamon, Agatha bore at least two sons, William and Alan. Both succeeded in turn to the barony, as William had no heirs. William makes his appearance in the Red Book of the Exchequer in 1211, when he is required to pay scutage, which would indicate that he was of age to do military service, but chose to pay the fine instead. Thus his birth year can be estimated as 1190 or earlier.
The last reference to Hamon son of Hamon paying scutage is in 1198, which might help to confirm his early death in that year at the age of 34. The cause is unknown.
It is very difficult from fragmentary facts to gather some concept of personality but we do appear to be entering a period with William, of gradual erosion of the family’s prestige. Sir Frank Markham considers them “a feeble lot” and this is a fair judgement. While contemporary families were aggressively pursuing greater power and land ownership, the de Wolvertons, as they were now beginning to style themselves, were content with what they had. Compared with some of the thrusting barons of the 13th and 14th centuries, even nearby families like the de Greys or the d’ Albinis, the de Wolvertons seemed content with their status and kept a low profile. And who is to say that it was a bad policy? Many ambitious barons paid for their elevation with their lives; some even lost both their lives and their estates for their posterity. The de Wolvertons, by not venturing for risky acquisitions, at least held on to what they had. In consequence the people of Wolverton enjoyed a comparatively placid existence. They were, like everyone, subject to famine and disease, but at least they were not the victims, from the time of the Conquest onwards, of rapine and devastation.
The fines for failure to meet their military obligations demonstrate William’s lack of interest in advancement. In the 13th century, the only way to improve family fortunes was to perform some useful service for the king and look for reward. William showed no interest in this. He makes the record in the rolls during the reign of King John in 1215 when he had to pay 50 marks to recover his lands after losing his rights for failure to provide military service. The same thing happened again in 1223, during the reign of Henry III.
A similar lack of ambition centres around the status of Bradwell Priory, founded by his great grandfather, Meinfelin. Little effort was made to advance the interest of this Priory and it was during this period it became a cell of Luffield Priory with corresponding secondary status.
Many deeds from the time of William’s tenure survive; they all relate to land transactions on the manor. The early ones are undated and many of these deeds are difficult to place in context. However, for the first time since Domesday, we have documents which can afford us a little insight into the workings of the manor. The deeds were kept because of their legal importance and were passed on from generation to generation through the Longuevilles and finally to the Radcliffe Trust. This chest of documents was deposited in the Bodleian library in 1923. Each transaction of land or property is carefully written as a deed and witnessed on the appropriate occasion by various important retainers.
William married a woman called Hawise. Nothing is known about her origin. There were no surviving sons although there is a reference in one of the deeds to Hugh of Wolverton dominus and I would take him to be a son of William. Hugh must have died before 1247. Certainly when William died in 1248 he had no surviving male issue and he was succeeded by his younger brother Alan.
----
1 This was beginning to be a good arrangement for both sides - the baron could be excused military service and attend to his other affairs and the king could use the money to hire mercenaries, who in many ways were more dependable.
2 She is named as Matilda or Maud here but the Wolverton deed, cited earlier, calls her Annabel. Both names must refer to the same woman.
