Valley on the ~arch 
. ,r 
'E I 
Valley on tbe &arch 
A H IS TO R Y O F A GROUP OF MANORS 
O N THE HEREFORDSHIRE MARCH 
OF WALES 
Lord 7V..nnell oj 'l\£..dd 
\.-
LONDON 
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 
NEW YORK TORONTO 
Oxford Universil:J Pre.rs, Amen House, London E.C.4 
OL.UOOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINOTON 
BOMBA~ CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI KUALA LUMPUR 
CAPE TOWN IBADAN NAlROBI ACCRA 
© Lord Rennell of Rodd, I9JS 
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN 
&:87C2 
') t b () , r-( it .(  /., 
To tbe 
c.7vfemory of 
my:fatber 
Contents 
Illustrations and Maps IX 
Figures in Text and Genealogical Tables X 
List of Principal Abbreviations :xi 
Introduction xiii 
1. Of the Land and Landscape 
II. Of the Ages before the Norman Conquest 16 
Appendix to Chapter II. Manors recorded in Domesday as 
having been held by Earl Harold, or oj him 37 
III. Of the Domesdcry Manors 40 
Appendix to Chapter III. Index of manors and identifications 
with modem place-names in the Domesday Hlllldreds oj Hezetre 
and Elsedune 81 
IV. Of Tracks and Fields 84 
v. Of the Manors of Stapleton and Presteigne in the Middle 
Ages 119 
VI. Of the Hindwell Valley Manors in the Middle Ages 142 
VII. Of the Manors, Lands, and Townships under the Tudors J68 
Appendix I to Chapter VII. Rode in Cheshire J98 
Appendix II to Chapter VII. 
(a) Subsitfy roll abstracts from JJ Hy. VIII to 17 Car. I 202 
(b) Estate valuations 1620-JO 207 
(c) Hearth Tax abstracts 1661-71 209 
(d) References to authorities from which abstracts have been made 211 
VIII. Of Church Matters 212 
Appendix to Chapter VIII. Sources for the Ecclesiastical 
History of Knill and Presteigne 2)0 
IX. Of the Rodd FamilY and Land Transactions in the 
Seventeenth Century 2) 1 
Index 287 
List oj Illustrations 
PLATE I. The Hindwell Valley looking towards Wales Frontispiece 
n. Knill water meadows facing p. 4 
m. Wapley Hill and Rodd Hurst ~ank 10 
IV. The Tomen near Llanfihangel nant Melan 2Z 
v. Old Radnor church 36 
VI. The Hindwell Valley at Nash 92 
VII. (i) Knill with Burfa Hill 100 
(li) Knill old fields 
VIII. (i) Little Brampton A and B fields 102. 
(li) Knill, Little Brampton and Nash old fields 
IX. Cascob Valley looking towards Presteigne 108 
x. Upper Lugg Valley above Presteigne 110 
XI. The Hindwell Valley manors 142 
XII. The Rodd homestead looking towards Stapleton 176 
XIII. Nash manor 182 
XIV. Knill manor 214 
xv. The Rodd 2.50 
XVI. The Rodd Adam and Eve fireplace 254 
XVII. The Rodd, Little Rodd, and Tithe Barn 276 
Map showing Manors and tracks in the Hindwell and Lugg 
Valleys in north-west Herefordshire 88 
Map showing the Hundreds of Hezetre and Elsedune in north-
west Herefordshire with modern parish boundaries I I 8 
Figuresin the Text 
1. 'Wast~' manors in 1066 and 1086 (from The Domesday Geography of 
Midland England, Darby and Terrett, c.u.P., 1954) page 53 
' 2 . Rodd fields 99 
'3. Extension, fields, Kinnerton 101 
4. Knill, Little Brampton and Nash fields 103 
5. Hercope (Lower Harpton) fields 10 5 
6. Clatterbrune fields 106 
7. Radnor Manor fields 108 
8. Norton Manor old fields JJO 
9. Presteigne fields JJ1 
genealogical Tables 
1. Le Scrob-de Say of Stapleton facing page 12.8 
2. Rode of Cheshire 200 
3· Knill of Knill 281 
4· Rode-Rodd of Herefordshire I 28 5 
II and III 286 
List of Principal eAbbreviations used 
in the Text and :footnotes 
D.B. Domesday Book. Transcript of the Herefordshire 
survey in V.c.H. HereJordshire. 
B.D.B. HereJordshire Domesday,PipeRoll Soc., Publication No. 
25, New Series, edited by Galbraith and Tait, 1950. 
Cal. CI. R. Calendar of Close Rolls. 
Cal. Pat. R. Calendar of Patent Rolls. 
c.P.c. Canterbury Prerogative Court. 
c.Y.S. Canterbury and York Society. 
B.M. Add!. MS. British Museum: additional manuscripts. 
Had. Hadeian MS. in British Museum. 
F.F. Feet of Fines. 
f. and if. Folio(s). 
I.P.M. Inquisitio(nes) Post Mortem. 
L.P. Letters Patent. 
P.R.O. Public Record Office. 
T.R.E. 'Tempore Regis Edwardi' (the Confessor): a Domes-
day abbreviation. 
R.C.H.M. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments: Here-
fordshire, vols. i, ii, and iii. H.M. Stationery Office, 
193 1,193 2,1934. 
V.C.H. Victoria Counry History of HereJordshire, vol. i, 1908. 
Tn. Rod. Soc. Transactions of the Radnorshire Sociery. 
Woolhope Transactions of the Woolhope Club, HereJord. 
Duncumb: &c. Du;:tcumb's History of HereJordshire, vols. i and ii; and 
the later additions to the first two volumes by 
various authors dealing with separate hundreds 
and published after Duncumb's death, e.g. 'Dun-
cumb i or ii', or 'Duncumb: Grimsworth (hundred),. 
Ekwall E. Ekwall: Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place 
Names, Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1940. 
Robinson, C. J . Robinson, A History of the Castles of HereJord-
Castles, &c. shire, James Hull, Hightown, Hereford, 1869. 
Robinson, C. J. Robinson, ·A  History of the Mansions and Manors 
Mansions, &c. of HereJordshire, James Hull, Hightown, Hereford, 
1873. 
Rowse A. L. Rowse, The England ofE lizabeth, Macmillan, 1951. 
Introduction 
HIS book began as a series of notes, and, later, articles, 
T about the countryside where I live and where my ances-tors lived for several centuries. It is concerned with a 
valley which runs into England across Offa's Dyke on the 
Middle March of Wales. I thought when I began that there 
were few records or documents for so remote an area and 
that most of my material would have to be found in local 
tradition and topography. I hoped that I could put together 
for the benefit of my friends, my neighbours, and my family 
all that there was to be written in a short time and a small 
compass. How wrong I was! As my searches progressed I 
found myself involved in the tangled web of pre- and post-
Domesday manors, fields and field shapes, medieval rolls 
and records, Elizabethan taxation, and Civil War disputes. 
The material proved so ab].l!ldant, especially for the eighteenth 
century, that my notes became a book and I had to call a halt 
with the reign of Queen Anne. Even so, I have been unable 
to use all the material I have, and it still keeps on coming in. 
The outcome is a volume of local, but still very local, 
history which a number of historians and specialists who 
have seen the draft or excerpts have urged me to publish. 
It is perhaps true that local histories, especially in their 
relation to geography and topography, written by people 
who have the advantage of close association with land and 
lore, can serve as raw material for those who have encouraged 
me so much to do this work. Anyway, I am very grateful to 
them for the pleasure it has given me over a period of nearly 
ten years in such leisure as I have had. I hope that the data 
and references I have collected may save historians who 
paint on a wider canvas than I, the trouble of collecting 
xiv Introduction 
detail and sieving, or, as we would say ill the country, 
riddling it for ·t heir own purposes. 
Much of the compilation and writing has been done in the 
course of travel by sea and air. It was begun one late rough 
autumn on a tramp steamer in the North Atlantic: it was 
finished in the air over the Northern Pacific. Although I can 
say, as my father wrote: 
I have drunk the everlasting fountains 
Flowing downward from the infinite to me, 
Seen the magic of the moonrise in the mountains 
And the glory of the sunset on the sea, 
I always yearn when I am away to return to the home of my 
ancestors in this quiet valley on the March where the pur-
pose and continuity of human life on the land for a thousand 
years are so pleasant and rewarding. 
My thanks for their help, often unconsciously rendered, go 
first and foremost to my friends: the men who work on my 
farm, and to my neighbours. Without their memory and 
knowledge this book would never have been written. Much 
of the most arduous work of research was done for me by 
Miss Edith Scroggs of the Public Record Office, and Mr. 
W. H. Howse, F.S.A., of Presteigne: they have gone on 
'contributing material long after I thought the text was 
finished. I am particularly grateful to them, as I am to Mr. 
A. L. Rowse of All Souls and Professor R. F. Treharne of 
Aberystwyth for their help, guidance, and encouragement. 
I am indebted to the Director General of the Ordnance 
Survey for permission to use maps prepared by the Royal 
Geographical Society based on Ordnance Survey material. 
The map of the two north-western Domesday Hundreds of 
the county, based on an early Ordnance Survey sheet first 
appeared in the Centenary volume of the Woolhope Club of 
Hereford in an article on the identification and distribution 
of Domesday manors: I am grateful to this old-established 
Introduction xv 
field society for permission to use it. The maps (Fig. I) on 
p. 53 are reproduced by kind permission of the authors of 
The Domesday Geography oj Midland England and the Cam-
bridge University Press. The air-photographs were made for 
me by my friends Hunting Air Surveys Ltd. Most of the other 
illustrations were made by my son-ill-law, Michael Dunne: 
the vignettes are by his wife, my daughter. 
RENNELL 
The Rodd 
July 
195 8 
CHAPTER I 
OJ the Land a7zd L andscape 
OUT half-way between the D ee and Severn estuaries 
iX on a line from Chester to Cardiff lies the high ground of Clun and Radnor Forests rising to over 2,000 feet. 
They are not forests in the sense of ever having been deep 
woodland like Arden or Wychwood. They are high open 
moorland, easy to cross for active men on foot or horse, but 
wild and bleak and thinly peopled. The northern boundary 
of this high land is the Severn Valley which divides it from 
Berwyn: the southern edge is the \Y/ye Valley which divides 
it from Mynydd Eppynt and the Brecon Mountains : and, as 
everyone knows, the Severn and Wye rise near each other 
on either side of Plynlimon which looks down on the Car-
digan coast near Aberystwyth. The eastern slopes of Radnor 
and Clun Forests are the Middle March of Wales. 
The two great highways into, or what is historically more 
important, out of, this part of Wales are guarded by Shrews-
bury on the Severn and Hereford on the Wye when the two 
rivers have spilled out of the hills into the Western Plain of 
England. Between them, the Teme Valley runs down from 
Clun Forest and is held by Ludlow. The fortresses of Shrews-
bury, Ludlow, and Hereford are woven into the history of 
the March of Wales, and the history of the Welsh March 
cannot be separated from the story of the kingdom of 
England for five hundred years. 
The three fortresses covered the middle reaches of the 
main valleys. West of them in the smaller valleys before they 
forsake the foothills lay advanced posts with their castles in 
the uncertain military territories which were the frontier 
districts of western England since the end of the Roman 
era through the dark centuries to the Norman Conquest, and 
then on through the Middle Ages to the epoch of the 
Tudors who finally subdued the March. 
Even today there are no main highways over the high 
B 685-1 B 
2 Valley on the March 
land of Brecon and Radnor to the western sea, except one 
modern road from Presteigne and New Radnor to Aberyst-
wyth which climbs over high ground in its rambling pas-
sage. There is not a single east-west railway line through 
central Wales. West of Preste igne and New Radnor, or more 
precisely just west of Builth on the Upper Wye and Rhayader 
on the Aberystwyth road, is an expanse of some three 
hundred square miles of highland without a road fit for 
wheeled tramc. North-south roads along the March itself 
there are, but they are few and steep, for they climb over the 
watersheds between the eastward-flowing rivers. 
The smaller Clun and the Lugg rivers, like the greater 
Teme, with their tributaries, also flow towards England out 
of the hills of the Middle March. They are the lesser passes 
from Wales to the Western Plain and were much used by 
raid and counter-raid. The focal or strategic points of these 
lesser ways, the outposts of the great fortresses, were the 
castles and towns of Knucklas, Clun, Knighton, Presteigne, 
Old Radnor, and Kington. These, with Ludlow, were the 
western defences of the Middle March. Of their wars and 
battles, and of the intrigues of their lords is woven much of 
the fabric of English kingship from William the Norman, 
till Henry Tudor broke the power of the lords at Bosworth 
and forged the United Kingdom. 
This book is about one of these lesser valleys of the March. 
It is not a famous valley. It did not produce famous people. 
No epoch-making events took place in it, though it had its 
part in many. It did not provide any more lasting monument 
than it still displays: the persistence of rural life over a 
thousand years with the same recognizable structure and 
foundation which it had before the Norman Conquest. 
This is not a textbook of history or of geography. It is 
simply an account of the continuity of people in a small area 
of England and of the families, in particular of the Rodd 
family and its neighbours, who lived in the valley for many 
centuries. No moral is intended and no lessons are to be 
drawn from what is written, except perhaps that after a 
thousand years of farming the land is more fertile than ever 
before. 
This product of some research and observation on the 
OJ tlie Land and LandJcape 
spot has been set down in the hope that further local studies 
may be undertaken in other parts of England and Wales 
where the same evidence of continuity must exist in records, 
human memory, and above all in the shape and structure of 
the land. For the study of geography and topography can, 
as is well known, contribute a great deal to history, both 
where written records are available and even in the absence 
ofw ritten or archaeological information. But without detailed 
local knowledge of fields, hedges, paths, even trees and soil, 
a great deal of historical information may be missed by 
students who have not the opportunities which a farmer in 
the course of his daily work can glean. The reason why fields 
lie in a particular way, why hedges occur where they do, 
why paths run and trees stand as they do, why some things 
grow here but not there, can rarely be appreciated without 
an intimate knowledge of the land. When this knowledge 
is available, a wealth of new historical data can be fitted in 
with other scraps of knowledge. Such very detailed and 
local information can, however, rarely be obtained without 
living on the land and for choice cultivating it, or seeing to 
its use. It can obviously never be acquired about a very large 
area. A study like the present one must therefore inevitably 
be very local and by the nature of things must, perhaps 
ought to, become both detailed and personal. What is here 
written may seem unduly subjective to those living in the 
world of pure research. If no apology for this is possible, 
it is only right to warn the reader about the quality of this 
book and the sort of facts it thus contains. 
The valley of this book is today called the Hindwell 
Valley. On eighteenth-century and earlier maps the brook 
which flows down it, more or less from west to east, was 
called by the more attractive and obviously earlier name of 
Waddel or Waddle. The Hindwell, as it is proposed to call 
it in order to av-:>id deliberate archaism, flows into the Lugg 
which rises in the hills behind Presteigne, itself just in Rad-
norshire ; and the Lugg in due course joins the Wye not far 
from Hereford. Both the Hindwell and Lugg Valleys are 
passes from Wales into England. At the upper end of the 
narrow flat-bottomed Hindwell Valley is the Radnor basin 
lying under the mass of Radnor Forest over one spur of 
4 Vaffry on the March 
which runs the way to Penybont in the Ithon Valley and to 
Builth on the Wye. The road climbs up a cwm containing 
the settlement of Llanfihangel nant Melan, a little beyond 
which passing over high cols it forks to these two places. 
Although the passes over this spur of Radnor Forest are 
well over 1,200 feet, the track by Llanfihangel nant Melan 
is nevertheless an old one, for there is no lower way. At the 
colon the Penybont fork of the road is the Tomen, a 
ditched tump on one side of the road and an earthwork on 
a hillock on the other side. The main element of the Tomen 
looks Norman, but there are outworks which look older. 
Either, or both the works, may have been a Roman or even 
pre-Roman outpost on the pass: it is a site which could well 
have been occupied from very early days. The view from it 
is exhilarating. 
The cwm which comes down from Radnor Forest by 
way of Llanfihangel nant Melan carries the Summergil 
brook. At New Radnor the cwm opens into the Radnor 
basin-an undulating and well-cultivated plain, crossed by 
the Summergil and the Knobley brooks which also flow 
down from Radnor Forest. Towards the eastern edge of the 
basin just north of Walton cross-roads the Summergil and 
Knobley brooks disappear in a dry watercourse and their 
names are lost. A few hundred yards away, however, at 
Hindwell Farm is born the Hindwell brook out of a pond 
and neighbouring springs. There is no doubt that the water 
of the Hindwell is Summergil and Knobley water from the 
south-western slopes of Radnor Forest, for the Radnor basin 
is a great gravel soakaway, the old bottom of a glacier lake. 
In spite of lying in the 35 -inch rain belt, I the Radnor basin 
farms in a dry summer are hard put to find water for their 
stock. Their fields dry out over the gravel and the often 
shallow surface soil gets parched. The gravel bottom and 
light topsoil are important historically: they account for the 
long permanent settlement of the district. 
By the time of the last glacial age, many of the main valleys 
of the Welsh hills along the March had already been formed; 
but the ice cap of central Wales which covered the country 
from Plynlimon to Radnor deformed or transformed them 
I As compared with, say, 28 inches for central Herefordshire. 
PLAT E II 
-"0  
C 
:> 
E 
:;: 
u 
-"5  
-0 
C 
'" 
Of the Land and Landscape 
by the flow and retreat of the eastern glaciers of the ice cap. 
One such eastward-flowing glacier came down the Llan-
fihangel nant Melan cwm and filled the New Radnor basin 
to a depth of 1,000 to 1 ,700 feet above sea-level, overtopping 
in other words the hills which bound the eastern and 
southern sides of the plain. jillother, but separate, glacier 
born from the same ice cap descended the Lugg Valley; a 
third one, and the biggest, flowed down the Arrow Valley 
over Kington and on towards Leominster. In its flow it 
created, and in its retreat it left, a lateral moraine along the 
hills north of Kington, by Staunton-on-Arrow and Aymes-
trey as far as the great terminal moraine at Orleton, which 
blocked the old channel of the Teme and diverted it north-
wards. South of Orleton, the old Teme channel is now occu-
pied by the Lower Lugg at and beyond Leominster. 
The lateral moraine of the Arrow Valley glacier is believed 
by some to have been responsible for blocking the Radnor 
basin at the Gore pass and creating a lake where Walton 
now stands on its gravel bottom. The overflowing lake as 
the ice melted on Radnor Forest eventually cut a gap in the 
basin rim at Knill between Knill Garraway and Burfa Hill, 
joining the lake waters to the Hindwell Valley which pro-
vided its main overflow channel to the Lugg system down-
stream of Presteigne. 
The Lugg glacier and subsequent system were in their 
turn diverted by the same lateral moraine of the Arrow 
Valley glacier at Woodhouse bank near Shobdon. Another 
lake was formed east of Presteigne of which By ton bog 
survives today as evidence. The melting waters of the ice 
cap raised the level· of the Lugg lake at By ton till it cut a 
spill-way through the hills by the narrow gorge of Kinsham 
to the Wigmore Lake basin, from which it debouches at 
Mortimer's Cross into what was the old Teme Valley drain-
age channel in the Leominster plain. Prior to the creation 
of the lateral moraine which blocked the Lugg at W ood-
house bank, this river left the hills west of Shobdon and 
joined the old Teme channel round about Kingsland and 
Leominster. The old course of the Hindwell Valley was also 
blocked by this terminal moraine between Wapley and Rodd 
Hurst, north of Titley where the Kington-Presteigne road 
6 Valley on the March 
and railway cross the bank which barred the old channel to 
the Arrow near Staunton-on-Arrow. Evidence of the great 
lateral moraine of the Arrow glacier can be seen in numerous 
erratic blocks from the characteristic igneous rock of Hanter 
and Stanner west of Kington, and by the typical tumbled 
moraine country with groups of small lakes and ponds near 
Titley, Staunton-on-Arrow, and Shobdon. 
This, at any rate, is the geologists' account of what hap-
pened in this interesting area, and in the main it is certainly 
true. l Nevertheless, local knowledge suggests that the ridge 
at the Gore pass between Kington and Walton in the Radnor 
basin is not part of the lateral moraine. It appears rather 
to be a partially formed spill-way over a rocky ridge of 
harder rock than the one which the waters of the Radnor 
glacier eventually cut between IZnill Garraway and Burfa to 
join up the Hindwell Valley and the Llanfihangel nant Melan 
glacier system. Moreover, the bank at Wapley may be a 
terminal or lateral moraine of the Hindwell Valley ice as 
well as part of the Arrow Valley lateral moraine. 
-This is perhaps not so important as is the fact that all 
these valleys show evidence of having been glacier lake 
bottoms during various stages of retreat of the ice. They all, 
especially the Hindwell, contain small transverse barriers 
of morainic origin and material which at one time during 
the retreat of the ice and declining waterflow produced 
strings of local lakes and bogs. Some of these survive in 
name or fact. A farm fold at Knill in the fields of the cwm 
under Knill Garraway and Herrock is called Lakeside Build-
ings where arable and water meadows now are. Broadheath 
Common between Combe Bridge and Presteigne was evi-
dently till recent times a swampy heathland; though now 
good arable it was still called La Hethe in the sixteenth 
century. By ton bog defeated the efforts of the agricultural 
drainage experts even in the crisis years of the 1840's and 
1940'S to remove the last surviving glacier lake of the system. 
Enough time geologically has not yet elapsed for the spill-
way of the Lugg diverted by the Woodhouse bank at By ton 
I Dwerryhouse and Austin Miller, 'The Glaciation of Clun Forest, Radnor 
Forest and Some Adjoining Districts', Geological Journal, 1930, vol. lxxxvi, 
P·96. 
Of the Land and Landscape 7 
into the Kinsham- Upper Ley gorge to be cut deep enough 
to drain the remnants of the glacier lake. Here and near 
Mortimer's Cross can be seen most characteristic moraine 
dams formed by the great lateral Kington-Orleton moraine. 
They constitute two of the most spectacular and clear 
examples one could wish to see of the glacial deformation of 
an old valley system. 
In the Hindwell Valley itself, at the level of the Rodd 
settlement, is a bank of gravel on which The Rodd, Little 
Rodd, and Rodd Farmhouse stand, with the modern 
Kington-Presteigne road running just below them under 
the bank. The road crosses the Hindwell at Rodd Bridge 
where the river has scooped a passage through the gravel to 
a shelf of rock, once a ford before the road bridge was 
built. For over a mile above this point, as far as Nash Farm, 
the river has made for itself quite a deep, broad gully in the 
gravel lip of a small glacial lake. At Rodd Bridge, between 
the steep right bank and the north bank at Corton, the gully 
was broadened out to 350 yards and the stream fans out 
below Rodd Bridge ford into a sort of deltaic formation of 
leats and back brooks between water meadows. The various 
channels rejoin some three miles downstream, not far from 
the confluence of the Hindwell with the Lugg. The deltaic 
nature of the land is emphasized by the course of the Lugg 
where it debouches from the hills below Presteigne, running 
more or less parallel to the Hindwell delta streams for three 
miles. 
There is an interesting parallel to the disappearance of the 
Summergil water above the Hindwell pools in the existence 
just below The Rodd of two ponds fed by copious springs 
just west of the branch railway line from Titley to Presteigne 
and between the line and the Titley-Presteigne road. The 
springs which feed these ponds have nothing to do with 
the Hindwell : most of them are well above the level of the 
brook bed. The underground water which feeds these ponds 
was traced as a subterranean watercourse by two dowsers 
in 1939 working quite independently of each other. They 
separately plotted the same course of this large water supply 
on a 24-inch Ordnance Survey sheet along a line running 
up the Hindwell Valley west of the Rodd houses. The 
8 Vaffry on the March 
underground stream is evidently fed by the water collected 
in the Hindwell Valley basin independently of the Hindwell 
brook which has no tributaries from the steep hills either 
side as far west as the Herrock-Burfa gap beyond Knill. All 
- the -w;ater from these hills disappears into the gravel soak-
away of the valley bottom and flows as an underground 
stream. 
These local physical features and the associated soil struc-
tures are of considerable historical importance. They have 
determined the location of settlements and, of course, also 
the run of roads and tracks. For, although it may be obvious 
when one thinks about it, one must never forget that early 
cultivation need not be looked for in what was marshy land, 
or on land liable to flood, or near the banks of meandering 
brooks which change their courses-and along all the flatter 
runs of the Hindwell are examples of abandoned meanders. 
In later times, the lie of land enabled the deltaic parts of the 
Hindwell and the Lugg between Presteigne and I<insham to 
be used for splitting the streams into irrigation and drainage 
channels. Examples of these irrigation systems survive at 
Knill, at The Rodd, where they have been restored to use, 
and in the Combe area. But if in later centuries the vagaries 
of these streams could be put to use, in earlier days per-
manent cultivation was only possible on the higher banks 
of the valleys away from flood and marsh and changing 
channels. Hereabouts it is only on dry ground away from 
flood-level that early settlements and field systems need be 
sought, however tempting the fields of modern agricUlture 
in the lower-lying ground drained by later generations may 
seem to be. Flood-free contours are a governing factor in 
seeking remains of early cultivation. 
Unfortunately for the student, most maps are inadequate 
for this sort of study since even the 50-foot contours of 
the 6-inch Ordnance Survey are too widely spaced for use 
in detailed local determinations. Nevertheless, the shape of 
fields or groups of fields on the 6-inch and 24-inch Ordnance 
Survey sheets can, if taken in conjunction with the general 
lie of land and some grasp of the early technique of cultiva-
tion, give a prima facie indication of what may have taken 
place. It is important to remember in considering detailed 
Of the Land and Landscape 9 
local topography that once a field has been 'made' for cul-
tivation, or reclaimed from the forest, its original shape will 
tend to survive while extensions to it or from it can fre-
quently be deduced. Persistent earthworking creates singu-
larly indestructible features. They become very obvious 
when tl1e difficulty of Battening even comparatively recent 
ridge and furrow land is experienced. Paths cut deep by 
traffic between fields persist as field boundaries long after 
they have ceased to be used as thoroughfares. The tremen-
dous labour of digging banks away by hand means that it 
was rarely attempted: they survive until the bulldozer begins 
to operate. Hedges may decay or disappear, but the align-
ment of hedgerow trees and the banks on which they stood 
often persist. Very old hedge and ditch boundaries can 
frequently be distinguished from later hedges and ditches 
made to sub-divide the 'long fields' when the shorter horse 
plough teams superseded the three, four, and five yoke of 
oxen and made the shorter furrow length preferable to the 
two- and three-furlong field. 
Agricultural characteristics depend mainly on the geology 
and physiography of the ground. What is characteristic of 
sandstone loams will not be applicable to clay lands, of the 
light soils of southern Herefordshire to the peaty lands of 
the Radnorshire foothills. The shape and extent of fields, 
their boundaries, and their relation to farmsteadings will 
depend much more- perhaps entirely- on topography and 
physiography than on the race and culture of the population. 
Geography and all that it implies has been too much neg-
lected by archaeologists and especially by those anthro-
pologists who have tried to relate agricultural technique 
mainly to cultures instead of to soil. One sort of soil and 
country may lend itself to changing and improving cultures 
imported by immigrants or evolved by natives : but another 
type of soil and topography will inevitably tolerate only 
one sort of farming technique, irrespective of the origin or 
background of the cultivator, or of later improvements 
imported by other races. 
The settlements with which this book deals are all in 
valleys which have been subjected to geologically fairly 
recent glaciation. They mainly lie on gravel covered with 
10 Vallry on the March 
more or less deep loam-the sort of land that drains and 
dries easily, and does not lend itself to heavy forest cover. 
Both in the Radnor plain and the Hindwell Valley, the 
arable land lies on gravel on fairly flat valley bottoms with 
the brooks so incised as to preclude any but riparian flood-
ing. The sides of the Hindwell Valley are steep. The rock of 
the hills both sides, and generally in the district, is Silurian 
shale except for igneous extrusions in small areas around 
Stanner Rocks and Hanter between the Hindwell and 
Arrow. There is an isolated outcrop of Aymestrey lime-
stone at Nash Scar in the Hindwell which is agriculturally 
a blessing and important because it produces, and for long 
has provided, ground and burnt lime which Herefordshire 
generally lacks. It also gives adequate road stone, but not 
good building stone, because it will not dress or fracture 
conveniently : in consequence most of the local houses are 
made of more or less stratified and more or less hard shales 
which do not dress or weather particularly well. The igneous 
Hanter and Stanner rock quarried at Dolyhir and The Gore 
near Old Radnor and Kington is only useful for road stone. 
The tops of the hills on the south side of the Hindwell con-
tain many small local quarries of thinly laminated shales 
which were worked to provide stone roofing slates . The 
quarries were accessible only by pack tracks along the top 
of the scarp at the r,ooo-foot level about Little Brampton as 
far as Knill Garraway and Herrocks. As a result of the 
indifferent quality of local material, few of the houses in the 
district display good ashlar work. Such as can be seen, is for 
the most part of Devonian sandstone imported from eastern 
Herefordshire, most of which is composed of the p1nk rock 
and red earth of the Western Plain of Midland England. 
A characteristic of the Hindwell Valley which has affected 
local settlement and agriculture very markedly is a belt of 
clay running along both sides of the valley at the 7oo-foot 
contour. The belt is particularly noticeable near Knill and 
then along the Goo-foot contour from Little Brampton all 
the way to Combe, some miles east of Presteigne. The line 
coincides, and not by chance, with the lower level of the 
woods which fringe the cultivated land of the valley floor. 
The s,ame phenomenon along the northern sides of the 
PLATE III 
Of the Land and Landscape II 
Hindwell Valley exists but is rather less striking. It is these 
belts of clay land which have determined the upper limits of 
cultivation on both sides of the valley. Neither earlier nor 
today has the farmer succeeded in conquering this cold and 
wet land. There is therefore every reason to suppose that 
the present woods are on the site of woods which have 
always existed and which for many centuries have restricted 
cultivation to land below the 5oo-Goo-foot contour. When 
the clay gives place to rock and peat towards the tops of the 
southern side of the valley, the hills become the bare, grassy 
moorland of the upland pastures and sheepwalks of Her-
rock, Rushock, Knill Garraway, and the other hills running 
east and west along the line of heights which concern this 
story. On the northern bank, forest covers and covered the 
tops. The same features are generally true of the Lugg Valley 
above and below Presteigne. 
With the present area of cultivation in the I-lindwell 
Valley thus sharply limited by woodland due to a well-
marked geological feature engraved on the terrain, the 
pattern of agriculture, forest, and moorland of today is 
therefore substantially what it was. It is then possible to 
picture what the land looked like a thousand years ago. 
During the historic period, at any rate, the river beds, 
except for individual meanders, ran along much the same 
courses, along which grew the same sort of trees. While the 
cleared areas of today which are not liable to flood were 
perhaps a little more extensive than a thousand years ago 
when little or no artificial drainage had been done, the areas 
in which to look for agricultural land are, broadly speaking, 
where the arable land is today. The encroachment of cul-
tivation on forest land wherever this has been possible is 
thus usually obvious from the lie of the land or by the shape 
and type of the fields . The reverse, the encroachment of 
woodland on marginally cultivated land, is equally clear. 
Where this has occurred the process follows a pretty con-
stant and obvious pattern. In the immediate neighbourhood 
of streams or boggy patches, alder, willow, some poplar, 
and ash predominate. On the marginal clay belt away from 
the underlying gravel, thorn, ash, and oak develop with 
rowan above certain altitudes. Beech and elm only come in 
12 Valley on the March 
the areas of former cultivation. Birch and aspen come in the 
cold and sourer soils, especially in the limited areas of 
abandoned marginal land where the grass has become too 
poor for grazing and which has never been tilled because 
too Qoggy. 
The woodlands have particular historical significance. 
Not only do they mark very ancient limits of cultivation, 
but on account of their persistence for geological reasons 
they have become associated with territorial divisions. Many 
parish boundaries therefore follow the edges of woods. 
Instances in the Hindwell area are the Titley-Rodd, Nash 
& Little Brampton parish boundary along Burcher Wood, 
the Knill-Lower Harpton boundary at Knill Garraway 
Wood, the Walton-Knill boundary at Middle and Burfa 
Woods, the Lower Harpton-Walton and Walton-Old Rad-
nor boundaries at Navages Wood, the Cascob boundary at 
Forest and Ack Woods, and so forth. On the other hand, a 
particularly obvious and important boundary, Offa's Dyke, 
with which we shall have a great deal more to do, does not 
serve as a parish boundary at all, except for a few hundred 
yards in Ditchfield at the bottom of the Knill pass hard by 
Ditch Hill Bridge on the Walton-Presteigne road. 
Although on the very edge of Herefordshire towards the 
Welsh hills, the woodlands in this district are characteristic 
of the county as a whole. Ecologically, they partake of 
England rather than of Wales. Herefordshire is still the most 
wooded of the West Midland counties. Woodland even now 
accounts for 8 per cent. of the area of the county compared 
with 5' 3 per cent. for the West Midlands as a whole and 
with 5 per cent. for England. The glory of the Hereford-
shire woodlands is the oak. On the whole, except where the 
Forestry Commission, especially in the Presteigne-Wigmore 
area, has regrettably introduced conifers in its plantations, 
the charm as well as the value of these woodlands is in their 
hardwood sorts, and such regeneration as is allowed to 
occur is in the traditionally English oak, ash, and thorn com-
bination. The Hindwell and Lugg Valleys still happily pos-
sess a substantial growth of the oak which Herefordshire 
formerly contributed so largely to the shipbuilding of the 
West of England. In the age immediately before railways 
Of the Land and Landscape 
and steamships, schemes existed to use the Lower Lugg to 
float oak down to the Severn estuary by way of the Wye. 
As long ago as 1696, a private Ac.t was promoted to remove 
a mill at Bridge Sollers on the MIddle Wye above Hereford 
to increase trade and the carrying capacity of the river for 
ships' timber for H.M. Navy. I Hereford is one of the counties 
pre-eminent in the use of oak for house building which sur-
vives to this day from the sixteenth and earlier centuries in 
the 'black and white', and brick or stone with oak, styles of 
construction. An interesting feature of the oak timber trade 
of the county was the return up-country for house construc-
tion of 'second-hand' oak, originally used for ships . The 
primary roof timbers of a large number of sL'Cteenth- and 
seventeenth-century houses in the county bear evident 
marks of earlier use. 
The major changes in the agricultural and forestry aspects 
of these parts have taken place only during the last few 
decades, dictated by the economic stress of the two World 
Wars. This is more especially true of the Second World War 
when the felling of forest and the ploughing of upland 
sheepwalks and moorland with heavy machinery, intensive 
liming, and the cultivation of new varieties of cereals, roots, 
and potatoes not known even a generation ago, took place 
on a considerable scale and altered some of the millennial 
features of the land. How far these clearances and reclama-
tions will last is difficult to say. They were undoubtedly 
made possible only by very recent improvements in mechani-
cal and scientific techniques, the absence of which precluded 
such work being done even during the 'Hungry Forties' of 
last century when much marginal land was for the first time 
brought in. It is doubtful whether even the enclosures of 
the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries did as much to alter 
the agricultural topography, at any rate of the higher ground 
round the Hindwell Valley, as did the work done in the fifth 
decade of the twentieth century. The reason of course is 
that although the enclosures of the nineteenth century de-
prived many commoners of their rights and frequently their 
livelihood, the use to which the enclosed land was put, at 
I Duncumb: Grimsworth, p. 26; also Cohen, 'The Non-tidal Wye and its 
Navigation', Woo/hope, vol. xxxv, pt. ii, 1956, pp. 83 et seq. 
14 Va/fry on the March 
any rate over the 800-foot level, was not substantially dif-
ferent from the use to which the common land had pre-
viously been put, namely the pasturing of sheep and, to a 
lesser extent, cattle. The real change brought about by en-
closl)-re was that the sheep and cattle belonged to the land-
owner or his tenants instead of to the commoners. Recent 
change, however, has altered the appearance of the re-
claimed uplands by the elimination of the furze, heath, and 
scrub to which so many of the medieval and more modern 
land records refer. With these have also disappeared, under 
the devouring tread of the bulldozer, boundary walls, age-
old hedges, hedgerow vegetation, and even ancient monu-
ments. Nevertheless, a comparison of land tenure and 
ownership in 1844 with modern conditions in the parish of 
Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton shows that over a century 
ago there was already no common land except the woods of 
Nash which now belong to the Forestry Commission. The 
sheepwalks of 1840 were still sheepwalks in 1940; in 1840 
they are described as belonging to the Harley family, but, 
as in earlier epochs, here at any rate, they were in fact used 
for grazing only. 
In spite of all modern machinery, the fundamental element 
of farming in this area still is, as it has been for centuries, 
sheep, with cattle and arable only in the more favoured low-
lands. Much could be written of the historic and economic 
importance of sheep and wool in the Middle March. The 
sheep markets of Knighton and Kington were in their way 
as important as the castles of Ludlow, Wigmore, and Ewyas. 
They are still important in the economy of England. They 
are still as concerned as they used to be with the relation of 
England to Wales. To them come, as they formerly came, 
the sheep of the highlands for sale into England : from them 
are taken sheep to go back to the hills for exchange of blood. 
It was of sheep of the valleys which these markets served 
that the poet said : 
The mountain sheep are sweeter 
But the valley sheep are fatter 
Wherefor we deemed it meeter 
To carry off the latter. 
To sum up: geological and physical cond1tions have set 
OJ the Land and Landscape I j 
close limits within which to seek and End the history of 
agricultural settlement. From these conditions can be de-
duced what the countryside looked like a thousand years 
ago. Such written and traditional historical evidence as exists 
accords closely with deductions which are possible from the 
geographical and topographical data available. That this 
concordance is as remarkable as it is, is because the area 
has not been affected in anyway by industrialization. Modern 
improvements like railways and roads have really done no 
more than emphasize the broad outline of development dur-
ing the period under consideration. 
The Hindwell Valley and adjacent areas contain a type of 
settlement which, in extent and character, has continued 
virtually unchanged for a thousand years. The amount of 
population carried during these ten centuries does not seem 
to have varied a great deal. On the whole it is probably 
lower now than in the Middle Ages. The standard of living 
has risen as husbandry improved. Then, as now, the area 
is inhabited almost exclusively by people whose livelihood 
comes from the land or has to do with the land. On their 
land there neither dwell nor dwelt any others. Even the 
sizes of the farms and their boundaries are in most cases 
unaltered, in spite of great social a.nd economic cha.nges. 
What is more important and to their greater glory, they are 
today among the best, most careful, and most successful 
farms in the world, for in these thousand years of continuous 
cultivation they have added to the fertility of their land and 
steadily increased the output of their acres. 
CHAPTER II 
Of the c/.lges before the J\(£rman Conquest 
HE first known settlements in the Hindwell Valley area 
T are just west of the valley itself in the Radnor plain north and west of Walton cross-roads. They form a 
group, quite extensive, but not remarkable for size, of 
megalithic remains with several outstanding tumuli prob-
ably of the Neolithic or Bronze Age periods. The group is 
interesting on account of the siting of all the monuments 
on the plain, instead of, as is far more common, on the 
heights of open moorland or bare hills which lie at hand all 
around. The usual reason why prehistoric remains are not 
found in low plains or valley bottoms is the intractable 
character of dense forest land and northern jungle for people 
with primitive tools living in numerically small groups or 
settlements. That such remains should exist in the Radnor 
plain is explained by the physiography and ecology of the 
area. The relatively shallow layer of soil over the gravel 
bottom of lake basins did not lend itself to heavy forest 
growth which, on the other hand, predominated and still 
exists on the hill-sides and many of the hill-tops roundabout. 
The sparser forest vegetation of the Radnor plain and the 
capacity of the land there arid in the Hindwell Valley to dry 
out when it lies above the riparian flood-levels of streams, 
made the area particularly suitable for early cultivation and 
therefore for the settlement of primitive people whose pre-
ference for a low and relatively protected site as compared 
with the bleak surrounding uplands needs noetpphasis in 
the climate of the Welsh March. 
Besides a number of earthworks on the lower land the 
area also contains two important hill-top camps on Burfa 
or Ditch Hill at the entrance of the Hindwell Valley from 
the Radnor plain and on Wapley Hill at the eastern end of 
the valley. 
Burfa! is a naturally defensible wooded hill of 1,000 feet. 
[ Cf. R.C.H.M., vol. iii, introductory matter. 
Of the Ages before the Norman Conquest 17 
The top is heavily fortified with earth ramparts and ditches 
and became incorporated into Offa's Dyke which they almost 
certainly antedate. The 'camp' guards the pass into England 
from Radnor. Wapley1 is an even more defensible hill with 
a steep northern scarp overlooking Combe and Broadheath, 
two to three miles south-east of Presteigne. The 'camp' 
banks of Wapley, now overplanted with the Forestry Com-
mission's loathsome conifers, contain an area of 25 acres 
with a well near the summit whose perennial water at 600 
feet above the Hindwell Valley still supplies the needs of 
the forester's cottage. Wapley was a warren in the Middle 
Ages. The eradication of the rabbits to make planting pos-
sible produced a positive result in the economy of the 
countryside by the infestation of the lower-lying farms over 
several square miles when the rabbit population was dis-
placed until myxomatosis put a welcome end to the rabbit 
generally. Tradition, without any evidence in history, as-
cribes Wapley Camp like so many other works on the March 
to Caradoc. It also alleges that Owen Glyndwr used it in 
1 401 when he took Radnor Castle and advanced on Pem-
bridge, only to suffer defeat at the hands of Edmund de 
Mortimer in Henry IV's reign. In origin, both Burfa and 
Wapley are probably pre-Roman but may have been used 
later. 
Of the many other earthworks in the Hindwell Valley 
area apart from the dykes or ditches of which more later, 
some are obviously Norman and medieval, but many are 
certainly pre-Norman, Roman, and pre-Roman, and were 
perhaps used by successive generations and peoples. Around 
Walton is a group 9f several periods : at Castlering Wood 
about a mile north of Evenjobb, at Womaston, at Castle 
Nimble near Old Radnor, at Kinnerton, and at Castle Mound 
near Barland. The Warden and Stapleton Mounds near 
Presteigne are medieval castle sites but are also likely natural 
sites for earlier occupation. The same may be said of sites 
at New Radnor, Kington, and Lyonshall. 
Although the Romans held Wales by the great quadri-
lateral of Carmarthen, Caernarvon, Chester; and Caerleon, 
the last two of which were Legionary headquarters, and by 
I Cf. R.C.H.M., vol. iii, introductory matter. 
B 6851 C 
Valley on the March 
a network of smaller military establishments, Herefordshire 
was not much Romanized, and probably remained essentially 
British in character. Nevertheless, the impact of Rome is 
clearly marked on the face of the county. Kenchester near 
the Wye five miles west of Hereford was quite an extensive 
Roman settlement known as Magnis; I its Roman remains 
are comparatively well known outside the county. Another 
smaller Roman or Romano-British settlement at Leint-
wardine, eight miles north-east of Presteigne, has been 
identified as Bravonium. Neither Kenchester nor Bravonium 
had much military significance, though the latter had a peri-
meter bank with perhaps a stockade. They were both civil 
settlements and 'stations' or staging posts. It is, however, 
probable that an earlier Roman fort or settlement existed at 
Hereford itself, pre-dating that at Magnis. 
Several Roman main and by-roads have been traced par-
tially or continuously in the county. The Antonine Itinerary 
records Iter XII as running from Isca (Caerleon), the head-
quarters of the II (Augusta) Legion, by Burrium (Usk), 
Gobannium (Abergavenny), Magnis (I(enchester), and 
Bravonium (Leintwardine) to Viroconium (Wroxeter in 
Shropshire), and so to Chester, the headquarters for three 
centuries of the XXII (Valeria Victrix) Legion. The original 
line of this road probably ran through Hereford and Mon-
mouth, the Abergavenny-Kenchester line being a later 
development. From Bravonium another Roman road, the 
Antonine Iter XIII, ran south-east to Ariconium, which has 
been identified as an ironworking centre at Weston-under-
Penyard, and from there to Glevum (Gloucester). Quite an 
extensive network has been traced in the county of Hereford. Z 
If Leintwardine was a Romano-British civil settlement 
and not a garrison post there must have been military posts 
farther west in the Presteigne area, apart from the Castell 
Collen (Llandrindod) and Caersws complexes. Furthermore, 
in addition to the great military road on a north-south 
alignment joining the Legionary headquarters of Caerleon 
1 The locative form is used; the fuller original name remains doubtful. 
2 Cf. Dudley, in the Woolhope Club's Centenary Volume Herefordshire, 
chap. x; Margary's Roman Roads in Britain, vol. ii, chap. 2 (Phoenix House, 
1957)· 
Of the Ages before the Norman Conqllest 19 
and Chester, another north-south road must have connected 
Forden Gaer and Clyro on the Wye either directly or on the 
Knighton-Presteigne-Kington alignment. A Roman 'march-
ing camp' near Hay on the Wye has been identified, but 
more permanent Roman posts, the counterparts of the later 
medieval castles on this line along the Welsh foothills, are 
likely and may yet be identified among the many earthworks 
which exist between Leintwardine and Clyro. I 
The history of the epoch between the end of Roman 
authority in Britain and the rise of the earliest known king-
doms of England is one of the most tantalizing and aggravat-
ing in our history. We know that there was government. 
We know that here and there considerable cultural develop-
ment existed. But when Rome withdrew, \vhat happened, 
for instance, to the frontier posts and settlements like 
Bravonium on the Herefordshire border? Who were the 
people who we know lived in them? How were they 
governed? How did they survive? Since we know that 
many did survive, they must have had an organization 
among themselves. What was it? Were the people in part or 
at all Christian? And, if so, from which side did their 
Christianity come? What, in short, was this frontier world 
on the Middle March of Wales? 
Of the centuries before the Norman Conquest of Here-
fordshire it has been written: 
The early history of the district ... is impenetrably obscure. No 
traditions of its conquest have survived. The Western Midlands 
as a whole were far from the centres of Old English historical 
writing, and the ancient Church of Hereford has produced no 
body of local charters in any way comparable to that which has 
come down from the neighbouring Worcester. In the aggregate, 
a considerable number of facts relating to pre-Conquest Hereford-
shire are recorded on good, or at least passable, authority. But 
they are inadequate to support anything approaching a continuous 
history of the Shire.2 
The earliest recorded bishop in Herefordshire was calJed 
Putta; he was consecrated by Theodore of Canterbury and 
I Nash-Williams's The Roman Frontier in Wales, passim (Cardiff, I954). 
2 Stenton in R.C.H.M., vol. iii, p . Iv. 
20 Valley on the March 
died between 676 and 688 .1 The bishopric served a people 
called the Hecani, and later, according to pre-Conquest 
sources, the Magesetenses or Magesaetan, of whom it is 
particularly recorded that they were the first to run away 
at Ashingdon (Assandun) in 1016.2 A charter of King E dgar 
refers to them at Staunton-on-Arrow, five miles south-east 
of Presteigne. In the seventh and eighth centuries the 
Magesaetan were ruled by sub-kings under the Mercian 
royal house descended from Penda; they are recognizable 
by their names beginning with M. By the middle of the 
eighth century a see was established at Hereford. In 803 a 
Council of Canterbury was attended by Wulfheard, de-
scribed as 'Herefordensis ecclesiae princeps'. At the time of 
Offa , the Magesaetan had disappeared as an independent 
entity and Herefordshire as far west as the districts with 
which we are concerned was under the direct rule of the 
Mercian kings. The most famous of these, Offa , is com-
memorated by his great monument, the Dyke, which ran 
from the Dee to the Wye, much along the line of the present 
Welsh border, and right through the country of this story. 
Offa's Dyke and the Lower Wye have ever since been re-
garded as the traditional boundary between England and 
Wales. 
Offa's Dyke is particularly well represented in the Hind-
well Valley area. It can be seen very clearly south of Knigh-
ton where it crosses the Lugg Valley above Presteigne 
about half a mile west of Discoed. It passes just east of 
Castle Ring and Evenjobb, just west of Barland, and east of 
Walton, skirting Burfa Hill and the camp which was in-
corporated in it. The Dyke then crosses the Hindwell Valley 
at its narrowest part and climbs to 1,200 feet on Herrock 
Hill. Here it makes a bow to the west, following the steep 
rim of the hill, after which it takes a sharp turn east on to 
Rushock Hill still at over the 1,000-foot level, and is marked 
by three conspicuous yew-trees, a landmark visible for 
many miles around known as the Three Shepherds. From 
Rushock, the Dyke is generally accepted as descending to 
I Probably not the Putta who was Bishop of Rochester and resigned in 676 
to go to live among the Mercians; loco cit. 
2 Loc. cit.; Cart. Sax. '040; Anglo-Saxon Chron. 1016. 
OJ the Ages before the Norman Conquest 21 
Kennel Wood near Oatcroft Farm behind Eyewood where 
it disappears. Discontinuous sections have been traced in 
the Arrow Valley and its tributary the Curl brook, again 
some miles away near Yazor, and over Garnons Hill as far 
as Bridge Sollers on the Wye. South of this point the boun-
dary was the Wye itself. Some learned writers have supposed 
that in the densely wooded Devonian country south of 
Rushock the Dyke was discontinuous and was not con-
structed in the valley bottoms where the forest was virtually 
impenetrable. But there is also record and evidence that 
south of Rushock the Dyke had two alignments, and it is 
likely that the discontinuous parts either represented un-
finished sections which were abandoned in favour of a more 
easterly trace, or a line which was largely and deliberately 
destroyed. The more eastern alignment is, however, not 
entirely continuous either, though if natural features are in-
cluded it is certainly much more so than the westerly line. 
Now, it is recorded in the Gwentian Brut that, when in 
765 the Cymry devastated Mercia, Offa made the great 
Dyke, ' ... whereupon in 776 the men of Gwent and Gla-
morgan entered Mercia and razed it [the Dyke] level with 
the ground'. I Then, in 784, 'Offa made a Dyke a second time 
nearer to himself leaving a piece of ground between Wye 
and Severn where is the tribe of Elystan Glodrydd', whose 
area is known to have included this district. 
Two alignments therefore seem to have recorded history. 
The alternative, eastern and thus more probably the second, 
alignment seems to have run from Rushock along Little 
Brampton Scar and by Little Brampton Wood on the south 
side of the Hindwell Valley to Burnt House whence it fol-
lowed the deep sunk Green Lane to Rodd Hurst. Crossing 
the col which divides the Hindwell from the Arrow Valley, 
the line then seems to have run along the bank at the top of 
Ashley Vallet Wood to Wapley 'camp' and so to Stocklow 
and a point near Milton cross-roads. From here a well-
formed dyke, locally known as Rowe Ditch,2 strikes south 
I Quoted by Hercules Read and Reginald Smith in V.C.H., p. 259 . 
• 'Rugedyke' in the Middle Ages. A 'ditch' in local dialect is a dyke or 
bank. When a Herefordshire countryman 'hedges and ditches', he makes ~he 
hedge and the bank below the hedge. lfhe digs out what in ordinary English 
is the 'ditch', he is said to be cleaning out the 'gutter'. 
22 Valley on the March 
across the Arrow Valley to the Kington road half a mile 
from Pembridge. Although in part obliterated by farming 
operations, this alignment can be traced by banks and names 
to Yazor and Bridge Sollers. I Burfa Camp and the salient 
in the D yke on Herrock made by the curve round that hill 
and the turn across Rushock, on which a second defensive 
position exists in the banks on Knill Garraway, the southern 
counterpart of Burfa Camp, are common to both alignments. 
There are a number of other banks and works probably 
connected with the Dyke in this area, requiring more de-
tailed study. The later alignment also incorporated Wapley 
'camp' . 
Whether or not there were two alignments and whether 
or not the line from Rushock to Pembridge was the second 
one, the latter is a sensible trace, more sensible perhaps, from 
the point of view of military topography, than one running 
through the forest from Lyonshall to Garnons. Neverthe-
less, Green Lane on the eastern alignment, though de£n.itely 
a well-used ridgeway, is not obviously characteristic of the 
construction of most of the rest of the D yke. 
The line of Offa's Dyke in this neighbourhood has little 
general connexion with parish boundaries.2 On Rushock for 
a small stretch it divides Knill parish from Kington Rural, 
and between Burnt House and Wapley along Green Lane 
the second alignment divides Titley parish from Rodd, Nash 
& Little Brampton parish. The western alignment crosses 
the parishes of Lower Harpton, Evenjobb, and Discoed, 
leaving the manor parishes of Knill and Rodd, Nash & 
Little Brampton wholly in England and those of Old Radnor 
& Burlingjobb, and of Walton & Womaston wholly on the 
Welsh side. Some sections of the second alignment con-
form rather more to parish boundaries between Staunton-
on-Arrow and Combe, and between Staunton-on-Arrow 
and Pembridge parishes. But there is no great significance 
in this, since the greater conformity of this alignment with 
parish boundaries from Herrock to Milton cross-roads is in 
I Cf. V.C.H., p. 259. The author agrees with the alignment of a dyke as 
there described except that after Rushock the line followed the banks at Little 
Brampton Scar and did not run through Scutchditch Wood as suggested. 
2 In this feature Offa's Dyke has a close analogy with the Wansdyke. 
Cf. Burne, More British Battles, p. 25 (Methuen, 1953). 
PLATE IV 
T he Tomen above Llanfihangcl nant Melan 
OJ the Ages before the Norman Conquest 23 
fact due to the very prominent topographical feature of the 
escarpment along the southern side of the Hindwell ob-
viously from earliest time an inescapable geographical fea-
ture in farm and manor organization. It is not the lim.ited 
concordances of certain sections of the alignments of the 
Dyke with parish and therefore manorial boundaries but the 
discordances which are striking. The conclusion is inescap-
able that these local units of settlement and administration 
which today are parishes and in the Middle Ages were 
manors, came into existence at a time when the Dyke was 
not a local boundary of any great significance. But this is 
capable of different interpretations. 
In what is now Radnorshire, west of Offa's D yke, are 
numerous villages and places bearing obviously English 
names. In the Hindwell Valley area most of the villages in 
the Radnor basin fall into this category and they are west of 
the Dyke. Other obvious and important villages in the 
neighbourhood west of the Dyke are Kington, Huntington, 
Staunton-on-Wye, &c. 
It is hard to believe [writes StentonJ' that such a name as the 
Radnorshire Burlingjobb, in Domesday Berchelincope, (a village 
in the old ecclesiastical parish of Old Radnor) can have come into 
being later than the time of Offa. These place names have not yet 
been fully investigated, and any argument from them is hazardous 
but they certainly raise the possibility that, in this quarter, the line 
chosen for Offa's D yke may have meant surrender of English 
territory to the Welsh. 
This is legitimate assumption and is reinforced by the story 
of the second alignment of the Dyke after the events of 
A.D. 776-84.2 . 
Geographically, the Kington district and the Radnor basin 
partake as much of English Herefordshire as the Hindwell, 
Lugg, and Arrow Valleys. They are both areas facing east-
ward on the edge of the Welsh hills. If they had been English 
places before Offa , why did the later territorial and military 
aivisions into manors disregard the monument which Offa 
built as a political boundary so completely ? The alternatives 
seem to be that the English place-names west of the Dyke 
I In R.C.H.M., vol. iii, p. Ivii. 2 See above, p. 21. 
Valley 011 the March 
post-date the boundary: or that they became manorial 
tenures of pre-Dyke settlements between the time when the 
Dy ke had ceased to be regarded as a boundary and some years 
. before Domesday. As against the latter argument, it must be 
remembered that although the Dyke after Offa's day was 
over-run by the Welsh many times and the ground was 
regained by the English up to and west of it, the great Dyke 
continued to be regarded as a political boundary for cen-
turies after Offa's death. A political dividing line is obviously 
involved in the laws of Egbert. Again after Harold God-
winson's reconquest of the March following Gruffydd's 
campaigns, penalties incurred by Welshmen found east of 
the Dyke were re-enacted. ! This was, moreover, at a time 
when Harold himself, as well as certain pre-Conquest Nor-
man knights, held settled lands west of the Dyke in the old 
English lands which Godwinson had reconquered. The 
significance of the Dyke as a political boundary in fact con-
tinued till Henry II's reign and even after. Why then did 
the Dyke have so little effect on manorial tenures and 
boundaries as perpetuated in parish boundaries, which as 
we shall see in the notable example of the manors of Rodd, 
Nash & Little Brampton, Knill, Discoed, and others, dis-
play evidence of having remained substantially unaltered 
for the best part of a thousand years? The only explana-
tion seems to be that the manorial organization grew up 
around old English settlements on either side of the Dyke 
at a time when the Dyke was not a definite political 
boundary as it was in Offa's day and later again became in 
the days, for instance, of Harold. In other words the English 
settlements in Radnorshire west of the Dyke which became 
Domesday manors pre-dated Offa , whose political or mili-
tary boundary did involve a surrender of these areas of 
English settlement. 
There is in the Domesday Book a description of the organi-
zation and administration of the district called Archenfield, 
between the Wye and the Monnow, an unsettled area which 
had not by then been properly assimilated into Norman 
England. From the reign of Athelstan there survives 
I Restrictions on the Welsh in England continued throughout the Middle 
Ages; cf. below, Chap. V. 
Of the Ages before the Norman Conquest 25 
an ordinance concerning the Dunsaete who are otherwise 
unknown but whose territory seems to have lain north of 
Gwent. Their district, divided by a river presumably the 
Wye, was partly English and partly Welsh. The ordinance 
is in the form of a treaty between the English Witan and the 
Welsh leaders. It regulates the relations between the two 
parts of the Dunsaete in matters of cattle, transit, and man-
slaughter. I Such an area also must have been the Radnor 
basin and the high ground between New Radnor and the 
Wye Valley west of Offa's Dyke where political authority 
swung from side to side of the border for many generations 
after the original English settlements were made. 
In the tenth century Western Mercia was divided into the 
shires of Gloucester, of Hereford, and 'of the shrub', that 
is Shropshire, with Shrewsbury, a name derived from the 
same origin, as its capital. By this time the city of Hereford 
was already of sufficient importance to give its name to the 
county. The division of the land had ceased to be on a tribal 
basis; a large piece of Magesaetan territory became Shrop-
shire. The districts of Archenfield and Ewyas were still 
not included in Herefordshire as being substantially Welsh 
and only partially under Mercian administration. But, while 
by Edward the Confessor 's reign Hereford was already a 
county, it still had no defined western boundary. It probably 
included those parts of the Radnor basin and the English 
manors west of the Dyke which are in D omesday catalogued 
under that county.2 Herefordshire was later consolidated 
under the financial reorganization of the county by Henry 
I , but its border character was still recognized in the Pipe 
Rolls and in the annexes to the Balliol Domesday3 by the 
description 'Herefordshire in Wales' . The Radnor basin 
counted as Herefordshire until it became incorporated in a 
new county of Radnor in Henry VIII's reign. 
During the incapable government of Edward the Con-
fessor, a number of Norman knights began to appear in 
I Liebermann, Gesetze der A nge/sachsm, vol. i, pp. 374-9, quoted in 
R.C.H.M., vol. iii, p. lviii. 
z . Apud Duncumb: Huntington, p. 54. Duncumb is of course wrong in 
saying that Offa's Dyke marked the extreme western limit of D omesday 
Herefordsh1re. 3 See below, p. 43 . 
Vaffry on the March 
the border country. Apart from the king's Norman back-
ground and his desire to reward his Norman friends and 
relations, the policy of settling Norman knights in the 
March was, in part at any rate, prompted by his desire to 
have some sort of military organization of ostensible loyalty 
to himself in an area which was not only liable to suffer from 
the depredations of the Welsh, but which lay within the 
sphere of the active jealousies of the powerful English 
earldoms of Leofric of Mercia and Godwin of Wessex. 
Edward's choice of knights thus to reward and upon 
whom to rely, was not happy. To Ralf the son of Drogo, 
Count of the Vexin Norman and Earl of Worcester prior 
to 1049 and Goda, Edward's sister, the king granted before 
1050 the comitatum of Hereford and the earldom of the 
Magesaetan lands : whereupon Ralf built the castle of Here-
ford sometime probably before 1055 .1 
Other adventurous and more unruly, but perhaps more 
competent, knights took the opportunities offered in this 
era to carve out estates for themselves on the border. 
Richard Ie Scrob settled in the Ludlow district within a few 
miles of which he built, near the present village of Orleton, 
the castle of Auretone, better known in history as Richard's 
Castle. At Ewyas where the Golden Valley debouches into 
the plain of Hereford another very important castle, and 
possibly the first of all the Norman castles in the shire was 
built, probably by one Osbern surnamed Pentecost, the 
uncle of Alured of Marlborough. 
The castles of Hereford, Auretone, and Ewyas (Harold) 
were thus, as is commonly accepted, built before the Con-
quest, and being built by Normans were almost certainly 
of the 'motte and bailey' type which is regarded as a typically 
Norman style of military work and associated with their 
post-1066 activities. It is important to remember that at any 
rate in these cases a post-Conquest type of castle was being 
built several years-a decade perhaps at least-before the 
Conqueror landed his knights. How many more such 'motte 
and bailey' castles were built before 1066 and possibly by 
Harold Godwinson himself as a result of his experience of 
the Norman military art? We do not know for certain. 
'CE. Hoveden in Complete Peerage, passim. 
OJ the Ages before the Norman Conquest 2.7 
Another early orman castle in the Middle :Match was 
built at Wigmore by William fitz Os bern, Count of Breteuil 
and Steward of Normandy, in what the Domesday Book 
called 'waste land known as },Ierestun which was held by 
Gunnuert in King Edward's day'. Whether or not this 
castle also was pre-Conquest would seem to depend on 
whether Earl William fitz Osbern came to England before 
Hastings or not. There is no evidence that Earl William was 
among the Norman knights on the Welsh March but it is 
known that he was Duke William's principal and most 
trusted officer in tlle pacification of England after the Con-
quest, and that he played a predominant role on this border 
directly after 1066, although the main immediate trouble 
was then in eastern England. Earl William was made Earl of 
Hereford and granted the Isle of Wight by Duke William, 
according to Orderic Vitalis in 1070 but according to 
Florence of Worcester before the Conqueror left England 
in 1067.1 Now Ralf fitz Drogo, who became Earl of 
Hereford after Sweyn in 1050, died on 21 December 1057 
and it is commonly accepted2 that Duke William visited 
England in 1051 when Earl William fitz Osbern may have 
accompanied him or may have been in the country with the 
other Norman knights whom Edward the Confessor had 
brought in. All this is conjecture but the part played by 
William fitz Osbern on the border, including the building 
of the strategically important castle of Wigmore, is more 
readily understandable if he had been familiar and associated 
with the March before the Conquest. 
All these castles in greater or lesser measure concern this 
story. Richard Ie Scrob's son, Osbern,3 who eventually in-
herited Auretone, was granted in the western part of the 
country by the Conqueror numerous manors including all 
those in the Hindwell Valley and several around Presteigne. 
A mile from the latter place he built, very soon after the 
Domesday survey,4 a castle at Stapleton which for centuries 
I Orderic Vitalis in Ilist. Ece. (French edn.), vol. ii, p. 218; V.C.H., 
p. 270; Hoveden and Florence of Worcester in Complete Peerage . 
• Though also disputed, cf. Douglas in English Hist. Review, vol. !xviii 
(Oct. 1953), No. 269, pp. 526-45. 
3 Not to be confused with Os bern 'Pentecost' . 
• Cf. below, Chap. V. 
28 Vaffry 011 the March 
was the head of an important lordship. Wigmore Castle, by 
Domesday granted to Ralf de Mortimer, became the caput 
of the Honour of Wigmore as well as the centre of what was 
for several generations the most powerful family in Eng-
land. Ewyas, known as Ewyas Harold by reason of its part 
in Harold Godwinson's great campaign on the border and to 
distinguish it from the later de Laci castle of Ewyas Lacy 
(Longtown), was one of the most important castelanies of 
the March. By the Domesday survey it had been granted to 
Alured of Marlborough, nephew of Osbern surnamed Pente-
cost the original builder, though much happened in the 
interval, for Earl Harold in the course of his restoration of 
order on the March had destroyed the fortress and Earl 
William fitz Osbern had rebuilt it. 
The sequence of events in the confused period before the 
Conquest is still in some doubt, especially with regard to 
the movements and intentions of Earl Godwin and Harold, 
his son. Their predominance iI). England and the hostility 
to them of Mercia and the Normans in Herefordshire alone 
run as a visible thread through the period. With Edward the 
Confessor's grant of the cOlJJitatulJJ of Hereford to Ralf fitz 
Drogo, the Norman knights who had come into the country 
had set about acquiring lands and loot 'working all the 
harm and besmear to the King's men hereabouts they might', 
as the Peterborough Chronicle records, with no real care 
for the safety of the March. Richard Ie Scrob from Auretone 
and Osbern Pentecost from Ewyas Harold were among the 
principal offenders. In 105 I Eustace of Boulogne, Earl 
Ralf's stepfather and brother-in-law of the king, landed at 
Dover on a visit to England, probably in search of plunder. 
The arrogance of his followers led to a serious fracas. The 
king directed Earl Godwin, in whose earldom Dover lay, 
to punish the citizens. Godwin declined to do so and used 
the occasion to lay complaint against the behaviour of the 
Norman knights in Herefordshire. The latter, perhaps with 
some support from Leofric of Mercia, interpreted this to 
the king as rebellion. Earl Godwin and his son Harold, 
who also were having trouble with the Church, had to flee 
the country and were exiled. 
At this juncture Gruffydd ap Llewellyn, the ruler of 
OJ the Ages before the Norman Conqttest 29 
Gwynedd and Powys, observing that , the leadership ,of the 
thanes in Hereford had departed WIth Earl GOdWlll and 
Harold and that the Norman knights were disunited and 
principally interested in getting rich quick at the expense 
of the inhabitants of the shire, raided into England in force. 
He inflicted a crushing defeat on the Anglo-Norman forces 
before Leominster on his way to Hereford, returning un-
molested and unpursued into Wales. The March was in fact 
wide open. 
Choosing a moment when King Edward's ships had been 
withdrawn to refit, Earl Godwin and Harold landed in 
England in September 1052 with much support even out-
side Wessex. London rose in their favour as did Hereford-
shire where the Norman knights threw in their hands and 
departed, some for the coast and some across the seas . 
Osbern Pentecost fled to Leofric of Mercia whence he 
eventually found his way to Scotland. Except for Earl Ralf 
whom the king seems to have kept by him the Norman 
knights were outlawed. It seems likely that it was at this 
time that Ewyas Harold was razed and the Herefordshire 
borderland fell under the sway of Harold Godwinson, his 
brother Sweyn who had been Earl of Hereford before Ralf 
fitz Drogo having died in 1052. 
But peace on the Middle March came not yet. In 1053 
Earl Godwin died and Harold succeeded to the paramount 
position in England. Harold's second test came in r05 5 when 
Aelfgar, son of Leofric of Mercia, was outlawed and fled to 
Ireland. There he procured a fleet of Viking ships and 
joined forces with Gruffydd ap Llewellyn in another savage 
invasion of HerefQrdshire in the course of which the 
anglicized Welshmen of Archenfield became one of the 
principal targets of Gruffydd's wrath. 
The Welsh raid got to within two miles of Hereford where 
on 25 October 1055 they were encountered by a mi'Xed force 
of Herefordshire levies and Frenchmen from the Richard's 
Castle garrison under Earl Ralf. With his usual incom-
petence, the king's nephew in the absence of Harold suc-
ceeded in getting himself convincingly routed. Hereford 
was sacked and fired. Even King Edward now recognized 
the danger and accepted the only possible remedy. From his 
30 Vaffry on the March 
winter quarters at Gloucester he sent for Harold Godwinson 
to deal with the situation; Earl Ralf he wisely kept by his 
side. Late as the season was, Harold collected enough men 
to chase Gruffydd and Aelfgar back into the hills where he 
could not follow them. They sought peace on the basis of 
the status quo, a boundary running from Brampton Bryan 
on the Teme to Willersley on the Wye. Peace was signed at 
Christmas 1055, but the new boundary left Knighton, King-
ton, and Huntington with all their manors on the Welsh 
side of the border. Inevitably, the peace could not last long. 
Fighting broke out again next summer when Gruffydd 
defeated !in English force at Glasbury on the Wye, some 
miles upstream of Willersley. Raid then succeeded raid, till 
even Leofric became apprehensive. Through the good 
offices of Bishop Ealdred of Worcester, he made common 
cause with Harold. The combined threat counselled Gruf-
fydd to do homage to King Edward. Then in 1057 Leofric 
died and Harold's enemy Aelfgar, whose daughter had been 
married to Gruffydd, succeeded to the earldom of Mercia. 
An uneasy peace endured till 1062, when Gruffydd again 
felt strong enough to resume the offensive. He raided in 
force as far as the Severn. Harold retorted in a brilliant 
campaign by carrying the war right into Wales, this time 
with troops and equipment suited to the country. In a raid 
at Christmas 1062 Harold burnt Rhuddlan, the palace of 
Gruffydd, who only just escaped with his life. In May 1063 
Harold invaded Wales from the west, landing his troops in 
Cardigan Bay. At the same time his brother Tostig invaded 
the north from Chester. By the summer Gwynnedd was 
over-run and Gruffydd was cornered: but the end of this 
phase of the border wars really came only when, murdered 
by their own hands, the Welsh lost one of their greatest 
leaders in Gruffydd ap Llewellyn on 5 August 1063. A new 
frontier was imposed on the Welsh which left to England in 
the Middle March much of what is now Radnor and Mont-
gomeryshire west of Offa's Dyke. And there was peace 
under Harold's now undisputed leadership of England as 
the Earl of Hereford in succession to Ralf who had died in 
1057 leaving only an infant son. Had Ralflived and been a 
stronger man, he might as King Edward's nephew have 
Of the Ages before the Norman COl1quest 31 
contested the throne of England against Duke William, the 
claimant in succession, and Earl Harold, the effective ruler. 
But nothing now stood between these two strong men, 
Harold and William, save a dying king. The decision of war 
was inevitable. The climax came at Hastings. 
It was thanks to Harold's defence of the March and the 
:final defeat of Gruffydd's men that Duke William after 
Hastings found the western border of England secure and 
no cause for anxiety. It was also his first care to have it 
remain so. The influence of the Godwin family, great as it 
was in England just before the Conquest, was nowhere by 
then more powerful than in the county of Hereford where 
the material possessions of both Harold and the English 
royal family were very considerable: and Duke William was 
only too well aware of the intrigues which had taken place 
between Mercia and Wales against their common foes, the 
Norman knights and the predominant Godwins . 
More than anything else he had done, the border cam-
paigns had enhanced the power of Harold. His association 
with the Middle March especially had led to the acquisition 
of numerous manors, most of them according to the Domes-
day record in his personal possession. The claim by some 
historians that it was Harold who pushed the border of 
administered England west of Offa's Dyke cannot be sub-
stantiated. The fact that there are recorded in Domesday so 
many manors west of the Dyke as 'geldable', that is as 
recognized .fiscal units of assessment, tempore regis Ed1vardi 
implies and supports the view already expressed that they 
ante-dated Harold quite considerably. Many of these 
manors, especially in the Kington, Huntington, and Rad-
nor basin areas, are described as held by the King (Edward), 
Queen Edith, and Earl Harold before the Conquest. Only 
a few, notably those of the Hindwell Valley group, are 
recorded as held by Normans before the Domesday record. 
This particular group, as will be seen in the next chapter, 
was held T.R.E. by Richard Ie Scrob or Osbern, his son. 
Very few other Norman knights of the 1050-66 period seem 
~o ~ave a~quir.ed manors as far west as this. The implication 
111volved 111 King Edward's and Harold's tenancies is clearly 
that they were already recognized manors dating from a 
VallI!)' on the March 
period well before the wars of Gruffydd ap Llewellyn. How 
long before, is not known, nor is there any record of who 
held these manors before King Edward and Harold acquired 
them or reconquered them from the Welsh. But one explana-
tion ,of the high number of manors hereabouts held by King 
Edward and Harold is that they kept what they had taken 
by right of conquest from Gruffydd himself or his fore-
bears. This, however, does not mean that they created them 
then as manors for the first time. Indeed, the fact that they 
were already 'geldable T.R.E.' suggests the opposite, namely 
that they were, as previously suggested, manors of some 
standing already well before 1050, and to judge by their 
names, 'English' settlements at that. 
The distribution of Harold Godwinson's manors in 
Herefordshire according to the Domesday record is interest-
ing. In round figures, Harold held between forty and fifty 
manors in the county, assessed at about 200 hides. Eighteen 
of these manors with 60 hides were in that corner of the 
county where the Domesday Hundreds of Elsedune and 
Hezetre meet, that is to say in the area between Willersley 
and Winforton on the Wye and the Radnor basin, which 
area includes Eardisley, Kington, Huntington, Titley, Pres-
teigne, and Old Radnor in the immediate neighbourhood of 
the Hindwell Valley. His other major holdings were in the 
Domesday Hundreds of Stratford, Radelau, and Cutestorne, 
that is, on the whole, still in the western part of the county. 
A summary of his former holdings at Domesday reads as 
follows : 
Hundred of Hides Manors 
Elsedune 43 16/20 
Hezetre 17 2 
Stratford 12 4 
Radelau 38 7 
Cutestorne 42 8 
Bremesse 22 4 
Stapleset 13 2 
Tornelau 2 1 
Plegelget 3 1 
Approximate, rounded 
off, totals. '90 45/5 0 
Of these, King William after the Conquest took for him-
Of the Ages before the Norman Conquest 33 
self, in Elsedune 24 hides and in Hezetre 17 hides. In other 
words, he took, probably for political reasons, the border 
manors, where Harold's standing had been the highest. In 
this area King William also took most of King Edward's 
manors. Elsewhere in the county, Harold's manors were 
granted to various Norman knights without any recogniz-
able basis for distribution.! Harold's two largest manors 
were at Cowarne of 15 hides in Radelau Hundred, and at 
(Old) Radnor of 15 hides, next door to the group of the 
Hindwell Valley manors all of which were in Hezetre 
Hundred. The manor of Radnor included Old Radnor 
church on a shelf of rock overlooking the Radnor basin 
commanding two passes into England by the Arrow and 
Hindwell Valleys. The motte and bailey which survives hard 
by the church by local tradition was Earl Harold's castle. 
So many of our ideas of history lie in memory like autumn 
leaves fallen from stunted trees planted in our minds at 
school. It comes almost as a shock to realize that the Harold 
who died defending England against the simultaneous in-
vasions of Harold Hardrada and Duke William of Nor-
mandy, who had been named King of England by the Witan 
in 1066 but was never crowned, who had restored and held 
the March of Wales for fifteen years against Gruffydd of 
Wales and Leofric of Mercia, for years dominated the Middle 
March and perhaps the whole country from an almost un-
known and disregarded base at Old Radnor. 
Harold Godwinson's moat and castle mound lie a few 
yards south of the lovely fifteenth-century church of St. 
Stephen of Old Radnor. The stronghold and church look 
across a sweet basin of manor and farm-land. On the western 
horizon is the open 'moorland of Radnor Forest rising to 
over 2 ,000 feet, and practically uninhabited except by sheep, 
grouse, and buzzards. The plain itself is dotted with home-
steads, small white houses with slate roofs, and substantial 
farm buildings. It has been argued that the earthworks at 
Old Radnor could not have been an important castle of 
Harold or of anyone else for they lie tucked in under Old 
Radnor Hill and are overlooked; moreover, that the 'motte 
J A table showing the manors held by or of Harold and to whom they were 
granted in chief is contained in an appendix to this chapter. 
B 6851 D 
34 Valley on the March 
and bailey' of Old Radnor was a Norman fort and so post-
Conquest.! A suggested alternative site for Harold's castle, 
at New Radnor on the road up the Llanfihangel nant Melan 
cwm, is inherently improbable geographically, militarily, 
and ,economically. But from Old Radnor or from some site 
near by Harold's men could observe and command all the 
country which raiders from Builth and Penybont, or from 
the Upper Ithon Valley, Maelienydd, Kerry, and Clun must 
cross to enter England by the Arrow or the Hindwell 
ValJeys. Raiders from Maelienydd might enter either valley 
unobserved from New Radnor and be through the passes 
before men on foot or pony could catch up with them. 
The site of Old Radnor church must always have been an 
observation point and probably a strong point for a lookout 
post on Old Radnor Hill. The turret on the present church 
tower was a signal beacon for centuries: until quite recently, 
it still carried an iron cresset. It is an obvious landmark for 
the ridgeway and drovers' roads from west to east as well as 
from the north. 
In spite of being overlooked by Old Radnor Hill, the 
motte and bailey near the church have an obviously defen-
sible quality. If it was not itself Harold's keep, it was related 
to one of several other defended sites in the plain. About a 
quarter of a mile north by west of the church on the slope 
of the shelf of the hill is a site called Castle Nimble. It con-
sists of a circular moat and bank with extensive adjoining 
rectangular enclosures, probably once stockaded. An old 
track winds up from them through bracken and boulders 
to the church. Another track leads north to some large 
tumuli near Knapp Farm on the present Walton-New 
Radnor road. About a mile farther north again is a group 
of megalithic remains. The track from Castle Nimble to Old 
Radnor crosses an area which seems to have been a fairly 
extensive settlement: like Castle Nimble, the date can only 
be determined by excavation. Castle Nimble and the motte 
and bailey of Old Radnor are militarily interdependent. 
A mile north-east is another large, defended site with a moat 
and mound at W omaston. It guards more directly the en-
trance to the Hindwell Valley. It, too, cannot have been 
I But see above, p. 26, on pre-Conquest 'Norman' casdes. 
Of the Ages before the Not'man Conquest 35 
otherwise than a part of an important military complex 
connected with Old Radnor. Harold Godwinson's strong-
hold in the Radnor basin must be regarded as the whole 
complex of earthworks in the \"XTalton area. Precisely which 
of the sites was Harold's own or main castle is not material 
to the story. But tradition in the abiding memory of country 
folk is often surprisingly accurate and that tradition associ-
ates Old Radnor with Harold, which if taken with Castle 
Nimble is not inconsistent with military and topographical 
conditions. 
The fifteenth-century church of Old Radnor is a noble and 
beautiful monument. It is surprising to find such wealth 
of remarkable work in the church of a now remote and 
sparsely inhabited parish. St. Stephen'S church serves no 
town or village: the only hamlet today in the parish is the 
group of houses at Walton cross-roads. The small village of 
Evenjobb was formerly in the parish of Old Radnor but it 
is two miles away from the church. The modern church of 
that parish at Evancoyd was only built last century when the 
parish was divided. The existence of a so large and well-
adorned church at Old Radnor connotes the existence there, 
rather than at Evenjobb, of the original centre of the parish, 
and that is consistent with tradition. The broad nave and 
aisles of St. Stephen'S with their light windows looking 
over the plain to Radnor Forest can hold 200 people and 
more. The wooden screen across the whole breadth of the 
church is one of the finest and best preserved in the country. 
It leaves the impression of having been made by the devo-
tion of a monastic establishment rather than by local crafts-
men working for rew~rd. The organ case with its linenfold 
panelling dates from 1500 : it is the only perfect example of 
its period in the United Kingdom. 1 The font is fashioned 
from a large ovoid block of stone with its top flattened and 
hollowed to a basin: in the bottom are cut four rudimentary 
feet. The stone is reputed to have come from or been associ-
ated with the group of megalithic remains in the plain below. 
The use of prehistoric and pagan high places for Christian 
worship is, of course, well known all over the world. The 
site of St. Stephen'S church may well have been a place of 
1 Freeman's English Organ Cates, 1921. 
Vaffry on the March 
worship for the people of the plain long before the Christian 
era. Such a centre, as well as the good lands which made up 
the 15 -hide manor of Radenoure, would explain apart from 
military considerations the choice of this site for Harold 
Godwinson's stronghold on this turbulent frontier. 
History has its revenges. When Harold fell at Hastings 
the English kingship fell with him. He was not even given 
a decent burial. His domains were forfeit to the Norman 
Conqueror. But the Norman knights who came before the 
Conquest and many of those whom Duke William settled on 
the March, have disappeared from history and have left no 
descendants. Braose, Bohun, Mortimer: they are not even 
names today in Herefordshire and they have been forgotten 
by the people who still remember Harold Godwinson of Old 
Radnor Castle. And Godwins still live on the land in the 
Hindwell Valley within a few miles of where Earl Harold 
dominated and farmed the Middle March. 
PLATE V 
Old Radnor Church 
Of the Ages before tlte Norman Conquest 
AP P EN D IX TO CHA P TER II 
Manors recorded in Domesdcry as having been 
held by Earl Harold, or of him 
(Numbers in brackets refer to notes at end of appendix) 
Domesday DB Tmonl 
____Ib_ m_ d _r_d_ ___ I _______jW_ _ a
_ w_r~(~I)_ ______ I -H-'-~-~~.-I------'-n_C_h_k~if~(~l)~ __ __ 
ELSEDUNE MATEURDIN, :t"UTHEWUR- 2 Kiog William 
DAM 
lliRDESLEGE (Eardisley) (6) 
STIVICHEWORDIN, CHIC-
WURDINE (Chlckward) 
CICUURDIN'E, CHICWOR- I and 
DINE (Chick ward) 3 virg o 
ULFMESTUNE I 
liANTINETUNE (Huntingtoo) 
BURARDESTUNE, BURACDE-
STONE, BOLLINGESHULLA 
(Bollingham) 
lliRGESTH (Hergest) 
BRUDEFORD (?Breadward) 
CHINCHTONE,KJNTONA 4 
(Kington) 
RUUlESCOP, RUISSOC (Rus- 4 
hock) 
RUiSCOP, R UiSSOC (Rus- William de Scohles 
hock) (Schoies) 
W,LLAUESLEGE and WID- 4 Ralf de Tosny (Todeni or 
FERDESTUNE (Willers ley Toen) 
& Winfortoo) 
LE.'ffiHALLE (Lyooshall) Roger de Laci (3) 
TITLEGE (Titley) Osbern !itz Richard Ie 
Scrob (4) 
WALELEGE (?Ailey) Gilbert !itz Turold (5) 
lliRDESLEGE (Eardlsley) t Hugh I'Asne (6) 
C,CUUROINE (Chlckward) 1 VIrgo Hugh I'Asne 
MAURDINE,NUUUERDn<E Griffin !itz Meriadoc (7) 
CURDESLEGE 
HEZETRE BERCHELINCOPE (BurJing- Iili (7) g William '(8) 
jobb) 0 
RAnENOURE (O ld Radnor 15 
and Walton) 
STRATFORD E ATUNE (Eyton) 5 Hereford Canons (10) 
BURLEI ! Roger de Lad (1I) 
STRADFORD (Stratford) Alured of Marlborough 
CLAUNGE (Clehonger) Ansfrid of Cormeiles 
TORNELAU SUCWESSEN (Sugwas) Hereford Canons (Il, 13) 
BREMESSE W ADINTONE, WmINTONA (Il, 13) 
(Withington) 
ErroNE, EATONA (Eaton, in Alured of Marlborough 
Foy in ArchenJield) 
PENEBRUGE (pembridge in 9 less (14) 
Archenfield) 1 virgo 
MERCHELEI (Marcle) 3 Thurstan !itz Ralf (16) 
Vallry on the March 
Domesday DB Tenant 
Hundred Manor (I) Hideage ____in_ C_"..i..e:'j-'(-2..:)._ _ _ 
l 
RADELAU ARCHEL (Yarkhill) 2 Roger de Lad 
BRISMERFRUM (Castle ) 
Frome) 
MERCHELAI (Little Marcie) ) " "" (3) 
STRETTONE (Stretton 3t William fitz Baderon (3) 
Grandison) 
WITEUUICHE (Whitwick) 2 (3) 
SPERTONE (Ashperton) )t " " " (I) 
COURE (Cowarne) I) AImed of Marlborough 
CUTESTORNE LUDE (Lyde) 2 Roger de Lad (3) 
BURGELLE (Burghill) 8 Alured of Marlborough 
HOPE, BRuNEsHop (Brin- ) " " ,,(17) 
sop) 
MONEToNE, MONINTONA in ) 
STRADELEI (Monnington 
in Golden Valley) 
BROCHEWRDIE, BRODE- ) 
WORDIN (Bredwardine) 
MIDEWDE, MIDELWUDE 2 Gilbert fitz Turold 
(Middlewood) 
DODINTONE, DORSINTON 7 Drogo fitz POllz 
(Dorstone) 
STAPLESET MALuEsHuLLE (Mansell 8 Roger de Lad 
Gamage) 
BRUGE, BRIGE (Bridge ) Hereford Canons (12, 13) 
Sellers) 
PLEGELGET COLINTONE 3 
NOTES 
I. The spelling of hundred and manor names follows, in the main, the spelling in 
Balliol Domesday (see Chap. III). Where two manor names are given, the second 
name is that of the Balliol MS . or the marginal annotation in the Bailiol MS.: the 
second variant is only given where it differs substantially from the form in the Domes-
day text. The manor names in brackets are the modern equivalent place-names where 
these can be reasonably identified. 
2 . The tenants in chief are the names given as such in the Domesday text and not 
those of holders given in the Bailiol text marginalia, which are applic"ble to a some-
what later period. The tables are designed to show what happened to Harold God-
winson's manors at the time of the grants after the Conquest as recorded in 1086. 
3. Recorded as held by Turchil of Harold. 
4. There were two manors at Titley, one in Elsedune and the other in Hezetre 
Hundred. Both were granted to Osbern litz Richard Ie Scrob in the 1086 record. 
The former was before the Conquest held by Harold; the latter was held by T.R.E. 
Osbern fitz Richard himself. 
). This manor is recorded as having a dOJlJlt.r deJensibilis (one of the two in Else-
dune Hundred). The other one was at Eardisley. Walelege has been believed to be 
represented today by the group of Willey sites, 2 miles NNE. of Presteigne. The 
difficulty is that tbe dOll/lfs dejensibilis of Walelege is recorded as in Elsedune Hundred, 
whereas the Willey si tes are in wbat was Hezetre Hundred or even the Lenteurde 
Hundred of Salop. The satisfactory identification of virtually all the Elsedune and 
Hezetre Hundred manors witbin the geographical boundaries of the hundreds as 
they can be identified therefore rules out the identification of the domlfs deJetlsibilis 
of Walelege as being one of the Willey sites. Walelege in Elsedune was most likely 
2t or near Ailey in Eardisley. 
6. Neither of the two entries of land at Eardisley formerly beld by Harold and in 
Of the Ages before the Norman Conquest 39 
1086 held by the king and Hugh I'Asne indicate that the main manor at Eardisley 
witb its dOflllts dejt11JibiliJ was ever held by Harold, as was the dOfIJlIJ dejeIJJibiliJ of 
Walelege, or by King Edward . The former is catalogued under Roger de Loci's 
lands as fonnerly held by Edwin and as not paying customary geld or included in 
any hundred . 
7. Mauuerdin and Curdeslege have not yet been satisfactorily identified. The sug-
gested identification of the former with Marden is untenable as being right out of 
the neighbourhood of E lsedune Hundred and the rest of Griffin's lands. Both manors 
should lie in the Eardisley-Kington area. 
8. Burlingjobb is recorded in D.B. as Sol IC/lldt T.R.E. Burlingjobb adjoins 
Harold's head manor (in this part of the county) of (Old) Radnor. Although both these 
manors, with Osbern !itt Ricbard's manors in the Hindwell Valley, are in Hezetre 
Hundred, they adjoin Harold's manors around Kington and Huntington in Else-
dune Hundred whicb King William also seized. It seems probable that Burlingjobb 
manor, whicb lies south of, and adjoins, (Old) Radnor manor, was part of Harold's 
head domain. 
9. For the site of Harold's castle at Old Radnor manor, see argument at pp. 33-35. 
D.B. records that the 15 hides 'were and are waste' but carried thirty ploughs, 
and further that 'Hugh l' Asne says that Earl William !itt Osbern gave this land to 
himself when he gave him (tbat is to Hugh l'Asne) the land of his ancestor Turcbil'. 
This suggests that Turcbil may have held Radnor manor before Harold. For political 
reasons, no doubt, King \Villiam granted to himself this important head manor of 
Harold, rather than leave it in Earl William's tenure. 
10. Given by Earl William to Walter the Bishop. 
11. Held by a thane of Harold's. 
12 . Given back by King William to Walter the Bishop. 
' 3. Recorded as 'unjustly' held by Harold. 
'4. This is Pembridge in Arcbenfield, and not Pembridge in the Leominster dis-
trict. It is so described in v.c.H. but the annotator in B.D.B., p. 1'4, suggested that 
it had been erroneously transferred in Domesday to Bremesse Hundred whereas it 
should bave been in Stratford Hundred where the Leominster Pembridge is more or 
less situated . There is really no justification for this suggestion: the reference to 
Alured of Marlborough's Pembridge follows an entry for Ettone (= Eaton in Foy) 
whicb is in the immediate vicinity of Pembridge in Archenfield in which neighbour-
hood Alured also bad the castellany of Ewyas Harold. 
' 5. Recorded as held of Harold by Wluru. 
16. Recorded as beld of Harold by Brititne. 
17· Recorded as formerly beld by Os bern Pentecost, uncle of Alured of Marl-
borough 'wbeo Earls Godwin and Harold were exiled'. 
CHAPTER III 
Of the C])omesday c!JI;fanors 
DUKE WILLIAM of Normandy's first preoccupation after the Conquest was to secure the March of Wales. North of the comitatullt granted to Earl William fitz 
Osbern in the Herefordsbire area, the king proceeded to 
create the Palatine county of Chester with a quasi-Palatine 
earldom of Shrewsbury in between. In Herefordshire Earl 
\Villiam refortified Ewyas Harold: numerous other castles 
were built along the border. Within four years of Hastings, 
Hereford was pre-eminent among the shires of England for 
its Norman castles and fiefs. 
King William had good reason for appointing the loyal 
and energetic Earl William to hold the Herefordshire border 
lands. The population of the shire as a whole, still more so 
the Welsh beyond the border, were showing no signs of 
willingness to accept Norman rule. The powerful English-
man Eadric, surnamed the Savage by the Normans, domi-
nated Herefordshire and Shropshire and, as usual, in the 
tangled web of border politics found the Welsh quite ready 
to intervene in any adventure which looked promising. 
In their company Eadric 'Hereford ens em provinciam 
usque ad pontem amnis Luege [the Lugg river] divastavit 
ingentemque praedam reduxit', after which he successfully 
retired into Wales, as Florence of Worcester records. I That 
was in 1067. In 1068 three illegitimate sons of Harold raided 
the Bristol Channel, and Earls Edwin and Morcar in alliance 
with the Welsh started a revolt in Mercia. These enterprises 
proved abortive, but Eadric remained in the field. By the 
early part of 1070 Earl William had, however, mastered 
the trouble in the west: Eadric made his submission to the 
king, receiving back some of his lands. When in 1070 Earl 
William returned to Normandy he had pacified the border 
and completed the organization of the March from Ludlow 
J Chron. Worcester (English Hist. Soc.), vol. ii, p. 2. 
Of the Domesday Manors 41 
to Chepstow. He ,vas killed .in Flanders .in the follow.ing 
year, leav.ing as his monument.in England a cha.in of Norman 
strong po.ints on the Welsh border and a number of 
boroughs which he had created to organize urban centres . 
The enlightened franchises and the laws of his boroughs like 
Ludlow and Hereford served as models for the rest of 
England. 
What neither the killg nor Earl William seems to have 
quite foreseen was the power which these military border 
fiefs with their numerous great castles .in a Palatille adm.ini-
stration l placed .in the hands of the Marcher Lords. The 
orig.inal grants ofland to the great border families, the Lads, 
the Mortimers, the Bohuns, and the Braoses, were made 
in part by Earl William himself. Others were grants by the 
killg, or confirmations of the earl's grants. Alured of Marl-
borough's grant of land, though not so extensive .in this 
part of the world as that of many others, included the rebuilt 
castle of Ewyas Harold. The grant was confirmed by the 
killg, as Domesday records: 'He himself surrendered to him 
[Alured] all those lands which Earl William had given him 
and confirmed him .in his tenure of that castle.' The largest 
of the orig.inal grants of land .in Herefordshire was to Roger 
de Laci. It consisted of some n.inety manors with the castles 
of Ewyas Lad and Clifford guarding two main passes be-
tween England and Wales. Rill de Mortimer in addition to 
his castle at Wigmore, which Earl William had made in the 
'waste called Merestone', received some seventeen estates in 
Herefordshire besides others in Shropshire. His Hereford-
shire lands were highly productive to judge by the Domes-
day returns, and this may account for the early growth to 
importance of the M.ortirner family which was destined to 
overshadow the Lads and even the throne of England. 
Within a few years of the Domesday survey the Mortimers 
began to extend their domains in the direction of Pres-
teigne and the Hindwell Valley at the expense of the Scrob 
family, the original grantees in that area.2 
1 That is the Palatine earldoms of Chester, Shrewshury, Hereford, and 
Glamorgan . 
• Cf. Round on Domesday in V. C.H .; Stenton in R.C.H.M., Intro . to 
vol. iii ; Bannister, H erefordshire and its place in English History, H ereford, 1 91 2 ; 
D . Jerrold, A n Inlrod,..tion to the H istory of E ngland (Collins, 1949), chap. 10. 
Valley on the March 
The first recorded history of the Hindwell Valley manors 
is in the Domesday Book which for Herefordshire is a 
puzzling, tantalizing, exasperating, and enthralling docu-
ment. It displays problems and peculiarities unknown else-
where in England. This is perhaps na tural in a border county 
which contained important Mercian and Wessex thanes, 
pre-Conquest Norman knights, and a large element of 
Welsh. 
One of the great difficulties in considering Domesday 
Herefordshire has always lain in the definition of the Domes-
day Hundreds of the county. The county is usually con-
sidered to have contained sixteen hundreds.! Duncumb lists 
twenty-four, but includes in his total two hundreds men-
tioned in the Herefordshire catalogue as belonging to Wor-
cestershire, several names which are obviously or probably 
variant spellings of the same names,2 and some names which 
do not appear to be really hundreds at all since they are 
shown as comprising only one manor or a very few manors 
each: in certain cases these 'hundreds' are only referred to 
once in the texts. An example may be quoted of such a 
'hundred' in the north-west of the county. Lene manor is 
described as in Lene Hundred, the only sole reference in 
Domesday to any manor in that 'hundred'. The name Lene 
or Leine, however, recurs in the names of King's Lene 
(Kingsland), Orleslene (Eardisland), Monecheslene (Monk-
land), Lenhale (Lyonshall), and Lenhale (Leinthall), all 
manors situated in or around the middle Lugg River plain, 
the centre of which is Leominster. Lene in fact seems to be 
the pre-Domesday name for the Leominster plain area. It is 
relevant that the great manor of Leominster which 'Queen 
Edith had T.R.E.', one of the greatest agricultural estates 
in England, was not included in any hundred in Domesday: 
nor were its many outlying but then dependent manors, 
though situated geographically in hundreds the boundaries 
of which can be ascertained. The manor of Leominster and 
these dependent manors may thus have been the area or an 
administrative district called Lene before Domesday. 
The problem of the Herefordshire Domesday Hundreds 
is further complicated by the fact that within a short time of 
I See V .C.H., p. 302. 2 Duncumb, vol. i, p. 59. 
Of the Domesday Manors 43 
the survey of 1086 eleven of the Domesday Hundreds dis-
appear and five new hundred names not mentioned in the 
survey turn up. Two of the new hundred names, Huntington 
around Kington, and Wigmore, closely connected with the 
story of this book, are the names of manors in the Domesday 
Hundreds of Hezetre and Elsedune which are among the 
vanished divisions. Finally, the boundaries of the post-
Domesday Hundreds, which were hundreds named in 
Domesday, are not conterminous with those of the survey.l 
These difficulties, added to some very varied and free spell-
ing of names of manors or errors of transcription, have till 
recently made the identification of many Hel'efordshire 
Domesday manors both puzzling and doubtful. The modern 
historian is, however, particularly fortunate in now having 
available a second Domesday text for Herefordshire. 
This work, the original of which is in the library of 
Balliol College, Oxford, has been published in facsimile and 
transcript by the Pipe Roll Society with invaluable notes.2 
The manuscript was made for the Exchequer Office in I 160-
70 from the original Domesday text of 1086 which it follows 
closely but not entirely. The great value of the Balliol tran-
script is that many of the manor names have been corrected 
where errors of transcription or obscurities in the spelling 
occur in the original text. In the margin of the Balliol manu-
script are certain other additions which again correct the 
spelling of place-names and record some changes of tenan-
cies since the original grants. This document has made it. 
possible to identify nearly all the hitherto unidentified 
manors, at any rate in the north-western corner of the county. 
With some additional local research it is now possible not 
only to place all the manors, except about three in the two 
north-western hundreds with which this story is concerned, 
but also to establish with tolerable accuracy the boundaries 
of these two vanished Domesday Hundreds. 
Added to the Balliol Domesday manuscript are a number 
of folios of somewhat later date. These consist of summaries, 
inventories, lis1:s of hides and tenants, a statement of the 
I Cf. V.C.H., pp. 301-2. 
% Herefordshire Domesday, Pipe Roll Soc. No.2 5, New Series, 1950 edited 
by Galbraith and Tait. ' 
44 Valley on the March 
jerm of Herefordshire, and an extract of the Pipe Roll for 
the county for 1171- 2, which are invaluable substitutes for 
the missing Pipe Rolls for the shire of Henry 1's reign. One 
of these additional folios contains the first recorded reference 
to Presthemede (Presteigne) which does not figure in the 
Domesday survey though it probably already existed in the 
eleventh century if not before. Numerous other problems 
have also been cleared up, notably the establishment beyond 
reasonable doubt that the manors described as of certain 
hundreds were actually in their proper divisions and that 
no manors of other hundreds need be sought in them, or 
vice versa. This, as will be seen, is of particular impor-
tance in connexion with the post-Domesday manor of 
Stapleton and the hitherto mistaken attribution of the 
Domesday domus dejensibilis of Walelege to Willey north of 
Stapleton. I 
Hezetre Hundred with which we are mainly concerned 
was called, it is supposed, after the hundredal meeting-place 
at 'the Hazel tree' . Such meeting-places at physical features 
antedate Domesday and being, in this case, a tree or trees, 
it is not surprising that the actual whereabouts of the place 
has been lost to memory. No place-name has been found 
which gives a clue. A possible lead to the area in which the 
Hezetre hundredal meeting-place might have been situated 
is, however, contained in an inquisition on the boundaries 
of Herefordshire dated to the reign of Henry III (1216-72). 
This documenP which is discussed later contains the follow-
ing phrase: 'In the Hundred of Stretford the valley of the 
Lugg otherwise the land of the Lord of Richard's Castle 
[that is the descendants of Osbern fitz Richard Ie Scrob] 
ought to come [to the hundred court] at Rowe Ditch under 
Pembridge. . . .' Note that the locus of the hundred court 
was not at a named place but 'at Rowe Ditch', a named and 
extant dyke which can truly be described as 'under Pem-
bridge', on the second alignment of Offa's Dyke. The 
description of the land in question as 'in the Hundred of 
Stratford' would be correct after the disappearance of the 
Hundred of Hezetre for which the document thus also 
I See Chap. V, p. 124. 
• P.R.O.: Inquisicio de divisas per XXVII: C. 145/19/12. 
Of the DOl1Jesdcry Manors 45 
gives an approximate limiting date. The section of Rowe 
Ditch 'under Pembridge' in question lies in the Domesday 
Hundred of Hezetre and runs from Milton cross-roads by 
Leen Farm where it crosses the Arrow to Pitfield Farm, a 
mile south-west of Pembridge. 
Hezetre Hundred occupies the north-western corner of 
Herefordshire from the Leominster plain and the hilly 
country north-east of Wigmore to the undefined border with 
Wales. It includes the Lugg and Hindwell group of manors 
and a large area of fertile land around Kington as far south 
as the Wye at Whitney. The Domesday Hundred as de-
scribed contained numerous manors which lay west of Offa's 
Dyke, notably Cascob and Discoed in the Lugg Valley above 
Presteigne, and Old Radnor and Burlingjobb in the Radnor 
basin. North of Hezetre came the Lenteurde Hundred of 
Salop. South-east of Hezetre lay the Elsedune Hundred of 
Herefordshire with part of its southern border on the Wye. 
Elsedune Hundred included a large group of manors around 
Eardisley and Kinnersley, and ran east by Sarnesfield and 
Dilwyn to the ecclesiastical estate of Leominster. It included 
also the Huntington group of estates south-east of Kington 
and also west of Offa's Dyke. The Roman road from Ken-
chester to Leintwardine called, as in other parts of England 
other Roman roads were also called, Watling Street, was 
the approximate eastern boundary for several miles of both 
Elsedune and Hezetre Hundreds. 
The name of Elsedune Hundred apparently survives in 
Elsdon! Farm about one mile south of Lyonshall not far 
from, but west of, the western alignment of Offa's Dyke. 
However, there is near Eardisley on Hurstway Common at 
the turning to Lower Welson a great oak called the 'Council 
Oak'. It is 3I  feet in circumference at 6 feet above ground. 
It is said locally to be '1500 years old' and to have been a 
'Meeting Place'. From the oak there is a magnificent view 
down the Wye Valley to the hills beyond Hereford: in the 
other direction the view is north-east to Upper Welson and 
Quebb. The name 'Welson' may of course be, as much as 
'Elsdon', the survivor of 'Elsedune'. The great oak is hollow 
I Cf. Woolhope Club Centenary Volume, p. !36. 
Valley on the March 
because fires had been lighted in it and though the main 
boughs are broken and rotten, the young growth is quite 
healthy. The cottager near by believes the oak stands over 
a spring: at any rate he has a well with water at 20 feet. Less 
than a mile away at Woods Eaves the jury of the Court Leet 
and Court Baron of the Manor of Eardisley used to mark in 
memory the start of the perambulation of the manor by 
hoisting a lad into an oak (? the Council Oak) and burning 
a bolting of straw under him: the perambulation finished 
at the oak. 1 
In Hezetre Hundred, King William held Harold's former 
manors of Radnor and Burlingjobb. In Elsedune Hundred 
the king similarly took over Harold's manors2 as well as 
those belonging to King Edward, together with Whitney 
on Wye which was held by one Elward and adjoined the 
manor of Willersley and Winforton which was one of 
Harold's. 
In Hezetre, Ralf de Mortimer held Wigmore Castle and 
all the manors in the western and northern part of the 
hundred as far south as Ledicot, Shobdon, and Staunton-
on-Arrow. He also held a manor called Pelelei, which is 
certainly Pilleth on the Lugg above Presteigne. He held no 
lands in Elsedune Hundred. Four manors in Hezetre Hun-
dred other than those held by Osbern fitz Richard, to which 
we will shortly come, were held, as to three by Roger de 
Laci, who also had seven in Elsedune around Lyonshall and 
Eardisley, and one by Hugh l'Asne, who also had two por-
tions of ! hide at Eardisley and I hide and a virgate at 
Chickward. Hugh's manor in Hezetre was Bernoldune, one 
of the few unidentified manors in the hundred. He also held 
a 'Lege' manor in Elsedune which is not to be confused with 
the 'Leges' of Hezetre to which we shall come in due course. 
The remaining lands in Hezetre were held by Osbern fitz 
Richard Ie Scrob, whose caput was Richard's Castle in Cutes-
torne Hundred. One of his manors was extra-hundredal 
though geographically in Hezetre. He is described in 
Domesday as having held the manors T.R.E.; he received 
them from his father who acquired them during Earl Ralf's 
I Leathers, Folklore of Herefordshire, 1912, p. IjO. 
2 Listed in appendix to Chap. II. 
Of the DomesdCJ)1 Manors 47 
regime. Osbern also held, outside Hezetre and Elsedune, 
five! other manors, including Bodenham and Ludford near 
Ludlow which is now in Shropshire but was then in Domes-
day Herefordshire. 
Translated from D omesday Latin into English, the in-
ventory of Osbern fitz Richard's lands in Hezetre and 
Elsedune reads as follows;2 
Osbern son of Richard in Hezetre Hundred holds Mildetune. 
He himself held [it] T.R.E. There [are] two hides geldable. On the 
demesne is one plough and [there are] s1.'( villeins with three 
ploughs. There [are] three serfs and one bordar. The woods are 
four furlongs [taking] length and breadth together. It was waste. 
Now it is worth 20 shillings. 
The same Osbern holds Boitune. He himself held it T.R.E. 
There [are1 two hides. On the demesne is half a plough and [there 
are] four villeins and two bordars with two ploughs and there 
could be two more. There is one [wood containing] broce [brush-
wood]. It was worth 12 shillings; now 20 shillings. 
The same Osbern holds and held Bradlege as one hide, and 
Titlege as three hides, and Bruntune as one hide, and Chenille as 
two hides and Hercope as half a hide, and Hertune as three hides 
and Hech as one hide, and Clatretune as two hides, and Querentune 
as one hide, and Discote as three hides and Cascope as half a hide. 
On these eleven manors is land for thirty-six ploughs but it was, 
and is waste. It never paid geld. It lies on the Marches of Wales. 
The same Osbern holds Lege and held it. There is a half a hide 
and there could be one plough. There is one villein. It was worth 
as much as 5 shillings. 
In these wastes have grown up woods in which the same 
Osbern practices hunting. And from them he has what he can take. 
There is nothing else. 
The same Osbern, i(l Elsedune Hundred, holds Titlege. Earl 
Harold held it. There are three hides geldable. There is land for 
six ploughs. It was and is waste. Nevertheless there is one 'haia' 
in a small wood. 
I The manor of Rechesford (Rochford near Tenbury) in Vlfei (Wolphy) 
Hundred is rubricated in B.D.B., p. 63, f. 33, as '0. fil' Hug", which the edi-
tors in their note at p. 119 interpret as Osbern Lord of Richard's Castle. This 
Osbern fitz Hugh was the grandson of the Osbern fitz Richard of Domesday 
and son of the Hugh who married Eustachia de Say and took her family name. 
Cf. B.D.B., p. 119, and genealogical table. 
2 B.D.B., p. 65, f. 34. 
Vallry on the March 
This laconic but dramatic account could scarcely be bet-
tered. It summarizes the early history of the Hindwell Valley 
in which most of the manors lay on the March of Wales after 
the wars of Gruffydd ap Llewellyn and perhaps also of 
Eadric the Savage. Rich in quality, for the group of eleven 
manors on the Hindwell and Lugg had enough land for no 
less than thirty-six ploughs, the land had for the most part 
gone back to bush, and woods had grown up where Osbern 
could find no more to do than hunt, for-nil aliud as the text 
says-there was nothing else. 
Before considering the identification of the manors, it may 
be well to make some comment on the terms used in the 
inventory. The hide, originally an area adequate to support 
a freeman, had by Domesday become a fiscal unit of assess-
ment. A hide varied in dilferent parts of England even as 
an areal unit, just as the acre once did until it was fixed by 
statute as 22 yards by 220 yards, that is I chain by 10 chains 
or I furlong. The hideage assessment of a manor in Domes-
day is therefore in no sense a precise indication of the acre-
age of a manor. Moreover, the fiscal assessment of a manor 
referred primarily to arable or improved acreage. Thus two 
manors of I hide each might vary in actual amount of 
arable acreage and much more so in the amount of pasture, 
heathland, and woods which went with the manor. 
Another Domesday areal measurement, also a fiscal con-
ception, was the carucate which has been accepted as of 
Norman origin, whereas the hide seems in the main to con-
note a pre-Norman organization and assessment. 
A plough refers, of course, to a team of plough oxen 
which, according to the Exchequer, for assessment purposes 
was usually a 'notional' team of eight oxen. In practice, 'a 
plough' in the official mind was therefore a 'fiscal plough' 
rather like the 'fiscal hide'. But there is evidence in England 
of plough teams of four and six beasts. In one of the addenda 
of the mid-twelfth century to the Balliol Domesday are given 
the numbers of oxen on the royal manors of Marden, Lug-
wardine, Stamford, Linton, and Wilton in the county. In 
each case, the number is a multiple of six, while the Domes-
day records of the number of ploughs on the desmesnes of 
Lugwardine and Marden, which had each eighteen oxen, is 
OJ the DOlJJesdtry Manors 49 
given as three. On these manors, at any rate, the normal 
plough team thus seems to have been of six oxen. 1 
The various categories of men living on the manors in 
order of duties and subordination are not easy to define. In 
the highest degree were the villeins, who possessed a hold-
ing, as a nile a virgate of land or t hide, but frequently 
smaller, and scattered about the manor fields in strips or 
plots. Analogous probably to villeins were the bovarii who 
kept the oxen. Where bovarii are not specifically mentioned, 
their duty probably fell to the villeins, who might appar-
ently own cattle themselves, even if they were in theory the 
property of the lord of tlle manor. 
A category of Domesday tenant peculiar to Herefordshire 
and the neighbouring counties of Gloucester, Worcester, 
and Shropshire are the radmanni or radchenistres. They were 
probably 'free men' since under Deerhurst in Gloucester-
shire where their holdings were important they are recorded 
in Domesday as radchen idest liberi homines. Their status is 
thus clearly not that of servile people, though in Gloucester-
shire they were liable to certain duties of ploughing and 
mowing. Since they do not seem to be French, and are 
certainly not Welsh because aU those tenants that were of 
these sorts are specifically so described, the 'radmen' may 
represent what later came to be yeomen, who had been 
cultivating land for their own account before the Normans 
came. 
Below the villeins and associated degrees came the 
'bordars' and 'cottars' with smaller holdings, and finally 
below them the servi and ancillae who had no property 
and were land slaves. In addition to all these, there was 
the Norman element, other than the lords, represented 
by knights (militares), 'Frenchmen' (Jrancigenes), and ser-
geants (servientes) who all seem to have been of foreign 
origin.2 
The Domesday descriptions of woodland are difficult to 
render accurately. There is a haia; and at Titleya 'haia in a 
I Cf. B.D.B., p . xxxii. 
2 Cf. V.C.H., p. 286 . A catalogue of the recorded Domesday population 
of Herefordshire is contained in Darby and Terrett's Domesday Geography of 
Midland England, CU.P. 1954, at p. 73; see below, p. 80. 
B 6851 E 
50 Valley 012 the March 
wood'. A haia was an enclosure surrounded by a hedge 
from which the name derives. A 'haia in a wood' could thus 
be an enclosure for sheltering or rounding up game animals 
or stock. Then there is a broce which evidently was an area 
of brushwood, suitable perhaps for providing kindling or 
oven firing but free from large trees which the deciduous 
forests of the area would contain with less accessible brush-
wood. 
In his comment on the Herefordshire Domesday survey 
Round considers that where areal units are given in hides, 
there is evidence of English possession, but when land is 
reckoned in carucates, it may be regarded as having been 
acquired or settled in a more recent epoch. On this definition, 
the Osbern manors were ancient English units which con-
cords with other evidence. But Round goes on to recognize 
in this area the significantly old English 5-hide unit, tradi-
tionally the minimum holding of a thane, mainly, as it seems, 
on the strength of the 15 -hide manor of Radnor, the 5- hide 
manor of Norton near Presteigne in Domesday Shropshire, 
and the 5-hide manor of Leine.! It is difficult to follow his 
reasoning here because, with the exception of these three 
manors, the 5- hide unit, either as a manor unit by itself or 
as a unit made up of several smaller manors contiguous to 
each other, is conspicuously absent hereabouts. The im-
portance of the 5- hide unit has been demonstrated in other 
parts of England: its very absence in these border hundreds 
of Herefordshire is significant. The tight-fitting manors in 
the Hindwell Valley only make up 5 hides if Chenille is 
included with Bradlege, Hech, and Bruntune,2 but geo-
graphically Hercope goes with Chenille and the latter as we 
shall see is always treated separately from the other three 
and is usually found in a different lordship. Again, with the 
exception of Norton there is no 5-hide unit or grouping in 
the Lugg Valley. The fact is that the topography of the 
Lugg and Hindwell Valleys militates against the 5-hide 
grouping. 
The commentator continues by pointing out that the 
Hindwell and Lugg Valleys constituted 'an English pro-
I For Leine see p. 42. 
2 For the modern place-names see p. 55 below. 
Of the Domesday Manors 
montory into Wales'! and he notes that only a little of the 
land involved is beyond Offa's Dyke. This, of course, needs 
a good deal of qualification in the light of furtl1er identifica-
tions of manors since his comment was written. The lack of 
any relation between Offa's Dyke and manor or later parish 
boundaries has already been mentioned. His reference to 
these manors as constituting a promontory into Wales and 
his apparent surprise when he writes 'yet in Domesday the 
Hindwell Valley was described as in Herefordshire' is diffi-
cult to explain when in fact many English manors T.R.E. 
lay west of Offa's Dyke as far as Huntington, Harpton, 
Burlingjobb, and Cascob. There seems little doubt that 
these valleys and the whole Radnor plain were considered 
to have been administratively in England well before 1066. 
Furthermore, geographically, if taken with the Kington 
group, there is of course no question of these lands being 
a promontory into Wales: today Presteigne parish survives 
as a salient of Wales into England. 
It would have been particularly interesting to have had 
for the Hindwell Valley manors a catalogue of the inhabi-
tants, since in spite of their being described as waste they 
were not necessarily uninhabited in 1086. The experience 
of even catastrophic devastation during two world wars in 
Europe has been of the tenacity of the peasant on his farm in 
spite of death flying intensively through the air. The Domes-
day classification of 'waste' probably means no more than 
that a manor was not productive or fully productive or an 
organized enterprise which could pay full dues and taxes in 
money or kind. It does not follow that there was no cultiva-
tion or inhabitation of 'waste' land. It is nevertheless quite 
understandable, thG.ugh unfortunate, that the classification 
of 'waste' has caused the omission of any reference to the 
classes or numbers of people living on such land. The only 
circumstantial evidence for the population quota of manors 
in this area are the meagre recorded figures for Mildetune 
and Boitune manors. That the eleven devastated manors 
could have had as many as thirty-six ploughs suggests a 
once much denser population on their 18 hides than had 
survived at Milton and By ton; and this is confirmed to some 
1 V.C.H., p. 26 5. 
Valley 011 the March 
extent by the population of Wapley and Staunton manors.! 
The actual available land for arable at Bradlege, Hech, 
Bruntune, Chenille, Hercope, and Cas cope is, as will be seen, 
pretty limited. They could not have used much more than 
one plough each in most cases and perhaps two at Chenille. 
The conclusion is that more arable land was available at 
Hertune, Discote, and Titlege and that this accounted for 
the large number of estimated ploughs which could have 
existed. 
There is no evidence about when these manors became 
waste. Since, however, the two neighbouring manors of 
Mildetune and Boitune had been restored and were paying 
geld by 1086, the devastation is on the whole more likely 
to have occurred during the Gruffydd wars than under 
Eadric the Savage's period of activity. The two restored 
manors are east of the main group of waste lands which lie 
on the very border or west of Offa's Dyke. There is some 
evidence of considerable reclamation from 'waste' in the 
Domesday record between 1066 and 1086. 
The identification of Domesday manors is an engaging 
pursuit to which many people have devoted a great deal of 
time and occasionally some acrimony. Where written re-
cords in deeds and state papers do not provide direct evi-
dence, recourse has to be had to geographical conditions and 
the similarity of Domesday names with existing place-names. 
The real difficulty of this method is that sufficiently detailed 
local knowledge of physiography, topography, and agri-
cul ture are usually not available to the commentator. Indeed, 
an adequate amount of this sort of knowledge can only be 
possessed by anyone person of a very restricted area. It is 
difficult to have enough knowledge even of a hundred let 
alone a whole county to make reasonable deductions where 
written records do not exist. Even when considerable local 
topographical and agricultural knowledge does exist for a 
restricted area, little bits of new information keep on turn-
ing up which provide either additional, or, unfortunately, 
contradictory evidence. The process of identification must 
therefore be a continuous one and no apology is needed if 
in a few years' time the author has new ideas even about his 
I See below, p. 66. 
OJ the Domesdtry Ma110rs 53 
HEREFORDSHIRE 
WASTE IN 1066 
HEREFORDSHIRE 
WASTE IN 1066 
FIG. 1. Herefordshire waste manors 
from 'The Domesday Geography of Midland England', 
Darby and Tessett. c.U.P. 1954. 
54 Vaffry on the March 
own district. Nor is any apology necessary either for limiting 
present identifications to a very small area and so leaving 
much more important problems on one side. Finally the 
point must again be stressed that even an intimate know-
ledge of topography is not enough without some knowledge 
of agriculture. It is no use identifying a Domesday manor 
with an existing place-name even on good prima facie his-
torical and geographical grounds if you cannot at that place 
find the sort of ground where a manorial agricultural enter-
prise could have been carried on: it is no use seeking to 
identify manor fields in what was a swamp or a blasted heath 
or 1,500 feet above sea-level. 
Many of the identifications which follow accord with 
those given in the Victoria County History by Round and 
others, and in Duncumb's and his successors' studies for the 
history of Herefordshire. They are based mainly on tradi-
tional or documentary material, though in some cases on 
circumstantial evidence only. Several of the identifications 
now given for the first time represent the product of recent 
research by the author using local knowledge and the help 
of friends. These identifications are discussed in greater 
detail than is necessary for the accepted 'identifications con-
tained in the works mentioned. I 
The Domesday record of Osbern's lands begins with the 
fairly detailed note on Mildetune and Boitune manors. It 
then goes on to mention the eleven waste manors of Brad-
lege, Titlege, Bruntune, Chenille, HercQpe, Hertune, Hech, 
Clatretune, Querentune, Discote, and Cas cope as a group, 
and ends with a more detailed note on Lege. The order 
in which the manors are mentioned is important because 
it is a guide to their relative positions. The order of list-
ing follows in the main the logical course a man might 
take coming from Richard's Castle to visit Osbern's do-
mains and returning to his principal centre. Mter the 
identifications given in the following list evidence will 
be presented for the identification of each manor in 
turn. 
I Since these works are under constant and detailed notice in the following 
pages, references page by page in text or footnote would be out of place and 
the reader is referred to the quoted works generally. 
OJ tlte Domesday Manors 55 
MILDETtJ1\TE = Milton, is about one mile south-west of Shob-
don. 1 
BOITUNE = Byton, is about two miles NNW. of Milton and 
the same distance NW. of Shobdon. 
BRADLEGE = The Rodd, is about It miles SSW. of Presteigne 
at the eastern end of the enclosed part of the 
Hindwell Valley and on the right bank. 
TITLEGE = Titley, is about I t miles south of and adjoining 
The Rodd. The present village is on tlle Pres-
teigne-Kington road; the manor lands run up to 
join The Rodd lands. Osbern held two manors 
at Titlege, both of 3 hides: the second one was 
in Elsedune Hundred, that is, south of the 
Hezetre Titlege. It also was waste. 
BRUNTUNE = Little Brampton, is one mile south-west of The 
Rodd in the Hindwell Valley and on the right 
bank. 
CHENILLE = Knill, is It miles WSW. of Little Brampton in 
ilie narrowest part of the Hindwell Valley and 
right on the river. 
BERCOPE = Little Harpton, is one mile upstream of Knill at 
the end of a cwm off tlle narrowest part of the 
Hindwell Valley where it leaves the Radnor 
basin : it is on the right bank of tlle Hindwell 
close to the stream and under H errock Hill. 
BERTUNE = Harpton, is on the right bank of the Summergil 
brook about three miles west of Lower Harpton 
and It miles from N ew Radnor. Intervening 
between Hercope and Hertune was the manor 
of Radenoure (Old Radnor) which had been 
Earl Harold's and passed to King William. 
Hertune is the westernmost of Osbern's manors. 
The listing order now returns eastwards with 
BECH = Nash, on the right bank of the Hindwell be-
tween Little Brampton and The Rodd, just north 
of the track which connected all the manors in 
the valley and Bradlege and Chenille directly.2 
I The most convenient maps to refer to are the I-inch Ordnance Survey 
sheets 128 and I 29 ; as a starting-point : Shobdon is near Mortimer's Cross, 
seven miles north-west of Leominster. 
2 Connecting with the manor track by way of Nash ford over the Hindwell. 
Vallry on the March 
Returning by the north, or left bank, of the Hindwell which 
can here be crossed at Nash ford, with its surviving pack 
bridge, the listing order then gives 
CLATRETUNE = Clatter brune, at the entrance to Presteigne on 
the Clatter brook with its land lying between the 
Lugg and Hindwell due north of The Rodd. 
QUERENTUNE = is probably just up stream of Presteigne near the 
junction of the Presteigne-Knighton and Pres-
teigne-Discoed roads. 
DrscoTE = Discoed, is on the Lugg two miles above (west 
of) Presteigne. 
CASCOPE = Cas cob, is I t miles west of Discoed in a cwm in 
the hills at the head of the Cascob brook, a small 
tributary of the Lugg. 
Returning from Cas cope towards Shobdon and Richard's 
Castle, past Discote and Clatretune, but following the north 
bank of the Lugg, north of Boitune and on through the 
I<insham gorge, you come to 
LEGE = Upper Lye, on the left bank of the river about 
two miles from Aymestrey where the Lugg bursts 
out of the hills and turns south. After leaving the 
hills the traveller would use Watling Street, the 
Roman road from Leintwardine and Wigmore 
to Mortimer's Cross, and then go by Croft to 
Richard's Castle. 
Lege is the last of Osbern's fourteen manors in Hezetre 
Hundred. At the time of the survey only the three eastern 
manors, Mildetune, Boitune, and Lege, were working. 
Between these and the eleven waste manors of the western 
group, there is a gap of two miles. The manner and order in 
which they are listed and described are topographically 
logical and follow known old tracks. 
In addition to these manors Osbern also held Wapletone 
(Wapley) which is included as an extra-hundredal manor 
formerly belonging to the ecclesiastical manor of Leo-
minster. Wapley lay on the southern slopes of Wapley Hill 
and was more or less conterminous with The Rodd and 
Titley manors. I 
I See below, p . 6§. 
OJ the Domesday l',1Ianors 17 
The manor of Milton (Mildetune) contains the first piece 
of available arable south of Shobdon which was called 
Scepedune and was held by Ralf de Mortimer who had a 
solid block of land all the way from Wigmore, four miles 
farther north. The land due south of Shobdon was marsh 
and some of it still is on the eastern and southern edges of 
the airfield built during the 1939-45 war. Milton stands on 
a dry open ridge, running south-west of Shobdon down to 
the Arrow Valley. This identification follows tradition and 
is accepted by Duncumb and the Victoria County History. 
Milton was a manor of 2 hides and had one plough in the 
demesne with, in addition, six villeins and three more 
ploughs, three serfs, and one bordar. It had been waste but 
was then geldable and valued at 20S. It lies in an extension 
northwards of the parish of Pembridge but close to the 
border of Staunton-on-Arrow parish. Pembridge parish 
today is a large area which includes several manors and is 
a later composite parochial unit. 
The manor of By ton (Boitune) lies at the western foot of 
Shobdon Hill, in a well-drained area below Shobdon Woods 
and looking west over By ton bog, a relic of one of the 
Hindwell- Lugg glacier lakes. This bog once extended to-
wards Combe, where the Lugg and Hindwell meet, and 
Broadheath Common, the eastern end of which was also 
obviously liable to flooding from both streams. North of 
the Lugg runs a track (now a lane) to Presteigne clear of the 
flood-level: it is reached by crossing the Lugg where it 
enters the hills near Kinsham, eventually to flow past Upper 
Lye and emerge at Aymestrey. By ton was a 2-hide manor 
valued at 12S., butlaterworth 20S.; it lies between the 500-and 
Goo-foot contours . There evidently was a settlement, prob-
ably where By ton hamlet now is, in Domesday because, in 
addition to half a plough team in the demesne, there were 
four villeins and two bordars with two more ploughs and 
land enough for two more ploughs still. The wood, which 
contained 'broce', was probably one of the low woods at 
By ton or near I<insham on the Lugg bank. This identifica-
tion follows that of other authorities; the manor coincides 
with the small parish of By ton which adjoins the Milton 
extension of Pembridge parish. Both Milton and By ton 
58 Valltry on the March 
were manors held by Osbern T.R.E. Milton was perhaps 
restored from By ton after sharing in the devastation of the 
other eleven waste manors farther west. 
The identification of Bradlege as The Rodd does not 
follow other authorities which were in doubt about it. The 
identification is, in the main, derived from field names and 
local knowledge, which would scarcely be available to any-
one not living on the land and farming it. Some authorities! 
had suggested that Broadheath between By ton and Presteigne 
was intended, oblivious of the fact that lower Broadheath 
must have been bog and the whole of it at best heathland 
partly liable to flood from both Lugg and Hindwell. Its 
eastern end is still liable to floods when the two rivers come 
down in spate to meet near Combe Bridge. The fields on 
either side of the Shobdon-Presteigne road between Combe 
Bridge and the 'Cat and Fiddle' display no marks of being 
old manor fields. Ori the other hand, west of the 'Cat and 
Fiddle' they display every characteristic of having been old 
arable fields. Here the land is not liable to flood because of 
a low rise of ground between the Hindwell and the Lugg 
stream beds. But this flood-free land is certainly the manor 
arable of Clatretune. There is, in fact, between this land and 
the junction of the Lugg and Hindwell at Combe Bridge-
substantially what is Broadheath Common with its rela-
tively modern farms- no area free from flooding or per-
manent bog of sufficient size to have contained another 
manor. Though; of course, much later in date, the Assize 
Roll of 1292 dealing with the tenure of 'La Hethe' (as 
Broadheath was known in a series of documents concerning 
Presteigne and its immediate neighbourhood) uses language 
which is quite categorical. It records after inquiry that 'La 
Hethe was neither vill, borough, nor hamlet'-and it cer-
tainly wasn't a manor either.2 
At one moment Combe seemed a possible identification of 
the original Bradlege. Combe presents an interesting prob-
lem. It is not referred to recognizably in Domesday but 
is described by that name as a manor not very long after. 
I Thus in The Domesday Geography of Midland England, p. II 1. 
% Quoted in extenso below in Chap. V, p. 138; Assize Roll, ].1. 1/302, f. 27d, 
20 Edw. 1. 
OJ the Dotnesdqy Manors 59 
The name obviously comes from the cwm in Wapley Hill, 
below which the sL;;:teenth-century black-and-white farm 
manor-house now stands on the right bank of the Hindwell. 
Such old fl.ood-free arable as existed at Combe lies on the 
right bank: nearly all the neighbouring fields on the left bank 
up to Combe Bridge were and are low lying. Combe manor 
was entered in the lordship of Stapleton and Lugharnes, 
about which there is a good deal to say hereafter : that 
is, it belonged to the lordship which after Domesday in-
cluded many of the manors of the Hindwell Valley. But no 
manor of Stapleton or mention of Lugharnes occurs in 
Domesday. The inclusion of Combe in the Stapleton lord-
ship is perfectly natural. What is peculiar is that whereas all 
that lordship was in Hezetre Hundred or later in Wigmore 
Hundred, Combe is sometimes recorded as in the later 
Huntington Hundred which in Domesday was substantially 
Elsedune Hundred. Geographically Combe thus seems from 
time to time after Domesday to have become an Elsedune-
Huntington enclave in Hezette-Wigmore Hundred. What 
the reason for this is, is not known. Its separateness from the 
surrounding manors of Boitune and Clatretune is em-
phasized by its constitution today as a small parish with no 
church, dependent ecclesiastically on By ton or earlier prob-
ably on Presteigne. It looks as if Combe when it became 
a manor after Domesday was created by a lord of Hunting-
ton. Nevertheless, a Stapleton Manor Roll of 18/ 19 Edward 
IV, namely 1480, records that the lords of the manors of 
Herton, By ton, and Combe 'made fines with the Lord [of 
Stapleton] for suit of court' paying respectively 2S. 6d., IS . , 
and 2S. Whatever hundred claimed Combe it is thus clear 
that its lord of the manor then recognized Stapleton as his 
superior. I Combe is recorded by Duncumb2 as a township 
of Presteigne consis ting of 599 acres and with, in 1804, 
a population of 96 living for the most part in the houses on 
the road from Combe Bridge to the cross-roads at By ton 
Hands which overlooks By ton bog. 
The alternative and certainly correct identification of the 
I Manor of Stapleton Roll, 18/ 19 Edw. IV, in bundle marked 'Not Staple-
ton' in the muniments of Major R. Harley of Brampton Bryan. 
• Duncumb: Huntington, p. 107; also vol. i, p. 203 . 
60 Vallry on the March 
Domesday Bradlege manor as The Rodd came about in 
another way and quite simply. The first obvious peculiarity 
about the civil, churchless, and wholly rural parish of Rodd, 
Nash & Little Brampton was that it contained two known 
Domesday manors, Nash or Hech, and Little Brampton or 
Bruntune, with a sizeable piece of cultivable land of about 
the same size as the manors of Nash and Little Brampton left 
over. On examining the ownership and occupation of the 
Little Brampton, Nash & Rodd farms about a hundred years 
ago, the striking fact emerged that, in spite of many changes 
in the ownership of land and the tenancies of the farms in 
the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, neither 
did the three farms hold land outside the parish nor did 
farms in other neighbouring parishes hold land in the parish 
of Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton. It is still the case today 
that farm ownership and farm tenant boundaries coincide 
with the parish boundaries. Of Maitland's generalization 
that a place 'mentioned in Domesday will probably be 
recognised as a vill in the thirteenth, a civil parish in the 
nineteenth century ...' ,1 the converse is also true: that a civil 
parish of the nineteenth century consisted originally of one 
or more manors of the Domesday period, except of course 
where synthetic modern parishes such as, in this area, King-
ton Urban and Kington Rural, were created in modern 
times to meet the needs of developing local government. 
Thus there seemed to be a prima facie case for thinking 
that The Rodd was a manor unit like Nash and Little 
Brampton within the parish. This presumptive evidence was 
fortified when the same circumstances governing owner and 
tenant boundaries were seen to be applicable to the neigh-
bouring manor and parish of Knill, and generally to other 
agricultural entities in the Hindwell Valley neighbourhood. 
The Rodd manor farm unit might, therefore, be the hitherto 
unidentified Domesday manor of Bradlege, in spite of no 
apparent similarity of name. 
Consideration of the place-names involved, however, did 
disclose that the recent appellation of the main house as 
Rodd 'Court' only dated from about 1912, prior to which 
I Maitland, Domesday Book and Bryond, p. 12 (Cambridge, 1897); cf. also 
Lady Stenton quoted on p. 92. 
OJ the Domesday Manors 61 
the house was shown on maps as 'The Rodd' or 'The Rodds'. 
On certain earlier maps on which 'The Rodds' appears, a 
'black-and-white' house near the 16th-century main Rodd 
house is shown as 'Little Rodd', while the hamlet i mile 
south-west is called 'Rodd Hurst', thus justifying the plural 
name of 'The Rodds' for the whole group. A fair measure 
of antiquity for the name 'The Rodd' is given by medieval 
documents as early as the thirteenth century where the form 
La Rode is used for the place, and de la Rode or de Rode or 
de Roda for the people who lived there. 
Now the meaning of The Rodd or La Rode is given by 
Ekwall1 as 'rod', in Old English 'a clearing'. The same 
authority gives as the meaning and origin of Bradlege or 
Bradley, which occurs in this and analogous forms in many 
counties, a 'wide leah' in Old English. Of 'leah', Ekwall 
writes that 'the original meaning was an open place in a 
wood .. .', either a natural open place, or glade in woodland 
where clearing had taken place. He adds: 'Names in "-leah" 
are naturally most common in old woodland districts.' Thus, 
here, Bradlege or Bradley means a wide or broad clearing 
in woodland. There is, therefore, a striking association in 
the meanings of both the place-names, Bradlege and Rodd. 
Rodd Hurst certainly, and The Rodds perhaps, as late as 
Domesday could obviously well have been described as a 
'clearing'2 or 'broad clearing in the wood'. 
The fairly strong presumptive evidence that The Rodd 
might well be the Bradlege manor of Domesday became 
conclusive by the discovery that certain field names of The 
Rodd farm and of land farmed by Nash farmers but con-
tiguous to the fiel.ds in question of Rodd farm used the 
name of 'Bradley'. The fields in question are fields3 Nos. 
O.S. 138 and 139, which are called 'Bradley's' and 'Lower 
Bradley's', No. O.S. 144 called 'Bradley's Pasture', and No. 
O.S. 154, a barn and fold called 'Bradley's Barn' standing in 
No. O.S. 149 which is called 'Bradley's Barn Pasture'. Plot 
No. O.S. 143 in the 1928 edition of the 24-inch Ordnance 
I Ekwall, pp. 372, 55,278; cf. also English P lace-name Elements (Cambridge), 
vol. ii, p. 86. 
2 For older roads and means of communication having a bearing on this 
problem in and near the Hindwell Valley manors see Chap. IV. 
3 6-inch Ordnance Survey sheets, Herefordshire: X .NE. and X.SE. 
Va'lley on the March 
Survey sheets is called Bradley's Cottage, a modern nine-
teenth-century cottage which in the 1903 edition is called 
Nash Cottage because the cottage was and is tied to Nash 
Farm to which O.S. 154 and 149 now belong. The present 
structures at Bradley's Barn and Fold are probably not more 
than two hundred years old: the timbering is not heavy 
enough to warrant putting an earlier date to the building. 
But the structure is surrounded by stone walls and there 
are several lines of old thorn trees and deep cart tracks in 
O.S. 142 which suggest considerable antiquity of occupa-
tion. This is especially true of the track from Bradley's Barn 
down the hill, in 'Moor Pasture', O.S. 140, skirting Rodd 
Wood to the lane which runs from Rodd Turnpike corner 
(on the Presteigne-Titley road) to the modern main Pres-
teigne-New Radnor road by way of Broadhurst! Bridge 
over the Hindwell. Another track from Bradley's Barn runs 
up hill to join the 'Green Lane', a ridgeway along the crest 
of the hills of the south bank of the Hindwell from Rodd 
Hurst (and farther east) to Herrock and Rushock Hills, 
which, as already mentioned, is on the alternative trace or 
second alignment of Offa's Dyke. 
It is quite possible that the site of Bradley's Barn and the 
neighbouring Bradley fields was the original 'clearing in the 
Wood', though it is very unlikely to have been the site of 
a Domesday manor since it lies too high for early agriculture 
on the 800-foot contour. The Domesday manor is much 
more likely to have been either at Rodd Hurst which is 
t mile north-east or at the site of The Rodds where, on the 
5c o-foot contour, as we shall see, the old arable fields can 
be traced.2 Although it is probably unnecessary to speculate 
on why the name Bradley survived only in these fields and at 
the barn and fold, there is a quite simple and probable ex-
planation which will be understood by any countryman with 
an appreciation of the lie of land. 
The fields lying south of Rodd Wood associated with the 
name 'Bradley' are on the 800-foot-high ground which 
separates the Hindwell Valley manors from lands of the two 
Titley manors. The parish and manorial boundaries between 
I Although the bridge and road are modern the name seems to be an echo 
of Bradlege. • See Chap. IV. 
Of the Domesdcry Manors 
the former group and the latter runs along the Green Lane. 
All the fields north of the Green Lane belong to and are 
farmed by the Hindwell Valley farmers . It would, however, 
be quite reasonable for a stranger not knowing the farm 
boundaries to have supposed that these fields, the 'Bradley' 
fields, were farmed by Green Lanes farm which they ad-
join. But Green Lanes farm belongs to the Hezetre-Titley 
manor and is in Titley parish. Such is the persistence of the 
old manor boundaries that this farm only farms land to the 
south of itself running down the slopes towards Titley, 
though economically it should farm the 'Bradley' fields 
which lie well away from Rodd or Nash. Any local person 
speaking to a stranger about these fields would naturally 
always refer to them as 'Bradley's' to make clear that they 
were not 'Titley's' as they look to be.r 
The first references to the manor in the middle thirteenth 
century already use the name 'Rode';2 with one or two 
exceptions the name Bradlege or Bradleys had by then al-
ready disappeared, though there seems to have been quite 
a number of prominent people in Herefordsrure in the 
Middle Ages- but not later- of the name of de Bradeleghe, 
de Bradele, or de Bradley,3 
The next Osbern manor in the group of eleven in Domes-
day is so obviously Titley that no further evidence need be 
adduced for identification. The name means Tita's Ley.4 
'Titlege' is twice referred to in Domesday as held by Osbern, 
once in Hezetre Hundred and again in Elsedune Hundred. 
Many commentators have assumed that plural entries of a 
named manor in the survey were evidence of careless and 
faulty compilation of the inventory from more than one list. 
This explanation is' difficult to accept where the particulars 
of the two (o r more) entries of the same name differ widely 
from each other in description. Provided that land in the 
I The argument for Bradlege = Rodd was presented in Trs. Rad. Soc., 
vol. xiv, of 1944: the main conclusions stand, but the author has since then 
modified certain other deductions, notably on the subject of Querentune 
manor and the post-Domesday manor of Combe (see above). 
2 e.g. Curia Regis Roll 72, 4 Hy. III (1220); concerning a virgate of hnd 
'in Rode' : from the middle of the centUry the references increase in number. 
3 Described in Chap. VI. 
4 Bannister, Place-Names of Hereford, pp. 185- 6, and Ekwall, p. 453. 
Vaffry on the March 
a):ea is available for more than one manor, far the easiest and 
most logical assumption is that there were in fact two (or 
more) tenements in the one place-area, that is, of course, 
when the entries differ widely from each other in particulars. 
We shall come in due course to the Cas cob manor where 
Domesday has an entry under this name, in the two surveys 
for Herefordshire and Shropshire. Here the particulars are 
the same in both cases and as the manor lay in a remote 
corner where the two counties met and could reasonably 
have been placed in either, the same single manor is ob-
viously intended. 
For Titley the particulars of the two entries are only a 
few lines apart in the Domesday text and the most careless 
scribe could not have failed to notice a slip in compilation 
if really only one Titley manor existed. Both were held as 
stated by the same tenant, the particulars differing from each 
other in that! 
(i) Titley in Hezetre is one of eleven manors, which 
Osbern 'holds and held' 'on the March of Wales', 
'which was and is waste', and 'never paid geld'. It 
was of 3 hides. 
(ii) Titley in Elsedune was formerly held by Earl Harold, 
where 'there are three hides geldantes' with land for 
six ploughs, which 'was and is waste' but where there 
'nevertheless ("tamen") is a "haia" in a small wood'. 
This entry follows the entry about all the Osbern 
:vaste lands in which there was nothing except hunt-
lng . 
. There is plenty of arable land for two manors below the 
6oo-foot contour around the present sprawling village of 
Titley with which must be included the park and farm land 
of the mansion of Eywood, until fairly recently the pro-
perty of the Harley family, who were Earls of Oxford. In 
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the lands both of 
Eywood and of Titley Court were much embellished by 
'landscaping' to make parks around the residences. The 
village of Titley also grew a good deal and a new turnpike 
road was constructed to connect Presteigne with Kington 
I Cf. B.D.B., f. 34. 
Of tile Domesday Manors 
by way of Rodd Hurst and Titley, to take the place of the 
old turnpike which ran over the top of the hills on the south 
side of the Hindwell and came down by Oatcroft to a point 
on the present Kington road near Rushock, west ofEywood. 
The effect of all this has been to modify local topography 
very considerably. 
The existence of two Titley manors in two different 
hundreds must be accepted. They thus fix the boundary 
between the two hundreds precisely if the sites of the two 
manors can be ascertained. Happily evidence does exist in 
the archives of Winchester College to identify the manor 
arable fields of the Hezetre manor of Titlege. The college 
deeds from the reign of Henry II include Court Rolls for 
1290 and accounts from 1397. 1 A map of the college lands 
shows the village and fields around the church and Titley 
Court before the layout was affected by building, 'land-
scaping', and road-making. From these documents, it is 
perfectly clear that the arable fields of Osbern's Titlege 
manor in Hezetre Hundred ran north-west from the church. 
This leaves the second Titlege manor which Earl Harold 
had before Osbern T.R.E. in the Eywood-Flintsham area 
a mile or so south of Titley church. 
Soon after Domesday, and continuously thereafter, there 
occur references among the manors of Ie Scrob, and later 
of the Stapleton-Lugharnes group of estates to a manor and 
vill of Attecroft. The association of this name with places 
like Wapley, La Rode, Staunton-on-Arrow, &c., makes it 
quite clear that the place was in their neighbourhood. These 
references are too numerous to quote here, but many of them 
will appear when this group of manors is considered in the 
Middle Ages and Tudor era. Attecroft can readily be identi-
fied with Oatcroft, the name of the home-farm lying 800 
feet in the dingle above the mansion of Eywood. It seems 
highly probable that 'Oatcroft Farm' preserves the name of 
Attecroft manor when this developed into a residential 
manor-house on 'the former manorial holding of the Titley 
manor in Elsedune Hundred. While the old land remairlS as 
stated unidentifiable on account of the changes wrought in 
I Private correspondence with the archivist of Winchester College to whom 
the author is indebted for the information and a photograph of the estate map. 
B 6851 F 
66 Valley on the March 
the eighteenth century to create Eywood Park, the land 
between Flintsham and the mansion in its park is entirely 
suitable for an early manor in elevation, aspect, water-
supply, and fertility. The use of the name Attecroft-Oatcroft 
to distinguish the holding from Titley in Hezetre needs no 
labouring. 
The boundary between Elsedune and Hezetre Hundreds, 
starting from the west, must, therefore, have followed the 
crestline of Hergest ridge leaving Burlingjobb in the latter 
and the Hergest manors in the former hundred. It then 
crossed the Arrow Valley to the ridge of Bradnor and Rush-
ock Hills, leaving the Rushock manors in Elsedune and 
Knill in Hezetre. From Rushock Hill it cut in two the 
present settlement of Titley, leaving Oatcroft Farm and 
Eywood in Elsedune and crossing the modern road south 
of Titley Court. East of this point the boundary included 
in Hezetre, geographically but not administratively, the 
Domesday manors ofWapley (Wapleton) and Staunton-on-
Arrow (Stantona). 
Both the Titley manors, to which we shall come again, 
are found as might be expected from Osbern's ownership in 
the post-Domesday manor of Stapleton and Lugharnes. The 
records of this lordship also refer to Titley as an ecclesi-
astical holding of the abbey of Tyron.1 This is obviously the 
Hezetre Titley manor which Osbern held T .R.E., some of 
the lands of which now belong to Winchester College. The 
other Titley manor in Elsedune later is found to depend 
from the lordship of Huntington.2 
Wapley (Wapleton), the extra-hundredal manor which 
Osbern held 'as it is said' of the king and which he held 
T.R.E., is one of the large group of manors recorded in 
Domesday under the heading: 'These lands below written 
lay with [the manor of] Leominster in the time of King 
Edward.' Wapley manor is represented by the arable land 
at Stansbatch in Staunton-on-Arrow parish on the southern 
slopes ofWapley Hill. It was thus contiguous with Osbern's 
manors of Bradlege and Titlege, but unlike these was not 
I Duncumb, vol. i, pp. 203 et seq. 
2 I.P.M. H y. VII, vol. i, 549, Ser. II; vol. v, 96, c. '42, Ser. II; f.16407/ 
E. 1)0; also FF. 38 Eliz. C. 25/2/135, Hilary 1)96. 
Of the Domesday Manors 
waste. It had 2 hides 'geldantes' and was worth 20S. with 
one 'radchenist', one villein, and 22 bordars with six ploughs 
between them. Rill de Mortimer's neighbouring extra-
hundredal manor of Staunton-on-Arrow of 2 hides was also 
working and was worth 40S.1 
Walking over the hill by Green Lane after leaving the 
manor arable fields of Titley in Hezetre Hundred, the 
Domesday surveyor of Osbern's lands would use the track 
from Titley church which runs beside one of the old arable 
fields, and reaches the crest of the hills on the south side of 
the Hindwell Valley at a high fold, now called Burnt House, 
where the old turnpike from Presteigne to Kington used to 
cross the hill. From Burnt House he would look straight 
down the scarp of the hill on to Little Brampton which was 
Osbern's Bruntune in the parish of Rodd, Nash & Little 
Brampton. The present lovely and interesting sixteenth-
century farmhouse of Little Brampton surrounded by its 
contemporary farm buildings, lies on the track which con-
nects the Hindwell Valley manors from Knill to Rodd along 
the foot of the hills on the right bank of the river above 
flood-level at the 55 o-foot contour. The old arable fields 
of Bruntune lie along this old track.2 
The Little Brampton manor lands marched with Nash 
down the valley and with Knill up the valley farther west. 
Records of Little Brampton are difficult to follow because of 
numerous references to several other Bramptons in Here-
fordshire. It is 'Little' today because of the greater and 
better-known Brampton Bryan near Leintwardine, the seat 
of the Harleys with the ruins of their castle, from which 
their extensive lancj.s once spread across the county as far 
as Eywood and the sheep-walks of Little Brampton and 
Knill. There is also a Brampton Abbot near Ross as well as 
several Brampton or Brompton localities in neighbouring 
counties. The name of Little Brampton and other Bramptons 
is reputed by Ekwall to mean the '''tun'' where broom 
grows' but Bannister3 gives the meaning as 'the tun of Bran 
(or Bron)'. The former meaning obviously accounts for the 
I B.D.B., If. 8vand 20V, pp. 12 and 38. 
2 See below, Chap. IV; there and elsewhere called the 'Manor Road'. 
3 Bannister, The Plate-Names of Herejordshire, p. 24. 
68 Va/fry on the March 
frequency of the name and might be applicable to Little 
Brampton, on account of the furze and heathland high up 
above the site. But there is no doubt that Bannister's version 
is more correct so far as Little Brampton is concerned, for 
the place is still locally always known as Bron. The lane, 
a section of the old Manor Road between Rodd and Little 
Brampton, is invariably called Bron Lane. There was at one 
time a June (St. John's day) fair at Little Brampton called 
Bron Fair. The traditional date locally for planting roots is 
'at the time of Bron Fair', namely 21/22 June. The fair still 
survived-just-tilliately when a few horses were brought 
for sale. The date, the Summer Solstice, is significant. This 
local use of the name 'Bron' represents an interesting sur-
vival of an age-old name in the living memory of local 
people. It is significant incidentally that the 'a' in words like 
'Bran' tends in the west of England, as compared with 
Midland and Eastern counties, to become '0' or 'u'. 
The next Osbern manor to the west is Chenille, today 
called Knill. It became the most important of the Hindwell 
Valley manors on account of the two families which lived 
there, the de Knills and the Walshams who inherited from 
the former and held the land till the beginning of this cen-
tury. Both families contributed distinguished men to the 
county and the country. The 2-hide manor of Chenille con-
stituted and constitutes the small parish of Knill with its 
own church dating from, at any rate, the thirteenth century.! 
Its land also lay and lies wholly within the parish boundary 
which included some high sheepwalks on Knill Garraway. 
This manor and the next small Osbern manor farther west 
in Lower Harpton parish were closely associated in · the 
Middle Ages. The boundaries of the two parishes are also 
in part the boundary between Herefordshire and Radnor-
shire today and so the border between England and Wales.z 
It was only in very recent years that Knill Farm land, the old 
manor land, was extended beyond the parish boundary to 
include Burfa Hill in the newer Radnorshire parish of 
t Register of Bp. Thomas de Conti/upe, 18 Sept. 1277, when the rectors of 
Knill and Brampton (not Little Bramptop) failed to appear at Leominster to 
receive orders (C.Y.S.). 
• Cf. Offa's Dyke at this point; see p. 22 above. 
Of the Domesday Manors 
Evenjobb: more lately still this extension has come to an 
end, when Burfa Hill was taken over by the Forestq Com-
mission and Knill Farm is again what Knill manor was. 
The old arable of Knill can be traced without much 
difficulty on either side of the modern road to Presteigne 
on the left bank of the Hindwell. The manor-house stood 
near the small church of St. Michael on the steep edge of 
aJ2lufLoxer tlle river. TholJJ!:h on fl, J2JIlall scale, the site iL __ 
ERR ATUM 
P. 68, line 8. For Little Brampton, read Brampton Bryan 
Valley on the March 
fectrugIlIess tl:ian a mile away,lscrossea.- ByOIffTDy.Ke. 
In the spring the steep sides are clothed with bluebells : the 
tops are yellow and brown with furze and bracken above 
the pale green of the opening beeches . 
The manor-house of Knill Court was enlarged and much 
too lavishly embellished in the Victorian-Jacobean manner 
of th~ late nineteenth centuq. It had lost nearly all its older 
architectural features . A fire gutted the house when in use 
as a school in the Second World War. It will never be 
rebuilt. The gardens and pleasure grounds of this ancient 
settlement are reverting to the waste which they were when 
Osbern had the land. Some future generation of botanists 
may be puzzled by the growth of exotic trees descended 
from the fine specimens planted by the Walshams a few 
decades ago. Knill Farm is now owned by the former 
tenant family: it is a beautiful farm well farmed. Succeeding 
generations of this family are maintaining the continuity of 
cultivation which has been the story of the Hindwell Valley 
68 Valley on the March 
frequency of the name and might be applicable to Little 
Brampton, on account of the furze and heathland high up 
above the site. But there is no doubt that Bannister's version 
is more correct so far as Little Brampton is concerned, for 
the place is still locally always known as Bron. The lane, 
a section of the old Manor Road between Rodd and Little 
Brampton, is invariably called Bron Lane. There was at one 
_ t-t_1:n_P 0 ~,. .: U :l. . .t:L ~kbd~ d LLUV ....a..1.1!.... {lj- T ittlp ..R~CjT"T'\b .,.f'\a'-"">.JJ.<. ....._  
tury. Both families contributed distinguished men to the 
county and the country. The z-hide manor of Chenille con-
stituted and constitutes the small parish of Knill with its 
own church dating from, at any rate, the thirteenth century.! 
Its land also lay and lies wholly within the parish boundary 
which included some high sheepwalks on Knill Garraway. 
This manor and the next small Osbern manor farther west 
in Lower Harpton parish were closely associated in · the 
Middle Ages. The boundaries of the two parishes are also 
in part the boundary between Herefordshire and Radnor-
shire today and so the border between England and Wales.2 
It was only in very recent years that Knill Farm land, the old 
manor land, was extended beyond the parish boundary to 
include Burfa Hill in the newer Radnorshire parish of 
1 Register of Bp. Thomas de Canti/upe, 18 Sept. 1277, when the rectors of 
Knill and Brampton (not Little Bramptop) failed to appear at Leominster to 
receive orders (c. y .S.). 
i Cf. Olfa's Dyke at this point; see p. 22 above. 
Of the Domesday Manors 
Evenjobb: more lately still this extension has come to an 
end, when Burfa Hill was taken over by the Forestry Com-
mission and Knill Farm is again what Knill manor was. 
The old arable of Knill can be traced without much 
difficulty on either side of the modern road to Presteigne 
on the left bank of the Hindwell. The manor-house stood 
near the small church of St. Michael on the steep edge of 
a bluff over the river. Though on a small scale, the site is 
as dramatic and beautiful as any in the county. The sheer 
edge of the rock is lapped by the waters of the stream. 
Beyond, and below the house, is a deep green expanse of 
water-meadow, criss-crossed by irrigation and drainage 
ditches. It is a residual marsh descended from a glacier lake 
whose lip was near the ford where the track .from Knill 
crosses the Hindwell to join the Manor Road to Little 
Brampton, Nash & The Rodd, clinging to the foot of the 
steep right side of the valley above flood-level. The fold 
yard in the cwm opposite Knill serves the amphitheatre of 
water-meadow under Herrock Hill and below the terrace of 
Knill Court. It is still called Lake Buildings. Beyond the 
emerald green basin are the hanging beech and oak woods 
of Knill Garraway and Herrock. The open moorland, 1,200 
feet high less than a mile away, is crossed by Offa's Dyke. 
In the spring the steep sides are clothed with bluebelJs : the 
tops are yellow and brown with furze and bracken above 
the pale green of the opening beeches. 
The manor-house of Knill Court was enlarged and much 
too lavishly embellished in the Victorian-Jacobean manner 
of the late nineteenth century. It had lost nearly all its older 
architectural features. A fire gutted the house when in use 
as a school in the Second World War. It will never be 
rebuilt. The gardens and pleasure grounds of this ancient 
settlement are reverting to the waste which they were when 
Osbern had the land. Some future generation of botanists 
may be puzzled by the growth of exotic trees descended 
from the fine specimens planted by the Walshams a few 
decades ago. Knill Farm is now owned by the former 
tenant family: it is a beautiful farm well farmed. Succeeding 
generations of this family are maintaining the continuity of 
cultivation which has been the story of the Hindwell Valley 
Valley on the March 
for a thousand years. With the freehold farmer of Little 
Brampton they have contributed much to maintaining the 
parish church of St. Michael at Knill as an active Christian 
place of devotion in this small and remote parish of four 
dozen inhabitants. 
The next manor beyond Knill, Hercope, on the list of 
Osbern's holdings in this area, has puzzled everyone. The 
author had considered attributing this manor to Combe until 
he was struck by the order of listing of manors in Hezetre 
Hundred in Domesday. From this ordeJ; and from certain 
additional evidence, it is now quite clear that Hercope was 
what is today called Lower Harpton, which heeds some 
explanation. 
Lower Harpton is a small churchless parish lying just in 
England and, as already noted, crossed by Offa's Dyke. It is 
bounded by the parishes of Knill and Kington Rural in 
Herefordshire, and by the two parishes of Old Radnor & 
Burlingjobb and Walton & Womaston in Radnorshire. It 
contains and contained within these boundaries, only one 
farm, now called Lower Harpton Farm, the Hill of Herrock, 
and half a dozen cottages nestling in a cwm of the hill. Even 
150 years ago when the agricultural population was heavier 
than today, Duncumb records it as a township of only 77 
inhabitants, the total population of the parish. It is separated 
from the much larger parish of Harpton & Wolfpits in Rad-
norshire by the intervening parishes of Old Radnor & 
Burlingjobb and Walton & Womaston: it has no sort of 
connexion with the larger Harpton parish, manor, mansion, 
or estate. Even as Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton, Old 
Radnor & Burlingjobb, and Knill are parishes consisting 
wholly of three, two, and one known manors respectively, 
it appeared that the only raison d'etre of Lower Harpton as 
a parish is because it was a manor too; and this was the 
only available identification if the order of listing meant 
anything. There is just about enough dry, low, old arable 
for a i -hide manor between Navages Wood and Herrock 
Hill. The land lies between the 700- and 600-foot contours 
with a little land below 600 feet, clear of flooding by the 
Riddings brook which runs from Walton past Lower Harp-
ton into the Hindwell at Ditch Hill Bridge. The explanation 
Of the Domesday Manors 71 
of the name Harpton now offered is that it is a corruption of 
Hercopetun or Herecoptun in which the name Hercope or 
Herecope of Domesday lies concealed. This concords with 
entries in the Knill Parish Register which refer to 'Lower 
Heracton', and to 'Herton' but never 'Harpton' in the 
seventeenth-century Hearth Tax Rolls. 
An Elizabethan survey of the manor of Herton l [sic] 
records holdings in the manor of demesne land, free land, 
and land held of superior landlords of 112 acres. Of these, 
28 acres are described as arable, 27 acres as pasture or 
meadow, and 57 acres are not described. The only two large 
plots are of 30 and 18 acres respectively. There were six 
messuages, all but one of which were held of the lady of the 
manor who can be identified as the wife, and later the widow, 
of Francis Knill, and who was buried at Knill on I I March 
1600. Certain of the Herton tenants' names also occur in the 
Knill Subsidy Rolls. Although the list of parcels of land is 
not complete and all the acreages are not given, the area 
described corresponds pretty well with what one could 
expect of a i -hide manor within the topography of Lower 
Harpton parish. The place, the hills, and field names like 
'Herrock' and 'Navage', confirm the association of Herton 
with Lower Harpton and make it clear that it had nothing 
to do with the Harpton farther west. There is a reference in 
the description of parcels of land to the 'poste' or 'highway' 
which must be the Manor Road along the Hindwell, while 
those to a 'broadway' seem by contrast to refer to the track 
up the cwm to the Ridgeway.2 In spite of its close association 
with Knill, Lower Harpton, or as it can more simply be 
called, Herton, was still technically a manor in 1600, though 
it had evidently for some time already been virtually ab-
sorbed by Knill. It WaS obviously too small to survive as 
a separate agricultural manor unit. 
Beyond Hercope is Wales, with the dome of Radnor 
Forest dominating the north-western horizon. From Walton 
cross-roads the modern road runs west to N ew Radnor 
leaving Old Radnor Hill and the shelf of Old Radnor church 
on the left. Below them the road cuts through the old arable 
I B.M. Add!. MS. 276°5, If. 111-1 5,40-41 Eliz. (1598/9). 
2 See below, Chap. lV. 
72. Vallry on the March 
fields of Harold Godwinson's I5-hide manor of Radenoure. 
About a mile from Walton lies the park and mansion of 
Harpton Court. There is no reason to seek Domesday 
Hertune elsewhere than, in accordance with accepted tradi-
tion, at or around Harpton Court in the parish of Harpton 
& Wolfpits. There is plenty of good plain land on the 600-
7oo-foot level for the 3 hides of the Hertune assessment. 
From this westernmost of Osbern's manors, the Domes-
day recorder turned back but used the left bank of the Hind-
well leaving Knill on his right and the scar of Nash rocks 
on the left, till he came to a ford over the river about a mile 
due west of The Rodd. Here the river runs in a fairly deep 
cut before it fans but into the meanders and marshland at 
Rodd Bridge where it burst through the gravel of the local 
transverse moraine. On the bank just .across the ford is Nash 
settlement, now containing two farmhouses, a forge, and a 
few cottages. Two farms now divide the Nash manor land 
between them. The wooden footbridge over the Hindwell 
is carried on massive masonry piers of the older pack bridge. I 
There is ample room between Little Brampton and The 
Rodd for the old arable fields of the Nash I-hide manor. 
Like the other two manors, Nash has its proportion of 
watermeadow and woodland. Architecturally, the Nash 
group of buildings is interesting. One of the houses has 
some very remarkable oak panelling and carved over-
mantles .2 The original Domesday name, Hech, is Ash-the 
ash tree-the prefixed 'N' having been derived from the 
dative inflexion of the Middle English definite article, usually 
combined with the preposition 'at' in the form 'atten' : thus 
'atten ash' = 'at the Ash tree' . This in due course became 
corrupted to 'at' or 'atte Nash'. An analogous example of 
the transposed 'N' can be found in the Oxfordshire Noke 
for 'atten oak'.3 There is another Nash in Monmouthshire, 
which is recorded as Ecclesia de Fraxino. The families of 
de la Nasshe, Nash, de Fraxino, or de Frene associated with 
this manor appear to be the same family, orrelated branches ..~  
Following in order of listing comes Clatretune manor 
I Lately rebuilt in concrete I Z R.C.H.M., vol. iii, p. 176. 
, See Bannister, Herefordshire Place-Names, and Ekwall at appropriate 
entries. 4 See below, especially Chaps. V and VI. 
oj the Domesday Manors 73 
which name obviously -survives in Clatterbrune on the 
Gatter Brook at the outskirts of Presteigne. The name 
clearly means the tun on the Gatter(brook). Where the 
original manor stood is difficult to judge owing to topo-
graphical changes due to the growth of Presteigne. A pos-
sible site is at Whitewall Farm. The old arable fields of this 
manor of 2 hides are, however, quite obvious on either side 
of the road from Presteigne to Combe Bridge, west of the 
'Cat and Fiddle' cottage and before Broadheath is reached. 
The land is above the flood-level of either the Hindwell or 
Lugg between which it lies. 
The site of the next of Osbern's group of manors, Queren-
tune, is puzzling. The name appears, in the inventory, 
between Clatretune and Discote; it was that of a I-hide 
manor. Geographically, the manor ought to be looked 
for in the Lugg Valley between Presteigne and Discoed. 
From a vague similarity of names, Kinnerton in the Radnor 
basin has been suggested but the land there is high, all over 
the 700-foot level, and that locality would make the order of 
listing incoherent. The obvious place to seek the manor is 
somewhere between Clatterbrune and Discoed (Dis cote) in 
the Lugg Valley. 
The Shropshire Domesday survey records several manors ' 
in the Lenteurde (Leintwardine) Hundred which are now in 
Herefordshire or Radnorshire, including, near Presteigne, 
Norton, Lingen, and Lege, which will be dealt with later. 
Most of these were held by Ralf de Mortimer with several 
more in the Leintwardine-Brampton Bryan-Pedwardine 
area, as would be expected. But Hugh l'A sne held the im-
portant manors of Norton and Knighton, north of Pres-
teigne, each of 5 hides, 'in capite from the King', but 'they 
were and are waste'. One Leftet held Norton in Edward the 
Confessor's time, and there was then a great wood, which 
can still be seen to have covered most of the country between 
Lugg and Teme. In addition to Hugh the Ass and Ralf de 
Mortimer, Osbern fitz Richard held a small manor in this 
part of Lenteurde Hundred called Achel which Edricus, pro-
bably Eadric the Savage, held T.R.E. It was then of 3 hides 
with six ploughs but by Domesday had become and was 
waste. In a mutilated inquest of 1304, Edmund de Mortimer 
74 Va//~ on the March 
was seized of something at Akhull in Salop. Achel and 
Akhull have been identified as Ackhill near Presteigne and 
Oakhill near Stanage, between Knighton and Brampton 
Bryan.! Now, the identification of Achel has a bearing on 
the site of Querentune. Both Ackhill and Oakhill, as well as 
Norton, Lingen, and Ralf de Mortimer's Lege at Lower 
Lye2 in Lenteurde Hundred are north of the Lugg. Osbern's 
Cas cope, Discote, and Clatretune are on the south bank of 
the Lugg in Hezetre Hundred of Herefordshire. The Lugg 
here, therefore, seems to have been the boundary between 
Hezetre and Lenteurde Hundreds and so between the 
counties. Topographically it would be more logical and 
politically more probable for Osbern to have held Achel = 
Ackhill on the Lugg, which is near his other Lugg manors 
and not far from Clatterbrune, than for him to hold Achel = 
Oakhill near Stanage which would be an isolated manor 
in the heart of the Mortimer country. Ackhill on the Lugg 
west of Presteigne therefore seems to be the most probable 
~dentification of Osbern's Achel manor in Lenteurde Hun-
dred. We would then have, combining the Shropshire and 
Herefordshire entries, as the order of the latter part of the 
list of Osbern's manors: Clatretune, Querentune, Achel, 
Discote, and Cas cope. 
At Ackhill, there is good flood-free land for manor arable 
round the farm and lodge of that name north of the Pres-
teigne-Whitton-Pilleth road which takes off from the Pres-
teigne-Beggar's Bush-New Radnor road at Rock Bridge 
over the Lugg. There is probably, but only just, room at 
Ackhill for a manor carrying six ploughs; but the land lies 
well and would probably justify a 3-hide assessment. There 
is no room for another manor between Discote and Achel 
(Discoed and Ackhill). Consequently, Querentune ought to 
be sought downstream from Ackhill. 
The name Querentune should mean the tun of the quern, 
or millstone, or millstone rock, or even the mill. Just west 
of Presteigne on the main road is a house called St. Mary's 
Mill : there are traces of a mill on the Lugg stream 200 yards 
away and 50 feet below the house. There are also traces of 
I Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vol. xi, p. 343. 
, Osbern's Lege at Upper Lye is actually on the left bank of the Lugg too. 
Of the Domesday Manors 75 
mills and mill sites lower down the Lugg near Boultibrooke 
Bridge, where the Norton-Knighton road branches. There 
are more mill sites or works at several points on the Norton 
brook below Boultibrooke House, as well as Norton Mill 
itself which presumably went with Norton manor. But as 
Querentune was in Hezetre Hundred and the Lugg appar-
ently was the boundary with Lenteurde Hundred, Queren-
tune must be looked for on the right or south bank of the 
Lugg and not like Ackhill and Norton on the north bank, 
where all the Norton brook and Boultibrooke Mill sites lie. 
There is sufficient land for a small I-hide manor on good, 
flood-free, flat land between the 500- and 600-foot con-
tours on the high south bank of the Lugg between the 
house called St. Mary's Mill and the western end of Pres-
teigne, either side of the Norton! road fork. Moreover, as 
we shall see later, the two old arable fields near St. Mary's 
Mill are characteristic in shape and size of other similar old 
arable fields in this group of manors . The name St. Mary's 
Mill has puzzled people because it never could have been 
the mill itself, but the dwelling is also called St. Mary's Mill 
House. Does the name of this interesting little eighteenth-
century house with low, bow windows perhaps preserve the 
memory of Querentune, the manor of the quem or mill? 
It is probable. 
Of Discote and Cascope it is not necessary to say more 
than that these manors are near Discoed and at Cascob up 
the Lugg above Presteigne. Discoed now farms a lot of high 
ground, above the church and settlement which lie in a 
small steep cwm just above the Presteigne road. The Discote 
manor land was certainly in the valley with the manor fields 
near the present main road ; the high ground now farmed 
was too high for an agricultural unit in the eleventh century 
of the locally uniform type to which all those hitherto con-
sidered belong. The Discoed manor arable therefore prob-
ably lay near the Maes Treylow cross-roads just west of 
Discoed and practically on Offa's Dyke. Whether Discote is 
, The obvious manor arable at Norton H o me Farm is, of course, required 
or the hrge manor of Norton. There is some good and suitable land at 
Boultibrooke but this (like the mill sites except for the one near St. Mary'S 
Mill) is north of the Lugg and certainly in Lenteurde Hundred. 
Va/try on the March 
a Normanized version of the Welsh Discoed or whether 
Discote was Gallicized into Discoed, as has happened in 
other cases of other local place-names, is not material. Dis-
coed is a single manor parish with its own church dependent 
. on the mother church of Prest eigne. A lane runs up the cwm 
to the high pastures at Thorn whence green roads and tracks 
lead to Presteigne, Barland, Knill, and the west. Discoed 
was quite accessible from the Hindwell Valley manors on 
foot or by horse, though today the metalled road which 
fetches a circuitous route around the high land creates the 
illusion of Discoed being remote from Osbern's other 
manors. 
Cascob is another one-manor parish with its own early 
church. It now consists of a group of small farms lying in 
a cul-de-sac. The branch road from the main Presteigne-
Maes Treylow cross-roads comes to an end in a cwm under 
the hills. There is an old and obviously well-worn track out 
of the basin westward which was a direct means of com-
munication before the main roads were built between Pres-
teigne and Penybont by Bleddfa or directly over the moor 
to Llanfihangel Rhydithon. The charming isolation of the 
Cas cob cwm is a product of better made and graded but 
more circuitous modern roads. The i -hide manor arable of 
Cas cob seems most likely to have lain along the side of the 
road by Duffryn Farm. The manor house was either there or 
at Court Farm near by. 
Cas cob manor is also recorded in the Domesday survey 
of Shropshire in the Hundred of Lenteurde (Leintwardine).1 
The details there given concord so accurately with those of 
the Herefordshire survey that they obviously refer to the 
same and not to another manor. They provide the addi-
tional information that this small i-hide manor had land 
for two ploughs, a wood, and a haia. 
This completes the tale of the Domesday manors of 
Osbern fitz Richard except for Lege which is away east 
beyond By ton. The name Lege· is more confusing even than 
Brampton in its numerous occurrences and variants. The 
modern forms Lye, Ley, Lea, &c., as single words, occur in 
r Cf. Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vol. xi, pp. 341-2; cf. in Chap. V, 
p.120. 
Of the Domesday Manors 77 
many parts of Herefordshire and in other counties. Names 
ending in -lay or -ly are, of course, legion. Osbern's Lege 
has been identified with The Ley, a very beautiful and well-
known sixteenth-century house near Weobley, mainly be-
cause it is the best known 'Ley' in the county. There is no 
reason whatsoever for associating this place with Osbern's 
Lege. 
As a matter of fact there are three Leges to be discussed 
in this context : (i) Osbern's Lege of t hide, which he held 
T.R.E., where 'there could be one plough and [which was] 
worth 5 shillings' . (li) Another Lege, also of t hide, held by 
Ralf de Mortimer, and by Elsi T .R.E. where Ralf had one 
plough with 'three bordars and there could be another 
plough'. This was evidently slightly the larger or better of 
these two Lege manors, though also worth only 5S. Domes-
day spells this manor 'Lecwe', but the Balliol ma.nuscript 
has 'Lege' in an annotation written over the evident mis-
spelling 'Lecwe'. (iii) Finally, Griffin, son of Meridiadoc, I 
among seven manors also held a Lege of 3 hides which had 
been held as two manors T .R.E. by Owein and Eilmar. Earl 
William had given this Lege to Griffin : it had four villeins, 
three bordars, and two ploughs, and was worth 15S. King 
William remitted the geld to Griffin and after him to his son. 
In this manor was a wood which was held by Ralf de Mor-
timer with 57 other acres. An appropriate cross-reference 
in the Domesday Book to this is also entered under Ralf's 
holdings. Evidently Ralf de Mortimer's and Griffin's manors 
were quite close to each other but not the same manor. All 
these three references to Lege are under the rubric Hezetre 
Hundred. 
The usual identification of these Leges has been with 
Upper and Lower Lye respectively, only a short distance 
apart, west of Aymestre and south of Wigmore. Upper Lye 
on the Lugg after it has entered the Kinsham gorge lies in 
heavily wooded country high up above the bank of the river 
at the 500- to 600-foot level. There is not room in this 
beautiful broken country for much more arable than would 
be appropriate to a i-hide manor with one plough. 
I Following B.D.B. spelling. D.B. has Mariadoc. 
Valley on the March 
The Ralf de Mortimer and Griffin lands of Lege must, 
therefore, be at Lower Lye which, in the case of the 
former, is also more logical since it lies nearer the main 
centre of the de Mortimer domains at Wigmore. Although 
. even Upper Lye is almost an enclave of Osbern's in Mor-
timer .country, since Covenhope on the road from Upper 
Lye to Mortimer's Cross and the important manors of 
Shobdon and Ledicot were also Mortimer estates, the 
district of Upper Lye could be considered to march with 
By ton which was Osbern's, whereas Lower Lye does 
not.! 
There is land suitable for ploughing at Lower Lye, but it 
is rather surprising to find two manors in so wooded and 
broken a piece of country as this is in the heart of the Wig-
more hills. The best that can be said about this difficulty is 
that the identification of Osbern's Lege manor with Upper 
Lye is tolerably certain and that of the Lege manors of Ralf 
de Mortimer and Griffin with Lower Lye follows from it. 
Incidentally the order of naming Ralf de Mortimer's manors 
in the group in which his Lege occurs is that of a surveyor 
leaving Wigmore Castle and making a circular sweep north-
east and east by Downton, Burrington, Aston, Elton, Lein-
thall Starkes, Leinthall Earls- then turning west and 
crossing the Wigmore- Aymestre road- Lower Lye (Lege), 
Covenhope, Shobdon, Staunton-on-Arrow. The only manor 
which looks out of place in this order of listing is Ledicot 
which comes at the end of this list and next before Pilleth: 
it could rather more logically have come between Covenhope 
and Shobdon. The Balliol Domesday manuscript clears up 
not only the mis-spelling of 'Lecwe' already referred to, but 
corrects the name ofRalf de Mortimer's manor at Hesintune 
by a marginal note 'id est Asciston', namely Aston, which 
falls beautifully into place between Elton and Leinthall 
Starkes. The only one of Osbern fltz Richard's manors 
which is annotated in the Balliol manuscript as being in the 
hands of another holder by I I 60-70 is his manor of Lege 
I These conclusions were reached before the Balliol Domesday MS. was 
published with the late Professor l Tait's notes with which they fully accord, 
especially on certain differences from Round's conclusions in the V.CH., 
p. 30 7. 
OJ the Domesday Manors 79 
at Upper Lye, the holder of which is described in the margin 
as Adam de Arundel. 
The association of 'Covenhope et Lege' in Feudal Aids 
might have been regarded as associating Upper Lye rather 
than Lower Lye with Ralf de Mortimer's Lege were it not 
for the fact that all the country, in which the two Lyes are, 
had before the end of the thirteenth century become Mor-
timer country by which time also several of the smaller 
manorial units either had disappeared or been merged. All 
Osbern fitz Richard's manors other than his Lege continue, 
however, to be identifiable as units in the thirteenth century 
after the Lyes have ceased to appear. 
Ralf de Mortimer's Lege (Lecwe = Lower Lye) is an-
notated in the margin of the Balliol transcript as being then 
held by Robert de Mortimer, a collateral branch of the 
Wigmore family, who became possessed of Osbern's 
Stapleton manor with its dependent Lugg and Hindwell 
manors by inheritance.! If, as is probable, the twelfth-thir-
teenth-century Stapleton group still included Upper Lye it 
is quite logical for Lower Lye to have become associated 
with this group of, by then, de Mortimer manors. 
A list of the Hezetre Hundred manors of Domesday is 
given as an appendix to this chapter, with their probable 
identifications with modem place-names. With the exception 
of Alae (40), the identifications seem tolerably certain. 
The Domesday-population figures for Herefordshire are 
too incomplete for any reliable estimate to be made of the 
total population of the county. The survey gives practically 
no figures for the partially administered areas of Ewyas 
Harold and Archen:field, and does not refer to any inhabi-
tants in the many 'waste' manors of Hezetre and Elsedune 
Hundreds. It by no means follows that a 'waste' manor 
which paid no geld was in fact completely uninhabited by 
1086 when the frontier troubles of the Gruffydd and Eadric 
campaigns had been ended for some years. The most recent 
estimate of population for the county of Herefordshire, as 
it now is (which excludes certain parts considered to be in 
the county in Domesday), is contained in The Domesdcry 
I B.D.B., p. 38, f. 20V, and p. 95; and see below, Chap. V, p. 121. 
80 Valley on the March 
Geograpl!J oj Midland England. This summary of the re-
corded population gives totals as follows: 
Rural population 
Villeins 1,730 
Bordars I,Z71 
Serfs . 739 
Bovarii 14Z 
Homines . .. 134 
King's men (Archenfield) 96 
Miscellaneous 349 
The miscellaneous category includes inter alia 68 radmen, 
47 Welshmen, 19 cottars, 17 freemen, and 11 free oxmen. 
Bondwomen (ancillae) are not included in the totals. The 
urban population figures are too fragmentary to have any 
value. 
If the figure of 5,000 heads of houses or families is taken, 
the population for the county, using a coefficient factor 
of 3' 5 to cover women and children, produces a total of 
17,500. The density of the rural population, as of plough 
teams, is, as would be expected, lowest in the frontier dis-
trict of the north-west and highest in the south-east. 
OJ the Domesday Manors 81 
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III 
Index of Manors and Identifications witb Modern 
Place-names in tbe Domesday Hundreds of 
Hezetre and Elsedune 
Tms ind~'{ has been compiled from the data contained in a paper 
prepared by the author for the W oolhope Club in Hereford and 
published in 1954 as the Centenary volume commemorating the 
anniversary of the Society founded in 1851. 
The numbers in the left-hand column refer to the lists and text 
of that paper. The full paper is too long to be included in this 
volume but may be studied by anyone interested in the subject, 
since some of the identifications given in this index are qualified in 
that text. This is notably so in connexion with the manors of 
Diluen, Leine, Hope in Elsedune, and the group of manors around 
Kinnersley and in southern Eardisley. 
The spelling of the names covers the principal variations be-
tween the old Domesday and the Balliol Domesday texts. 
HEZETRE 
(I) BERCHELINCOPE (BERKELINHOP) Burlingjobb 
(2) RADDRENoVRE (RADENOURE) Old Radno r 
(3) LEINE Kingsland 
(4) WIGEMORE CASTELLUM Wigmore 
(5) DUNTUNE (DUNTONA) Downton 
(6) BORITUNE (BORITONA) Burrington 
(7) HESINTUNE ('id est ASCISTON') Aston 
(8) ELINTUNE (ELINTONA) Elton 
(9) LENHALE (LENEHALE) Leinthall} Starks 
(10) LINTEHALE (LENTEHALE) Leinthall Earls 
(II) LECWE (LEGE) Lower Lye 
(12) CAMEHOP (Ck'dEHOPE, CAMEHOPA) Conhope----or Covenhope 
(13) SCEPEDUNE (SOBEDONA) Shobdon 
(14) STANTUNE (STANTONE, STANTONA) Staunton-on-Arrow 
(15) LEIDECOTE (LEDICOTE) Lidecote, nt. Shobdon 
(16) PELELEI (PULELAI) Pilleth on the Lugg 
(17) ORTUNE (HORTONA) Harpton 
(18) MILDETUNE (MILDETONA) Milton 
(19) WESTUNE (WESTONA) Weston in Pembridge 
(20) LAUTUNE (LAUTONE, LAUTONA) Lawton 
(21) LESTRET Street 
(22) LIDECOTE Ledicote 
(23) MILDETUNE (MILDETONE, MILDETONA) Milton 
(24) BOITUNE (BOITONE, BOITONA) Byt on 
B 6851 G 
82 Valley on the March 
(2) BRADLEGE (BRADELEGA) Rodd 
(26) TITLEGE (TITELEGA) Titley 
(27) BRUNTUNE (BRUNTONE, BRUNTONA) Little Brampton 
(28) CHENILLE (CHUNULLA) Knill 
(29) HERCOPE (HERCHOPA) Lower Harpton 
(30) HERTUNE (BERTONE, HORTONA) Quite evidently Harpton 
(3 I) HECH (HETH) Nash 
(32) CLATRETUNE (CLATRETONE, CLATRETONA) Clatterbrune by Presteigne 
(33) QUERENTUNE (QUERENTONE, QUERENTONA) Just east of Presteigne 
(34) DISCOTE Discoed 
(35) CAS COPE Cascob 
(36) LEGE (LEGA) Upper L ye 
(37) WAPLETONE Wapley by Stansbatch in 
Staunton-on-Arrow 
(38) BERNOLDUNE Un traced 
(39) LEGE Lower Lye 
(40) ALAc Perhaps Lucton 
(41) LUTELE (LUNTELEIE, LUNTELIE) Luntley in Pembridge 
ELSEDUNE 
(I) WITENIE Whitney on Wye 
(2) MATEURDIN (MATHEWURDAM) Untraced 
(3) HERDESLEGE (HERDESLEIE) Eardisley 
(4) CICUURDINE (CHICWORDINE) Chickward, 3 miles NNW. 
of Eardisley 
(5) ULFELMESTUNE (ULFELMESTONA) Welson nr. Eardisley 
(6) STIUINGEURDIN (STIUICHEWORDIN- w ith 
an inte;:lineation CHICWURDINE and mar-
ginal note CHICWORDIN) Chickward 
(7) HANTINTUNE (HUNTINTONA) Huntington, west of King-
ton 
(8) BURADESTUNE (BURACDESTONE, as an inter-
lineation BILLINGESHULLE, and the same 
in the margin) Bollingham 
(9) HERGESTH (BERGEST) Hergest, WSW. of King-
ton 
(10) BRUDEFORD Breadward nr. Kington 
(II) CHINGTUNE (CHINCHTONE, KINTONA) Kington 
(12) RUISCOPE (RuuIESCOP, Rurssoc) Rushock, north-east of 
Kington 
(13) HERGEST Hergest 
(14) BEURETUNE (BEUERTON) Barton, between Kington 
and Rushock 
(15) RUISCOPE (RUUIESCOP, RUISSOC) Rushock 
(16) WENNETONA Woonton in Eardisley 
( I 7) ELMELIE Alrneley 
(18) MIDEURDE (MIDEWRDE, MIDELWUD) Winforton Wood 
(19) WITENIE Whitney on Wye 
(20) WILLAUESLEGE and WIDFERDESTONE 
(WILAUESLAIA and WILFERTONA) Willersley & Winforton 
(21) ELBURGELEGA (EDBURGELEGA, KINARDS-
LEG) Kinnersley 
Of the Domesday Manors 
(22) HOPE (HoPA) Eardisley area 
(23) LEN HALE Lyonshall 
(24) WENNETUNE (WENTONA) Woonton in Eardisley 
(25) HERDESLEGE Eardisley 
(26) LETUNE (LECTONA) Lettou 
(26A) SARNESFELD Sarnesfield 
(27) RUISCOP (RU1SSOC) Rushock, nr, Kington 
(28) DILUEN' (D1LON, D1LUN) Dilwyn 
('9) SARNESFELDE Sarnesfield 
(30) TITLEGE Titley 
(31) WALELEGE Perhaps Ailey in Eardisley 
nr. Kianersley and Kin-
nersley Castle 
(32) C1CWRDINE (C1CUORDINE, CHICWURDINE) Chickward 
(33) LEGE Kianersley area 
(34) l\UTEURDIN (MAWERDIN MAUUERDIN) Untraced (cf. No .•)  
(35) CURDESLEGE Untraced 
(36) LUNTLEY Luntley 
CHAPTER IV 
Of Tracks and :Fields 
LARGE-SCALE map is ,an intimate description 
Aof the countryside. The more one looks at it, the more one flnds; and the more there seems to be left 
to flnd, even in an area which one knows quite well. But 
to read such a map is more than merely reading a descrip-
tion, for maps are also provocative inquisitors. They are 
always asking you if you know the reason for their state-
ments, and when you think you have found the reason they 
put another question. There are answers to all the questions 
and although many of the answers can be found on the map, 
some can only be found by examining the land itself. This 
is partly because a lot of information cannot be found on 
the surface, which is all that the map really tries to record. 
True, some under-surface facts can be deduced frorp. a sur-
face picture, and additional surface detail, as well as some 
information from below, can also be found on air photo-
graphs. Nevertheless, at long last you must really go and 
see for yourself to flnd the answers before you begin with 
the new set of questions which the map then again asks. 
An element of great importance in identifying old settle-
ments and their associated cultivation is the pattern of tracks 
and paths. They not only served as means of communication 
to and between manors, or earlier and other agricultural 
settlements, but frequently grew out of access ways to cul-
tivated plots, or to clearings surrounded by waste or wood-
land. 
Within the compass of this book only the tracks in the 
immediate neighbourhood of the Hindwell Valley group of 
manors can be discussed and then only in summary form. 
The map' which has been prepared from the appropriate 
I inch= I mile Ordnance Survey sheets shows Offa's Dyke 
, At p . I 18; parts of 0.5. I-inch sheets 128 and 129: Offa's Dyke and the 
Roman road shown in red, the manors and manor tracks in blue. 
Of Tracks and Fields 
and some of the tracks and paths discussed in the following 
pages and the previous chapter. But the basic map of course 
also shows communications as they exist today: also shows 
two highways and the remnants of another, all of which are 
modern or relatively modern. Their prominence on maps 
and on the ground has tended to obscure the pattern of paths 
and tracks associated with the manorial organization of the 
valley. For a medieval picture these must be mentally ob-
literated. The three roads in question are (i) the main Pres-
teigne-Kington road which passes just east of The Rodd, 
(li) the metalled side-road connecting this road with the 
Presteigne- Radnor main road, and crossing the Hindwell by 
a modern bridge called Broadhurst Bridge near Li ttle Bramp-
ton, and (iii) the old turnpike from Presteigne to Kington 
by way of Folley Farm, Nash ford, and Burnt House on the 
Green Lane ridgeway. The third of these roads was abandoned 
when the rust was built to avoid the steep gradients at Folley 
Farm and up the south side of the Hindwell Valley to Burnt 
House where the ascent survives only in an overgrown path 
called Trap Hill Lane. 
For the early medieval period the most important tra<;:ks 
are those which connected the manors with each other all 
the way from the Radnor basin to the Leominster plain where 
they joined the Roman road- Watling Street-from Ken-
chester (Magnis) to Leintwardine(Bravonium).1 The Manor 
Road can be followed from Harpton, by way of the manor 
of Old Radnor and Walton cross-roads to Combe and be-
yond. The track followed the line of the present main road 
from Harpton as far as Hercope or Lower Harpton, where 
the modern road now turns north, crossing the Hindwell 
at Ditch Hill Bridge in the narrowest part of the entrance 
to the valley below Burfa Camp and just west of Offa's Dyke. 
The old manor track kept to the south side of the river 
all the way. East of Lower Harpton it follows the 600-foot 
contour round the end of Herrock, circumnavigating the 
cwm below the hill between the 600- and 7oo-foot contours 
and leaving Lake Buildings and all the Knill water-meadows, 
between itself and the Hindwell. Opposite Knill, the Manor 
Road comes down again to the 600-foot contour and 
I See above, p. 18. Antorune Iter. XII. 
86 Valley on the March 
approaches the river at Knill ford where a short branch crosses 
the river to Knill itself. The track continues in a straight 
line from Knill ford to Little Brampton and is the access 
path to the Bruntune manor old arable fields between which 
it runs. Here it now becomes a narrow lane roughly metalled 
and just wide enough to take a cart. From Little Brampton 
it nins on towards Nash in the same form but very over-
grown with hedgerow trees and bushes until near its junc-
tion with the modern Broadhurst Bridge road into which it 
opens out to become the fully metalled and maintained side-
road joining the main Presteigne-Kington road just south 
of The Rodd at what was Rodd Turnpike Cottage before it 
was, quite lately, demolished. Before reaching Rodd Turn-
pike, the track runs between certain of The Rodd old arable 
fields. Throughout the stretch from Knill ford to Rodd Turn-
pike Cottage the Manor Road is sunk deep below the level 
of the fields each side. It is obviously of considerable anti-
quity. 
Just east of the Broadhurst Bridge road-Manor Road junc-
tion there is a side-road to Nash, abouqooyards away, leading 
to a ford and pack bridge over the Hindwell. In the opposite 
direction a track leads up the hill through the woods between 
Rodd Wood and Wychmoor to Bradley's Barn and joins 
Green Lane! at Green Lane Farm. From Rodd Turnpike 
to The Rodd is a matter of 250 yards along what is now the 
main Presteigne road. The name of the lane from Knill and 
Little Brampton to Rodd Turnpike is Bron Lane. It does 
not figure as such on maps; but, as already mentioned, Bron is 
the local name for Little Brampton and recalls the original 
name of Bron's (or Bran's) Tun. 
By TheRodd the Manor Road can be traced in a deep, broad 
ditch between the next two fields east of the main road. 
It then emerges into a 20-acre field under Ashley Vallet Wood 
where it was a well-marked embanked track until this was 
levelled for cultivation in 1948. The track leaves the parish 
ofRodd, Nash & Little Brampton by a stile in the boundary 
hedge and, skirting the back brook of the Hindwell on the 
right bank, reaches the early post-Domesday manor of 
Combe at Combe Farm. From here the Manor Road coin-
I See pp. 2 I and 63. 
OJ Tracks and Fields 
cides with the main Presteigne-Mortimer's Cross road to 
Byt on Hands, where a side turning leads to By ton manor. 
TI1e Manor Road, still on the alignment of the main road, 
then crosses the moraine col which encloses By ton bog near 
Woodhouse Farm, whence a lane leads to Milton, and 
pursues its way to Shobdon, the Mortimer manor of Scepe-
dune. Here the present main road now trends north-east to 
Mortimer's Cross, but the Manor Road goes on by a track 
to Ledicot manor where it crosses the Roman road from 
Kenchester to Leintwardine about a mile north of Street 
Court (Lestreet manor). The track continues east of the 
Roman road to Kingsland, and so into the heart of the great 
ecclesiastical manor of Leominster. The local importance of 
this Manor Road cannot be overstated, connecting as it does 
Leominster and the Roman highway with the Radnor basin 
and the ways into the Welsh hills. Throughout its course it 
keeps on flood-free ground south of the Hindwell and Lugg. 
It requites no btidges and uses only a few easy fords. It is a 
very ingenious low-level route through the cultivated lands 
of the district from or into the heart of the March. 
Along the crest of the southern side of the Hindwell Valley 
is a high ridgeway. Between Rodd Hurst and Herrock Hill 
it is called the Green Lane. Along the edge of the scarp over 
the Hindwell Valley it is part of the second alignment of 
Offa's Dyke.r It is a real 'ridgeway', and a droving road, 
probably older in date than Offa's D yke itself. On the heath-
land above Little Brampton Wood, one track branches off 
to Knill Garraway from which a deeply scored way descends 
the hillside to Knill ford. The main track over Herrock Hill 
runs along the line of a well-marked part of the Dyke com-
mon to both alignments. Farther west itthen leaves the Dyke 
to turn north at the Gore pass which it crosses transversely 
to Old Radnor Hill. Beyond Old Radnor the track is un-
certain, but it probably passes to the Tomen on the shoulder 
of Radnor Forest by the point where the roads to Builth 
and Penybont divide at the Pool of Llynellyn near the top 
of the cwm of Llanfihangel nant Melan. East of Green Lane 
Farm the ridgeway crosses the col at Rodd Hurst by a well-
marked track following the crest line of the escarpment at 
I Cf. Chap. II, p. 21. 
88 Valley on the March 
the top of Ashley Vallet Wood to Wapley with its camp. A 
case can be made for this ridgeway continuing over high 
ground all the way to Ludlow. 
The old track from Rodd Hurst to The Rodd is now in-
corporated in the main road to Presteigne. It is very deep-
cut until it comes out under the moraine bank on which The 
Rodd stands. There seems to have been a ford at Rodd 
Bridge over a shelf of rock and there certainly was another 
ford at Wegnall Farm where traces exist of a cobbled road 
-a 'pitched' road as they say locally-from The Rodd to 
Wegnall and on to the Clatterbrune manor fields as far as 
Whitewalls. It forms the base track of certain of Clatretune 
manor old arable fields. There is also another clearly defined 
track from Wegnall which runs between the east-west 
Clatterbrune old fields, eventually to join the modern Pres-
teigne-Combe Bridge road on Broad Heath. 
Of other tracks in the neighbourhood, it is not necessary 
to say much more than that an old track from IZnilI through 
the Knill old fields on the left bank of the Hindwell to Nash 
ford and by ~orton to Clatterbrune and Presteigne is in-
herently probable. 
The Presteigne-Combe Bridge-By ton road is not an old 
one. Even on Laby's 1817 map of mail coach and turnpike 
roads, this road is only shown as a side road. It is a modern 
growth out of one of the Clatretune manor fields access tracks 
and must have been even more liable to flood a thousand years 
ago than it, still, is today. 
Along the Lugg Valley there is another manor road ana-
logous with the Hindwell Valley Manor Road. It is re-
presented by a lane at flood-free level on the left bank, from 
the Lugg Bridge at Presteigne by points near Stapled on, 
Middle Moor and Bryan's Ground, to Kinsham, By ton, 
and Shobdon. 
When man sets about altering the face of nature even in 
a small way by clearing the forest or making a plot ready for 
cultivation, a great deal of work is involved and without 
continuous work to keep it open, a clearing can quickly 
disappear back into the forest or bush. It may happen that 
the type of the invading forest or bush after clearance will 
be different from its original state. It is, for instance, well 
MAP SHOWING MANORS (UNDERLINED) AND TRACKS IN BLUE IN T HE HI NDWELL AND LUGG VALLEYS IN NW. HEREFOR DSHIR E 
COli/piled frolll Ordnance SlIrvry. , in, = I mile, .thoel.! Nos . 123 al/d 129, by permjujoll of 11t( Director of Ihe Oranollce Survry 
OJ Tracks and Fields 
known that when the tall trees of a canopy forest have 
been cut down new growth of lower vegetation may be 
of a sort which will prevent any natural regeneration of the 
high forest. Clear falling of indigenous woods even in Eng-
land without replanting may produce an undergrowth in 
which the old type of woodland will not necessarily again 
grow naturally. Thus, an area once completely cleared for 
cultivation and kept clear for a long time, may not revert 
in historical time to the original type of woodland, and 
man will have left his mark. Nevertheless, the native growth 
of oak, ash, and thorn in Herefordshire on abandoned or 
neglected marginal farm land is probably not very different 
from the immemorial woods of the March except where 
some alteration in the water supply has taken place, or maple, 
elm, and beech have overtaken. 
When, in the course of cultivation or settlement, man starts 
moving earth he leaves even more indelible traces behind 
him. Abandoned clearings may revert to woodland, but earth 
once moved if covered with vegetation before it has been 
subject to rain erosion has a capacity of remaining put in a 
way which only millennial change can affect. Erosion is 
both a curiously rapid and a strangely slow process . A dust 
bowl can be created in a generation : over-grazing can make 
a desert in mty years: but ploughland a thousand years old 
can still be recognized. The foundation earthworks of a 
Roman villa betray themselves. A prehistoric trackway cut 
into the surface of the land by the passage of men and 
animals five thousand years ago remains. These things 
become the ineffaceable testimony of human occupation and 
toil. In the British Isles, where surface erosion is generally 
speaking a long-term phenomenon, it is almost true to say 
that when man has been settled for any length of time his 
traces are indelible until he himself deliberately sets about 
removing them. 
No one who has farmed old land which has been cul-
tivated to ridge and furrow needs to be told how difficult, 
laborious, and slow is the process of removing the ridges and 
filling the furrows which have been created by centuries of 
ploughing in a manner calculated to create or maintain them. 
Ridge and furrow has been quoted as a simple example 
90 Vaffry on the March 
because it is well known and well appreciated. But banks 
and ditches are even more lasting evidence though less 
observed until they are important enough to be classed as 
'ancient monuments'. Happily for those who are today try-
ing to increase the size of fields for modern agricultural 
machinery, not every field is surrounded by a substantial 
bank and ditch. Nevertheless, a great many fields are sur-
rounded by banks with or without ditches, and every hedge 
planted around a cultivated field tends to create a bank. 
Generally speaking, when a field is ploughed forwards and 
backwards along its most convenient run, a piece of land 
is left at each end where the plough, whether animal or 
tractor drawn, turns round to go the other way. This area, 
the headland, is today ploughed, in conjunction with the 
other sides, round and round the field to complete the cul-
tivation, and it is good practice to plough the headlands 
outwards and inwards in alternate years . In older systems 
with long teams of oxen and horses the cross headlands 
at each end of long, narrow fields were frequently not 
ploughed owing to the difficulty of turning a long draught 
team round a sharp corner in order to plough only a short 
run. The long sides were therefore ploughed nearer in to 
both edges than were the end headlands . There is some 
evidence from the shape of the old arable fields in this 
district that they were tapered at one or both ends to dim-
inish the area of the cross headlands of a long, narrow, 
rectangular fieJd. 1 
In all good husbandry the plough is and always was 
worked as close as possible to the side boundaries, both to use 
the available land as much as possible and also to clear away 
the weeds at the edges. To get as near the edge as possible, 
the last furrow slice is most easily turned away from the 
boundary hedge or fence or bank towards the field or strip. 
If this process of always ploughing away from the boundary 
hedge, fence, or baulk towards the field or strip is continued 
decade after decade, the effect in due course is to produce a 
boundary bank where originally there was only an un-
ploughed baulk. Not all banks, of course, owe their existence 
to this, because many are also due to the excavation of a 
I Cf. Figs. 2 and 7 at pp. 99 and 108. 
Of Tracks and Fields 91 
ditch for drainage. But where no ditch is needed, ploughing 
will in practice tend to create a bank and where there is a 
bank and ditch, the bank will tend to grow in breadth at its 
base and in apparent height with respect to the rest of the 
field. Even if not deliberately planted, vegetation will grow 
on the baulk or bank and eventually form the basis of a 
hedge: and growing hedges with the decay and regrowth 
of shrub, bushes, and finally trees tend to accentuate and 
enlarge the bank on which they are planted or have come 
into being. In countrysides where stones have to be cleared 
from fields, banks tend to grow in the same way, which is 
why so often one sees dry stone walls on the top of banks. 
In this country, where thanks to the rapid growth of 
vegetation erosion by rain is rarely present as an active 
levelling agency, banks once created are very durable. That 
this is so is widely accepted; but many who are not country-
men fail to recognize how formidable a tIling is a bank 
even when not reinforced by old roots, stumps, or growing 
trees of all sizes and stones piled on from the field surface. 
A bank of packed earth 3 feet high and only 2 feet broad at 
the top and say 6 feet broad at the base contains per yard 
run 36 cubic feet of earth which weighs a little over Ii 
tons. A square lo-acre field has four sides each of one fur-
long-220 yards . The modest bank described surrounding 
such a field therefore contains some 1,400 tons of earth. 
Small wonder that when a bank has come into existence men 
hesitate to remove it even if free of stumps and tree roots, 
without modern machinery. As it is equally obvious that 
banks or ditch@s did not come into existence unless there 
was some good reason for them, it follows that the purpose 
of a bank is significant and that its size and shape are fre-
quently measures ·of its age and origin. 
While all this may be obvious to the countryman and of 
course nowadays to most archaeologists, the value of banks, 
ditches, hedges, and field boundaries as historical evidence 
is still not properly appreciated. Nor can this evidence gen-
erally be collected even from a large-scale map because no 
map yet made will provide much information about the 
composition of a field boundary. Air photographs can and do 
give a lot of information : but nothing really takes the place 
Vallry on the March 
of going oneself to look on the spot with a knowledge of 
local conditions. 
Hedges and banks are very important if one is trying to 
End out the history of fields because the size and type of 
one boundary in relation to another may give a very good 
idea of historical order. When, as frequently happened in 
recent centuries with improvement in the method, technique, 
and machinery of agriculture, fields were divided or sub-
divided or new land was cleared, enclosed, or reclaimed, 
the type of boundary may provide a clue, if not for when 
it was done, at any rate for which piece was done before 
the other. Even where boundary hedges have been aban-
doned to allow fields to run into one another or banks have 
deliberately been levelled, large trees, whose stumps were 
too big to contemplate removing, frequently give a clue to 
former field boundaries. l This can sometimes be seen even 
on the large-scale Ordnance maps where isolated trees, for 
instance on parish boundaries running along obliterated 
boundary hedges, are individually marked.2 It is also in-
teresting to note, and often easy to see, where old long fields 
have been broken up into smaller enclosures owing to 
changes in land tenure or agricultural technique, until in 
quite recent times mechanical traction and heavy machinery 
have become responsible for reversing the process. 
The shape of fields as historical evidence is a rather 
controversial subject. Much valuable work has been done on 
systems of cultivation and types ofp loughs in diiferentperiods 
of history in this country from prehistoric to relatively 
modern times. Well known examples of the 'open field' and 
I Refer especially to p . 104 where the Little Brampton old fields are de-
scribed.  
• Cf. Lady Stenton in English S ociery in the Midd!e Ages: 
'It is often possible by following the line of a parish boundary to trace the 
outline of an Anglo-Saxon estate .... Ancient thorns and old apple trees may 
no longer be growing on their old sites, but roads still follow their ancient 
course, although they may be reduced to a green path between two hedge-
rows or a line of tree stubs. To the historically minded a country walk can 
be given a purpose if it is directed along a parish boundary, for it is unlikely 
that the pedestrian will not find something which shows the intelligent 
care with which medieval Englishmen kept their parish bounds. Three 
ancient yews known as the Three Shepherds on Offa's Dyke still mark the 
point where three parish boundaries meet.' See PI. VI. 
>0 
t-< 
>-
The Hindwell Va lley : from north side looking over Nash towards Little Brampton woods. >-l 
The 'Three Shepherds' (Yew trees) are on Offa's Dyke at Rushock Hill above Knill tIl 
-< 
H 
Of Tracks and Fields 93 
'strip cultivation' systems have been investigated together 
with the human origins, land tenures, and social organiza-
tions apparently involved. Much has also been written on 
the different types of ploughs and the cultures associated 
with them. But as a farmer one must be struck by the un-
duly hard and fast conclusions which have frequently been 
drawn with insufficient local and agricultural knowledge. 
The introduction of a different type of plough does not 
necessarily involve a change in agricultural system, or mark 
the introduction of a new culture, or a change of the racial 
element on the land or in its ownership or its social struc-
ture: or vice versa. The introduction of new tools doubtless 
played a part in certain instances and areas but insufficient 
regard has always been paid by enthusiastic research workers 
to the land itself. When facts in evidence fit a theory in one 
area, it does not in the least mean that the theory will be 
applicable elsewhere, even if the ethnological facts in evi-
dence are the same. More usually will the dominating causes 
be climate, soil, and density of population. 
Since these observations may be considered provocative 
by many interested in the theory and practice of the 'open 
field' system and 'strip farming', it should at once be said 
that in so far as 'ridge and furrow' land is evidence of 
either the 'open field' or 'strip' systems (and this is not 
always so to the extent that some enthusiasts claim), there 
is little or no 'ridge and furrow' in the fields which are the 
main subject of this chapter. This is quite consistent with 
the broad statement' that the open field system did not 
obtain much on the March. The old manor arable fields 
which are to be described do not bear evidence of strip 
farming and associated tenant right in the classical forms 
in which they have been described elsewhere. The few in-
stances of ridge and furrow which can be seen in the area 
covered by this book are obviously associated with surface 
drainage. 
For the area with which we are here concerned, it may 
be best to start from a picture of what the Hindwell Valley 
must have been like before it was cultivated, and as briefly 
as possible see from the cultivator's point of view what 
I Cf. Trevelyan, Social History oj England, chap. i. 
94 Vallry on the March 
men were likely to have done in beginning to cultivate the 
land. 
Primitive man in England lived in places where he could 
avoid swamps, bogs, and jungle. The English primeval 
undergrowth was a formidable obstacle to man for millennia 
-and where it still exists, it still is-not only in cultivation 
but even in communications. Primitive man therefore, as 
we know, tended to live on downland and moorland where 
life was not a constant struggle against brambles, thorns, 
fallen trees, and swamp, unless the bogland provided re-
fuges from enemies or a specialized culture. There are, 
however, certain types of lower land where forest and 
dense undergrowth may be less of an obstacle than on heavy 
lands like the Sussex and Kentish Weald for instance. Such 
easier land can be found where the subsoil is gravelly or 
sandy and where the surface dries out quickly and the soil is 
not suitable for heavy timber and underbrush. The lands of 
the Radnor basin were such an area, on which man could 
settle for cultivation .in preference to the heavy Devonian 
lands farther east or the bleak open hill-tops and moorland 
of the March. There is no doubt that that is why the mega-
lithic and other prehistoric remains of the Walton area are 
on lowland sites instead of on the surrounding moors and 
downs . Early man would have found that even if the bottom 
or the Hindwell Valley away from the boggy stream beds 
was wooded, the type of woodland was less formidable than 
along the slopes of the hills north and south of the valley 
bottom, or on Devonian land, for the bottom areas of the 
Knill, Little Brampton, Nash and Rodd farms consist of a 
relatively shallow layer of soil overlying glacial brash. These 
lands dry out very quickly after rain; as anyone who lives 
there knows, the fields are clear of water and even mud a 
few hours after a heavy downpour. Even if the most primi-
tive man did no cultivation, the quick-drying lands from Old 
Radnor to Clatterbrune would attract his early successors 
cultivating only with hand-digging tools. Men would ob-
viously seek to come down as low as they could, subject 
to keeping off land liable to flood, because of easier access 
to summer water and a milder climate. Little Brampton and 
Nash settlements are especially easy to pick out as ideal 
Of Tracks and Fields 95 
aaricultural sites where nature would not be too unkind to 
the early settler. The same is true of parts of the Knill and 
Old Radnor areas. 
The site of The Rodd and Rodd Hurst is a little more 
complex. The name, like its older name of Bradlege, refers 
to a 'broad clearing in the wood'l and this description seems 
more applicable to a settlement at Rodd Hurst than to one 
at The Rodd itself. Rodd Hurst lies on the col between the 
Hindwell and Arrow Valleys where the ridgeway crosses 
from the southern escarped side of the Hindwell Valley to 
Wapley. Moreover, a track from the Presteigne area to 
Titley and the Arrow Valley crossed the col in the other 
direction. Rodd Hurst is an inherently likely place for a settle-
ment in a clearing in the woods which obviously covered 
the whole area. The settlement at Rodd Hurst is in fact in 
a clearing today. It lies on the edge of the woods called 
Rodd Wood and Ashley V illet with Burcher Wood and 
the Myrax copses behind to the south. Deep ditthes and 
trackways which never seem to have carried water furrow 
the rough and recently heavily timbered field behind Rodd 
Hurst, known as Crow's Moor. They suggest both an older 
and more extensive settlement than is there today, which 
accords with documentary evidence from the Middle Ages 
and numerous roughly dressed building stones under the 
surface. It has the geographical characteristics, including 
several springs, appropriate to an early settled site. But 
whoever first inhabited Rodd Hurst must soon have been 
drawn to the quick-drying lands of the present Rodd manor 
arable fields on the edge of the gravel bank across the 
Hindwell Valley in preference to the clayey lands on the 
slopes around the settlement itself. The Rodd fields were at 
least as desirable for agriculture as those at Nash and Little 
Brampton. There is no conflict about the site of the Bradlege 
manor agricultural settlement in the distance which separates 
The Rodds from Rodd Hurst, which is the township or vill 
of Rode or Rodd frequently referred to in medieval records. 
If one of the two is older than the other, Rodd Hurst is 
thus probably the original site of the settlement which had 
the name of Bradlege, even before it became a manor, and 
I Ekwall, pp. 54, 55, and ~78 ; see above, Chap. III. 
Valley on the March 
when it was only a 'broad clearing in the wood' on a very 
ancient crossing of trackways at, perhaps, a post on the 
Dyke itself. 
When primitive or even not so primitive man clears and 
prepares a piece of ground to plant something, he will do so 
with certain things in mind, such as where the water will 
run to when it rains a lot, where the sun shines most or 
best, which way the wind blows, and so on. These elements 
are common to all cultivators irrespective of race, tools, or 
technique. The ideal site will probably be a sort of mild 
ridge or whale back where the ground is not absolutely flat, 
so that the rain water will run off if the area has a high rain-
fall, and where most sun will shine in a cloudy country-that 
is, not under the shadow of a hill for many hours of a day. 
The shape of his plot or plots will be governed more by the 
lie of the land than by his tools . He will obviously divide his 
land up naturally into plots by the paths he uses to go to the 
different parts without walking over what he has planted. 
Thus, paths will mark the edges of the plots. This is a very 
important point: long use of a path perpetuates it but also 
creates boundaries and, eventually, landmarks . The run of 
paths or tracks, every one of which has a reason, can thus 
frequently be a guide to the origin of fields or the boundaries 
of areas. Nor are fields crossed by old paths without good 
reason: when this does occur and a new pattern is created 
relative dating may be deduced. 
The introduction of new techniques in ploughing of 
course affected the shape of plots, and it would be folly to 
suggest that different sorts of ploughs requiring different 
sorts of traction did not also affect the shape and size of 
fields to some extent. Mter all, we see today how the tractor-
drawn plough, like the eight-ox plough team, calls, broadly 
speaking, for a larger field than the two-horse or the four-
horse plough. But it is the quality and lie of the land which 
mainly governs the type of plough and not the plough which 
determines the shape of the fields. 
A deep-ploughing plough with a heavy team of draught 
animals will need more space to turn at the headland; long 
fields may connote long plough teams and vice versa, but it 
does not follow that all land is best ploughed deep or that 
Of Tracks and Fields 97 
a new sort of deep-ploughing plough is better than an older 
type of shallow plough, and that therefore a four-yoke plough 
is preferable to a three- or two-yoke plough. Nor, equally, 
does it follow that because in one place a long field may 
suggest the use of a heavy team of several pairs of animals, 
it is because a new type of plough ploughing deep and so 
requiring greater traction was used, as compared with, 
mutatis mutandis, a less long field in another place. Finally, 
heavier land will require a stronger team but not necessarily 
a deeper plough and so may produce a longer field irrespec-
tive of the sort of plough or traction used: and, again, vice 
versa. 
This argument has been developed because when it is 
shown hereafter which were the old manor arable fields of 
the Hindwell Valley, this has not been deduced from the 
style of plough or technique of cultivation used but from 
local conditions and topography. Nor, conversely, if the 
conclusions which follow are accepted, do the circumstances 
constitute evidence for or against a particular ethnic culture 
or social organization. The shape and size of the old fields in 
this area are evidence of the sort of agriculture necessarily 
practised and not necessarily of the racial origins of the 
people who practised it. 
They may, however, give some clue to the sodal structure 
of the area which in this respect is peculiar. It remains 
important to remember that what is true of this part of 
the country does not necessarily justify similar conclusions 
being reached elsewhere. 
In examining the medieval agricultural settlements in the 
Hindwell and neighbouring areas one is struck by the fact 
that those elements which would have guided any fairly 
primitive cultivators in selecting sites seem to have governed 
these particular farming enterprises . Whether they were 
first settled by prehistoric man or not, or by this or that 
race and culture is immaterial. They could have been of 
very early origin, but as many of the same elements would 
obviously have governed the cultivator in other ages, no 
conclusion about periods or dates is permissible from such 
evidence alone. 
In fact, all the apparently oldest fields in the D omesday 
B 6851 
Valley on the March 
manors in this area ran along low ridges, where these exist 
in the valley bottoms, or on flat ground with a slight trans-
verse slope. The direction of cultivation seems to have been 
generally speaking east and west. It is not clear whether 
there is any significance in this. In the Hindwell Valley itself 
the reason is probably in the main topographical because 
the narrow valley bottom runs more or less east and west. 
But' there is evidence of an east and west trend outside 
the valley also, where the same geographical conditions do 
not exist. 
Having created a long plot of plough land, when more 
land was wanted for cultivation the next plot was cleared 
and ploughed, when possible at the side and not beyond 
the earlier long plot, even if the land beyond was suitable 
and there was room for extension without running into or 
up against the next settlement. To cultivate beyond instead 
of at the side of the original clearing obviously meant a 
further idle walk for the plough team to the point of work 
from the point of starting or base. Only when there was no 
room laterally for new plots were fresh areas cleared for 
,cultivation beyond the original clearings. Presumably, even 
in this small area, there was for a long time cultivable land 
to spare for which human resources were not available. 
When actual fields are examined it will be found that the 
arable cultivations of the four manors in the Hindwell Valley 
and elsewhere in the district were islands of cultivated clear-
ings which did not run into each other and which were 
separated by pasture or uncleared land.! From the field shapes 
and their types of boundary, it is also possible in certain cases 
to see the order in which cultivation was later extended up 
the sides of the valleys and from one settlement to the next 
until, wherever the lie of the land permitted, their cultivated 
lands became conterminous. The way to recognize this 
progressive extension of cultivation (where it can be recog-
nized) is in the lie of the fields relatively to each other and 
in certain characteristic shapes relatively to each other. 
The boundary shapes, though they do not provide 
absolute dating, thus do give a relative scale. It is not 
possible to say this is a Domesday bank while that is Eliza-
I Or bush. Cf. Trevelyan, History of England, end of ch. i, bk. ii. 
OJ Tracks and Fields 99 
bethan, but it is possible to say this bOW1dary is almost 
certainly older than that one and, coupled with the shapes 
of the fields in this group, that these are probably old 
manorial arable fields, whereas those represent later exten-
sions of cultivation. 
The Rodd manor fields and neighbouring plots can be 
taken as an example. A first plot of land marked A in Fig. 
2 is cleared, obviously from the edge of the bank on which 
FIG. 2. Rodd fields 
the Rodds now stand. Below the bank the land is low lying 
and full of springs just east of where the Presteigne-Kington 
road now runs. This plot was cleared from east to west, and 
as the distance increased the fields narrowed. It is immaterial 
whether there was already a homestead at the broader eastern 
end where The Rodd stands, or whether the work was done 
from Rodd Hurst. 
The cultivable area was developed, in this instance, 
by a more or less parallel field, B, to the north extending 
as far as where the ground falls away to the river bed which 
is cut into the gravel across the local moraine bank. Between 
the two strips was a baulk which is still today a roughly 
100 Valley on the March 
ballasted farm access track on to which the stones from 
the fields were (and still are) thrown. The area was then 
probably again extended, this time by bringing in strip C 
on the south, the long side of which was carried up the hill 
to where the woodland now is and where a belt of clay 
made further cultivation up the hill unprofitable. This edge 
. is on the 5o o-6oo-foot woodland contour to which reference 
has already been made. Between strips A and C a path was 
left. When communications were opened between the Rodd 
manor settlement and the Nash settlement, this access 
road between fields A and C was extended and eventually 
became part of the Manor Road connecting the Hindwell 
Valley manor. Thus, field C is certainly later in date than A 
or B. . 
All three Rodd fields had a common base-line on the 
moraine bank. In most other manor field patterns the fields 
also run in pairs with a common base to each pair and, of 
course, between them an access road, which frequently de-
veloped into a more impottant means of communication. 
The grouping of the Rodd fields seems, obviously, to be 
governed by local topography. There no dry land was 
available east of the A-B pair. Farther west the land was 
obviously becoming Nash land: so these three Rodd fields 
were made parallel to each other. 
Clearing field C was obviously harder work: the soil is 
heavier: the woodland growth was probably heavier: it 
lies on a more pronounced slope than the other two; and it 
has a northern aspect. Fields A and B were certainly the 
first fields to be cleared and used. The transverse hedges 
which now divide fields A, B, and C are obviously a modern 
development, probably associatedwith horse ploughing and 
modern cropping when the plough ox went out. 
In the immediate neighbourhood, between The Rodd and 
Nash old arable fields, is a group of fields which present a 
good picture of extensions of cultivation when the method 
of farming was perhaps changing. They are marked as area 
D in Fig. 2. Such later extensions of cultivation are quite 
characteristic in shape. The fields run up the side of the 
valley transversely to the line of the old fields and access 
tracks, and not along the valley as do the Rodd, Nash & 
PL TE VII 
lill old fields: first pair either side of road, right centre; second pair beyond, left centre, middle 
distance; Burfa camp [n foreground 
)"king west over Knill and Burfa Hill : Knill A and B fields below Burfa right middle; Little 
Brampton A and B fields right bottom 
OJ Tracks and Fields 101 
Little Brampton, and Knill old arable fields. They were 
clearly worked from a common base along a track in long 
narrow enclosures which terminate at different distances 
from the base line. The outer ends bear little relation to 
each other. Another good example of a group of fields re-
presenting a later extension of cultivation is given in Fig. 
3 : these fields are in Kinnerton parish in the Radnor basin 
some three miles nor th of Old Radnor. In all these 'ex-
tension-of-cultivation-fields' the lack of concordance of the 
F IG. 3. Extension fields, Kinnerton 
outward ends starting evenly from a common base-line is 
conspicuous. The symmetry of the base-ends on the access 
track from which the extensions were made is probably 
evidence of the imp'ortance of the paths or roads concerned 
as means of communication between settlements. 
The old fields of Nash can also be identified, though their 
particular limits and development are more difficult to find 
on a map without air photographs and personal inspection. 
The creation of the modern road, taking off from the Manor 
Road, and joining the Presteigne-Kington and Presteigne-
Nev,: Radnor road by way of Broadhurst Bridge over the 
102 Valley on the March 
Hindwell has confused the appearance of the field layout 
on the maps of today. Further, there is reason to think that 
at some period the layout of the Nash A-B fields (see Fig. 
4) gave place to the layout C-D which corresponds with the 
present division of the arable fields of Nash between two 
farm holdings belonging to the two farmsteads at Nash 
known as Nash Court and Upper Nash Farm. This change 
. in the field pattern may have been fairly early since the C-D 
run ot fields looks as if it was of respectable antiquity. It 
is, however, pretty certain that the A-B fields are the original 
old manor arable. The western ends of the Nash A and B 
fields are well marked and definitely did not extend any 
nearer to Little Brampton. The two long sides of A are 
marked by a path and the Manor Road. The south side of 
B is marked with a heavy boundary hedge. The short east-
ern sides of A and B are less satisfactory. Prima facie they 
look as if they ought to extend farther east. Field A looks 
as if the neighbouring paddock field up to the lane from 
Corner Cottage on the Manor Road to Nash ford belonged 
to it. Old field B looks as if it ought to include the two 
modern fields next east up to the continuation of Nash Lane 
from Corner Cottage southward to the hill-side and the 
woods. But on the spot it can be seen that this was clearly 
not the case. 
The two fields east of B are divided from each other by a 
hedge and a ditch coming from a wet place or small spring 
which drains north. The wet area recurs in the paddock 
east of A field and is marked by some large trees in the 
field. This paddock was too wet to plough, as was the area 
where the spring rises, and the ditch to drain it runs between 
the two fields east of B. The eastern boundary of field A is a 
heavy hedge, and though these fields east of A and B may at 
one time have been brought into cultivation, there is clear 
justification for supposing that the old A and B fields started 
as marked in Fig. 4 and not farther east. Incidentally, the 
spring and ditch east of 'old field' B would not have pre-
vented the D field in the C-D arrangement from being 
ploughed from north to south, though it would have made 
ploughing B field from east to west intolerable-if the wet 
area had been included in this 'old field'. 
PLATE VIn 
Knill, Little Brampton and Nash old fields: Knill pairs left, middle distance; Little Brampton 
right of centre, middle distance; Nash level with quarry 
~ 
~ 
~ 
l:i 
""-
~ 
~ 
~ 
Crown Copyright Reserved o 
FIG. 4. Knill, Little Brampton and Nash fields 
104 Va/fry on the March 
The Little Brampton old fields (Fig. 4) are very interest-
ing. The southern 'old field' B is quite unmistakable and has 
a path along the south side from which the extensions up 
the hill were worked. The path between B and A is the 
Manor Road. Field A by extension now goes to the river, 
but contains a very distinct dip down to the stream-bed. 
On a part of the bank bordering this dip is a plantation 
and along the alignment of the plantation is an old ditch 
with a few isolated trees at each end, marking the old northern 
boundary of the field above the dip down to flood-level. The 
western end of A runs from the corner of the existing fieJd 
to the edge of the plantation by the isolated trees described. 
The run of the old A field is thus still quite cleat although 
the old boundary has in part disappeared. I 
There were perhaps five, and certainly four, old fields 
at KniD (see Fig. 4 ). The first pair, A and B, on either side 
of the modern Presteigne road, are obvious. The road was, 
of course, born out of a path between them. Their modern 
transverse hedges do not concord. There is a path along the 
southern side of B. Field C is a semi-elliptical field of the 
Little Brampton B type. It is divided from D by the Pres-
teigne road. Field D is a small field which is now some-
what broken into by a limestone quarry and disused kiln 
at its weste:rn end. It is quite possible that originally D in-
cluded the quarry land and ran as far west as the path from 
IZnilI Cottage to Upper Woodside. The strip of land above 
this run of field and below the woodland was not included 
and is a subsequent clearance. It is sour clay land with rough 
grass and the division between this strip and the old long 
field is clearly marked by an old broken-down bank without 
any hedge today, but none the less quite obvious. Field E 
from Knill Cottage to Upper Woodside in a westerly direc-
tion under the wood may be an old field, but is certainly 
more recent than the other four. It foliows the limit line 
of economic clearing, hence its peculiar western end shape. 
The southern edge is bounded by a footpath. The triangle 
between E and A is a later enclosure to A. 
The Hercope (Lower Harpton) and Clatterbrune Fields 
(Figs. 5 and 6) stand in interesting contrast to each other. For 
I See Plate VIII. 
OJ Tracks and Fields 105 
Hercope there is just enough low, dry ground for the arable 
of a small -i-hide manor in the cwm behind Lower 
Harpton Farm. A likely looking area, which may indeed 
have been a later addition, is in the cwm opposite Knill at 
Lakeland Buildings . It was certainly not old original arable: 
it lies too much under the shade of Herrock as an early 
Crown Copyright Reserved 
FIG. 5. H ercope (Lower Harpton) fields 
choice for arable in this small settlement. The land in front 
of Lower Harpton Farm is too liable to flooding to be old 
arable. 
Assessed at 2 liides, Clatterbrune on the other hand has 
plenty of room for its arable, and six areas at least look as 
if they were old fields. They are marked A to F on Fig. 6. 
A to D are typical in shape and in the way in which they lie 
with regard to each other. E and F are difficult to trace today 
owing to the extension of house building from Presteigne. 
Area G was perhaps part of an old field when, together with 
106 Valley on the March 
D, the farm at Wegnall came into existence after Domesday. 
The identification of A, B, C, and D, is definitely satis-
factory : E and F are more doubtful. The trend of the 
Clatterbrune fields is east and west: there is no topogra-
phical reason why it should not have been north and south. 
Wegnall, though not a Domesday manor, seems to have be-
Crown Copy right Reserved 
FIG. 6. Clatterbrune fields 
come a small manor farm quite early on, and was probably 
carved out of the wide Clatterbrune lands. Though D and G 
are near the Hindwell, the stream bed is well below the left 
bank and these fields are out of flood range. At Wegnall 
is an old corn watermill, which is still in working order, 
with a complicated series of leats, drawing water for the 
fall at the mill wheel from the Hindwell, the level of which 
for this purpose is governed by a sill at Rodd Bridge. 
The disposition of the Clatterbrune A, B, C, and D fields 
suggests that the site of the homestead was near the north-
west corner of the block at the farm now called Whitewall. 
Alternatively, it may have been near the fold yard called 
OJ Tracks and Fields 
Hoarstone on the lane from \Vegnall to Broadheath with a 
lane directed towards it from the modern house now called 
Oatterbrune, a little east of Clatterbrook Bridge on the 
outskirts of Presteigne. Either of these two sites might have 
been the original settlement: neither of them precludes the 
present Oatterbrullefromhaving been the site of the Domes-
day manor. 
The manor fields of Harold's 15 -hide Old Radnor hold-
ing, which King William took over, are easy to locate. 
They lie under Old Radnor Hill on either side of the Pres-
teigne-New Radnor road. There were probably others at 
Womaston farther north. The steading for these arable fields 
was either at Walton where Court Farm is a suggestive name 
or equally probably at Castle Nimble. The five marked groups 
of fields,A to E, in Fig. 7areobvious. Ais particularlycharac-
teristic in shape. E is somewhat doubtful owing to the proxi-
mity of Riddings Brook: but it will be remembered that the 
Summergil and Riddings streams are very insignificant here 
and, in fact, disappear into the gravel of this end of the 
Radnor lake-plain. F is surrounded by water-bearing ditches 
and probably did not run farther east than is shown; it is 
doubtfully an old arable field. C is now intersected by the 
Walton-Old Radnor road; its southern boundary was, how-
ever, certainly the parish boundary line of today with Wellin 
Lane as its western boundary. The diagonal run of the present 
boundary of Old Radnor and Burlingjobb parish with Walton 
& Womaston parish at the west end of C is indicative of the 
former irregular end of this field, worked from the Walton 
steading, and analogous to the irregular western end of field 
A. Field D seems to have lost its old northern boundary 
which was probably among the two surviving hedges and 
the spinney by the Summergil as shown by the dotted line. I 
The alignment of the Old Radnor fields is noteworthy. Their 
run is east and west, though the land in the area would 
equally lend itself to a north and south orientation of most 
of the fields. The extent of the old arable and surrounding 
cultivable land and pasture is large enough to justify a 15 -
hide assessment, more especially if some very interesting field 
groups farther north near Womaston are taken into account. 
I Cf. field A of the Little Brampton group. 
.... 
o 
00 
o;:::::  
~ 
~ 
~ 
"" 
~ 
"'l 
~ 
Crown Copynght Reserved 
FIG . 7. Radnor manor fields (Womaston lies I mile north-west of Walton) 
PLATE IX 
;:ascob Yalley: old fie'ds between the two farms, left foreground ; ;\lacs Treylow at va lley 
junction with the Lugg Ri vcr in middle distance; Presteigne in distance 
Of Tracks and Fields 
The Harpton (Hertune) fields have been much disturbed 
by eighteenth/nineteenth-century pa~k and . gar~en land-
scaping. The old fields cannot readily be Iden.ofied, but 
there is both plenty of room and scope for them III the area 
between Downton House and Harpton Court. 
Without going into too much further detail, some iden-
tifications of old arable fields in the Lugg Valley above 
Presteigne must be included in this account, if only to show 
the extent of the field system which has been described in 
and near the Hindwell Valley. 
The two old fields of the Cascope (Cascob) manor seem to 
lie along the Presteigne-Cascob road between Court Farm 
and Pentre. They are rather long and thin, but this is due to 
the narrowness of the valley. They lie on flattish land be-
tween the 700- and the 800-foot contour above the flood-
level of the Cascob brook. There is no available land which 
is flood free and below the 700-foot line either near Cascob 
church (840 feet) or near Court Farm. 
The Discote (Discoed) manor fields are probably to be 
found near Maes Treylow. One of them, A type, lay 
along the Maes Treylow-Cascob road, two other 'pro babIes' 
are B type (or as much as is necessary) along the Maes 
Treylow- Beggars Bush road separated from the other one, 
C, by a wooded gully and Offa's Dyke; the other end of C 
goes on as far as Discoed itself. Field B is one of the very 
few-if it is an original field-in the neighbourhood 
which does not conform to the usual east and west lie. 
There is one other possible field, D, south of the road to 
Presteigne and east of Lower House Farm. The identification 
of the Discoed fields is not quite as satisfactory as many 
others in these local manors because _of the north-south 
orientation of B, but they are nevertheless fairly obvious 
because there is no other area where the Discote old fields 
could well have been. The country up the cwm behind 
Discoed itself is far too high for early agriculture while most 
of the ground north of the Presteigne road at Discoed is 
liable to flood. 
At Ackhill (Achel), there is a pair of obvious fields. The 
lower of the two fields is intersected transversely by two 
ways, the eastern one of which-a side road from Norton to 
110 Valley on the March 
Rock Bridge on the Presteigne road-looks very like the 
base line or eastern boundary, the small modern field to 
the east of it being a doubtful addition to the original old 
manor field. These two fields on or below the 600-foot 
contour conform in lie to the general local practice. 
Although Norton manor is really outside the subject of 
the Hindwell manors the siting of the extensive old arable 
Crown Copyright Reserved 
FIG. 8. Norton manor old fields 
fields on either side of the track to Norton Home Farm from 
the Presteigne-Norton road is so obviously characteristic 
as to deserve mention. The terrain here has allowed of rect-
angular broad fields of the same sort of proportions as in 
the smaller manors of the Hindwell and Lugg Valleys. 
The northern of the two main areas was evidently divided 
longitudinally by a bank and perhaps a hedge which has 
disappeared leaving a very clear trace. There is room for 
more old arable fields north and south of the two main 
blocks-more than sufficient for a 5- hide manor. The flat 
ground between 650 and 550 feet is extensive enough to 
\' \ \ \ 
fu: r ugg \ aUey upstream from Presreigne (in foregro'~:ld, ,,':,r. Q-"= 
\ii!: in right foregrc)u::d 
fu: 
OJ Tracks and Fields III 
have permitted a north- south orientation for the fields, 
instead of which a clear and characteristic east- west orienta-
tion occurs. The track to the Home Farm divides the two 
main blocks of Norton manor fields while a transverse track 
leads straight to the next manor of Ackhill (Achel). 
The old fields at Osbern's original manor of Titley in 
Hezetre, while obscured by eighteenth- and nineteentl1-cen-
tury topographical changes, bear the same general character-
Crown Copyn'ght ReseTf)~d 
FIG. 9. Presteigne fields 
is tics of A and B type fields already noted. Although they 
have been substantially broken up into smaller plots, one 
block of Winchester CollegeI land provides the clue for an 
A-B pair. The estate map at Winchester gives the clue to the 
lie of the old manorial arable of this manor. The detailed 
identification involves more description than is justified here. 
The last of the groups of manor arable fields with which 
it is proposed to deal is that to which the site of Queren-
tune manor has been attributed, between St. Mary's Mill 
House and the western end of Preste igne. The two A-B fields 
are the long, tapering plots of ground running east and west 
of the Norton road and north of the Presteigne-Rock Bridge 
! Cf. above, Chap. III. 
112 Valley on the March 
road. The Norton road is the base path dividing the two 
fields: the Presteigne-Rock Bridge road is the longitudi-
nal access road common to both fields. The northern bound-
ary of the two fields is formed by the edge of the steep bank 
which drops to the Lugg stream bed. There is no trace, nor 
would there have been any need, of a bank, with or without a 
hedge, along the edge of this steep drop. The Ordnance 
Survey sheets do not show this steep fall and consequently 
the t.ops of the fields which were these old arable fields look 
quite different on the map to what they do on the ground. 
The eastern one of the pair of fields is now almost completely 
over-built by the houses of Presteigne. The tapered shape of 
thes·e fields is due to the narrowing of the land available on 
the bank above flood level. If there were companion fields 
south of the road, they are not at all obvious: the fields there 
are probably extension cultivations up the slopes of the 
Warden Hill. 
This necessarily brief, though also necessarily detailed, ex-
amination of the sites of old manor arable fields in the Lugg 
and Hindwell Valleys, most of them belonging to Osbern 
fitz Richard, leads on to an analysis of the sizes and shapes 
of the fields mentioned. From this some interesting con-
clusions are apparent. In the following pages are tabulated 
the shapes and sizes of the fields. The dimensions have 
been estimated by measuring the areas from the 6-inch and 
2.4-inch Ordnance Survey sheets where the present fields 
which go to make them up actually correspond in aggregate 
to the original long arable fields, or by estimating the di-
mensions when the old boundaries have in part disappeared 
but can be guessed from surviving marks. As a convenient 
unit of measurement the present standard chain of 2.2. yards 
has been used. Apart from the convenient size of the unit, 
the individual and average sizes recorded in chains produce 
significant results. For those who have forgotten their tables 
of measurements, it may be recalled that 10 chains or 2.2.0 
yards = I furlong and that an area of I chain or 2.2. yards by 
I furlong ot 2.2.0 yards is I acre or 4,840 square yards. 
Therefore, I furlong or 10 chains by I furlong or 10 chains 
is 10 acres. 
Since the old fields are not necessarily rectangular and 
Of Tracks and Fields 113 
frequently do not have straight sides, because of local to-
pography and the way they came to be cleared or brought 
into use, certain arbitrary but perhaps sufficiently accurate 
methods of calculating their dimensions in chains have been 
adopted. The estimates have been made from maps and 
inspection on the sites. 
Approx.let1glh Approx. breadth 
Manor Field in chains in chaills 
CUTTERllRUNE A 9 
B say 8 
C 6/ 14 say 10 
D 8/ 16 ., 12 
E 13/ 19 ., 15 
F 1 0/12 u 10 
D-G 8/ 16 ., 12 
Average of A, B, C, D* 34 
RODD A 5/ 18 say II 
B 10 
C 8 
Average of A, B, C 
NASH A 8/ 16 say 13 
B 8/ 16 " 10 
Average of A, B II 
LITTLE BRAMPTON A 34 15 /9 say II 
B 35 8 
Average of A, B 
KNILL A 24/32 say 29 12/7 say 9 
B 38/42 " 40 8/ 12 " 10 
C 31/34 " 33 II/ 8/IO " 10 
D 24/ 28 " 26 10 
E 26/ 27/32 " 29 II 
Average of A, B, C, D, E 10 
Average of A, B, C, D . 10 
Average of A, B, C 10 
CASCOB A 8 
B 9 
Average of A, B I 
* For E, F, and G see text at p. 106. 
B 0861 
114 Valley on the March 
I Approx. length Approx. breadth Manor Field in chain! in chain! 
DISCOED A 42/46 say 44 7/13/1 I say II 
B 56 8/ 16/13 '3 
I C 24 14/ 10 ""  '3 
Average of A, B, C* 4' 12 
ACKHILL A 26 9 
B 30 II/5 say 9 
I (B+C 40 12/5 10) " 
Average of A, B 28 9 
NORTON (~t 39 39 ~} II 
C 26 II 
D 27/30 say 29 '5 
D less E 29 12 
Average of A, B (perhaps one field) 39 6 
A,B,C 34 7 
A,B,C,D 33 9t 
A+B, C, D 3 12 ' 
QUERENTUNE A 34 15 /4 say 9t 
B difficult to ascertain owing to the 
sprawl of Presteigne but probably 
I about the same. 
A verage of A, B, say 34 9! 
OLD RADNOR- A 32 9/ II say 10 
WALTON B 33/36 say 34 7/'7 " II 
C 36 16/ 10/ 12 1 I 
D 42 " 9 
E 30 10 
Average of A to E 35 10 
The acreages of the fields are purposely not given because 
even where modern field boundaries follow the line of old 
field boundaries and the Ordnance Survey sheets record the 
areal measurements, area totals or averages in acres would 
have to be in misleadingly finite figures. Furthermore, where 
one or other old boundary have disappeared or partially dis-
appeared, estimates of acreage are difficult to make without 
* See text at p. 109. 
t Breadth ofB includes a recently planted shelter belt of trees beside the road. 
OJ Tracks and Fields 
measurements on the ground and less satisfactory to tabu-
late in comparative form than linear dimensions. Again, 
although the area of the old arable fields was probably wholly 
cultivated and the boundaries arose accordingly, there may 
well have been plots within the enclosures which were not 
cultivated, on account of wet patches, heavy trees, or irregu-
larities : field acreages in these cases would be very mislead-
ing. Finally, acreages have been omitted because it seems far 
more likely that what the early cultivators took into account 
was length and breadth and not surface areas when they made 
their clearings, while hideage assessments of the Domesday 
epoch were probably made on output values rather than on 
surface. If anyone wants to think in terms of acres, he need 
only remember that 30 chains by 10 chains = 30 acres, with 
the reservation that the multiplication of an average length 
of, say, 3 I chains by an average breadth of, say, 10 chains will 
not necessarily measure up to 3 I acres, either on the ground 
or according to the field areas of the 24-inch Ordnance Sur-
vey sheets. 
The first thing that strikes the eye in the table is the num-
ber of fields of about 34 chains long by 10 chains broad. In 
the Hindwell Valley group, Clatterbrune fields, E, F, and G 
seem to belong to a different system and A, B, C, and D 
seem to be the original ones. Analysing these figures a little 
further, it looks as if Clatterbrune A, B, C, and D; Rodd A 
and B and perhaps, but not certainly, C; Nash A and B; 
Little Brampton A and B; and Knill A, B, C, and, but not 
certainly, D are units of about the same size, shape, and 
pro bably period allowing for differences of terrain. Although 
some of the Norton ground produces about the same sort 
of sized fields, there is a fair amount of variation from the 
34 by 10 chain type. At the same time, Norton remained 
throughout history an important and prosperous manor of 
a size which was larger and more productive than the Osbern 
manors. The area occupied by the Norton fields tabulated is 
all open and flattish land which presents few of the topo-
graphical obstacles to extensions and variations from origi-
nal 34 by 10 chain type present in the Hindwell Valley land. 
The Discoed group is quite anomalous; either the fields 
belong to a different system or the sites of the fields have not 
JIG Valley on the March 
been properly identilied. The Ackhill fields are rather smaller 
than the average and the Walton ones rather larger, but still 
of the same order of magnitude. The Walton ground, as at 
Norton, is topographically easy. Although the Titley and 
Harpton manor lands have been too defaced by building, 
park 'landscaping' and subdivision to be readily assessable, 
there is plenty of room and some evidence for the 34 by 10 
chain type fields. Hercope is tucked away up a cwm and 
strictly governed by the topography; it could well have been 
of the 34 by 10 chain regime within the limitation of terrain. 
One may fairly conclude that the 34 by 10 or 33 by 9 chain 
field, of the order of 30 to 3 5 acres, represented something 
quite definite in the mind of the creators of these agricul-
tural units, just as definite as their desire, whenever possible, 
to secure an east- west orientation on dry land at not over 
about 600 feet. It is particularly remarkable that at Clatter-
brune, Walton, and Norton the lie of the land would have 
permitted considerable variation in size and orientation, but 
the old fields even there generally conform to the regime of 
the other old fields in the neighbourhood. 
A feature which is clearly seen in air photographs is that 
their ends farthest from the starting-line of cultivation, 
whether the fields lie side by side, or end to end, seem to 
taper away to a narrower breadth. Indeed, the 'snout' end of 
these fields is what makes them easy to pick up in most cases 
from air photographs in spite of their having been cut up by 
transverse hedges. Another point which must be pertinent 
is the way in which these fields so frequently lie in pairs, on 
which a three-year rotation is difficult to work. One can, of 
course, work a three-year rotation on a set of four fields, if 
perhaps less conveniently than on three plots or six plots. But 
pairs of fields connote either a two-year rotation or alter-
natively strip cultivation of parts of each field, of which 
practice none of these fields bear any trace. 
It is difficult to reach any satisfactory conclusion about 
concordance, if such exists, between hideage assessments 
and the number of 34 by 10 chain fields. All that can be said 
is that a I-hide manor seems to have involved one pair of 
34 by 10 chain fields giving an arable area of, say, 70 acres, 
which is not an improbable result in a district of narrow 
OJ Tracks and Fields 117 
valleys and not altogether easy agricultural topography. This 
seems to apply to the smaller manors rather than to the lar-
aer ones like Norton and Radnor, where, however, all the 
possible old fields may not have ~een tabul~ted: t.hey might 
bring the number up to five pans for their 5- hide assess-
ments. In this context one may perhaps assume that by the 
time the hideage assessments were made, secondary exten-
sions of cultivation had already been begun and had been 
devoted to arable. It may indeed be that the A-B pairs with 
subsequent C-D pairs of 34 by 10 chain fields are older than 
the hideage assessments and were not in themselves the basis 
for the latter. On the whole, there seems to be little value 
in trying to relate hideage assessments to probable arable 
acreages of the old 34 by 10 chain fields with or without later 
additions. All that it is probably true to say is that a 2-hide 
manor had more arable acreage than a I-hide manor; and 
so on. 
South of Stapleton Castle is a block of flood-free land 
suitable for cultivation and now cultivated. It corresponds to 
the Clatterbrune land on the opposite side of the Lugg river. 
At first sight the map shows three blocks of fields south-east 
of Stapleton Castle which in size, aspect, and lie look as if 
they were old arable fields. They provide a good example of 
how misleading a map can be without local inspection, for 
on examination the northern run of the three existing fields at 
Stapleton Castle Farm could never have been cultivated as 
arable field: the land is too wet and the east-west run of this 
block of three fields is at several points cut up by necessary 
and heavy surface draining which would have effectively pre-
vented long field cultivation. The next block of two fields to 
the south is a possible, though small, old arable field, as is the 
next block of three fields adjoining thelane leading to Middle 
Moor and Bryan's ground on the Presteigne-Stapleton track 
- the old manor road from Ackhill and Norton north of the 
Lugg to Kinsham and Upper Ley. South of this track the 
ground slopes steeply to the low-lying Lugg shelf. Out of 
the considerable area of ground between Stapleton and the 
Lugg there are thus only two possible but rather doubtful 
old arable fields. There is not enough land of characteristic 
formation and pattern to adduce as evidence of a manor (like 
lIS Valley on the March 
the others described earlier in this chapter were) having 
existed here. If the old arable fields of the Hindwell manors 
are of Domesday and pre-Domesday epoch, the failure to 
find convincing examples of them in the large area around 
Stapleton is consistent with its omission as a manor in the 
Domesday survey. The same line of argument can be shown 
to be applicable to Combe. That in both cases there was 
flood-free cultivable land at these places explains their early 
-post-Domesday development into manors. Conversely these 
conclusions suggest that the old arable fields discussed in 
this chapter probably were made in a period perhaps quite a 
lot earlier than Domesday. 
The shape, size, and pattern of the March manor fields 
needs a great deal more work than has been possible in this 
brief local study. The layout of the larger manors, particu-
larly Stapleton and Radnor, needs investigation in the light 
of their more numerous surviving records. But this falls 
outside the scope of this study since the former is a later 
creation than the group of manors now under examination 
and the latter is sui generis in that it was bath much larger and 
more important. . 
MAP SHOWl NG THE HUNDREDS OF HEZETRE AND ELSEDUNE IN NORTH-WEST HEREFORDSHIRE WITH MODERN PARlSH BOUNDARIES -
CHAPTER V 
Of the &anors of Stapleton and Presteigne 
in the &iddle cAges 
HE history of the Hindwell and Lugg Valley manors 
T after Domesday cannot be considered otherwise than in connexion with the manors and lordships of Presteigne 
and Stapleton. They both present problems. 
Neither Presteigne nor Stapleton is mentioned in Domes-
day. Both had castles, the dates of the building of which are 
not known. By 1300 both manors evidently included urban 
settlements of some local importance. Both of them were 
not only manors but important head manors with dependent 
sub-manors. They lay less than a couple of miles apart in a 
countryside which was certainly in Domesday very sparsely 
inhabited even as compared with the rest of Herefordshire. 
They belonged to different families and depended in their 
turn from different Honours. Presteigne had a church and 
served as the ecclesiastical centre for a number of neigh-
bouring parishes which had no churches. There is no record 
of any church or chapel at Stapleton: at the most there may 
have been an oratory in the castle, but all the evidence points 
to the castle and its families being ecclesiastically under 
Presteigne.! Both the castles stood on eminently defensible 
hill-mounds and were militarily well sited. Presteigne was 
strategically the sounder of the two because it commanded 
the entrance to the upper Lugg Valley and a ford or crossing 
over the river: Stapleton lies below the point where the 
Lugg debouches from the hills. 
The first recorded reference to Presteigne, as Presthe-
mede, which means 'The House or Home of Priests',2 occurs 
in one of the folios 3 annexed to the BaIliol Domesday manu-
I Howse, The History and Legend of Stapleton Castle. Privately printed in 
Leominster, Herefordshire, in 1946. • Ekwall, p. 3)6. 
3 B.D.B., ff. 40, 40., and 41, and p. 79; also note at p. xxi. 
120 Vallry on the March 
script where it is recorded that 'at Presthemede Osbern fitz 
Richard has seven hides'. The folio is not later than the 
Balliol transcription of the Domesday text: it has been dated 
to Henry I's reign, c. II28-39. This annexed folio makes no 
reference to the Domesday text which sets out Osbern fitz 
Richard's Hindwell and Lugg manors, nor does the folio 
contain in either marginalia or text any reference to seven 
particular hides at Presteigne. There is no evidence about 
whether these hides lay together or scattered. The name 
Presthemede-The House of Priests~and this early refer-
ence to the place in the Balliol folio suggest that it may well 
have existed at the time of the Conquest despite no mention 
of it in Domesday. If it was just a house for priests with no 
land, there is no particular reason why it should figure in the 
catalogue. The neighbouring Domesday manors of Queren-
tune and Clatretune accounted for the immediately local 
cultivable land. 
The absence of a reference to Stapleton, which became an 
important manor so soon after Domesday as it did, sur-
rounded with good agricultural land, is more puzzling: but 
the land there does not display evidence of old arable fields 
such as were associated with Osbern's Domesday manors.I 
The earliest reference to Stapleton2 is in a description of 
the Herefordshire border-land following the reorganization 
of the central government by Henry II (1154- 89) after the 
Civil Wars of the Stephen period. A distinction between the 
administrative shires of England and the Match administra-
tion of the Welsh border is made. The Herefordshire border 
land is specifically described as including the lordships of 
'Stapleton & Lmgharnes', Wigmore, Huntington, Whitney 
(on Wye), Eardisley, Winforton, and Clifford, as well as, by 
then, the land of Ewyas Harold farther south. In an inquisi-
tion in Henry Ill's reign (1216- 72) the western boundary of 
Herefordshire is described. Radnorshire of course had not 
yet come into existence: it only became a county by statute 
of 27 Henry VIII, c. 26. This inquisition specifically refers to 
I Cf. Chap. IV, pp. 99 et seq. 
2 V. C.H. , p. 361 and sources quoted there. Eyton in his history of 
Shropshire has a reference to Stapleton as being in the hands of King John in 
January 1207 during the minority of Margaret de Say: vol. xi, p. 344. 
OJ the Manors oj Stapletoll and Presteigne 121 
the Lugg Valley domains of the lord of Richard's Castle, 
evidently Stapleton and its dependent manors.! 
The statute of Henry VIII establishing a shire of Radnor 
follows the documents of Henry II and III in defining tlle 
western border of Herefordshire as including in this county 
Ewyas Harold, Ewyas Lacy, Clifford, Winforton, Eardisley, 
Huntington, \-xrhitney, Wigmore, Lugharnes, and Stapleton,2 
which were among those 'lordships, towns, parishes, com-
motes, hundreds and cantreds formerly in the Marches' and 
'lying between tlle said County [of Radnor] and the shires of 
England ... and being no parcel of any other shires . . .'. 
The 7 hides of Osbern fitz Richard noted in the BaHiol 
folios of 1128-39 cannot be related to any group of his lands 
in tlle HindweH or Lugg Valleys mentioned in the Domes-
day survey: moreover, the contemporary BaIliol transcrip-
tion of the Domesday text makes no reference in the body 
or margin in this context to changes of tenure since I086. It 
is therefore inherently likely that these 7 hides of Osbern at 
Presteigne refer to his newly created manor of Stapleton. 
This is to some extent substantiated by the importance which 
Stapleton had already acquired in Henry II's reign, II 54-89. 
We can thus suppose that within a few years of Domesday 
Osbern created a new and rather important estate which 
become his 'caput' manor for his Lugg-Hindwell group of 
tenancies. That the 7 hides were described in II28-39 as 
'near Presteigne' and not as 'at Stapleton' points to the 
greater importance and antiquity, as a place, of the former. 
There is no evidence at this period of any castle at either 
place. It was at this time that the Scrob family, which as will 
be shown had adopted the name of de Say, was certainly in 
occupation of Stapleton land. Since the family held the Hind-
well and Middle Lugg manors as of Stapleton for some time 
afterwards, they presumably so held them at that time too. 
By 1219, however, Stapleton passed by inheritance to a 
branch of the de Mortimer family: and by 1240 at any rate 
the 'Lordship and Manor of Presteigne' [sic] was also in the 
hands of the de Mortimer family, but of the main line of 
Wigmore. By 1244 the Warden Castle at Presteigne had 
come into existence and was held by or of the de Mortimers 
I Quoted in extenso below, p. 164. 2 27 Hy. VIII, c. 26, pt. III. 
122 Vaffry on thiJ March 
of Wigmore, who had also become possessed of the former 
Ie Scrob manors on the Upper Lugg above Presteigne, ex-
cept Cascob only. 
Since it is scarcely conceivable that two de Mortimer 
families could have built themselves two castles a couple of 
miles apart, it looks as if the Warden Castle at Presteigne 
must have been built by the de Mortimers of Wigmore to 
offset Stapleton while it was sti'll a de Say manor, probably 
. a little time therefore before 1219, and actually as we shall 
see perhaps before 1200. Since it is also unlikely that the 
Wigmore de Mortimers could have been allowed to build 
the Warden while the de Says still held the manors upstream 
of Presteigne, it follows that whenever it was that the castle 
at Presteigne was built, it coincided with, or was related to, 
the passage of the Upper Lugg manors from the de Says to 
the Wigmore de Mortimers. On documentary evidence this 
\ could have happened at any time during the period I I 30 to 
1200. In fact, however, the dates can be narrowed further. In 
I I 55  Henry II proceeded against Hugh de Mortimer, who 
was in revolt against the Crown, on account of his resump-
tion of lands granted to the Wigmore dynasty by Stephen. 
Henry II besieged and reduced the de Mortimer castles 
including Wigmore. In view of the king's relationship to the 
de Say family,I the de Mortimers are not likely by that date 
to have been in possession of, or allowed to retain, the de Say 
lands upstream of Presteigne. 
The loss of the Upper Lugg manors by the de Says to the 
Wigmore family and the building of the Warden Castle at 
Presteigne therefore most likely took place within the period 
II60 to 1200, and probably in the later rather than in the 
earlier part of this time. Stapleton Castle thus almost cer-
tainly antedated the fortress at Presteigne. In spite of the 
loss of the Upper Lugg manors the lordship of Stapleton 
and Lugharnes continued to hold some of the Hindwell and 
most of the Middle Lugg manors, including the post-Domes-
day manor of Combe. Certain of the Hindwell manors, 
however, came partially or wholly under the lordship and 
manor of Presteigne as will be shown. 
I See below, p. 126, for the inheritance of Margaret de Say on the death 
of her father in II 9 5.  
OJ the ~Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 123 
The hides attributed to Osbern fitz Richard in the annexed 
folios of the Balliol manuscript, namely a total of 26t hides, 
is considerably less than Osbern is recorded as holding in 
the Domesday te..""{ts. But these two lists, the list of hides and 
the list of tenants, are in several respects not as complete as 
those in the main Domesday survey text. If Osbern in the 
lists in these two annexed folios is, therefore, shown as 
holding less than at Domesday, it does not follow that be-
tween 1086 and the dates of these two lists, say, c. II07-28 
and II28-39 respectively,! the Scrob family had already 
begun to lose estates, at any rate to the de Mortimers. The 
totals in these two lists for the de Mortimer holdings show 
no gains in land since the Domesday survey. 
Quite early on Stapleton received a grant of a market from 
King John, in 1216. In 1223 a regrant of the market to Wil-
liam de Stuteville for his lifetime was made by Henry III. 
Here occurs a strange event. In 1225 Presteigne only two ' 
miles away also received a grant of a market from the king, 
to William fitz Warin, for the term of the king's life on pay-
ment of a fine of I palfrey and 5 marks. Now, William fitz 
Warin though Castellan of Hereford had no connexion with 
Presteigne, and, as it turned out, the whole grant was an 
error, recognized as such in a later document of 1229 when 
the 5 marks fine was remitted. Nevertheless, the people of 
Presteigne in due course received their market all the same 
by a grant in 1304 upon the death of the then Edmund de 
Mortimer. They were also given the advantage of a second 
fair .2 What is of particular interest is that two places so close 
to each other as Stapleton and Presteigne should both have 
been allowed to possess markets. They evidently by Henry 
Ill's reign were quite important and populous centres, for 
which there is also other evidence. 
Today Presteigne is the assize town of Radnorshire with 
a population of some 1,200 souls. Stapleton has disappeared; 
all that remains is a few scattered farms and cottages. It is 
I B.D.F., If. 40, 40v, 41, pp. 77- 79; ani! p. xxi. 
Z I am indebted to Mr. Howse of Presteigne for digging out these details: 
the documentary evidence is in P.R.O. Close Roll, 13 Hy. III; Fine Rolls, 
C. 54/28, m. 16,7 Hy. III, and C. 60/ 24, m. 8, 10 H y. III. Cf. Trs. Rod. Soc" 
vol. xxvi, 1956, pp. 43 et seq. 
124 Va/try 011 the March 
nearly as difficult to account for the disappearance of Staple-
ton as it is to see the raison d' etre or even the economic possi-
bility of two such substantial groups of population existing 
side by side a couple of miles apart in the arduous conditions 
of agriculture on the WeJsh border in the early Middle Ages, 
in an area which is described in the Domesday survey as 
being or having been, substantially, 'waste'. 
Presteigne certainly had a church which later became a 
dependence of the abbey of Wigmore. The ford or crossing 
of the Lugg at Presteigne was also quite an asset to the 
Lordship, although the Lugg hereabouts was nowhere a 
formidable obstacle. There is in fact another quite adequate 
crossing a little downstream of Stapleton. In later centuries 
Stapleton was a more important lordship than Presteigne 
and in the hands of great families of the county when the de 
Mortimers of Wigmore had faded into the limbo after the 
Battle of Bosworth. The growth and, even more, the decay of 
sites are always fascinating subjects for historical speculation. 
'Stapleton' means the 'tun of the steeple, pillar, or post'. I 
The hillock on which it stands would obviously tempt any-
one to use it for a 'tun'- and a castle. The proposition put 
forward, attractively enough,2 that Stapleton3 was the Domes-
day domus dejensibilis of Walelege on account of the proxim-
ity of the Willey sites just to the north, is unfortunately not 
tenable.4 The suggestion rested solely on the similarity of 
those names. There was also the reference in a document of 
12595 to 'Wylilege Welshry' in close connexion with Staple-
ton; this document almost certainly does refer to Willey Old 
Court, or a tenancy thereabouts. Willey in the fifteenth 
century was a manor of the Stapleton domain where manor 
courts were held as they also were at Cascob and Rodd.6 
The mere fact that the name in 1259 is 'Wylilege We/shry' 
seems however to differentiate it from some similar name 
elsewhere. The term 'Welshry' is frequently used of settle-
! Ekwall, p. 356. • By Howse, op. cit. 
3 Blount apud Robinson, Castles, &c., p. 124, is of course quite wrong in 
identifying Stapleton with the Domesday manor of Stepedune fsicJ which is 
Shobdon . 
• See Chap. III, p. 44. 5 See below, p. 127. 
6 Stapleton Manor Court Roll, 18/ 19 Edw. IV, in bundle marked 'Staple-
ton No. I' in muniments of Major R. Harley of Brampton Bryan. 
Of the Manors of Stapleton and Presteigne 125 
ments on the March to denote that they, or the appropriate 
parts of them, were inhabited by Welsh, as opposed to those 
called 'Englishry' inhabited by English, population. King-
ton, for instance, was divided into two quarters or wards, 
locally known on account of the way the English and Welsh 
lived in their own districts as Kington Englishry and King-
ton Welshry. Throughout the medieval period there were 
restrictions on Welshmen owning land in England with-
out penalties or sureties.! For what it is worth, moreover, 
the name in the 1259 document is written Wylilege and not 
Walelege. Walelege, with its domNs dejensibiJis as has been 
explained, was in Elsedune Hundred, whereas Willey was in 
Hezetre Hundred if not in the Lenteurde Hundred of Salop, 
and there is now no reason or justification in the light of 
current knowledge to look for Elsedune Hundred sites else-
where than in Elsedune, or Hezetre sites than in Hezetre 
Hundred. 
According to the Balliol manuscript Osbern fitz Richard 
Ie Scrob was apparently still alive in the reign of Henry I. 
The Balliol text records no change of tenure of his estates by 
1128-39 though it is, of course, possible that the Balliol manu-
script entry may refer to a time a few years earlier than that 
reign. The family name of Ie Scrob disappears early in his-
tory, when Osbern's son, Hugh, married Eustachia de Say and 
their children assumed their mother's name which was per-
haps more aristocratic and certainly more euphonious than 
their father's. The two sons of this marriage, again called 
Osbern and Hugh, married Amicia and Lucy, daughters of 
Walter de Clifford : their sister, the third daughter, was 
Henry IT's Fair Rosamond. Os bern and Amicia de Say appar-
ently had no issue, and Hugh inherited from his father 
Richard's Castle, the Barony by Tenure of Burford, Staple-
ton Castle, and the dependent Hindwell Valley and Lugg 
manors below Presteigne. Osbern fitz Hugh paid scutage for 
15 knights at Richard's Castle in II 60-I and was charged to 
scutage in Wales in I I 89- 90 ; he died before the end of I 194.2 
Hugh and Lucy had two sons of whom one only, Hugh, had 
1 Cf. Chap. II, p. 24, and see also Duncomb: Grimsworth , p. 27, quoting 
Rymer for a royal order to the Sheriff of Herefordshire in ! 379. 
2 B.D.B., pp. 95 and II9. 
126 Vallry on the March 
children; but both his two sons died without issue and the 
third child, their sister Margaret, became the heiress of Staple-
ton Castle and of the Barony of Burford. Margaret married 
three times, Hugh de Ferrers, Robert de Mortimer, and 
William de Stuteville. By Hugh de Ferrers there were appar-
ently no children. By Robert de Mortimer she had one son 
Hugh who was 40 in 1259 : they could only have been mar-
ried a year for according to an inquisitio post mortem he died 
in 1219. Robert de Mortimer became jure uxoris Baron of 
Burford and Lord of Stapleton, which thus eventually passed 
to his son and so into the de Mortimer family.! This Robert 
de Mortimer appears to have been the younger son of Hugh 
de Mortimer who died in II81, having succeeded Ralf de 
Mortimer, the Domesday grantee of Wigmore and other 
manors. Ralf de Mortimer, first Lord of Wigmore, is believed 
to have died in about 1104, and to have been succeeded by 
Hugh de Mortimer not later than 1107.2 This Hugh de Mor-
timer must not be confused with the Hugh who was Robert 
de Mortimer and Margaret de Say's son, and who had another 
Robert as son. But as Roger I de Mortimer succeeded Hugh 
as Lord of Wigmore only in I I 8 I there may well have been, 
indeed it is likely there was, yet another Hugh between the 
first who succeeded in 1107 and Roger I. The Balliol Domes-
day manuscript has a marginal note that Robert de Mortimer 
was holding Ralf de Mortimer's manor of Lecwe-Lege 
(Lower Lye) at the time of the annotation. The Balliol manu-
script is dated to II 60-70' The first Robert de Mortimer 
succeeded jure uxoris to Stapleton and died in about 1219, 
which gives a date-bracket for the marginal annotation. 3 
Since the group of Stapleton manors then still included 
Osbern fitz Richard's Lege (Upper Lye), it is quite reason-
able to suppose that when these estates passed to a de Mor-
timer, the Wigmore family should have enfeoffed their 
Stapleton cousin in Lower Lye as well, which had been part 
of the Wigmore domain.4 
I See genealogical table at p. 128. 2 B .D.B., pp. 95 and 126. 
3 Unless the reference is to the second Robert de Mortimer, referred to 
below, who was born in '25'-2, was the son of Hugh and grandson of the 
first Robert, and succeeded to Stapleton in 1274. 
4 And not necessarily 'temporarily' as the editors ofB.D.B. have supposed 
at p. 95; cf. also Chap. III, p. 79. 
Of the Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 117 
But upon the death of Robert de Mortimer, husband of 
Margaret de Say, Stapleton first passed jure uxoris to her 
third husband, William de Stuteville. In the inquisition of 
1259; Stapleton manor with Wylilege WelshryI was declared 
to have been held by William de Stuteville of the Crown by 
inheritance of Margery [sic, i.e. Margaret de Say], sometime 
his wife, for an unspecified fee and the Courtesy of England. 
This ascertainment went on to say that Sir Hugh de Mor-
timer, son of Margery (by her second husband), aged 40, 
was her heir and that he came into possession after William 
de Stuteville's tenancy.1. In confirmation of these events we 
know that Margaret de Say was specifically granted leave by 
King John to hold Richard's Castle and Stapleton Castle by 
inheritance from her fatller, Hugh de Say, who died about 
I 195, and that Stapleton also possessed a market, the licence 
for which was granted by the king in 1216 when Margaret 
was married to Robert de Mortimer, perhaps on account of 
the services rendered to him by the Mortimer clan during 
Richard 1's absence in the Middle East. The Stapleton 
market licence was, as already noted, regranted by Henry III 
in 1223 . 
That Hugh de Mortimer, son of Margaret, duly entered 
upon his inheritance after William de Stuteville's temporary 
tenure, we also know from the Calendar oj Close Rolls, for in 
1274 he is described as of Richard's Castle, and as holding 
in the manor of Stapleton certain lands with certain tenants 
at specified fees . These he held of the king, as of the Barony 
of Burford. The names of the separate holdings are not 
legible in this document but are probably the same as those 
in an inquisition held soon after when their total value was 
£28. 3s. IId., including £10. 6s. 8d. pleas and perquisites of 
court. Hugh's heir, Robert de Mortimer, was then aged 22t 
years. The Calendar oj Close Rolls of I 304 refers to therestora-
cion to Maud [sic] widow of Hugh de Mortimer of certain 
property in Willey.,3 enfeoff"ed by the widow of Llewelyn ap 
~~bert, as part of the manor of Stapleton, and also to pro-
VlSIOn made for the two daughters of Hugh de Mortimer 
I See above, p. 124. 
Z I.P.M., May, 43 Hy. III, c. 123/H y. III/I2/1 4. 
3 That is Wylilege Welshry. 
128 Vallry on the March 
from the manors of Richard's Castle and Stapleton.' This 
Hugh, the husband of Maud, is probably the son of Robert 
de Mortimer and grandson of Hugh de Mortimer who in-
herited from Margery or Margaret de Say.2 An inquest of 
August 13°4 held following the death of Hugh de Mortimer 
found inter alia that he held the vilIs of Cascob, Atecroft 
(Oatcroft), Wapelith (Wapley-Stansbatch), Combe, Titleye 
(Titley in Hezetre), and Rode, of the king in capite as of the 
. Honour of Burford for a total value of £7. I9s, zid. per 
annum. 
Much the most important Stapleton document for the 
period is the subsidy roll of 'the late Hugh de Mortimer's 
lands in Counties Radnor and Hereford'. It contains a full 
list of persons assessed in the manor of Stapleton for 1293.3 
The list covers about 400 names paying in all over £40. It 
includes a number of names which are extremely interesting 
in connexion with the Hindwell Valley manors. In the first 
place, there is an Adam de Roda who pays 4S. id. as well as 
a Hugh 'de veteri Rude' paying 3S., Eynon de Bromptone 
paying 2Id., John de Knylle 3S. 8id., and Ralph de Lingen 
I IS. I I id. There does not here appear to be a Nash or Asshe 
or Fraxino who occur frequently at this time in the Pres-
teigne papers, though a Richard Nasche was much later 
enfeoffed of Stapleton, in 1395 . There are some other 
interesting names which are worth mentioning. There is a 
Thomas, Lord of Butone (By ton), and a Walter of Norton, 
Isabella and Phillip (in that order) de Stantone, Ralph 
Keeper of Titeleye, William the Clerk who pays 4S. id., tile 
same man who figures as a free tenant of Rode, and John 
and Thomas de Cumba, evidently Combe manor. Among 
peculiar names are John and Walter de Cimiterio, as well as 
several described as de Bosco, two Underhills, Jacke the 
Jew, Joan the Weaver (textrix), Lucy la Pape, David and 
Henry - milkers, Dom Roger the Chaplain, David Ie Porter, 
John Ie Crimpe, David and Hykemon Crimpe, and two de 
Alta Terra, a few names away from Jorve de Wapelit (Wap-
I Cal. CI. R. '5 Oct. '304 and 12 Aug. 1305, and I.P.M. quoted by Eyton, 
AntiqllitieJ of Shropshire, vol. xi, pp. 41-42. 
Z See genealogical table at p. 128. 
3 P.R.O. E. 179/242/57, 21 Edw. I. 
LE SCRD~:& SAY,~ STl\lLETON. 
l\.i.charcL F{tz Scrob =" 
of'Ri,h,,nts C.stk 
(t<'"l" Ed.c,.) 
1-t~h, cU 'Mortimer' ~ 
COrd: oFltid"wu <:.stl,. 
llru-""Ofbwford. o · "7~· 
r;--.,---:::--:::- ------:,-----'- - - - - - - - - -- - - ---
'""Rob~ de, Mortill1.(f"':- ~04a 
1\"ron of'l>urfonL a.".ht<r"ruLhcir'ofWil!Uun, <it l,,·Zoudu.(C(i<s.) 
~1!d.2.2. . itVl'lI)+. o.drca..l2-SJ . o. biFortl'2.89 -
AuthotiCtj : Cmnpron" R,"~, ," Thi1-\",,,,of Co1'1llvo.U;~ p";vnt«.utl"",,1 -!o-tFor<t '90' ; nn&' .Mit. . ,nl. noru t"k<n, 
f,,,,,,,:o,uwt;l101n<5M~ ""'" ""dinoru. 
OJ the Alanors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 129 
ley), on which hill there is today a farm called Highland. The 
latter part of the list is mainly of people who have no descrip-
tive or sur-names but are merely recorded patronymically as 
John the son of Richard, &c. With these are some thirty or 
so obvious Welshmen like Merdit ap Madoc, Kadugan ap 
Adam, Kadugan ap Y orward, a Y orward - medicus, and his 
son and so forth. This interesting list is complete. 
Hugh 'de veteri Rude' who pays the relatively large sum 
of 3S. raises an interesting point. There is no other reference 
at this time either to a Hugh de or de la Rode or to an 'Old 
Rode' in the Presteigne area, though a Henry de la Rode and 
Matilda his wife had land at Leominster in 1295/6 and the 
names Henry and Hugh or Hugo are sometimes confused. 
'Old Rode' may, however, refer to Od or Odd Rode in 
Cheshire (see Appendix I to Chap. VII and pedigree no. 2 
thereat). It is true that Odd Rode is reputed to mean the 
Rode of Odda, I an Old English personal name, but this is 
only a conjecture at best and even if correct 'Old Rode' for 
Odrode is an easy step. Moreover, there were a Hugh de 
Rode, the son of Gilbert de Rode and probably grp.ndson of 
Michael de Rode, as well as a Hugh de Rode, son of Michael 
and brother of Gilbert, alive at this time. The elder Hugh was 
alive in 1260, the younger was dead by 1299 when his widow 
Agnes sued for dower in that year in Hertfordshire. More-
over a Gilbert Rood, as we shall see, was witness to the 
conveyance of some land in Gloucestershire in 1280/90.2 
On balance the Hugh' de veteri Rude' seems in all probability 
to have been a member of the Cheshire Rode line and is 
probably the younger Hugh, the son of Gilbert of Odrode 
Hugh de Mortimer actually died in 1299, within a few 
years of the Stapleton Subsidy Roll. He left no son but two 
co-heiresses :- Joan, who first married Sir Thomas de Byke-
noure by whom there were apparently no children and then 
Sir Richard Talbot: and Margaret, married to Sir Geoffrey 
de Cornubia (Cornwall) who thus became jure uxoris Baton 
by tenure of Burford. It appears that Stapleton, at any rate, 
and perhaps also Burford, were originally held by Joan as 
first co-heiress but that she and her husband passed Staple-
ton by gift to her sister Margaret and Geoffrey Cornwall. 
I Ekwall, p. 372 • 2 See below, p . 148. 
B 6851 K 
Vaffry on the March 
They were enfeoffed by Joan by fine in the King's Court with 
remainder to the heirs of Margaret, I as is conf1rmed by the 
record of the Escheator for the counties of Hereford, Glou-
cester, Worcester, Salop, Stafford, and the Marches of Wales. 
Burford and Stapleton, separately mentioned as befits the 
importance of the latter, we2re  held of the Crown in chief by barony and It knight's fee. In 1334 Geoffrey de Cornubia 
by a 'grant of special grace' received the right to hold two 
annual fairs at the manor of Stapleton in addition to a weekly 
market.3 
In about 1337 Geoffrey Cornwall died and Margaret his 
widow married Sir William d'Everois (Devereux). On her 
second widowhood, the king as overlord of Burford and 
Stapleton seized the lands which William Devereux held 
jure ux oris, but upon Margaret's petition that the lands had 
been Mortimer 'since time out of mind' regranted them to 
her and her heir Richard Cornwall, then aged 23.4 This is 
confirmed by the inquisition of 1348, in which it was ascer-
tained that Richard died leaving a son, the next Geoffrey 
Cornwall, as a minor.s Finally, in 1356, there is an inquisition 
to ascertain this second Geoffrey Cornwall's age : from which 
it was shown that he was born in 1335, to which William de 
la More aged 60, and John de la Rode aged 40, were wit-
nesses. John de la Rode testified that this Geoffrey was born 
on the same day on which he married Rose, the daughter of 
Roger de Weston. 6 
During the minority of this Geoffrey, his lands were held 
in trust by Juliana, widow of John Talbot of Richard's 
Castle, and Richard de Estham, from which it again appears 
that Joan de Mortimer made Burford over to her sister 
Margaret, but that Richard's Castle remained in the Talbot 
family. This Geoffrey Cornwall was born at Stapleton and in 
due course succeeded as the third Cornwall Baron of Bur-
ford. His son, Brian, succeeded as fourth Cornwall Baron in 
1365 and he was succeeded as fifth Baron by Richard, who 
I I.P.M. June, 9 Edw. III (1335); P.R.O. E. 149/8/14. 
Z Cal. CI. R. 8 Nov. 1335. 
3 Cal. Ch. R. 17 July 1334. For a second fair at Presteigne see p. 123 above. 
4 I.P.M. 2 Edw. III; P.R.O. E. 135150/22. 
5 I.P.M. 22 Edw. III; F.R.O. E. 152 and Index vol. 12, No. 456. 
6 I.P.M. 26 Aug., 30 Edw . III, Index vol. 10, No. 332. 
OJ tfte Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 131 
successfulJy defended Stapleton for Henry IV against Owen 
Glendowerwhen he ravaged thelands around Presteigne and 
Lyonshall. Richard's successor Sit John Cornwall married 
Henry IV's sister, fought at Agincourt with thirty men-at-
arms and ninety archers, and was made a I(night of the 
Garter. 
By the middle of the fourteenth century the manor of 
Stapleton comes to be referred to more and more as the 
manor of Lugharnes. It was the next great lordship to the 
de Bohun lordship of Huntington, the b0U11dary between 
them running along the northern side of the manors of 
Eardisley, Lyonshall, Pembridge, Eardisland, and Kingsland. 
The list of manors which went to make up the lordship of 
Stapleton was, however, not static. By ton and Staunton-on-
Arrow were sometimes within and sometimes without the 
Stapleton organization. Combe manor though in Stapleton 
lordship was held as of Huntington. 1 In 1399 when Sir 
Brian Cornwall, son of Geoffrey and the fourth Cornwall to 
be Baron of Burford, held Stapleton, the manor of Lugharnes 
specifically included Cascob which had not been mentioned 
for some time. It seems that Cas cob had all this time re-
mained with Stapleton, whereas the other Upper Lugg 
Valley manors went and remained with the Presteigne lord-
ship. 
During the fourteenth century Stapleton manor included 
Titley, Oatcroft near Titley, the mesne-lordship of Moldelye 
or Malleigh (Moley near Titley), and the demesnes of Wap-
ley, Staunton, and Willey, besides Combe. The Hindwell 
manors, which were also in part included, present complica-
tions, but these will be considered after examining the story 
of the manor of Presteigne. At Titley there was a priory of 
the abbey of Titon; in September 1395 Richard Nassh one 
of the feoffees of Stapleton delivered seisin of the manors of 
the abbey, including Titley, to Winchester College.2 
Stapleton Castle today is a group of ruins on a mound 
where the motte and bailey can be identified. Most of the 
I Cf. 'Historical Map of S. Wales and the Border in the 14th Century', 
H.M.S.O., by William Rees, who also makes Presteigne an enclave of Hunt-
ington lordship in Mortimer country which does not accord with other evi-
dence, though see also references at pp. 122, 12) and '40. 
2 Deed NO. 7 of 4 Sept. "39", Winchester College Archives. 
Vallry on the March 
surviving masonry is of a seventeenth-century house with 
cross wings said to have been 'sleighted' by Sir Michael 
Woodhouse in 1645. Of the thirteenth- fourteenth-century 
settlement at Stapleton practically nothing remains, even as 
ruins. One surviving dwelling near by, Carter's Croft, dates 
from the thirteenth century and has the remains of three 
crutch trusses in the fabric, a form of timber construction 
which was not used after the fourteenth century.! 
The genesis of the manor of Presteigne is as much a 
puzzle as that of Stapleton. When first described as a 
manor in the thirteenth century there is no indication, be-
yond its apparent importance, of the extent and location of 
its lands. It may be noted that the seven hides which Osbern 
had according to folio 41 of the Balliol manuscript are 
described as at Presteigne and not as the manor of Presteigne. 
This suggests that Presteigne was then a place or settlement 
rather than a manor. It was evidently not, nor did it depend 
from, a church or monastic establishment having property, 
of which there are numerous examples in the Survey of 
Herefordshire, or it would probably have been mentioned 
in the catalogue. The abbey of Wigmore from which the 
church at Presteigne later came to depend was not yet 
founded. The present church, formerly known as Llanandras 
in Welsh and dedicated to St. Andrew, contains 'Saxon' 
remains. Circumstances generally suggest that Presthemede 
may well have existed before the Conquest. As a pre-Con-
quest Saxon church it may have been deliberately disre-
garded in the survey.2 
The de Mortimer family in the person of Ralph de Mor-
timer and the Scrobs in the persons of Richard and Osbern 
had been, as has been seen, grantees of extensive estates, 
around Wigmore and in the Lugg Valley respectively, at 
Domesday. Both Ralph and Richard, serving Earl William 
before the Conquest, had already carved out for themselves 
domains which the king only confirmed and extended. The 
lands of the two families represented solid blocks of country 
which marched with each other along the Upper Lugg and 
in the Arrow basin south of Shobdon. In this part of Here-
I R.C.H.M., vol. iii, p. 182. 
2 Cf. Howse in Trs. Rad. Soc., vol. xxi, 1951, p. 48; also Ekwall, p. 356. 
OJ the Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 133 
fordshire the Scrob lands 'were in fact more extensive than 
those of the de Mortimers. But the latter were more valuable 
than the former, so many of which were waste. 
By the middle of the twelfth century the fortunes of the de 
Mortimers were already very much in the ascendant. In the 
reign of Stephen the Hugh de Mortimer who succeeded 
Ralph not earlier than 1107 managed to get further grants of 
land from the king. He was already sharing with Miles of 
Gloucester, who became Earl of Hereford in II41 (Earl 
William's son Roger de Breteuil having been dispossessed 
for his rebellion against King William), the dominion of this 
part of the March. With Henry II's decision, from the very 
moment he was crowned, to restore the authority of his 
government, conflict was bound to break out with the Earl 
of Hereford and Hugh de Mortimer. In fact it came to a head 
immediately in I I 55  when the king began to resume lands 
which Stephen had granted to the Mortimers. The Bishop 
of Hereford persuaded the earl to make his submission, 
which he did, and he died in the same year. But against Hugh 
de Mortimer the king had to proceed by force. He laid siege 
to the de Mortimer castles of Wigmore, Cleobury Mor-
timer, and Bridgnorth which the family had acquired from 
Roger of Belleme. That Henry II in his campaign against 
Wigmore stayed at Stapleton is probable, for his Fair Rosa-
mond was the sister of Lucy de Say wife of Hugh who held 
Stapleton Castle and manor. His troops certainly passed 
through Presteigne. The de Mortimer castles were reduced 
but Hugh de Mortimer was allowed to retain Wigmore and 
Bridgnorth. Although during Henry II's reorganization of 
the administration of the March after these events, Stapleton 
and Lugharnes manor are first mentioned, there is as yet no 
mention of Presteigne as a manor. 
Of Richard Cceur de Lion's absentee reign there is some 
local tradition or history. The Walshamfamily of Knill who 
descended from, and succeeded, the de Knills claimed that 
Sir JO M de Knill went with Richard Lionheart on the Third 
Crusade. The armorial bearings of the de Knill family have 
the charge of crosses with a pointed lower member tradi-
tionally associated with the Crusades, as symbolizing the 
planting of the Cross in the Holy Land. The Rodd or de 
Vallry on the March 
Rode family of The Rodd claim that a Hugh de Rode or de la 
Rode also went on the Third Crusade and was knighted by 
King Richard for his distinguished conduct in the campaign 
of Ascalon in II9I. The Rodd family coat bears two trefoils 
slipped, that is, having a long pointed stalk which is tradi-
tionally also a charge commemorating service in the Holy 
Land, analogous to the crosses with a pointed lower arm. It 
is a pleasant thought to think of the two modest manor 
holders, squires or yeoman farmers as they might have been 
called in later ages, in the remote Hindwell Valley discussing 
and finally going off together on the Third Crusade from 
which they returned with honour and distinction, and, one 
may hope, some profit from what was, for so many, nothing 
but a colonial venture. 
There is a local tradition that John, later King John, used 
Barland, north of Knill, as a hunting lodge when he visited 
Presteigne. John's relations with the de Mortimers were close 
and during Richard Cceur de Lion's absence in the East, 
Roger de Mortimer, son of Hugh, like the de Bohun family, 
supported him. In recompense, when John became king he 
made Henry de Bohun Hereditary Constable of England 
and Earl of Hereford, in the place of Miles of Gloucester 
who had died in I I 55 , and confirmed the de Mortimers and 
the de Bohuns in their domination of the March. 
Thenceforth throughout the late twelfth and early thir-
teenth centuries the border became an unceasing theatre of 
treachery and intrigue by the Lords of the March, in which 
the de Bohuns for a time and the de Mortimers for two 
centuries reigned supreme. 
The complete lack of loyalty and moral sense of these 
border dynasties is well illustrated by the case of William de 
Braose, one of the important Marcher Lords of the early 
thirteenth century. His four daughters Isabel, Eleanor, Eva, 
and Maud were respectively married to Llewellyn Prince of 
Wales, Humphrey de Bohun Earl of Hereford, William de 
Cantilupe of Hereford, and Roger II de Mortimer fifth Lord 
of Wigmore, notwithstanding that at this time Llewellyn was 
fighting the English till his death in 1240. His son David 
then lost Brecon to the de Bohuns and Mortimers but in 
1244 invaded England and defeated the English twice. In the 
OJ the Mallors oj Stapleton arid Presteigl1e 135 
course of these struggles, Humphrey de Bohun, brother-in-
law of Llewellyn, secured the lordships of Hay, Eardisley, and 
Huntington. In 1246, David ap Llewellyn died and Henry 
III made a favourable settlement with the Welsh from which 
botl1 the two main families again benefited considerably. 
In tl1e following year, 1247, Roger II, Lord of Wigmore, 
himself died and was succeeded by his son Roger III. Roger 
III, Lord of Wigmore, had lived in troublous times and con-
tributed much trouble to them. In 1258 he and Humphrey 
de Bohun joined the Barons at Oxford under Simon de 
Montfort against Henry III. Owing to a renewal of Welsh 
hostilities and consequent danger to his lands at Wigmore 
and elsewhere on the March, Roger rejoined the king's side 
and was regranted the lordship of Wigmore in 1259. In 1260 
the Welsh, nevertheless, took Builth Castle from him and 
ravaged the Mortin1er and Bohun lands as far as Weobley, 
Eardisley, and Wigmore itself until Lord (Prince) Edward 
came to the rescue and drove them off. By his change of front 
in 1259 Roger de Mortimer incurred the enmity of Simon de 
Montfort who, with the support of the Earl of Gloucester 
and the Welsh, sacked the Mortimer lands in 1263-4, be-
sieged Stapleton Castle, and took Radnor Castle and Richard's 
Castle. Had the Barons, the more enlightened clergy, and 
the men of the cities of London and Oxford under Simon 
had time after his victory at Lewes in 1264 to consolidate 
the west and north, the history of England would have been 
different. But the power of the March was too great. Lord 
Edward escaped from Simon's custody at Hereford and took 
refuge with the Mortimers at Wigmore, where he was joined 
by levies from the counties of Hereford, Worcester, Salop, 
and Chester. Cut off by Gloucester's troops from England, 
Simon attempted to break out across the Bristol Channel. 
He was brought to battle at Evesham in August 1265 and 
with him the freedom of England went down for two cen-
turies until Henry VII finally broke the power of the March 
for ever. In 1276 the Lords of Wigmore regained Brecknock 
and Builth from the Welsh and in 1298 the fourth Earl of 
Hereford married Elizabeth, daughter of Edward I, the 
conqueror of Wales. The de Bohuns and the de Mortimers 
once more reigned supreme on the March. 
1~ Vallry on the March 
In 1304 Edmund de Mortimer, seventh Lord of Wigmore, 
was succeeded by yet another Roger de Mortimer who with 
the Earl of Hereford took side against Edward I and II. In 
1326 Edward II was overthrown by Isabella and the Mor-
timers, and Prince Edward was named Lord Warden of Eng-
land and Hereford. De Mortimer for his share in promoting 
the successful revolution was appointed Keeper of Hereford-
shire, Staffordshire, and W orcestershire, and created Earl of 
March in 132 8. But he proved too much for Edward III : 
. he was attainted and executed in November 13 30. His son 
nevertheless in 133 I received back most of the Mortimer 
lands, as well as the earldom of March. He survived till 136o, 
possessed of more lands than ever the family had before. 
The third Earl of March again increased the power and 
wealth of the family by marrying in 1368 Philippa, daughter 
and heiress of the Duke of Clarence. 
The Bohun family in the meanwhile had declined. The 
seventh Earl of Hereford's daughter Eleanor married Ed-
ward Ill's son, Thomas of Woodstock; the other daughter, 
Mary, in the winter of 138o married, at the age of 10, Henry 
Earl of D erby, afterwards Henry IV. The earldom of Here-
ford became extinct i1,1 1373 with the death of the seventh 
earl and the family properties passed to the Dukes of Buck-
ingham and the Earls of Stafford who inter alia received the 
manor of Huntington. The de Bohun-de Braose lands in 
Brecon also went to the Staffords. 
The first specific reference to a castle at Presteigne as well 
as to its de Mortimer character occurs in the confirmation of 
1249 by Roger III de Mortimer of Thomas de Frene's char-
ter of 1244 granting lands to the abbey of Wigmore. The 
passage reads: 'Et ego dictus Thomas [de Frene] et heredes 
mei pro dicto portione placitarum custodiemus omnes illos 
qui fuerunt incarcerandi de hominibus suis in mea ptisona 
tanquam in communi carcere apud Prestmede in castello 
nostro ... . '1 From this it appears that Thomas de Frene was 
lord of the manor of Presteigne which he held with the castle 
of Roger de Mortimer. The grant to Wigmore Abbey by 
Thomas de Frene included the right of pasturage over all the 
I Aptld Banks in Arch. Comb., 4th seL, voL xiii, and 5th ser., voL v, pp. 2 I4, 
&c. 
OJ the Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 137 
lands of the manor e.."'l:cept sown lands and meadows. The 
grant further authorized the canons of the abbey to hold their 
own court in Presteigne and to try all cases, both great and 
small, excepting those pertaining to the taking of a man's 
life. The grantor, Thomas de Frene, was not to be entitled 
to sit in court \.vith them unless especially invited. The canons 
were to pay as consideration a horse of the value of 10 marks. 
Anticipating dates for a moment, tllere is also a reference in 
1337 to land at 'Castledych' held by Edmund de Mortimer 
and :Margaret his wife 'in the marches of Wales in Presthe-
mede', as well as to a meadow, the tent of assize and pleas 
(of the manor court), and tlle 'toll of passengers' worth £4 
per annum, which must refer to the bridge or crossing of 
the Lugg at Presteigne-obviously an important property 
in the town. I 
The witnesses to the deed were Brian de Bromptone, John 
de Lyngaine, William de la Rode, and John de la Combe. 
The same witnesses figure on the confirmation of 1249 with 
the addition of two Mortimers and Radulph de Prestmede, 
priest. In the same context, the church of Presteigne is de-
scribed as for thirty monks and the advowson was quit-
claimed to Walter, abbot of Wigmore, in 1236 by William de 
Fraxino, son of Warin.2 This William was probably an 
earlier William than the de Fraxino (or Frene) the son of 
Adam (or Alan) de Fraxino who figures in Edmund de 
Mortimer's muniments in the late thirteenth century. Apart 
from the obvious importance of the de Frenes early in the 
thirteenth century, the appearance of William de la Rode 
among the witnesses to such a series of documents is note-
worthy. 
In the latter part of the thirteenth century there are a 
number of references to land in Presthemede held by various 
people, including Ralph de Sancto Audoeno,3 by fealty and 
render of a pair of gilt spurs. In an interesting assize case of 
I292 Edmund de ¥ortimer, the abbot of Wigmore, and 
others appear against Roger de Mortimer concerning a 
tenure of La Hethe by Presthemede: this case, too, was 
I I.P.M. 16 Sept., 10 Edw. III. Cf. above, p. 124. 
2 F.F. 20 Hy. ill, CP 25A and SO 8, No. 149. 
3 When the manor was in the king's hands. 
Valley on the March 
decided in favour of Edmund with the note that La Hethe 
was 'neither vill, borough nor hamlet',! 'La Hethe' is, of 
course, the area and hamlet known today as Broadheath 
about two miles east of Presteigne. 
Some other early references occur in 1256, when a William 
de Presthemede is recorded as drowned in an accident, Roger 
de la Rode is fined in the manor court of Presteigne 20S. for 
a 'transgression'in Kynardslegh (Kinnersley), and Thomas 
de Fraxino2 concurred in an award concerning two mes-
suages and a virgate of land in Presthemede to Matilda, wife 
of William de la Plutte.3 These references seem mostly to be 
to parts of the township of Presteigne which evidently came 
under the manor court. 
In the muniments of Edmund de Mortimer4 Thomas de 
Fraxino, son of Ralph de Fraxino, is referred to as Lord of 
Presthemede, while a William de Fraxino, son of Alan or 
Adam de Fraxino, sells to Dame Gladys de Mortimer 2 vir-
gates of land in the manor of Presthemede of the homage of 
Walter fitz Adam fitz Peter, which Walter had of the king 
and chief lord for service and foreign service and 3! marks, 
to which Brian de Bromptone, John de Lyngaine, Philip de 
Mortimer, Henry de Mortimer, Ralph de Arace, Gilbert de 
Lakenhulle, Pagan del Asche, John de Cumba, and William 
de la Rode were witnesses. 5 A quit-claim of the same series to 
Sir Roger de Mortimer refers to rents in Presteigne. Another 
quit-claim to Roger de Mortimer refers to the rights of til-
Jage of land at 'Brock furlong' formerly held by Thomas 
de Fraxino, and a messuage in the 'town' of Presteigne, also 
formerly held by Thomas de Fraxino, with familiar witnesses 
including John de Cumba and William de Fraxino. Finally, 
there is a sale by Thomas de Fraxino to Thomas Ie Deveneys, 
for his homage, service, and a silver mark, of the 'Brock 
furlong' tillage 'between the lands of Thomas, the chaplain 
of Presthemede from Claterbrook to the land of William de 
Fraxino', also a curtilage 'which Hinzit once held in the 
I Assize Roll].I. I/302, f. 27d, 20 Edw. I. Cf. above, Chap. ill, p . 58 .. 
2 See below (re Fraxino-Frene-Nash-Asshe), p. I44. 
3 Assize Rolls ].1. I/3ooe, If. L.d.4, 2Id, 30, and 33, p . 40, Hy. III. 
4 Har!eian I240, If. 88d, 89, 97. Edmund succeeded Roger sixth Lord of 
Wigmore in I304. 
5 Har!. I240, f. 69d. 
OJ the Manon oj Stapleton and Presteigne 139 
town of Presteigne', upon rendering a pair of white gloves 
worth 1d. at Easter for all service save to the king and chief 
lord, to which Sir John de Lyngeyn, John Sturmey, John 
de Cumba, William Balistarius, Pagan del Esses [sic], Wil-
liam de Rode,William de Fraxino, and others were witnesses. 
These documents are undated but can be referred to the 
thirteenth century; the latest of them may belong to the first 
years of the fourteenth century, since from other documents 
we know that Walter de Fraxino, Kt., was a juror at assize in 
September 1310, under the alternative name of de Frene. In 
1327 a grant by John de Lytham and Phillip ap Howell to 
Sir Roger de Mortimer, son of Edmund de Mortimer, 
describes him as 'lately Lord of\Vigmore'l and of the manors 
of Radnor, Knighton, Presteigne, Pilleth, Norton, and an-
other, and of the lands of Kerry in the March of Wales, 
which lands all lie west and north of Presteigne. 
Among the muniments of Edmund de Mortimer, we also 
find in 1332 a patent for livery of the manor of Presteigne, 
and in 1337 a leave to alienate the lordship. The :6.rst of these 
documents was soon after Edmund, second Earl of March, 
had received back his lands and title in 1331 after the execu-
tion and attainder of his father. In 1338, however, we find 
the manor of Presteigne in the king's hands according to 
the Manor Court Roll.2 This is probably connected with the 
alienation of 1337, the circumstances of which do not appear. 
In 1292 Matilda, the widow of Roger de Mortimer, and 
Edmund de Mortimer were joined in a dispute with Roger 
de Mortimer, the son of Roger, concerning the tenure of the 
manor of Presteigne.3 The dispute about the manor of 
Presteigne was decided in favour of Edmund to whom the 
manor passed after a temporary tenancy by the second of 
these two Rogers . It is clear from all these documents that 
Presteigne did not include and was quite distinct from the 
manor of Stapleton. 
It does not app~ar specifically whether the town of Pres-
teigne went with the manor, though both the Rogers and 
Edmund de Mortimer certainly had tenements in the former, 
I E vidently Roger III. 
2 Court Rolls S.c. 2/ 227, N o. 48, Court of Prest erne de, 12 Edw. III, 1338. 
3 Assize Roll, J.1. 1/ 302, Trinity, Edw. I, p. 270. 
Vaffry on the March 
some of which later passed to the de Fraxino family. But as 
the manor court evidently had jurisdiction in the township, it 
presumably did go with the manor. The alienation of 1337 
recently mentioned may have been a transfer of the manor 
from the Bohun lordship of Huntington to the de Mortimers 
at a time when the former family was coming to an end in 
two daughters: for of the township itself we know that in 
1304 it was held by Edmund de Mortimer of Humphrey de 
Bohun, Earl of Hereford, by service of 2 marks yearly and 
suit of court of Huntington every three weeks. It is here 
again recorded as having a market, separate and distinct from 
the Stapleton market, every Saturday, and yearly fairs on St. 
Andrew's Day and the Nativity of John the Baptist. 
The township of Presteigne was assessed in an inquisition 
of 1304 as: pasture worth 18d. per annum, 73 tenants who 
paid II os. 3td. per annum, quit-rents to the Earl of Hereford 
13 s. 3d ., fairs worth 40S. per annum, (s omething else) worth 
16s. per annum, and the profits of court at Michaelmas 
(presumably the Presteigne manor court) worth 70S. per 
annum: a total of £II. 4S. 5td.I There is also a fragmentary 
rent roll, which can be dated to about 1300, of the manor of 
Presteigne2 which names some 80 tenants paying rents most-
ly of I2d. : the largest payment is only of 18d. and the total 
amounts of 78s. 9d. Although it is evident that the original 
document included at least one more parchment, the figures 
are of the same order of magnitude as those of the inquisi-
tion of 1304. The names in this fragmentary rent roll are not 
particularly relevant to this narrative except for one occur-
rence of the name of 'Rod' paying 12d. for a messuage in 
Canon Street. Roger the Clerk (cfericus) appears twice. The 
two documents are of great interest since they are about con-
temporary with the Stapleton Subsidy Roll of 1 293 and prove 
the contemporary existence of the two substantial and separ-
ate centres around Presteigne and Stapleton at the close of 
the century. 
During the whole of the fifteenth century the manor of 
I I.P.M. 20 Aug., 32 Edw. I (1304), C. 133/II4(8). The total does not add 
up even if the quit-rents to the Earl of Hereford are deducted. 
2 In the Central Library of Cardiff: copied and referred to in a private 
letter to the author. 
OJ the Manors oj Stapleton and Presteigne 141 
Presteigne continued to remain separate from the lordship 
of Stapleton and the manor of Lugharnes. In 1425 the fifth 
Earl of March died of plague, and his possessions in the 
March descended through his sister Anne to her husband 
Richard, Earl of Cambridge, and from him to his son, 
Richard of York. In 1459 hostilities broke out between the 
Lancastrians and York: in October Henry VI faced the 
Y orkists in front of Ludlow and dispersed their disaffected 
followers. The manor of Presteigne which had passed with 
other March lands to Richard, Duke of York, was forfeit and 
a number of deeds record the receipt of this lordship, inter 
alia, into the hands of Henry VI. The receivers appointed 
were John Barre and John Scudamore, Kts., Thomas Corn-
wall, Master Hugh Payn, steward of the manor, J 01U1 Miles 
Water (or Milwater), Richard Croft senior, Thomas ap Roger 
and Maurice ap Griffiths. But in June 1460 the young Earl of 
March, later Edward IV, son of Richard of York, landed at 
Sandwich and defeated the Lancastrians at Northampton. 
On 2 February 1461 Edward met the Lancastrians at Mor-
timer's Cross and was again victorious. In 1477 the lordship 
and manor of Presteigne with all other property and rights 
of the earldom of March were granted to Edward, Prince 
of Wales, who became Edward V, and in 1493 it passed to 
Arthur, Prince of Wales. I So much for the manors of Pres-
teigne and Stapleton up to the end of the fifteenth century. 
I Cal. Pal. R. 13 Dec. 1459, 16 Apr. 1460,4 Sept. 1460, 1477, 5 Nov. 1493. 
CHAPTER VI 
Of the Hindwell Vallf)' dJl;[anors tn the 
dJl;[iddle c/:1ges 
OR at any rate two centuries after Domesday the princi-
F pal estates in the Lugg-Hindwell area were the lord-ships and manors of Presteigne and of Stapleton, the 
former held by the de Mortimers of Wigmore, the latter by 
various families-de Say, de Mortimer, and Cornwall. The 
manor of 'Stapleton and Lugharnes'I originally included the 
subordinate manors and vilis of Cascob,2 Titley, Moley, 
Oatcroft, Wapley, Combe, By ton, Rodd, Nash, Little Bramp-
ton, and Knill. Knililater went to the lordship of Hunting-
ton, while Nash and Little Brampton became, at any rate 
partially or from time to time, associated with the manor of 
Presteigne. The latter included Discoed and the Domesday 
manors of Querentune and Clatretune which disappear as 
names, obviously because they became the manor of Pres-
teigne itself. Norton at first was 2.pparently included in 
Presteigne and therefore in all probability Ackhill too. Sub-
sequently Norton became an important separate manor and 
lordship when Ackhill, probably again, went with it. Staple-
ton and Lugharnes was from the first the more important 
manor group, both in size and wealth as well as in popula-
tion.3 What happened to Osbern fitz Richard's Milton and 
Ralf de Mortimer's Arrow Valley manors is not relevant to 
this story; the Radnor-Kington manors became part of the 
de Bohun lordship of Huntington. 
Mter the middle of the thirteenth century a growing 
volume of information about the Hindwell Valley manors 
becomes available. From an inquisition taken at Hereford in 
J i.e. the lands of the Lugg. 
Z Litton or Letton becomes associated with Cascob from the fourteenth 
century; and Stapleton manor courts are held at 'Cascob and Letton' from 
that time until the mid-eighteenth cenrury. 
3 Cf. Chap. V, p. 120: for its seniority too. 
'"d 
t-< 
>-
>-l 
tl1 
The .H indwell Va ll ey from B Uffa to Wapley Hi JJ s. l(ni JJ , Little Brampton, 0.'ash and Rodd x 
(w hite triangle top middle , field A) .\Ianor lanus 
Of the HinduJe// Valley Manors 143 
1287 the manor of 'La Aysse alias La Asshe' was held of 
Stapleton by John de Sancto Audoeno (alias Audone or 
Saint-Ouen) for t knight's fee.! Confumation of a charter 
dated 25 June 1285 concerning a grant of lands in Elfael 
by Edmund de Mortimer to Walter de Hakelutel was wit-
nessed by, inter alia, a Sir John Saint-Ouen, Kt. 2 Ralph de 
Sancto Audoeno, an early grantee or sub-grantee of land in 
western Herefordshire, held Burlingjobb and certain other 
lands in addition to the manor ofNash. 3 In 1339 he, or more 
likely a descendant, is described as of Gerbestone (Garnston 
near W eobley), 4 with lands at Weo bley, Sarnesfield, and other 
places. Two inquisitions of 1308, when Maud the widow of 
Hugh de Mortimer held Stapleton of the king for Hugh's 
minor heir, confum that (Little) Brampton was held by 
Richard de Cursun, for It knight's fee - £21, Asshe 
(Nash) by Ralph de Sancto Audoeno for t knight's fee-
IOOS., and Knill for t knight's fee by John de Lingain-
8 marks.s 
An inquisition taken at Hereford Castle in 1352 to ascer-
tain the heir of one Pain atte Nash established: that he held 
in La Rode 'in the fee of Stapleton' a messuage and a vir-
gate of land by service of 7S. of the heir to Geoffrey de 
Cornubia, and in Nash a messuage, two parcels of land and 
15 s. rent: that the land in La Rode was actually held by 
Roger de la Nasshe for his life by reason of the demise of 
Pain: that the land in Nash was held of Ralph de Sancto 
Audoeno who held by service of i- knight's fee of Stapleton: 
that Pain's heir being a minor aged 16, Ralph de Sancto 
Audoeno had seized the tenements in Nash by way of ward-
ship and received the issues and profits thereon. The inquisi-
tion established that by custom of the fee whoever held lands 
of the castle and manor of Stapleton and Lugharnes, the 
lord had the wardship of minor heirs :6 and that Roger de la 
Nasshe held them for his life by demise of the said Pain. 
1 I .P.M. Edw. I, 49/2, Index vol. 2, 640' 
2 From Cal. Ch. R. 1257-1300. 
3 Cf. B.D.B., note at p. 89 ref. Burlingjobb of which he is noted as the 
holder in the marginalia to f. 12 . 
4 F.F. 13 Edw. III, 25, 83/40, No. 96. 
5 I.P.M. Edw. II, File 4 (2) and vol. 5, Nos. 57 and 58. 
6 I .P.M. 3 Edw. II, File 133 (18), vol. 10, 297. 
144 Valley on the March 
There is the strong presumptive evidence of the depen-
dence of Knill from Stapleton in the tax roll of 1293 when 
John de Knill pays 3s. 8td. to thatlordship and his immediate 
superior Ralph de Lingen also pays lIS. IIt d. to the same 
lordship. In 1309 Knill was held for t knight's fee by a John 
de Lingaine.1 In 1348 an inquisition refers to Knill as held 
by a Ralph de Lingaine for t knight's fee of the Barony of 
Burford, that is of Stapleton lordship. Nevertheless, later on 
Knill certainly came to depend from Huntington,z but pre-
cisely when or why is not clear. 
Little Brampton was held in 1293 of William de Cursun 
by Eynon de Bruntune who pays 21d. subsidy to Stapleton. 
This is in confirmation of an inquisition of 1287 when Wil-
liam de Cursun held this manor for t knight's fee. 3 But apart 
from these and the inquisition of 1308 already mentioned, 
there are generally few references hereafter to this manor in 
this period. 
Nash presents a problem. The intermediate lord, de Sancto 
Audoeno, certainly held of Stapleton. On the other hand, 
the Nash family in several forms of the name figure mainly 
in the Presteigne records and not in the Stapleton papers. 
The family name is interesting. It occurs in the Latin, French, 
and English forms:4 de Fraxino, de Frene or de Fresne, 
Asshe, Ayshe, de la Nasshe, de Nash, de Naisse, del Ashe, 
and del Esses. A particularly intriguing circumstance is the 
occurrence of the names Thomas de Fraxino and Pagan del 
Ash or Esshe in the same series of documents relating to the 
same neighbourhood.s 
The earliest of the references to the de Fraxinos seems to 
be that of 1236 concerning William de Fraxino son of Wari n 
and the church at Presteigne, and another to an apparently 
different William de Fraxino described as the son of Adam or 
Alan de Fraxino who in 1227 was attorney to Agnes, wife of 
Ylotefan, and Sybil, wife of Ralph de Chaundos.6 Warin and 
I Cal. CI. R. I) Oct. 1304 and 12 Aug. 130); fee payable to Geoffrey de 
Cornubia (Cornwall) who married Margaret, daughter and co-heiress of 
Hugh de Mortimer, cf. Chap. V, p. 126. 
2 As William Rees, see above, p. 131. 
3 I.P.M. Edw. I, 49/2, Index vol. 2, 240. 
4 Ash tree = Fraxinlls (Lat.) = Frene (Fr.). 
5 See Chap. V above, p. 138. 6 F.F., Mich., 2 Hy. III, 80/7, No. 107. 
Of the Hilld1}Jell Valley Manors 145 
Alan or Adam whether the same or different persons must 
therefore date back to the twelfth century. Thomas de 
Fra..."{ino, the son of Ralph, has already been noted I as lord 
of the manor of Presteigne, sub-infeudated by Roger de 
Mortimer, the si}.'1:h Lord of Wigmore. Alive in 126o, 
Thomas de Fraxino in 1244 granted a charter over certain 
lands and revenues in Presteigne to the abbey of Wigmore. 
The grant was confirmed in 1249 by Roger de Mortimer and 
survived until the 'inspection' of the third year of Henry 
VIII's reign.:>. Thomas de Fra..."<lno's father, Ralph, must thus 
also date back to the twelfth century. Thomas de Fra..."{ino 
as well as William de Fraxino were therefore already in the 
thirteenth century closely associated with the Wigmore de 
Mortimers and more prominent in the lordship of Prest eigne 
than they were in that of Stapleton. 
In Edward II's reign the anglicized form of Nash figures 
with William3 and John atten Ayshe and others in an assize 
case of 1293 ,4 as well as in another assize case brought by 
John son of John de Clinton and Isabel his wife, against 
William de Mortimer as canon of St. Ethelbert's, whose 
name also appears in the Stapleton Roll, in regard to a 
messuage, a carucate of land, 6 acres of meadow, 6 acres of 
wood, and 4-'. rent in La Rode and Asshe. The court awarded 
the holding to William de Mortimer for his life on render-
ing a red rose at the Nativity of John the Baptist for all 
services with reversion to John and Isabel de Clinton and 
their heirs . In the same period the name Pagan del Asche 
figures as a witness to deeds in the Edmund de Mortimer 
muniments. 5 
It is a reasonable conclusion that while the de Frene-
Fraxino-Nash family was closely associated with Presteigne 
manor, their lands at Nash were held of Stapleton. Whether 
or not the Nash lands included the grant in Nash of rents to 
the abbey of Lire is not clear, but Richard Nash and others 
were procurators ~f the abbey in Edward Ill's reign, the 
I See Chap. V, above, p. 136. 
2 Charters of the Abbey of Wigmore: Dugdale's Monasticon reprinted and 
quoted by Banks in Arch. Camb., 4th ser., vol. xiii. 
3 Assize Roll, 21/2 Edw. T. 
• Assize Roll, 1 Edw. II, Hilary 1308, 82/28/1. 
5 See above, Chap. V, pp. "38-9 ' 
B 6851 L 
Vallry on the March 
rents having originally been given to the abbey by Earl 
William.! 
The distinction between 'atten Ash' and 'de Fraxino' or 
'de la Nash', &c., may record the distinction between people 
who were just living on the Nash manor or in the township 
of Nash and the tenants of the manor or their relations: or 
again the different forms may have been adopted by different 
branches of one original family. Both here and at The Rodd it 
is difficult to know whether 'atte', or 'at', or simply 'a', are 
intentional, or whether 'de' is sometimes meant: whether 
omissions or erroneous transcriptions have occurred: and 
what the distinctions, if any exist between these forms, 
involved. 
De Frenes occur elsewhere in Herefordshire. A Hugh de 
Frene secured a licence to fortify and crenelate his house at 
Mockes, which is Moccas on the Cornwall estate, in 1293 : 
there is a de Frene tomb in Moccas church. Walter de Frene, 
pro bably Hugh's son, was knighted in 13 II : with his wife 
Alice he held various lands in Herefordshire, including Sut-
ton or Sutton Frene, from 1290 for about a century. In 
1295 a Walter de Frene who had free warren in Sutton St. 
Nicholas enjoyed the protection of John de Warenne to go 
to Scotland.2 He was Member of Parliament for Hereford 
five times between 1307 and 13 13. The name recurs in the 
fourteenth century in several Close Rolls.3 In the reign of 
Richard II, 1377-99, a Richard Ashe or Nashe was Member 
of Parliament for Hereford in the years 1377, 13 79J 1380-3, 
and 1390 and Steward of Hereford in 1385-1436.4 As a 
feoffee of Stapleton in 139 I he delivered seizin of the manors 
of the abbey of Tiron, including the Titley property, to 
Winchester College.s Although the family name continued 
elsewhere in Herefordshire, notably at Lye Court in Birley 
parish in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it dis-
I Cal. Fine R ., 8 Feb. 1378; Augmentation Office J\llisc. E. 315/489, 
If. !5 and I5d. 
2 Assize Rolls 20 Edw. I; W. R. Williams, A Parliam8fltary History oj the 
County of Hereford. Privately printed, Brecknock, 1896, p. 15. 
3 Pat. Rolls, 15 June 1293; 18 Oct. 1295; I.P.M. 21 Edw. I; Bannister, 
Place Names, p. 181. 
4 Close Rolls, 3 Ric. II, and 6 Ric. II, and Williams, op. cit., p. 28. 
5 Winchester Coli. Titley Manor Deeds, NO.7 of 4 Sept. 1391. 
Of the Hind)vell Va/lry 1\1a1l01's 147 
appears from the neighbourhood of the Hindwell Valley. 
A Sarah ash of Lye Court born in 1591 married Richard 
Parks of Drayton in Brumfield, and a Jeffrey Nash of Lye 
Court whose will was proved in Hereford in 1565 together 
with a Richard Nash, was buried in Birley church. I 
Of the four Hindwell Valley manors with which this story 
is concerned, Knill, Little Brampton, and Nash thus seem to 
have continued into the fourteenth century their Domesday 
connexion with the holder of Stapleton deriving from the 
original grants to Richard Ie Scrob, though the Nash family 
became more and more associated with the manor of Pres-
teigne, and the Knill family with Huntington. The three 
manors were held by their local tenants of the superior manor 
through the intermediate Lords de Cursun, de Sancto 
Audoeno, and de Lingen who diminish in importance as 
time goes on until their names disappear altogether. The 
fourth manor, La Rode, on the other hand, seems to have 
been held of Stapleton directly by the de la Rode family 
without any intermediate lord, despite some slight associa-
tion of that family, but much less than in the case of the Nash 
family, with the Presteigne area though not with that manor. 
Actually the first person using the name of the family 
living at La Rode to be recorded in a surviving document is 
William de la Rode who was witness to Thomas de Fraxino's 
Presteigne charter to Wigmore Abbey in 1244, and its con-
firmation in 1249. William de la Rode may very likely be the 
same William who witnessed the sale of some land by William 
de Fraxino to Dame Gladys de Mortimer and whose land, 
homage, and service were also conveyed by the former to 
the latter.2 This William de Fraxino was the son of Adam, or 
Alan, de Fraxino.3 Another deed referring perhaps to the 
same transaction uses the names Glandure de Mortimer and 
Thomas de Trent [sic? = Frene = Fraxino J. These trans-
actions recorded, inter alia, in Edmund de Mortimer's muru-
ments can be dated to the thirteenth century which accords 
with the period and age of William de la Rode, who must 
I Blount apud Robinson, Mansions, pp. 240 et seq. 
2 See above, p. 13 8. Harl. MS. 1240, pp. 69d, 8Sd, 89, 97, and B.M. Add!. 
MS. 6041 , pp. 'la, 90. 
3 See above, p. 144. 
Valley on the March 
have been over 20 in 1244 and was probably a contemporary 
of both William and Thomas de Frene, or of one of them. 
In the next generation a William Rood or Reod sells some 
land in Leominster to Roger de Mortimer, son of Roger, 
which had belonged to Dom Adam Rode, clerk, deceased. 
To this conveyance Dom Adam de Bray, abbot of Wigmore, 
was a witness.! This transaction can be approximately dated 
by the appearance, as will be shown, of the names of Adam 
de la Rode and William Ie Clerk de la Rode on the Stapleton 
roll of 1293 and on an ascertainment of the free tenants of 
La Rode of 1304. The William de la Rode of the 1244-9 
charters could not then still have been living, or it is at any 
rate unlikely. The two Roger de Mortimers concerned are 
Roger II, fifth Lord of Wigmore, and Roger III sixth Lord 
of Wigmore who succeeded in 1247 or according to another 
version in 1256, and was in turn succeeded by Edmund I de 
Mortimer as seventh Lord of Wigmore probably in 1304.2 
This William Rode with land at Leominster is, however, 
probably the same who witnessed the conveyance of a mes-
suage in St. Briavel, Co. Gloucester, in 1280-90 to which 
Gilbert Rood in 1281 is also described as a witness; unless 
Gilbert is a mistake for Guilliam this may well be the con-
temporary Gilbert de Rode of Cheshire. 3 The Rode family 
continued to have interests at St. Briavel, for in 1300 and 
thereabouts a John Rode figures in local conveyances there 
to various persons.4 A John dela Rode is also recorded in the 
Book of Fees as holding 2 acres in Mulesham in Suffolk, 
worth 12d. per annum in 1250.5 
When Hugh de Kynardesley (Kinnersley), Member of 
Parliament in the early fourteenth century and Sheriff of 
Herefordshire, was taken ill in 1250 Robert de Trillet and 
Reginald de Rode were appointed to adjust his accounts.6 
J Had. MS. I240, ff. 43, 46d, 73; Adam de Bray is not recorded as an 
abbot of Wigmore in Dugdale's Monas/icon. 
• See above, pp. I 3 5-6. 3 See above, p. I29, and genealogy at p. 200. 
• Var. IV deeds : Earl of Guildford, Glenham, Suffolk. 
S Book of Fees, p. 1221. This John de la Rode may equally well have been 
a member of the Cheshire family, see App. I to Chap. VII. It may be worth 
mentioning that a Geoffrey de la Rode is mentioned as a feudatory of Roger 
fitz Payn for one soldier in Sampford, Co. Somerset, in 12"36. Ibid., p. 581. 
6 Mem. Exch. Hy. III, Not. 17, apud Robinson, Cas/les, &c.; Duncumb, 
vol. i, p. 34&; also Weaver, op. cit., p. 15. 
Of the HillduJel1 Vaffry Manors ]49 
The Roger de la Rode who was fined in 1256 for 'a trans-
gression' in Kynardslegh (Kinnersley) may have been the 
same person. 1 
John de la Rode, who like other members of the family 
had property near Leominster, is mentioned in a Patent Roll 
which records that in 1243 his land at Eton (Eyton near 
Leominster) was in the king's hands. The name of Thomas 
atte Neisse (Nash) who may well be Thomas de Frene is 
mentioned in the same context.2 Both a John and a Robert 
de Ruede or Rode occur in other thirteenth-century deeds.3 
John and William Rud [sic] are also referred to in an assize 
case in 1292.4 There are two mentions of a Henry de la Rode 
and :Matilda his wife in 1295 and 1296, again in connexion 
with land at Leominster.s 
At the turn of the century there is an ascertainment for 
Stapleton dated 1304 which records 'eleven' free tenants at 
La Rode who together rendered '29s. 7td.' yearly to the 
lordship of Lugharnes. They are listed as : 
s. d. 
Robert, son of John . 2 4 
William, son of John 4 0 
Matilda Pymme . 2 It 
John ? Persone . - I 
William le Clerke 15 4 
Adam de la Rode 5 ? 
John, son of John 6 
Roger, son of John ? ? 
Ma ..... ? - Z! 
Thomas de Lingaine z 6 
And Walter de Hopton and 
Robert Stu=ey who rendered 
a pair of spurs at Michaelmas. 
The last three names also figure on the Stapleton subsidy 
roll of 1293.6 The sum of 29s. 7d. is made up, apparently, 
I See above, and ref. ad loco cit. 
2 Pat. Roll, 29 Oct., 47 Hy. III, 87/'3/168. 
3 Major Money Kyrle's of Much Marcle, Herefordshire. 
4 Assize Roll, 20 Edw. I, No. 26. 
5 F.F. Edw. I, 8r/'3, Nos . r65 and r68, relands at Lucton and Leominster 
in which Tomas de Dilwyn and Peter Fulford were concerned. 
6 See above, Chap. V, p. I28. 
15 0 Vaffry on the March 
without the 2S. 6d. of Thomas of Lingen, who is not other-
wise known at La Rode. That twelve names appear as the 
'eleven free tenants' either involves supposing that the last 
two names constitute one tenancy, 1 or that Thomas de 
Lingaine is misplaced-probably the latter. 
A good deal can be made out of these names. In the first 
place it is very tempting to assume that Matilda Pymme is 
the Matilda who was the wife of Henry de la Rode in 1295 
and 1296, her name as shown having been copied from an 
earlier roll. In 1340 a William de Rode, perhaps the 'William 
son of John' who paid 4S., was fined I2d. for perjury in the 
manor court of Presteigne: he is clearly not the William of 
1244-9. The Adam de la Rode rendering 5S. is obviously 
the Adam de Roda of the Subsidy Roll who was assessed 
at 4S. 9d. and the Dom Adam Rode whose land was sold by 
William de la Rode to Roger de Mortimer. The William Ie 
Clerk who pays I5S. 4d.-quite a large sum-was assessed 
for subsidy at 4S. oid. in 1293. There is sufficient circumstan-
tial evidence to justify the conclusion that William le Clerk 
is the same man as William de la Rode who was concerned 
with Dom Adam de la Rode's land. This circumstantial 
evidence is borne out by a description of him in a later deed 
of 1438 as 'William Ie Clerk de la Rode', the grandfather of 
s,Ome of the then family who executed conveyances in that 
year. It is to be hoped that the William who was fined for 
perjury in 1340 was not William Ie Clerk! Indeed he could 
probably not have been on the date, but it might have been 
the 'William son of John' of the 1304 ascertainment. The 
'John' who had sons Robert and William, and perhaps also 
John and Roger, could well have been John de la Rode who 
had land at Eyton in Leominster in 1243. 
In 1915 a calendar of deeds relating to La Rode and the 
family was compiled in Hereford. The deeds can no longer 
be traced but there is every reason to accept as authentic 
the dates' contained in the calendar.2 The reference just made 
to William Ie Clerk de la Rode (so described) occurs in one 
I Court Rolls, S.c. 2/ 227, 13 and 14, 14 Edw. III, 1340--1. 
2 The calendar was made by Major W. F . Carless of Lambe, Carless & 
Son, solicitors, in Hereford, in 191). Major Carless (1/1 Herefordshire Regt.) 
was killed in 191) in the Dardanelles; the deeds cannot now be traced. They 
are referred to as the Carless Deeds and Conveyances in notes in this volume. 
OJ the Hi1ld1J)ell Valley Manors 15 1 
of the deeds of this series . The transaction related to a con-
veyance of land belonging to Roger Rode of Pembridge to 
a later \,"l jlliam de la Rode in 1438. Roger Rode is described 
as a kinsman. I 
The Rodds, or some of them, referred to in the Carless 
Calendar also recw: in a very interesting Court Roll of the 
Manor of Stapleton for the year 1479/80.2 This roll records 
courts, great and small, held at Rodd Hurst, on one occasion 
a Court Leet, and at Stapleton, Willey, and Cascob and Let-
ton on several dates betw'een 14 October and 3 March. A 
William Rodd was juror at the Rodd Hurst Court Leet when 
several persons brewed ale and broke the assize. He later 
pleaded at a Stapleton court against John Lyde for unlawful 
'pynlat'. The case was remanded several times and the ulti-
mate verdict of the jurors is not recorded in this series. In 
addition to William, John and Thomas Rodd were jurors at 
a Stapleton court in the matter of rents due to a Phillip 
Barton. The same three were again swom on 1 I February: 
at this court John Rodd of Boultibrook appears as a pledge 
in a case and Roger Rodd is fined I 2d. for an affray on Walter 
Rodd, Thomas Rodd standing as pledge. 
The John Rodds in this roll are evidently the same who 
figure in the Carless deeds with lands at Rodd and Boulti-
brook. So probably is the Roger Rodd who was fined. It is 
noteworthy that whereas these Rodds figure as jurors and 
pleaders at Rodd Hurst and at Stapleton, the name does not 
occur in the court proceedings at Willey, By ton, or Cascob 
and Letton. 
This roll contains several features of general interest. 
Fines were imposed at Willey on persons 'pro die domini 
fract ...'  : there are fines on J enkyn Stanage of 6d. for blood-
shed on Phillip Sayse and his wife, 4d. for 'affray' (assault), 
and 4d. for 'hule' on the same persons. 'Hule' which occurs 
several times apparently derives from the archaic French 
'hue' meaning a noise. Jenkyn Stanage probably shouted 
abuse at the unfortunate couple, then assaulted them, and 
drew blood, for which he paid three fines . Unlawful 'pynlat' 
I Carless Conveyance, 17 H y. VI. 
Z Stapleton Court Roll, r 8/ r9 Edw. IV in bundle 'Stapleton No. r ' in tbe 
Harley Muniments of Major R. Harley of Brampton Bryan, Co. Hereford. 
1)2 Va/fry on the March 
is also mentioned several times apparently meaning, though 
the precise sig-uificance is obscure, the unlawful penning or 
enclosing of other people's animals. The Stanage family at 
Willey also seems to have been troublesome since William 
Cotterel complains of trespass against William Stanage and 
is fined 4d. for 'hule', probably in regard to the trespass, 
against Stanage who is further himself fined 6d. 'pro die 
domini fract ...' . 
Another interesting feature of the Roll is that the lords of 
the Manors of By ton, Herton (Lower Harpton), and Combe 
'made fine with the [Lord of Stapleton] for suit of Court', 
which tends to show that as late as 1480 Lower Harpton, in 
spite of its association with Knill and the Huntington lord-
ship, still kept a Stapleton connexion, a.s did Combe. The 
fact that they made an appearance and paid fines varying 
between 2S. 6d. and IS. suggests that the connexion there was 
more tenuous than with the other manors of the original six 
Scrob grants. 
Deeds in the Carless series refer to a conveyance of 1377 
of the lands and tenements in the vill of La Rode held by 
John de la Rode, to his son John de la Rode who is elsewhere 
described as also holding land at Boultibrook near Pres-
teigne. John de la Rode senior, married to Cecilia, was son 
of Nicholas de la Rode, who had held this property before 
him, of Stapleton, by usual and customary services. Among 
the witnesses was Thomas de la Rode, who was son of 
William the Clerk and whose kinsman and heir was the 
Roger Rode ofPembridge mentioned above. Other witnesses 
were Phillip (Rode of) Wegnall, William de la Leye, and John 
de la Rode.' Nicholas, the grandfather of John de Ii Rode 
junior, must therefore have been another of the several de 
la Rodes associated with this area from the mid-thirteenth 
century onwards.2 
It is abundantly clear from these documents that there were 
a number of de Rodes or de la Rodes at, and in the immedi-
ate neighbourhood of, La Rode between 1240 and 1300 and 
throughout the next two centuries, that they were free 
I See below, p. I 5 3. 
Z Carless Conveyances, 50 Edw. III, 1377, and 2 Ric. II, Feast of Phillip 
and James 1379. 
OJ the Hindl'Jiell Valley Manors I53 
tenants of the lordship of Stapleton and Lugharnes and that 
they had lands in the Pembridge and Leomins ter areas, pro b-
ably at St. Briavel in Gloucestershire and perhaps farther 
afield. They were known in the Presteigne lordship and 
at least two of them, Dom Adam and William the Clerk, 
were connected with the Church, probably at Wigmore 
Abbey. As will be seen they are not the only members of the 
family who went into Holy Orders. In numerous volumes 
dealing with the history and houses of the county the de-
scription of the family 'seated' at the Rodd as 'well known in 
the reign of King John' seems to be justified. I 
From 1300 on, the families of Rode or Rodd keep on 
recurring in local history. Occasionally one of them appears 
farther afield as, for instance, the John Rode 'of Co. Here-
ford' who was mainprenor for Amandus Mounceaux in Co. 
Northumberland in 1384.2 The Leominster and Gloucester-
shire connexion continued into the early years of the fifteenth 
century. In 1400 there was a case brought by John Morys and 
others against Richard Wygmore and John Rodd of Eyton, 
near Leominster, concerning land there. Assize was claimed 
under successive royal charters by the abbot of Leominster.3 
Two years later, Agnes de la Rode was involved in a similar 
or the same case; in 1408 she is described as the widow 
of John Rode of Leominster. John Rode was with others 
commissioned in August 1407 to inquire who broke into 
the Bishop of Hereford's park at Prestbury in Gloucester-
shire and poached game therein.4 In March of that year he 
had been bailee in connexion with land at Dymock in Co. 
Gloucester5 on the border of Herefordshire; he must there-
fore have died probably in 1407 when his wife Agnes was 
involved in the claim by the abbot of Reading. 
Among specific references in this period to the place, La 
Rode, 6 is the conveyance to John Baret, chaplain, by Ralph 
I e.g. in Strong's Heraldry of Herefordshire . 
2 Close Roll, 17 Ric.:r;r. 3 Assize Rolls, 3I 4 (r B y. IV), I4. 
4 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 27 Aug. I407. 5 Fine Rolls, 3 Mar. I40r. 
6 In an Assize Roll of I292 (Edw. I, No. 303) it is recorded that Stephen 
de Sweynestone, father of Roger, was seized in a demesne of one acre in La 
Rake claimed by Robert Bensyre and Alice his wife, who stated that La Rake 
was neither vill nor hamlet. But the jurors said that La Rake was a hamlet 
and that Stephen was not seized in the demesne at all. Although the Assize Roll 
I54 Vallry on the March 
de Sancto Audoeno of Garnston in 1339 of 2 messuages, 
110 acres of land, 8 acres meadow, 6 acres pasture, 4 acres 
moor, and 70S. rent in Sarnesfield, Coffyn (?), Weobley, Fen-
hampton, Norton Canonico rum, Presteigne, Hethe, Row-
ley (both near Presteigne), Graselake, and Rode-pretty 
scattered property-which Nicola, widow of Ralph de Sancto 
Audoeno senior, held for life. The court decided that John 
Baret should have theland for 100 marks silver after the death 
of the widow. I It will be noted that Hethe (Broadheath) near 
Presteigne is mentioned as a place2 separately from both 
Presteigne and La Rode. 
Another rather pleasant case full of local detail and 
humanity is that of the inquisition of John, the son and heir 
of Hugh Tyrel. His lands, &c., were in the custody of Ralph 
de Baggelegh, executor of the will of John de Grey of 
Ruthyn. Hear what the witnesses said-John Heryns and 
Hugh de Luntlye said John was born at Rode on 3 February 
1338 and next day was baptized at Presteigne, they being his 
godfathers. John de la Bere agreed and said that his own son 
William was born and baptized on the same day in the same 
church, but the mother, his wife, died at his birth. Thomas 
de Skelewy ke agreed, too, and said he would never forget the 
day John Tyrel was baptized because on that day the manor 
house of Skelewyke was 'by misfortune' burned down. John 
de Crofte also remembered the day only too well because on 
that day his beloved sister Margaret died and he 'caused her 
death to be written in the missal of the church of Crofte in 
the words: "Margaret de Crofte died on the third day of 
February in the twelfth year of the reign of King Edward 
the Third", which writing appears plain to this day'. William 
de Sarnesfield also remembered the day, and how should he 
spells the name Roke, it might be Rode that is meant, for in an inquisition of 
I 36 3-4 on Humphrey de Bohun, Earl of Hereford and Essex, there is a refer-
ence to Stephen atte Rocke or Rocte and others having had possession of 
manors in various counties including H erefordshire since the death of the 
earl of the king's grant, and in this case atte Roche is given in the index as 
Rode. Both these cases may be mis-spelling or careless transcription of Rode, 
but since none of the names of persons in these documents are familiar from 
others, it may well be that they relate to other parts of the country and that 
Roke or Roche are not in fact mistakes for Rode as the index suggests. 
I F.F. '3 Edw. III. Cf. 25 (1),82/40, No. 96. 
2 Cf. Chap. III, p. 58. 
OJ the Hindl})e!/ Val/V' Manors I 55  
not, for on that day he had procured from the vicar of the 
church of Aymestre a letter to the rector of the church of 
Sarnesfield certifying that the banns of marriage had been 
proclaimed between himself and Iseult Brown, whom he 
afterwards married. And all these things had happened on 
the 3rd of February of the year in question. With which 
entirely satisfying evidence the jurors, namely Thomas Harris, 
John Aubrey , Walter de Brompton, Nicholas de Bergeveney, 
John le Smith, and William de Hamenassh [sic] agreed 
that John Tyrel was in fact born on 3 February 1338 in the 
'town' of Rode and ordered that the appropriate words be 
written in the missal. The escheator presiding had warned 
Richard de Baggelegh, by Ralph Ie Leghe and Robert Gibbs, 
to be present: 'but he came not'. I 
While these ordinary affairs were going on in the country-
side, the same sort of thing was taking place near the towns 
where William Goodknave appears to have held zt acres of 
meadow of the Bishop of Hereford for 5d . yearly and z acres 
of the prior of Lanton Parva for 4d. yearly, just outside the 
liberty of Hereford. The sub-escheator Hugh Hakeult, a 
kinsman of William's, gave the claim in favour of William 
Rode and John the son of Robert Ie Crump, who claimed to 
be William Goodknave's heir.2 The name Crump or Crimpe 
figures with Stapleton Subsidy Roll. 
There is a succession of similar references in the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries. The tale goes on interminably. 
When the novelty of finding details of personal histories thus 
recorded has worn off they become almost monotonous. But 
these cases present the real life of England of five centuries 
ago. It is not the histories and intrigues of the great feudal 
lords and the courts of Lancaster and York which made the 
land produce corn and meat and wool. It is the people who 
lived on the manors-the Pains and the Barets, the de Knills, 
the de la Nashs and the de la Rodes, not their Norman lords 
and overlords, who maintained the continuity of the land. It 
is the good or bad &eason, or the good or the bad husbandry 
of Thomas Roode, which led the manor of Stapleton to 
[ I.P .M. 34 Edw. III, 455 (2), vol. TO, No. 642. 
2 I.P.M. 6 Edw. II, 1313, C. 134(29(1, vol. 5, 388, and Fine Roils, 6 June 
13 I 3. 
Vallry on the March 
complain that a piece of his land called Mop-acre (I acre) 
could only be let for 8d. when it ought to have produced 2od. , 
and that he had defaulted in his rent on two parcels next to La 
Rode called Bodelondes (? Badlands) which used to produce 
3S. 3td. and that year produced nothing. We must hope it 
was all due to a bad season and not bad husbandry,! but 
cannot be too sure, for Thomas was also fined 6d. by the 
Stapleton manor court, for 'an offence against the wife of 
William Badland'- almost the words of a well-conducted 
newspaper today reporting a salacious police-court case. In 
this case William Rode, John Rode, J enkyn Rode, and 
John Passey appeared as jurors or pledges.2 Not that J enkyn 
Rode was too well behaved himself because he is noted in 
Bishop Standing's register as having defiled the church-
yard at Titley with bloodshed for which, 'on penitence', he 
received penance and absolution, and the churchyard was 
'restored' .3 
The early disappearance of Bradele or Bradeleye as a place-
name in documents dealing specifically with this part of the 
shire is equally true of the disappearance hereabouts of the 
family name.4 There is one interesting reference to a Stephen 
atte Rode, chaplain, and Thomas Webbe, vicar of Auenes-
bury (probably Avenbury near Bromyard), who had a mes-
suage and virgate of land at Bradelye in 1363,5 but it is 
doubtful whether this is really a reference to Bradlege = 
Rode. A family of de Bradele or Bradelye certainly existed 
in Hereford.6 For instance, there is a Roger de Bradlegh, 
coroner of Herefordshire, in Edward I's reign and Richard 
de Bradeleye and Adam de la Nasche who were sub-collec-
tors of taxes in the Hundreds of Stretford and Wolphy 
respectively:7 but here again there is no evident connexion 
with the Domesday Bradelege. Other references to the family 
in Henry III's reign are to Henry de Bradeleye who was 
removed from the office of Escheator for Herefordshire: he 
I Manorial Accounts: Stapleton, 19/20 Edw. IV (1479/80), Shrewsbury 
Library. 
2 Stapleton Court Roil, 19 Edw. IV, Shrewsbury Library 2496B. 
3 Register of Bp. J ohn Stanbury, 4 Nov. 1458 (C.Y.S .). 
4 See Chap. III, pp. 59-63. 5 p.p. 83/45/201, 37 Edw. III. 
6 Cf. Register of Bp. Thomas de Cantc/upe, Sept. 1296; also Close Roils, 
22 Edw. 1. 7 Assize Roil, 17 Edw. III. 
Of tlte Hindwell Valley Manor's 157 
was also at one time Sheriff and as a 'keeper of the Bishopric 
['s revenue], was ordered to advance money for the repair of 
'the King's Castle at Hereford'. Finally, there is a William 
de Bradeleye who held land of Walter de Lacy in Bradeleye 
but this again seems to have been another Bradleye than La 
Rode.! 
The earliest reference to the de I<.:n.ills at Knill is in 1255 /6 
in connexion with cases against Walter de Burghoure brought 
by Henry and Lucy de Knill concerning property and woods 
held or claimed by the first party.2 In 1293 John de Knill 
'of Burford' and his sons and daughters brought a suit 
against Phillip de 'Buford'3 concerning land in Burford. TIllS 
John in 1292, who also had land elsewhere, was Keeper of 
the Banks of the Wye and, as one of the Water Conservators 
of the Shire, reported having faithfully done his duty in 1307, 
unlike his colleague in Grimsworth Hundred. He was also 
a juror at the perambulation of the Forest of Hay in 1300.4 
About this time too he was involved in a fracas in Hereford 
where he had a house, having been assaulted by John Deveras 
(Devereux) at the VyneGate: John de Knill got 21S. damages.s 
He appears to have been rather a contentious man, since he 
f1gures in several other cases concerning property at Knill, 
where Ralph de Lynegayn also had property.6 The absence 
of specilic reference to the manor and township of Chenille 
or Knill in the Stapleton records is perhaps due to its inclu-
sion by now in the Bohun manor of Huntington. 
There are unfortunately few references to the holders of 
Little Brampton except to the Lords de Cursun who de-
pended from Stapleton, but like Ralph de Sancto Audoeno 
did not live there. The Eynon de Bromptone appearing in 
the Stapleton Tax Roll is a solitary entry. It is true that there 
are many references to de Bruntunes or Bramptons but on 
I Close Rolls, 18 Hy. III, rn. 35; 38 Hy. III, m. 8; ditto, m. 7d; 39 H y. III, 
m. 9; 40 Hy. III, m. 16; 49 Hy. III, m. 10; 54 Hy. III, m. 8d; Patent Rolls 
48 Hy. III, June and July; 49 Hy. III, May, June, and Aug. 
Z Assize Rolls, 40 Hy. III, Y.!. 1/300C; also Stephen de Knill, 7 Edw. I, 
Y.1. 1/ 30I. 
3 Rolls, 304, 21 /2 Edw. I; ? = Burford or Byford ; perhaps Burford since 
Knill was held of Stapleton, i.e. of the Barony of Burford. 
4 R egister of Bp. Richard de Swinjield, 22 June '300 (C.Y.S.). 
5 Assize Rolls, 20 Edw. I; 33 Edw. I; Roll 307. 
6 Assize Roll, 20 Edw. 1. 
15 8 Vallry on the March 
investigation they all refer to people at Brampton Bryan or 
to other Bramptons. 
References occur in documents throughout the period 
covered by this chapter to the de la Nash family under its 
various forms, but more frequently as time goes on in this form. 
These people seem to have followed the same sort of tenor 
of life and to have had the same standing as the de la Rodes. 
They played in the countryside the role, undistinguished but 
permanent and important, of producing children, crops, and 
stock. There is no record of any of them having taken any part, 
important or otherwise, in the Wars of the Roses or in any 
overseas adventures after the Third Crusade. The complete 
lack of distinction of these small landowners otherwise than 
in their own immediate neighbourhood makes the collec-
tion of references to them laborious, and not particularly 
interesting when achieved. Yet from such records a picture 
can perhaps be composed, and it seems proper now to sum 
up what has been gleaned. 
The two large manors of Preste igne and Lugharnes, at one 
time both in the hands of the Mortimer family, included 
several sub-manors and at each centre substantial settle-
ments. The town of Presteigne, apart from the manor, con-
tained between 70 arid 100 persons paying rent for dwellings, 
say 350 people. Besides these there was the population of the 
manor and sub-manors in the categories of free tenants and 
servile inhabitants. There was a castle, a river crossing at 
which toll was paid, several water mills, and a church 'for 30 
monks' dependant from Wigmore Abbey which had become 
quite a substantial ecclesiastical establishment. Presteigne 
possessed a market and two annual fairs . The market no 
doubt, as in modern days, catered not only for the immediate 
countryside but also for the hill farms and crofts to the west. 
Militarily Presteigne had some importance as the point of 
passage for transit into and out of Wales at a narrow gut in 
the Lugg Valley before it debouches from the hills into the 
Hereford plain. 
Throughout this period the lordship and Manor of Pres-
teigne remained uninterruptedly in the hands of the de 
Mortimer family. The population no doubt benefited and 
suffeted from the association which may, however, have 
Of the Hindwell Valley Manors 159 
produced some indirect sources of revenue other than what 
agriculture contributed. There is no evidence of industrial 
production which can justifiably be attributed to an era be-
fore the Elizabethan, when fulling mills, weaving wool and 
fia.'{, tanning, and similar enterprises deriving from agricul-
ture sprang up. There is, however, record at Stapleton of 
a weaver. 
From some analogy between the manor of Stapleton and 
that of Presteigne a population figure of, say, 1,000 can be 
presumed for the latter in the early fourteenth century. This 
figure is admittedly a guess based on impressions rather than 
on statistical material. It is unfortunately impossible to give 
any comparable figure for the population in 1086 owing to 
the number of 'waste' manors which were not necessarily 
wholly uninhabited and the absence of any reference at all 
to Presteigne itself. Recent detailed estimates of the popula-
tion of England at Domesday and again in 1377 give an 
increase in the period of 100 per cent.I  Even if thereafter the 
population of the Presteigne-Stapleton area declined on 
account of the fourteenth-century pestilences or from other 
causes, such a density of people deriving their livelihood in 
the main from local agriculture must have involved an 
exceedingly low standard ofliving round about the 1300-50 
period. 
The existence of many holders of small parcels of land in 
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, for which convey-
ances and records of tenancies are evidence, do not bear out 
the tendency evident in other parts of England of manorial 
landholders enlarging their demesnes at the expense of their 
tenants during the agricultural boom (for the landlords) of 
the thirteenth century.2 Records of the fourteenth century 
show a surprisingly large number of small holders in an area 
of not conspicuously easy agriculture, where only valley 
bottoms could, and still can, be effectively cultivated. It 
seems to be an inevitable conclusion that for the apparent 
population to be c;arried on agricultural output alone, on 
however Iowa standard of life, the extension of cultivation 
I Cf. article on 'Population Trends in the Middle Ages' by Professor Postan 
in the Economic History Review, 2nd ser., vol. ii, NO . 3. 
2 Cf. Economic History R eview, loco cit. above. 
160 Valley on the March 
in the fourteenth century cannot have been appreciably less 
than in the nineteenth century, and this gives a date for the 
creation of the 'extension fields'.' There is no evidence of any 
sources of income other than from agriculture, except what-
ever small amount can be surmised as having come from the 
military enterprises of the de Mortimers and other Marcher 
Lords. 
In the 1844 tithe assessment the truly agricultural land 
attributed to the Hindwell Valley farms and holdings runs in 
much larger units of occupation than is known to have been 
the <;:ase in the Tudor period and than evidently was the case, 
to judge by available records of holdings and conveyances, 
in the Middle Ages. The only farm unit which seems to have 
remained approximately of the same size from the sixteenth 
to the nineteenth century is The Rodd, but there is no infor-
mation about its extent in the Middle Ages. The demesne 
may well have been smaller then, since there are so many free 
men and other occupants to be accommodated in the area. 
The apparent increase in size of the Hindwell Valley holdings 
by 1844 is largely due to the fact that by the mid-nineteenth 
century virtually all the common land of the parish of Rodd, 
Nash & Little Brampton, except a block of 200 acres, had 
been enclosed. This block is represented by Nash Wood 
which during the present century has been reclaimed for 
afforestation by the Forestry Commission. The sheepwalks 
on the hill-tops of the southern side of the valley, shown in 
1844 as in the hands of the Harley family, were obviously at 
one time common land; but although they had by then 
been enclosed they were not added to any of the farm units. 
The pattern of agriculture in the Hungry Forties of the 
nineteenth century was of course different to what it was in 
the Tudor era with its smaller population, but there is evi-
dence that in the sixteenth century England was under-
cultivated as compared with the early fourteenth century. 
The testimony of the land itself in the whole of this area 
is almost wholly against strip cultivation or open field farm-
ing in any form. The evidence on the contrary points to all 
the land being cultivated either as small holdings or as manor 
demesne land, without the tenant rights associated with 
I Cf. Chap. IV. 
OJ the Hi/ldwell Vallry Manors 161 
'ridge and furrow'. An obvious feature of the agricultural 
layout is the repeated occurrence of pairs of old arable fields 
which, cropped as whole units, lend themselves badly to 
rotational cultivation. The persistence of these pairs of fields 
suggests that the early two-year rotation only changed when 
extensions of cultivation took place to provide additional 
field units for a three-year cycle. The relatively heavy popula-
tion carried by the lands on the other hand involves the 
conclusion that the extensions of cultivation from the old 
two-arabIe-field system occurred early in history, but that a 
three-year rotational layout associated with strip farming 
never took over from the earlier system. 
The manor of Stapleton and Lugharnes at the beginning 
of the fourteenth century apparently had a population of 
400 free tenants, which with the conventional multiplier of 
3·5 per family produces a population of 1,400. Included in 
the Stapleton Roll are a number of obviously 'absentee' 
tenants which can be put at perhaps 10 per cent. of the total: 
but to tl1eSe must be added serfs and others not assessed to 
subsidy or paying dues as tenants. A population of 2,000 
seems to be a reasonable figure. The 'parishes' and 'town-
ships' covering the area believed to have been included in 
the then manor of Lugharnes had in 1800 a total population 
of 1,027.1 The 'townships' of Nash, Rodd, and Little 
Brampton, in the total then had an aggregate population of 
129. The 'township' of Rodd, as has been recorded, had a 
population of eleven free tenants, one of whom was an 
'absentee' . There must besides have been some serfs on the 
manor. This is a larger population than is now normally 
carried by Rocl'd Hurst, The Rodds, and Rodd Farm. 
The Norman or Normaruzed lords, half-knights mainly-
de Sancto Audoeno who held Nash, de Cursun of Little 
Brampton, de Lingen of Knill-did not live on the manors, 
although they did depend from the lordship of Stapleton. It 
is not clear whether the de la Nash and de Knill families who 
did live on the land here paid dues to the half-knights as well 
as to Stapleton: it seems likely. These families also came to 
own land elsewhere, like the de la Rodes, for instance, in 
the Leominster and Pembridge areas and as far afield as St. 
I Duncumb, vol. i, p. 203. 
B 6851 M 
Valley on the March 
Briavels in Gloucestershire. Some members of the families 
lived on these outlying properties but maintained their family 
relationships with the main stock, by marriage and inheri-
tance. 
The absence of an intermediate lord of the manor of La 
Rode is striking. The conclusion already noted, given the 
constant references to other intermediate lords of Hindwel1 
Valley manors, is that the de la Rodes depended directly 
from Stapleton and remained in continuous occupation per-
haps since Domesday. This manor remained constantly in the 
lordship of Stapleton: the others in the valley seem at one 
time or another to have been associated with Presteigne and 
Huntington as well. William de la Rode, the clerk, in 1304 
paid as a freeman, a sum representing quite a lot of property 
for this district. In the absence of other information it looks 
as if he was the probable lord of the sub-manor of La Rode. 
That he was both 'clerk' and landowner, as well as married, 
is not inconsistent with the conditions of that age. In ecclesias-
tica~ records there are entries of one William Rode having in 
1320, as subdeacon, received dispensation for two years for 
study and of his having in 1322 held some position in the 
prebend of Pontesbury.r That this man was the William the 
Clerk of the Stapleton Roll is doubtful; he is more likely to 
have been the son of William the Clerk. If it was William the 
Clerk himself, his advancement in the Church was slow, very 
slow compared with his successors in Holy Orders. 
The de Rodes, de Knills, and de Nashes may only have 
been small manor holders but were not without education. 
As early as 1291 Brother Walter de Knill was a Master in 
Theology and the active John de Knill in 1308, being patron, 
presented his son, John, to his benefice of I<.:nill,2 Richard de 
Knylle was one of the chaplains serving the church of St. 
Ethelbert in Hereford, receiving according to an inquisition 
of 1293 a rent in frank almoin of 12S. in the city of Hereford 
which William of Radnor had bought from John of Glou-
cester and had presented 'long before the St-atute of Mort-
main'.3 
I Register of Bp. Adam de OrIetoll, 29 Jan. I 332 (C.Y.S.). 
Z Register oJ Bp. RicharddeSwinjield, 8 June I 29I and I8 Nov. I 308 (C.Y.S.). 
3 I.P.M., vol. i, No. I6I3, File 52/2I: writ to Malcolm de Harlege, Eschea-
tor South of Trent, 2I Edw. 1. 
Of the Hil1dwell Valley Manors 163 
The propensity of the first two of these families for the 
clerical profession as early as the fourteenth century is quite 
remarkable. In 13 17 Nicholas de I<:nili, rector of I<:nill, 
received the dispensation for one year for study.! Roger de 
Knille, canon of St. Austin, Bristol, was ordained deacon in 
1328.2 In 1352 William Knille, 'a monk ofFlaxeleye', became 
an acolyte.3 Brother Nicholas de Knilie, a Minorite, became 
subdeacon, and deacon in 1354.4 Adam de la Rode is de-
scribed in certain entries as 'Dom' and recorded as connected 
with Wigmore Abbey.5 Walter Rode became an acolyte in 
1328: in 1332 Ralph de Rode was admitted to ali minor 
orders.6 Phillip de la Rode was presented to the living of 
Silvington in 1349.7 In 1367 Thomas Rooks (who may be 
Rode because of the source and grouping of the information), 
'a monk of Evesham', was admitted as a 'Religious' in Led-
bury church and John Rud was ordained in Sugwas chapel. 
A John Rody (Rode) described as a 'Friar Preacher of 
Brecon' had become a religious the year before.8 William 
Rode of Monselone [sic] of St. John's Hospital, Shrews-
bury, was ordained deacon of Bromyard and 'priested' 
in 1382. John Rodd of Buildwas Abbey was ordained sub-
deacon, deacon, and priest between 19 September 1383 and 
26 March 1384, which seems to be quite quick advancement.9 
The church was evidently an attractive profession for the 
offspring of the smaller landed families in the Hindwell 
Valley, though the Nash people didn't do quite so well. Only 
one Roger de la Nasche figures in these lists: he was pre-
sented to the living of Ludlow,IO and figures as party in a 
deed dated 1373 granting certain lands in Orleton to Richard 
of Bibury. The deed carries the seal of William de Nasche 
with his coat, three mullets on a bend. II 
1 Register of Bp. Adam de Orleton, 29 Jan. 1332 (C.Y.S.). 
2 Register of Bp. Thomas de Charlton, 28 May 1328 (C.Y.S.). 
3 Register of Bp. Thomas de Charlton, Mar. 1352 (C.Y.S.). 
4 Register of Bp. John de Trilled, Mar. 1354 (C.Y.S.) . 
5 Sec above, p. 148. 
6 RegisterofBp. Thomas de Charlton, 24 Dec. 1328 and 8 Mar. 1332 (C.Y.S.). 
7 Register of Bp. John lie Trillex, 23 Sept. 1349 (C.Y.S.). 
8 Register of Bp. Lewis de Charlton, 10 Sept. 1367, Easter 1367, and 19 Dec. 
1367 (C.Y.S.). 
9 Register of Bp. John Gilbert, 20 Sept. 1382 and 19 Sept. 1383 (C.Y.S.). 
10 Register of Bp. William de Courtney, 17 May 1372 (C.Y.S.). 
II Robinson, Mamions, quoting Blount at pp. 240 et seq. 
Valley on the March 
That land was charged with payments to the church is 
clear from a good deal of evidence. In 1410 a Thomas 
Monghal was ordained subdeacon in May, secular deacon 
in September, and 'priested' in December with title to land 
in Rode and elsewhere granted by Richard Cornwall of the 
demesne of Stapleton. I 
Despite the fact that so many of the families of these 
manorial holders seem to have entered the church, there is 
no direct record of schooling or education. The House of 
Priests at Presteigne with a church for thirty monks, and an 
estabUshment at Titley may have provided an organization 
for the spread of education, and records show that some at 
least in the district were educated without any indication of 
where this was achieved. 
In an area where the available stone does not provide good 
or cheap building material, since it neither fractures nor 
dresses easily and weathers badly, but good hard timber was 
abundant, the disappearance of many thirteenth- and four-
teenth-century dwellings even in such remote and untouched 
parts is not surprising. Nevertheless, there are a few four-
teenth-century and earlier dwellings like Carter's Croft at 
Stapleton and Little Rodd at The Rodds still in existence. 
Some of the stone buildings or parts of them in the valley 
and hill-side settlements may well date from this period. No 
specific age can be assigned to many of them since they have 
no distinctive architectural features, having obviously been 
adapted and readapted through the ages by re-using earlier 
material. The larger manor farms, in some cases very interes-
ting and beautiful, are apparently in the main of the sixteenth 
century and later or with later additions. But even in these 
cases they are as likely as not to contain earlier but undatable 
work. 
The area was incorporated as part of England, though 
under the jurisdiction peculiar to the March, according to an 
inquisition2 in the reign of Henry III. The western boundary 
of Herefordshire is given in some detail: the description of 
it is particularly interesting and important. Although the 
manuscript is undated it was assigned by its position and 
I Register of Bp. Mastall (C.Y.S.) . 
2 P .R.O.: Inquisicio de divisas per XXVII: C. 145/19/12. 
OJ the HilJdvlelJ VaHey Mal/ors 
handwriting to the thirteenth century when calendared in 
1916. Following the inquisition are some additional notes 
on the Hundreds of Radlow, Web tree, Bredwardine, and 
Stretford which are not relevant to this chapter: but there 
then come some notes on Presteigne, Eardisley, &c., which 
are of great interest, and help to date the document pretty 
accurately, for there is mentioned the Thomas de Fra..'Cino 
who was sub-infeudated as Lord of Prest heme de (Presteigne) 
by Roger de Mortimer, the Lord of Wigmore. From other 
docun1ents quoted in this chapter, Thomas de Fraxino was 
alive in 1260 at least and, as the inquisition on the boundaries 
of the county refers to 'the War' which was evidently the 
Barons' War, the document is probably of about 1270. It 
looks as if an attempt had tl1en been made to reorganize the 
counties after the conflict; indeed most counties have an 
Assize Roll for this year or thereabouts. The actual reference 
to Presteigne is that 'Presthemede in eadem villa de Baronia 
de Kintone (Kington) subtracta est per Thomam de Fraxino 
de eadem ...' . This and other 'subtractions' in the document 
were probably cases where some landowner, lord of the 
manor, or Marcher Lord refused to present or perform the 
services due when the Justices Itinerant came round or at 
the Hundred Court. 
The western boundary of Hereford, using modern names 
which are mostly identifiable (with the substantially diiferent 
medieval or doubtful names in parentheses) is thus described: 
The county included the whole ofl Ewyas Harold and all the 
valley of the Dore (Stradel or Stradelei in Domesday) as far 
as the boundaries (of the castellany) of Ewyas Lacy which 
is now Longtown, and as far as the boundaries of Dulas 
(Develays) and (Brademedewe ?); that is, including these 
lands. From Dulas the boundary descended to the Wye and 
from the river ran along the boundaries of, but including, 
Brilley (Brumlege) andMichaelchurch on Arrow (St. Michael). 
Thence the boundary followed the division between Elfael 
and Gladestry leaving to Herefordshire the latter, but not 
the former which was an area of Wales south-west of Radnor 
I Where a place is referred to as 'the whole of ' or the boundaries of a place 
are mentioned, the manor or 'terra' so named is intended and not merely the 
place itself. Cf. Duncumh: Huntington, p . 2. 
166 Vaffry on the March 
Forest. The name of Elfael survives in Llansaintfraed in 
Elfael one mile north-west of the Hundred House on the 
road from New Radnor to Builth. The county boundary then 
followed the 'f.ugedich ultra Radenoure' as far as the Lugg 
opposite Pilleth, thence along the river to Ley (Legha), in-
cluding 'the whole of Ley'. From a point above Wigmore it 
followed a brook which 'descends from Wildemoor' to the 
Teme and along the river to the bridge at Ludlow where the 
description of the boundary began. 
The context and occurrence of Ley (Legha) in the descrip-
tion of the boundary of the county concords with the identi-
fication of the Lege or Legha of Domesday with either one 
or both of Upper and Lower Ley south of Wigmore. In this 
circumambulation, Lower Ley is probably intended.' The 
brook which 'descends from Wildemoor' is evidently the 
little valley which runs from the hills known as the Wigmore 
Rolls to the Teme by Adforton and Wigmore Abbey. 
The boundary between Radnor and the Lugg needs some 
examination. A line from Court of Gladestry to Pilleth runs 
two to three miles west of Offa's Dyke which is east of both 
Old and New Radnor. While it would be tempting to assume 
that 'Rugedich' was Offa's Dyke, this could never have been 
described as 'ultra Radenoure' in an English inquisition on 
the county border with Wales. There is a ditch or dyke just 
west of New Radnor; on the other hand no ditch or dyke has 
been traced from here as far as Pilleth in the Lugg Valley, 
some three miles up stream of Maes Treylow where Offa's 
Dyke does cross the river, and a boundary from the New 
Radnor dyke to Pilleth runs over awkward high ground 
involving a right-angle turn at the river. The more western 
line from beyond New Radnor to Pilleth includes in Here-
fordshire the manors of Radnor, Burlingjobb, Cascob, and 
Discoed which were in England as we have seen in Domesday 
though they lay beyond, or on, Offa's Dyke. The conclusion 
is that 'Rugedich' is not Offa's Dyke and that the Henry III 
boundary of the county as ascertained was very probably the 
Domesday western boundary of the county. The missing 
part of this 'Rugedich' between New Radnor and Pilleth 
remains to be traced. 
I See above Chap. III, pp. 77-79. 
OJ the Hilldl'JJeli Valley Manors 
The name of 'Rugedich' occurs a second time in the docu-
ment in question, and e..-usts on the ground, six miles south-
east of Presteigne near Pembridge where there is the Rowe 
Ditch, which we have seen is an alternative or later align-
ment of Offa's Dyke from the heights above the Hindwell 
Valley to Bridge Sollers.I The coincidence of the same name 
in two different areas in the same document is puzzling but 
perhaps significant. In the first place it is the county boun-
dary; in the other it certainly is not. The second reference, 
however, is definitely important. The note in the document 
reads 'in hundredo de Stretford, vallis de Lugge scilicet 
tene . . . domini de Castro Ricardi debuit venire apude 
Rogedicke subtus Penebrugge et imbreviare placito [sic] 
corone et eligere gentes ad assisses et venire coram justi-
ciariis quod subtractum est per Robertum de Mortuo Mari 
a principio werre'. This Rowe Ditch is correctly described as 
'under Pembridge' and the land in question was certainly in 
Stratford Hundred and of the Lord of Richard's Castle. The 
passage may be translated as 'in the Hundred of Stretford 
the valley of the Lugg, otherwise land of the Lord of 
Richard's Castle, ought to come [i.e. to the Hundred Court] 
at Rowe Ditch under Pembridge2 and record pleas of the 
crown and elect men for the Assizes and come before the 
Justices which [service] has been withheld by Roger de Mor-
timer since the beginning of the [Barons'] war'. This note is 
followed by the reference to Thomas de Fraxino already 
mentioned. Other notes in the document refer to other 
'withdrawals' by various lords in neighbouring hundreds 
and manors. 
The conclusion to be drawn from this interesting docu-
ment is that in 1270, or thereabouts, the shire of Hereford 
included the Radnor plain and a substantial tract of country 
west of Offa' s Dyke, probably as far west indeed as the western 
limits of the Domesday manors catalogued in this area. 
I Chap. II, p. 22. 2 Cf. Chap. III, p. 44. 
CHAPTER VII 
Of the CJ/I[anors, Lands, and Townships 
under the Tudors 
T HE advent of Henry Tudor to the throne of England - as Henry VII did more than bring to an end the long-drawn-out struggle between the Houses of Lancaster 
and York. It broke the power of the great feudal barons, and 
ended the dominion of the Marcher Lords. The de Mortimer 
family disappears from the stage. Henceforth, order and 
justice on the border administered by the Council of the 
Marches in Ludlow are the right and perquisite of the Crown. 
The March becomes administratively part of England, and 
the Crown, and Crown alone, rules. 
The Tudor era brought about three great social and 
economic changes in England. Holders of land, great and 
small, though still subject to feudal forms of tenure, become 
much more what we. today recognize as true owners of real 
property with capacity to buy and sell as of right, though 
still subject to the fines, forfeitures, and dues of feudal 
tenure substantially converted to money values and pay-
ments. The sixteenth century saw a rapid and concentrated 
transition from the static conditions of medieval agriculture 
to the freer, more mobile conditions of an agriculture con-
ducted on the basis of money and markets, instead of by the 
exchange of goods and services. This is what is really meant 
when it is said that society ceas-ed to have a feudal basis. I 
Feudal perquisites surviving from the Middle Ages had not 
only become anachronisms, but were recognized as burden-
some. One of the first measures passed in the reign of James 
I was 'An Act to prevent the surcharge of the People by 
Stewards of Courte Leets and Courte Barons'.2 This Act 
provided for action by common informer and was still in 
I Thus Rowse, p. 80, quoting T awney. 
2 Sic, Not 'Courts Leet', &c., I & 2 Jac. 1. 
OJ the ~Mallors, Lands, and T01JJ11sliips tltJder the Tudors 169 
force when referred to in the Schedule to the Common 
Informers' Act of 1952. 
Secondly, personal status among the humble as well as 
among the highly born becomes a matter of recorded fact 
and not only of opinion and oral testimony in inquisitiones post 
mortem or appearances in court with evidence of existence. 
Inquisitions continued for a long time to record, as the 
Probate Court does today, the change of ownership at death, 
but the existence of the parties having come in Elizabeth's 
reign to be written in parish registers of births, marriages, 
and deaths, proof of such matters no longer plays a major 
part in the ascertainments. Thomas Cromwell ordered regis-
ters of baptisms to be kept in 1538. 'A constitution of the 
province of Canterbury, approved by the Queen in 1598, 
ordered that parchment registers should be purchased into 
which the older entries should be copied, "but especially since 
the first year of her Majesty's reign". It is for this reason that 
so many parish registers begin with Elizabeth's reign ... .'I 
The third great change is that more regular and organized 
systems of taxation, and unhappily its more frequent inci-
dence, begin to take the place of ad hoc levies for particular 
purposes . This, of course, requires, and is closely connected 
with, the existence of continuing records of personal status. 
Together they provide valuable historical material for the 
study both of people and of places. 
A consequence of the maintenance of personal status 
records in parochial registers, for at any rate a large part of 
the population, is the stabilization of family names which 
replace the descriptive nomenclature of the humbler people 
based on the locality where they lived or the avocations they 
pursued. The problem of the family name prior to the 
sixteenth century presents little difficulty for the great fami-
lies of the land, and not much difficulty for the lesser families 
who owned land so continuously in one place that even when 
they moved away they kept the name which they had either 
given to, or taken from, that land. But when one is dealing 
with humble folk whose descriptive appellations existed 
solely by reason of their place of residence or their trade, and 
which changed when these changed, the opportunities for 
J Rowse, p. 218. 
170 Valley on the March 
confusion before written parochial records stabilized their 
status are very great. 
The distinctions already noted of 'atte' or 'a' and 'de' in 
personal names, even if they are not always consistent, would 
matter little if the main subj ect of study were topographical 
history. They become more important when the subj ect is 
topographical and sociological history-when people as 
well as places are concerned. Happily the horizon of The 
Rodd place and people is so restricted and the two are so 
closely linked that there is little danger of confusion. With 
the I~ill family and place it is the same. 
Nevertheless, even the story of The Rodd manor is not 
quite plain sailing, for after 15 00 the family multiplied and 
had acquired property not only all over Herefordshire but 
in Devonshire as well: a related branch was already settled 
there certainly by the middle of the fifteenth century. A 
Richard Rodd is named in assessments for Totnes, Co. 
Devon, in 1448-5 0. In 1463 and 1464 the heirs of John and 
Robert Rodd did service at the manor court of the castle of 
Totnes for land held of the lord of Hempston by homage.! 
In the latter part of the sixteenth century Richard Rodd senior 
was alderman of Totnes and held The Rodd in Herefordshire, 
as well as lands at New Radnor. By the end of the sixteenth 
century and for another hundred years the Rodds of Devon 
and Hereford were closely inter-related by marriage, inheri-
tance, and business interests. Elsewhere in Herefordshire 
they appear as owners of land at Foxley and Amberley, 
Kingsland and Pembridge, and in the parishes adjoining The 
Rodd of Presteigne, Stapleton, Staunton-on-Arrow, Titley, 
Knill, Lower Harpton, and By ton. 
There was also another Rode in Cheshire, equally dating 
from Domesday, held by a different sept of de Rodes. Al-
though traditionally related to the Herefordshire group, no 
connexion has been traced except by their almost identical 
armorial bearings. Reference is made to these Cheshire Rodes 
in an appendix to this chapter. 2 By the sixteenth century they 
begin to create a little confusion in Herefordshire since they 
too expanded out of their own county. Thus a Randolph or 
I Aplld Hugh Watkins, History of Totfles. 
2 See App. I to this chapter at p. !98, and above p. 148. 
OJ tlte J\I(lIJors, Lallds, a/Jd TouJllships tmder the Tudors 171 
Randle or Ralph Rode turns up as bailiff of Bridgnorth in 
Worcestershire in 1538 to 'take surrender of Grey Friars'.1 
This Randolph Rode has a Christian name which is not 
associated with the Herefordshire or Devonshire Rodds; he 
is certainly one of the Rodes of Rode Hall in Cheshire where 
Randolph frequently figured as a first name. 
Records of visitations of Heralds in Herefordshire are few 
and far between. The most complete one is that of 1569. 
While there does not appear to have been one in 1586, there 
nevertheless is an indication in the Harleian manuscripts that 
there may have been one.2 The pedigree and, where avail-
able, tl1e coats of tl1e Rodd family were collected and ex-
tended from these sixteenth-century records in 1886,3 when 
it is shown that a John Rode of Pembridge living in the 
sixteenth century bore 'Argent 2 quadrifoils slipped vert, 
a chief sable'. The two daughters of this John Rodd were 
married, Joan to John Edwyn of Marden, and Margaret, the 
eldest, to William Evesham of Wotton near Wellington. 
This is the same coat as that borne by the Rodes of Rode 
Hall, Co. Chester, except that their charge was trefoils and 
not quadrifoils. The Rodes or Rodds of Herefordshire 
generally had the same charge except that their trefoils are 
described as sable,4 as were those of the Rodds of Devon-
shire and Cornwall. That John Rode of Pembridge had 
quadrifoils vert may be an indication that that family was 
connected with the Cheshire branch. In the nearby county of 
Stafford a visitation in 1663-4 by William Dugdale, Nortoy, 
records that William Rode of Rushton-James (at. 5) claimed 
the coat 'Argent two trefoils slipped sable a chief gules' 
with crest a wolf's head couped sable, collared argent charged 
with a trefoil slipped or.S The wolf's head was also the crest 
of the Herefordshire and Devonshire Rodds originally before 
it was replaced by the 'punning' crest of the Colossus of 
Rhodes. 
I Musters and Papers Hy. VIII, 5 Aug. I538: P.R.O. E. 3I/36. 
2 Harl. MSS. 6I5, If. I3b and I9; II59 f. II; I44Z; I 545, f. 76. 
3 F. W. Weaver, The Visitation of Herifordshire made in If'!) by Robert 
Cooke, Clarencieux. William Pollard & Co ., Exeter, I8 86. 
4 In Strong, Heraldry of Herifordshire. Churton, London, I848. 
5 W~. Salt, Arch. Soc. Collections for a History of Staffordshire, voL ii, p. 5 z, 
transcnbed from B .M. Landsdown MS. 857. Had. 6 I 04 has the blazon of the 
crest as a 'tiger's head'. 
Vaffry on the March 
The advent of the Tudor era brought about considerable 
changes in the territorial organization of the Lugg-Hind-
well manors, even if the ownership of the lands and many 
of their revenues were not much affected so far as the occu-
pants were concerned. 
Two inventories of the Dissolution period, I relating to the 
manor of Presteigne, one certainly, and probably both, of 
1544, list some 20 free tenants, 25 to 30 copyholders, and in 
one of the documents, an additional 9 holders by indenture. 
The total of this manorial income is given as £33. ISS. od. in 
one case and £33 . 17s. 9d. in the other, 'whereof spirituali-
ties' £24. 9s. 6d. and 'perquisites of court, relief, heriot, etc. 
one year with another [only] 10/-'. The freeholders' dues 
amounted to 24S. sd. and the copyholders' to £9. ISS. 3d. The 
free tenants included Walter Rood paying 4d. and several 
land-holders in the Hindwell Valley whose names are fami-
liar from subsidy rolls and conveyances. One of the free-
holders for 7d. is recorded as the prioress of Limebrook near 
Lingen. That this property was town property can be in-
ferred from the separate listings of woodland and agricul-
tural land near Presteigne also belonging to the manor. In 
Elizabethan deeds and leases to various persons these wood-
lands are described as 'formerly the property of the Earl of 
March'.2 In one of these John Bradshaw asked leave to pur-
chase of the Crown, Caen 'alias Canon' Wood3 detailed by 
the number of years' growth of timber. This inventory 
includes 2 I acres of open or common land, not valued 'be-
cause never enclosed', and 60 acres of land at 3d. per acre 
and 20 years' purchase. In all, this woodland and unenclosed 
land amounting to 243 acres was sold to John Bradshaw for 
£21. os. 6d. Caen Wood and Nash Wood on the north side 
of the Hindwell Valley formed the major part of the 200 
acres of common land so described in the I S44 tithe assess-
ment.4 
Further information about agricultural land of Presteigne 
I Close Rolls E. 3I8/r60, 35 Hy. VIII: LR. 2/r83. 
2 e.g. Cal. Pat. R. 8 July r 563, and E. 3ro/226. 
3 South of Presteigne, being the northern slope of the ridge which contains 
the Hindwell Valley: the southern slope of the ridge is called Nash Wood. 
4 Cf. above, p. r60, and below, Chap. VIII passim. 
Of the lvfanors, Lands, and T011Jnships tinder the Tttdors 173 
manor is contained in a 'Rental of Crown Lands, late the 
property of Wigmore Abbey' of the period of Ed\vard VI. 
It refers to the sales of the farm of tithes to various persons 
after the Dissolution of the previous reign. It is worth 
noting that of the revenues formerly in the hands of the 
abbey, the rents of assize, free rents, demesne lands, &c., 
were then stated to be worth 25S. 4td. as compared with lOS. 
in respect of Presteigne urban properties.! 
This group of documents shows that the de Mortimer 
manor of Presteigne was forfeit to the Crown during the 
reign of Henry VII. Those parts of the revenues of the manor 
which had inured to the abbey of Wigmore, however, con-
tinued to do so, some of them but not necessarily all of them 
having been granted to the monastery, as already noted, as 
long ago as the mid-thirteenth century. These rev-enues were 
only vested in the Crown upon the Dissolution of the Monas-
teries in the next reign when the sale of some of them, of 
lands, and of woods began: it continued during the reigns of 
Edward VI and Elizabeth. The lordship of the manor and 
certain lands continued, however, to be Crown property, for 
a parliamentary survey of 1649 describes them as a 'parcel 
of the properties of Charles Stuart, late King of England 
the inventory of which was made and taken by us [the 
Trustees] . . . by virtue of the Commission grounded 
upon the Act of the Commons assembled in Parliament 
for the sale of the Hundreds, Manors and Lands belonging 
to the late King, Queen and Princes ...' .2 At the begin-
ning of the twentieth century the manor of Presteigne, as 
well as those of Knighton and Knucklas, originally also 
de Mortimer manors, were still 'Crown manors' though all 
the lands had been alienated from as long ago as the Eliza-
bethan era.3 
The figures quoted above of the number of free tenants, 
copy holders, and holders by indenture, some sixty in all, 
may not be the complete roll of urban Presteigne but it 
looks suspiciously a& if it were, thus bearing out the fall in 
population from 1300 to 1500. The total manorial income 
I Harl. MS. 7I3', f . 388. 
2 ParI. Survey of the Manors of Radnorshire, I649. 
3 H.M. Office of Woods (Crown Lands), file W. I026. 
174 Vallry 011 the March 
from this type of inhabitation in any event, moreover, 
involves a substantial fall in values. It is evident that the 
importance and probably the population of the manor of 
Presteigne had declined considerably since the hey-day of 
the de Mortimer family. 
Stapleton manor, still held of the Barony of Burford, and 
in 1490 for only i knight's fee and worth £12,1 continued in 
the hands of the Cornwall family. In 1595 letters patent were 
granted by Queen Elizabeth to Thomas Cornwall for a fee 
of £6. IF. 4d. giving leave to alienate the castle and manor 
of Stapleton and Lugharnes to Thomas Harley and James 
Walshe as trustees for Thomas Cornwall, his son Thomas 
and Anne the son's wife, and heirs in tail. This property 
consisted of 10 messuages, 10 tofts, 2 watermills, and 580 
acres of land, namely 150 acres of arable, 40 acres of meadow, 
150 acres of pasture, 200 acres of woodland, and 40 acres 
of heathland and furze, with £20 in rents in Stapleton, 
Lugharnes, Frogstreete (in Presteigne), Willey, Wapley, 
Combe, Oatcroft, Rode, Titley, and Cascob.2 In 15963 the 
sale of this property took place to Thomas Harley and 
Richard Walshe for a consideration of £400. In neither 
document is there any mention of Nash or Little Brampton. 
Both deeds evidently refer to dwellings and lands around 
Stapleton itself. Thus the inventory is not strictly compar-
able with the 1293 and 1304 ascertainments. Nevertheless, it 
is apparent that the settlement at Stapleton had shrunk to a 
size which it will be seen is comparable to the 'townships' in 
the Hindwell Valley, while the 'rents' payable by the Staple-
ton manor subordinate estates in the neighbourhood have 
fallen to a purely nominal figure. The worth of Stapleton at 
£12 in 1490 may be compared with the value of £23. I3S. 4d. 
in the 1304 ascertainment.4 The absence of any rents or dues 
from Nash and Little Brampton suggest that at this time 
they went with Presteigne. It is interesting to note that of 
the remoter Le Scrob holdings at Domesday Cascob alone 
remained with Stapleton. Right into the nineteenth century 
I I.P.M. 5 Hy. VII, vol. 5,96,142,4°7: E. 150. 
2 Hereford Library Misc. Deeds 763: 37 Eliz. 
3 F.F. CP (2),135, Hilary, 38 E liz. 
• Cf. I.P.M. Edw. VI, 49/2, Index vol. 2, 640, and 32 Edw. I, C. 133/2, 
Index vol. 4, 221. 
OJ the j\lfalJors, Lands, and Townships tmder the Tudors 175 
it continued to be an enclave of Herefordshire within Rad-
norshire, doubtless for that historical reason. 
The extent and value of tl1e land of the Rodds and Knills in 
the Hindwell Valley has an important bearing on the organi-
zation of tl1e Hindwell Valley manors in the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries. It is possible to glean a good deal of 
information from the assessments to subsidy in the rolls of 
Henry VIII, Edward VI, Elizabeth, James I, and Charles I, 
fragmentary though some of them are. These documents, 
together with parish records of the fanUlies, provide clear 
evidence of the standing and continuity of both families at 
their two manors. The references. to the manors of Nash and 
Little Brampton contain no parallel records of families. The 
de la Nash-de Frene-de Fraxino-Esshe family names vir-
tually disappear from the neighbourhood. The holders of 
Nash and Little Brampton from now on are numerous and 
changing: tl1e Rodds and the Knills on the other hand kept 
their continuity and modest wealth. By the beginning of the 
sixteenth century Hugh Rodd of The Rodd was already what 
we should call a county squire owning land beyond the 
boundaries of The Rodd manor itself. His son's will and 
other documents, as will be seen, show him owning land in 
Radnorshire and elsewhere. 
For convenience of examination the Subsidy Rolls and 
assessment to tax in the Hindwell Valley have been tabulated. I 
Certain passages in the rolls are virtually illegible and involve 
interpolation or guesswork: those rolls which are entirely 
illegible have been omitted from the study. Although we are 
dealing here in the main with the sixteenth century, the rolls 
and valuations up to 1641 have been set out together for 
convenience and purposes of comparison. 
The contents of the Subsidy Rolls are full of anomalies. 
In the Henry VIII and Edward VI series the assessments are 
mainly described as on 'goods', but 1;he assessed persons are 
known from other sources to have held and been in occupa-
tion of land. In the later rolls the assessments are mainly on 
I These tables and the references to the original documents from which 
they have been compiled are given in Appendix II to this chapter. The refer-
ences also include documents which are so illegible that the few leo-ible entries 
are not included in the tables. _ b 
Vaffry on the March 
'land' with some on 'goods', again in cases where the persons 
are known to have had land. It would be unwise to assume 
that the rolls are an accurate guide to those who were and 
those who were not holders of land'! 
It is possible, especially in the later Hearth Tax Rolls, to 
discern the death of one taxpayer and the heir who succeeded 
to the property. From these tax records, the parish registers, 
deeds of alienation, &c., one can deduce some, but discon-
tinuous, information about the agricultural and social organi-
zation. From the Hearth Tax Rolls in particular it is possible 
to estimate the number of houses which existed and paid 
taxes. One cannot, unfortunately, on account of lacunae, 
obtain an accurate census of the total number of dwellings 
or inhabitants, since poor persons were exempted from the 
payment of hearth tax and such exemptions are not noted in 
all years; moreover, persons with goods or land of less than 
20S. annual value are not recorded. There are unaccountable 
omissions of assessments on certain persons in one year when 
they are so recorded in a previous or in a subsequent year. 
Again, the rates of valuation unaccountably change. The 
basis of assessment of the annual value of lands and goods 
in the sixteenth century in this part of the country seems to 
have been arbitrary. There is also every reason to suppose 
that some known property owners were not assessed to 
subsidy at all, perhaps because the £nes, fees, and rents they 
paid to the lordships formed the basis of a manorial and not 
a personal assessment. 
The levy at varying rates in the assessments of the Henry 
VIII Rolls, are all on 'goods', except in the case of John 
Knill of Knill. In Edward VI's reign the nominal rate seems 
to have been IS. in the £. In Elizabeth's time the levies of 
1559, 1571, and 158 I were at the rate of 2S. 6d. in the £ 'on 
land' and two-thirds of that, namely IS. 8d. in the £ on 
'goods'. In 1589 there were two subsidies, the first at 2S. 8d. 
on land and IS. 8d. on goods: the second one was at half 
these rates. It was the year after the Armada had been de-
feated. Three subsidies in the year of the Irish campaign 
amounted to I2S. in the £ on land and 8s. on goods. It does 
not follow that these amounts were actually paid either in 
I This point is developed with examples at p. '95 below. 
'"d 
t< 
:> 
>-1 
The Rodd house and farm bui ldings; \X 'egnall centre ; Clatterbrunc manor fields in middle tIl 
distance; Stapleton fields left top :-< 
H 
H 
Of the Manors, Lands, and Townships under the Tudors 177 
the year of assessment or for that year : some of the assess-
ments look as if they were cumulative and included unpaid 
calls for subsidy of previous years. 
After the subsidies voted by Parliament in 1559 and 1563 
Cecil in 1566 tried once more to appeal for help. But Parlia-
ment got restive 
under an attempt to depart from the custom that subsidies were 
war measures . ... Cecil yielded and the government made conces-
sions: it accepted one subsidy and one-tenth and fifteenth at a 
reduced rate of one-third; i.e. a rate of z/8d instead of 4/- in the £ 
on land and I / IOd instead of z/8d in the £ on goods. When this 
ran out there was no further grant of tax for several years until 
the Parliament of 157 I . This meant that the government was hard 
put to it. ... It also meant that the Crown had to sell more land : 
another gain to private persons. I 
Heavy levies were again called for in Charles 1's reign, 
those payablefor 1628 being apparently for eighteen months. 
These levies were in addition to ship money. According to 
an account of 6 February 1636 the county of Hereford 
furnished a ship of 350 tons 'for the safeguard of the seas 
and defence of the realm'. The Hundred of Wigmore paid 
£268. 8s. Id., of which Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton's 
contribution was £13, equal to the largest single district 
contribution of that hundred and the same as that paid by 
'Tytle' (Titley), 'By ton and Combe', and 'Mowle and Waple-
seres' (Mowley, Stansbatch, and Wapley), when Kington 
only paid £6. 14S. 4£/.1-
In the Stuart period a comparison of values between the 
valuation of estates and the annual value of land can in 
certain cases be made. When Richard Rodd died in 1633 he 
left, inter alia, to his eldest son the Rodd property which was 
valued at 5o s. yearly 'beyond reprises' for 40 acres of plough-
land, 120 acres of meadow, 80 acres of pasture, and 20 acres 
of wood. This estate valuation had been returned by the 
raters in 1620-30 at £65. lOS., but the Crown assessed the 
estates at nearly double that amount, which had been fixed 
by local, and perhaps partial, assessors. So a figure of £130 
capital may be taken as the estimated taxable value of the 
property. The Subsidy Rolls for 1620 to 1628 do not assess 
I Rowse, p. 329. 2 Duncumb, vol. i, p. 104. 
B 6851 N 
178 Vallry on the March 
Richard Rodd at all, but they do assess Walter Rodd at 60S. 
in all years except 1620 when the figure was 40S. and the 
second Richard Rodd, who eventually succeeded his father, 
Richard, in 1633, at 60S. There is reason to think that the 
assessment on Walter Rodd was for the same land as that of 
the two Richards.r So one gets 
Estate valuation on land described . £ 130 
Subsidy Roll annual valuation, say. 60S. 
Annual value placed at time of death 50S. 
These figures are not wildly inconsistent with each other. 
They give a capital value of (excluding the woodland) about 
4S. per acre for agricultural and mainly arable land, and about 
1d. to 2d. per annum annual rental value, presumably in 
addition to manorial charges and tithes: this represents a 
rental value of between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. per annum. 
Although the calculation is made from one example, the 
figures seem to be consistent with other values in the Hind-
well Valley. It is a pity that the records for the reigns of 
Henry VIII and Edward VI are not more complete because 
this is the really interesting period of transition from the 
organization of the Middle Ages to one of recognizably 
modern aspect, economically and politically. 
Local constables begin to appear. William Croft was 
Constable for Rodd in 1539.2 He was probably one of the 
Croft Castle family and a notable. But by the second half of 
the century there were more humble and local constables in 
the manors and townships of Knill, Little Brampton, Nash, 
and Rodd. The last two townships seem to have been work-
ing together as one administrative unit, probably on account 
of the considerable lands owned by the Rodd family and 
farmed by the Lydes in the two manors. 
Under Henry VIII's government, although the power of 
the Marcher families had been broken, the authority of the 
Crown was still not fully established. A good deal of lawless-
ness still prevailed. The elder Richard Rodd for instance was 
haled before the Council of the Marches for assault. The 
violence and lack of restraint of the age infected even the 
I Sec below, p. '90. 
2 Muster Rolls: Letters and Papers of Hy. VIII, Mar. 1539. 
OJ the Mallors, Lands, and T01vnshlps tll1der the Tttdors 179 
great and the good. In 1534 Thomas Cromwell had sent 
the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield on a tow: to deal with 
this part of the world. He was welcomed by the sheriff, Sir 
] ohn Baskerville ofHergest, near Kington. The bishop writes 
to Cromwell: 'I intend after Easter to stop a month in Pres-
teigne among the thickest of the thieves, and shall do the 
King much service as the strongest of them shall be afraid to 
do.'1 'The Elizabethans were proud of the Council [of the 
Marches),s work in Wales which had been " brought from 
their disobedient, barbarous and (as may be termed) lawless 
incivility, to the civil and obedient estate they now remain".' 
It had been due to the work of the tough Bishop Roland Lee, 
who hanged thieves in hundreds, right and left: 'yet "thieves 
I found them, thieves I left them".'2 Bishop Lee's work 
paved the way for a gentler, just administration under Sir 
Henry Sidney. 
The muster rolls of I 53 8  and 15 39 record that in Wigmore 
Hundred 'having lately been part of Wales [that is of the 
March], the inhabitants be nott of power to have more 
abylments of warre than before is expressed, yet all named 
be able men for the warre'. The 'before expressed' men were 
listed as archers (A), billmen (B), and spearmen (S) in the 
following rolls: 
ROLL I: 1538 
Knill L ittle Brampton 
John Knyll A Hugh Massy B 
William ap John . B Hugh Brown B 
Jenkyn Stevens . B Richard Thomas B 
Richard Molyngar B William Thomas B 
John Atkins B William Parry B 
John Horman B Walter Sherman . B 
Nash 
J enkyn a Rode A 
Walter ap Powell. B 
Walter Balden A 
Roger Passe (cf. under 
Brampton in Roll II) B 
1 Letters and Papers of Hy. VITI, 26 Dec. I j 34. 
Z Rowse, p. 289, quoting Skeel, The Council in the Marches of Waies, at p. 19. 
180 Valley on the March 
ROLL II: 1539 
Knill Little Brampton 
Hoelle ap Edwards-a Hugh Massy* B 
bill S Hugh Brown*-a spear S 
Lewes Owen-a bill S Richard Thomas* B 
Jenkyn Stevens* . B William Thomas*-a 
William Tynker-a bill S spear S 
John Harman-a bill . S William Parry* (son of 
Richard Harman-a bill B Richard) S 
Rode Walter Sherman* . B 
Jenkyn a Rode (servant Roger Passy* A 
to Wm. Croft, Gent)- William Passy* A 
a salet!. . A Richard Treylow*-a 
Hugh Bulleyn* B spear S 
Walter ap Rees* B 
William a Pery* B 
(Note: Those marked * are recorded as 'NIL'.) 
At the same time the townships are recorded as having 
some equipment and 'habylments of warre' : 
KNILL: a 'harness ready for a billman' but in the following year 
six sets, with again six sets in 1542: one horse (? John 
Knill's), three glaives, two 'marispykes'; one sword and 
three daggers. 
LITTLE BRAMPTON: ten sets of harness, but in 1542 only six sets: 
one salet, six glaives, one sword, and one dagger. 
RODD & NASH: one harness ready for a billman but in the follow-
ing year four sets Ci n the custod y of W m. Croft, Constable' : 
two bows, twelve arrows, and three glaives. 
It will be noted that in the muster rolls of the Hindwell 
Valley, with the exception of John Knill with his horse, and 
J enkyn a Rode with his sa let, the names are all of farm hands 
and small holders of land. John Knill is presumably the son 
of Jenkin Knill: he subsequently became, after succeeding 
his father, Sheriff of Radnorshire, M.P. for the county in 
1545- 7 and 1554- 5, and Seneschal and Recorder of Ludlow. 
Jenkyn a Rode the servant or esquire of William Croft and 
later constable of Rodd and Nash, died in 1546 possessed of 
I A metal headgear or helmet. 
2 Marispykes = Morris pikes = 'Moorish pikes'. 
OJ the lvlanors, Lands, and TOlJlns/ltps under the Tudors 181 
land and stock: he was father of Hugh Rodd, or de la Rode, 
who figures in the subsidy roll of 1559, with Edward Rodd 
who witnessed Jenkyn's will, as a more considerable land-
owner than would appear from his father's testament. It is 
probable therefore that Jenkyn demised some land before 
his death, or that Hugh (and Edward) inherited from other 
relatives as well.' J enkyn was the son of William de la Rode.2 
No names of the larger known landowners or land-holders 
figure in the subsidy rolls, nor are their arms or 'hablyments' 
included in the local lists. In fact, those who do figure on 
the muster rolls are, with the two exceptions, persons whose 
names do not appear in the Subsidy Rolls and no Rodds or 
Knills other than the two just mentioned appear, although 
they are known to have been substantial property owners in 
the locality at the time. Nor do the Lydes, who were sub-
stantial farmers at Nash, figure. If any of these were armed 
or available for service they were either in other categories, 
for it cannot be assumed that their manorial obligations 
survived in the form of active military duties, or else they 
evaded the muster roll inspectors. 3 
The inventory of weapons4 at Rodd, Nash & Little 
Brampton and at Knill is included in the list of the general 
combatant resources of Wigmore Hundred, which had: 
6 Demi-Lances and horsemen 
3 j I Footmen, whereof 
83 Archers and 
260 Billmen. 
j 6 pairs of harness 
4 salets 
j pairs of splintsS 
273 glaives 
1 Cf. below, pp. '90-3 : 'Hereford Probate Records' by E. J. L. Cole in Trs. 
Rad. Soc., vol. xxvi, p. 27. 
2 See above, Chap. V, pp. 151 and 156.17 Hy. VI: Roger Rode, ofPem-
bridge, kinsman and heir of Thomas, son of William Ie Clerk de la Rode, 
grants lands to William pe la Rode, father of Jenkyn. 
3 Such evasions were, of course, well known and are particularly referred to 
in an article on the Elizabethan population of England in the Economic History 
R etJiew, 2nd ser., vol. ii, NO.3, pp. 249-jI. 
4 Muster Rolls, 30 Hy. VITI, E. 36/3 1 and 36/16; and Hy. VIII, Letters 
and Papers, Mar. 1539 and '542. 
5 Splint = an arm protection. 
18 2. Vallry on the March 
74 bows 
34 sheaves and 6 arrows 
44 swords 
49 daggers 
15 Marispykes 
In 1589 Queen Elizabeth mustered a hundred men in 
Wigmore Hundred for service in Ireland. David Moreis 
(Morris) from I<::nill and William Hill and John ap Powell 
from Little Brampton were drafted. In 1602/3 two hundred 
men were drafted Hom the hundred. From the Hindwell 
Valley there went Richard Griffith of Knill and Lower Harp-
ton, William Powell and Henry Jevans from Little Bramp-
ton, John Havard of Nash, and Stephen Powell of Rodd;! 
David Moreis was assessed to subsidy in 1620 so he evi-
dently got safely back from Ireland. John Havard perhaps 
did not fare so well. In 1592 he was entered at the Stapleton 
manor court as the free or copy-holder of the holding at 
Rodd of John Weaver's messuage by right of his daughter 
Anne whom Havard had married. In 1597 John Havard 
was assessed to subsidy on goods and land. But in 1603 the 
same holding was entered to William Weaver, son of John 
Weaver.2 It looks as if John Havard did not survive the 
Irish wars.3 The Rodds, Knills, and even the Lydes seem 
to have escaped the drafts. 
The ownership of land in the Hindwell Valley during the 
sixteenth century is very clear in certain respects and very 
confusing in others. The actual occupation of the land can 
broadly speaking be traced; the superior ownership is not 
at all evident. Knill manor seems to have been in the owner-
ship and occupation of the I<::nill family with John Knill as 
a substantial figure in the coUnties of Hereford and Radnor-
shire. At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Knill 
family died out with the John I<::nill who was buried at Knill 
in 1607.4 His widow Katherine married Sir John Gaines in 
the following year. John Knill's estate held in the Hunting-
ton lordship passed to John Walsham who married Barbara 
Knill. 
I Ech. Acct. E. 107/65/24 and 200. 
2 See below, pp. ! 87-8, recording alienations. 
J See below, p. 189. 4 Knill Parish Register. 
PLATE XXII 
OJ the ilIatiors, L ands, Clnd TowlIships tinder the Tudors 18 ; 
At the time of the alienation of Stapleton in 1596 Rodd 
still appears connected w.ith this lordship, and as neither Nash 
nor Little Brampton are referred to in the documents relating 
to this transaction! it is probably fair to assume that they 
were in Presteigne manor, which would be consistent with 
earlier information. Nevertheless, in 1615 Robert Williams, 
Esq., is described in the Court Roll of the Manor of Staple-
ton as lord of the manor of Nash, 'within the manor of 
Stapleton' which he holds of Stapleton by t knight's fee 
and services, &c., and also of the manor of Little Brampton 
of the same by i knight's fee .2 But the name does not again 
figure. There are a number of other transactions which sug-
gest that the lordships of Nash and Little Brampton may 
have changed their manorial dependence several times in the 
years preceding 1615. The manor lands of Nash and Little 
Brampton figure very frequently in alienations in the later 
part of the sL'Cteenth century. In general the transfers between 
1549 and 1612 seem to show that the manors consisted, with 
their settlements or townships, of some 15 messuages and 
about 200 or more acres of farmed land, namely arable, 
pasture, and meadow with, in addition, wood and heathland. 
Both the last categories present great variations in size in the 
conveyances because the deeds sometimes do and sometimes 
do not include common land, notably the sheepwalks on the 
top of the hills above Little Brampton. The woodlands of 
the manors fall into two classes: smaller areas which nearly 
always seem to be included in the alienations, and larger ones 
which only occasionally figure and were woodlands really 
belonging to the superior manor but over which the sub-
manors had access or rights. In the later deeds the amount of 
pasture seems to increase as would be expected, partly on 
account of drainage, reclamation, and clearing, but mainly on 
account of the transfer of tillage land to pasture during the 
middle years of the century. From these documents it appears 
that the two sub-manors were about the same size. Little 
Brampton, which Clccurs more frequently on account of 
more changes of ownership or occupation, seems to have been 
of about 200-odd acres consisting of 70-80 acres of 'land', 
I See above, p. 174. 
2 Court Rolls of Stapleton, "3 Jac. I: Shrewsbury Lib. 2497. 
Valley on the March 
namely arable, 60-80 acres of pasture, 20 of meadow, and 
a constant element of 30 acres of woodland; Nash, on the 
other hand, had rather more arable and less pasture. The two 
manors together had certainly one ( corn) watermill, at Nash, 
in the mid-sixteenth century. By 1612 there were two mills, 
one probably at each manor. There was also certainly one 
fulling mill, and later two, at Little Brampton. Four gardens 
and orchards are listed, sometimes as two of each, sometimes 
as three gardens and one orchard; these are additional to the 
small plots and gardens which went with the cottages. 
The 15 messuages for Nash and Little Brampton is a 
fairly constant figure in the sixteenth century and corre-
sponds with the estimated number of dwellings paying 
hearth tax in the second half of the seventeenth century, 
excluding those not taxed by reason of exemption for 
poverty, namely the smaller dwellings which would prob-
ably have figured as tofts. 
There are, however, considerable complications in ascer-
taining exactly the number of cottages within the two manor 
boundaries. In the first place, the series of documents 
covering alienations is by no means complete, nor is it clear 
when a major transaction in what was apparently a manorial 
property unit took place, why sometimes many and some-
times very few cottages are included in the property schedule. 
There is also contemporaneously with the larger trans-
actions a considerable number of alienations of small plots 
of land frequently with a dwelling which is probably one or 
other of these cottages. The two most complete deeds of 
1569 and 1612 show surprising variations. The 1569 docu-
ment gives Little Brampton, which nearly always in this 
context goes with Nash, as having 14 messuages, 12 cot-
tages, and 16 tofts: if the Nash manor house itself is added 
the total is 15 messuages. In a transaction a few years before 
in which only a small parcel of land is involved there are 
15 messuages in all, which corresponds precisely with the 
15 messuages of 1612 and the estimated 15 dwellings paying 
the mid-seventeenth-century hearth tax for Nash and Little 
Brampton. But the 12 cottages of 1569 become only 4 in 
the 1612 transaction for Nash and Little Brampton com-
bined; on the other hand, the 16 tofts of the earlier record 
OJ the JHanors, Lands, and T01llnships tinder the Tudors 18 5 
disappear in the 1612 record when instead 15 barns are lis ted. 
It seems that the tofts and barns in fact refer to the same 
structures, more especially as in the 1612 record no less than 
15 gardens and 15 orchards appear. The 15 barns may well 
be what today would be ca.1led single-room buildings, with 
an outhouse, a plot of garden, and an orchard: by 1612 they 
came to be called and were perhaps used mainly as barns or 
folds. The only explanation of the reduction of the figure of 
12 cottages to 4 is that the missing number of rather more 
permanent habitations with their own plots had, by the 
seventeenth century, become detached from the manors but 
were not yet valuable enough to pay hearth ta.'{. If this were 
so, it would give us for Nash and Little Brampton together 
an inhabitation figure of 42 dwellings large and small, in-
cluding those of the classes engaged in fulling, milling, 
smithy work, and carpentry. The present number of in-
habited dwellings in Nash and Little Brampton, including 
the dwellings used by labour at Nash Quarries, is 14. 
The stability of the number of cottages and tofts between 
the Elizabethan era and the Civil War was no doubt due to 
the Act of 1589 (3 I Elizabeth, c. 7) which forbade the build-
ing of cottages without assigning to each 4 acres of land. 
This act, designed to safeguard commoners from hardship, 
remained in force till 1775 but was, with the connivance of 
the justices, evaded from its early days. The incidence of the 
act does, however, explain why so many agricultural cot-
tages, the origin of which goes back to the sixteenth and 
early seventeenth centuries, were built on waste and bad 
land for which the justices could issue licences as paupers' 
dwellings. 
The principal Little Brampton conveyances are: the trans-
fer in 1543 of 580 acres, including the Nash land, to James 
and Elizabeth Vaughan, who in James 1's reign also held 
land at Knill, by Walter ap Ryce (price): followed by one in 
1570 to Margaret Passey, widow, John ap Owen, and Joan 
his wife, of 280acres at Little Brampton itself from Hardynge, 
Storre, Webbe, and their wives. In 1580 John ap Owen and 
his wife and Francis Owen were involved in a transaction in 
the same manor of another 210 acres from Weaver and 
Storre. Between 1570 and 1606 John and F rands Owen also 
186 Valley on the March 
bought other small plots in Little Brampton and Nash, all of 
which transactions point to the Owen family accumulating 
land in Little Brampton. That the family had some wealth is 
borne out by the style of their monuments in Presteigne 
church and is confirmed by the estate valuations and the 
hearth tax return of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth 
centuries. The individual transactions are difficult to follow 
on account of the inclusion in the deeds of lands other than 
those at Little Brampton itself, and also by reason of the fact 
that many of the deeds record nominal transactions in connex-
ion with mortgages, doweries, and trusts without necessarily 
involving changes of actual occupation-ownership. It would 
be tempting to think that these Owens at Little Brampton 
were descended from the Sancto Audoeno-Saint Ouen family 
who were intermediate Lords of Nash under Stapleton 
within a century of Domesday. There is no evidence either 
way. The 1620-30 valuations give Little Brampton as worth 
£32 per annum for tax purposes, compared with The Rodd 
£65, Nash £30, Knill (the Walsham part) £66. 
At Nash in the 1620-30 estate valuation a John Gough 
figures, while in the hearth tax return for 1671 a Richard 
Baugh paid tax on 5 hearths at Nash which had formerly been 
paid by Henry Pyefinch. There seems to be a possibility that 
Baugh is an error in transcription for the more usual name 
of Gough, though why Baugh/Gough did not pay hearth 
tax before 1671 is not clear, unless the Goughs owned Nash 
but were not living there. The Nash property in question 
must be that part of Nash manor which was not held by the 
Rodds or the Owens of Little Brampton and very likely 
corresponds to the smaller of the two Nash houses now 
known as Upper Nash or Little Nash. The larger Nash 
house, now called Nash Court, was no doubt the farm of the 
Lydes, namely of John Lyde of Nash who with, or as, John 
Lyde of Rodd, probably farmed the Nash lands owned by 
Gough, Pyefinch, and Rodd- in other words the manor farm 
of Nash. The occurrence of the names John Lyde of Nash 
and John Lyde of Rodd does not necessarily represent two 
different persons or families living at Nash and Rodd, though 
this may have been the case. It is more likely that John Lyde 
was tenant of both Nash and Rodd land, thus appearing 
OJ the J..1anors, Lands, and T01vnships finder tlte Tudors 187 
under different assessments in the two manors. The Lydes 
were substantial farmers and married to both Knills and 
Rodds. They were also settled in Knill, where a John Lyde 
was bailiff to Dame Katherine Gaines who was the widow of 
John Knill. He records on 25 June 1622 I that : 'I did enclose 
all the lower end of Knill wood which was as much as I did 
sell two or three years after, which I do make known, unto 
all those that come after, that was more than I could lawfully 
do, but that it was by consent of the tenants, for which case 
I do register it, because it should be no precedent unto the 
Lords [of the Manor] which shall come after, to do the like, 
but only by consent of the tenants.' How much more careful 
and understanding was John Lyde, the seventeenth-century 
bailiff, than were so many landlords in the later centuries. 
For Rodd the data in the mid and later SL'l:teenth century 
is also obscure, but for the opposite reason that there are so 
many fewer alienations, except of small plots of land and 
small dwellings. In fact, the only conveyances of land in this 
period are the following: 
(0) 1570 14 a. farmland} in Rodd from John Lyde Sen. 
10 a. meadow & Jun.: to William Passey 
for £40 
(b) 15 80 29 a. farmland 1 
3 a. meadow in Rodd Ttl 
40 a. pasture ,ley, 
I ood Staunton and 
7 ~~ a messuage Presteigne parishes 
& orchard 
from William Passey & Sybil, his wife, 
to Thomas Tranter and Oliver Sayer 
for £80 
(c) 15 87 a messuage and}. R dd 
unspecified land ill 0 
to John Weaver, free tenant 
by the Stapleton Manor Court 
for admission by service and fealty 
( In the Knill Parish Register. 
188 Vallry on the March 
(d) 1594 unspecified meadow and} in Rodd 
farm land 
from Thomas Tranter 
to Richard Greenly & Sybil, his wife 
for £40 
(e) 1603 parcel of messuage and}in Rodd 
free land 
from Stapleton Manor Court 
for service and 2S. Iod. rent 
to William Weaver, son of John Weaver dcd. 
(j) 16 II 60 a. farmland 
20 a. meadow 
40 a. pasture 
6 a. wood in Combe, Eyton, Rodd, 
messuages Kinsham and 'Litetune' 2 
cottages (= ? Litton near Casco b ) 2 
2 gardens 
2 orchards 
from Walter Fletcher 
to Thomas Fletcher 
for £80 
(g) 1609 loa. farmland) 
10 a. meadow . R dd d P . 
10 a. pasture ill 0 an restelgne 
2 a. wood 
between Richard Rodd 
and James Rodd and 
William Passey 
for £41 
(h) 30 a. land 
30 a. pasture 
6 a. meadow 
loa. wood in Rodd 
a messuage 
an orchard 
2 barns 
from John Lyde and Katharine, his wife 
to Thomas Knyll and Robert Collyns 
for unspecified consideration, probably in trust. 
OJ the Manors, Lands, and Towmhips ttndel' the Tlldo!"s 189 
Of these (b), U), and (g) concern lands in several manors 
with only a small part in Rodd itself; (c) and (e) are confirma-
tions to a free tenant by the manor court of a particular small 
holding. This holding went through John Havard by the 
right of Anne, his wife, the daughter of John Weaver, for the 
same rent and service in 1592 before finally passing to Wil-
liam Weaver.1 The sma1l3!-acre field under Rodd Wood on 
Bron Lane, O.S. 253, is called Weavers. It had a large oak 
growing half-way along its western hedge. The oak was 
felled and used at The Rodd in the years subsequent to 1945. 
When its stump and roots were finally cleared away ten years 
later, the plough brought up a lot of roughly dressed building 
stone: doubtless the remnants of the Weavers' messuage on 
their free land. (d) seems to be connected with (b), and, if 
this is the case, refers to certain lands on the edge of Rodd 
bordering on Titley and Staunton parishes, almost certainly 
on the slopes ofWapley, where the Greenly family still owns 
land at and around the present farms at Ashley Vallet, and 
perhaps Highland. The former is in Rodd, Nash & Little 
Brampton parish, the latter in Staunton-on-Arrow parish. 
Since Sybil Greenly was the widow of William Passey,2 
these transactions also were family businesses. (h) alone looks 
like a major transaction but may be a family settlement on 
trust rather than a real sale.3 
In an entry of 1579 in the Stapleton Court Rolls4 an Edward 
Rodd figures as a free tenant holding a capital messuage 
called 'Hieghe Land with lands, feedings, pastures, woods, 
underwood and appurtenances in the vill of Waxle by 
Knight service, viz. ward marriage, herriot, relief, suit of 
court and 12S. lod. rent'. The same Edward Rodd held to 
farm I acre in the vill of Nash accrued by the death of John 
Lyde of Nash and the minority of his son John for a rent of 
I2d. per annum. As recorded in the Subsidy Rolls, Edward 
I Stapleton Court Rolls, 24 Eliz., and cf. above, p. 182. 
2 Stapleton Court Rolls, 34 Eliz. 
3 References are to Feet of Fines except where otherwise stated: the 
Stapleton Court Roll is in Hereford Library. (a) CP 25(2), IF, '5 Eliz. ; 
(b) CP 25 (2), 22/23 Eliz.; (c) Stapleton Court Rolls 29 Eliz.; (d) CP 25(2), 124, 
36 Eliz.; (e) CP 25(2),300,5 Jac. I; U) CP 25(2),300,6 Jac. I ; (g) CP 25(2), 
300, 9 Jac. 1. 
4 Stapleton Court Rolls, 21 Eliz. For this holding see also p. '94, below. 
Vaffry on the March 
Rodd seems to have been a contemporary of Hugh Rodd, of . 
whom more hereafter. The name Waxle which appears from 
time to time can only be a careless transcription for Wapley 
on the slopes of which is Highland Farm. 
The same series of entries records a holding by John Lyde 
of Nash of four 'sellions' of ploughland in 'Le Meregreve 
adjoining Hugh Rodd in the east' for rent 3d., relief 3d., and 
service. The only interest in this otherwise quite unimpor-
tant entry is in the name 'Le Meregreve' which seems to 
echo the name of the parcel, O.S. 136, now known as Myrax 
or till recently Mere Oaks, a wet patch of rough pasture 
south of Rodd Hurst. There are also some references to 
members of the Rodd family in Pembridge as, for instance, in 
1570 to 'Margery Rode', a widow, who is party to a trans-
action in land there. 1 
In sum total these land records so far as The Rodd is con-
cerned do not amount to anything very much. They point to 
The Rodd lands having remained in stable ownership of 
various members of the family during the sixteenth century 
and the early years of the seventeenth century. 
Some additional information can be obtained by working 
backwards from a later document. On 15 August 1635 an in-
quisition2 was held in the city of Hereford on the death and 
estate of Richard Rodd of The Rodd who had died in 
1633. He had two sons, Richard and James, by his wife, the 
daughter of Richard Savery of Totnes, Co. Devon. The elder 
Richard Rodd also resided at Totnes in Devonshire where 
he was alderman in 1620.3 He died possessed in Hereford-
shire of 'one capital messuage called Rodd with divers 
buildings, barns, stables, gardens and orchards belonging 
thereto, and one water com mill: and of 40 acres of arable, 
120 a. meadow, 80 a. arable land and pasture, and 20 a. of 
wood' ; and 40 acres of arable land and pasture purchased of 
John Bradshawe4 but lately in the tenure of Richard Rodd 
himself, and also of the tithes of grain and hay thereupon. 
I F .F. CP 25(2), IF, 12 Eliz. 
2 I.P .M. II Car. I, E. 142/529/122. 
3 For the Rodd connexions in Totnes, see above, p. 170. 
4 See above, p. 172, and below, Chap. VIII, pp. 237 et seq. 
OJ the ~Ma17ors, La/lds, and TOllJfJships tinder the Trtdors 19 l 
All tlus land, including tlle Bradshawe parcel, was held of 
Sir Gilbert Cornwall as of his manor of Stapleton by fealty, 
suit of court, and yearly rent: it was wortll in all yearly issues 
50S. plus 3S. 4d. for tlle Bradshawe parcel. In addition, the 
deceased Richard Rodd had 40 acres of land and pasture in 
New Radnor purchased of Price Lewis, lately in the tenure 
of Thomas Tudman and held of the bailiff and burgesses of 
New Radnor by fealty only, and not in cluef or by knight's 
service, and worth yearly 2S. 6d. He also had a messuage 
and 'divers lands' in Kingsland held of the king as of his 
manor in Kingsland in free and common soccage and worth 
yearly 25S. 
The jurors at the inquisition found that Richard was the 
eldest son and heir of Richard Rodd deceased and was aged 
24 and occupied The Rodd at the time of the ascertainment, 
while his younger brotller James, of Totnes, to whom 
Richard Rodd left the Kingsland and New Radnor lands, 
was also in occupation of these parcels. In 1634 there is 
record of an agreement between Richard and his younger 
brother James which conforms with the terms of their 
father's will proved by the inquisition of 1635 . In tlUs agree-
ment Richard received not only The Rodd but also the manor 
of Nether Kinsham, otherwise known as 'Kings Meadoe'. 
Certain monies, loans, chattels, and cattle, together with 
lands in Devon and at Leominster and Breinton in Hereford-
shire went to James, as well as the parcels at Kingsland and 
New Radnor referred to in the inquisition,l The will is quite 
specific in referring to the property as a house and land at 
or in Kingsland and held of the king's manor of Kingsland. 
Later papers refer equally specifically to Richard Rodd's son, 
Richard the younger, having land at Lower Kinsham in the 
parish of Presteigne. There is no doubt, in spite of the pos-
sibility of confusion because of the sinUlarity of the names 
Kingsland and Kinsham, that two quite different properties 
are involved. The Kingsland parcel which went to James 
disappears from sight: not so the Kinsham estate.2 
I From a deed in the Carless inventory, see p . 254 below. See also the trans-
action rebting to bnd at Nether Kinsham referred to in the footnotes to 
pp. '93 and 257· 
2 See in particubr Chap. VIII, pp. 253 et seq., for the Kinsham story. 
Vallry on tlte March 
A survey of the Honour of Wigmore dated 15 85 I shows 
that the first Richard Rodd also had a croft at Boresford 
which lay 'near Mr. Cornwall's land of Stapleton' in the 
manor ofLugharnes. There is no reference to such a hold-
ing in Richard Rodd's will. 
The Richard Rodd who died in 1633 was the son of Hugh 
Rodd and Margaret, daughter of Watkins Price of Nash. 
Hugh Rodd or de la Rode died in 1602 or 1603 and was 
buried in Presteigne.2 Hugh Rodd or de la Rode in tum was 
the son of the Jenkyn a Rode or Jenkyn Rodd who died 
on 8 October 1546.3 In his will Jenkyn, after bequeathing 
his house and lands to his son Hugh on condition that he 
should discharge certain debts, left to his other children 
Peter, Margaret, and Joan four oxen, two kine, two calves, 
four swine, his wain, the grass in the fields and movable 
goods. The executors of this will were Edward Rodd and 
Harry Wellington. Peter Rodd is not otherwise known. 
Joan may be the person of the 1543 assessment. The execu-
tor Edward Rodd is quite evidently the relation who figures 
as heavily assessed in 158 1- 97 and as the free tenant of 
Highland in the Stapleton Court Roll 1579.4 
In addition to Richard, Hugh de la Rode apparently had 
five other sons and one daughter, namely Walter, John, 
William, Hugh, James,s and Elizabeth. 
Richard Rodd's estate was evidently the property which 
his father Hugh de la Rode held. His name figures in the 
Elizabethan tax rolls for the Hindwell Valley manors, but 
in these rolls Edward Rodd's assessments were higher than 
Hugh's. Both these names disappear after the third assess-
ment of 1597: nevertheless, on the next roll of 1609 Walter 
Rodd begins to figure as a taxpayer on land on the same 
scale as Hugh and Edward, and ceases to figure with the 
third 1628 assessment. There is then no available Subsidy 
Roll till 1640. Walter Rodd died in 163 I, that is before 
I Manuscript in the possession of Mr. F. C. Morgan of the Woolhope Club, 
Hereford Public Library. 
2 Presteigne Parish Register. 
3 Above, p. 181. Hereford Probate Records: E. J. L. Cole, in Trs. Rad. 
Soc., vol. xxv. 
• See above, p . 189. 
5 Christened James Price Rodd after his mother's family. 
Of the lIIanors, Lands, and T0131nships IInder the Tlldors 193 
Richard who made the 1633 will. He was buried like Hugh 
Rodd in temp/o, I that is in a place of importance in the church. 
It seems fairly clear that Walter the contemporary and 
brother of Richard succeeded their father Hugh in the owner-
ship of The Rodd estate, but on predeceasing2 his younger 
brother the property passed to the latter. Apart from the 
strong presumptive evidence of the Subsidy Rolls, in a deed 
of 1608 covering the sale of some land to Hugh Smith of 
Foxley, Walter Rodd is specifically described as 'of Rodd'.3 
Foxley is in Yazor parish nearer Hereford, where a large 
property eventually came into the Rodd family by pur-
chase.4 
Walter Rodd had an extraordinarily unlucky family with 
a child mortality remarkable even in this age of plagues and 
epidemics. He had eleven children of whom only one, Symon, 
described as 'of London' survived to reach his majority; 
even he died, without progeny, in 1639 at the early age of 
27. It can be inferred that he was such a 'bad life' that his 
father left the family property to his own brother Richard 
instead of to his son. Walter Rodd, incidentally also de-
scribed as 'of London', seems to have moved to London in 
the closing years of Queen Elizabeth's reign when the 
metropolis was becoming a great centre of attraction to 
so many people. 
The identification of the 300 acres of The Rodd land held 
by Richard Rodd who died in 1633 is fairly easy. The estate 
was approximately the area of The Rodd Farm today, ex-
cluding the 40-50 acres of woodland called Rodd Wood 
which seems until much later to have remained in the 
superior manor hands;s and excluding also two meadows 
north of the Hindwell at Rodd Bridge6 and the block of 
something over 90 acres lying south of Rodd Hurst and 
I Presteigne Parish Register. 
2 In 1628 one John Wigmore purchased land in Nether Kinsham with 
money borrowed from - Rodd and Richard R odd w ho was then still living 
in Devon . The first of these two was probably Walter (from the Carless 
inventory cf. p. 191. . 
3 According to one of the deeds in the Carless inventory. 
4 See pp. 265 et seq below. 
S In the 1844 tithe assessment this wood was still not in the occupation of 
the farm tenant of Rodd. 
6 These topographically go to Nash manor. 
B 6851 0 
194 Valley on the March 
Rodd Wood between the Presteigne-KingtonRoad and the 
parish boundary. . 
Approximate 
acreage 
Present area of The Rodd farmland and woods 480 
deduct Rodd Wood jO 
block of land south of Rodd Hurst 90 140 
.=:..-_----'-
Deduct two meadows north of Hindwell at Rodd Bridge 
known to have been more recently added to the farm. 20 
FO 
Deduct cottage plots, gardens, and orchards at The Rodd 
and Little Rodd 1j 
Leaving the main block equjvalent to Hugh Rodd's estate 
of The Rodd 
The Edward Rodd known to have held the messuage and 
land called Highland on the slopes of Wapley Hill in 1579, 
paid subsidy for lands in Rodd as well. 1 These are certainly 
that block of 90 acres south of Rodd Hurst which adjoin 
the farms at Ashley Vallet and Highland and today are in-
cluded in The Rodd Farm. By the size of his assessment 
Edward Rodd's holding probably in fact included both 
farms at Highland and Ashley Vallet as well as the 90 acres 
described. What relation he was to Hugh Rodd, the father 
of Richard who died in 1633, is not recorded, nor is it 
known whether or nothe at one time owned The Rodd itself, 
as is possible. It may, however, conveniently be supposed 
that Edward and Hugh were brothers. What is clear is that 
the main block of land which today constitutes the principal 
land of The Rodd Farm is the 300 acres of Richard, the 
son of Hugh, Rodd's estate-even the 20 acres of woodland 
correspond very reasonably with the area, O.S. 251, known 
as Craw's Moor and Conjuror's Plock behind Rodd Hurst 
(ut acres) and Myrax or Mere Oaks (8 acres)- and that the 
• See Subsidy Rolls for 1541-75 and 1581-97 in Appendix II, pp. 202 
and 204. 
OJ the ~Mal1ors, Lands, mJd TowlIships J/fJder the Tudors 195 
balance of the Rodd Farm was apparently owned by another 
Rodd, namely Edward. 
Prior to the Subsidy Roll entries under the names of Hugh 
and Edward de Rode in the early years of Elizabeth's reign, 
there are three entries in the Henry VIII lists which are 
relevant. These are for 'goods' assessments: but we know 
that an entry under 'goods' did not preclude a holding of 
land. In 1543 \17alter ap Rees is assessed on 500S. 'goods', 
a considerable sum of money, and again in Edward VI's time 
in 1548, 1549, and 1551 William ap Rhys is assessed for zoos. 
in goods, in both reigns the entries being for The Rodd and 
Nash areas combined: but Walter ap Ryce was evidently 
at Nash and not at Rodd for in 1543 he sold the manors of 
Nash and Little Brampton to James Vaughan and Elizabeth, 
his wife, together with IOOS. in rent in Nash, Little Bramp-
ton, Willey, Presteigne, Oatcroft, and Rodd. The two 
manors consisted of a messuage in possession, a watermill. 
a fulling mill, 300 acres of ploughland, 40 acres of meadow, 
100 acres of pasture, 100 acres of wood, and 40 acres of 
heath. 1 Again in 1550 Walter ap Rees bought from Thomas 
Vaughan 40 acres of pasture, 30 acres of ploughland, and 4 
acres of wood in Lower Harpton and Rushock.2 Now Hugh 
de la Rode's wife Margaret was the daughter of Watkyns 
Price (= ap Rees or ap Rhys) of Nash, assessed under that 
name in 15 59 and clearly of the same family if not the same 
man as the Walter or William ap Rhys of the Edward VI and 
Henry VIII 'goods' assessments of a few years earlier. Again, 
the Lydes of Nash and of Rodd, who at any rate a few years 
later held quite a lot of land at Nash, were in the Henry VIII 
assessments taxed on 'goods'. 
In Henry VIII's reign there are three other entries which 
bear on The Rodd lands. They are Joan [sic] a Rode, (-) 
John of Rode, and William (-) for I2OS. in 1543, 33S. 4d. 
in 1545, and 140S. in 1545. Joan is as certainly John, as John 
a Lyde of Rode in 1545 is clearly the Joan Alyde of 1543. 
That John's assessment dropped to 33s. 4d., one-third of 
IOOS., is explicable by reason of his having a third share in 
property worth IOOS. in company with other relations whose 
[ F.F. 35 Hy. VIII, CP 25(2), 15/87, No. 27. 
2 F.F. 4 Edw. VI, CP 25(2),58/428. 
Vaffry on the March 
individual shares were below 20S. and so not recorded. The 
William (-)'s property worth 140S. is obviously that of 
William or Walter Rodd or both who in 1542 held tithes at 
Rodd and Nash, the fate of which is known! since William 
Rodd of Nash sold them to John Bradshawe, of which more 
will be written in the next chapter. 
It thus seems clear that in the middle sixteenth century 
there were four Rodds, Edward, Hugh the father of Richard, 
William, and Walter, who all held land and landed revenues 
in the area comprised between but including Wapley, Rodd, 
and Nash. These William and Walter Rodd are not the same 
as the Walter and William who were the sons of Hugh de la 
Rode the father of Richard Rodd I whose will and inherit-
ance have been described. The elder Walter and William 
may, with Edward, have been brothers of Hugh de la Rode. 
Nothing much is known about them beyond the fact that 
a Walter Rodd was buried at Presteigne in 1603 and a 
William Rodd in 1606, while an Edward Rodd had a son 
James who was christened in 1583. As will appear later, the 
constant use of a limited number of Christian names in suc-
cessive generations, and even in the same generation, makes 
for a great deal of confusion. 
While this is a suitable point at which to close the account 
of the Hindwell Valley manors and families during the 
sixteenth century, it may be recorded, as will be developed 
in a later chapter, that by the end of this period the Rodds 
also owned the land of what is Wegnal Farm across the 
Hindwell and just in Presteigne parish. The corn watermill 
at WegnaI driven by a leat which takes off from the river 
at the weir at Rodd Bridge lies just within the parish of 
Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton. The millieat and overflow 
channel here are the boundary between England and Wales. 
The corn watermill which is still in working order and used 
in the 1930'S was the mill of The Rodd manor which had 
its smithy at Rodd Hurst, now the parish hall. In common 
with all the other Hindwell Valley manors, The Rodd had 
its mill and forge, and its quota of water meadows, brush 
land, and woods, to make of each of them a self-contained 
agricultural unit. Only at The Rodd is there no trace of 
1 See below, Chap. VII, pp. 23 I, 236 et seq. 
Of the Manors, Laf1ds, a/1d Towllships under the Tudors 197 
fulling mills such as are recorded at Nash and Little Bramp-
ton. There is, however, near the river at \Vegnal what seems 
to have been a fla-'{ retting tank. Access to Wegnal Mill is 
easiest from the Welsh side of the river today, but it must 
have been a very desirable property to the holders of The 
Rodd land. An old cobbled, or as it is locally called, a 
'pitched', track leads from The Rodd homestead to Wegnal, 
crossing the river by a stretch of hard gravel bottom. The 
lower part of this track has now been usurped by tl1e river 
itself, in the bed of which old pitching survives. From Weg-
nal the track led across the Clatretune manor lands to 
Presteigne. The first recorded Rodd owner of Wegnal was 
Hugh Rodd son of Hugh de la Rode and brother of the 
elder Richard Rodd. He is known in documents as Hugh 
Rodd of Wegnal to distinguish him from the earlier Hugh 
de la Rode. 
Behind the Hugh de la Rode who died in 1602/3, a con-
veyance of 15 53 gives the information tl1at he was the son 
of Jenkyn. This conveyance is in the brief and somewhat 
rare 'Phillip and Mary' series of deeds.! 
Of the other Rodd properties at Boultibrook near Pres-
teigne, in Pembridge2 and in Kingsland, nothing further is 
recorded. The story of the property at Kinsham is dealt 
with later for it figures largely in events which occurred 
during the Civil War and Commonwealth. 3 
From the Subsidy Rolls of the sixteenth century, the 
Presteigne Parish Registers which begin in 1564, and certain 
deeds and entries in the Feet of Fines, it is thus possible to 
establish the ownership of The Rodd lands in the Rodd 
family, as well as certain other ownerships in the adjoining 
manors of Nash and Little Brampton during the sixteenth 
century. 
I Phillip and Mary (1553): Hugh, son and heir of Jenkyn, conveys to 
Wm. Traunter and John King, as trustees, all my land and tenement in Rode 
'in the dominion of Lughames' (Carless series, see p. 18 J). 
2 Some small transactions are recorded in F.F. The references to F .F. in 
connexion with transactions in this chapter generall y are given in App. II 
after the tables of subsidy ,!nd tax. . 
3 See Chap. VIII, pp. 234-7 et seq. 
APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER VII 
Rode in Cbesbif;e 
ON the Staffordshire border of Cheshire in the Hundred of North-
wich is the township of Odrode or Little Morton cum Rode com-
posed of the two Saxon manors of Moreton and Rode. It lies 
under the line of hills which mark the Staffordshire border and 
formerly were a part of the forests of Leek and Macclesfield. The 
manors were granted to the Norman Hugh de Mara, predecessor 
of the Barons of Montalt, and William Fitz Nigel of Halton. The 
Domesday entry reads 'Hugo et Willelmus tenent, de comite, 
Rode. Godric et Ravesva pro II maneriis tenuerunt, et liberi 
homines fuerunt. Ibi I hida geldabilis. Terra est III carucatae. 
Wasta est praeter quod unus radman habet sub eis ... caracutae 
dimidium. Valet II solidos. T. R. E. valebat XX solidos. Silva ibi 
II leuvis longa et una lata et II haiae et aira accipitis' -another 
case of a manor almost completely gone to waste. 
According to the historian Ormerod, Rode gave its name to the 
family of Rode which was settled here in the reign of King John 
or of an early successor. The first documented Rode was Hugh, 
son of Michael de Rode, who granted by charter his right to a 
moiety of the township of Rode to Geoffrey de Lostoc who was 
still living in 1278 :1 but by tradition the family was already settled 
there before that date. 
Before Michael de Rode, whose father was reputed also to have 
been called Hugh or Hugo, pedigrees in the author's possession 
give a William and another Hugo as his forebears, but these 
entries are probably due to misinterpretation of the Domesday 
entry. These two, Hugh and William, in fact are probably the 
Hugh de Mara and William Fitz Nigel, the grantees of the manors 
of Morton and Rode. Ormerod does not record any earlier de 
Rode than Michael from whom the pedigree for this note starts. 
The township of Rode, the moiety of which was granted by 
Hugh de Rode to Geoffrey de Lostoc, was 'of the fee of Halton, 
William Fitz Nigel's grant' and the consideration was a pair of 
white gloves and a halfpenny for all services. 
Graham, son of Geoffrey de Lostoc, later made a grant of land 
in Woodhouses to Thomas, son of Robert de Rode, which Thomas 
regranted to him by deed. Graham de Lostoc also oceurs in another 
I Plea Rolls, 44 Hy. III (1260). 
Of the ~Manors, Lands, atJd TOl1JI1Sl1ipS tltJder the Tudors 199 
deed whereby John, son of Stephen de Swettendam quit-claimed 
to him under the name of Geoffrey de Moreton 'tOtun1 dominium 
suum et serviarum et jus suum in medietate de Rode'. The con-
nexion between the families de Lostoc (or Moreton) and de Rode 
seems to have been very close for Richard de Moreton, son of 
Graham, had a grant of land by deed from his uncle Richard, son of 
Geoffrey, and makes a grant in Odrode and Moseley to Robert, 
son of Thomas de Rode. Mter another transaction with Thomas 
de Bredenall in 1330, he grants to Richard son of Robert de Rode 
certain land 'cmn licentia levandi unum asterium ignale et cum 
licentia capiendi turbes, petas et rotes pro predicto asteris in 
mossetis de Rode'. 
Hugh de Rode's grandson Thomas, son of Robert, also living 
in the time of Henry III and of Hugh de Auciley, Justiciary of 
Cheshire, is described in a deed quit-claiming to Richard @. 
Graham de Lostoc, free common lands in Rode. Hugh de Rode is 
described as Dominus Medietatis of Rode, a description tradi-
tionally also ascribed to his ancestors.! This quit-claim excepted 
Thomas's and Thomas's tenants' rights in turbaries and free com-
mon, his own park, and his own lands in cultivation. 
Richard de Rode is mentioned in a commission of 14032 to 
collect such part of the subsidy of 3,000 marks granted to Henry, 
Prince of Wales, as fell to Northwich Hundred. He is again men-
tioned three years later together with Sir William de Brereton and 
others in a commission to collect and conduct men-at-arms and 
archers to' the Marches of Wales for defence against the Welsh. It 
is possible that two different Richard de Rodes are here concerned. 
In the fifteenth century Thomas de Rode occurs in several 
documents. One commission of 1443 is to arrest Hugh de Lee; 
other commissions up to 1449 include a general pardon to him 
and others 'in consideration of the good service of the said Thos. 
Fyton, Kt. and his adherents at Blore heath': finally, there is a 
document of 1464 to collect subsidy in the hundred. 
In this reign the de Rodes may have lost Rode for a time, since 
in 1464 Thomas de Rode and Richard Clyve are recorded as hav-
ing obtained of Thomas Wilbraham and Margery his wife 'the 
manor of Rode, 12 messuages, 20 tofts, 600 acres of land, 30 of 
meadow, 10 of wood, 12 of turbary and 1000 of pasture in Rode'.3 
This is probably the same Thomas de Rode as the one mentioned 
above, and sometimes described as Thomas de Rode senior of 
Odrode, who on 20 November 1483 divested himself of all his 
1 Plea Roils, 5-6 Echo. II; Recog. Roils, 10 Edw. II; Moreton deeds. 
2 Temp. Hy. IV. 3 Plea Roils, 3 Edw. III. 
zoo Vallry on the March 
estate in favour of his eldest son, as the latter did four days later in 
favour of his son, Thomas junior. 
In 1514 an award was made by Sir William Brereton between 
William Moreton and Thomas Rode of Rode. The dispute had 
been remitted to Brereton by George Bromley, Lieutenant Justice 
of Chester, and concerned 'which should sit highest in the Churche 
and foremost goo in procession'. Mter consulting twelve of the 
foremost men in the parish of Astbury in which Rode then was 
included, I Brereton awarded 'the honour to the gentleman that 
may dispende in lands by title of inheritance 10 marks or above 
more than the other'. No fool, Sir William Brereton! 
In the reign of Elizabeth a still younger Thomas, the son of the 
second Thomas (, junior') just mentioned, was collector of mise in 
the hundred and in 1582 bought the Hall of Lee from Randolphe 
Lee of Stonydowe, county of Stafford. This is obviously the Hall 
of Leigh of Henry VIII's and Elizabeth's reigns which was then 
held 'by Rannus (Randolphus) Rode de Rode', 'armiger and frank 
tenant' of the manor of Lawton. 
But there is another inquisition of> 1583 which refers to two 
messuages in Bridgnorth bought by Randle [sic] Rode of Henry, 
late Lord Stafford, and left by Randle to Dorothy his wife. On 
her death this property passed to her son Richard Rode, then 
aged 30. 
By an inquisition in 16103 after the death of Randle Rode Esq. 
in 1609, a moiety of the manor of Odrode was found to be held by 
him by military service from Henry Mainwaring of Kermincham 
and to be worth £ 5 per annum. 
Finally in 1669 Thomas Wilbraham of Townsend purchased the 
property from Randle Rode who had been found by a previous 
inquisition in 1663 to have been the heir of his grandfather as to 
his moiety. Thereafter Rode became the seat of a line of Wil-
brahams in whose possession it still is. 
So much for the de Rodes at Rode. 
Rode Hall, as it is now known, was rebuilt with 'extensive 
additions and improvements' early in the nineteenth century. A 
number of tombs of the de Rode family exist in Astbury church 
near Congleton and as lately as in 1727 a Thomas Rode was pre-
sented to the living. The churchwardens of Astbury are nominated 
by the praepositi of the parish, of whom two normally function in 
rotation from the panel which consists of the mayor of Congleton 
and the owners of the Halls of Brereton (formerly in the parish), 
1 Rode is now a separate parish of more modern creation. 
> I.P.M. 6 Apr. 25 Eliz. J I.P.M. 28 Apr., 7 Jac. I. 
'MI.Cha.d:d( ""'Rock f ~ 
11uBh- d~ ltodt =- GU btr't d.tRoi,U  :I;  ~01)E rr Ct:;ES1ilRE . £WIllS ++Tl~. lll , It60. I 
ltob~ eft "Rode ~I  1-f ~h lit" Rodt -r A,g1l(S 
Jh~as $,w{, For Mvero; '" 
l~oma.s1 .0& ~ ~ OM! 
dt'Rod( widow '"l 1trtfordshlft 5(, pr<v"'~ P'\'l' I 
I <7 Eillvllrlil, 1"99. Liw~ 10 Ed,wo.rt£, II , r.rcOM(cJ;ion ",w,irl<rtf,rMhinvLd. Ciulp,v  MdtVil. Al(,c( ;::; TholnClS =' El~zru,tth. ~olml todt El~uw(th. I r tl.vw;u",. lWdt ~, l ofT\.om.'l'iU- I wlkwI5'H~VII , :t)'ortcon.of ) :i'w !'l£ 156~. co. ,.try l-f(~ dtlWu norttOTl . 0f 0.",0. ' + ,on.< Ci.,in!! ,~llidwiM& '"RobOt dtlW, 
G~ 4;£0'1<>(. ~MUS Mdt '"ktidk" Mdt =" Annt 
, 0, s, p. ofR.~: Mit-' I tl.tIIl<i co.hcir'.ff 
MIJmL 0,)0 II< 160q Edwaid.lIClriw'o Oll<rt9n-< '"Robtr"t d(ltoc/.( c/.( 'Rodt =I  1.1"7~"'r. _an;lh.i6wifi~.;r, ;r lWfh. cl),rtolVofWriMh.ii(" rWllljl ~.' Groluurv'{' LWlnij 3E dW<rdlll, 1330 
"Morton.,.tiM .." £..1<>(, EU«v -AU« Tluniw lWtit ~ 4M( ~rint Marqartt 
Ttwlrw dt '"Ro& 1~ d(Rod(,;> Qc~ -Wkdt ~ mdohlV o,l'o,",b.rortl"'f.dltl-' I 'ioFw~ m. StMjrins' "" t'o'tbdL" 
I . ~~ ~'=:Co coHo.--: LWUtS 21 EJ.wd.lll, 13H Wuuwwll..J,!,o,,,,t.n. d.  w'dow. lloUt -WI>, (0 . FlUu;. ~'"'t lruW to It;, Zl EdwJLIJI CW\"S 19 Edw •." ', 
'1-1/ <, Edw ... d. ", , \5''''''1:<+) Gto.""w:' IlS'o, '35< 13+6 
(," IlDI:< 3) 
r- h 1 1 l\illufu' "Rode - 1L~lCW«h, WLUm, u lvrartt ~ -AM(. ---
-WiUW.nvtk '"Rotk = Jvfarga-tt ~ohn di1.odc 7' of 'Red" Iuir wh i6 M.u9httr' of-' i\o(k sr((1(df<uJw-: Jwa liMiMonwn o" 'p. ~f~~ ~1":~ 1-ldd,u,,w m.Cluu"()d:'wton R.L",,",toltcb''''~ :I  ~"'61,1.1'.M" t+th .f"'MOI'tcon. co.C h<>hlrt , ~at~~~r~~ ~(0, Es­~",,' I-} Eaw ...< t III , '35+, S.ptlmh!"I6b 3 , 
13+1 Sold 'Rod< to UCJ1l<lS 
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - __ "Wil.bro.iJ<un,ofTown' I -stndJ. 
JW:~i dt" 'Rock ;:: 
Living +~J1t,nrtjlY, 14'0S: : ~Mt l'lorotlu{ £U:rtfu "Mru-3artt-T1wtMsl todt Mlufultodt Fr'ciMs 
~~~~~-"~F Odrodt" luir'tlllW~ ! ios-u.t '""Rod(, :A.g«('41l,I.'J>M, ' ;'S'" 
ewing ' 14'tlvS,p.t:tmbtn66., , w ~ >'l-lW\jv tHL1-!WIj, VI , 1+3+, I ""{'had. i<S«(. , ' 
J1w~ & ~Ik =l vfru"8Qrct;' 
f.WintlIOfrZl1-ltnI1jVI, I++3, J""Shw- ofR~lp~D<w"'I'or~ , 
D""",!,,,,,,, fivi"jj I01itn,,! VI,I+3;. 
~~~----____- L~~ 
l\wnW '"Ro~ z, 5olu\,ltodc 
ofOd.rodt-J,q I '" ~ht,r' at- CW"'a 7 'H<nMj VII , 
~~J9"IV~~Y~9~ ~o~",llrinaoP 
Mndotph, ,MUph , ThOmas Mdt =' jO(ffi 
,9t"~ltoM 2n.£so""w sraflttt,.t--1 d~qIWbroth.<r'I-Hd,w.rdlv. of'Why«mrionFg'wRi~<h, e~wlnW,llFmLB "~  m. " 
tl.tUsts""'~n4ltt":' f.W0tl ..,.{,151]-
'!i!, EWCU"(\,IV AAd, 1+99, 
0, ',p, 
'A.dtorittt' viM Mr, at tnd oP ,61pp<n.h I to Ch.pttr'], 
,. Su "Ilhtlw.ffof ri"ssh«pc "B 
Of the Manors, Lands, and T01JJ1Iships tmder tile Tf(dors 201 
Davenport, Eaton, Great Moreton, Little Moreton, Somerford, 
and Odrode. 
The church has a very remarkable carved and ornamented oak 
roof dating from 1616 and 1617 bearing the name of 'Richard 
Lounes, Carpenter'. On the sides are the arms of some of the 
praepositi at the time of the erection, notably those of ] 000 Daven-
port, Phillip Oldfield, Randulph Rode, Edward Bellott (mayor of 
Congleton), and William Leversage. 
The coat of the de Rodes of Rode in Cheshire is interesting as 
indicating the connexion with the Herefordshire de la Rodes or 
Rodds. The blazon is 'Argent two trefoils slipped vert, a chief 
sable' with as crest 'on a wreath a wolf's head couped sable gorged 
with a ribband argent'.' The only difference from the Hereford, 
Cornwall, and Devon Rodds is that in Cheshire the trefoils 
were vert instead of sable. The North Rhode in Macclesfield 
Hundred apparently never had any connexion either with Odrode 
or the Rode family. The Domesday entry 'Bigot tenet Rodo I 
Bewulf tenuit et liber homo fuit .. .' shows a completely different 
and separate holding which temp. Edward II was in the Main-
waring family. 
Note: The information in this appendix is derived mainly from 
Ormerod's History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, vol. iii, 
edn. 1882, pp. 46-53, with the exception of the transaction relating 
to houses in Bridgnorth, the reference to which is in P.R.O. 
C. 142/2.76/524; certain other information is also derived from the 
Victoria County History. Only the principal original authorities 
quoted by Ormerod are reproduced. Ormerod's authorities for 
the pedigree are from Plea Rolls (first two names), Moreton deeds 
(next four names), and for the rest from Booth's Pedigrees col-
lated with I.P.M., Plea & Recog. Rolls, Visitations, &c. 
I CE. above, p. 171. 
202 Vaffry on the March 
APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER VII 
(a) Subsidy roll abstracts from 33 Hy. VIII to 17 Car. r. 
(b) Estate valuations 1620--3°. 
(c) Hearth tax abstracts 1664-71. 
(d) References to authorities from which abstracts have been 
made. 
ea) Parishes of Knill and Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton: Henry VIII 
Assessment in shillings on 1.ands and ~oods by manors, 'on persons having 
goods, chattels or lands worth 20 shillings or more yearly'. 
- - --NarM- ---1-1.54--1 -154--3 -IS+-3 1.545 L or G Manor Remarks 
John KnyUe, gent. 100 300 300 L Knill Temp. Edw. VI, fG' 
William Wollot {O G 
Ja bn Edwards . 
Richard Mullyner i {O G {O .~ G 
Morgan Mason . 60 .~ G 
Jenkyn Stephens f 100 G William ap Jobn 1100 G 
Hugh Massey senior . 100 220 160 G Brampton 
Hugh Massey junior . 100 300 500 G 
Hugh Brome {O G Temp. Edw. VI, 'V 
Phillip Thomas. 100 G 
Richard Thomas 60 G 
William Thomas 4 0 G 
William Passy senior . 100 G 
William Passy junior 240 G Temp. Edw. VI, ;L' 
Agneta Passy senior \:Vid .. 100 G 
Agneta Passy junior Wid . . 60 G 
John Passy 20 G 
Richard Sherman 20 G&L 
Walter Shennan {O 
Edward Holle . 100 600 G Rodd' & } 'Holle' may 
William Holle . 100 G Nash well - Rode 
Joan (I J ohn) Rode 120 G 
(-) Jobn of Rode 33/{ L 
WiIliam(-) 1{0 G 
William (a) Lyde 2 4 0 500 100 G 
Richard Alyde . 500 500 100 G 
Joan (1 John) Alyde . 60 G 
Richard L yde of Rode {O L 
John a Lyde of Rode 20 L 
Walter ap Rees 500 G 
Roger Passy 100 G 
John ap Perry . 80 20 G 
Richard S torre 20 G 
Hugb Myryke . 160 G 
Antbony Sadler 5 00 100 G 
Ricbard St(urte) 20 L 
Alice (Audo), Wid. 26/8 L 
Notes: 
(1) Totals payable on assessments: 
I ~4 I-Fragmentary record. 
1543 (i) 633. IOd. i incomplete. 
1543 (ii) 14$. lod. Knill; 86s. lod. Rodd & Brampton j Nash mi~ing. 
154.5 38s. 8d. Knill; Rodd, Nash & Brampton (incomplete) 535. 4d. 
(2) John Knylle, Esq., (sic) Commissioner for Subsidy, Co. Radnor, 1543 and 1545 
(3) Edward and William H olle look susp icious]y likeEdward and William (or Walter) Rood, see above, 
p. 196, and, for Edward, as5es.!ments in Eliz. 1581-97 belo\T. 
OJ the MatJors, Lands, atJd Tmvnsilips utJder tile Tudors 203 
Parishes of Knill alld R odd, Nosh & Lit/Ie Bramp toll: Edward VI 
Assessments for relief on bands and §:oods in shillings. 
Name 15,8 1549 1551 LorG Matwi' Remarks 
John KoyU. 4 00 400 G Knill Now'G'j temp. Hy. VllI, 
'L' 
William Jones 200 200 G 
Hugb Massy 200 200 200 L Brampton 1 'Junior', cf. Hy. VIII 
~ ~ when 'G' William Passy junior . .!l 200 0. L Now 'V; temp. Hy. VIII, 
a0.  a 'G' 
Roger Passy 8 200 8 G Rood & Nash 
William a Lyde oS 200 oS G 
William ap Rhys 200 200 '00 G 
Anthony Sadler 200 200 200 G 
Nott: Totals payable: 1548: 30$. incomplete record 
1549: 90S'· 
155 1 : 305. incomplete record 
Parishes of Kllill olld Rodd, Nosh & Lit/Ie Bromptoll: Elizabeth I 
Assessments on .!:ands and ~oods in shillings. 
204 Valley on the March 
Parishes of Knill and Rodd, Nash & Littie Brampton : Elizabeth I (cont.) 
L 
Qr 
Name 1559 -157-1 -158-1 1589 -158-9 1597 1597 1597 G Manors R~marks -- - - -
Rodd, Nasb Whole 
& BramptoD parish 
taken 
together 
Hugb Massy ? GL Formerly " under 
Brampton 
Edward Massy 20 60 60 60 L " Massys formerly 
under 
Brampton 
Francis Massy 40 40 4 0 L 
Hugh Passy. L " 20 " Passys 
" 
formerly 
under 
Brampton 
John Passy . 20 L " 
'Walter Thomas 20 20 20 L Tbomases " formerly 
under 
Brampton 
Richard Thomas 20 20 20 L 
Hugh Rode . " " 120 20 40 60 60 40 4 0 60 L Rodd 
Edward Rode) " 1 
gent. 160 100 100 60 60 60 L 
Walter Rode l 20 - " " 
J obn Lyde of Rode " 20 20 20 20 L " " 
John Lyde of Nash 20 80 80 4 0 LG N~~h 
John a Lyde 60 G " 
Hugh a Lyde " ?40 L " } Rodd& 
Thomas Lyde 20 20 20 20 L Nash 
'William Jones 20 L " 
William Lewes, " 
gent. 200 L refer-" Sole ence, cf. 
under Knill 
1625 
Matthew W'eaver . 60 G " 
John Bowen 100 G } ?Same John ap Owen " 40 4 0 4 0 4 0 40 L " person 
J ohn Havard 60 60 20 GL Nash 
Roger Bowsbott 20 ? " " 
W atkyn ap Rice 160 G " 
Marys or Maurice 
Brown ":~
"
g 
~ 
5"  20 160 80 80 4 0 4 0 40 LG " 
o~ 
Notes: -.0 .dO 
(I) Totals pay- u"" 
able on assess- :";:".  
ment 4 6/- 4 2 / S 6./- 53/4 28/- 5 6 / - 64/- 56/-
(2) Many of the names are identifiable with the particular manors stated 
from previous and other rolls. 
1 See notes p. 194 and. (3) p. 202. 
OJ the Manors, Lands, and Townships under the Tudors 1.05 
Parishes of Knill alld Rodd, Nash & Litlle BrallJpton ; James I and Charles I 
Assessments on ~ands and Qoods in shillings. 
L 
or 
Name rOOg 1620 1623 1628 [628 1625 1640 -164-1 G Jl. -lanors - -- - - -- Remarks 
Knill & Again taken 
He
Charles Vaughan, gent. 40 80 L .. rton together 
Katharine Vaugban, 
Wid. 60 20 60 60 60 60 L .. Noted as Recu-
sant 
John Walshaml gent. 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 L .. Believed same 
Ja bn ap Rice or Pryce, } person (see gent. pedigree) 
Roger Lyde 20 40 40 .. 
J ohn Lyde 40 40 4 0 40 40 L .. 
Edward Jones 60 20 20 20 L .. 'Goods' in r609 
.. only Anna Jones 20 20 20 20 L 
Isaac ap Je van 20 L .. 
Thomas Book, gent.. 4 0 40 40 4 0 40 60 L .. Probably same 
Thomas Bull, gent. 80 L .. } person 
Edward Hoddal 20 L .. 
Thomas ap Powell 20 20 L .. 
D avid Morris 20 L .. 
Elinour Marries, \OVid. Evidently 20 20 20 20 L .. 
Stephen Morrys } same family 20 20 L .. 
John GI"Oyn 20 20 20 20 L .. 
Ja bn Lewes, gen t. 40 L .. In Eliz. under 
Rodd, Nash & 
.. Brampton John Mathias 4 0 L Tenant of above 
Ralph Lyngen, gent. . .. Noted as Recu-
.. } sants by deed Elizabeth Lyngen poll 
Notes: 
(I) Totals payable 15/- 4 0 /- 5 6 /- 136/- 68/- 68/- '45/- 120/-
(2) All assessments except one for 1609 now on 'Land'. 
(3) The recusant Katharine Vaughan usually paid twice as much~ 
206 Valley on the March 
Parishes of Knill and R odd, Nash & L ittle Brampton: J ames I and Charles I 
(cont.) 
L 
or 
Name 1609 1620 1623 1628 1628 1628 1640 16. .p  G Manor Remarks 
Rood Nash Whole parish 
& BramptoD taken 
together 
Francis Massy 4 0 L .
Tbomas Massy 40 40 40 40 4 0 L ...  Prohably 
Brampton 
William Passy 20 20 L .. .. 
ElinourPassy, Wid, 20 20 L .. 
Tamburlaine Passy. 20 L .. .".  
J ohn Passy 20 L .. .. 
Richard Thomas 20 L .. .. 
Ja mes Thomas 20 20 20 L .. 
.. Kno. .... >n from Francis OweD, gent. 40 40 40 L other sources 
Jo ho Owen, gen t. 4 0 40 40 4 0 40 L } as of Little " Brampton 
Walter Rood 60 4 0 60 60 60 60 20 L ....  Rood William Rodd 60 4 0 L .. 
Richard Rodd, gent. 60 100 L 
J ohn Lyde of Rood " " 20 20 20 20 20 L .. .. 
Richard L yde of Rood 20 20 20 L 
J ohn Lyde of Nash " 40 60 60 60 60 60 L N:~h 
William Weaver " 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 L .. 
John Weaver 20 L 
:Maurice Brown 4 0 L .".  
Margaret Brown 4 0 20 L .. 
John Brown 40 40 20 20 20 L 
Thomas Stead 20 20 L " 
Joan Stead 20 20 L " 
Barbara Kyrby. " 
Wid. 40 L .. 
Ja bn Connop. 60 60 60 100 G Only assess -" ment on 
'goods' 
James D aley, gen t. 20 20 20 L .. New names on 
John Gyltoes, gent. 40 4 0 L .. } roll, and then disappear 
Note : 
To tals payable on 
assessment 25/4 5 6 /- 68/- 128/- 64/- 64/- I28/- 146/8 
Of the j\1(JIJors, Lands, and TowfJShips tltlder the Tudors 207 
(b) SlImmary of Valualions of eslales I 62o-)o 
1. Knill and HerJon (together) 
Year's 
ValllDlioll conJribution 
accordi"g ojparishos 
VO/IIDliol1 10 levied 
Name oj eslole tt)lIlribllliOl1 oj 2 S . i" £ Commellis 
£ f . d. £ £ s. d. 
John Walsham, Esq., and 
~fruiorie his wife . 16 6 8 
Barbara Walsham. 10 0 0 
Richard Knill 9 0 0 
Richard Knill 2 0 0 
Thomas Davies I 0 0 
Rowland Stephens 6 10 0 
Francis Owen I 10 0 Sit, cf. LittleBramp-
ton 
James Rood 2 13 4 Sic, cf. Rodd 
Thomas Scudamore 6 10 0 G . Little Bramp-
ton 
Henry Pyefinch I 0 0 G. 
J ohn Baugh, Esq. 3 10 0 " " 
John Gough 10 0 
Roger Lyde. 10 0 0 
Elinow: Lyde . . 1 0 0 0 
John and Roger Lozde . 20 0 0 Sic = Lloyd = 
Lyde. G. Nash 
Jo Lydd 4 0 0 
Tho. Woodcocke, gent. 80 0 0 
H erbert Weston, gent. 5 0 0 
Anne Morris 9 0 0 
Jo James 5 0 0 
Jane Preece 1 0 0 
Hugh Paine 4 0 0 
Griffith Pain 6 0 0 
J ohn Miles 3 1 0 0 
Richard Scanndrett 1 1 0 0 
Thomas Price 5 10 0 
Hugh Gwin. 3 10 0 Annotation : 'About 
one third part to 
be added to the 
valuation' [of the 
ra ters). 
Note: Knill and Herton 
are not separately 
grouped. 
Raters: Rowland 
Stephens, Thomas 
Powell Gough. 
T otals .00 0 0 36 8 3 6 16 0 
208 VaIlV' on the March 
2. Rodd, Nash & Little Brompton (together) 
Year}s 
Vaillalion contribution 
according o/parishas 
Valllalion 10 levied 
Name 0/ eslate conlribution at2S. in £ Commenls 
£ s. d. £ £ s. d. 
Richard Rodd, gent. 65 0 0 Noted as 'Rodd' 
Edmund Gough, gent. 12 0 0 
James Rodd 8 0 0 No~~d (for ;tc.' 
2 0 0 
Th~mas 'Rodd 5 0 0 " " 
Walter Evans and James " " 
Lyde . 12 0 0 
John Gough 3 0 0 0 Cfor'~tc.' (N~sh' 
William Connop 8 0 0 
J ohn Lyde 13 0 0 " " 
Tamburlaine and D avid " " 
Passy 8 0 0 
Roger Bodland 4 0 0 " " 
Francis Owen 32 0 0 'Litrle Bra~pton' 
John and William Brown 17 0 0 
Tamburlaine Passy 6 10 0 " 
Henry Pyefinch 8 10 0 " 
Ricbard Lyde 5 1 0 0 " 
Phillip Lewis, Clerk of " 
tbe Tythe 1 0 1 0 0 
Annotati~n: 'Tbis 
valuation [of rbe 
raterst, to be 
Notes: In rbis series land- doub ed.' 
holders in tbe 
parish are grouped 
according to the 
manors. 
Raters: Francis 
()wen, Henry 
Pyefincb. 
T otals: 23 8 0 0 549 54 18 0 
Of the Manors, Lands, and Tow/lships tinder tIle Tudors 2°9 
C&) Heartli Tax Assessments Ioo4-1I 
1. Mill and Herton (separately) 
Lady Lady Lady Lady 
Day Day Michl. D~ Day 
Name 1664 166 5 166 5 16 5 1671 Comlllents 
Knill '5 '4 13 20 '7 
L. Harp!on ?17 ? ? 8 ? 
Knill: 
John Walsham . 5 5 5 5 6 
John Watkyn, clerk 2 2· - 2 2 • '1 stopped up', only 
J enkyn Knill . 2 2 2 2 2 paid on one. 
Rowland Stephen . 1 1 1 1 1 
Francis Stephen 1 1 1 1 
Deylie Stephen 1 } 
Rogel Lyde 3 3 3 3 } 
RoheIt Lyde ? same pelson 3 
ElinOUI Lyde 2 
John James . 1 
Anne Morris 1 
James Price. 1 
Hugh Payne. 1 
Sam Gronons 1 
Rogel Lewis 1 
Her!on: 
llichatd Knill 1 1 1 
llichatd Bull 1 
Edwatd KilIet ? 
MaryBuII 1 
Thomas Woodcoke 6 
No!e: These relUIns ate almost certainly incomplete as well as mutilated. 
B 68~1 P 
210 Valley on the March 
(c) Hearth Tax Assessmmtf I 004-7I 
2. Rodd, Nafh & Little Bramplon (separately) 
Lady Day Lady Day lAdy Day Lady Day Estimated 
1664 1665 1666 1671 number 0/ 
... ~ .., ~ .., separate Naml ::! ~ ... ~ 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
dwellings 
~ 
Jil ~ ~ int'olved "" ~ "" "" "" r-r-r-
Richard Rodd, Esq. 8 8 8 9 1 
J ames Rodd and tenants . 2 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 
Thomas Rood . } 1 
Francis Owen, gent. 4 4 4 5 1 
Thomas Owen, senior 
Thomas Davies 1 1 1 } 1 
Henry Pyefinch 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 4} 
Richard Baugh, gent. 5 1 
J ohn (yde of Nash 3 3 3 3 1 
J ohn Lyde of Rodd . 1 1 1 } 
Barbara Lyde . 1 1 
Richard Lyde . 1 1 1 2 1 
William Connop 5 5 4 5 1 
Richard Badland 2 2 2 2 1 
John Brown 4 4 4 
Lillian Brown. J 1 
Richard Stead 1 1 1 
Anne Bamly. Wid, I}? I 
Walter Evans. 2 ? I 
John Muskett . 2 1 
T amburlane Passy I I 1 1 
Evan Wa tkins 1 1 I 
Thomas Scudamore . 2 2 2 2 1 
Peter Lewis 1 I 1 I I 
Thomas Lodg~ I I 
Totals: Rodd 12 10 10 14 6 
Nash 17 18 17 19 7 
L. Brampton 18 18 18 19 8 
---\ -2-1-\ --
Exemptions by poverty rrr r rr rr 21+7 = 28 
• Recorded as void but taken over by Th. Owen from former dweller Th. Davies. 
Of t!le fl'ianors, Lands, and Townships tinder the Tudors 211 
Cd) Reierences to documents from which valuation tables have been compiled: 
all from Public Record Office files, except where otherwise noted. 
Henry VIII E . 179/117/1'3 33 Hy. VIII 
E.179/117/ 132 35 " 
E. 179/117/138 35 )1 
E. 179/117/169 37 " 
E . 179/117/176 37 " 
E . 179/224/ HIA 34/ 5 " 
E. 179/"4/ 547 37 " 
Edward VI E . 179/ Il7/198 3 
E. 179/117/212 5 " 
E. 179/117/ '84 , Edw. VI 
Elizabeth I E. 179/118/ '40 
E. 179/ 118/ '73 13 " 
E. 179/11 8/'98 23 " 
E. 179/118/332 31 " 
E. 179/ II 8/339 ; I " 
E. 179/118/371A 39 " 
E. 179/ 11 8/38, 39 " 
E. 179/11813 88 39 Eliz. 
James I E. 179/118/422 7 Jac. I 
E. 179/118/4'7 18 
E. '79/119/438 21 " 
Charles I E. '79/119/429 17 " 
E. 179/1 '9/45 5 3/4 Car. I 
E. 179/119/465 4 
E. 179/119/467 4 
E. 179/ '37/45 ,6 
Hearth tax elt. 
E.179/ 11 9/485 14 Car. II. 
'7 
E. 179;; 19/486 17 
E. '79/ II9/487 ,8 
E. 179/119/49' ? Car. II 
E . 179/'40/14 (poll tax payment) 
E. 179/119/493 (Ship-money payment) 
12 Car. II 
Valuation of estates I620-jO 
Har!. MS. 6766, f. 109 
" f. u6 
" f. 122 
CHAPTER VIII 
Of Church c!JVfatters 
y history dealing in detail with the land and people 
A of a particular group of manors would be incom-plete without some reference to the ecclesiastical 
organization of the area. Not only is all history in our 
country closely bound up with church and creed, but no-
where more than in England have land tenure and rural 
economy been affected by monastic foundations, parochial 
organization, and clerical revenues. It was in fact quite in-
evitable that in the course of searches into original sources 
for this local history, a great deal of buried ecclesiastical 
material should come to light. Although some of it is really 
too detailed even for this story, it seems a pity to allow these 
spoils of documentary excavation to be reinterred. More 
ecclesiastical matter has therefore been included in this 
chapter than may be warranted by the scope of the book, in 
the hope that it will here be rather more accessible than in 
the archives from which the original material was culled. 
At the same time, what is here recorded is in no sense in-
tended to be a complete history of the ecclesiastical establish-
ments of Presteigne and Knill, the two local churches directly 
affecting the Hindwell Valley. 
Since the church history of Knill is comparatively simple, 
it will be convenient to deal with it first. It follows a line 
common to many other parish churches in England. There 
is no evidence that Knill as a church or parish was ever 
associated with Presteigne. It may seem curious that a manor 
contiguous with other Hindwell Valley manors, which were 
closely associated with Presteigne parish and actually in the 
same valley as them, should always have been separate from 
them ecclesiastically and administratively. As has been 
shown, however, the manor and the two families, associated 
with Knill for over five hundred years, like their church, 
had little to do with the lordships of Presteigne or Stapleton, 
as had ,the other manors discussed. 
OJ Church iVIattcrs 213 
The first known incumbent of Knill, as rector, is Nicholas 
de Knill who in 1317 was granted a dispensation by his 
bishop for a year of study. The succession runs, fairly com-
plete, to the present day. The earlier incumbents, up to the 
end of the sixteenth century,l are as follows : 
1308 John de Knill Presented by his father John 
de Knill (33).2 
1317 Nicholas de Knill, rector Has dispensation for a year's 
study (I), son of John de 
Knill and brother of above 
(33)· 
1328 William Gormond, rector Ordained sub-deacon (2). 
1329 Ordained deacon (2). 
1329 Admitted to priest (2). " " 
1332 Walter, rector (2) 
1342 Hugh Ie Brut, rector (2) 
1349 Presented as rector by Ralph 
de Knill on exchange for 
Llyswen with Roger Castel 
(3)· 
1349 John Baderon Presented by Margery widow 
of Ralph de Knill on death 
of Hugh Ie Brut (3). 
1349 Richard Ie Merch Presented by Nicholas de Knill 
on death of John Baderon 
(3)· 
1349 Phillip de Russhuk Same by same (3). 
1359 Thomas Ie Bonde, acolyte Presented as rector by Nicho-
las de Knill on resignation 
of Phillip de Russhuk (3). 
1359 Thomas (Ie) Bonde Ordained sub-deacon (3). 
13 60 Ordained deacon and priest 
(3)· 
13 67 Phillip Sumpter Presented by Ralph de Broken-
bergh, lord of Knill3 (4). 
13 83 Thomas Wottone, rector Has dispensation for three 
years absence (5) . 
I Here, and below for ;Presteigne, only the earlier incumbents have been 
recorded because from the Elizabethan era onwards the lists are known locally 
and are complete. 
Z The numbers in parentheses throughout this chapter refer to the authori-
ties quoted in the list at the end of the chapter. 
J See pedigree of the de Knill family at end. 
Vallry on the March 
Walter Drayton Presented as rector by Rees ap 
Jevan l (6). 
John Paunteley Same by same and others (6) 
having exchanged with Wal-
ter Drayton, from Leinthall. 
David Fisher Same (6) having exchanged 
with John Paunteley, from 
Westnor. 
? David Crumhole ? 
1428 Walter Howell, chaplain Presented as rector by John 
Knill on death of above (7). 
1429 Walter Howell Exchanged with WilliamTom-
kyns, vicar of Eardisley (7). 
1430 Walter Brown Presented as rector by John 
and Alice Knill (7). 
Walter Tomkins, rector Exchanged with Simon Willas, 
vicar of Dymock (7). 
? Walter Brown ? 
1459 John Rogerys, chaplain Presented by William Knill 
(8) on resignation of above. 
1466 John Bole Presented as rector on death 
of above by same (8). 
1467 Geoffrey Glascomb Same by same, but viva voce et 
pers onaliter on death of above 
(8). 
1477 Maurice ap Rees Presented by the bishop on 
lapse (9). 
? John Taylor ? 
John Cosyn Same by same on death of 
above (10). 
Thomas Gold Same by same (II). 
Hugh Price Presented as rector by John 
Knill (12). 
1562 Thomas Meredith Same (12). 
? Richard Davies Died as incumbent 1612 (13). 
He was priested by the 
Bishop of Llandaff in I 590 
having been presented as 
rector by Francis Knill (18). 
16 I 6 Thomas Richards Presented as rector by Katha-
rine Gaines, widow (12). 
The names of several of the early incumbents are of local 
1 See pedigree of the de Knill family at end. 
>;; 
r 
;> 
>-l 
Knill Manor before the nineteenth -century restoration and latcr fi re. D rawing from RoblI1son's 1\[an5;01l5 alld tIl i\ [ anor5 
:/. 
>-< 
< 
OJ Church IIlIatter s 2 I 5 
people who, like Thomas Ie Bonde and Baderon, figure in 
subsidy rolls and other administrative documents. There 
seems to have been a good deal of parson trouble in 1349. 
In the cases of both Gormond and le Bonde the appoint-
ment of a layman was followed by his fairly rapid pro-
motion into Holy Orders, doubtless at the instance of the 
de Knill family. The procedure seems to have been that you 
found your candidate first and had him made a priest after-
wards. The same procedure was followed as late as 1590 
when Richard Davies was priested by the Bishop of Llan-
daff, though Knill was and is in the diocese of Hereford. 
How much of a break there was during the Commonwealth 
is not clear, but in 1658 one Richards 'a reading minister, 
present curate, does duty and receives profits' (17). 
The church which was much restored in 1876 dates from 
the twelfth century. It stands in a charming setting near the 
burnt-out manor-house of Knill and surrounded by the 
magnificent specimen trees of the small park. The church 
is at present served by the vicar of Old Radnor as rector of 
Knill. The present parish of forty-five inhabitants is too 
small to support a separate establishment. The great tithe 
of £75 is the sole source of income. Knill seems quite 
definitely never to have been one of the Presteigne chapels 
to which reference will be made late:\:. The old ecclesiastical 
parish of Knill was certainly more extensive than the present 
civil and ecclesiastical parish. 
The following present-day parishes represented by former 
manors of D omesday date, by later vilis and by townships 
lying in the vicinity of Knill are recorded as having been 
within the ecclesiastical parish of Old Radnor before they 
became separate civil and, in certain cases, ecclesiastical 
parishes :1 
Walton & Womaston ; 
Harpton & W olfpits; 
Old Radnor & Burlingjobb ; 
Lower Harpton ; 
Salford & Badland; 
Evenjobb, with Barland, Radnor Wood, 
and Newcastle . 
I Cf. below, p. 220. 
216 Valley on the March 
On the evidence of the parish registers the parishes of 
Lower Hatpton and Radnor Wood used Knill extensively. 
Thus even if Knill ecclesiastical parish was once larger than 
now, the principal ecclesiastical establishment west of the 
Hindwell Valley was the great church and manorial centre 
of Old Radnor; but there is nothing to show that Knill 
itself was ever included in the latter. 
The Knill Parish Registers in three volumes (up to the 
nineteenth century) begin with 1585. The first volume 
finishes in 1692. The entries are not very interesting or his-
torically very important except for the family histories of 
the KniUs and Walshams, who were, naturally, church-
wardens often and incumbents sometimes. There is a sub-
stantial break in the continuity of entries in the registers 
during the Commonwealth and Protectorate periods, not-
ably a complete blank from 30 November 1658 until 1660. 
In 1661-2 there is an interesting series of collections pre-
sumably in response to 'briefs', that is letters patent issued 
to churches with royal authority, for: 
East Hagborne, Berks., purpose not stated I6d. 
Condover, purpose not stated I6d. 
Elmley Castle, purpose not stated . I6d. 
Dalby Chalcombe, Cheshire, purpose not stated IS. 6d. 
'One living at Stoke, Salop, whose home was burnt' . F· 6d. 
'Towards setting up and trade of fishing' . IS. 6d. 
Relief of Ann Jones, Elizabeth Herbert, and Sarah 
Wood whose husbands were captive in Algiers F. od. 
A contribution of £9. IS. 3d. for captives in Algiers was also 
collected at Presteigne in 1670.' 
In 1671, and only in that year, the payment of 3S. per 
annum due to the Crown as a pension to the abbey of Wig-
more is recorded. This, as already discussed,2 was for property 
of the abbey in this area. 
On 2 May 1624 the churchwardens and parishioners 
decided that for every burial of a 'foreigner or stranger' in 
the parish a charge of 3d. would be made for three peals of 
ringing in order to maintain the bell ropes, and that 20d. 
would be paid for every burial within the body of the church. 
I Presteigne Parish Register, vol. ii. 
Z Cf. below, pp. 234-5' 
Of CiJllrch Matters 21 7 
This entry is signed by the churchwarden Walter ap Jevan 
and the parishioners Roger Lyde, John Lyde, Daniel Knill, 
John Passy, John Lyde of Nash, and by the marks of John 
Stephens and Richard Griffith. Many of these names are 
familiar from entries in subsidy rolls and other documents. 
Tlus entry as well as others, especially from 1680 onwards, 
records the use of the church by congregations from other 
parishes includine; that of Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton 
as well as of Radnor \Vood. The notification made to 'all 
men but especially to tenants of I<.:nill in years to come' by 
John Lyde, baililfunder Dame Katharine Gaines, about his 
enclosure of the lower end of I<.:nill Wood in 1622/3, has 
already been mentioned. l 
Two entries record the burials of centenarians: there is no 
evidence of epidenlics. Two men who were buried are 
reported to have been killed' digging a drain' and 'by a bull'. 
Clergy subsidies for Knill are recorded in : 
1405 Payable by rector: amount not stated (14). 
1452 Church described as in the deanery of Leominster and 
assessed at 6 marks: paid 8s. (25). 
1453 Exempt, the a=ual value being less than 12 marks and 
the incumbent residing there (8). 
1536 Taxed at 6 marks: 8s, paid (15). 
1590 The same (18). 
1658 Parsonage worth £10 (17). 
1662 John Weaver, rector, paid lOS. (16). 
There is no record at Knill of chantries seized during the 
expropriation of Edward VI's reign, but an inventory of 
church goods was made. They consisted of a chalice of 
silver, placed in the custody of John Knill but then 'stolen 
by his servant' who disappeared; three bells of 18t, 2 I, and 
23 inches at the mouth; a cope of crimson silk; two vest-
ments of blue cloth; and a 'tynacle' of brass, weight I lb. 
The vestments were reserved for the use of the parish. Knill 
did not come too badly out of the expropriations since the 
Knill family no doubt made good the theft of the chalice. 
Sir Thomas Cornewall was the COmnUssioner for the 
operation (18- 19). 
I p. 18 7 above. 
218 Vaffry on the March 
The status and early history of the Presteigne ecclesiastical 
establisllment is puzzling. As has been recorded, the name 
means the House or Home of Priests and by its origin seems 
to be a pre-Domesday place name. The place is not men-
tioned in the Domesday survey in spite of the fact that 
several close-lying manors, of Nortune, Discote, Queren-
tune (if the identification is correct), and Clatretune, are 
mentioned. The earliest documentary reference to the place 
is in a folio annexed to the Balliol Domesday transcript.' 
It may be supposed that the Priest's House or Home was 
not a monastery or convent but just an ecclesiastical dwelling 
where a group of priests lived to serve a number of local 
chapels or oratories. That Presteigne was the centre of such 
a group there is evidence in later records. Even today it is 
the ecclesiastical centre of a number of civil parishes. A book 
entitled A Church Rate for the Parish of Presteigne IS27 in the 
possession of the rector describes the parish as including 
Presteigne town, the township of Presteigne, and seven 
outlying 'townships'. 
Clun, some ten miles north of Presteigne, is often quoted 
as another example of a large parish served by a central 
church with subsidiary chapels. In 1199 it had seven such 
dependent places of worship which later became indepen-
dent parishes with churches. 
Yet another example of a community of priests living 
together and serving an area existed till recently in the parish 
of Burford just west of Tenbury where Shropshire, Here-
fordshire, and W orcestershire meet. There until 1840 three 
rectors serving the chapelries of Boraston & Whitton, of 
Nash, and of Greete, comprised in the mother parish of Bur-
ford, lived in three rectories adjoining the churchyard. Till 
the Reformation they were described as 'portionaries' and 
probably lived communally. This also is believed to repre-
sent the survival of the Saxon usage of grouping priests in 
a communal Priests' Home, such as Presteigne-Presthemede 
seems to have been. That the custom survived at Burford, 
may be connected with the fact that the patron of that 
establishment was Richard Le Scrob and his descendants 
who held the Barony of Burford by tenure and the lordship 
I Cf. above, Chap. V pa!Jim. 
OJ Church Matters 
of Stapleton with a number of manors around Presteigne l 
from before the Conquest until well after 1086. 
To the pre-Conquest period probably belong the reputedly 
'Saxon' vestiges built into the present north wall of Pres-
teigne church: it is, however, not safe at this stage of know-
ledge to say more than that they may be pre-Conquest, since 
they are difficult to date at all accurately. Architecturally the 
remains are of no great merit but they may have consider-
able significance as evidence of a large-surprisingly large-
church of perhaps the eleventh century, or even earlier. 
Similar so-called 'Saxon' vestiges exist in the fabric of Old 
Radnor church, as well as elsewhere in the area. The close 
agglomeration of pre-Norman manors of the 'Sa...w n' type 
in and around the Hindwell Valley and west of Offa's Dyke 
combine with the evidence of several pre-Norman ecclesi-
astical establishments to substantiate the thesis that there 
was a fairly considerable population, for so remote an area, 
around Presteigne before 1066. Presteigne, Old Radnor, 
and Knill ecclesiastical establishments were, and since the 
disestablishment of the Church in Wales have remained, 
within the diocese of Hereford. 
The parishes and their churches, or the absence of them, 
in the Radnor-Presteigne area to which attention is now · 
directed, require some analysis. 
Of these nineteen parishes, most of which are represented 
by DOIl).esday or early medieval manors, no less than ten 
have no churches, and one parish, Discoed, with a substantial 
church of its own, is part of Presteigne ecclesiastical parish. 
The town of Presteigne and the administrative unit, today 
an urban district, is in Radnorshire, but most of its ecclesi-
astically dependent civil parishes are in Herefordshire. 
Stapleton, which includes houses on the outskirts of Pres-
teigne but on the left bank of the Lugg, is in England. Lower 
Hat]?ton, closely ass~)Ciated as a manor with Knill, and like 
it in England, ecclesiastically goes with Old Radnor. Harpton 
& Wolfp its is a large parish for this part of the world with 
Harpton Court at one end near Walton and Old Radnor; 
but Wolfpits at the other end of the parish is really geo-
graphically in the country of the Gladestry manors west of 
I Cf. Christopher Hussey in Country Life, p. I3IO, 26 Dec. I947. 
220 Valley on the March 
Kington and outside the Radnor basin. Cascob, with Litton, 
used to be an enclave of Herefordshire in Radnorshire until 
the end of the nineteenth century when they were trans-
ferred to Wales. Cascob, an independent ecclesiastical parish, 
and Discoed, a dependent parish of Preste igne, are both single 
Ecclesiastical 
Parish COllnty parish Remarks 
Cascob Radnor, Cascob Has an old church at Cascob 
formerly 
Hereford 
Discoed Radnor Presteigne Has an old church at Discoed 
Presteigne Radnor Presteigne Has a large old church at Pres-
teigne 
Rodd, Nash & Little Hereford Presteigne Has no church 
Brampton 
Knill Hereford Knill Has an old much-restored 
church at Knill 
Stapleton Hereford Presteigne Has no church but may have 
had a chapel in the castle 
Willey Hereford Presteigne Has no church 
Combe Hereford Presteigne 
By ton Hereford By ton a,;' an ~id church rebuilt in 
1809 
Lower Kinsham Hereford Presteigne Has no church; reference to a 
chapel in seventeenth century 
Litton' Hereford Presteigne Has no church 
Titley Hereford Titley Has an old church rebuilt in 
1868 
Lower Harpton Hereford Old Radnor Has no church 
Harpton & Wolfpits Radnor Old Radnor 
Walton & Womaston Radnor Old Radnor 
Old Radnor & Bur- Radnor Old Radnor Had' a large old church at Old 
lingjobb Radnor 
Ednol with Barland Radnor Old Radnor Has no church 
& Radnor Wood 
Evenjobb Radnor Evenjobb Has a church built in 1867 at 
Evancoyd, formerly in Old 
Radnor parish 
Kinnerton, Salford Radnor Kinnerton Has a church which was rebuilt 
& Badland in 1884. Formerly in Old 
Radnor, as a chapelry. 
* Thus on O .S. maps, but also spelled Letton. 
manor parishes of Domesday origin. Litton does not appear 
to have been an early manor or a manor at all. Nevertheless, 
Litton and Cascob appear as a manor or manors dependent 
on Stapleton and manor courts were held there from the 
fifteenth century and as late as 1750-1834.' 
I Manor Rolls in the possession of the Harley family of Brampton Bryan 
(cf. above, Chap. VI, p . 151) and of the Arkwright family of Kinsham. 
Of Church Matters Z21 
The parish of Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton is a com-
pact geographical area in the Hindwell Valley consisting of 
three manors which cover virtually the whole parish area. 
It is hard to understand why it never had its own church 
like Knill. Stapleton parish is the demesne surrounding, and 
dominated by, the castle of Stapleton, and is geographically 
associated with Presteigne. Combe was an earlypost-Domes-
day manor lying between Byton and Rodd, Nash & Little 
Brampton parishes, but why it existed and exists as a separate, 
churchless, administrative entity is hard to say, except 
for the historical reason that though on Stapleton land it 
sometimes belonged to Huntington lordship. Knill, an even 
smaller single manor parish, had an independent church 
presumably because the families which lived on the manor 
were rich enough and willing to build themselves a church 
and endow it, unlike the families of the manors of Rodd, 
Nash or Little Brampton. Nevertheless, the reasons for many 
of the associations and sub-divisions are very obscure; they 
deserve further investigation. 
The Welsh name for Presteigne was Llanandras, the Holy 
Place of Andrew. There is no reference so far as is known in 
either Welsh or English early ecclesiastical records to the 
place or church, nor is it known who or what was the 
superior authority of this House of Priests. It is equally 
unknown whether this early establishment was the product 
of Welsh or English Christianity. 
With the foundation of the abbey of Wigmore a few 
historical records for Presteigne begin. The charters 
founding the abbey have been dealt with in an earlier 
chapter.! The first site of this monastic establishment of 
Augustinian canons from St. Victor near Paris was at 
Shobdon, and dates from the Episcopate of Robert of 
Bethune, I I 31 -41. The date of the origrnal church at Shob-
don is given as 1141: this structure, in part, exists as a 
rebuilt decorative 'ruin' in the eighteenth-century park of 
Shobdon where the present delightful church was built. The 
carving on the surviving Norman chancel arch is remarkable 
and interesting: it owes its survival to its incorporation into 
the landscape gardening plan of the policies surrounding 
I Above, Chap. Vl, p. 147. 
222 Valley 012 the March 
the now demolished mansion. The first foundation of the 
Augustinians at Shobdon was for a prior and two canons. 
In the reign of Henry I it was moved to Eye, near Aymes-
trey, on account of water difficulties. Mter a sojourn at 
'Beadune' which may have been By ton, the establishment 
returned to Shobdon. It was only transferred to Wigmore, 
some little distance from the Mortimer castle and settlement, 
in II79 when it had grown to house an abbot, a prior, and 
seventeen canons. 1 
The inventory of the endowments of the original Wig-
more foundation discloses a variety of properties and reven-
ues in and around Presteigne without throwing any par-
ticular light on, or indicating any system in, the method of 
financing the abbey. In particular there is nothing to indicate 
specifically whether the abbey received properties which 
might have belonged to the older House of Priests. In 1236 
there is a record that the advowson of Presteigne was quit-
claimed by William de Fraxino, the son of Wari n, to Abbot 
Walter. 2 Thus, by then at any rate, the revenues of Pres-
teigne church consisting of the great and other tithes became 
the property of the abbey. The twelfth century had been an 
age of reform in church matters 'and Rome regarded the 
new orders as the best reformers. As a result of this fashion 
in reform, and because the assignment of some part . of 
the revenues of a parish church to a monastery was a very 
cheap form of gift, we find a large number of parishes com-
ing under monastic control. .. .'3 That some of, perhaps 
all, the revenues of Presteigne church were tithes is clear 
from the records of the disposal of the abbey's properties 
in the mid-sixteenth century-and there is record of the tithe 
system in England as early as the eighth century. The 
House of Priests may therefore have been supported by 
tithes before the foundation of the abbey. The inventory 
of the four chantries in Presteigne which were seized by 
Edward VI and sold for values stated, discloses the same 
variety of revenues as those of the church and the abbey.4 
, Dugdale, 'Abbey of Wigmore' in Trs. Rod. Soc., vol. ix, p. 9; Knowles 
and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses (Longmans, 1953). 
2 F.F. 20 Hy. III; cf. also, Chap. V, p. 137, above. 
3 D. J errold, An Introduction to tlie History oj England (Collins, 1949). 
4 See below, p. 233. 
Of Church Matters 223 
In addition, however, to the tithe and fee revenue of the 
church at Presteigne and of the abbey, the latter, as is clear 
from later records, was endowed with land and houses, 
subject only to the manorial rights appertaining, in addition 
to tithes and usufruct. 
The first result of the transfer of the advowson of Pres-
teigne to the abbey was probably as unsatisfactory as else-
where in England where a monastic establishment came to 
own the endowment of a parish. In return for the endow-
ment the abbey would undertake to supply the spiritual 
needs of the parish by providing one of its members to act as 
priest; and there is evidence that this occurred in Presteigne. 
But the system was bad, and after the Lateran Council of 
II79 the English bishops, strengthened by papal authority, 
attempted to make proper provision for the needs of these 
appropriated parishes. They forced, where they could, the 
monastic houses to appoint vicars with perpetual endow-
ment, usually by dividing the tithes into two parts whereby 
the 'great' or 'rector's' tithe was retained by the convent 
and the 'vicar's' tithe together with fees, &c., and glebe 
became the endowment of the parish priest. Sometimes, 
however, the whole tithe was retained by the appropriator 
and a fixed charge was paid to a parish priest who later 
became known as a 'perpetual curate'. Later statutes attemp-
ted to do away with 'perpetual curacies' by forbidding the 
appropriation of the 'vicarial' tithes. 
The position of Presteigne may have been somewhat dif-
ferent from that of other parishes where appropriation had 
taken place by a monastic house, for Wigmore was a house of 
Austin canons who were priests living under rule but not 
monks in the strict sense and were thus permitted to hold 
parochial charges long after this had been forbidden to 
monks. The institution of a vicar at Presteigne did not, there-
fore, necessarily follow when the endowment of the parish 
passed to the abbey in 1236, and the inference from an ex-
amination of the surviving names of incumbents at Pres-
teigne given below is that the abbey continued to nominate 
one of its members to serve as parish priest until 1391, when 
appears the first record of the institution of a vicar by the 
abbey, in the person of Richard Baker. Prior to this date the 
Valley on the March 
priest at Presteigne would have been under the direct control 
of his abbot. It is significant that 1391 is the date of statute 
15 Ric. II, c. 6, which enforced the proper maintenance of 
vicars by the appropriators of a benefice. Nevertheless, in 
1405 the priests of Presteigne are again referred to as chap-
lains and stipendiaries. Moreover, it is not until the six-
teenth century that the names of incumbents at Presteigne 
have a familiar local ring. Long prior to that date the in-
cumbents of Knill were evidently already local people. 
In the presentation of such incumbents to Presteigne as 
are known, the connexion with Wigmore is clear though the 
list is notably, and unfortunately, far from complete. The 
names of which there are records run as follows: 
In the second half of } Thomas, chaplain, of Presteigne. 
thirteenth century Radolph de Presthemede, priest. 
1278 William and Nicholas of Presteigne, ordained acolytes 
(20). 
Roger de Kingsland, deacon : patron, the abbot and 
convent of Wigmore (29)' Same incumbent in 1300 
(3 1 ). 
1328130 Adam Ie Harper of Presteigne, ordained acolyte, sub-
deacon and priest (2). . 
1"328/40 Similar entries for William of Presteigne, Walter of 
Presteigne, Thomas King, and Walter Trant of Pres-
teigne (2). 
John de Kepstone, sacristan, of Presteigne, ordained 
sub-deacon and later deacon (2). 
1372 John Ie Kyng, chaplain (31). 
1373 /4 Similar ordinations of sacristans (2). 
13 89 William Moyde, chaplain (31). 
139 1 Richard Baker instituted as vicar by the abbey and 
convent of Wigmore (3). No previous incumbent or 
cause of vacancy recorded and no previous reference 
to a vicar. 
John Cascopp, stipendiary, of Presteigne, chaplain (14), 
appears with John Walter, chaplain, in the list of 
those whose stipends were more than 100S. and less 
than 10 marks (7). 
Robert Chirbury, presented as vicar by abbey and con-
vent of Wigmore; no cause for vacancy given (7)· 
1428 William Walle, chaplain; as above on resignation of 
above. . 
Of Church .i\!Jatters 225 
1447 Hugh Rogers, alias Fletcher, on death of above (29). 
? Dom Roger de Braye, vicar, t=p. Hugh de Knill living 
1471 (28). 
1480 Clement ap Griffyth, presented by Wigmore on death 
of above (9). 
1511 Walter, Abbot Wigmore, grants next presentation of 
vicar to William Clayton, gent., and Thomas Black-
bourne, yeoman, of Presteigne. 
15 I 5 Nicholas Herryson, presented as vicar by William Clay-
ton, gent., on the death of Clement ap Griffyth. 
Herryson was still vicar in I 53 6 (10). 
1539 Walter a Rode (32) also in 15461 and Harry Wellyngton,2 
overseer (32). 
1555 Peter Weaver, presented by John Bradshawe.4 
1559 John Rod or Roade, Clerk, vicar: date of appointment 
not known. Buried in Presteigne 158 L 3 
1590 Roger Bradshawe, M.A., priested by Bishop of Glou-
cester, presented as vicar [sic] by John Bradshawe, the 
'appropriator' (18).4 
16II John Scull, B.D.,s vicar and later rector in 1639 under 
letters patent of Charles 1. 
1660 Phillip Lewis, vicar. 
1664 Phillip Lewis, rector (16). 
In contrast with Knill none of the names of incumbents 
prior to 15 I I presented by the abbey of Wigmore are re-
cognizable from subsidy roils, &c., or otherwise as local 
people, who were assessable and paid taxes or fees. Thereafter 
local names figure. The William Ie Clerk de la Rode and Dom 
Adam de Rode of the 1300 records are not known to have been 
incumbents of Presteigne: there was an Adam de Bray in the 
late thirteenth century who is described as abbot of Wigmore. 
I Referred to as executor of the wills of John Vaughan of Presteigne and 
Jenkyn a Rod (see below) in the two years stated (32). 
, Sir (? Sr.) Harry Wellyngton is also referred to as 'Clerk' in wills of 
1540-4, Trs. Rod. SOt., vol. xxiv. He appears to have been a cleric of some 
importance if not vicar. In The Church Plate of Radnorshire, p. 105, he is de-
scribed as 'Charity Priest' in 1547. Pensioned as a canon of Wigmore: lately 
charity priest at Presteigne (34). 
3 John Rod, recorded as 'Sir (? Sr.) John Rod', witness to the will (II 
Oct. 1559) of Meredith ap David of Presteigne, is also recorded as John 
Roade, vicar, in the Winchester muniments (30). Cf. also Hereford Probate 
Records in Nat. Lib. Wales. 
4 Also cf. pp. 237 and 240 below; Lambeth, Cart. Mist., vol. xiii, NO.5, 
p. 23 . S See below, p. 244. 
B 6851 Q 
2.26 Vaffry on the March 
In 1458 a dispute apparently broke out between the abbey 
and the parish concerning the provision of a sacristan or 
deacon for the church. The bishop to whom the disagree-
ment went decided that the vicar should find the sacristan 
and absolved the abbey from this duty: in this record the 
monks of Wigmore are described as proprietarii of the church 
(8). This would be consistent with the status of the abbey 
as rector of Presteigne, whereby, under the statute of 1391, 
the care of souls, the charities, and the poor, as well as such 
hospitality as devolved on him, were the duty of the vicar. 
Other clergy in the parish, supported by the chantry endow-
ments, and minor clerics also, would not normally have had 
to do with the abbey: that such was in question at all sug-
gests as do other bits of evidence that the abbot and convent 
of Wigmore were more than sleeping partners in the endow-
ments and administration of Presteigne. 
In 1511 an important change took place in the ecclesi-
astical administration of Presteigne. Abbot Walter granted 
to William Clayton, gent., and Thomas Blackbourne, yeo-
man of Presteigne, the next presentation of the vicar. Is this 
a reflection of the dissatisfaction of Presteigne with the 
remote control of the parish church by Wigmore Abbey? 
The concession was not destined to last long, for the abbey 
itself was soon to be dissolved; and whether William Clayton 
and Thomas Blackbourne did or did not present a vicar in 
1511 does not transpire, though Clayton did do so in 1515 
upon the death of the incumbent. I It seems likely that they 
must have done so immediately since a concession like this 
would hardly have been granted as a matter of principle 
without use having at once been made of the faculty. The 
incumbents, whether Herryson or others, were evidently 
pretty unsatisfactory for already in 152 I it was found that 
the vicar was continually absent from his cure and failed, 
though in receipt of tithes, &c., to maintain properly the 
dwelling house, barn, building, and closes. The fruits of 
the office were in consequence sequestrated and devoted to the 
necessary repairs: responsibility therefore was entrusted to 
John Richard Davyes, chaplain, John Baker, and John Dyer 
of Preste igne (II). In 1527 and 1530 writs were issued to the 
I See above, p. 225, and Trs. Rad. Soc., vol. xix, p. 18. 
Of Church Matters 
bishop to levy arrears of tithes in his diocese including 16s. 
from the vicar of Preste igne and 16s. from the vicarage. The 
affairs of, at any rate parts of, the diocese of Hereford includ-
ing Presteigne were evidently in rather a mess during the 
early years of Henry VIII (II). 
The Presteigne church establishment was never wealthy 
except in the quite early days when in 1291 with its chapel, 
probably the one at Discoed, it was listed 'as of the Abbey 
of Wigmore' and was stated as worth £17. 6s. sri. tax, 
£1. 145. 8d. tithe, and half a carucate of land, with certain 
rents.' In Henry VIII's reign 'the chapel of Presteigne' is 
specmcally stated as being the one at Discoed. The question 
of chapels will be discussed again later. The decline in the 
prosperity of Presteigne church could be attributed to the 
division made in 1391, resulting in the 'great' tithe being 
retained by the abbey of Wigmore and the 'small' or 'vicarial' 
tithe being attributed to the vicar, following on the reforms 
of 13 91 and 1 402 . The conclusion, substantiated by the 
evident row of 151 I, seems to be that the abbot and convent 
of Wigmore were using too much of the revenues of Pres-
teigne for their own advantage to the detriment of the 
parishioners . 
M ter the fourteenth century there are a number of entries 
for clerical subsidy, many if not most of which show Pres-
teigne exempted for poverty or because the assessments were 
below 12 marks with the incumbent in residence. The full 
record of assessments, &c., is as follows : 
Temp. Hy. VI assessed at 12 marks (23). 
1435 Exempt (8). 
1445 ,,(8). 
1452/3 " as worth less than 12 marks. 
1461 As above (10), with incumbent in residence (8, 22). 
1478 Presteigne with chapel : 
Presteigne 345. 8d. 
Chapel exempt for poverty (24). 
Temp. Hy. vn Presteigne and chapel assessed for 34S. 8d. 
1489 Subsidy paid 6s. 8d. (8). 
1492 Exempt. 
1505 Assessed for 6s. 8d. (10). 
t Taxatio Pape Nicholai, c. apud Dugdale, loco cit. 
.u8 Valley on the March 
Ip3 Exempt with chapels [sic] (ro). 
1517 " "" (rr). 
1536 Annual value assessed at £20 (Ir). 
1538 Exempt as worth less than 12 marks with incumbent in 
residence (22). 
1543 Subsidy for 'defence against the Turk' paid: 
Presteigne 6s. 5d. 
Discoed rod. 
In later years there is a larger payment than usual by the 
rector of £20 as a contribution to 'Royal Aid' in 1662, that 
is soon after the Restoration of Charles II. 
During the troubled fourteenth and fifteenth centuries 
the church of Presteigne and its subsidiary establishments 
were directly affected by the warfare on the March. There is 
one account dated 1406 of the church having been destroyed 
together with 'a portion of the Vicar' during strife on the 
border. The same is reported of the churches at By ton, 
Titley, and Old and New Radnor.' The date 1406 coincides 
with Owen Glyndwr's campaign, in the course of which he 
destroyed Lyonshall Castle and went on to Leominster. He 
very likely passed in 1402 by way of Presteigne, By ton, and 
Titley on his way from the battle at Pilleth which lies four 
miles north-west of Presteigne. Even if damage was not 
always as great in other border incidents, a campaign like 
this is typical of what was constantly happening on a smaller 
scale. 
The most important sociological event in the countryside 
of England in Henry VIII's reign is always supposed to have 
been the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and the confisca-
tion, orasitwould probably be called today, the 'nationaliza-
tion' of ecclesiastical land and property. The procedure used 
to effect the operation consisted in vesting the monastic 
properties in the Crown which then held them for admini-
stration through bailiffs or trustees pending disposal. In 
many cases the Crown did not hold for long, in other cases 
the opposite occurred. The properties, varying in kind as 
they did, were naturally subject to different treatment and 
procedure. 
In history the Dissolution took place in two stages. Under 
J RegiIl.r of Bp. Robert Mascaii (C.Y.S.). 
OJ Church Matters 
the Act of 1536, 27 Henry VIII, c. 28, the 'lesser' monas-
teries were dissolved. Wigmore, by reason of its revenues 
and such reports as may have been made on its good be-
haviour, was a 'greater' monastery. It had in 1536 an income 
of some £260 net per annum I and contained a community 
of eleven. Thanks to the original endowments, subsequent 
accretions of wealth, and the advowson of Presteigne, the 
income of the abbey, equivalent to, say, £7,500 a year in 
current money, amounted to 36 per cent. of the total income 
of the county of Hereford's eight monastic houses. In-
cidentally the houses of the Austin canons in England were 
by far the most numerous, numbering 154 out of the total 
of 353 male houses in the country, the male Benedictines 
running a bad second with only 68. The abbey of Wigmore 
was evidently one of the rich but sparsely tenanted 'greater' 
monasteries of the country. Since, however, the seizure of 
the 'greater' monasteries followed so rapidly on the appro-
priation of the 'lesser', it will be simpler in the case of Wig-
more to consider its fate under the general heading of the 
Dissolution of the Monasteries.2 
By the time of the Dissolution the revenues of the manor 
of Presteigne, in some of which the abbey of Wigmore was 
interested, were already Crown property having been seized 
upon the attainder of Richard, Duke of York. This Richard 
had assumed the title of Earl of March and Ulster and the 
succession to the de Mortimer lands after the death of 
Edmund IV de Mortimer fifth Earl of March, who died of 
the plague in 1425 while Lieutenant of Ireland. Richard, 
Duke of York, was the son of Richard of Cambridge. His 
mother was a sister of Edmund, the last de Mortimer Earl 
of March, and daughter of Roger VI de Mortimer, the fourth 
Earl of March. 
What was involved in the vesting of the manor of Pres-
teigne in the Crown ' was that the manorial fees and rights, 
and such revenues as formerly went to the de Mortimers, 
inured to the king. When certain woodlands and waste, held 
1 Philip Hughes, Reformation in E~gland (Hollis & Carter, 1952), vol. i, 
pp. 373, 375, &c., says £267. Knowles and Hadcock, op. cit., above, says £261. 
2 Cf. Hughes, op. cit., vol. i, pp. 320 and 321, especially his comment 
on the surrender of the 'greater' monasteries in para. 2 of p. 321. 
Valley on the March 
directly as manor property, were alienated to particular in-
dividuals after the Dissolution, they are, however, already 
definitely described as 'formerly the Property of the Abbey 
of Wigmore' . Thus what apparently happened was that when 
the Mortimer manors were forfeit to the Crown, the rights 
and properties of the abbey in those manors or parts of them, 
and in particular the revenues derived from Presteigne, were 
respected, and so continued to be the property of the abbey 
until the abbey itself and its assets were eventually also vested 
in the Crown on the Dissolution of the Monasteries. 
Thus, between the forfeiture of the de Mortimer lands 
and revenues to the Crown and the events of 15 36 neither 
the abbey of Wigmore nor the holders of the sub-manors in 
the Hindwell Valley suffered any pecuniary change by the 
substitution of the Crown for the Earls of March : all the 
parties concerned with the tenure of land and charges there-
on remained in undisturbed possession. Then, however, 
came the Dissolution. In effect the sub-manors of the manors 
of Presteigne and Stapleton again were unaffected save that 
any tithe they had to pay to the abbey of Wigmore became, 
upon the vesting of this monastic property in the Crown, 
payable to the Crown and eventually to such parties as the 
Crown chose to become recipients or purchasers of the 
monastic revenues in question. Those in occupation of land 
would therefore feel no material change arising out of the 
Acts of 1536. The abbey of Wigmore as owner of at any rate 
the 'great tithe' of Presteigne would no longer collect that 
revenue which would become payable to the bailiffs and 
stewards of the king in substitution for the abbot. But the 
'vicarial' or 'small tithe' would still have been leviable and 
paid to the incumbent of Preste igne who thus in theory was, 
and so his parochial administration, not any worse off 
materially than before the Dissolution. 
Happily there is a fairly complete record of what did · 
happen after the Dissolution to the church revenues in this 
area. In the outcome the social consequences of the Dis-
solution, even where the parish church depended, as at 
Presteigne, from a monastic foundation, were not as great 
either in theory or in practice as might have been supposed. 
The dissolution of the abbey of Wigmore formally 
OJ Church Malters 
occurred on 18 November 1538 when the Bishop of Hereford 
as Prior Commendatory surrendered the abbey to the King's 
Commissioners.! There were then only seven inmates in the 
house. They, if what happened elsewhere is any guide, were 
pensioned, or, if so willing, received a living. 
In 1536 the Abbots with seats in the House of Lords voted 
for the suppression of the 'lesser monasteries' and now, one by 
one, they were to surrender their own houses; and, almost their 
last parliamentary appearance, they were to vote for the act which 
gave their surrender legal value .... For while no-one has ever 
proved more than a handful of these particular charges [that is 
those against the conduct of, notably, the lesser monasteries], the 
quality of the monasticism surely stan.ds condemned whether they 
[i.e. the charges] be true or false, by the fact of the religious voting 
away so generally the whole institution to whose service by the 
most sole= obligations they were all of them severally vowed 
for life. This is a hard saying .... That they made these surrenders, 
and so universally ... -here is the best of evidence that all was 
really far from well even under the best of appearances, within the 
monastic world.3 
A curious event is now recorded. Upon the surrender of 
the abbey to the King's Commissioners, the abbot proceeded 
to appoint by a deed dated the Nativity of St. John the 
Baptist, 30 Hy. VIII (which is 1539), a William Rodd to be 
the auditor and steward for life of the abbot and convent of 
Wigmore at a salary of 4 marks per annum. William Rodd 
was to be paid out of the revenues of the estates and to keep 
records on parchment which the abbot was to provide or 
find 6s. 8d. to buy. William Rodd could be represented by 
a sufficient deputy, and was, in the person of William Clayton, 
presumably the same man to whom with Thomas Black-
bourne the abbot of Wigmore had in 15 I I granted the 
presentation to Presteigne, and who did present in 15 15. 
William Rodd will again appear below as the purchaser of 
some of the Presteigne revenues of the abbey. Can it be that 
William Ro~d purchased these tithes deliberately to hold 
them for ecclesiastical purposes against a time when the 
I Cf. Knowles and Hadcock, op. cit. 
2 There is a record of 5 nuns and 74 priests so pensioned in Herefordshire 
including 6 from Presteigne, 5 being Canons of Wigmore, temp . E liz. I (34) 
3 So writes Father Philip Hughes, op. cit., vol. i, p. 32 1 • 
Valley on the March 
abbot hoped, against reason, that a reversal of policy would 
enable the abbey to be reinstated?I There seems otherwise 
no reasonable explanation of why the abbot should have 
made an appointment of an auditor and steward of estates 
which had been seized by the Crown at a date after the 
surrender of the abbey.2 In fact William Rodd as will be 
seen later sold the tithes and advowson of Presteigne to one 
John Bradshawe, by way, apparently, of a William Thomas. 
It must be true that the disruption of the monastic 
organization which had been so notable a feature of the 
landscape, of land tenure, and of learning, cannot have failed 
to have had a psychological as well as a material impact on 
the countryside. It is, however, almost certainly also true 
that in the everyday lives of the people of England it had 
less effect than used to be thought. In the neighbourhood of 
Presteigne, if the parish priest with his vicarial tithes con-
tinued to care in some form for the spiritual needs of his 
parishioners, which would depend on his, and their, con-
scientious views on the royal supremacy, the appearance of 
the church and its priest would not alter, or alter much. Far 
greater breaks were · to happen during and after the Civil 
War. The same people would pay the same tithes to other 
recipients; nevertheless, a centre of authority and learning 
in the ab bey as patron of Presteigne would have disappeared, 
and with it, as elsewhere all over England, the accumulation 
of historic and artistic treasures which every abbey pos-
sessed. Of schooling in Presteigne there is no record for this 
period and, in so far as the canons of Wigmore were con-
cerned in teaching, the population probably lost this ad-
vantage. Nevertheless, the chantries remained for years 
longer and if chantry priests other than the inhabitants of the 
abbey continued, and here as elsewhere taught, until the 
reign of Edward VI, the break in this field of ecclesiastical 
activity at the moment of the Dissolution may not neces-
sarily have been great. 
I It seems a fact that William Rodd had the advowson of Ptesteigne before 
Bradshawe and this explains (as will be seen below) why William or Walter 
Rodd managed to keep and thereafter secure at any rate the Rodd tithes. 
Cf. Arch. Journal, 1933, p. 45 . 
2 Hereford Library: Convent. Leases. Nativity of St. John Bap. 30 Hy. 
VIII. Deed signed in the Chapter House at Hereford. 
Of C/JtlrctJ Matters 233 
To anticipate events, there were in fact four chan tries in 
Presteigne1 when they were 'nationalized' in Edward VI's 
reign: 
(i) For the service of St. David; annual revenue 5F .: 
later sold to John Seymourz for a capital payment of 
£53. 4S. 8d. calculated by taking 22 years purchase on 
land worth 22S. 4d. annually, 10 years on houses 
worth 4S. annually, and 20 years on free rents of 
26s. 8d. 
(ii) For the service of St. Mary of Grace; £7. 4S. 8d. 
annually: no record of composition or disposal. 
(iii) For the service of the Holy Trinity; annual value 
£3. 16s. 6d. less 3S. 6d. reprise : no record of com-
position or disposal. 
(iv) For the service of St. Mary of Piety; annual value 
£4. lOS. 8d. : no record of composition or disposal. 
The revenues of these four chan tries were made up of 
88 items of house, meadow, pasture, arable, and free rent 
property. The largest single item was a free rent on the land 
of John Reide (perhaps Roode or Rode) at 'Ie Roode', the 
whereabouts of which is not specified. Most of the proper-
ties, but not all, lay in and around Presteigne and Stapleton, 
and not by any means wholly in the townships. 
As a matter of interest it may be mentioned that when the 
chan tries were dissolved the county of Hereford did not 
come off so badly. 
The Dissolution of the Chantries [writes Rowsep  contemplated 
a large transfer to education. The financial stress of the Govern-
ment made this impossible. The distinction was made between that 
part of the Chantry endowment which was intended for education 
and that for Masses for the D ead. The latter were annexed to the 
Crown; in a word, nationalised ... [but] The Government ap-
pointed two [central] commissions to decide what schools and 
what endowments should be continued. ... In Herefordshire, for 
example, which had had some fifteen schools, they continued ten, 
and refounded one 
- not too bad an outcome. There is no record of a school 
at Presteigne at this time, but a grammar school was 
I P.R.O.: E. 118/19~2. 2 Cf. below, p. 237. J Rowse, p. 494. 
Vaffry on the March 
founded there in 1565 : it was said to have scholarships to 
Oxford and four to Lampeter as lately as 1850.1 Evidently 
the local need for education was formally met within some 
twenty-five years of the great sociological upheaval of the 
Dissolution, even if the Dissolution of the Monasteries did 
make a break in the continuity of learning and teaching. 
The poor who depended for direct employment and alms 
on the abbeys obviously suffered more quickly and severely 
by the Dissolution, though the vicar would probably have 
remained responsible for some parochial hospitality and 
charities. Rural employment on the land and in industries 
directly connected with agriculture in the Presteigne area 
would not necessarily have been affected so much as they 
were in many other districts in the sixteenth century when 
unemployment became rife both as the cause and effect of 
enclosure, for here there is no evidence of open field or 
'champion cultivation' which was the economic cause of 
most of the trouble. The decline in population of Presteigne 
and Stapleton since the fourteenth century is more likely in 
fact to have been due to the migration of population to the 
newly born industrial centres which sprang up in Eliza-
beth's reign.z 
Of direct ecclesiastical domain in the Hindwell Valley 
there are only two known examples. The first is the small 
grant of land by King William in Domesday to the abbey of 
Lire in France. The precise whereabouts of this land is not 
known, but in Edward Ill's reign it is twice referred to as: 
'the Abbot of Lire has [land worth] 5 shillings rentatNaische', 
and again as: a virgate of land worth 5S- 'the gift of Earl 
William'.3 In the next reign, Richard Nash and others of the 
county of Hereford went bail for the proctors of the abbey 
of Lire.4 The second example is the 'pension' of F. payable 
by Knill to the abbey of Wigmore on account of estates 
'formerly the property of the Abbey'. This is also described 
as a charge in favour of the abbey of Wormelow [sic] cer-
tainly in error, for it figures as an item of revenue of Wigmore 
I Howse, Pre/feigne Past and Presenf Parishes, pp. 33 and j 4; the scholarships 
were transferred to Shrewsbury and other schools. 
2 Cf. Rowse, chap. ii. 
3 Augmentation Office Misc. E. 3Ij/489, f. Ijd. 
4 Cal. Fine R ., 8 Feb. 1378. 
Of Church Matters 235 
in the detailed schedule of the possessions of the latter. I The 
land itself had evidently passed into other hands, the abbey 
retaining a charge, for it is later described as 'land freely held 
by John Knill who was supp'osed to render I2d.',2 but in a 
marginal note 'William Scudamore seith it was never payet 
et non onerator'. There was also a small charge of 7d. on 
unspecified land at Lingen in favour of the prioress of Lime-
brook near Lingen which seems to have been entered as part 
of the Wigmore revenues of the Presteigne area.3 
The Presteigne and Stapleton revenues of the abbey of 
Wigmore at this period are recorded in some detail. A list 
of Henry VIII's reign records 62 names paying revenues for 
the church of Presteigne, 'the property of the Abbey of 
Wigmore', and therefore to the abbey, prior to the Dis-
solution. The list names 22 free tenants in Presteigne as well 
as tithe payers on neighbouring estates.4 In the Harleian col-
lection is a 'rental of Crown Lands the Property of Wigmore 
Abbey, at Prestmeade alias Presthemede by Hugh ap Lewis, 
Bailiff'.5 Here is a summary (abbreviated at some entries) of 
these properties: 
£ s. d. 
(i) Rents of assize, free rents, demesne lands, &c . 2 4t 
(li) Annual rents, diverse persons and holdings 8 8 
Customary rents various, including 30S. for 
tithes of all sheaves in Combe 9 4 9! 
Total of (i) and (li) 10 15 10 
(iii) Farm of all tithes of grain, hay, &c., pertaining 
to the rectory of Presteigne at Le Nashe and 
Brampton [sic] in the (ecclesiastical) parish 
of Presteigne now in occupation of Morice 
ap Lood6 [sic] of Preste igne but held by Wal-
ter Roode7 by indenture . 3 68 
I See below, p. 236 at Item xii. 
2 P.R.O.: Surveys, LR 2/183, F. 53, 23 Hy. VIII. 
3 Cal. Pat. R., LR 2/182. 
• P.R.O.: LR 2/183, 33 Hy. VIII. 
s Har!' 4131, f. 388. Reputed temp. Edw. VI, but owing to the reference to 
Nicholas Herryson under item xiii below, probably temp. Hy. VIII. 
6 See below, p. 236, alias LIen or Llanello: this name may also be the 
Lellowe or Lello which figures in the Presteigne Parish Register. 
7 For Walter and William Rodd see below. 
Vallry on the March 
Farm of tithes of sheaves and hay in parish of 
Presteigne let to Elizabeth a Hethe . o 0 
Farm of all tithes of hay, corn, &c., of Staple-
ton and Rood pertaining to the rectory of 
Presteigne as farmed by Thomas Lloyd of 
Presteigne by indentures of 2 Oct. 30 Hy. 
VIII for 60 years 6 13 4 
Total of (iii), (iv), and (v) £rr 0 0 
(vi) 'Tithes ... in Over and 
(vii) Nether Kinsham ... 3 6 8 
(viii) Tithes ... in Discoed 4 0 0 
(ix) All tithes in Norton . 2 13 4 
(x) All tithes in Willey I 0 0 
(xi) Tithes of sheaves in Stocking 8 4 
(xii) Annual and perpetual pension received yearly 
of the rector of Knill out of his rectory 0 
(xiii) Annual and perpetual portion received yearly 
of Nicholas Harrison, I clerk, vicar of Pres-
teigne out of tithes of flax and hemp and cer-
tain closes 8 2 
Total of items (iii) to (xiii) excluding item (xii) 
is . . £22 16 6 
(xiv) Tithes to the Crown until ? 19 10 
(xv) Bailiff's fee per annum 3 0 0 
This rent and tithe roll of the former abbey of Wigmore 
in the Presteigne area is substantially confirmed and ampli-
fied in other documents. 2 In these, however, the tithes are 
held by William Rodd instead of Walter Rodd who also paid 
originally to the abbey a charge of 4d. annually on unspeci-
fied property in Presteigne.3 The tithes in Nash and Little 
Brampton, (iii) above, of £3. 6s. sd. were due on two speci-
fied feast days by a farmer here called Maurice ap Lello or 
Lellowe.4 They are specifically described as 'late of the 
Monastery of Wigmore'; their payment was in arrear at 
I Alias Herryson; see above, p. 225 . 
2 Augmentation Office Misc. E. 315/293, f . 50d and f. 123d; Cal. Pal. R., 
LR 2/183 , If. 16, '7, '9,)3, and II6; Patent 16 Nov. '552. 
3 For William and Walter Rodd or de la Rode sec p. 196. 
• Cf. Will in Tn Rad. Soc., vol. vi, pp. 9-10; name also figures in Presteigne 
Parish Register. 
Of Church iliatters 237 
Michaelmas 1539. The Morice ap Lood or Lello or Lellowe, 
if all these are the same, was probably of the family of Lyde 
or Lloyd who were certainly farming at Rodd, Nash, and 
Knill in the sL'l:teenth century. The Thomas Lloyd of Pres-
teigne who held the farm of tithes at Stapleton and Rodd of 
£6. 13S. 4d., (v) above, is also confirmed but described as 
Thomas ap Lloyd; this charge, too, is referred to as formerly 
belonging to Wigmore but secured to him by indenture. 
The 'pension' of 3S. annually from the rect01Y of Knill, 
(xii) above, is also mentioned as valor ecclesiasticus, and a 
payment of 3S. is recorded as due to the Crown in the Knill 
Parish Register in 1671. This annuity was retained by the 
Crown but seems to have fallen in abeyance. The subsequent 
history of certain, in particular, of the Presteigne tithes 
concerns the history of the church as the parish church of the 
neighbourhood, and this story directly. 
In 1552 the tithes and advowson of Presteigne were 
granted to John Bradshawe, Esq., senior, by letters patent 
dated 16 November of that year: the tithes and advowson 
are described as 'late of the Monastery of Wigmore'. The 
grant was at the instance of William Thomas, gent., 'in con-
sideration of an annuity of £17. 6s. 8d. I and a debt of 500 
marksz granted to the King' by the latter. This is ac urious 
transaction and is connected through the person of William 
Thomas with a whole series of grants which have sufficient 
historical interest to be worth noting. 
In 15163 there had been a grant to Hugh Wylly of toll, 
custom, and subsidy on all beasts and merchandise bought 
and sold in the markets and fairs of Presteigne, Builth, and 
Elfael. This grant was later surrendered, but was followed 
by a similar grant in 15 194 to William West, Page of the 
Chamber, and Hugh Wylly. Hugh Wylly was Groom of the 
Chamber and connected with Old Hall, Willey, near Pres-
teigne.s In 15476 there is a grant of the same in reversion to 
Thomas Seymour, Kt., on his elevation to the peerage as 
I Note the amount; cE. pp. 238-9 below. 
2 400 marks in the Harley muniments. 
3 Cal. Pat. R., 20 May, 7 Hy. VIII. 
• Cal. Pat. R., 12 Oct., 10 Hy. VIII. 
s Trs. Rad. Soc., vol. xv, p. 53. 
6 Cal. Pat. R ., 14 Aug., 37 Hy. VIII, 1547. 
Valley on the March 
Lord Seymour of Sudeley, followed in 15521 by a similar 
grant in reversion, 'Wylly being dead, to the King's Servant 
William Thomas Esquire Clerk to the Privy Council', from 
whom, it is recorded, there were conveyed to John Brad-
shawe the rectory and advowson of Presteigne which were 
not mentioned in the grants referred to; nor did the Pres-
teigne living hold the market dues which Thomas had. 
The grant of 15 52 to John Bradshawe enumerates the 
following items of property in Presteigne which correspond 
remarkably well with the earlier inventory already men-
tioned. The items (in summary form) are: 
£ s. d. 
(a) Sheaves in Combe . I 10 0 
(b) Grain and hay in Nash & Little Brampton ; 6 8 
(c) Sheaves of [?in] 'Hay otherwise Hethe' I 10 0 
(d) Sheaves of corn, grain, hay, and 'other tithe what-
soever' in Stapleton, Presteigne, Rodd [sic] and 
'our tithe barn [there], . 10 13 4 
(8) Grain and hay in Willey . 100 
(f) Tithes in Stocking 8 4 
(g) Annuity from vicar for tithes of flax and hemp 8 2 
(h) All dues, rights, privileges, &c. , formerly enjoyed 
by the late abbot and convent of Wigmore . 18 16 8 
These items need some analysis . Item (a) corresponds to 
the entry under item (ii) in the first quoted list; item (b) 
relates to item (iii); item (c) relates to item (iv) but is lOS. 
larger; item (d) is the sum of items (iii) and (v), that is the 
property held by Walter (or William) Rodd but with the 
addition of the dthe barn at The Rodd and 13 S. 4d. more in 
value: it is tempting to suggest that this additional value is 
attributable to the tithe barn not mentioned in the iirst list, 
but again referred to later. 2 Item (e) corresponds with item (x) 
as does item (f) with (xi). Items (g) and (xiii) agree and 
the descriptions supplement each other. The total ' of items 
(a) to (g) in the original Latin version of the letters patent 
of 1552 is given as £18. 6s. 8d. : in fact the totals add up to 
£18 . 16s. 6d. The lOS. difference is probably accounted 
for by the entry under item (c) which is probably an error 
r Cal. Pat. R., 20 May, 7 Edw. VI, 1552/3. 
2 See p. 239 below. 
Of Church Matters 239 
for zos. as in item (iv).1 There is a constant discrepancy of 
zd. in the various totals wh.ich can be made perhaps to arise 
out of the 8s. zd. of the vicar's portion in both lists: were 
this item 8s. 4fl., as for the tithes in Stocking at item (xi), the 
amount would correspond well and can also be related to 
the value in the Ta....m tio of £r7. 6s. 8d., the odd zos. being 
accounted for by the Willey tithes which were probably 
then held by Hugh Wylly. 
The 155 z grant to John Bradshawe nevertheless records 
that the tithe of £3. 6s. 8d., namely item (b) or (iii), was still 
in the possession of William Rodd. The extraneous item 
of 3S. (xii) relating to Knill disappears. William (or Walter) 
Rodd was, as has already been mentioned, deeply concerned 
with the ecclesiastical organization of Presteigne and the 
abbey of Wigmore, which had appointed him auditor and 
steward of the abbot and convent in 1539.2 A John Rodd 
was also vicar of Presteigne in 15 59 and in 1570, perhaps 
till his death in 1581. A note made in I 8z I by the legal 
advisers of the Harley family reads as follows :3 
It seems from a grant (above referred to as the 1552 grant), dated 
30th April to Charles I, that the Rectory, Tithes and premises 
comprized in the foregoing Letters Patent, except the Tithe Barn 
and the Tithes of The Rodd, afterwards became invested in the 
Crown, but that the Tithe Barn and Tithes of The Rodd had been 
previously conveyed by the said John Bradshaw, the original 
grantee thereof, and Sibilla his wife to James Rodd, Richard Rodd, 
and Hugh Rodd, and are therefore excepted in that grant. And as 
we have not been able to find the Conveyance from Bradshaw, 
we have sent a copy of King Charles' Grant herewith, as the excep-
tion therein shows that such a conveyance had been made and that 
I This document containing the name of William Rodd in P.R.O.: LR 
2/182, is clearly temp. Hy. VIII: the tithe roll Harl. 4131, which refers to 
Walter Rodd, has been dated temp. Edw. VI, but owing to the reference to 
Nicholas Herryson is probably also temp. Hy VIII. Walter and William may 
in fact be the same person, cf. p. 196, but if they are two people then Wal-
ter is later than William. 
2 See above, p. 231. 
3 In the muruments of the Harley family at Brampton Bryan, bundle 8, 
recorded by Mr. W. Howse to whom I am indebted for this information and 
the notes on the subsequent history of the tithes, &c., of Presteigne, derived 
from the same sources. 
Vallry on the March 
by that means the Tithes of the Village of Rodd came into the Rodd 
family, ... 
The writer added a note in the margin to the effect: 
The enrolment of this Grant has been lately found at the Rolls 
Chapel-and a copy herewith sent-where it appears that the 
conveyance was to Richard Rodd only. 
It may incidentally be noted that the Great Tithes of Rodd 
(and, of Kinsham) were excluded from the summary of the 
church terrier of 1639. Moreover, most of The Rodd lands 
surrounding the house and farm are not charged with rec-
torial tithes today.1 
John Bradshawe's purchase of the advowson of Pres-
teigne may not have been entirely actuated by the altruistic 
motive of presenting a priest after the termination of the 
connexion of the church with its parent monastic organiza-
tion, or if it was, he "Lutned the event to some family ad-
vantage. In 1590 Roger Bradshawe, M.A., pries ted by John, 
Bishop of Gloucester, and described as resident and of 
honest conversation, became vicar [sic] of Presteigne with 
a stipend of £20 to which he was presented by John Brad-
shawe, Esq., the patron, with John Skeyvacks or Skevick, 
pries ted by the Bishop of St. David's, as curate, honest and 
resident also, with a stipend of £10, a figure corresponding 
to items (iii) and (v) on the tithes roll of the abbey of Wig-
more. 2 A 'John Skeyvicke' was, incidentally, married in 
Presteigne church in 15 89. The Bradshawefamily also owned 
the beautiful old timbered house which is now the much 
enlarged Radnorshire Arms Hotel in Presteigne. 3 He was 
evidently a man of some means, for with another he acquired 
in 1613 from William Weaver and his wife Joyce a sub-
stantial estate described as in Stapleton, Staunton-on-Arrow, 
and Kinsham, amounting to 5 50 acres in all with 4 mes-
suages, orchards, and gardens. The stated amount paid was, 
however, only £ 160 and the transaction therefore does not 
I Tithe Apportionment Map and Terrier 1845, and the author's correspon-
dence with Tithe Redemption Commission, 1955 . 
• i.e. part of the 'rectorial' tithe: Lambeth Palace Library, Clergy in Diocese 
J59°' .. 
3 A local tradition that this John Bradshawe was Bradshawe the Regicide 
has no foundation in fact. 
Of Church Matters 
look as if it was concerned with the major part of the Staple-
ton lands which had been alienated in 1596. I John Brad-
shawe was again concerned a few years later with another 
substantial transaction in Presteigne and Lugharnes in-
volving £100 for 100 acres, but as a vendor.' There is some 
doubt whether it was during or after Roger Bradshawe's 
presentation that the vicar of Presteigne became rector; in 
the 1590 list of incumbents he is referred to as vicar. 
And that is more or less the story of how the connexion 
of Preste igne church with the abbey of Wigmore came to an 
end. The break-up of this monastic organization by the 
Crown, thanks to the local laity, in fact decentralized the 
control of the local church to the locality and brought it 
into closer touch with the parishioners than had been the 
case when it belonged to a monastic institution which kept 
most of the local revenues and in its turn had a remoter 
superior authority. 
There may be additional evidence of friction arising out 
of a monastic superior control before the Dissolution in a 
piece of parochial organization recorded in the Presteigne 
Registers. On 8 May 1603 it is written 
for as much as some of the XII men of the parishe of Presteigne 
are dead and departed out of this transitorie liefe, and, that the 
number is to be supplied by ancient custom [sic] of the gravest and 
substantiallest men of the parishe It is ordered and decreed that 
the persons undemamed shalbe and remayne of the number of 
the XII men and that none of the XII men shall hereafter be ellected 
or chosen to be wardens of the said parishe. 
Signed by; Peter Lloyd, Thomas Pryce, Hugh Lewis, 
Thomas Weaver, John ap Owen (crossed out), Phil Goz, 
John Walsam, William Tattersall, Richard Gomey, John 
Agomey, Richard Powell, Nicholas Taylor, Francis Owen. 
In 1613 the Twelve Men agreed with the churchwardens of 
Presteigne that 6s. 8d. would be paid by every person be-
longing to the parish for a grave in the church or chancel, 
and that the churchwardens should be accountable yearly 
at Easter. In 1620 there is a note of the nomination of six 
I See Chap. VII, p. 174. 
, F.F. IO Jac. I, and 16 Jac. I, CP 25(2), 301. 
B 6851 R 
Vallry on the March 
out of the Twelve Men for the town and six for the country. 
Four names are struck out with the comment mortuus, and 
the names of the substitutes are entered for 1623, 1627, 
1630, and 1631,1 
What is signilicant here is that there existed a council of 
twelve men chosen locally, who were not churchwardens, 
to deal with church matters. Not being churchwardens they 
could not be, or be part of, the vestry. The custom till 
lately has obtained in Presteigne that there shall be four 
churchwardens of whom two shall be churchwardens for 
the outlying parishes of Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton, 
and of Stapleton.2 But the 'Twelve Men' was something 
else, and it was already an 'ancient' institution in 1603. One 
guess is that it dates from an attempt by Presteigne to 
administer its own church when its main revenues were still 
the property of the abbey of Wigmore which also presented 
the vicar. It may have been a 'select vestry'. A full account of 
its duties and rights has unfortunately not come down to 
us. The Council of Twelve Men, evidently, according to the 
minute of 8 May 16°3, a revival of an earlier organization, 
nevertheless did not survive by many years the events which 
followed the Elizabethan reform of the Church. 
The Presteigne Parish Registers begin in 156 I. They were 
written up in accordance with instructions issued by Queen 
Elizabeth in 1559 repeating Thomas Cromwell's Minute of 
1538. The early entries for the period 1561-98/9 are all 
written in the same hand, evidently copying earlier records. 
They are not particularly interesting except for family 
history. There are records of the plague in 1636 and 1637/8 
which was so bad that the inhabitants could not pay ship 
moneY,3 and of smallpox in 1709 and 1730--2. There are 
other records of a bad plague in 1593 and of another in 
1610.4 There was a dispute in which the rector was involved 
in 1667 about whether his tithe was or was not payable on 
fellings of woodland of more than twenty years' growth, 
in which Thomas Cornewall of Stapleton and 'Mr Rod' of 
I Preste'igne Parish Register, vol. i: Nicholas Meredith appears in the r620 
list where Philip Gough (= Phil Goz) appears. 
2 Cf. Charity Commissioners' Report, r 837, No. 32, Part III. 
3 State Papers Domestic, SP r6/386, No. 25. 
• Woo/hope, r889, p. 330. 
OJ Chttrch Matters 243 
The Rodd were involved on the other side. One man was 
executed for treason, and a convict was executed for horse 
stealing; they received Christian burials, but Bull, a Quaker 
of Willey, and Richard Watkins, 'an old Quaker out of 
gaol', were also buried though 'not with Christian rites'. 
A 'poor travelling child' who died at The Rodd, and a dis-
charged soldier pensioner who 'died in the snow' had parish 
burials; so did Edward Morgan of Rodd Hurst 'called the 
conjurer and resorted to as such'. A conjurer in local dialect 
is an unqualified practitioner, who dispenses remedies, sets 
bones, and perhaps in former days practised the arts of 
magic: a part of the field behind Rodd Hurst was till lately 
still called Conjurer's Plock. The tradition of bone setting 
survives in certain families locally: their services are in great 
demand by human patients as well as by the best Hereford-
shire cattle breeders for their injured stock. 
The advowson of Presteigne and its tithes did not remain 
long in the hands of the Bradshawes. John Bradshawe, prob-
ably the son of 'John Bradshawe, Esquire, senior', began by 
leasing the Presteigne tithes in the early years of the seven-
teenth century. A conveyance of 13 January 1614! describes 
these tithes (other than those of Rodd and Kinsham, but 
including the vicar's portion of 8s. 2d. [sic]) as 'formerly the 
property of John Bradshawe'. By an indenture! of 8 October 
1619 Sir Thomas Wolseley and others of Staffordshire con-
veyed to John Wall of Kingsland and Richard Blythwaite of 
Leintwardine in return for a payment by Sir Robert Harley 
the tithes and advowson of Presteigne other than the tithe 
and tithe barn of Rodd. This conveyance is recorded in the 
Feet of Fines for 1620.2 In 1627 Sir Robert and Lady Bril-
liana Harley of Brampton Bryan, by indenture dated 18 
December, I conveyed the advowson of Presteigne with the 
tithes of Willey, Stocking, Little Brampton, Nash, Heath, 
Combe, and Stapleton to St. Antholin's in London, in the 
persons of Roland Heylmer, alderman of London, Richard 
Gibbs, William Gohge, and John White. 3 Sir Robert 
and Lady Brilliana Harley were ardent supporters of the 
1 Marley Munlments, bundle 8. 
2 F .P., 18 Jac. I, and 19 Jac. I, CP 26(2), 351. 
3 F .F ., Trinity, 4 Car. 1. 
Va/fry on the March 
Reformed religion and later espoused the parliamentary 
party against the king, Lady Brilliana defending the castle 
of Brampton Bryan against the king's troops while her 
husband was campaigning in East Anglia. 
The tithes and advowson of Presteigne were, however, 
taken from St. Antholin's in 1632 following an action 
brought by the Crown on the grounds that in their dealings 
in church livings the feoffees had constituted themselves 'a 
Corporation' : and the Crown secured the property. It 
appears that the purchase of the advowson of Presteigne by 
the group in London in 1627 had been for the purpose of 
endowing a lectureship at St. Antholin, Watling Street, in 
the City. These lectureships were a challenge to the episcopal 
authority of the Church of England and in order to counter 
the movement Charles I issued injunctions against the 
corporations of such feoffees. . 
In the early years of the seventeenth century the Reverend 
John Scull, B.D., was presented as vicar to Presteigne by 
Sir Gilbert Cornewall of Stapleton. I The year was either 
160.'1 or 1613 by which time, evidently, the advowson had 
already passed out of the hands of John Bradshawe and had 
not yet come into the hands of Sir Robert Harley. It was 
perhaps when Scull learnt of proceedings being instituted 
against the St. Antholin foundation that he saw an oppor-
tunity of getting hold of the impropriated tithes of Pres-
teigne. Writing in the Parish Register in 1670, the then 
rector, Phillip Lewis, records that John Scull, B.D., with the 
help of Lord Willoughby and having 'provided' him with 
£300 (the phrase used is impensis ter centum Iibrarttm),2 suc-
ceeded in getting a grant impropriate of the rectory of Pres-
teigne from Charles I by letters patent. Scull thus became 
rector and vicar on 31 March 1639 as is confirmed in State 
Papers3 and the formerly impropriated benefice now became 
unam individuam et consolidatam Rectoriam. State Papers for 
1640, however, also record a warrant for issuing £1,000 for 
the endowment of St. Antholin and for the confirmation of 
I Woo/hope, 1889, p. 335. 
Z Translated by Lewis himself as 'at the expense of three hundred pounds'. 
Presteigne Church Charities Book, Sheet 40. 
3 State Papers Domestic, vol. 415; docket 31 Mar. 1639 and 1640. 
Of Church Matters 245 
the value set on the church of Preste igne. I Scull retained the 
tithes until 1647 when they were seized by 'a black sacrilege 
by name of Parliament' '(atrum et sacrilegium nomine par-
liamentum sed [veJre conventio diabolica)" as Lewis records, 
which alienated the revenues of Presteigne once more after 
the fall of the monarchy to 'certain factious persons' of St. 
Antholin. 
There was the usual troubled interregnum in church mat-
ters during the Commonwealth. Mr. Nicholas Taylor writes 
that 'in those bad times there was no lawful minister settled 
in Presteigne'. He had to send for various clergymen to 
baptize his children in 1654,1657,1658, and 166o.2Jn 1654/5 
the Commissioners for the Approbation of Public Preachers 
considered the presentation by the Lord Protector of Mr. 
Thomas Cole to the rectory of Presteigne. They heard 
testimony of 'his holy and good conversation and he was 
adjudged fit to preach the Gospel, to be admitted to the said 
Rectory, to do duty and receive profits in like manner as if 
he had been admitted according to the laws and customs 
formerly in use'. He seems to have succeeded a Mr. Richard 
Lucas who had been appointed only a few weeks before by 
the Commissioners for the Propagation of the Gospel in 
Wales. Perhaps Lucas got into trouble, for he was ordered 
to give satisfaction to the Trustees for the first fruits of the 
vicarage, to which he had just been admitted. Anyway, soon 
after Lucas's appointment the commissioners found it neces-
sary to grant to the minister at Presteigne 'so long as he does 
duty' and with all arrears, £54 per annum of the impropriate 
rectory of Llanbister and £22 per annum out of the impro-
priation of Llangunllo.3 
Mter the Restoration the parishioners of Presteigne asked 
Lewis to try to get back the church revenues. Phillip Lewis 
describes himself4 as born of modicis sed honestis parents: he 
was educated at Presteigne grammar school under 'that very 
excellent Master Robert Waring' and went to Christ Church, 
Oxford. He became chaplain to Robert Morley, Bishop of 
I Slale Papers, loco cit. 
2 Presteigne Parish Registers. 
3 Lambeth Palace Library Augmentations, 997/124, 141, 162, 187, 1654/j; 
also cf. William, Hist. Modern Wales, pp. Ilj-18. 
• In the Parish Register. 
Vaffry on the March 
Winchester, whom he now approached for assistance with 
the king, Charles II. From him he succeeded in securing the 
restitution of the vicarage in 1660;' the rectory was obtained 
on 24 October 1664 when Phillip Lewis once more became 
rector of Presteigne. In spite of all this Lewis nevertheless 
got into trouble concerning certain of the recovered tithes, of 
Nash and Little Brampton, which he demised to one Muskett 
of Nash. 2 It may be added that it was as a result of Auditor 
Harley's successful representation to the Crown that, Sir 
Robert and Lady Brilliana Harley having been found to have 
no title to dispose of the Presteigne tithes, the advowson was 
eventually granted to Robert, Earl of Oxford, by Queen 
Anne by letters patent dated 21 November 1712; and per-
mission was given again under letters patent on 18 February 
17 I 3 to restore the tithes to the rectory. 
When Edward VI's government seized the chantries, and 
many of the church goods which had escaped Henry VIII's 
attention, records of the goods taken were made. The four 
chantries at Presteigne have been described. There is no 
record of any goods seized in Presteigne: if there was such 
seizure it probably took place when the Wigmore Abbey 
establishment was broken up and its properties were im-
pounded, and the goods were included in those of the 
monastery. There is no record of any chantries at Knill or 
connected with any particular Presteigne chapel; the Knill 
inventory of church goods has also been mentioned. 
In the same series of documents referring to Knill are two 
inventories of goods seized at 'Brompton'. It might be 
tempting to suppose that 'Brompton' was Little Brampton 
where there is a story-tradition is putting it too high-that 
there was a church. 
The two 'Brompton' inventories3 are set out side by side: 
A B 
Gilt chalice and paten, 20t oz . . Silver chalice with paten, parcel 
and 9t oz. parcel gilt gilt 
3 bells: 20, 22., 2.5 in. 3 bells in steeple: -, 34, 38 in. 
I Petition on the subject among the Harley Muniments, referred to 
'H.M.'s Council learned in law' . 
• Comm. under Dep., 26 Car. II, m. 7, ,674. 
3 P.R.O.: Inventories of goods in E. II7/2/79, 6 Edw. VI. 
Of Church Matters 147 
Silver pyx, 4 oz. Cross and pyx of brass 
Little round service bell, and 
two cruets, 'stolen since last 
inventory as the parishioners 
affirm'. 
V ~stment of red silk Pair of red satin vestments with 
albs 
2 altar cloths and 2 flaxen sheets 2 table cloths 
2 board cloths 2 towels 
Reserved for use of parish: Reserved for use of church: 
Gilt chalice, 2? oz. Chalice and paten 
Red silk vestment to make cope Pair of vestments 
4 table cloths All table cloths and towels 
2 flaxen sheets 
In the first inventory three parishioners sign; and in the 
second six, including a deacon and two clerks. The deanery 
and hundred of the 'Brompton' inventory (A) are not given ; 
in version (B) of the inventory 'Brompton' is described as 
in the Hundred of Wigmore which might apply either to 
Little Brampton or to Brampton Bryan. 
The two inventories evidently refer to different churches, 
if only on account of the size of the bells. The names of the 
signatory parishioners are quite different too and none of the 
names on either inventory is familiar among the many re-
corded names of inhabitants of Knill, Rodd, Nash and Little 
Brampton at this time. Moreover, in the same collection of 
documents yet another 'Brompton' occurs, in Greyt ree 
Hundred, as well as a list of Pembridge church property 
seized with a very extensive list of vestments and plate. The 
inventory of the goods at 'Brompton' in Wigmore Hundred 
therefore almost certainly refers to Brampton Bryan and 
one of those other 'Bromptons' elsewhere in the county and 
actually some way away from Little Brampton. Even though 
the inventories are associated in the documentation with 
Knill, one must therefore conclude that two Bramptons are 
involved and that there is no evidence that either of them 
is Little Brampton. ' 
Incidentally, while on this subject of a possible church at 
I P.R.O.: E. 11713179, "7/2/82, 117/2/85 and 8. 
Vallry on the March 
Little Brampton, it is worth recording that the rolls of 
Clerical Subsidies I from 1543 to 1662, while referring to the 
clergy and vicarages or rectories of Preste igne, Old Radnor, 
New Radnor, Knill, Pembridge, Norton, By ton, and Dis-
coed (as a chapel), make no reference to any establishment at 
Little Brampton. There is no doubt that there was no church, 
and probably no chapel at Little Brampton, though on more 
than one occasion Presteigne is referred to as having chapels. 
Wher,e only one chapel is referred to, it manifestly is Dis-
coed. Where then were the other chapels which could have 
constituted the group served by the Priests of the House of 
Priests? Almost the only documentary clue is in the Register oj 
Bishop Charles Bothe for 15362 which refers to Presteigne 
with chapels at By ton, Lingen, Kinshim Superior, Kinsham 
Inferior, and Discoed. While there is no reference to any 
chapel at Rodd, Nash or Little Brampton there is an entry 
in the Register oj Bishop John Stanbury for 1474 recording a 
licence granted to Elen widow of Thomas ap Rosser alias 
Procere [sic: i.e. Prosser] to have Mass and other Offices 
said in the chapel at Nash within the parish of Presteigne 
'whenever she is there'.3 This single entry does not suggest 
that this was more than a particular and personal exception 
or that the chapel at Nash was more than a room used as an 
oratory. Indeed, the very fact of this single entry suggests 
that there was no regular chapel or church either at Nash 
or elsewhere in the Hindwell Valley except, of course, the 
church at Knill which was without the ecclesiastical parish 
of Presteigne. 
Another likely site for a chapel would seem to be Staple-
ton, held as it was by the important de Say, de Mortimer, 
Harley, and Cornewall families, and having at one time had 
a settlement as large as Presteigne, besides being an impor-
tant lordship. Yet there is throughout the ages no reference 
whatsoever to any church or chapel there. If there was 
anything of the sort it was no more than an oratory; and 
this is confirmed by records of christenings and burials of 
Cornewalls of Stapleton at Presteigne.4 There is a solitary 
I P.R.O. Clerical Subsidies: Subsidy Rolls fourteen documents, 35 Hy. 
VIII, E. I79/2241542. 2 Canterbury and York Society. 
3 Cf. Clerical Subsidies, p. 228 above. 
4 Apud Howse, Stapleton Castle and Presteigne Past and Present Parishes. 
Of ChJfrch Matters 249 
entry in Phillip Lewis's Presteigne drawn up about 1671: in 
the list of tithe fields, &c., occurs 'item, in the township 
of Nether IZinsham, ... one parcel of land where the 
chappel now standeth ... '. The use of the word 'now' 
seems to imply that it was not an ancient chapel, at any 
rate on that site. 1 And that is about all that can be said about 
the puzzling subject of the chapels of Prest eigne ecclesi-
astical parish and its organization. 
There is not much more which has any bearing on this 
story to add about the religious troubles of the fifteenth, 
sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries. There had been a good 
deal of Lollardy in the district generally in the days of Sir 
John Oldcastle, later Lord Cobham. When and in what cir-
cumstances the churches of Presteigne and Knill were 
tumed over to the Reformed religion does not appear. The 
vicissitudes attending the presentation of incumbents to 
Presteigne is an echo of the religious upheaval created by 
the Tudor sovereigns. The solidarity of the Rodds at The 
Rodd for the Royalist cause may indicate that they continued 
for some time in the old faith, but there is no direct evi-
dence of this and they seem to have been of the new faith 
by the time the Presteigne Parish Registers begin: at any 
rate they all were entered there for christening, marriage, 
and burial. The Harleys at Brampton Bryan, on the other 
hand, were solid supporters of the Commonwealth. This 
countryside was no doubt as much or as little divided by its 
religious principles as the rest of England, and like the rest 
of England continued to live and cultivate and die more 
quietly and calmly than many history books have sought 
to make their readers believe. Francis Brett Young's The 
Taverner's Tale has probably given a truer picture, spoken 
through the mouth of the publican at Worcester, of the life 
and feelings of the people of the border, especially in the 
Civil War, than has·many a professional historian.2 
I Presteigne Parish Register. 
2 The Island: The Taverner's Tale, pp. 230-46 . Father Philip Hughes in his 
history of the Reformation in England keeps on bringing out the essential 
apathy, or patience, of the people of England in the religious controversies of 
the sixteenth century when their lords and masters were seeking to inculcate 
this or that view or dogma. 
25 0 Vaffry on the March 
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII 
Sources for tbe Ecclesiastical History of 
Knill and Presteigne 
1. R egister of Bp. Adam de Orletone 
2. Thomas de Charlton 
3. " John de T rillek 
4. Lewis de Charlton 
5. " John Gilbert Canterbury and York 
6. " John TreJnant Society, and Cantilupe 
7. Thomas Spofford Society. 
8. " John Stanbury 
9." "Thomas lvfylfyng 
10. Richard Mcryhew 
I I. " "Charles Bothe 
12. Institutions to Benefices in diocese of Hereford : Cantilupe 
13. Knill Parish Register. [Society. 
14. P.R.O. E. 179130/21, 6/7 H y. N . 
15· E. 179/30/90,30/31 Hy. VI. 
16. " E. 179/32/273, 14 Car. II. 
17. Parliamentary Survey (Lambeth), No. 10, 1658. 
18 . Lambeth Palace Library: Reports on Clergy: 1590. 
19. P.R.O. E. 117fz179 , 6 Edw. VI. 
20. R egister of Thomas de Cantilupe: Cantilupe Society. 
21. P .R .O. E. 179/224/5 42. 
22. E. 179/30/9° ' 
23. E. 179130/96A. 
24. E. 179/30/106. 
25· E . 179/30/95. 
26. E. 179/32/223. 
27· " E. 179/67/5 6. 
28. Berrington Deeds, NO.5 6, County Record Office, Worcester. 
29. Episcopal Register of Hereford, aptld Trs. Rad. Soc., vol. xix, 
pp. 17-18 . 
30. Name in Letters Testimonial notifying sentence in favour of 
Winchester College against John Rode, regarding certain 
tithes. Winchester College Records, No. 16, dated London, 
9 June 1570. 
3 I. Land Conveyances at Worcester Record Office. 
32. Wills transcribed by E. J. L. Cole in Trs. Rad. Soc., vols. xxiv 
33. Hereford Assize Roll, 302, m. 24. [and xxvi. 
34. Hereford Cathedral Muniments 5602: certificates of nuns and 
priests pensioned, temp. Eliz. 1. 
PLATE XV 
CHAPTER IX 
OJ tbe '1V!..,dd Family and Land Transactions 
in tbe Seventeentb Century 
REA T changes in the ownership of land in England 
G were a conspicuous feature of the Elizabethan and post-Elizabethan eras. Records of alienations of land 
become embarrassingly numerous for the local historian: 
and the volume of these records is not merely due to the 
better preservation of documents or the creation of parish 
church records. It is perhaps true that if so many ecclesi-
astical records had not been dispersed after the Dissolution 
of the Monasteries and the Reformation, more documents 
of the fifteenth century and before might have survived. 
The fact, however, remains that for a variety of reasons the 
English Renaissance is marked by a large turnover of real 
property and the acquisition of estates by elements of society 
which became wealthy during this great flowering of Eng-
land. The subject is dealt with by many historians of the 
Elizabethan period! who have also described the not 
unconnected industrial development of the country which 
was taking place in coal production, iron-working, glass-
making, and wool-weaving. 
How much the acquisition of land by families who had 
not hitherto been important property owners, or the acqui-
sition of additional estates by those who already had some 
property, was due to increased wealth derived from the 
Elizabethan 'Industrial Revolution' and commercial expan-
sion, and how mu~h was due to the termination of the 
Middle Ages with its generally static system of land tenure 
among comparatively limited classes of society within which 
it passed mainly by marriage or inheritance, is too large a 
subject to consider within the compass of this work. There 
I And by none more attractively than by Rowse in his The England of 
Elizabeth, especially chaps. iv and vi. 
Vallry on the March 
is, however, little doubt that the accumulation of wealth 
through industry, commerce, and foreign adventure during 
Queen Elizabeth's reign, together with the coniiscation and 
subsequent sale of ecclesiastical lands during the sixteenth 
century, combined to provide the setting for a vastly en-
hanced property market. 
In Herefordshire generally, and in the case of the Rodd 
family in particular, the volume of land transactions in-
creases progressively from the middle of the sixteenth 
century right through to the end of the seventeenth century. 
The number, amplitude, and complexity of the transactions 
are too great to follow in detail. The principal ones are 
interesting, not only for the local historian, because they are 
the evidence of this feature of the English Renaissance. A 
notable characteristic is the number of these transactions 
which appear to have had a commercial, rather than a social, 
motive. They appear as operations where the purchaser buys 
property because it represents a good investment or specula-
tion on a rising market, in which he subsequently takes a 
profit by resale. In what follows, examples have been 
selected of what appear to be such purely market operations. 
They cannot be accounted for either by the desire or the 
necessity to raise money to repay a mortgage or other debt 
or to provide funds for business or building, or, owing to 
their transitory nature, by social considerations. So far as 
the Rodds are concerned, the bond of relationship within 
the largerfamily group is particularly evident in the associa-
tion of several but varying and not necessarily very closely 
related members of the family in a particular transaction or 
set of transactions. 
Richard Rodd the second, who had inherited The Rodd 
from his father Richard in 1633,1 married Barbara, the only 
daughter of Sir William Kirkham, of Blagdon, Co. Devon. 
Their only child, Frideswide, was named after her grand-
mother Frideswide Savery, the wife of the first Richard 
Rodd. On the early Jacobean strapwork overmantel to the , 
fireplace in the drawing-room at The Rodd are three shields. 
The central 'shield carries the coat of arms of Rodd impaling 
I See above, Chap, VII. 
Of the Rodd Fami(y in the Seventeenth Centtl!]1 253 
Kirkham. I The other two shields are blank. The carved 
overmantel and surround was installed, with the panelling 
of the room, by the earlier Richard Rodd. The three shields 
in the oval medallions are an addition and were probably 
added by the second Richard: they were evidently not part 
of the original design. But no son was born to record the 
continuity of the family, so the other two shields remained 
blank. 
Richard Rodd the second was a man of education and 
influence in Herefordshire and Devon. He was called to the 
Bar in the Inner Temple, and in 1634 became High Sheriff 
of Radnorshire. Within two years of succeeding his father 
at The Rodd he acquired from Walter Pye and Thomas 
Gould property in the neighbourhood of The Rodd at Nash 
and Broadheath, namely 300-400 acres including three 
houses, two watermills, six gardens, and the tithes.2 A few 
years earlier his father had already begun extending the 
Rodd estate by buying from Thomas Lochard 136 acres at 
Rodd and Nash including another house with two mills-
probably a part of the Nash manor which had two falling 
mills and a corn mill.3 The Lochards were considerable 
landowners mainly around Pembridge.4 Both the Richard 
Rodds had a number of small transactions with local owners 
and occupants such as the Lydes, the Prices, the Passeys, 
&c., around The Rodd itself. Richard Rodd the second was 
evidently pursuing his father's policy of rounding off The 
Rodd estate, some parts of which were passed inter vivos 
to other members of the family by sale or otherwise. 
In addition to his local holdings of land in the Hindwell 
Valley Richard Rodd also held the manor of Lower Kin-
sham or 'King's Meadoe' which he had acquired for £240 
by agreement with his younger brother James. This is 
recorded in an agreement of 1634 between the two brothers, 
carrying out the terms of their father's will particularly 
relating to the New Radnor landss which James then sold 
to his brother Richard. The latter then sold them to his 
I Kirkham coat : Erm., 3 lions rampan t gu. , a bordure engrailed sa. 
2 F.F. CP 2)(2), 301, Mich., 10 Car. 1. 
3 F .F. CP 2)(2), 301, 4 Car. 1. . 
• Cf. probate copy of will of Lochard 1617 : Hereford Public Library 397. 
5 See above, Chap. VII, p. 191. 
254 Valley on the March 
brother Hugh Rodd of Wegnal ofw hich he was in occupation 
in 1622 when he paid lay subsidy at 30S.' The earlier owner-
ship of Lower I<insham is somewhat confused since Richard, 
clearly the second, is recorded as having bought property 
there in 1635 of William Morgan and his wife Elizabeth, 
consisting of two houses together with two barns, that is 
farm buildings, each with a stable, orchard, and garden and 
some 300 acres of land of which 80-90 acres were arable. 
Doubtless this was an addition to his father 's land in that 
area: In spite of the trouble into which Richard fell as a result 
of his Royalist sympathies it was not a bad investment, 
because when he died less than forty years later a part only 
of the I<insham estate was sworn at £323. 8s. 6d. Neither in 
this case, nor in the case of other even more substantial 
acquisitions of property by the Rodd family, is there any in-
dication of where the money came from except that we know 
that some of the family had by this time become mercers 
in Hereford. Moreover, Richard Rodd the elder when he 
succeeded to The Rodd was still a merchant at Stoke Canon 
and Totnes in Devonshire where the son continued to have 
interests. 
In 1642 The Rodd was let to one John Wigmore of Luc-
ton who in 1646 also held a mortgage from Richard Rodd 
on Nether or Lower Kinsham.2 Whether this lease and loan 
were connected with Richard Rodd's preoccupations in 
Devonshire or were the consequence of his activities in 
support of I<ing Charles is not clear. What is quite evident 
is that Richard like many other members of his family was 
an active Royalist, while John Wigmore who is described as 
'a papist' was a pretty undesirable tenant, for, seeing the way 
things were going, he stopped paying his rent for The Rodd. 
Richard's principal and most heinous crime in the eyes of 
the Commonwealth was that he 'commanded a company of 
foot in King Charles' Army in the March of Wales'. As he 
is not also described as 'a papist' like John Wigmore in the 
subsequent proceedings of the Commonwealth Committees 
I P.R.O.: E. 179/ 265/21 . The total lay subsidy for Presteigne and Dis-
coed was £ 31 . I DS. 
Z Carless inventory of deeds; F.F. CP 25(2), 301; and Robinson's Man-
sions, &c., pp. 164 and 240 n. 
PL TE XVI 
The Rodd: the 'Adam and Eve' fireplace with contemporary ceiling 
Of tile Rodd Famib ill the Seventmth Century 25) 
and Courts, it may be presumed that he had joined the 
Reformed Church, othenvise the fact of his being a Roman 
Catholic would certainly have been brought up against him 
as well. However, whatever his religion he was a Cavalier. 
The effigies on the mantelpiece in the upper sitting-room at 
The Rodd, even those of the semi-nude figures of Adam and 
Eve, have a Cavalier flavour. Adam in particular has a fine 
Van Dyck beard, moustache, and coif. The supporters of 
the overmantel are Cavalier gentlemen in full fig. Adam's, 
and even Eve's, bare legs display the rotundities of knee 
breeches. Only the serpent with the apple in his mouth on 
the central column of the middle element of the overmantel 
seems to have escaped a political or religious complexion. 
In 1645 Richard Rodd appealed to the king against John 
Wigmore. He obtained an order from Charles at Raglan 
Castle on 12 July to recover possession ofT he Rodd from 
John Wigmore. The order, which was made out to Barnaby 
Scudamore, High Sheriff of Herefordshire, refers to Richard 
as 'Colonel [sic] Richard Rhodes or Rodd of The Rodd, Co. 
Hereford'.r The order was never executed, for a couple of 
weeks later began the siege of Hereford by the Scottish 
auxiliary troops of Parliament under Lord Leven. The defence 
of the city in this, the most important siege it sustained 
during the Civil War, was conducted by Scudamore and 
Coningsby for six weeks. The damage done in the neigh-
bourhood was considerable, but in the end the Scottish 
army withdrew on 2 September and King Charles entered 
Hereford. One of his last successes in the campaign, it was 
short-lived. On 10 December a detachment of parliamentary 
troops under the famous Colonel Birch, later of Weobley, 
returned and occupied the city.2 
On 9 April 1646 the Parliamentary Committee at Here-
ford ordered that The Rodd estate continue to be let to 
John Wigmore not:withstanding that he was 'a papist', on 
account of Richard Rodd's Royalist activities . By 20 June 
1646 Richard Rodd had ostensibly thrown in his hand, 
I Cal. State Papers, p. 896: Acts for Compounding, 12 July 1645 to 8 Jan. 
1649. 
2 Johnson, Ancient Customs of the City of Hereford (London, 1882), pp. 198-
2°3· 
Z j 6 Vaffry on the March 
and, 'being in a deep consumption', went to his old house 
in Devonshire to compound under the Articles of Exeter. 
The Committee for the Advance of Money assessed Richard 
in Devonshire for £250. His delinquency was established for 
having held the King's Commission as a Captain of Foot. 
His fine in Herefordshire was set at 'lo-£400 and t-£600. 
Thereafter the Hereford Committee gave him permission 
to resume possession of The Rodd against John Wigmore 
and ,ordered the latter to pay four years of arrears of rent, 
that is from 1642. 
But this by no means ended the matter. Although the 
Hereford Committee had discharged the estate from seques-
tration, it left the dispute between Richard Rodd and Wig-
more to be settled by private legal process. In view of the 
controversy in being, Richard was granted six months' grace 
to pay the second instalment of his fine. In September 1647 
the County Committee was ordered by the court to repay 
all the rents it had received from Wigmore since Richard 
presented his letter of suspension of sequestration. Richard 
Rodd was evidently not very popular for the committee 
then decided, nevertheless, not to discharge the sequestration 
finally until the second instalment of the fine was paid. There 
was yet another delay in November when the committee 
examined the question of whether any allowance ought to 
have been made for an annuity of £16 charged on the estate. 
When this, too, was settled in Richard's favour in December, 
the committee reopened the whole question of the fine pay-
able, on information received (at a guess, from John Wig-
more) that he had not declared all his estate in his submission 
for compounding. Finally, however, even this was settled 
in his favour and the decision was given that he was to have 
all profit restored on payment of the second half of the fine. 
This he succeeded in doing by 8 January 1649 when the 
Herefordshire estates were finally discharged and restored 
to his possession. His discharge in respect of the Devon-
shire property was dated 17 May 1650. The fines which 
Richard Rodd had to pay were separately assessed on his 
Herefordshire and Devonshire assets. He raised part of the 
money required in Herefordshire for the second and final 
instalment by mortgaging some of the Lower Kinsham 
Of the Rodd FamilY in the Seventeeflth Centflry 257 
property to Richard Greenhouse (also spelt Gronouse and 
Greenowes) by deeds dated 1648 and 1649 for £160, which 
mortgage was dischare;ed only in 1668 by the payment of 
£200. 1 It was no fun being caught on the wrong foot by 
the Parliamentary party who with the assistance, one sus-
pects, of John Wigmore used every bureaucratic and legal 
device to delay a settlement in favour of a man who had 
become unpopular with the administration. 
Richard Rodd the second lived until 1673 in spite of his 
'deep consumption'. Having succeeded in recovering the 
Herefordshire family property he decided to live there until 
he died. He was buried at Presteigne. His widow Barbara 
survived him: she also died at The Rodd and was buried at 
Presteigne. In 1657, when Henry Woodhouse owned the 
Woodhouse estate between Kinsham and By ton on a stretch 
of the Lugg which cuts through the hills in a lovely, wooded 
gorge, his neighbour Richard Rodd was described by him 
as one of the largest landowners in the countryside. At his 
death Richard is referred to as one of the four Rodds in 
Herefordshire who were 'of the nobility and gentry of the 
County',2 the others being Thomas Rodd of Hampton 
Bishop, Robert Rodd of Foxley, and Edward Rodd of 
Newton. The first two were described as 'esquires', the last 
named only as a 'gent', probably because he was, as we shall 
see, illegitimate. Another familiar name in this catalogue of 
notables is John Walsham, Esq., of Knill. The Owens of 
Little Brampton and the Nashes of Nash are not mentioned. 
When Richard Rodd the second died he left The Rodd to 
his wife Barbara for her life with remainder to her daughter 
who became her executrix. 3 To the latter he also left Lower 
Kinsham directly, which she sold to the Harley farnilywithin 
a short time of her father's death and her marriage to William 
Walmesley of the Lower House, Co. Lancaster, at Presteigne 
in 1674. Having no 'family to inherit her father's estate, she 
sold it in 1697 for a consideration of £2,000 to her first 
I Carless deeds, &c., as on p. 7 (vii): F.F. CP 25(2), 301, and Robinson's 
Mansions, &c., pp. 164 and 240 n. There is a slight discrepancy in the docu-
ments since the discharge is for 20 acres more than was originally charged. 
2 Blount's Britannia (London, 1673), quoted by Duncumb, vol. i, pp. 113-
14-
3 Will of Richard Rodd: proved 21 Apr. 1673: National Library of Wales. 
B 6851 
25 8 Valley on the March 
cousin, another Richard Rodd. This third Richard Rodd of 
Wegnal was christened at Presteigne in 1629; he was the 
third son of Hugh Rodd of Wegnal and is described in a 
Deposition under Commission, of I 672/3, when he was aged 
44, as a 'drovier'. He eventually died without issue. From 
Richard Rodd of Wegnal The Rodd estate passed to 
Bampfylde Rodd of Devonshire, as will be told hereafter. 
The Rodd house had been built by the first Richard Rodd 
probably at the very end of the sixteenth century. It is a 
typically Elizabethan house which was never finished: one 
of the long wings of the E plan was not completed owing, 
as the tradition has it, to an epidemic of plague1 at Pres-
teigne. It stands today practically as it was left when Richard 
Rodd the elder died in 1633. The date of 1629 over the porch 
door probably recalls the period when a beginning was 
made in the embellishment of the interior by an elaborate 
plaster ceiling in the parlour on the first floor and good oak 
panelling in that room and three downstairs rooms; but 
architecturally the house belongs to the sixteenth century. 
It stands untouched as a very interesting example of domes-
tic architecture of the period, with many of its original floors, 
doors, and door frames cut in the oak timbers of the interior 
walls. 
Richard Rodd the elder's purchases of land at Nash seem, 
by family arrangement, to have been added to the property 
there which his brother William inherited from their mother 
Margaret (Price) Rodd. William's considerable parcel of 
Nash land was inherited by his son James Rodd, described 
as 'of Nash' to distinguish him from two other James Rodds 
to which we shall presently come. 
Hugh Rodd, another brother of Richard the elder and 
William, acquired the property at Wegnal which had origi-
nally been bought by Richard and his brother James Price 
Rodd. To this, Hugh added some further parcels which he 
and his brother Richard had bought on the 'Heath'- that 
is Broadheath near Presteigne- adjoining the Wegnalland 
from Walter Pye and Thomas Gould. The purchase by the 
brothers of the Wegnal land is interesting in the setting of 
family co-operation. This land, the exact extent of which is 
I E.g. in 1593 aad 1610, cf. Chap. VIII, p . 242. 
Of the Rodd FamilY i11 the Seventemtli Cmtllry 259 
not known, covered approximately Clatretune manor old 
fields G and DI and contiguous plots on the left bank of the 
Hindwell down stream of Rodd Bridge. The present farm 
of Wegnal is of about 100 acres, but Hugh Rodd's pro-
perty must have been bigger. The acquisition of the Weg-
nal land gave the family control of the mill water and a 
better access to the mill itself. Richard Rodd the elder, or 
more likely, Hugh, built the 'black and white' timbered 
manor farmhouse which now stands, alas derelict, a few 
yards from the mill. The Wegnal property passed by Hugh's 
will, proved in 1647, to his eldest son James and then went 
out of the family to his daughters. 
Not counting the James Rodd of Nash who inherited 
from his father William or the James, son of Hugh Rodd of 
Wegnal, there are two other James Rodds whose lives were 
so parallel in achievement that their stories in Herefordshire 
and Devonshire run as tangled threads through the records 
of both counties.1. 
Of these two Jameses, the first, because the elder, was a 
brother of the first of the two Richard Rodds. This James 
and Richard together with Hugh and others, were sons of 
Hugh Rodd or de la Rode who died in 1602/3. The other 
of these two Jameses was the brother of Richard Rodd the 
second and son of the first Richard.3 
The first James, who was christened James Price Rodd 
with his mother Margaret's maiden name, was born a few 
years later than 1572 and in the hey-day of Queen Elizabeth. 
He left the countryside and went to Hereford. He was a 
mercer, as was his brother Hugh Rodd of Wegnal. James 
Price Rodd married Margery Ballard, sister of the Dorothy 
Ballard whom his elder brother Hugh of · Wegnal had 
married. James's wife Margery inherited the property of 
Newton, Co. Monmouth, from her father J OM Ballard, of 
The Grove, in the 'same county. By 1606 James Rodd had 
become a person of some standing and quite a civic figure 
in the city of Hereford. He was mayor in 16 I 6 and a member 
I Cf. above, p. 106. 
2 The relationship of the various Jameses, Richards, and Hughs can only 
he set out clearly in the pedigrees at end of volume. 
3 See pedigree at end of volume. 
260 VaJJry on the March 
of the Common Council under the new charter of the city 
in 1620. He was appointed an alderman of Hereford in 1632, 
having been the borough's Member of Parliament from 1620 
to 1622, the county's member in 1623, and the High Sheriff 
of the county in 1623/4. Like his nephew the second 
Richard, and other relatives in Devonshire, he was a Royalist. 
Although he never seems actually to have borne arms against 
the Parliamentary party, he was fined by the Sequestration 
Commissioners in 16461 on an assessment of land at Yazor, 
perhaps Foxley manor with the advowson of Yazor, and 
land elsewhere. He presented to Yazor twice in 1620 and 
1662. He had ten children: four sons, three of whom were 
illegitimate, and six daughters. He was knighted, and he died 
in 1664 having made his will in 1663.2 
To Sir James Price Rodd and his elder brother Richard 
Rodd the first, William Price of Nash, a Merchant Taylor 
and citizen of London, living in Paternoster Rowand evi-
dently a relation, probably the brother, of Watkin Price 
(whose daughter Margaret was James and Richard' s mother), 
in 1604 bequeathed property at Nash in trust to found a 
'hospital' at Hereford. What this property amounted to is 
not clear but in view of the other transactions in Nash lands 
already described it looks as if William Price's endowment 
consisted of a charge on lands at Nash rather than land itself. 
Alternatively, or at the same time, the Rodds who inherited 
and bought Nash lands may have bought out the William 
Price endowment in land for the 'hospital' and substituted 
cash in the course of the years which elapsed between 1604 
and 1633, when Sir James Price Rodd succeeded in getting 
a royal grant for the institution which was eventually built 
in 1636, many years after William Price's death. Sir James 
Price Rodd further endowed the 'hospital' himself with 
land, houses, and the rectory of Mansell Lacy. The alms-
houses still known as Price's Hospital stand in Whitecross 
I Cf. W. R. Williams, The Parliamentary History of the County of Hereford, 
1896. This records in error that James Rodd, M.P. for Hereford, was the son 
of Richard Rodd (the e1der)----{i common confusion between the two Sir 
James Rodds. Cf. also Duncumb, vol. i passim. 
• Robinson, Mansions, &c., p. 317; Duncumb: Grimsworth, p. 188, says 
he only had one son, which is legally correct inasmuch as only one, Thomas, 
seems to have been legitimate. 
Of the Rodd FamilY il1 the Seventeenth Century 261 
Street, Hereford. After the death of the fust trustees of 
Price's benefaction, the mayor and aldermen of Hereford 
became the patrons of the hospital. It came under the super-
vision of the Charity Commission in 1914 with an annual 
income of £ 531. The establishment was for 12 men who 
were each to receive lOS. a week and might have their wives 
to live with them. The chaplain was the vicar of Holy 
Trinity church in Hereford with an annual stipend of £20,1 
The 'hospital' consists of a long range of building containing 
ten dwellings, each of an upper and a lower room, with a 
short wing at each end containing another dwelling. At the 
east end of the main range is a modest chapel with a seven-
teenth-century Communion table and contemporary panel-
ling and fittings. The main range has a stone lower storey 
and a brick upper storey. A gable in the middle of the build-
ing records that: 'Mr. William Price Citizen of London 
founded the Hospital in the Year 1635.'2 The original 'Rules' 
of the almshouse which survive include the signature of 
James Rodd. The dwellings, remodelled in the nineteenth 
century, contain a good deal of the original woodwork. 
The other notable James Rodd was the younger brother 
of Richard Rodd the second, who refers to him in his will 
as his 'brother James of Exeter' . This James was born in 
16II and died in 1678; having disposed, as mentioned, of 
his New Radnor land, he remained in Devonshire where he, 
too, had a distinguished career. Like his uncle he was 
knighted and became in 1670/1 High Sheriff, but of Devon, 
instead of Hereford. He, too, had been a Royalist, and on 
compounding on 30 April 1646 on the Articles of Exeter 
was fined £4803 for delinquency in taking up arms for the 
king, 'having held himself bound by his oath thereto' . He 
paid the fine on 30 March 1647 and the sequestration on his 
property was discharged. He was assessed in 1647 for £300 
by the Committee' for the Advance of Money and had his 
property again sequestrated for non-payment in 1649. He was 
only finally discharged on 17 May 1650. He was an im-
portant figure in the city of Exeter both as a merchant and 
I Duncumb: Grimsworth, p. 9'; Timmins, Nooks and Corners of H eriford-
shire, 1892; Johnson, Ancient Customs, &c., 1882. 
2 CE. R.C.H.M., vol. i, pp. '3'- 2. 3 Another version states £600. 
Vaffry on the March 
a civic worthy. He bought Bedford House near the cathedral 
in addition to his property at Stoke Canon, and was buried 
in St. Stephen's, Bedford, where monuments record him and 
his third wife, Mary, and family. Bedford House, Exeter, 
was totally destroyed by German bombing in the great raid 
of 1942 and St. Stephen'S was badly damaged but has since 
been restored. 
The first wife of James Rodd of Exeter was Mary, 
daughter of the famous Bishop Joseph Hall of Exeter. By 
her he had no children. Mter her death in 1638 he married 
Grace, daughter of Edward Bampfylde of Oakhay, Co. 
Devon. She bore him one son, Bampfylde Rodd, the first 
of that name. In default of male heirs in the main Hereford-
shire branch of Richard Rodd's family which had ended in 
Frideswide, an only daughter, Bampfylde Rodd bought the 
place, as is recorded, from Richard Rodd of Wegnal, I and 
proceeded to live there himself. That was the beginning of 
a long and close connexion between the Rodds of Devon-
shire and of Herefordshire. James Rodd of Exeter married 
a third time, again a Bampfylde, Mary, daughter of Sir John 
Bampfylde of Poltimore who bore him two children, Mary 
and James Rodd of Wear. Mary married Edward Spoure of 
Trebartha Hall, North Hill, near Launceston, Co. Cornwall, 
and when their daughter Mary, heiress of the great Trebartha 
estate, died before marriage but betrothed to Francis Rodd, 
her cousin once removed and a son of the Bampfylde 
Rodd just mentioned, the T rebartha lands passed to the Rodd 
family. Incidentally, after the death of his fiancee he married 
the heiress Jane Hearle of Penrhyn who brought in another 
estate and founded a line of the largest landowners in Corn-
wall which survived until a few years ago when the last male 
of this branch of the Cornish Rodds died. 
The next Bampfylde Rodd, the second, also married with-
in the family circle, Elizabeth, daughter of Samuel Hall and 
grand-daughter of Bishop Hall ; they had two sons who 
died without issue and a daughter. He then married again, 
Bridget, the daughter of Francis Drewe and widow of 
Francis Fulford, by whom he had three sons, Bampfylde the 
third who inherited The Rodd from his father, Edward who 
I Fifth son of Hugh Rodd of Wegnal; see above, p. 259. 
Of the Rodd Fa!lJify in the Seventeenth Century 263 
died without issue, and Francis who inherited Trebartha. 
This third Bampfylde Rodd as will be seen also married 
back into the Herefordshire Rodd line. 
To return, however, to Herefordshire: the major acquisi-
tion of land by the Rodd family in that county was made by 
Sir James Price Rodd, presumably out of the fruits of a 
successful mercer's business in Hereford. He, his relatives 
and descendants owned a number of plots of land mainly in 
the parish of St. Martin's in the Wyebridge ward of Hereford 
city.1 He also owned the great manor of Foxley some eight 
miles outside the city on the road to Kington. His family 
had had earlier interests and connexions in the area for he is 
recorded as having come from Yazor to live in Hereford 
city. In 1549 Foxley had been bought by one Thomas 
Smith, of Credenhill near Hereford, of the Crown, which 
had become possessed of it on the Dissolution of the Monas-
teries, d1e manor having previously belonged to the abbey of 
Llanthony in the Black Mountains on the border of Here-
fords hire and Brecon. In 1608 Walter Rodd of The Rodd, who 
had the large family which all died young or without pro-
geny,2 sold some land he had in the Foxley neighbourhood 
to Hugh Smith the son or grandson of Thomas Smith who 
is recorded in a Court Baron as having been lord of the 
manor of Foxley in 1597.3 It must have been soon after that 
time that James Price Rodd the mercer bought the manor of 
Foxley from the Smiths for £1,000. These and later cross-
transactions in which several members of the family were 
concerned represent in part settlements within the family 
circle, but also evidendy an investment. 
There then follow a number of transactions in the Foxley 
neighbourhood. Hugh Rodd of Wegnal, also a mercer 
and another brother of Walter, Richard, and James, in 1617 
acquired three parts of the contiguous manor of Yazor, later 
merged into Foxley, and the sixty-year lease of three houses 
with their gardens and orchards, 200 acres of arable and 32 
acres of other land for £100 down 'and 4d a year so long as 
the vendor's wife should Iive'.4 In 1619 William Rodd, yet 
I Certificates of Residence 1610 to 1628: P .R.O.: E. 115 /323,324,325,327, 
328, 333,334. 2 See Chap. VII, p. 193. 
3 Duncumb: Grimsworth, pp. 18"8-9. • F.F. CP(2), 301, I? Jac. I. 
Valley on the March 
another brother of James, buys three parts of the Foxley 
manor land in the parish of Mansell Lacy on the other side 
of the property with about 300 acres of land on the same 
terms.' Thomas Rodd, the son of James the mercer, then 
buys in 1621 a house and curtilage with 19 acres in Yazor, 
Mansell Lacy, and Dilwyn for £41.2 James himself picked 
up a house and enclosures and a field at Yazor and 'Moranton' 
(Morehampton) for £100.3 James and William Rodd, how-
ever, sell 30 acres to the Smith family in Mansell Lacy in 
1633 for £60, probably part of what William had bought in 
1619 and which James did not need.4 Thomas in 1639 con-
tinues buying: a house, with surroundings as usual, 34 acres, 
and the common of pasture at Mansell Lacy and Yazor for 
£60. 5 Next year father James comes in again with the 
purchase of a house as usual, 54 acres at Mansell Gamage, 
Yazor, and Yarsop, and a moiety of a corn mill at Mansell 
Lacy for £100 from various people including Roger Nash 
and his wife;6 and again in the following year two houses as 
usual and z16 acres, this time with half a dovecote,? for 
£zo08 in the same neighbourhood. 
In a will9 of Edward Broughton dated 16 November 1647 
and proved in 1670 reference is made to lands bought of the 
testator in Kington of James Rodd, Esq. This may refer 
either to James Rodd of Nash in the vicinity but more 
probably refers to (Sir) James Price Rodd of Hereford and 
Foxley who was buying and selling land, in addition to the 
transactions described, in small parcels all over the country. 
The James Rodd who held a mortgage on the CarpenterIO 
property at Tillington at the end of the sixteenth century 
is again almost certainly the same James the mercer of 
Hereford and Foxley.II 
1 F.F. CP 25(2), 301, 16 Jac. I. 
2 F.F. 25(2), 301, 16 Jac. I. 
3 F .F. 25(2), 3or, r6 Jac. I. 
• F.F. 25(2), 301, 16 Jac. I. 
s F.F. 25(2), 30r, 14 Car. I. 
6 F.F. 25(2), 301, 15 Car. I. 
7 F.F. 25(2), 301, 2 Jac. I. 
8 F.F. 25(2), 301, 16 Car. I. 
• Robinson, Mansions, &c., p. 162. 
10 For Carpenter see pp. 265, 269 below. 
II Robinson, Mansions, &c., p. 55. 
OJ the Rodd Falllify in the Seventeenth emlt"y 26 5 
Now comes a pause, no doubt owing to parliamentary 
troubles and eventually the Civil War. During the Common-
wealth, James and his family were of course not very popular 
and probably hard up on account of fines and 'Advances'. 
Officially, therefore, nothing happens until the Restoration 
by which time James Rodd was rehabilitated and had had 
time to repair his fortune. In 1661/ 2 James, his son Thomas, 
and his grandson Robert again figure in land transactions 
in the Foxley neighbourhood in a big way. The manors of 
Foxley, Yazor, Uphampton, Morehampton, Upper Stoke 
Lacy,' and Mansell Lacy are demised in trust to Sir William 
Lewis, Bt., of Llangorse and (Sir) Thomas Whitney, Esq., 
of Whitney. The property by then consisted of 20 messuages 
with their gardens and orchards, a mill, 700 acres of arable, 
150 acres of pasture and 450 acres of meadow, lIO acres of 
woodland, 100 acres of wasteland with the rectory and 
advowson of Mansell Lacy, say, 1,600 acres in all.' There are 
three more major entries about the Foxley property in 20 
Charles II, 1 William & Mary, and 3 William & Mary, which 
will be dealt with later because they are unintelligible with-
out an interesting and somewhat scandalous episode in 
family history. Although the Foxley property is a long way 
from the Hindwell Valley, the branches at Foxley and The 
Rodd remained closely intertwined and the events which 
took place at the former directly affected the latter. 
Sir James Rodd the mercer of Hereford made his will in 
1663 and died in 1664. For the next forty years there was 
nothing but trouble in the family. Of his ten children, the 
eldest son Thomas, who was legitimate, took an active part 
in the Foxley investment. Thomas in 1635 married Anne, 
daughter of Sir Thomas Whitney of Whitney. He was left 
a widower in 1657 with one son Robert, and four daughters 
(a fifth died in infancy) who married respectively Thomas 
Carpenter of Tillington, Tamburlane Gwilliam of Welling-
ton, Co. Hereford, Richard Withers tone of Burghill, and 
James Gregory, son of Sir W. Gregory, a Baron of Ex-
chequer of How Capel in the county. 3 Thomas Rodd 
1 Robinson, Mansions, &c., p. 260. 
2 F.F. CP 25(2), 301, 13 Car. II. 
l A stone in tbe chancel of How Capel church records: 'Here lies the body 
of Mrs. Catberine Delahay, daughter of Thomas Carpenter of Tillington, 
266 Vaffry 011 the March 
became High Sheriff of the county in 1666. In 1670 he re-
married the widow of William Whittington of Whitt al Court, 
Hampton Bishop, daughter of Roger Hereford of Sutton: 
there were no children of this marriage. This wife, Philippa, 
was buried in 171 I in Hereford Cathedral near Bishop Coke's 
monument. 
From his wife Anne Whitney, Thomas Rodd received her 
share of the Whitney estate at Whitney of which she and her 
sister were co-heiresses. Thomas Rodd proceeded to buy 
out his sister-in-law's half-share and thus became possessed 
of the whole estate which he eventually passed on to one of 
his grand-daughters, the child of Robert, who was called 
Anna Sophia after her mother. She married in 1685 at St. 
Bride's in London, William Wardour, Clerk of the Rolls in 
Chancery, and a member of the Wardour Castle family.! She 
died in 1737 at the age of 71 and was buried, strangely 
enough,in Westminster Abbey.2Finally, Thomas also owned 
the manor of Moreton Jeffries, and is sometimes described 
as of that place, which his father James the mercer bought 
in about 1647.3 . 
In 1668 Thomas Rodd made Foxleyoverto his son Robert 
and retired with his wife to live at Hampton Bishop. He was 
buried in Hampton Bishop church with his coat of arms and 
the inscription :4 
S. M. Thomas Rodd anti qua clams prosapia ac pietate erga 
Deum fidelitate erga utmmque Carolum. Obilt grandaevus in die 
Mail 1673. 
Duncumb records a strange incident. On Thomas Rodd's 
appointment as Sheriff of Herefordshire in 1666 the Lords of 
gent., by Ann his wife, the eldest daughter of Thomas Rodd of Foxley .. .' 
and in the 'Gregory Chapel' of the church a window contains the Rodd arms 
blazoned as 'Ar. 2 trefoils in fesse vert, a chief or', a new but slight variant of 
the H erefordshire Rodd arms. On a flat stone in the chapel are the arms of 
Gregory impaling Rodd in a lozenge with the inscription: 'Here lieth the 
body of Elizabeth Gregory, widow, daughter of Thomas Rodd of Foxley 
and Ann his wife, relict of James Gregory late of this parish ... she departed 
this life Oct. 28 1716 aged 72.' Ap"d Duncumb, vol. ii, pp. 359, 361, 362. 
I Robinson, Castles, &c., p. 136; Duncumb: Huntington, p. 83. 
Z Epitaph in Middle Aisle recorded in Har/. Soc. Pub/., vol. x, 1875, p. 347. 
3 It was eventually sold in 1696 to one Wilks. Robinson, ManJions, &c., 
p. 21 4· 
• Quoted from Duncumb: Grimsworrh, pp. 188-9. 
OJ the Rodd Family in the Sevet1teenth Cmttlty 267 
the Council ordered the prosecution of two persons, Christo-
pher Rodd and his brother John, for conspiring to persuade 
one Thomas Rodd, a drover, to assume the office of sheriff. 
The brothers John and Christopher look as if they were the 
two contemporary sons of Hugh Rodd of Wegnal, born in 
1631 and 1637. But John was a pillar of the church as vicar 
of Marden and recognized as such by his burial in the 
Bishop's Cloister at Hereford Cathedral. Thomas the son of 
James Price Rodd who did become sheriff in 1666 was a 
large landowner and could not conceivably have been de-
scribed as a drover. Richard Rodd of Wegnal the son of 
Hugh was described as a 'drovier' according to a case heard 
in 1672 concerning Edward Rodd, of whom more later, and 
one Wickersley, D.D., prebendary of Hinton. This is the 
Richard who bought The Rodd from Frideswide, but had 
no children and sold it to Bampfylde Rodd.r There is, how-
ever, another Thomas Rodd who was son of the John Rodd 
of Wegnal, just mentioned, but he seems too young to have 
sought or been persuaded to impersonate his distinguished 
relative of Foxley as High Sheriff; besides, the character 
and calling of his father in Holy Orders makes it at least 
improbable that his father would have lent himself to this 
operation. 
Robert Rodd who took over Foxley from his father 
Thomas in 1668 was called to the Bar at Gray's Inn. He too 
became High Sheriff of Herefordshire in 1675 /6. He married 
Anna Sophia, daughter of Thomas Neale of Warnef ord, Co. 
Hants by Lucy daughter and heiress of Sir W. Uvedale of 
Wickham, Co. Hants. He had three daughters who became 
his co-heiresses: Lucy, who married Robert Price;2 Anna 
Sophia who married William Wardour and was left Whit-
ney by her grandfather; and Frances, who married Alexander 
How of Battersea, one time Deputy Master of the Mint under 
Thomas Neale the father of Robert's wife Anna Sophia. The 
family connexion is important in what follows. 
I See above, p. 262. 
2 Referred to in a deed of 168 I quoted by Robert Price in his opinion 
dated 10 Mar. 1690 about the title of the Whitney estate. Quoted from a 
privately printed bistory of the Whitney family. Printed for subscribers by 
the De Vinne Press, New York, 1896. 
268 Valley on the March 
Lucy, the eldest girl, inherited Foxley. Her husband, 
Robert Price, was a remarkable man. He might have been 
famous, but for Lucy. He was born in January 1653 of 
Thomas and Margaret Price of Geelor, Co. Denbigh. He 
was called to the Bar in the same year in which he married 
Lucy. He had had a liberal education including a grand tour 
in the course of which he got into trouble with the Pope 
about the book Coke, Upon Littleton which was suspected in 
Rome of being a Bible! When the mistake was cleared up he 
presented the offending volume to the Vatican! In 1682 Price 
became Attorney-General and next year recorder of Radnor-
shire. Under James II he was made King's Counsel and 
Member of Parliament for Ludlow. He was again Attorney-
General and Member of Parliament under King William. 
Then the blow fell. His wife Lucy eloped with her cousin-
german Thomas Neale. By this time she had had three 
children: Thomas Price born in 1680, Member of Parliament 
for Weobley in 1702-5 and found shot in bed at Genoa in 
17°6, Uvedale Tomkins Price, and a daughter, Lucy the 
second. 
There are at The Rodd two very indifferent pictures of 
Robert Price, in his robes as a Baron of the Exchequer which 
he later became, and of Lucy his wife, in evening dress. 
Robert Price has a strong, florid, unattractive face with a 
slightly supercilious and cynical air: but it was painted after 
his wife eloped! She is a portly woman of the late middle 
age, and- well-it is difficult to imagine anyone consenting 
to elope with her, even if the artist was not a good one. 
Lutterel writes in his diary: I 
1690 November 2I-a tryal was in the afternoon before the 
Chief Justice of the Common Pleas between Robert Price, Esq., 
plaintiff, and Mr. Neale, the Groom Porter's son, defendant, for 
enticing away the plaintiff's wife and keeping her to the damage of 
the plaintiff of £10,000: her sister was witness against her and on 
a full hearing, the jury gave the plaintiff £1,500 damages. 
Instead of proceeding to annul the marriage Mr. and Mrs. Price 
covenanted by deed with trustees that in consideration of the 
natural love and affection which they respectively bore to their 
children and for settling the various manors and estates in the 
I Vol. ii, p. 131. 
OJ the Rodd Family in the Seventeenth Centllry 269 
blood and family of the said parents and for securing Lucy Price 
a separate maintenance in place of a claim for dower in any of the 
manors and estates ... the sum of £100 should be paid to her 
quarterly at the Tolsey in Bristol, the sum of £80 to be paid annu-
ally to her son Thomas Price, £40 to Uvedale Price and £40 to 
her daughter Lucy for whom a marriage portion of £1,500 w~s 
secured and an independent maintenance during the life of her 
father.' 
Robert Price in 1700 became a Welsh judge and on Queen 
Anne's accession was appointed Baron of the Exchequer. 
He removed to the Court of Common Pleas in 1726 and 
died in Kensington in 1733, having entirely rebuilt Foxley 
in 1717. He refused a knighthood on account of his wife's 
behaviour. Robert Rodd's wife Anna Sophia only survived 
the scandal of her daughter by a few months. She was buried 
in the chapter house yard of Hereford Cathedral in 1691. In 
those days it must have been a terrific affair for all the family, 
especially with an eminent judge involved. 
As a result of all this the Foxley estate on which Robert 
Price built the mansion' in 1717 was the subject of very 
complex family arrangements. The demise in trust of 1661/2 
to Sir William Lewis and Thomas Whitney has already been 
mentioned: the object was to provide by trust for the four 
surviving sisters of Robert Rodd. In 1668 a further deed was 
executed in favour of William Gregory and Thomas Car-
penter, the spouses of Anne Rodd and Elizabeth Rodd, on 
the manors of Foxiey and Yazor, but in respect of only 18 
messuages and their appurtenances and 1,250 acres3 out of 
the 1,600 acres of 1661/2. The balance of the estate was for 
securing the dower of Robert Rodd's widow Anna Sophia 
(Neale). For 1689 two entries survive conveying one-third 
each of the same 18 houses and 1,250 acres to Uvedale Tom-
kins Price by Frances Rodd then spinster but later married 
to Alexander How, and by William and Anna Sophia (Rodd) 
Wardour to John Phillips and Edward Fleetwood.4 The 
third share was, of course, naughty Lucy (Rodd) Price's and 
r Duncumb: Grimswortb, p. 190 • 
Z Recently demolished. 
3 F.F. 2)(2), 301, 20 Car. II. 
• F.F. 2)(2), 301, I Will. & Mary. 
270 Va/fry on the March 
the date was the year of her elopement. Two years later 
Uvedale Tomkins Price and John Phillips received two parts 
of the 'greater moiety' of four houses and 350 acres mainly 
of the Mansell manor. I By 1712 the whole of the Price-Rodd 
family affairs had got into a real tangle, accentuated by 
Lucy's escapade and the subsequent arrangement made for 
Uvedale Price and her sisters, partly because a number of 
family settlements were made but never registered, and 
partly, but weightily, because of the intervention of one 
Edward Rodd who disputed the succession and inheritance 
of James Rodd the mercer. The whole business was eventu-
ally sorted out by a series of Depositions under Commis-
sion, of which the most important one, and the longest, is 
dated 1712.2 
This Edward Rodd is a mysterious and tiresome figure. 
He was the fourth, and one of the illegitimate sons of James 
the mercer, born in 1628, the eldest being the legitimate 
Thomas, father of Robert, the next being James also 
illegitimate who had progeny, while the third was Herbert 
of whom nothing is heard and who probably died in infancy. 
The illegitimate Edward most appropriately married Jane, 
the natural daughter of Rudhale Gwillim or Gwyllyiam, 
Esq., of Whitchurch. James the mercer as befitted his wealth 
and position made a settlement on Edward and Jane's 
marriage. But Edward and the Gwillim family, 'another 
James' and a Christopher Rodd, both probably sons of Hugh 
Rodd of Wegnal,3 stated they had 'certain records' in their 
possession, and disputed the settlement as insufficient. In 
1684 Edward brought an action for trespass and ejection 
against Anna Sophia Rodd, widow, Robert Price and Lucy, 
and Anna Sophia Rodd and Frances Rodd, spinsters: Robert 
Price paid him £200 in settlement. Edward Rodd had al-
ready done pretty well for himself, for he had squeezed his 
father quite a lot, getting not only money but James's Here-
ford city property too. It was from this source that in 1654 
Edward Rodd and Richard Hereford bought from Roger 
J F.F. 25(2), 301, 3 Will. & Mary. 
Z P.R.O. Dep. under Comm. E. I39/rr Anne/E. 15; also 10 Geo. 1,1732; 
13 Geo. II, E/I3. 
3 'Both', since another witness, Hugh, is also referred to in the case in 
Dep. under Comm. 2I Car. II. 17, P.R.O. E/I34. 
OJ the Rodd FaJJlib in the Se/Jenteenth Centm)' 27 1 
Hereford and Thomas Rodd of Foxley the manor of Lufton 
and Upper Stoke Lacy with the houses, two cottages, 3 tofts 
and appurtenances, and 1,300 acres of land with 60S. rents 
in the parishes of MorMord Frome, Preston Wynne, 
Fownhope, Checkley, Lugwardine, Hampton Bishop, Pen-
combe, Wotton, Kings Pyon, and Hereford city for £1,000. 1 
In 1672 and 1673 Edward Rodd had been involved in a 
dispute with one Wickersley, D.D., prebendary of Hinton, 
Co. Hereford, about rents which Edward had not duly paid 
on the land he owned there. Then after 1684 Edward Rodd 
disappears from history, perhaps luckily: if he had had 
children the story would go on into the eighteenth century, 
with which this record is not concerned. 
Of Robert Price's children, Uvedale Tomkins Price in-
herited Foxley, having married Anne, daughter and co-
heiress of Lord Arthur Somerset, and with him the Foxley 
property went out of the Rodd family. His son Robert 
married Sarah daughter of Lord Barrington. Their son 
Uvedale Price was a remarkable man in his way and day. He 
was a Member of Parliament and a baronet, and died in 
Bath in 1829. A friend of Charles James Fox, he moved in 
the world of politics without being a politician, and of art 
without being an artist. His Essery on the Picturesque2 engaged 
him and his contemporaries in controversy on landscape 
gardening in opposition to the formal school of Kent and 
Brown. A ride he cut through the Foxley Woods to Ladylift 
Hill was his retort in 'adapting nature', against the formal 
conceptions of what he considered 'artificial landscaping'. 
He collected prints which went to form the beginning of the 
British Museum collection. 
Lucy, the other child of Robert Price, concerns this story 
very much, for she married back into the Devonshire branch 
of the Rodd family in the person of Bampfylde Rodd, the 
third, of Stoke Canon, Co. Devon. By doing so she returned 
to the family home at The Rodd to which her husband had 
succeeded. Alas, it was not destined to remain in the family 
I F.F. 25(2), 301, 1634, 13 Car. II. 
2 Essay on the Picturesque: Uvedale Price; London, Robson, 1794,2 vols.; 
Dialogue between Price and Repton, also Knight; Hereford, 1801; Principles 
of Taste; Knight; London, Payne, 1806. 
Vallry on the March 
for long because Lucy Bampfylde Rodd had four daughters 
but no son: and so The Rodd went out of the family once 
mote until the author re-acquired it in 1938-9. There is at 
The Rodd a portrait of Lucy, the second, done as a young 
woman at or soon after her marriage to Bampfylde Rodd. 
She seems in looks to be all that her naughty mother was 
not; and by Bampfylde she produced a resplendent family. 
Her four daughters, Juliana, Gratiana, Maria Sophia, and 
Lucy, the third, were known far and wide for their comeli-
ness. The eldest of them, Juliana, born in 1717, married 
Theophilus Lane of Hereford, and to that family The Rodd 
eventually passed. Two other sisters married Richard Gorges 
of Eye and John Ivie. Gratiana the second daughter, 
married Sharrington Davenport, of Davenport, Co. Salop, 
of which line she became an ornament. The WeeklY Wor-
cester Journal of 14-21 January 1731-2 [sic] records the 
marriage with the description of Gratiana's husband as 'a 
Gentleman of about 30001. per Ann.' : I not a bad match! She 
was one of the great beauties of George III's reign whom 
Beau Nash praised and Shenstone the poet sang. Beau Nash 
introduced her in the Rooms at Bath as 'a Rod that would 
flog them all'. Her portraits as a young woman and a con-
versation piece of her family hang at Davenport in the home 
of Mr. and Mrs. Leicester Warren (nee Davenport). Gratiana 
also got involved in a case brought by the litigious Earl of 
Coningsby concerning the manor of Marden with Thomas 
and James Rodd as co-defendants, the former having bten, 
and the latter being, steward to Baron Price.Z 
Even with this list of formidable transactions in land in 
Herefordshire by one family, the tale is not complete, for 
numerous purchases and sales of urban property in Hereford 
have not been chronicled, nor have transactions at Moreton 
Jeffries, Hampton Bishop, and Stoke Lacy been detailed. 
The only interest in the Moreton Jeffries estate which Wil-
liam Gregory and Richard Withers tone took over from 
Thomas Rodd is that the name of the second purchaser, 
Withers tone, figures in another transaction to which refer-
ence must be made since it shows the strength of interlock-
I Copy in the author's possession. 
2 Coningsby, Co//ections COllcerning the Manor of Marden IJ22-7. 
OJ tlIe Rodd FaI/JiIY in the Seventeenth Cmttlly 273 
ing kinships. Moreton Jeffries was a large property consisting 
of six houses with their gardens and orchards and 580 acres 
of land in the parish of Much Cowarne. l The consideration 
was £400 and the date of the sale by Thomas Rodd was one 
year before he made over Foxley to his son and retired to 
Hampton Bishop. The Stoke Lacy manor passed with Fox-
ley to Uvedale Price,2 as did a property at Byford which in 
1676 he passed on to 'Anne wife of Robert Chaplin and in 
default of issue to Anna Sophia Rodd youngest daughter of 
Robert Rodd of Foxley'. 
The fate of one other property at Amberley near Marden 
on the Wye is worth recording as an example of how in the 
course of land transfers all sorts of other matters arose and 
got tidied up in this century which followed the upheaval 
caused by Henry VIII in ecclesiastical property. Amberley 
manor near Marden is only one of several Amberleys in 
England of which the Amberley in Gloucestershire and 
Amberley in Sussex are probably better known. Hereford 
Amberley is a remarkable example of a fourteenth-century 
H shaped house with a central hall. The original roof of two 
bays survives with smaller screen bays to each, and elaborate 
and beautiful screen trusses. The roof trusses of the solar 
and buttery wings also exist.3 The manor had been granted 
at the Conquest to Ansfried of Cormeilles but the grant was 
rescinded by the Crown under Stephen. Successive kings 
regranted the manor, but it eventually passed via Richard of 
Monmouth to the de Lingens who have been recorded as 
sub-lords in Stapleton. Thence it passed to the Harpers who 
were also known in the Presteigne area and from them to 
John Weston of Sutton Place, that magnificent Elizabethan 
house in Surrey near Guildford. In 1672 John Weston and 
his son sold Amberley to Hugh Rodd, mercer of Hereford.4 
The Amberley property was extensive and lay in several 
parishes: Marden, Normanton, Sutton St. Nicholas, Sutton 
St. Michael, Sutton Frene, and Withington. It consisted of 
five houses and three cottages all with their gardens, 10 
1 F.P. CP 2)(2), 301, 18 Car. II. 
Z Robinson, Mansions, &c., pp. ) 8 and 260. 
3 R.C.H.M., vol. ii, p. 137, with plans and plates. 
• Robinson, Mansions, &c., p. 20). 
B 6851 T 
274 Valley on the March 
orchards, 170 acres of arable, 50 acres of meadow and 40 
acres of pasture, 10 acres of waste land, and 5S. 6d. of rent 
besides the rectory of Amberley with tithes, a moiety of 
another house and cottage with 30 acres, and a fourth part 
of the dues of the manors of the three Suttons. The purchase 
pricer was £320. 
Soon after his purchase Hugh Rodd got involved in an 
interesting dispute with some of the parishioners and the 
former Weston connexion about the fourteenth-century 
church. The issue was whether it was the parish church of 
Amberley or a private chapel, who was responsible for the 
upkeep of the chancel and for providing services, from 
whom the tithes and stipends precisely came, and whether it 
was a 'peculiar' subject to the Archbishop of Canterbury 
directly. One Richard Witherstone of Burghill confirmed 
that he had seen and witnessed Hugh's purchase. The parson 
of Marden confirmed that he had done duty once a month in 
the church and as vicar of Marden had received a stipend of 
45S. a year for doing so. The paucity of furniture-a few 
benches and a table serving both as a reading table and 
Communion table-rather pointed to the place being a private 
chapel. But the chancel had been repaired, as was proper, 
by Hugh Rodd, and the local inhabitants declared they 
regarded it as their parish church. Other witnesses stated 
that Communion was only said once a year but that baptisms 
and burials did take place there. That was in 1678;2 the 
subjects of the dispute had been in abeyance since the Disso-
lution. 
In 1689 Hugh Rodd sold four of the Amberley houses and 
240 out of his 270 acres, including the pasture and meadow 
and the rectory to Hugh Witherstone for £260. He evi-
dently didn't want to have the trouble of farming, collecting 
rents, or dealing with the church himself. He just wanted 
a country house.3 The sale as a matter of fact helped Hugh 
to buy another and larger property of Thomas Veynall's at 
Haywood, otherwise known as the Forest de Hay. This was 
a larger estate of 700 acres of which 5°° were heathland, but 
I F .F. CP 25(2), 30I, 24 Car. II. 
2 Dep. under Comm., E. I34/30 Car. II/E. I3. 
3 F.F. CP 25(2), 301, I Will. & Mary. 
Of the Rodd FamilY in the Seventeenth emtllry 275 
with 250 acres of arable and six houses; it cost £700.1 Ten 
years before, Hugh and his wife, Thomas Rodd, Thomas 
Veynall and his wife, and another jointly seem to have been 
involved in a transaction with James Good over 850 acres of 
this Haywood estate, probably in a mortgage or trust opera-
tion. 2 Hugh, nevertheless, became repossessed of Amberley 
for in 1700 he sold the whole of the estate, less the four 
houses retained by the Witherstones, and some additional 
20 acres he had bought, to Mrs. Mary Price, widow, for 
£50o-a nice little profit on his 30 years' broken tenure.3 
Hugh Rodd, mercer, the son of Hugh Rodd of Wegnal, 
also mercer, inherited the business of Sir James Rodd in 
Hereford where he also took a leading part in civic affairs. 
He became mayor in 1666 and again in 1673. He figured in 
an incident in 1661 when considerable disturbances broke out 
in various parts of England after Cromwell's death. In Here-
ford the troubles arose out of quarrels between Parliamen-
tarians and Royalists over a contested election between Sir 
Edward Hopton and Mr. Westfaling, about which James 
Lawrence in a letter records that 'one Rodd replied that the 
gentry [of Hereford] would engage their honour that there 
would be no disturbance'. It was also during this period 
that currency difficulties became so acute that local authori-
ties were obliged to issue token coinage for local use: many 
examples of these survive in private hands and in museums. 
Among those in Hereford Museum are three of Hugh Rodd' s 
made of brass and probably issued during his mayoralty. They 
have 'Hugh Rodd' round the verge of the obverse with the 
city arms in the centre and 'of Hereford' round the edge of 
the reverse with the elephant and castle in the centre.4 There 
is also one issued for Hereford by John Rodd and one for 
Ross-on-Wye by Thomas Rodd. 
By the second ~alf of the seventeenth century that flavour 
of the Middle Ages which can still be tasted at the end of the 
Tudor period had almost disappeared. If medieval forms 
still survived, as indeed they survived into this, our own, 
1 F.P. CP 25(2), 301, 2/3 Jac. ll. 
Z F.F. CP 25(2), 301, 28 Car. II. 
l F.P. CP 25(2), 301, 12 Will. rn. 
4 Cf. Johnson, Ancient CuJloms, &c., pp . 151 and 157-8 . 
Va/fry on the March 
century in land tenure and conveyance, they had in practice 
given place to the modern framework of society which is 
familiar to us. Manor lordships and dues had lost much of 
their meaning in real life. They continued to exist in certain 
cases as investments and in others as burdens on the holder 
with little or no bearing on the everyday lives of people. 
Wardship, dower, heriot, and inheritance no longer now 
connoted burdensome exactions by lordships from under-
tenants. The alienation of property had become a right and 
not even in theory subject in conditions to the whim of the 
Crown or over-lord. Dependants in their turn had become 
the responsibility of the family and of no other body or per-
son. Wills assume the form of modern testaments: more 
than ever do they throw light on family affairs and relation-
ships. Of the many wills with which this record has been 
concerned, the one of Hugh Rodd (the Elder) of Wegnal 
will serve as an example. 
This Hugh Rodd, one of the sons of Hugh de la Rode, 
and a brother of Walter, of Richard the elder, of William, 
and of James Price Rodd, died and was buried at Presteigne 
in 1647. His will was dra~rn in 1638 and probate was granted 
on 31 December 1647. I He is described as 'gentleman' of 
Wegnal in the parish of Presteigne. He left no specific direc-
tions about his burial other than that it should be 'decent and 
Christian'. To his eldest son James and his heirs he leaves 
his dwelling house at Wegnal with all lands which he had 
bought of Roger King,2 dcd., also a close of 16 acres of 
arable in the same parish bought of Thomas Fletcher, dcd., 
another close of 4 acres bought of Thomas Bradshawe, Esq., 
dcd., a close of about 6 acres bought of John Vicarres, dcd., 
3 acres bought of John Clements, dcd. : and the 'water corn 
mill called The Rode Mill with all buildings, weirs and flanks 
and two plocks of meadow bought from my brother Richard 
Rode dcd.'3 If his son James should have no issue the pro-
perty was to go to the second son Hugh whom failing to the 
I P.R.O.: Fines 243 . 
2 Transaction referred to in P.R.O. (Welsh Papers cxxii) 8 Jac. I : i.e. leave 
to agree with Roger King and Eleanor his wife for 61. 8d. 
3 That is Richard Rodd the elder. The two 'plocks' of meadow are those 
which today still go with the mill on the English side of the Hindwell brook 
and between it and the millleat. 
PLA T E ," V II 
Of the Rodd FamilY ill the Seventeenth Century 277 
third son Richard, whom failing to the fourth son Thomas, 
whom failing to the fifth son Christopher, and their heirs 
respectively, whom failing to his own right heirs. To the 
second son Hugh, he left seven closes of land in the parish 
of New Radnor recently bought from his cousin Richard 
Rodd (the younger), 'gentleman', also a messuage at Nether 
Kinsham which later Richard Rodd the second acquired, 
Witll all lands and buildings with remainder to the next sons 
in succession. I So much for lands. 
To his eldest son succeeding, he left all bedsteads, tables, 
boards, forms, and benches, to remain in the house as 'stan-
dards' and not to be removed: the furnishing seems still to 
be quite rudimentary. To his wife Dorothy (Ballard) he 
leaves all his plate and remaining household stuff, together 
with all the residue of his estate after legacies of £200 to 
each of his sons Richard, John, and Christopher upon their 
attaining the age of 22 . But if his goods and chattels should 
not amount to £600 in value after payment of debts and 
funeral expenses, the legacies are to be reduced proportion-
ately. If his wife remarries, she is to pay the sons their 
legacies within three months of her marriage or give security 
therefor. His executors may recover from legacies any sums 
spent on placing sons as apprentices or on their education-
a most modern provision for trustees under wills. His 
brother (Sir) James Price Rodd of Hereford and Edward 
Aston are named overseers (trustees) and his wife is sole 
executrix. The witnesses are William Rodd senior (a brother), 
Thomas Rodd (probably the son of Sir James Price Rodd), 
and James Rodd junior (probably his son). In a verbal codicil 
dated 24 September 1638, twelve days later than the date of 
the will, the messuages bequeathed to his sons James and 
Hugh are to be held by their mother until they are 2 I for the 
expenses of their maintenance. Altogether a most modern 
document. . 
The son, James Rodd, did succeed and lived to a ripe and 
active old age. When he was 80 he petitioned at the Radnor-
shire Great Sessions in 1694 
that his sight being much decayed and having received a bruise by 
I That is evidently what had happened to the other half of the Kinsham 
estate; see pp. 253, 257 above. 
Vallry on the March 
a fall from a horse was unable to ride, and had passed his estate in 
marriage to Henry Pyefinch the younger, had been granted a writ 
of ease four or five years since notwithstanding which he had 
been forced to serve the office of collector of poll money and the 
Justices of the Peace had granted their warrant against him to 
serve the office of Chief Constable and to serve the two offices at 
one time which the petitioner was unable to do. He begged to be 
relieved of the office of Chief Constable and the estate from other 
offices .' 
It is strange how the Herefordshire, as the Devon and Corn-
wall, branches of the Rodd family, were fated to die out with 
singular frequency in one or more girls. The continuity of the 
Rodd line in Herefordshire was twice broken, and only for a 
short while each time restored by the Devonshire branch 
stepping in and acquiring The Rodd family property by 
purchase and marriage. Of the Herefordshire branches 
Richard Rodd's (the younger) line had come to an end in 
his daughter Frideswide. The branches of James Rodd of 
Nash and James Rodd of Wegnal came to an end in the 
same way. The Hugh Rodd of Wegnal branch, in the 
descendants of the sons other than James, migrated to Here-
ford, where they joined the descendants of Sir James Price 
Rodd in the mercery business. They became Hereford city 
families and eventually died out too. 
A number of the eighteenth-century Rodds in Hereford 
mainly descended from the Wegnal branch chose the 
Church as their profession, harking back to the tradition of 
their medieval ancestors. One such sept found its way as far 
afield as Barton-on-the-Heath near Moreton-in-the-Marsh. 
The disappearance of the Rodds from the Hindwell area is 
all the more striking on account of the very numerous 
entries of people of that name in the Presteigne Parish Regis-
ters of births, marriages, and deaths, in number much greater 
than can be accounted for among the legitimate descendants 
of the local Rodd families . 
While a lot of this detailed family history may seem super-
fluous and perhaps not very entertaining to the general reader, 
it sheds a good deal of light on much of the local life of the 
1 Trs. Rad. Soc., vol. xiii, '943, p. 18 (Wegnal is mis-spelled as Negual). 
Of the Rodd Fa/l/i(y in the Seventeenth Century 2.79 
countryside with which this history is concerned. It brings 
out very clearly the heavy turnover in land to which his-
torians have referred in the Elizabethan and immediately 
post-Elizabethan eras. Whether the money involved in land 
purchase was made in trade or in local industrial enterprises, 
there is no doubt that land was regarded as a good invest-
ment, which seems inevitably to point to a prosperous agri-
cultural industry in spite of the allegedly worn out state of 
tillage land which had given rise to so much hardship at the 
end of the :fifteenth and during the sixteenth century, and 
which had led to much enclosure of manor waste and com-
mon pasture lands. The main basis of this agricultural pro-
sperity must have been sheep and the rising price of wool, 
together with businesses such as mercery deriving from them. 
Enclosure where it occurred was of course unpopular, but 
in the aggregate no very great quantity of land was enclosed 
in Herefordshire, compared with the rest of England. At the 
end of the seventeenth century half the land of the county 
was still waste and under-populated; the hearth tax for the 
county presumed 16,794 houses at three hearths to two 
houses. A great part of the land in the county, though not in 
western parts like the Hindwell Valley, was still cultivated 
on the old common :field system until the middle of the 
eighteenth century. I Herefordshire in 1593 had one of the 
lowest assessments in England, but in 1636 seventeen coun-
ties had a lower assessment and in 1660 thirteen counties 
were lower. By the end of the seventeenth century Hereford-
shire had practically resumed its position of a hundred years 
before. The relative improvement of Herefordshire in the 
mid-seventeenth century as compared with other counties 
corresponds with the period of maximum land transactions, 
at any rate among members of the Rodd family. 
And here must end the history of The Rodd and the Rodd 
family in Herefordshire from which it gradually disappeared. 
By the end of the sixteenth century the dispersal of the old 
family lands among various branches of the family had 
begun. By the close of the seventeenth century the process 
was complete. The family, nevertheless, managed to continue 
1 Apud V.C.H., pp. 378 and 409. 
280 Vaffry on the March 
and flourished in Cornwall and Devonshire where, however, 
the main branch at Trebartha also came to an end in a family 
of four girls during the present century. It was while this was 
happening that the author acquired The Rodd and reinstated 
the family in the home of its ancestors on the same land 
which had been the manor of La Rode in the Middle Ages, 
and of Bradlege a thousand years ago. 
~I;~~; %1 ~O:;~I:~" lZNILL & \vALSHAM of ~NILL 
..m ~o!uv at 1{fU,U, zL  A-f1lia, N U t~,UI,,0"1'",t <,1l~ford. -Wi.lcwof~olwl<.CtUU ''-9t-,. ___- --,-_ --, 
'£ ~o'h'" Ik 1WLL:: :n ~ :fllsa,ocl" III YstJtd, % Adrun, <it b'4ton. 
r~I;06 . I 
n ~)~o/ciQf~fo~<l. =,]X1v1ru-9(rlj X t~ XI~O~l}d( :xrrStr)i~\¥ :xm;-7\tke ~ SQnn.A{"BtoKmbetglvof-
WUl ~I-u, ofKnUC 0. IH9 &t ']{nill, '1(.ni11! ~ N\.l~ In.Mr\.lS'lt:mz &oJUnbtr~I\',co,OW\lC(Ster. 
fivins 3rd.'Mru-d'dJ+9 ' ltt,ro~~f'Knil.nos. ~ror'Ofl<sutU.lllJ. !WaS. fnniofNortIv"Wrrud",.u, ",Wilt; 
0.' .p. b.f. ...' 30th."MIUj ·,l'+9 r o. . p, o. s .p, ""9 "'9, o.'.p. 1WP~'"' Cbt-,{,of~inoI3.J ' , Son.ofJti~dt~kmb(l'91t. tfRo" '0. ~oh.n.(k~r-olwtbtr'9h.of"J<nill, =A:lict:xID: ~h.dt]tolunbtrAh.,:xw ~";';(.~74S~~ ' 
Wr""' 39 0 rLvin:JIHJ. \?Qr-aofNortlvWrmcfuill.1I\.1361. 'V~ilt;, .M.of fur' l' I £o1"d of l\nill. U1. 136J. o,'.p.,'. 1390. mo,. :xsmI: .d.tru\Cr" ~oh.n..01"~(V(\/\l o.pl tw :::; Ot.ldis 
~hw-0.n4. ofElf. .c ; OI"~"'. .. Go<Jt, fN.M,,' IlJ'Tlo.lL,apCinfr\9. 
"W', Wt;90 <p1vl'ru{., or ~"""" ..1for3 0ch. of Etj'atG, 
:xx; '1Ul:1wd.ap~tv<U\.,fordoFl\.nuU.. :m lt~(S o.p~~vQJt.\j)(h. :;:. "I' §"ill'.J.,o .p'Rt<s8~· o.p J:ordJRw,l'ffiI<t~50\Uh,W .l<o 
.(so <Alld.~IWd.'(i]{nqU.in. J .1'.M., IHS. ,",oknOtvn."'lU""l'~'v"'oP~  I 
:xm 8~1m ~LL, 01" l{nuU, :: J\lia(",':;f~:~~;" 'l«lSar-T~";:; j&ru1"of £lMfiknstl '" jarut;, lllw of T4ltgl4s 1) 
e,v"'S I I v d . ~~~~~ 1+,1. fi>..in814' II. ~ "'Mortun<t". 
:xxmwillik dt 1<nuU../Cor-dof'"KnuU.. ==-
~~W~~~ I john., 01" ~tvan,a.p 1Ws .I: EWln.or-l2w;.g +OJ. of Elf. .k  it  luirtssof'john.d£llroktllb''Bh.,0.1390· I r.r<ej-xmu, 
:xm: ~ohn,.u,l<.ncll, l?ord of l<nulk ~ OW(~:m: 1-lugh.1\.nitL:xx:w 
c'i.vU\'I'+71. _. v.'HotU.G<ifhth. Y,",!\iuuv. M sluwn, 
IW&£IIL 
:ma ~. 1Znill, of'l<.ni,U, '" t\nf1,:xxm . W~1 <ni.U,. ZXIX 
£wI ing 15)8 I tLw.o--'0r-u,.-'i 'WdWlwo:fStmil-i' RF4t!<"mha'1n..i(l,'.D  q". ,,,,",,,."'''' 1 
g1v1~qtrt{ =' john. KnUL of "J<niU." M,'l', '" 1I)S\.bd1. XXXI 
&~,fof-eSil:-joh'n  ~S1urilf-' of ~1Urt. . nx & hw- of Sic~'jl~ m1~;~?1R~-"~H~-7',I~i~lA~A:'S~S "-S. ~vo"Sh.
 AsJ> o,,..?.  Fl\MJUESOFRNILLOFEVENJ01rB &XNILLOF--' 
9 -\'11: 
OIDuasttN ' , Sh<!"U1:Is6 I 01501 yvOMMTON ttnad.
J~lilnrttVl". dcwntllI
74-0, 
Fnutasl<nl.U., '" ~(lJl. EtWwr' ~ -Ann. hW'~httrs 
~~ f{, ~'t "'.1~r~.-I n;l"rt'''l'1-low,u, ml-\<rnt 
0 , IS99 '~ of t>I\ l-\ow,u,. 
~ohi\," KniU./ £crd. of Kni.lL =- Qufurin,(. 
o".y. S.il'tUI := 5oh.n'Priw ,60)- =~ .!)(~rb(U·(l, -r ~ohn. W(llSIW1\ da,ushw- an.< of 'ProtUg1\to 
coll<lt' ~ 
THE FAMILY OF WALSHt\M 
rorjl!,UIh.ri"" , .. POj'.fo~ OF XNILL COURT 
GENEALOGY OF THE KNILL AND 
WALSHAM FAMILIES OF KNILL 
hlthorities: As stated on pedigree and in text. 
I. JOHN DE Kfu"lELL: held a knight's fee in Byford, Co. Hereford, 
with Matilda de Tregoz and Walter de Bodenham of Walter de Lacy 
(Book of Fees, pp. 802, 817; I.P.M., Hereford, 23 Jan. 1242-3). In Testa 
de Nevill the name is given as Cnulle. In Close Roll 26 Henry III, pt. I, 
m. 14 (I j Nov. 1241, Printed Close Rolls, p . 373), among fees assigned 
in dower to Margery de Lacy, daughter of William de Braose, of those 
held by her late husband Walter in Co. Hereford, is the fee of one 
knight which John de Cnulle held of him. In 1248 John de Knill held 
lands at Byford by knight's service under Gilbert de Genevil, jure 
uxoris Lord of Weobley (Duncumb, iii, Cook). 
II. JOAN, wife of John de KenelI, in two Hereford Assize Rolls, 304, 
m. 2, and 304, m. 13, 21-23 Edward I. She died in March 1292-3' 
m. JOHN DE KNur.L: ob. before 1292-3; of Knill, Upcote, and By-
ford; mentioned in Assize Rolls 304, m. 2, and 304, m. 13, in which the 
pedigree is given: died vita Rlatris. Also mentioned in his wife's 
indenture. 
IV. AM1CE ': wife of J ohn de Knull, widow of John Ie Child. She 
made a covenant with Adam de Eyton, by an indenture dated j October 
1293, in connexion with his marriage with her daughter Yseud. She 
mentions the rent of five mares belonging to her in Byford, Knulle, and 
Upcote, which she was accustomed to receive from John de KnulIe, 
her son, for her dower. 
V. JOHN DE KNur.L: witnessed to aforesaid. Mentioned in the Assize 
Rolls aforesaid. In 20 Edward I (1291-2), Geoffrey de Ledewyk and 
Joan his wife were su=oned to answer John de Knulle for making 
waste in the woods and gardens which they had in keeping of the 
inheritance of the said John in Knulle (Hereford Assize Roll, 302, 
m. 24). In 1308 he presented John fitz John de Knull to the church of 
Knull (Bishops' Registers). 
VI. AMrCE and ISABEL: daughters of John de Knull (ill) mentioned 
in the Assize Rolls aforesaid, as daughters of John de Knull of Byford. 
VII. YSEUD : third daughter of John de Knull (ill) m. Adam de 
Eyton, mentioned in the aforesaid indenture. 
VII. RALPH, LORD OF BYFORD and LORD OF KNuLL : so described 
early in fourteenth century when he granted land in Knull by charter, 
witnessed by John, son of John de Knull, and William Ie Brett of 
Brompton (et al.). In 13 16 he was lord of a vill in Byford; in 1346 he 
282 Genealogv oj the 
paid 201. therefore (Feilda ! Aids, vo!' ii, p. 386). Held half a knight's 
fee at Upcote, I. P.M. May, 13 Edward II. In 1336 he presented 
Hugh Ie Brett to the church of Knill. In the quinzaine of Easter 2 I Ed-
ward III (1347) the manors of Knulle and Upcote with the advowson 
of the church of the manor of Knulle were settled by a fine on Ralph 
de Knull and Margery his wife and the heirs of the body of Ralph, and 
if Ralph die without heir of his body, after the death of Ralph and 
Margery to Nicholas de Knulle, Chaplain, for all the life of Nicholas, 
with remainder after the death of Nicholas to Ralph, son of John de 
Brokenbergh, and the heirs of his body begotten, with remainder, if 
Ralph son of John die without heir of his body, to John de Broken-
bergh and Alice his wife and to the heirs of the bodies of them John 
and Alice issuing, with remainder if they die without heirs of their 
.bodies to the right heirs of him J ohn (F.F., Hid 1339 to 1380, File 42, 
No. 13 5). On 3 March 1349 he presented Hugh Ie Brett to the church 
of Knull, which Hugh thus held for the second time. Ralph de Knull 
was dead before 3°  May 1349, the year of the Black Death. 
IX. MARGERY, wife of Ralph, Lord of Byford and Lord of Knull, 
held the advowson of the church of Knill 30 May 1349, when she is 
described as the relict of Ralph de Knill. She died before 4 July 1349. 
X. EDMUND DE KNULL: 2nd son of John de Knull, mentioned in 
Assize Rolls aforesaid. 
XI. JOHN DE KNULL:3rd son of John de Knull, presented 1308 by 
his father to the church of Knull as John fitz John de Knul!. Witnessed 
the charter aforesaid as John, son of John de Knull. Mentioned in 
Assize Rolls aforesaid. 
XII. SIR NICHOLAS DE KNULL: Rector of Knull in I 3I 7. Presented 
to the church of Knill on 4 July and 25 August 1349 and 27 November 
1359· 
XIII. ALICE: wife of John de Brokenbergh, sister, and in her issue, 
heir of Ralph de Knul!. Mentioned with her husband in F.F. 13 Ed-
ward III. 
XIV. JOHN DE BROKENBERGH: by a fine in 13 Edward II between 
John de Brokenbergh and Alice his wife and Robert de Brokenbergh, 
Parson of Wroxhale (Wraxhall), lands, &c., in Hempton, Tokynton, 
Wynterbowone, and La Lee were settled on John and Alice and the 
heirs of J ohn (Fine, 13 Edward III). 
XV. JOHN DE BROKENBERGH : second tenant in tail 1347, dead 1390. 
XVI. ALICE: wife of John de Brokenbergh (see XV), mentioned in 
the Knill Fine 1347. . 
XVII. RALPH DE BROKENBERGH: Lord of North Wraxhall in 1361 
(Sarum Institutions) and of Knill on 1367. In a de Banco Roll (Easter, 
48 Edward III, m. 53 d, Glos.) Ralph de Brokenborgh sued Richard de 
Cheselden of Co. Devon for debt. In another de Banco Roll (Hilary, 
Knill and WalshalJl jamilies oj Knill 
2 Richard IT, m. 223 d, Glos.) there is a suit between Ralph Broken-
borgh and John Tasker and Joan his wife as to lands, &c., in Almondes-
bury and Tokynton. He presented to the church of North WraJ,hall 
1361,1378,1384 and to the chantry of North Wraxhall 1379, and to the 
church of Knill 1367 as 'Ralph de Brokenbergh, Lord de Knull'. 
Appears to have died in 1390, when the presentation to the chantry 
lapsed to the bishop. He clearly left no male heirs, and there were no 
other male heirs of his father, for the manor of North Wraxhall with 
the rights to the advowsons was then divided between the descendants 
of the three daughters of John de Wroxhale and his first wife Joan 
Peverel in accordance with the terms of the fine of 1317. In a de Banco 
Roll (Michaelmas Term, 20 Richard II iote 102) Ralph is stated to have 
died without heir of his body. 
XVIIT. ELEANOR: (K. 6 Visitation, Heralds College) 'daughter and 
heir of John de Brokenbergh of Knill'. 
XIX. JEVAN AP REEs of Elvael or JEVAN GOCH (pp. 59, 63). This 
is the John ap Rees ap Jevon of the Heralds College, K. 6. 
XX. RICHARD AP JEVAN, Lord of Knull: in 1415 there is a pardon 
of outlawry to a man for not appearing at the King's Bench to answer 
Rees ap Jevan of Knulle and Richard ap Jevan, Lord of Knull, for a 
plea of debt (Cal. Pat. R., 2 Henry V, pt. I, m. 6). Held the knight's 
fee at Byford 1398, when described as 'Richard de Knull', and in 
I.P.M. 1425, when described as 'Richard Ie Knyll'. W. P. Baildon 
regards the fact of Richard's holding the Byford knight's fee, which was 
not mentioned in the settlement, as very strong evidence of his being 
the heir of the blood of Knill (see XXIT below). 
XXI. REEs AP JEVAN GOCH OF ELVAEL: presented to the church of 
Knill twice in 1391. Mentioned in a pardon of outlawry (Cal. Pat. R. 
I407, 28 A) as Rees ap Jevan of parts ofElvael. In another, 13 February 
1415, as Rees ap Jevan of Knulle, and in the Berkeley Charters as Rys 
ap Evan, the father of John Knull. 
XXII. JOHN KNYLL or KNULL: presented to Knill church (John 
Knulle) in 1428 and again with his wife Alice (J ohn and Alice de Knill) 
in 1431. In the Berkeley Charters (Smyth's Lives, vol. 2, p. 203) it is 
stated that John Knulle, son of Rees ap Evan, held a quarter of the 
manor of Brokenborow, which extended into the townships of Tock-
ington, Almondesbury, &c. It is therefore clear that John Knill was 
heir of the blood of Ralph de Brokenbergh, and it is he who comes first 
on the Heralds College Visitation Pedigree of 1569 (cf. XX above). 
XXIII. WILLIAM DE !<NuLL: mentioned in two charters, formerly 
at Knill, 28 Henry VI and 5 Edward IV, 1449 and 1465, as Lord of 
Knull. Presented to Knill church in 1459, 1466, and 1467, described 
as Lord of Knill and Armiger. Fought at the battle of Mortimer's 
Cross 3 February 1461 as Sir William Knylle (William of Worcester, 
Itinerarium, quoted in Evans's Wales, p. 123). 
The Knill and Walsham Families 
XXIV. JOHN DE KNELL: son of William de Knull, mentioned in a 
charter formerly at Knill dated 1471 as 'Lord of Knulle, son and heir 
of William Knulle'. He is described as John Knill the elder (II Ed-
ward IV). 
XXV. GWENLIANA v. Hoell Griffith Vaughan (Plea Rolls, Radnor 
No. 21, 2 Eliz. I: Two suits; Henry ap Thomas and GwenJiana his wife v. 
Bola Vergh John; and Thomas Knill v. Griffin ap Hoell Gough; also in later 
suit 12 Sept., I James I). Many generations of the pedigree are given 
in these Plea Rolls . 
XXVI. HUGH KNILL: mentioned in the aforesaid charter as 'Hugh 
Knulle, my brother'. 
XXVII. JENKIN KNILL OF KNILL: mentioned with his mother 
Gwenliana and his son 'John Knill the Sheriff' (Radnor Plea Rolls, 
No. 21, April, 2 Elizabeth I. Also mentioned in the will of John 
Bradshaw of Presteigne 1538). 
XXVIII. ANN: wife of Jenkin Knill, daughter of Sir Richard 
Devereux. The printed authorities give her as co-heir, and her father 
as the second son of Walter, Lord Ferrers, K.G. 
XXIX. WILLIAM KNILL: son of John de Knell. (Plea Rolls afore-
said; two suits April, 2 Eliz. I and I Eliz. I; Eleanora Knill v. John Knill). 
Ancestor to the families of Knill of Evenjob and Knill of Womaston, 
who can be traced down to 1740. 
XXX. JOHN KNILL OF KNILL, M.P.: son of Jenkin Knill, bought 
estates during year of second marriage in Bettws, Llanbister, and 
Berchop, Co. Radnor (Fines, 21 May, 2 and 3 Philip and Mary). 
RODE&RODDoftiEREFORDSHIRB Sh(ct L 
<D \ViLli,run,delG,'"Rode ®l«sino.L:ldt"Rodc, ®-:R09cl-dda,'Rode 
livinJt'.'1t<ruL I~~'~~~~-\"t:,~d~~:~~~d, twinj 1:"50 , . t'Vl"8 I~,o . 
~r to ~,on+'bbUI Md, sol", oF iMd, t. Au' thm ww., uv tltt nrt'" oF-e", l\odt,Tj,rd\",d.shlrt, 
to GIMllS .. Mortt"',," ' .n<0l'rtSw9n<. 
1'<rMp"o,U,<tlivo"" 1:"9v. 
~ @ @ @ 
~ohri-~~~~---14~~-~~~d; - -1)~~ii~j;~~-1V~lt 
IwUtgIH1./3 p',rhjtj>,.SQ ",,1V[uttLda, Ckrlv. !j,ymg "9JflIJo+. ~dtL(!; 
minor, o.l.rut "{,,14w [wing 11.95: wlt~I<Ul<i,Q< Fe« "'1Mt""~ .. 1<o&;..nd. 1toU-c" lWl<u\ 
Stapleton.. wtch.1.Md,aLsoa.t: e.~On\l.Mttr: (\(;.rtonun,stl.r; towhlc£J;o- 11;9'2, ,...., !33'5, 
C,onu"''''17 -P'f"l W1l~II"'!l' J"""d~; <l/I&: p,rn.ps "" '34<1, 
WlttUS5, om tuUU1v CDN.t{ . a.t £.I0..,  ~M.. ;>'bb" of W~n\Ort , 
~Ohh~~~~- - - -------~b~~~~~~l 1lO~la,lW<k 
twh IMa..u.Sc.Bnnvcl. ,Co. living ""th.'ldvC<nnIl'l,~ : liv"'j 13J7. 
Gl05. , . '1 lfi.I~O+. I : 
Allo,p rob<b41. tIu, johlJo, "" , Q) 1 
~~~nn: of did,. . ilort(R6Ic. "Nuh,olQS --PlUlip '"Rode 
dt" U\..' "RoCk of W,sn<ll, ",<rJ4l\o .. 
hM.1..,J,«tiCA."Roa... W"'!)I 'lJ} 
~ I ® t 
I I . I I 
'Willirun,dtlu,1\odt lto8C1"dtk.'1odt ~ohn, ddo..'"Rode:> WCUUv 
1",,"8 lIlT oF1',mbri<4Jo.lZutsnl<ln livuljJlll7. wn<",~. 
IVlULalll '"Rode orlhom\l$ ddo.. convUI«« (.na. t< Iu. so",. 
[,vms 1+38 "" c.. Mil<.,m <Uj --,., 1M 
be d'<S1Imt pors"". l' JW 
r------~--- - - _ - - -~-~-'~~~- __ , 
Eduiurd:ROQ{ jcnkmM <k WQlru-ltO& 5olmdda.'Ro<k % =A.91US 
IWln3 I5S9, I5J9,ruu(· livi"B '.539· 0.1603. 
"T"''''' liV'M 1)7.7 LUlLL llJQ , I VJlth) [Md:~r.a.." Rodt. nn..d.lrultib!¥ock.-,It(Ql-" 'l • l""t<igtt<. 
I , 
l-1"81vddo..M M "" 1vfr u;gurct 'WalUr'RoQt 5runes orjolm1 W& 
"bu",,< •d..  ',f"lo .t<.m plo ' .t1 >'''-1 -d.uqh.t<r'o" f "-, "so-n-o-f HW,it_er, '""'.~  of-1'" ,bridIS<'  'f·" Robinson.. P.  8, [Wlplo:.Ort<1'<'$fl( . 
"36/ )7 
I 1 
Sh«t'li 1v[clt9ertj "'n,ir"", ~Qqn cfW",.v<r', -P'l b. I+6J. 0.1,6". m.80lutE.dwm,oF 
l.lflo-:\VU[(Um Ev(Sh.run lV\":-c{Ol"CO}l,,,r;,rd 'f .y""',(hl-6.1+]7. 0.15 67 
P.l$O cf "Roll1mon. I J- 28 ,. 
GENEALOGY OF THE ROD E -R ODD 
FAMILIES OF HEREFORDSHIRE 
Authorities : 
Duncumb (supplementary): Grimsworth Hundred. 
Robinson : Mansions and Manors of Herefordshire. 
Weaver: Visitation of Herefordshire and extensions. 
Blount: cf. D.N.B. regarding his history of Herefordshire. 
Carless Calendar, see notes in text. 
Presteigne Parish Registers. 
Depositions under Commission 1668-1740' 
Public Record Office file E/l34. 
Other original sources in P.R.O. and collections as noted in text. 
NOTES TO SHEET I 
1. WILLIAM DE LA RODE. With John de Cumba, witness to sale of 
land at Presteigne by William de Fraxino (alive 1244 and 1260) to Dame 
Gladys de Mortimer: also witness to another transaction of same. Also 
witnessed Thomas de Frarino's charter, granting land to Wigmore 
Abbey in 1244. Therefore born 1220. Also concerned with land at 
St. Briavel's, Co. Glos., 1280--90, and with the sale of Adam de Rode's 
lands at Leominster, see (5) below, unless this William is the William 
Ie Clerk at (4) below. 
2. ROGER DE LA RODE and REGINALD DE LA RODE: alive respectively 
1256and 1250. Associated with Kinnersley. May be Rode(s) of Cheshire. 
The former was fined for a 'transgression' at the Presteigne Manor 
Court. 
3. JOHN DE LA RODE : had lands at Eyton near Leominster in 1243, 
and in Suffolk in 1250. The land at Eyton was in the King's hands in 
1243 when he may have been a minor. A John dela Rode, and probably 
the same one, was witness in 1295 to the age of Geoffrey Cornwall of 
Stapleton. In 1292 an action was brought by William 'Rudd' against 
John 'Rudd'. In 1300 John Rode conveys land at St. Briavel's, Co. 
Glos., to various persons. This is also most probably one of the Johns 
who figure as free tenants on the Stapleton Roll. 
4. WILLIAM LE CLERK DE LA RODE. Alive in 1293 and 13°4, on the 
Stapleton Manor Rolls. He succeeded to the land at Leominster held 
by Dom Adam Rode; Clerk, 'deceased'. The William of this transaction, 
a free tenant at La Rode, on account of ages and dates is probably not 
the William at (I) above. He had a son, Thomas, who had a 'kinsman' 
Roger Rode of Pembridge. Thomas was alive in 1377, and a Roger 
became his heir in 1438. William was awarded a claim by the Escheator 
in 1313, but the William who was fined for perjury at Presteigne in 
1340 is probably a later William. William Ie Clerk is, however, very 
likely the clerical who was prebendary at Pontes bury in 1320-2. 
2.86 The Rode-Rodd Families 
5. ADAM DE LA RODE, or Dom Adam Rode, a clerk, a free tenant of 
La Rode in the Stapleton Rolls of 12.93 and 1304. Had land at Leo-
minster which William (probably 4) sold to Roger de Mortimer on 
Adam's demise, which conveyance witnessed by Dom Adam de Bray, 
abbot of Wigmore. This Roger de Mortimer was probably the Roger 
who succeeded Edward de Mortimer, which puts Adam's death about 
1330. 
6. HENRY DE LA RODE and Matilda his wife. Land at Lucton and 
Leominster 12.95 and 12.96. 
7. NICHOLAS DE LA RODE, shown as father of John de la Rode in the 
Carless calendar of Deeds. He held Rode of Stapleton. 
8. JOHN DE LA RODE. Son of Nicholas, conveyed land at Rode to his 
S(;>n John and Caecilia his wife, the lands in the will which his father 
held before him-witness Thomas de la Rode, son of William Ie Clerk. 
9. WILLIAM DE LA RODE living 1379, a brother of John de la Rode, 
who married Caecilia (Carless Deeds). 
10. JENKIN RODE or JENKIN A RODE is a bit of a puzzle. Offhand the 
date of his death (will proved 1546) makes it unlikely that he was a 
contemporary of Edward Rode (living 1559-97) and Walter Rode 
(ob. 1603) who look, and other evidence supports, as if they were con-
temporaries of Hugh de la Rode. Either there were two Jenkin Rodes 
on which evidence is conflicting or Edward and Walter Rode must 
move down one generation to that of Hugh de la Rode (cf. Chap. VII 
and appendixes thereto). 
t-lU GH '"ROn1) :='/VfA'RGt\'R£T, 
ofdu""RoM. d,o fWo.tkml 'ria RODHTRODD~et1fOrdshirt Sh«t ll. 
f.WiJlg 155. & 1507. 
0.16 01." btif'. 6.t"Pr.tS((~nt. of''Naslv, 
O . 159 b , bur.a.t'"Pru~M. 
-wOlttr'Roddt 'lidwd ""Rodd- :<A81\£5l Zatlwnn( 
ofl'mu!cn,M<f, 'RA<i<V, ,~f lo,w,s,. ,Col,l<,v,,,n,.,,, of I ""Shourr"'J'vfi\~ 5io~ cU.iabtth."1", S olmilt~ 16 o~ ' S"''''l 'WilWiml tcdd.~ 0. 3'b·1'oUtuwli>r' 1-IuBfv '"RoM. =' ""borodu[]alWci S(i~MKs}lric(1\odd.", Jvrru;q~ £con.1utrooruu u16.r0a9.,-n1,6;1J.&. "Rodd., iIlh<riw{,lTOmhi5 wi ¥ri<£ts ' , 0 Totnu b.15' S 0v.u1l.5w6l6ft. . oof. Na3+' 'h . of 'NoM •.w t.«lvh, ..h .n., 'ronis nllt. ~-y(d~ofbif"th,W\- eo:DtvolV. ' 16b~lt~  · tutfr(lm.humotiul-:' m. JS98/9 Ti~mo.ni«thulsti .f~ W: J,'~8~}:. u. 1 £ivins 16'7. )Q{f-"}'. ...~ otfi':1a~:(lL: i;J., j9;o.(f'ant: 163</6. . pr:v:l"~l5/', 0. 1631-" wift.;Ali«.Goma, II \Yilt. "b". .".. "" 15 $0 C:~~~~7 'WUlirun "8"", (1 ,166-4-. t , 
•. 1595· '''9<· ~1Wdd."" "Barbarcv \V\l.Uam" 
W<ill.ir un 
::= 
b"" .•.1 61l. bw'i<d. "!4l ....n w-- 1tOdd-' ""Mru'l Sir' ~ruOO !\odd, Z; ISli wift. G1'Q({ 
""'t<i<ln<, =' WllJ;pro. of~r'\vuu.m, l'nU(,'w",in. ofooww. JOb!ts, Gl .'Dtvon. . Mar-l{ 
•. 159 .• ,.,• . ~...rord.I~]l lU,.klwm..or IOt'Md.,6+! d<UXjIitO'oi' jrumS~M =' '"M~ ~;1~d5It~S8 ·"Bn~~ 3rJ.wihp ()(011tt-
lll{,, Wtt!v TiU1h,Slwr\tt~ ~"'sMn., Co. fo, t.wt.",,' ~t1J1~ 'H~~°i\;;rrllf'D'~, Ib~. it~~ ~lf of');". I -P~btuUse,. ~odlt \6.)~;;,,~i;'''ii'ii: 1),,""'.0 .. "". T1It 1\0<1&. b. lbI)6. 0,1681. . nus ·nh~\,.uFfom ::;, 1636, b li9J1' t..cfnstt'S"". "lnh<;;'uJ?Ntw'lWnor& ,_ 1~~1~r- 01' """nrtStW"~ WIdow, "7~ o.s.p. 
';·TfiD'·Vaughan. r""tJ.,ch!tw, Ul-"1' -~!o;:t~fr.m;lWf""'( 'DtV01\J. ~~~ ~S~~~~~\V (I~lbd1.. Co.'Dcvon;. 
~.I6t" ""'lon<V,~a 
".0: ~.... "' <dutqumt ,'.6. ,J,"':1J'~~~~ b 16'1.6. '"""'KuI!! . I).IOJO. WiUI",~I"l' 
ttt~st.fJt~,~t SontsU.Vols'9 . ""JUdwd, "N1). J'1.t-. tx<tw. 
•. 1599/"00. 'P, 
r.1~o.rcti' 
b.lbQ:1/l-<. I 
,.'d'dr<I',._ F~ "" WiUUun, EWm.bcdv d -So.mjJft#( lWdd, I 
~Mgo.nti 'Willnusltll ,]rUfstt' nq.)• .1 ",,,iq1l( l$tWt ft , .f 1vfai-q",UwruiL ilu,ltoU,1 1trtford., ,," janw'"Rodd."" O{~ ~Or-(\(t "MargtU"(t; 
b.16, •. ' . lb'9, ~lb97' 0.5]- ~t.:;..'t';)" , """Shw'of of- O.kha'l ond, Sruk< Gu,,,,,. .~:.r'w , SpOUr{ TIW S"",,<L1j.tl!. 
'o<>of$uhop 't~~'J(" Ccl~< . ofW«1r'1{"". I """h.t<.-.J)fs.-: b.,6St:. ' . 1667· Oxfon/ ~t~~:;,LV ofT,...artha, b.1653. W{U''-<lm."1!1MtW. 0.16J. 0.,b9~/+, ~~ ~1J 
~1Ul.t; or' 1fall of Ex<ftr AC~~' ilu.l \:Odd. fro", Co.nevon-. Co. ComwIlLV. •. !OJ) , j G<rStDi>, yE1(;wah nl. ofN"h 
oluutilt Ri<h'nr RoU.sp.n orTlu9h, Ub.lboS. 0.1&05. Rot!« C W\ijndlV. =~;r~ Ob.l1b7S031~  1~Jdtf(OM~L  
~h. '""Ricwd or'Robcrr ,F h",r:' 
',"07' , Y '.".io 
'Walw' g-'""RoM, 6os~1v~ dd. --p, runpf4 uu. 0"[6JO. ""RodQ II =" ~ 
{~~~~~1b3(,. ,f ExITlDUll, ,f S"'k, eruw", ."Thello.!.! E-t~Q ~M( := Fnulci.s'ltcdi =? tnru "Mru-tt 1VlUlrun =- ~o1umna. veltrudt 1vfo.ry "'J o.s'1' mhc.ru:td.ftollVlusfn.dw-:" ~~~~ .f1-l1""""" ",wife, b. '6') . o~ 2n.!wmF S£oure-'~d~ I iorttscuc Copp,leStone b 1(,61. olJ'lS 1"",aP o S . p. 
§imolt,ol'" "'don",,! ~i~on~~  fnh~7rr~l\nJ\(v.s(o ~~f~m ro~~~~ ~:t~~o~ 
Jto«d, 
.f Comw.u.. from IW b,- ofN~"'htd fr_l!.dc( 
"of\\~~' i.l~d~ m!](l t.- ~~t ·tu~~;t~~~ ~~\ ' ~~~~.' 
~X~bi~·~39. o. IJ 80 . s,wl~ . ~~1~~1. -~ht;t~(~ 
Y' 
c~ </,I,iUl\la; =:;/ <fhwphU.u.s Ti • .L ~'"' .. "" "Rod .. of 
tJ.IO,S Mq =-~olm Iv\(. GI'~=, SltQr~", +o thtrdrulflhttrs fxtrtl- \uui Trcba.rdw. O.S f jrun:~ rOIWa£R.odd. '"MwtiL CtruJ1,(V 
Co'D",,,, m. 712 I l'~~rt.c. Salop J'" I ft'uf Col..ntol tBrt~(. ~LJJ:~~~~~~~: ~(~~~~~ ' Gc 1-\,,,fonl' c..mtu\u.~ hHU 1.tI.u, Dtvon of Dod4<l~mb<"'S"." 1Xv. . ..,,'" 
0.n9+ a.tI4.c"ntw.til bI7I11. O.IJ&tt ~~. 
g~~~~,,«< tlai .'11< ,/ rld \~SW at~ (l4nds. LtonUll5t(i" Doxmport; Ci> Co "'Htrtford 
S~ 
1t.ODE\;RODD 1f11U"tfordshtrt Shccrnr 
SI( Shu"]! I It M,1'rI£R.oM ~ lvfru,'".g"QW fIW'C,t', "" ",, d % Sir-U<I ""I" ""1"'1,o'l.dcFt ". R..o..r uL l1liAh'Mdi i-"bOrOciU,f, .. (.U9'l"trMd
of-'\V'3 Mll-. of 5o'n,ll.Lw. ,fTh. Gro,,<.oo. '""1\t":,, , "" "" .. ,,) I.., 'M<rs,"i~~:. ' 1 '!,~7~. :"ror<L .;:tt=~" '",i   
b " 5J~, "NOtt ntrtl\n.«"rl'.1t,,{Ji"i~ ihrisw\.d, Jv[OM\Otlth.4J1", ~,",r""', w(, 
cu.l'rtSWsn< .•fM ""!,',,wii't. d.u8·t<rf~., 6t3(~~ ,6,,-, I Grov, , "'. oF1-1mfor<L, " ~.'lj'ru·,f nom.,;l'\:Ii"" m.,~ ')v[,p. ,:  rtftr {\'i mt mDt.hcr ~f ~n(.or",Ort. ~.fth(. 
•. , bt] ""til pnM. LWint! ,6~;' l"IwoM.i.lf1ni. •n,  l.w,ol(U\.!u.  ~,,,, &. "~M'N"<"wlh"i"s"  Conunon CounClt I. . .166+-\f\fl(N.«' fintd,., <l<1,nqu(llt 10+9. ,r  J'lIow,'j i\l~,(,~". dcildrtn, 
c.-P.C. I 
'-------. 
wdiur- 5~l Wdd.~ 1tnn.t l1~h lWdd. PI.lf, l\i.chunrRodd; 
I 
~ofu~l todd,,,, wift ChriStollMi '"I  S;"'nu,,(hW"of- -:;a.;IW =' Thomusl\od.{, =' "Ma.rgru-tt:, of N,w~ JUl,~ b.,h9 ...l 'rur<itlot. ~- 'Annt, born'lh}.'l>fCtltII1M{itl. ltOM orW'8no.l~M&. \ ~httr tst.w( oF- Foxl,'1 Mil, "M0lt-ht otMo.n!<n. I "0- Jtorut "'"h. .V Moorc d"9hui-'or~ : II. d((4.oflllo, ,~ncrGr\\l\dmothtr. 
b. "'o. 'N.w~ oF ~'"" b. ,6t5, llrtJW9~ Juwwn, 1\''I9 niRodA. from b.1631,1Irtsrclgnc. kllOwn b ,b'7 ofl\."1l'<p<,co d..ug'"r •• d,,,Ml,..f' --5,ffri<s, co. 'H,rtford. of 
b.I." .. of1'ucl«t. S<ttlol,IN11"tford> FriJ.",,%, 
, H""ill.thl.,( 
("RodA.) 
""ll.o.I; l'f(st(lS"'. o.t6 99 , lllU-\d.iry 1'r(5t''5l_ I 'Hml'ot1L, "ho S,c TOom", -whlt""1 l-J,rtForo,.0. 16Jl, Mton.,c.o1-l<- : m" "R~chi1.rd SCI\bl\llI' In ID2S. 
1'ru~n • . lUcortUdl\.tivins m.'.,+. w',rtJh.w"'~1IS W.lmosl'4 fort., 00 0 , 'H",for~c.uJu, . wMcUsor«orrt«l oFWh;""4 bur.I\t.'H""'lto'" -rJorl, M,{, I 
w!HJ U 11~"," RO'!&ihiM.r- MLLtlispO$,.!,ofit to -k.1. •. p_ '09+' .,\""i"8,,,,,,r- ",. 16)4-/ 5' . ~,hOl' ,,,,.low of---' ~- '\l\Jn.lsl\odd..,rWII,bnl~t , _w:l1,bO!1jJh'1;m,- 1\""'I'f'jl.(ilt'.'!'J. -rittt a...st.stu'oP biley ",,,",.., '.S1. Willi<llTV , ~(rdi)rd. b. 160.9. In "11',d8tt'; 
_btrl,q,col-ltrtfor&" J-i<!wd,w" F,bal>QI l\iduu,(,1 {o r< W'ittlngt:<l1V. : I""" I J, Eli,.b,th"lS :!nm~ . 
'b7~.fI,li.v"i&9, fi n,'DMlvi<r",f- 14' of lInnsop,(O n\.l6)', I 
.,sc"b,d."'93W w .II"oJ7'M&'wlU 71f:501"d" .. •. .nJ~ ~-fr(lJ1(cs,."JI . ~1.I9 . ']'5,wComll,p. H(""O]'/3. : m.lt,s"l ltrtfoni 0' S"ft~" 
1I;\I\J\.(IEI3+, whw o.s·V· : WiIL/""",«",,,, HI!") 
•o vw,a"'8to"": 0' 
~-Nfnr9~I·lj,b. '616,0<n"''''''''I· 
EliZahtth.;; ~ ohn, A nilt ~ 1'1{ttindl, l\ob'itl todrl l.tY.~ohn. . =o 'Mutt{ TIwI1}4S \1wrnt Thoinus Christop.htr 'l\obcrtl\(ld.d:o 
I 
AIlJUl., 
I Conkanct Anne !vf~aro; ElA:zub,dv 
I 
SOt..W I "rllif b. '07' ..... ,tlurs! ) ltOad. Itodd; ltoad Itodd. !todd ,f "xl"l SopftUl., b. ,b ;I. b 10)9 m Inmbukn< "".1""",Gr!!""4, ~-5MC.b. "1'l/3 . 
fiiuh. 1'rt5["9I11: b.,07"" I)+b. nm ""'4 -ProWl<! bill',,",", b ,63J",Wh"""I .t.,fTho •.W ..u. o. ,OSS. mAC"" Gwilli[m.oP ,on.ofStrW.tliMJ , m. Ed'IkIn( 1\t.<,rn.ot&',.,.1 Court, 
.~ b!u-ll,,,fo.,(, n.vtb.m u.mttof- l'r"tUg"" ,.,611 ,,,,Y.lO'" ofW"",ford,co. ~8"U. 'WtlM9ro~; (0. G"B0M[.'-~"'o : rI",ford .'D. C. L. Ci1Iln«U.roF-
o. •. p. c.uhtdroJ,. ,f MOth,r r.1.dWj. "79' 11 .."  .• nd ru"J Tlwnw C"·p ..u rofT,\- 1-1",fonL. of lit. ""'''",,, : t~t 1),ocu< of It,,huw-: 
wiu<",~WIlh wif. , '099 ~ ",,,vi.fi,d.uh.ot -liAgto"" CO.1-!",Ford. E __ ) of1iow(4ptl.,<o 
-p,.'bmdMI, Hiw.m. '7 0 +-' Sir'Wliv.w".F son of Ilo~ Corp'1«(r of l«lM, 1i",hn{.. ~-1-i(rb(l't 'RoM, ,'ibt, 
Mil, \{.ror,\- 'W',kluun.. co}!""". l-iomlM llUw~"', 'M<l m'A .i<lto.r,v : s.p. 
Sr.1'mr's Ch·. 0109'. b.u:'H",-
C.t""'"' ,hrul. ,~s«< , o. "}'). Wu:ll(rsron<of-lBwghllL,(O l-l,MnL. -ford. o.lbn· ~--l)tborult. ' . 161+, OJ iSS. 
1 I\\.WUll<Iln 0,",,,, ofllnn,op,iU Frnnccs.=o lUv. WIllium l\(Y. ~oltn."Rodd ,'U ., ~I Chri- AIUV riw( =' ltobcrt1 '1\.C~ 1\nn'Soph.W.:=; 'Vtllw.m Wcu'rulllr fruhc~s t\l 1-1 ~w ...l .wlf(.I"". . "M.'S". ... ,h'b<J; ~~~ :0 CXQn.d", """wil\.l]l1of-Wuh",,,., ,p Ed w..-d",,!Mn ~. '7'; 50mmcuUs 1Urtorofl.rtD~o",tlu.1l0llh. StUln. b. '] 01. £WinS']'6. of (i.tocto ll,nbiS'" m. '061. 1 <4rlvofAppuis 
m 'J33. ofE""'''' ... , <0. c.o.w.rwWv. o. '779, m.,6J9. '"'" LMrot F<»:l<~ o. ']3]. of tlu.w ..nto.rs 
"f'lIotttr, .. , Shoul<. 
D.p,,"1 Moswf.1n6tol 
o. ']99."8ul Oxfonl b 1)0+. 0 . ']8~ ,,,,1\.,.,,,,,. <ul\1U'Um Et.putwUh, lJ.u-on,oFth,b<'<qu'~ ,f'wru-tiow-c..tl, MUIC IUldtr Tho"", ~_ Edwur<t'Rodd,ofl-luo-
bur.w lur~~ b.IDSJ. l;'w1(cnstI\,9tof1 90; o b.to" '7'2.. 1 w. . t..,_ .tIJ<\ "",fN"" ... . b., 6", !wins 
l-l."forl!. 8tn1U\l1.;n., bur:", Y= ? tid. (Hut. ,6151, .bcforlIJ'~' 
C.tWr<l11 -W..t< m . ~'IU1. .•< tIwul_'fRwUuU, 
'H"'WfU(. two ."shtlJ1 ","'mom<d.~j (iwilLjm of Wo",iwth" PI"r", ~OM.ltoddT 1v'\:UM.1 Ann Hiza.bctlv TiWI1UlSl 'r-i.a. I1V(tLlltT omkyn&l't-u:c =' ?t1lM Cu.clj '7 -SrunpFtjld.t 1\.odd IT 'b6l ·~WI'''',T1wmtu,wlw 
GallitrS Sur81OT\', o. '7'3. b.17S}. o. 'lSI. b. ,610. • . I) 06. of F'xWl 1c!  ,","co. S" Sh«t II W4. ,t- ~ ~oxl<4' v,.{, 1).p. 
.fEvun- "'''' .. i.,,",,, 
F""""Iw<,wbol, b ,6.;. ofran{, 
IlL 
"lInttorv. '" G"", ... 0.' p. M 1'. For W. .b l'4 =Artlt",--
unkr Comm II ;o"U'" 
o. lIS!. V • 'Jb+. 'Akv.,i11>· Som'I'SIC 
'V 
'V 
1-l"", is"". whuh mtk~ in.i\«,,,,,",,, 11 •• ~'" <It FllJ(lt~ 1i"~""""'''''"''''91u:""". Sh«'11 
'--
INDEX 
A, at, atte, de, significance of, 72, 146. Boitune, manor of, 47, )2, 54-59 
Achel, see Oakhill. pass.; see By ton. 
Ackhill manor, 73-74, 142. Bordars, 49. 
early fields of, 109, 114, 116. Boroughs created by William I, 4I. 
Agriculture: arable, dependent on Boundaries: Eng.-Wales (by Offa's 
physiography and geology, Dyke) 20-22; in 1°55) 30; (in 
9-Il , 15, 96, 97· 1063) 30, 68. 
cattle, 14. field tracks, 96. 
changes in, 13-14. formed by woods, 12. 
continuity of, 2, 15, 89, 160-1, Herefordshire (t . 1270),68,136-8. 
279· manorial, 62-63; see maps I and 2. 
early cultivation, 90, 92-93, 96-97, parish, 22, jl, 62-63, 68, 70. 
98-99. Bovarii,49' 
farming systems, 89, 93, 160-1. Bradele de, Bradleghe de, Bradley de, 
in l)th cent., 160,279. see Bradley family name, 63,156. 
in 16th cent., 13 , 160, 279. Bradlege manor, 47,5°,)2,54,55. 
in 17th cent., 279. identification of, 58-63; see Rodd. 
in 19th cent., 13-14, 160. Bradley fields, barn, fold, 61-62, 63, 
modern methods, 14, 92, 96. . 86. 
ploughing, 90-91, 92-93, 96-97. Bradnor Hill, 66. 
sheep-rearing, 14, 279. Bradshaw, John I, 172, 225, 232, 
See also banks and ditches; enclo- 237-40 pass. 
sures; fields. Roger, 225, 240-I. 
Alured of Marlborough, 26, 28, 37, John II, 243. 
38, 39 nn. 14 and 17, 4I. Brampton Bryan, 67, 247. 
Amberley manor, 273, 274, 275. Braose, de, family, 36, 41, 134, 136. 
Archenfield, 24, 29, 39 n. 14, 79. Bravonium, see Leintwardine. 
Ariconium, see Weston under Pen- Bremesse, Hundred of, F, 37. 
yard. Broadheath (La Hethe), 6, 58, 138, 
Arkhull, see Oakhill. 25 8. 
Arrow, Valley of, 5, 6, 22, 34. Broadhurst Bridge, 62. 
Asche, Asbe de, Asshe, Ayshe family, 'Brompton' church inventories, 246-
138 n. 5; see Nash. 7· 
Ashley Vallet, 21, 86, 95, 189, 194. Bromptone (Bruntune), de, Brian, 
Ashton manor, 78. 137,13 8. 
Assandune (Ashingdon), battle of, 20. Eynon, 128, 144, 157. 
Attecroft, see Oatcroft. Walter, 155. 
Auretone, see Richard's Castle. Bron fair, 68; see also place-names. 
lane, 68, 86, 189. 
Badlands, 156. Bronze Age, the, 16. 
Banks and ditches, 75-77. Bruntune, manor of, 47, 50, )2,54, 
Barland, 134. 55; see Little Brampton. 
Barons' War, the, 165, 167. Brut, the, 2 I. 
Baskerville of Hergest, 179. Building, la, 13, IF, 164, 185,258. 
Belleme, Roger de, 133. Builth, 2,4. 
Bernoldune, manor of, 46. markets and fairs, 237-8. 
Bodenham, 47. Burcher Wood, 95. 
Bohun de, family, 36, 41, 131, 134, Burfa Hill, 5, 6. 
136, 142, 157· camp, 16, 20, 22. 
288 Index 
Burford, Barony of, IZ5, Iz8, IZ9. Combe, de la, John, 137, 138, 139. 
priest's house ZI8. Commonwealth, the, and Protecto-
Burlingjobb, manor of, 39 n. 8, 45, rate, 215, zI6, 245, 255-6, 265, 
46, 66, 143. 275· 
Burnt House, ZZ, 85. Constables, 178. 
By ton bog, 5,6,57,87. Cornubia, de, Cornwall family, 
church, zzo. 130-1, 143, 164, 174, ZI7, 242-3, 
manor, 57, 87, IF, 152· 244· 
Woodhouse bank, 5,6 ; see Boitune. Cotters, 49. 
'Council Oak', the, 45. 
Caen wood, 172. Council of the Marches, 168, 178-9, 
Caersws, 18. 266-7· 
Canons, Augustinian, 221-2, 2z3, 229. Courts : Baron and Courts Leet, 46, 
Cantilu[Je, de, William, 134. 124, 138, 140, 143 n. Z, 151-2, 
Caradoc, 17. 154-5, 157, 168, 172, 176, 189, 
Carter's Croft, 132, 164. 220, 276. 
Carucate, 48. Ecclesiastical, 137, 156. 
Cascob church, 220. Cowarne manor, 33. 
manor, 45, 47, 52, 54, 56, 76; (old Croft, family, 178, 180. 
fields) 109, 113; 128, IF, 220. Cromwell, Thomas, 169, 179. 
parish, 220. Crow's Moor, 95. 
Cascope, see Cascob. Crusades, 133-4. 
Castell Collen, 18. Cumba, de, see Combe, de la. 
Castle Mound (Barland), 17. Curson, de, family, 143-4, 147, 157. 
Castle Nimble, 17, 34, 107. Cutestorne Hundred, manors in, 32, 
Castle Ring, 20. 38. 
wood,17· Cymry, see Welsh, the. 
Cat and Fiddle, 58. 
Charles I, property of, 173. Dark Ages, the, I, 19. 
Chenille, see Knill. David ap Llewellyn, 135. 
Christianity, 19. Dilwyn, 264. 
Churches, Radnor-Presteigne area, Discoed, Discote, church, 220, 227. 
219-20 seq. manor, 24, 45, 47, 52, 54, 56. 
Civil War, 254, 265. early fields of, 75, 76, 109, 113, 
Clatretune, see Clatterbrune. 115-16. 
Clatterbrook, 73. parish, 220. 
Clatterbrune manor, 47, 54, 56, 58, Ditchfield, 12. 
59, 73· Ditch Hill, see Burfa. 
early fields of, 104, 105, 107, fig . 6, Dolyhir quarries, 10. 
113, II), 120, 259. Domesday Book, 24, z5, 27. 
Clifford Castle, 41. Balliol transcript, 43 - et seq., 78, 
de, family, 125. 120, 121, 123, 125. 
manor, 120. References in: 
Clayton, William, 225, 226, 231. hundreds, definition of, 42-48. 
Clun Forest, 6. Hezetre, lists of manors in, 8 I-
glaciatiof), 6 n. I. 82; 32, 37· 
river, 2. manors: granted to Normans, 
Clyro, 19. 33; Hindwell Valley, 42, 47-
Coins, token, 275. 48, I 18; Moreton and Rode 
Combe Bridge, 6, 58. (Cheshire), 198; Mortimers', 
farm, 86. 41; Osbert Fitz Richard's, 47, 
manor, 59, 86, 118, 122, 128, 131, 54- 82,120; taken by William 
152· 1,32-33, 46. 
Index 
Domesday population figures: Eng- Ewyas Lacy (Lad), 28,41, 121, 165. 
land, I) 9; Hercfordshire, 79-80. Eywood, 21, 65-66. 
post-Domesday manors: )9, 6)-
66,86, 106, II8, 120, 122. Ferrers, de, family, 126. 
pre-Domesday manors: held by Feudal System, break-up of, 168-9. 
Harold Godwinson, 3 I, 32, 33, Field boundaries, early, 9, II, 90-93, 
37-38, 38 n. 2,6), 72; held by 6
Fie9ld.s  of Domesday manors (1- 1I' n d Edward the Confessor, 31, -
32; held by Queen Edith, 3 well and Lugg), 93-112. I ; 
held by Norman barons, 3 areas of, 1 13-18, table, I I 3-14. I ; 
Leominster, 66. cultivation of, II 6-17. 
Shropshire Survey, 73, 76. extension fields, 160. 
terminology used in, 48-) 1. hideage assessments, I) 9-60. 0, ) 
Downton House, 109. shape of, 116. 
Dunsaete, 2). Fitz Drogo, Ralf, 26-30 pass., 46-47. 
Dykes, 17, 22 n. 2, 44, I?6-7; see Fit. Hugh, see Scrob, Le. 
O/fa's Dyke and Rowe Ditch. Fitz Os bern, Hugh, see Scrob, Le. 
Fitz Osbern, Earl William, 27, 28, 40. 
Eadric, 'The Savage', 40, 48, p, 73, Fitz Richard, see Scrob, Le. 
Fitz Warin, William, 123. 
79· 
Ealdred, Bishop, 30. Flintsham, 65-66. 
Eardisley, manor of, 32, 38 n. 5,45, Florence of Worcester, 27, 40. 
120,135· FoxIey, 193, 257-73 pass. 
Earthworks, 4,16, 17, 19, 33, 35· Fraxino, de, 138 n. 5, 138-9; see 
Ecology, ste trees. Nash family. 
Education, 232- 4, 245. Frene, de, Fresne, de, 138 n. 5; see 
Edward I, 13), 136. Nash family. 
Edward II, 136. Garnon's Hill, 21, 22. 
Edward III, 136. Geology, Aymestry limestone, 10. 
Edward IV, 141. clay, 10-11. 
Edward the Confessor, 24-32 pass. glaciation, 4-8, 9. 
Edwin, Earl, 36. igneous rocks, 6, 10. 
Egbert, laws of, 24. Silurian shale, 10. 
Elfael, 166,237. Glasbury, battle of, 30. 
Elizabeth I, 169, 173. Gloucester (Glevum), 18. 
Elizabethan Age, the, 2P, 279. Goda, 26 . 
Elsedune (Elsdon), hundred of, 32. Godwinson, Harold, 24-33, 34, 
boundary, 66. . castle of, 33-34, 39 n. 9· 
lllil.nors in, 43-47 pass., 59; lists of, manors of, 38 n. 2,72. 
37, 82-83. sons of, 40. 
Elystan Glodrydd, 21. Godwinson, Swein, Earl of Hereford, 
Enclosures, 13, 160, 279. 
Epidemics, 242,258. 29· Gore, the, 6, 10. 
Erosion, 89, 91. Green Lane, 21, 22, 62,85,87. 
Esses, del, see Nash family. Green Lanes Farm, 63. 
Eustace of Boulogne, 28. Gru/fydd ap Llewellyn, 24, 28-32 
Evancoed, 35. pass., 48, )2, 79· 
Evanjobb, 35. Gwent, 2). 
church, 220. Gwynnedd, 30. 
Ewyas, castle, 16. 
district, 25. Haia, 47, 49, 64, 76. 
Ewyas Harold, 26, 28, 29, 39 n. 14, Hakelutel, Walter de, 143. 
40,41,79, 121, 165 . Hampton Bishop, 266, 273. 
B !l851 u 
Index 
Hanter Hill, 6; 10. modern, 7, 85, 88. 
H arley family, 14, 64, 67, 160, 174, Roman roads, 1"8-19,45,56, 85 . 
243-4, 246, 249, 259· Hindwell Valley, agriculture, 8, 14-
Harold, Earl, see Godwinson. 15· 
Harold H ardrada, 33. early settlement, 15-19, 93-97. 
Harpton (Hartune, Hertune) manor, ecology, II-13 . 
47, 52, 54, 55, 59, 70--72. English area, 23, 164. 
early fields of, 109, II 6. feudal manors, 27, 32, 42 et seq., 
Harpton, Lower (Little), see Lower 45,5 °, 62-63,160,172, 196, II9 
Harpton. et seq.; see also tinder separate 
Harpton and Wolfpits, parish, 219. names: changes under Tudors, 
.Hay, 19, 135· 172, 178; holders of land, 16th 
H aywood manor (Forest de Hay), cent., 182- 97, 202, 203, 204; 
274· 17th cent., 205-10 pass. 
H ecani, the, 20. Hugh I'Asne, 37, 39 nn. 6 & 9, 46, 
H ech manor, see Nash. 73· 
Henry II, 120, 122, 125, 133 . 'Hule', 15 1. 
Henry III, 135. Hundreds (lists of), 37- 38, 43- 48 ; 
Henry IV, 136. see tinder separate names. 
Henry VII, 135, 168. Huntingdon, hundred of, 43, 59, 66. 
H eralds, Visitations of, 171. manor of, 30, 32,45,120,131,135, 
Hercope (Herecope, Herton) manor, 142,144, 157. 
see Lower Harpton. 
H ereford, borough created, 41. Ice Age, 4-6. 
canons, 37, 38. Industries, 159, 184, 196-7, 251,279· 
castle, I, 26. 1thon Valley, 4. 
church (early), 19-20. 
Price's H ospital, 260--1. J ohn, King of England, 134. 
sack of, 29. 
siege of, 255. Kenchester, 18, 85. 
H ereford, Earls of, 133, 135-6 . Kennel Wood, 21. 
H erefordshire County, 25, 26. Kingsland, 19 1. 
boundaries of (Inquisition, c. Kington, 5, 23, 30, 125. 
1270), 44, 164, 167. castle, 17. 
early settlements in, 18-20. manor, 32. 
H arold's manors in, 32. sheep-market, 14. 
Norman castles in, 40. Kinnersley (Kynardesley), 45 . 
problem of hundreds in, 42-47. Hugh de, 148. 
Hergest manors, 66. Kinnerton, 17. 
Ridge, 66. church, 220. 
Herrocks, II, 20, 69, 70, 1°5 . . fields, 101. 
Hertune manor, see Harpton. Kinsham,5· 
H ezetre Hundred, 32, 66, 74· Lower Kinsham manor, 191 , 240, 
manors in, 37, 43- 48 pass., 59, 81. 256-7, 277· 
Hide, 48 , 50. Knapp Farm, 34. 
Highland Farm, 189, 194. Knighton manor, 73 . 
Highways: field tracks, 95-96, 112. sheep-market, 14, 30. 
old manor roads, 85-88, 117. Knill church, 58, 70, 215, 220, 248 ; 
'highway', 71. incumbents (1308, t . 1700),213-
o ld tracks, 56, 57, 76, 95 · 15; parish registers (1585-1662), 
' broadway', 71. 216-17. 
Green Lane, 87. Court, 69. 
turnpikes, 65. farm, 69. 
I1Idex 
Knill manor (Chenille), 24,47,5 0, F, transfers of property, 16th cent., 
54,55,60,66,69,85,142; early 185- 6. 
fields of, 88, 104, II3, II5, 144; value 17th cent., 186. 
muster roll (1538-9), 179, 180; wood,21. 
valuation 17th cent., 186. Little Rodd, see Rodd. 
Knill (Knylle) de, family, 68, 71,128, Litton, manor of, 220. 
144,157, 163,17°,175,180,182, Llanfihangel Nant Melan, 4, 5,6. 
187,188,202,2°3,2°7,2°9,213, Llanthony Abbey, 263. 
21 5, 21 7,225,235. Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, 134. 
arms of, lB. Llynellyn Pool, 87. 
Knill Garraway, 5, 6, II, 22, 68, 69, Lollardry, 249. 
87· Lower Harpton, farm, 105. 
Knobley brook, 4. WOOd,I95· 
Lower Harpton (Hercope, Herton) 
Laci (Lacy), de, 41. manor, 47,50, F, 54, 55, 68. 
Roger, 37, 38, 39 n. 6, 41, 46. identification of, 70-71, 85, IF. 
La Hethe, see Broadheath. early fields of, 105 fig. 5, II6. 
Lakeside Buildings, 6, 69, 85, 105. Lower Lye manor (Lecwe), 74, 
Land Tenure, systems of, 25 1. 77-79, 82, 166. 
La Rode, see Rodd. Ludford,47· 
Lawlessness, 151-2, 179. Ludlow Castle, I, 14. 
Lecwe, see Lower Lye. Lugg, manors 50. 
Leen Farm, 45. river, 2, 3, 6, 40. 
Lege (Elsedune Hundred), 46, fords, 124. 
82. valley, 5, II, 20. 
Lege (Hezetre Hundred), see Lower Lugharnes, 131 ; see Stapleton, manor 
Lye and Upper Lye. of. 
Leintwardine, 18, 85. Lyde (Lloyd) family, 179, 181, 187, 
Hundred of, 73, 76, 125. 188, 190, 195, 202-10 pass., 217, 
Le Mere Greve, see Myrax. 237, 253· 
Lene (Leine), Hundred and manor Lye Court, 146. 
of, 42, 50. Lyonshall, 17, 22. 
Lenteurde, see Leintwardine. 
Leominster, 5. Maelienydd, 34. 
manor, 42, 45. Maes Treylow, 109. 
Ley, the, 77. Magesetenses (Magesaetan), 20, 25, 
Limebrook Priory, 172. 26. 
Lingen, de (Lingain, Lingaine, Lyn- Magnis, see Kenchester. 
gaine, Lynegayn, Lyngeyn),fam- Manor Courts, see Courts, Baron, 
ily, 143, 144, 147, 273. etc. 
John, 137, 138, 143· Manors, evolution of, 23-24. 
Ralph, 128, 144, 157. in Domesday Survey, 25, 32-33, 
Lingen manor, 73. 40-83 pass. 
Priory (Limebrook) 172. Mansell Lacy, 260, 264, 270. 
Lire Abbey, 145, 234. March of Wales, the Middle: 
Little Brampton chu!ch, question of, boundaries, 1,22-23,30-31. 
247-8. character, 14. 
Little Brampton manor, 68, 69, 86, fortresses, 1-2. 
94, 144, 157, 175, 183-6. highways, 1. 
muster roll (1538-9),179,180. passes, 2. 
old fields of, 104, II 3, I 15. pre-Conquest history, 16-38. 
sale of, 195. subjugation by William I, 40-
tithes, 236. 41. 
Index 
Markets and Fairs, 237-9; set also Mortimer's Cross, 5,7. 
under Kington; Knighton; Pres- battle of, 141. 
teigne; Stapleton. . Motte and Bailey castles, ,6, 33 . 
Megalithic remains, 16, 34, 35,94. Myrax, 190, 194. 
Mercia, kingdom of, 25. copse, 95. 
revolt in, 40. 
kings of: Aelfgar, 30; Leofric, 26, Names, family, 169. 
28, 29, 30, 31 ; Offa, 20, 21, Nash Court, 102, 186. 
23-24; Penda, 20. Nash family, 145-6, 158, 161, 257. 
Mere Oaks, see Myrax. Names, variations of, 72,128,139 
Merestun, 27. n. 1, 145-6, 175 . 
Middle Ages, the, I, 15, 17, 251, 275-6. Alan (Adam) de Fraxino, 138, 
Mildetun"" see Milton. 144, 147· 
Mills, corn, 74-75, 106, 184, 196, Ralph de Fraxino, 138, 145. 
253· Thomas de Fraxino, 145, 147, 165 , 
fulling, 197,253. 167. 
Milton, manor of, 47, p , 54, 57. Warin de Fraxino, 144. 
Moccas, 146. William de Fraxino, "38, "39, 144-
Monasteries, Dissolution of, 228-35, 5, "47; de Nasche, arms of, 163 . 
251, 263 . Hugh de Frene, 146. 
Monastic H ouses; Herefordshire, Thomas de Frene, 136, 148. 
229 ; see a/so under Limebrook; Walter de Frene, 146. 
Llanthony ; Presteigne ; Shob- William de Frene, 148. 
den; Titley; Wigmore. John atten Ayshe, 145 . 
Montfort, de, Simon, 135. William, atten Ayshe, 145 . 
Morcar, Earl, 40. Pagan del Asche, del Esses, del 
Morehampton, 264, 265. Ash, Pain atte Nash, del Esshe, 
Moreton Jeffries, manor, 266, 273. delaNasche, 138, 143 , 144, 145· 
Mortim~r family; Adam de la Nasche, 156. 
Edmund, 17, 73-74. Roger de la Nasche, 163' 
Ralf, 1st Lord of Wigmore, 28, 41, Jeffrey Nash, 147. 
46, 57,67, 73, 78-79, 126, "33, Richard Nash, Nassh, Ashe, Nash 
142 . de Nasche, 1,8, 13", 145, 147. 
Hugh, 2nd Lord of Wigmore, 122, Roger Nash, 264. 
126, "33. Sarah Nash, 147. 
Hugh, 3rd Lord of Wigmore, 1,6. Nash ford, 85 . 
Roger, 4th Lord of Wigmore, 126 ; Nash hamlet, 72, 94· 
Robert of Richard's Castle, 79, Nash, Little (Upper), 10'. 
126, I' 7; Hugh I, son of Robert, Nash manor (Hech, Asshe), 47, 50, 
1,6, 12h 128, 129-30, 143; p, 54, 55, 60, 142-3,144,175. 
Robert son of Hugh, 126, 1'7. derivation of name, 72. 
Roger, 5th Lord of Wigmore, early fields of, 100, 101, 102, 103 
134, 135, 148. fig. 4, 113, Il5 . 
Roger, 6th Lord of Wigmore, 136, manor road, 85. 
145, 148, 165. muster roll, I79-80. 
Edmund, 7th Lord of Wigmore, in 16th and 17th cents., 183-6. 
1'3, 136, 143, 148. sale of, 185, 195. 
Roger, 1st Earl of March, 136. tithes, 236. 
Roger, 2nd Earl of March, 136. valuation, 17th cent., 186. 
Edmund, 3rd Earl of March, Nash Scar, 10. 
136. " Nash Wood, 172. 
Roger, 4th .Earl of March, "9' Navages Wood, 70. 
Edmund, 5th Earl of March, 229. , Neolithic Age, 16. 
Index 
New Radnor basin, 5. Lea, Ley, 77. 
castle, 17. Nash, 22. 
dyke, 166. Pilleth, 46. 
N orman Conquest, 1-2. Presteigne, I 19. 
earthworks, 4, 17; Querentune, 74. 
tenants-in-chief, 37-39. Shrewsbury, 25. 
terminology, 48-5°' Stapleton, 124. 
Norton, manor of, 50, 73, 142. Wei son, 45. 
early fields of, II 0-1 I fig. 8, II 4, Plegelet, hundred and manors of, 32, 
II), II6. 3S, 
'Plough', Domesday, definition of, 
Oakhill, manor of, 74. 4S. 
Oatcroft Farm, 21, 6)-66. Plynlirnon, I , 4. 
manor, 128. Population: Hindwell Valley, 15, 
Od (Odd) Rode, see Rodd family. 160-1. 
Odrode (Cheshire), 19S, Presteigne-Stapleton, 133, 161, 
Offa, see Mercia, kings of. 173-4, 234· 
Offa's Dyke, 12, 20-2), 30, 44, 4), Pre-Conquest, castles, 26. 
S7, 96, 166. churches, 219. 
Old Radnor, castle, 17, 33-34, 135· earthworks, 17-1S. 
church and parish, 34-36, 215, knights, 2S. 
219- 20. manors, 24, '25, 26, 31-32. 
manor of, 33,4),46,5°,55,72, Pre-Roman, 4, 17· 
early fields of, 107, lOS fig. 7, II4, Presteigne, Castle (Warden), 122, 
II6 , II8. 136-7, I )S. 
Orderic vitalis, 27. church, 124, 132,137, 15S, 219, 220; 
Orleton, ) , 26. advowson of, 222, 232, 243-6; 
Osbern Fitz Richard, see Scrob, Le, chantries, 232-3, 246; connex-
family. ion with Wigmore Abbey, 221-
Osbern Pentecost, 26, 2S, 39 n. 17. 41; destroyed (1406), 22S; eccle-
Owen family, 16th cent, IS )-6, 2)7. siastical property, 234; House of 
Owen Glendwr, 17, 131, 22S. Priests, 164, uS, 221, 24S-9;in-
cumbents (127S-1664), 224-7, 
Parish boundaries, 22. 244-5; tithes, 223, 226-7, 230, 
Parish registers, 169, 176, 242. 235-7, 243, 245, 246; 'Twelve 
Passey family, IS) , IS7, ISS, IS9, Men', 242. See also under Parish 
202-10 pass., 217, 2) 3. registers. 
Paupers, 243 . Manor, 32,44,119-23 pass., 132, 
Pembridge, 22, 39 n. 14, 44. 136, 139-42 pass., 15S, 16) ; 
parish of, )7. agricultural land of (c. 1544), 
Pentre, 1°9. 172-3; Crown property, 173, 
Penybont, 4. 229 ; Manor Count, 140. 
Peterborough Chronicle, 28. To""uhip(I3 04), 140, 15S;fairsand 
Pilleth, 46. markets, 123, 140, 237; mills, 
Battle of, 228. 1)9; population (c. 1300), 15S, 
Pipe Rolls, 25, 43 , 44· (c. 1544) 172-3, decline of, 234; 
Pitfield Farm, 4). Manor properties in, 137-9, 
Place-Names: English, 23-24, 54. Price (ap Ryce) (ap Rbys) family of 
Bron,6S. Nash, 19), 202-5 pass., 207, 20S, 
Clatterbrune, 73 . 253,260. 
Discoed, 7~ . Robert, 26S. 
Elsdon, 45. See also under Rodd. 
Hercope 71 Price's Hospital, 260-1 . 
Index 
Priests' Houses, Clun, Burford, Pres- William Ie Clerk, 12S, 14S, 149, 
teigne, 2 IS. 150, IF, 153, 162, 225. 
Putta, Bishop of Hereford, 19. 14th cent.: 
'Pynlat', IF-2. John de la Rode, 14S, 149. 
William de la Rode, 149, 150. 
Quakers, 243. Robert de la Rode, 149. 
Querentune, manor of, 47, 54, 56. Roger de la Rode, 149. 
identification of, 73- 75. Nicholas de la Rode, 15 2. 
early fields of, II 1-12 fig. 9, 114, Thomas de la Rode, 152, lSI 
120, 142. n. 3. 
William de la Rode, 156, I SI . 
Rabbits, 17. John and Caecilia de la Rode, 
Radelau, hundred and manors, 32, 3 S. 152,156. 
Radenoure manor, see Old Radnor. John and Agnes de la Rode of 
Radmanni (Radchenistres), 49. Leominster, 151, 152, 153, 
Radnor basin: Harold's manors in, 156. 
F· Phillip de la Rode, 163. 
history of, 16, 23-25. William Rode, 162. 
physical geography, 3-6, 10, 94. Walter Rode, 163. 
Radnor Forest, I, 3, 5. Ralph de Rode, 163. 
Radnorshire county established, 121. Phillip Rode of Wegnall, 152. 
Ralf Fitz Drogo, see under Fitz. John Rode, 'Co. Hereford', 153. 
Reformation, the, 249, 251. 15th cent.: 
Religious Houses, see Monastei'ies; Roger de la Rode of Pembridge, 
priests' houses. 151, 152, lSI n. 3. 
Richard's Castle (Auretone), 26, 2S, John Rodd of Eyton, 153. 
44, 46, 54, 121, 125, 130, 135, Thomas Rooks (?Rode) 163. 
167. John Rud, 163. 
Richard I, 127, 133. John Rody, (Rode), 163. 
Riddings brook, 70, 107. William Rode, 163. 
Roads, see Highways. John Rodd (Buildwas Abbey), 
Rodd Family. 16 3. 
Arms, 134, 171, 201, 252-3, 266 William Rodd, 151. 
n. I. John Rodd, 15 1. 
Cheshire branch, 170-1, 19S-20I. Thomas Rodd, 15 I. 
Devonshire branch, 129, 14S, 170- Roger Rodd, 151. 
I, 279. Walter Rodd, 151. 
Family, 7, 152-3' William de la Rode, 151. 
Herefordshire branch, 252-79. 16th cent.: 
12th cent.: William Rodd, 196, 236, 23S, 
Sir Hugh de Rode, 134. 239,239 n. 5· 
13th cent. : Edward Rode, lSI, IS9, 192, 
Hugh de Veteri Rude, 12S-9. 194, 1.96. 
Roger de la Rode, 13S, Jenkyn Rode, 156, 179, IS0-I, 
William de laRode, 13S-9, 147- 192, 197, 225 n. I. 
S,149' Walter Rode, 172, 196, 204, 225 , 
Reginald (?Robert) de la Rode, 235,236, 23 S, 239, 239 n . 5· 
14S--9. Hugh de la Rode and Margaret 
John de la Rode, 149, '50. (price), 175, lSI, 190, 192, 
Henry and Matilda de la Rode, 193,195,196; 197, ,27"6. , 
129, 149, 150. James Rode, 196. . 
Dom Adam de la Rode, 12S, Peter Rode, 192. 
14S, 149, 150, 153, 163, 225· Margaret Rode, 192. 
Index 295 
Rodd Family (cont.) Robert Rodd of Foxley and 
17th cent.: Anna Sophia, 257, 265, 266, 
Richard Rodd I and Frideswide 267, 269, 27°· 
(Savery), 178,190--1,192,194, Constance Rodd, 265. 
197, 2)2-3,254,255-6,25 8, Anne Rodd, 265, 269. 
259, 263. l'vIargaret Rodd, 265. 
Hugh Rodd and Dorothy (Bal- Eleanor Rodd, 265. 
lard) of Wegnal, 192, 197, Elizabeth Rodd, 265, 269. 
254,25 8,259, 26 3,276,277. Lucy Rodd (m. Robert Price), 
John Rodd, 192. 267-8, 269, 27°· 
Walter Rodd, 178, 192, 193, 263. Anna Sophia Rodd, 266, 267, 
William Rodd, 192, 258, 263, 270,273. 
264, 277· Frances Rodd, 267, 269, 270. 
Elizabeth Rodd, 192. Thomas Price, 268, 269. 
Sir James Price Rodd and Uvedale Tomkyns Price of Fox-
Margery (Ballard), mercer, 19C, ley, 268, 269, 270, 271. 
192, 253, 259, 260, 263, 264, Lucy and Bamfylde Rodd II, 
265, 266, 270, 277. 262, 268, 269, 271. 
Richard Rodd II and Barbara 18th cent. : 
(Kirkham), 178, 190--1, 2)2, Robert Price, 271. 
253, 254, 257, 277, 278. Uvedale Price, 271, 273. 
Sir James Rodd and Mary (Hall) Thomas Rodd, 267, 275. 
and Grace (Bamfylde), 190--1, Edward Rodd, 262. 
259, 261-2, 275. Francis Rodd and J ane (Heasle) 
James Rodd and Anne (Jones) and Anne (Sandford), 262-3. 
ofWcgnal, 259,270,276,277, Mary Rodd (betrothed to Fran-
278. cis), 262. 
Hugh Rodd, mercer ofH ereford, Lucy Rodd (m. John hie), 272. 
273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278. Gratiana Rodd, 272. 
Richard Rodd, 'The Drovier', Juliana Rodd, 272. 
25 8,262, 267,277. Rodd, the: bridge, 7, 72, 196,259. 
John Rodd, incumbent of Mar- farmhouse, 7. 
den, 267, 277. Hurst, 5, 21, 61, 62, 88, 95, 190, 
Thomas Rodd, 277. 194, '96, 243· 
Christopher Rodd, 267, 270, Little Rodd, 7, ,64. 
277· manor: site, 95-96; early fields of, 
Symon Rodd of London, 193. 99,99 fig. 2,100, II 3, 115; extent 
James Rodd of Nash, 258, 259, of, 160; early history of, 128, 143, 
278. 145,147, 149 ; 14th cent., 150, 
Frideswide Rodd, 2)2, 257, 262, 154, 162-4; 16th and 17th 
278. cents ., 177-8, 180, 187-9, 193-4; 
Thomas Rodd of Hampton 19th cent., 161. 
Bishop, 257. mill, 276. 
Edward Rodd of Newton, 257. names of, early, 61, 63, 65, 95,170. 
Bamfylde Rodd I and Elizabeth Rodd house (The Rodd), 61, 62, 
(Hall) and Bridget (Drew), 95 ,25 2-3,255,258. 
25 8,262, 267, Rodds, the, 61, 62. 
Mary Rodd, 262. tithebarn, 238-9. 
James Rodd of Wear House, turnpike, 86. 
262. wood, 62, 86,95, 189, 193. 
Thomas Rodd of Foxley, 264, Rodd, Nash & Little Brampton 
265, 266, 267, 271, 273. manors, 24, 55, 56. 
Edward Rodd, 267, 270, 271. identification of, 58-63. 
Index 
Rodd, manor road, 85-88. fairs and markets, 123, 127, 130. 
old tracks, 85-88, 95-96, 99- question of chapel, 248. 
100. Stapleton and Lugharnes: manors, 
parish, 60, 189, 221. feofs and vills of, II 8-26, 44, 59, 
Rode de, de la, Roda de, see Rodd 65, 66, 79, 120. 
family. arable land at, 117. 
Rode manor (Cheshire), 198-201. history of, 120-31, lB. 
Rolls, Assize, 165. Manorial court, 187, 188. 
manorial, 59,65, 139, 189. population of (c. 1300), 159, 161, 
muster, 179-180, 182. . 174· 
subsidy, 175, 181, 187, 202-6. subsidy roll (1293), 128. 
Roman era: earthworks 4, 17-18. valuation of (1596), 144. 
military bases, 18. Staunton-on-Arrow, 65, 66, 67, 131. 
roads, 18-19,45,56,85 . Stocklow, 21. 
Rowe Ditch, Rugedyke, Rugditch, Stoke Lacy, 272-3 . 
21,44-45, 166- 7· Stratford, hundred and manors, 32, 
Rushock Hill, II , 20, 22, 66. 37, 44, 167. 
manors, 66, 195. Stuteville de, William, 123, 127. 
Summergill, 4, 7, 107. 
St. Mary's Mill, 74, II 1. 
Saint-Ouen, Sancto-Audoneo family, T albot family, 129. 
143, 144,147,154, 157,1 86. Taxation: assessments, goods, 195 ; 
Say, de, family, 121, 122, 125 , 126, lands, 176-7 ; lands and goods 
127, 133, 142. (Hindwell Valley 17th cent.), 
Margaret, 121 n . z, 122 n. 2, 126. 205-8. 
See also Le Scro b. clerical subsidies (presteigne), 
Scepedune, see Shobdon. 227-8. 
Scrob, Le, family, 41, 121, 123 , 147, hearth tax, 176, 184, 186. 
174,21 8. H erefordshire, 279. 
Richard, 26, 28, 31,65,147. Hindwell Valley, 209, 210. 
O sbern Fitz Richard, 27, 3 I , 37, Ship Money, 177, 242 
38 n. 4, 39 n. 8; lands of, 47,54- subsidies, 176-7 . 
81,112, 120, 121, 12 3,126,142 . Systems of taxation, 169. 
Hugh Fitz Osbern, 125. Teme river, I , 2 , 5. 
Osbern Fitz Hugh, 47 n. 3. Thane, 50. 
Scutage, 125. 'Three Shepherds', the, 20, 92 n. 2. 
Serfs, 49. Tiron Abbey, 131, 146. 
Settlements, early, conditions de- Titley church, 220. 
ciding 8-12, 14-15, 16. court, 64. 
Severn, River, I. Priory, 131, 11)4. 
Shobdon (Scepedune), 5, 57. Titley (Titlege), manors of, 32, 
church, 221-2. 38 n. 4,47, 52, 54, 55, 56. 
Priory, 222. early fields of, III, 1I6, 128. 
Shrewsbury Castle, 1. identification of, 63-66. 
earldom of, 40. Tolls (presteigne 1337), 137, 158. 
meaning of name, 25. Tomen, the, 4. 
Stanner Rocks, 6, 10. Tony (Tosny), Ralf de, 37. 
Stansbatch, 66. Topography, value of, to historian, 3, 
Stantona, see Staunton-on-Arrow. 15· 
Stapleset, Hundred and manors, 32, Tornelau, Hundred of and manors in, 
38• 32 ,37' 
Stapleton, meaning of name, 124. Tostig, 30. 
castle, 17, 27, 122, 133 , 135· Trap Hill Lane, 85. 
Index 
Trees: afforestation, 17. Weavers, family and field name, 
deforestation 1 3-14· 187-9' 
ecology, Hindwell Valley, 11-12, Wegnal, 107, 196, 2)8. 
16. \'Qclsh, the, 21, 24, 26, 29-30. 
oak (house and ship-building), 13. 'Welshry', 124-). 
Tudors, I, 2. Weston-under-Penyard, 18. 
social and economic changes of Whitewall Farm, 73, 106. 
Tudor era, 169. Whitney manor, 46, 121. 
Whitney, Sir Thomas, 26), 267,269. 
Uphampton, 26). Wigmore Abbey, 124, 132, 136, 137, 
Upper Lye, mnnor of, 47, )6, 57,77- 14),148,1)3,1)8,173,241. 
79, 82, 126. historyof,221-3)· 
Upper Stoke Lacy, 26). revenues of, 23)-40. 
Wigmore Castle, 14,27,41,122. 
Vaughan family, 1)3, 20). Hundred, 43, )9· 
Vikings, 29. manor, 120, 121-
Villeins, 49. muster rolls of, 179-82. 
See also tinder Mortimer family. 
Waddel (Waddle), 3; see Hindwell Wigmore, John, 2)4-6. 
(river). Wigmore Lake, ). 
Walelege, 38 n. ),44, 124-). Willersley and Winforton, manor of, 
Walsham family, 68, IB, 182, 186, 32,46, 120. 
20), 207, 209, 257; see also de Willey, manor of, 38 n. ), 124, 12). 
Knill. William of Radnor, 162. 
Walshe family, 174. William I, Duke and King, the Con-
Walton, ), 16, 17, queror, 27, 3 I, B, 37, 40. 
Court Farm, 107; see also Old Rad- William, Earl, see Fitz Osbern. 
nor. Winchester College, 131, 146. 
Wansdyke, 23 n. I. Womaston, 17, 34, 107. 
Wapley, Wapletone, physical geog., 6. Woodhouse bank, ), 6. 
camp, 16-17,21,22. Woods: clearing of, 88-89, 94. 
Highland Farm, 189. ecology, 11-12. 
manor, )6,6),66-67. limits of cultivation, II-12. 
(WapeUth), manOr of, 128. territorial boundaries, 12. 
Warden, the, 17, 121. Wychmoor, 86. 
'Waste', )1, )3 fig. I. Wye, river, I, 3. 
Watling St., 4), )6. 
Waxle, see Wapley. 
PRINTED IN 
GREAT BRITAIN 
A'I'THE 
UNIVERSITY PRESS 
OXFORD 
BY 
CHARLES BATEY 
PRINTER 
TO THE 
UNIVERSITY