Title:
WESTERN FAMILY OF RIVENHALL, KELVEDON, ALDHAM AND MUNDON
Level: Category
Estate and Family records
Level: Fonds
WESTERN FAMILY OF RIVENHALL, KELVEDON, ALDHAM AND MUNDON
Scope and Content:
Manor of Aldham Hall with Hodgkins: Introductory Note
The manor of Aldham was held as a knight's fee of the Honour of Hedingham, and in 1596 the lord of Aldham paid an annual rent of 2s. to the lord of the Honour [see D/Dpr 145 f.6].
Morant traces the manor in the 13th and 14th centuries through the Goldington family, but these do not appear in the rolls. By the 1350 he makes mention of the Tey family, and this family seems to hold at the time of the earliest roll (D/DWe M1). According to the Book of Knights' Fees [D/DPr 145 f.6], at a court of the Honour of Hedingham held in 1291, Robert de Aldham (lord of the manor) sold a field of 18 acre in Aldham and Tey to Robert de Tey. This is the first mention of the family.
The roll for 1325 is headed: "Aldham, court of Robert son of Robt de Teye". His name also appeares for all but two of the seven courts held between 1325 and 1349.
No lord is given for 1352, 1364 or 1365, but for the court held 8 July 1371 we find: "First court of William de Tender' et sociorum suorum".
In 1401 the roll is headed: "Aldham, the court of Joan de Boun [Bohun] Countess of Hereford, John Howard kt., John vicar of St Peter's Colchester et sociorum suorum", and this follows Morant who says that the manopr passed into the de Bohun estates for a time. By the 1431 the Tey family had regained the manor ("Court of John Teye esq.") and again there is the reference to others with him.
Morant suggests that the manor may have been forfeited during the Wars of the Roses although he does refer to a deed of 1463 conveying to the Teys again. The court of 27 November 1443 was of William Abbot of St John's Colchester, Geoffrey Rokell, John Gadmanstone and John Bretoune esqs, and other feoffees, but in 1464 however the heading reads: "Aldhamhall, first court of Robt Teye esq. and Elizabeth consortis sue".
In 1491 there is the "first court of William Teye esq"., but in 1494 the manor is held by "Henry Marney Kt., William Breton, Alexander Colpepir, Robert Morley esqs, and Matthew Kebbir".
Finally after a gap in the rolls 1506-1567 we find, 19 July 1586, "First court of William Tey esq." A roll for 1584 gives Thomas Tey as lord of the manor; by 1596 however it was held by Charles Cornwallis, the owner in the Book of Knights' Fees.
Not only was Aldham a knight's fee in the Honour of Hedingham, but it also appears to have been composed of at least two seperate fees - Aldham Hall and Hodgkins. In the Rental (dated on grounds of handwriting and personal names to c. 1340) a separate section is headed "Aula de Aldham". The court roll for 1364 is headed "Aldham Hogekynes" and has a seperate section for "Aldham Halls". From that date reference to Hodgkins usually but nor necessarily appears. It is given variously as a man's title centred with Aldham in the margin, as Hodgkins in Aldham, Hodgkins alias a Aldhamhall, or from c. 1590 as Aldham hall with Hodgkins. In the Book of Knights' Fees, 1596 [D/DPr 145 f.7], the first references to Hodgkins appeard:
"Item anno 19HVI", the death of John Tey presented who held of John Earl of Oxford the manor of aldham by unknoen services, with 240 acres of land, 8 acres of meadow, 14 acres of pasture, 12 acres of great wood, 24s. rents and a court baron: and also a toft, 16a. land,2a. meadow, 4a. pasture, 4s. rent called "Hoggekins" by unknoen services and also:
"Item in anno 5HVI Robertus Tey die quo obit manerium de Aldham et tenementum vocatum Hoggekins
de Iohanne comite Oxon'"
The court rolls for 1349 and 1352 give some indirect evidence of the ravages of the Black Death. The earlier roll mentions the death of six tenants - a far higher number than occurs in earlier rolls, and in two cases the property is proclaimed as still being in the lord's hands in 1352 for want of heirs. [As Robert Tey does not appear after 1349, did he also succumb?]
In the early 16th c. a copy was made of the entries for four courts 1485-1498, and these copies de not appear to be accurate, or rather they are not identical with the other rolls. All the members from 1312-1586 have been sewn together without any apparent system, hence there is considerable overlapping of rolls.