LANDOWNERSHIP
ALTHOUGH Chelsea manor was only assessed
at 2 hides in 1086, perhaps as a royal concession to the
holder, the number of ploughs suggests that the manor
did cover the whole of the 780-acre parish. (fn. 1) The
demesne of the manor probably accounted for less than
half the acreage, and several medieval freeholds included
lands in Chelsea as well as Kensington, Westminster,
Brompton, Knightsbridge, or Eye (Ebury) in various
combinations. The detached part of the parish of
Kensington lying by Chelsea's riverside, which belonged
in the 16th-17th centuries to the manor of Earl's Court,
as well as the land in Chelsea detached, may be the
remnants of a landholding interdependence between
Chelsea and Kensington.
By the 15th century the only tenants of the manor of
Chelsea in the records were freeholders paying a small
assized rent or quitrent to the manor, of whom there are
a few lists from 1453 and the 16th century. (fn. 2) The lack of
correlation between the amounts due in 1453 and later
suggests much amalgamation and splitting of holdings
took place; the extant feet of fines also indicate an active
market in land. Unfortunately the changes in holdings
has helped obscure any link between medieval estates
and those in the 16th century, and not enough evidence
for location survives to make firm connections between
holdings.
Among local families owning an unknown quantity of
land were the Wests (1269-1389), (fn. 3) the Ests
(1279-1408), (fn. 4) and the Stokets (1333-1405). (fn. 5) Many
large land transactions involving several parishes do not
indicate how much land lay in each parish. In 1332, for
example, Adam de Bedyk and his wife Sibyl conveyed
250 a. and 2s. ¼d. rent in Kensington, Chelsea, and
Fulham to Robert of Wodehouse, archdeacon of Richmond: (fn. 6) there had been disputes in 1301 and 1311
between the Bedyks and the prioress of Kilburn over 20
acres in Chelsea, (fn. 7) and possibly at least part of the estate
lay in Chelsea detached and involved Malories manor. (fn. 8)
A large estate belonging to John Convers and his wife
Joan in 1309 (fn. 9) was eventually acquired between 1350 and
1354 by Westminster abbey, when it consisted of three
houses, 91 acres, and 10s. 2d. rent in Knightsbridge,
Kensington, Chelsea, and Eye. (fn. 10) Again, the acreage that
lay in Chelsea is unknown: a John Convers acquired 1 a.
in Chelsea from Roger and Christine West in 1274, (fn. 11) and
probably c.1300 he or his son John and his wife Joan
acquired at least 10 a. and the reversion to a house in
Chelsea with rent in Westminster from John Wolward. (fn. 12)
Wolward's father Richard had been in contention with
William West over rent in Chelsea in 1285, (fn. 13) and it is
possible that the property in John Wolward's grant had
been part of the West estate in 1273. (fn. 14)
London merchants were increasingly involved in land
in Chelsea. In 1371, for example, John Fish, citizen of
London, conveyed a house, 36 a. arable, 1½ a. meadow,
and 5s. rent in Chelsea to William Hunt and William
Multon. (fn. 15) In 1403 John Hunt conveyed 4 marks rent
from the same property to Thomas Garlethorp
(Garthorp), citizen and fishmonger of London, (fn. 16) who
before 1405 acquired the Stoket estate, (fn. 17) and left instructions in his will of 1412 that his estate was to be sold for
an obit after the death of his wife, Margaret. (fn. 18) Some brief
accounts of medieval estates and small freeholdings are
given below.
By the late 16th century, Chelsea had three principal
freehold estates: the manorial demesne, increased by the
purchase of two freeholds by Henry VIII; More's estate;
and Hungerford's estate. The last two were formed from
several smaller freeholdings of the 15th century but when
this happened is not certain: More seems to have built up
his estate, as at least three purchases by him are known.
Both estates also included a large quantity of land in
Kensington. By the 17th century, however, the process
was in reverse and several separate freehold estates were
formed from the two estates. The continuing formation
of new estates is apparent in the sometimes complicated
descents given in the individual accounts below: this is
especially true of the offshoots from Hungerford's estate,
belonging to the Young, Blake, Arnold, Mart, and Greene
families, where the complexities so obscured the original
estate that much of the land has hitherto been claimed as
part of More's property. The manorial estate also lost
portions of demesne to create separate freeholdings, but
as Chelsea manor its identity was not lost.
Figure 46:
Chelsea's principal estates in 1700
The accounts of the estates are divided into the
principal estates: the manorial estate, More's, and
Hungerford's; the medieval and small freeholdings; and
later estates presented in alphabetical order.