Parishes: Stoke Mandeville

A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1908.

This free content was digitised by double rekeying. All rights reserved.


, 'Parishes: Stoke Mandeville', in A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, (London, 1908) pp. 360-365. British History Online [accessed 21 May 2024].

. "Parishes: Stoke Mandeville", in A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, (London, 1908) 360-365. British History Online, accessed May 21, 2024,

. "Parishes: Stoke Mandeville", A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, (London, 1908). 360-365. British History Online. Web. 21 May 2024,

In this section


Stoches, xi cent; Stoke by Aylesbury, Stoke Maundevile, xiv cent.

The parish of Stoke Mandeville lies in the Vale of Aylesbury and now contains over 1,499 acres of land. Until 1885 some land at Prestwood formed a detached portion of the parish, but in that year it was attached for civil purposes to Great and Little Hampden parish. (fn. 1) This estate, lying close to Great Hampden, belonged from early times to the Hampdens, Alexander de Hampden in the 13th century granting common of pasture at Prestwood to the abbey of Missenden. (fn. 2) It afterwards became famous as the particular piece of land for which John Hampden refused to pay shipmoney. In 1863 a memorial was put up near Honor End Farm, with the following inscription:—'For these lands in Stoke Mandeville John Hampden was assessed 20s. ship-money, levied by command of the king without authority of law, 4 August 1635. By resisting this claim of the king in legal strife, he upheld the rights of the people under the law and became entitled to grateful remembrance. His work on earth ended after the conflict in Chalgrove Field, the 18 June 1643. And he rests in Great Hampden Church.'

The main part of the parish is very flat, the land lying for the most part about 300 ft. above the Ordnance datum. (fn. 3) The greater part, particularly in the north, is laid down in permanent grass, with about 497 acres of arable land and no wood. (fn. 4) The subsoil is Gault and Upper Greensand and the surface stiff wet clay. It is well watered by a small tributary of the Thame which runs through the parish from south-west to north-east and flows close to the old church on the east side, serving the ditches of a rectangular inclosure near to the church and extending round the churchyard. There are moats at Brook Farm and Moat Farm. Two high roads pass through the parish, one from Aylesbury to Wendover, and the other from Aylesbury to Princes Risborough. The latter passes through the village of Stoke Mandeville. The Great Western Railway and the Metropolitan Extension Railway, which has a station at Stoke Mandeville, cross the parish. Stoke Mandeville parish was inclosed by Act of Parliament, the award being given on 13 December 1798. (fn. 5)

The houses in the village are mostly of red brick, one or two of the 18th century, and some thatched. The old church lies on low ground three-quarters of a mile south of the village and was for this reason deserted, a new church being built in the village. Stoke House, now a farm, is a pretty square 18th-century building with parts of a moat on the west and north sides lying between the village and the old church. Stoke Grange to the north of the village, Hall End to the west, and Whitethorne Farm, are outlying farms.


In the time of King Edward the Confessor the manor of STOKE MANDEVILLE was held by Bishop Wulfwig (fn. 6) of Dorchester, and after the Norman Conquest William I restored it to the episcopal see, then held by his favourite Remigius. The grant was confirmed to Lincoln by William Rufus, (fn. 7) and the bishops remained the overlords of the manor till the 17th century. (fn. 8) At the time of the Domesday Survey, (fn. 9) however, the manor of Stoke Mandeville was appendant to the church of Aylesbury, a prebend of Lincoln Cathedral.

At the close of the 12th century the manor was held in two parts of the Bishop of Lincoln, each of his tenants holding the fee of one knight.

One moiety was in the hands of a Kentish family, taking their name from Eynsford. In 1166 (fn. 10) a William de Eynsford held six knights' fees of the Bishop of Lincoln, and his heir appears to have been called Roger, since at the close of the 12th century a William son of Roger held one fee in Stoke Mandeville. (fn. 11) This William may be identified with the William de Eynsford who made a grant of one virgate of land in Stoke in 1199. (fn. 12) At his death, which took place before 1231, (fn. 13) he held the 'manor of Stoke,' which was delivered by the king's escheators to the Bishop of Lincoln during the minority of the heir, another William de Eynsford, (fn. 14) who presumably was seised of this part of Stoke when he came of age. He seems to have left two daughters (fn. 15) as his heirs, one of whom married Nicholas de Cryel and the other William Heringaud. (fn. 16) The heiress of William Heringaud was Christiana, the wife of William de Kirkeby, (fn. 17) and she appears to have inherited the moiety of the manor of Stoke Mandeville. A certain Agnes daughter of Robert de la Lese of Eynsford had some right in it, however, since in 1282 (fn. 18) she quitclaimed it to both Nicholas son of Nicholas de Cryel and to William de Kirkeby and Christiana. In 1301 or 1302, (fn. 19) William de Kirkeby died seised of this moiety of the manor, held in right of his wife and she held it alone in 1302–3. (fn. 20) In 1309, (fn. 21) however, she granted her moiety of the manor to William Inge. During her life she was to hold it of him at the rent of £10 a year, (fn. 22) the reversion being to William and his heirs, to hold of Christiana and her heirs. William Inge granted the moiety to his daughter Joan on her marriage with Eudo la Zouche. (fn. 23) Eudo died in 1326, (fn. 24) and Joan claimed the manor as part of her own inheritance. She afterwards married Sir William Moton, (fn. 25) who held half a knight's fee in Stoke Mandeville in 1346. (fn. 26) Another Sir William Moton, probably his grandson, died seised in 1393 (fn. 27) of a manor in Stoke Mandeville called OLDBURY MANOR, (fn. 28) which may probably be identified with the 'moiety of the manor of Stoke Mandeville,' leaving a son Robert as his heir, a minor at his father's death.

Robert Moton obtained seisin of the manor, (fn. 29) but it was claimed by (fn. 30) William la Zouche of 'Totteneys,' the grandson of Eudo la Zouche and Joan. William based his claim on the original grant by William Inge which was made to Eudo and Joan (fn. 31) and the heirs of their bodies, so that her heir by Sir William Moton had no right in the manor. The suit was protracted since Robert Moton was abroad on the king's service (fn. 32) in 1402, but William la Zouche was apparently successful, as he held the manor of Stoke Mandeville in 1409. (fn. 33) In that year he granted it to Henry, Bishop of Winchester, Hugh Mortimer, Robert Isham, and John Neubold. From these feoffees this manor must shortly have passed to Henry Brudenell, a younger son of William Brudenell of Aynho. (fn. 34) By his will, dated 22 Jan. 1430–1, he left the manor of Oldbury to his third son Robert, (fn. 35) from whom descended the Brudenells of Stoke Mandeville. (fn. 36) Robert was succeeded by his son John Brudenell, who died in 1533, (fn. 37) but the manor is not mentioned among the lands held at his death. (fn. 38)

His grandson Francis, (fn. 39) however, died seised of the manor of Oldbury, (fn. 40) and it passed to his son and grandson, both called Edmund. Both Francis and Edmund his son held the manor of Oldbury, (fn. 41) and another manor in the parish called NEWBURY (q.v.), names which had disappeared by 1813, (fn. 42) and it seems probable that the two moieties of the manor of Stoke Mandeville were united. In various settlements made by the Brudenells the 'manor of Stoke Mandeville' (fn. 43) is the name used apparently for the same property which had been included under Newbury and Oldbury. Edmund Brudenell the grandson of Francis, together with Joyce his wife, quitclaimed the manor in 1628 (fn. 44) to Christopher Parkins and his heirs, but this may only have been a settlement. Lipscomb (fn. 45) gives 1639 as the date of the sale by Edmund Brudenell to Thomas Harborne.

In 1712 (fn. 46) Thomas Jackson was said by the same historian to have been in possession of Stoke Mandeville and he died there in 1723. He was possibly succeeded by his son John, who endowed a charity in the parish. (fn. 47) In 1745, however, John Smith held the manor and obtained a quitclaim from Henry Eggleton and Dorothy his wife. (fn. 48) It seems probable that he may have been succeeded by William Wiseman Clarke, whose grandmother Elizabeth was a daughter of another John Smith, possibly his father. (fn. 49) William Wiseman Clarke, the greatgrandson of Elizabeth, held the manor of Stoke Mandeville in the latter part of the 18th century, (fn. 50) and in 1790, (fn. 51) he sold it to Charles Lucas of Aylesbury, who was lord of the manor in 1813. (fn. 52) His daughter held it in 1862, (fn. 53) and it is now the property of Mr. Edward Lucas.

The other fee in Stoke Mandeville was held of the Bishop of Lincoln at the close of the 13th century, by Geoffrey de Mandeville in dower of his wife. In 1254, (fn. 54) however, he was said to hold the whole of Stoke, but this is probably due to an omission, since the other moiety was held separately and directly from the Bishop of Lincoln. Geoffrey died before 1269 (fn. 55) leaving his son John de Mandeville as his heir. The manor and parish seem to have taken their name from Geoffrey de Mandeville, but his family did not hold the fee for long, since John held no lands in Buckinghamshire at his death. (fn. 56) In 1284–6 (fn. 57) his moiety was held by John de Kirkeby, Bishop of Ely, but it has not been traced how he obtained it. Shortly afterwards he granted it to his brother William de Kirkeby and his wife Christiana for their lives. (fn. 58) William died seised in 1301 or 1302, (fn. 59) and Christiana held it alone in 1302–3 (fn. 60) and 1316. (fn. 61) William de Kirkeby was his brother's heir; (fn. 62) hence on Christiana's death some time after 1316 (fn. 63) the Bishop of Ely's moiety of Stoke Mandeville passed to the heirs of William. He had no children and his lands were divided amongst his four sisters, (fn. 64) Stoke Mandeville forming part of the share of his eldest sister Margaret. She had married Walter Doseville, (fn. 65) but both she and her husband predeceased Christiana. Her eldest son John died without direct heirs, (fn. 66) and Hugh Doseville his brother (fn. 67) succeeded to the moiety of the manor, which seems to have been settled on Hugh in 1313. (fn. 68) In 1314 (fn. 69) he enfeoffed Master John Doseville and Robert Doseville and the heirs of Robert of its reversion. Robert was in seisin in 1332, (fn. 70) when Robert son of William Grimbaud, the descendant of another of the heiresses of William de Kirkeby, claimed a moiety of the manor of Stoke Mandeville from him. Hugh Doseville was called to give warranty, (fn. 71) but the suit was indefinitely postponed, as one of the parties was under age.

Mandeville. Quarterly or and gules.

The Dosevilles, however, were not dispossessed, since in 1346 (fn. 72) Nicholas Doseville had succeeded Robert. The manor appears to have undergone a further subdivision, since three tenants appear, and the Dosevilles held only a half of a knight's fee. (fn. 73) Nicholas Doseville seems to have been the last of that name to hold the moiety of Stoke Mandeville manor, and possibly left two daughters as his heiresses. The moiety seems to have been the inheritance of Joan the wife of Robert Derwalshaw and Cecilia the wife of Sir Robert le Straunge. (fn. 74) In 1372 the latter complained that she had been disseised of the manor of Stoke Mandeville by Robert Derwalshaw and Joan, but in 1374 (fn. 75) Robert le Straunge and his wife and her heirs quitclaimed a moiety of the manor to Derwalshaw and Joan and her heirs. These latter granted the reversion, to fall in on their deaths, to John de Kyngesfold, who in turn sold it to Alice Perrers the celebrated mistress of Edward III. (fn. 76) She deputed John Bernes and others to receive her interest from Robert Derwalshaw (fn. 77) on the understanding that they should re-enfeoff Robert and Joan for their lives. This was done, but on the attainder of Alice Perrers the moiety of the manor was seized by the king's escheators, (fn. 78) though she had no right in it, but only in the reversion. She, however, also held two-thirds of a messuage in Stoke Mandeville (fn. 79) of Robert Derwalshaw. In 1378 (fn. 80) Robert, his wife having died, obtained restitution of his moiety to hold for life without paying rent, on condition that he kept it without waste. The reversion was vested in the king, (fn. 81) who, however, granted it in 1380 in fee simple to Sir William de Windsor, (fn. 82) who had married Alice Perrers. To whom it afterwards passed does not appear. Sir William apparently held no lands in Buckinghamshire at his death, (fn. 83) and the family of Brudenell seem to have obtained possession of this moiety of Stoke Mandeville at this time. It seems possible that it was known as the manor of Newbury. Edmund Brudenell, the eldest son of William Brudenell of Aynho and Raans, (fn. 84) was a Clerk of Parliament during the reigns of Edward III and Richard II, and is said (fn. 85) to have held the manor, but it is not mentioned in his will, dated 21 June 1425. His only daughter and heiress Alice (fn. 86) became a nun, and his lands in Stoke Mandeville may have passed to his brother Henry, whose descendant Francis Brudenell of Stoke Mandeville died seised of the manors of Newbury and Oldbury in 1601–2. (fn. 87) The two manors were held together from this time, and the manor of Newbury followed the same descent as Oldbury (q.v.).

In 1254 (fn. 88) Geoffrey de Mandeville held the view of frankpledge in Stoke Mandeville and paid 18s. a year for the right. In 1616–17 Edmund Brudenell obtained a grant of view of frankpledge to be held twice a year for his tenants in Stoke Mandeville, Ellesborough, and Little Kimble. (fn. 89) The Clarkes of Ardington also held view of frankpledge and many other rights. (fn. 90) William de Kirkeby (fn. 91) obtained a grant of free warren in his demesne lands in Stoke Halling, a hamlet in the parish, from Edward I.

The manor of BURLEYS apparently took its name from the family of Burley who held land in Stoke Mandeville in the early part of the 14th century. It seems to have been held at that time of the Kirkebys, but afterwards, about 1346, of the Bishop of Lincoln himself. In 1304 (fn. 92) Peter de Leycestre died seised of lands in Stoke Halling, held of Robert de Burley and his heirs, and in 1313 (fn. 93) the same Robert obtained certain lands in Stoke Mandeville from William Billy. In 1346 (fn. 94) William de Burley's name appears as paying the feudal aid due from one knight's fee in Stoke Mandeville, which had formerly been held by Christiana de Kirkeby. The division of the two knights' fees belonging to the Bishop of Lincoln at this time suggests that a mistake was made in the return, since it seems unlikely that only one fee remained to the heirs of William and Christiana de Kirkeby respectively, while the other fee had been alienated to the Burleys. More probably William de Burley, who may have previously held of the Kirkebys, now held his land directly of the Bishop of Lincoln, and so appears for the first time as paying the feudal aid due from his land. In 1354 (fn. 95) Alice de Burley, possibly the widow of William, held land in Stoke Mandeville. In the 15th century the manor of Burleys came into the possession of the elder branch of the Brudenell family. Edmund Brudenell of Raans, (fn. 96) nephew of that Henry Brudenell who first held the manor of Oldbury, granted Burleys Manor in 1452 to Edmund Rede and others, presumably as trustees. Edmund Brudenell died in 1470 (fn. 97) and was succeeded by his son Drew, (fn. 98) but whether the latter ever was seised of the manor is not certain. At his death (fn. 99) no mention is made of it, but it afterwards came into the possession of his nephew Thomas, who inherited part of his lands. Drew's son and heir, Edmund, died, leaving no children, (fn. 100) and in 1538 Thomas Brudenell held a court baron for Burleys Manor. (fn. 101) In the next year he sold it. (fn. 102) to John Bosse, in whose name the manorial court was held. (fn. 103) From John Bosse (fn. 104) it passed to his descendants Richard, Francis, Samuel, and Thomas Bosse in turn. (fn. 105) The lastnamed, together with his wife Elizabeth, sold the manor of Burleys in 1617 to Alexander Jennings, (fn. 106) who was holding it in 1640, (fn. 107) when his land was assessed at the yearly value of 50s. Lands in Stoke Mandeville were conveyed by Francis Jennings of Stoke Mandeville to Richard Jennings in 1653, (fn. 108) but the manor of Burleys is not mentioned in the indenture. In 1664 (fn. 109) the land formerly held by Alexander Jennings was held by Anne Jennings, widow, and Michael Jennings. In the 18th century the manor was held by John Smith (fn. 110) with the manor of Stoke Mandeville, and afterwards passed to the Clarkes of Ardington.

The family of Stonor acquired lands in Stoke Mandeville and Stoke Halling during the 13th century, and their lands were afterwards called the manor of STONORS. In 1297–8 (fn. 111) Robert Albon and his wife Alice sold some land in Stoke Halling to Peter de Leycester. Peter died about 1304 (fn. 112) seised of several tenements there, which he held of various lords, and they passed to his kinswoman Juliana de Leycestre the wife of Walter de Bernthorp. The latter was presented in 1305–6 (fn. 113) for obstructing a common road at Stoke Halling, but in 1323, after the death of Juliana, (fn. 114) Robert Albon released to John de Stonor his whole right in the land that had belonged to Peter de Leycestre or Gilbert Poygant; Peter de Barton and Nicholas de Leycestre also quitclaimed (fn. 115) tenements in Stoke Halling to John de Stonor. Juliana's husband held his wife's lands for life. Thus the Stonors seem to have succeeded Juliana de Leycester, and both Peter de Leycestre and John de Stonor held some of their lands in Stoke of the Burleys. (fn. 116) John de Stonor died in 1354 (fn. 117) and was succeeded by his son and heir, another John de Stonor. The lands in Stoke Mandeville passed after his death to his son Edmund Stonor, (fn. 118) who in turn was succeeded by his son John. The latter, who was a minor, died before he attained his majority, (fn. 119) and his lands passed to his younger brother Ralph in 1389 or 1390. (fn. 120) Ralph enfeoffed William Sutton and others of lands and tenements in Stoke Mandeville, (fn. 121) but this was presumably merely a settlement, since he died seised of tenements there in 1394. (fn. 122) This, however, seems to be the last time that the Stonors are mentioned as holding this estate.

In the 15th century the manor of Stonors in Stoke Mandeville apparently came into the possession of the Brudenells. Edmund Brudenell, who had held the manor of Burleys before 1452, (fn. 123) does not seem to have held Stonors Manor as well, and possibly it remained with the Stonors until the time of Thomas Stonor, who in 1470 (fn. 124) sold the manor of BiertonStonors in the neighbouring parish of Bierton. Thomas Brudenell, however, held the manor of Sconors about 1539, apparently in right of his wife. She was Elizabeth Fitz William, (fn. 125) and it does not seem likely that she can have had any right in the manor except by a marriage settlement. They sold it in 1540, (fn. 126) together with Burleys Manor, to John Bosse, from which time the two manors were held together.

A mill is mentioned in Domesday Book, (fn. 127) and was then worth 10s. a year, but to which moiety of Stoke Mandeville it afterwards appertained does not appear. In 1628 (fn. 128) Edmund Brudenell, who was then seised of the whole manor, held a water-mill amongst the appurtenances.


The church of ST. MARY is a modern structure consisting of a chancel, nave, south aisle, and southwest tower, and is constructed of flints with brick quoins and dressings to the windows. It was built in 1886, and is designed in a style distantly approaching that of the 13th century.

The OLD CHURCH consists of a chancel 24 ft. by 12 ft., and a nave 40 ft. by 17 ft. 9in., within the western end of which is built a late brick tower, a south aisle 7 ft. 6 in. wide, and a half-timbered north porch. The narrow chancel arch appears to be the only remaining architectural feature of a small 12thcentury church which consisted of a nave of the same size and a chancel somewhat shorter than the present ones. In the first half of the 13th century the chancel was lengthened, but the side walls were probably not rebuilt, and the south aisle was added in the first quarter of the 14th century, and the large north-east window of the nave probably dates from the middle of the same century. In the 15th century the nave walls were raised, and a low-pitched roof put on, but the only clearstory windows appear to be of much later date. The tower belongs to the last half of the 17th century.

The east window of the chancel is of three cinquefoiled lights with trefoiled lights over, beneath a twocentred head, and is of 15th-century date. The north wall is without openings, but the south contains two windows. That to the east is a 13th-century lancet with a wide internal splay and external rebate, and beneath it is a 13th-century piscina with a shouldered head, and a drain in the sill of the recess. The other window is square-headed, of two trefoiled lights, the jambs being of 14th-century date, but the head of the 15th. The mullions and jambs, both external and internal, are moulded, the latter with a pointed bowtel. Between these windows is a very narrow doorway with a chamfered three-centred head, probably of the 15th century. The chancel arch is round-headed, 5 ft. 9 in. wide, of a single square order with a chamfered and beaded abacus, which is continued on the west face up to the north wall of the nave. On either side are two small roughly-cut squints, that on the north side having a cinquefoiled head about midway in the thickness of the wall. It has been blocked with a thin brick wall of recent date, and the southern squint is entirely built up on the west side.

The north wall of the nave, which probably retains in the lower part its 12th-century walling, has one large 14th-century window near the east end, from which the tracery has been removed and replaced by a wooden frame. The north door is of 14th-century date, with a continuous wave-mould in the jambs and two-centred head. The porch is perhaps of the 15th century, with a low-pitched roof, which cuts into the label of the doorway. It is entirely of timber construction. The south arcade is of three bays with octagonal piers, and moulded capitals and bases, the latter very plain. The arches are two-centred, of two chamfered orders, both chamfers having carefully designed stops, those in the inner order taking the form of heads of men or beasts, and the label of ogee section has grotesque human heads for drips. The west window of the aisle is of late 15th-century date, with three cinquefoiled lights under a three-centred arch. The two clearstory windows are square-headed and perfectly plain, probably 18th-century insertions, one at the south-east to light the pulpit, the other at the north-west to light a west gallery. The south aisle has a 15th-century east window of two cinquefoiled lights with tracery under a square head; to the north of it is a small image bracket. In the south wall the eastern window is of two trefoiled lights with a quatrefoil over of flowing tracery, c. 1325, and just to the east of the south doorway is a single threecentred light of late date. West of the doorway is a square-headed 15th-century window of two cinquefoiled lights, and rather coarse detail. The south doorway has a two-centred head of a single hollow-chamfered order, and is of the date of the arcade.

The east wall of the tower is of plastered brickwork, and is carried on a pointed arch which springs on the north from a chamfered respond with an engaged shaft, and on the south from a complete pier of the same detail, set a little to the west of the second column of the south arcade, but to the north of its line. It stands free on all sides, the wall which it carries butting against the north face of the arcade, the label of which is cut away from this point. The mouldings of arch and pier are carefully worked in plaster on a brick core, the details of the capitals being of the Tuscan order, and above the arch is a moulded string breaking up over the crown. The stair is on the north side, being carried up from the first floor in an octagonal turret at the north-east, finished with a domed cap of brickwork. The windows of the belfry stage are of two pointed lights under a round head with a pierced spandrel, and there is a similar window in the second story on the west.

The chancel roof is underdrawn with a plaster ceiling and covered with red tiles; the nave roof is plain work of 15th-century date, and the aisle roof is probably contemporary with it. In the chancel arch are the marks of a screen, and also in the east respond of the south arcade.

The church has been abandoned since the building of the new church, and is now in a deplorable condition. The nave roof is rotten and full of holes, the walls cracked and sodden with rain, and the whole building smothered in ivy, which has pushed its way through the roofs and unglazed windows. A few decaying pews remain in the nave, which is open to any chance comer, and desecrated with the scribbled names of trippers. (fn. 129)

A few fittings taken from it are preserved in the new church. The font is octagonal, of the 15th century, with square panels on the bowl, the alternate panels containing a rose, a leaf pattern, a blank shield, and what seems to be the representation of a shrine with a gabled top, on which is a cresting of trefoiled arches, with a cross at either end.

There is also a canopied tomb of Jacobean style to three children of Edmund Brudenell, with a rhyming inscription:—

Cruell death by mortal blades
Hathe slaine foure of my Tender babes
Whereof Mary Thomas and Dorothye
Within this place there bodies lie
But God which never man deceaved
Hath their souls to him receaved
This death to them is greatest gayne
Increasinge their joy freeing them from payne
O Dorathie my blessed childe
Which lovingly lyved and dyed mild
Thou wert my tenth even God's own choys
In the exceedingly I did rejoyse
Upon Good friday at night my doll depted
Adew my sweet and most true hearted
My bodye with thine I desyre should lye
When God hath appointed me to dye
Hoping through Christ he will provide
For my soul wth thyne in heaven to abide
And I your father Edmund Brudenell
Untill the resurection with the will dwell
And so adew my sweet lambs three
Untill in heaven I shall you see
Such is my hope of Richard my son
Whose body lieth buried in King's Sutton.

There are five bells, the treble and second by Ellis Knight, 1633, the third of 1730, the fourth of 1659, an early work of the younger Henry Knight, and the tenor by Ellis Knight, 1636.

A plated set of communion vessels is in use; other silver plate exists but cannot, it is alleged, be found.

The registers are said to be lost.


The chapel of Stoke Mandeville was originally appendant to the prebendal church of Aylesbury, together with the chapelries of Bierton, Buckland, and Quarrendon. (fn. 130) In 1266 (fn. 131) the four chapels were granted by the Bishop of Lincoln to the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln, and in 1294 (fn. 132) a vicarage was instituted of Bierton Church, with the chapels of Stoke Mandeville, Buckland, and Quarrendon. A separate chaplain was to be found by the vicar of Bierton to serve the chapel of Stoke Mandeville, (fn. 133) the altar dues being worth 7 marks a year. In 1858 the chapels of Stoke Mandeville and Buckland (fn. 134) were separated from Bierton, and formed separate benefices. The Dean and Chapter of Lincoln are still patrons of the living, which is now a vicarage. The rectorial estate has belonged since 1294 to the dean and chapter. It was leased by them in the 18th century to the governors of Christ's Hospital, London, who held it in 1813 and 1862. (fn. 135) The rectorial estate became the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1870. (fn. 136)

A detached portion of Stoke Mandeville parish, at Prestwood, was amalgamated in 1852 (fn. 137) with parts of Hughenden and Great Missenden parishes, and assigned to the Consolidated Chapelry of Prestwood, which forms a separate ecclesiastical parish. The living is a vicarage, of which Mr. C. D. Disraeli is the patron. The church of the Holy Trinity was built shortly before the formation of the parish, and was consecrated in 1849. It was enlarged in 1885.

There is a Wesleyan chapel in Stoke Mandeville, built in 1818.

George Shaw, (fn. 138) who was curate of Stoke Mandeville and Buckland in 1774, attained considerable fame as a naturalist in the 18th century. He was the younger son of the Rev. Timothy Shaw, the vicar of Bierton, and was born in 1751, and as a boy showed his love for natural history. He was ordained deacon in 1774, but afterwards abandoned the Church as a profession, to study medicine at Edinburgh. He then went to Oxford as botanical lecturer. He took part in 1788 in the founding of the Linnaean Society in London, where he had practised for a year, and became one of the vice-presidents of the society. In 1791 Shaw was appointed assistantkeeper of the natural history section of the British Museum, and was keeper from 1807 till his death in 1813. He was an indefatigable worker, and the writer of many scientific papers and books.


In 1726 John Jackson, for carrying out the desire of his late father, Thomas Jackson, by deed settled a yearly rent-charge of £1 for providing 120 twopenny loaves of good wholesome bread for the poor on Easter Day. The rent-charge is paid out of three cottages situated near the Bull Inn.

Charity of Annabella Ligo, founded by indenture of 15 October 1733, consists of 3 roods in this parish, let at £2 a year. In 1907 45 poor persons received gifts of bread in respect of these charities.

Unknown donor—In the Parliamentary returns of 1786, a yearly sum of £2 10s. was stated to be distributed to the poor of this parish, who also had a right to forty days' thrashing of wheat, barley, and bean straw. In respect of this charity, the sum of £5 a year was formerly paid by the Governors of Christ's Hospital under a lease from the Dean and Chapter of Lincoln of the rectorial estate of this parish, which became the property of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1870.

The charge was redeemed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1880 by the transfer to the official trustees of £167 new 3 per cent. stock, now consols, now producing yearly £4. 3s. 4d., which is distributed in gifts of money.


  • 1. Local Govt. Bd. Order 25 Mar. 1885.
  • 2. Harl. MS. 3688.
  • 3. Ord. Surv.
  • 4. Inf. from Bd. of Agric. (1905).
  • 5. Com. Incl. Award.
  • 6. V.C.H. Bucks. i, 233b.
  • 7. Dugdale, Mon. Angl. iii, 270.
  • 8. Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 245b; Feud. Aids, i, 98; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cclxxxiv, no. 100; ibid. Misc. dxxx, 4 Chas. I, pt. 25, no. 127.
  • 9. V.C.H. Bucks. i, 233b.
  • 10. Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), 376.
  • 11. Testa de Nevill (Rec. Com.), 245b.
  • 12. Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 23.
  • 13. Cal. Close, 1227–31, p. 564.
  • 14. Ibid. 1231–4, p. 112.
  • 15. Ibid. 1272–9, p. 23.
  • 16. Plac, de Quo War. (Rec. Com.), 258b.
  • 17. Feud. Aids, i, 86.
  • 18. Feet of F. Div. Co. East. 10 Edw. I, nos. 42, 43, 45.
  • 19. Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. I, no. 31.
  • 20. Feud. Aids, i, 98.
  • 21. Feet of F. Bucks. Mich. 3 Edw. II.
  • 22. Ibid.
  • 23. Chan. Inq. p.m. 20 Edw. II, no. 31.
  • 24. Ibid.
  • 25. De Banco R. Trin. 6 Edw. II, m. 147 d.; Feet of F. Bucks. Trin. 1 Edw. III.
  • 26. Feud. Aids, i, 123.
  • 27. Nicholls, Hist. and Antiq. of Leics. iv, pt. 2, p. 870. The second William Moton is omitted in the pedigree in Visit. of Notts. (Harl. Soc. iv), 128, 129.
  • 28. Chan. Inq. p.m. 16 Ric. II (pt. 1), no. 21.
  • 29. Cal. Pat. 1401–5, p. 175.
  • 30. De Banco R. 570, m. 268 d.; ibid. m. 442 d.
  • 31. Ibid.
  • 32. Cal. Pat. 1401–5, p. 175.
  • 33. Chan. Inq. p.m. 3 Hen. V, no. 46.
  • 34. Collins, Peerage of Engl. (ed. Brydges), iii, 488.
  • 35. Ibid.
  • 36. Visit. of Bucks. 1566 (ed. Metcalfe).
  • 37. Exch. Inq. p.m. bdle. 29, no. 4.
  • 38. Lipscomb, Hist. of Bucks. ii, 447. Pedigree of Brudenell from Cardigan MSS.
  • 39. According to the Visit. of Bucks. 1566, Francis was the great-grandson of this John Brudenell.
  • 40. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser 2), cclxxxiv, no. 100.
  • 41. Feet of F. Bucks. East. 8 Jas. I; ibid. Trin. 16 Jas. I; Chan. Inq. p.m. Misc. dxxx, pt. 25, no. 127.
  • 42. Lysons, Magna Brit. i, 635.
  • 43. Feet of F. Bucks. East. 4 Chas. I; Recov. R. East. 4 Chas. I.
  • 44. Feet of F. Bucks. East. 4 Chas. I; Recov. R. East. 4 Chas. I.
  • 45. Hist. of Bucks. ii, 448.
  • 46. Ibid. 449.
  • 47. a Cf. Charities of Stoke Mandeville.
  • 48. Feet of F. Bucks. East. 18 Geo. II.
  • 49. Burke, Commoners, i, 110.
  • 50. Lysons, Magna Brit. i, 635; Burke, Commoners, i, 110.
  • 51. Lysons, loc. cit.
  • 52. Ibid.
  • 53. Sheahan, Topog. of Bucks. 197.
  • 54. Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 20.
  • 55. Excerpta e Rot. Fin. (Rolls Ser.), ii, 495.
  • 56. Cal. Inq. p.m. Edw. 1, no. 154.
  • 57. Feud. Aids, i, 86.
  • 58. Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. I, no. 31.
  • 59. Ibid.
  • 60. Feud. Aids, i, 98.
  • 61. Ibid. 112.
  • 62. Chan. Inq. p.m. 18 Edw. I, no. 37.
  • 63. Feud. Aids, i, 112.
  • 64. Chan. Inq. p.m. 30 Edw. I, no. 31; Abbrev. Rot. Orig. (Rec. Com.), i, 123.
  • 65. Ibid.
  • 66. De Banco R. Hil. 5 & 6 Edw. II, m. 152.
  • 67. Ibid. Trin. no. 286, m. 139 d.
  • 68. Feet of F. Bucks. Mich. 7 Edw. II.
  • 69. Ibid. 8 Edw. II.
  • 70. De Banco R. 286, m. 139 d.
  • 71. Ibid.
  • 72. Feud. Aids, i, 123.
  • 73. Ibid.
  • 74. Assize R. 1477, m. 46.
  • 75. Feet. of F. Bucks. East. 47 Edw. III.
  • 76. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, p. 226.
  • 77. Ibid.
  • 78. Ibid.
  • 79. Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Ric. II, no. 30.
  • 80. Cal. Pat. 1377–81, p. 226.
  • 81. Ibid.
  • 82. Ibid. 503.
  • 83. Chan. Inq. p.m. 8 Ric. II, no. 38.
  • 84. Collins, Peerage of Engl. (ed. Brydges), iii, 488.
  • 85. Lipscomb, Hist. of Bucks. ii.
  • 86. Collins, Peerage (ed. Brydges), iii, 438.
  • 87. Lipscomb, Hist. of Bucks. ii, 447; Pedigree of Brudenell from Cardigan MSS.
  • 88. Hund. R. (Rec. Com.), i, 20.
  • 89. Pat. 14 Jas. I, pt. 13.
  • 90. Recov. R. Mich. 2 Geo. IV.
  • 91. Chart. R. 89, m. 3, no. 23 (24 Edw. I).
  • 92. Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 42.
  • 93. Feet of F. Bucks. Trin. 6 Edw. II, nos. 17, 18.
  • 94. Feud. Aids, i, 123.
  • 95. Chan. Inq. p.m. 28 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 58.
  • 96. Lipscomb, Hist. of Bucks. ii, 447.
  • 97. Chan. Inq. p.m. 9 & 10 Edw. IV, no. 34.
  • 98. Ibid.
  • 99. Cal. Inq. p.m. Hen. VII, nos. 563, 564.
  • 100. Ibid. no. 564; Collins, Peerage (ed. Bridges), iii, 491.
  • 101. B.M. Add. Chart. 47369.
  • 102. Feet of F. Bucks. Mich. 31 Hen. VIII.
  • 103. B.M. Add. Chart. 47369, m. 2.
  • 104. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cxviii, no. 4.
  • 105. B.M. Add. Chart. 47369, m. 3; Feet of F. Bucks. East. 27 Eliz.; B.M. Add. Chart. 47369, m. 567; Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), Misc. dviii, no. 21.
  • 106. Feet of F. Bucks. Hil. 15 Jas. I.
  • 107. (P.R.O.) Lay Subs. R. bdle. 80, no. 302.
  • 108. Close, 1653, pt. 39, no. 30.
  • 109. (P.R.O.) Lay Subs. R. bdle. 80, no. 336.
  • 110. Cf. Stoke Mandeville Manor.
  • 111. Feet of F. Bucks. Hil. 26 Edw. I.
  • 112. Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 42.
  • 113. Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 298.
  • 114. Ibid. 348.
  • 115. Feet of F. Bucks Mich. 10 Edw. II.
  • 116. Chan. Inq. p.m. 32 Edw. I, no. 42; ibid. 28 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 58.
  • 117. Ibid.
  • 118. Visit. of Oxon. (Harl. Soc. v), 143; Chan. Inq. p.m. 13 Ric. II, no. 48.
  • 119. Chan. Inq. p.m. 13 Ric. II, no. 48.
  • 120. Coram Rege R. Mich. 20 Ric. II, m. 26.
  • 121. Close, 14 Ric. II, m. 38 d.
  • 122. Chan. Inq. p.m. 18 Ric. II, no. 39.
  • 123. Ibid. 9 & 10 Edw. IV, no. 34.
  • 124. Feet of F. Bucks. East. 9 Edw. IV.
  • 125. Collins, Peerage (ed. Brydges), iii, 491.
  • 126. Feet of F. Bucks. Mich. 31 Hen. VIII.
  • 127. V.C.H. Bucks. i, 233.
  • 128. Recov. R. East. 4 Chas. I; Feet of F. Bucks. East. 4 Chas. I.
  • 129. That such an interesting building, with its beautiful south arcade, and long history, should be left to its fate in this manner is nothing less than a public disgrace to the parish.
  • 130. Cal. Pat. 1313–17, p. 304.
  • 131. Ibid.
  • 132. Linc. Epis. Reg. Bp. Sutton's Inst.
  • 133. Rec. of Bucks. i, 233–45.
  • 134. Sheahan, Hist. and Topog. of Bucks. 109.
  • 135. Lysons, Magna Brit. i, 635; Sheahan, Hist. and Topog. of Bucks. 199.
  • 136. a Cf. Charities of Stoke Mandeville.
  • 137. Lond. Gaz. 9 April 1852 (1019).
  • 138. Dict. Nat. Biog. li, 436.