Parishes: Tickencote

A History of the County of Rutland: Volume 2. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1935.

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


'Parishes: Tickencote', in A History of the County of Rutland: Volume 2, ed. William Page( London, 1935), British History Online [accessed 21 July 2024].

'Parishes: Tickencote', in A History of the County of Rutland: Volume 2. Edited by William Page( London, 1935), British History Online, accessed July 21, 2024,

"Parishes: Tickencote". A History of the County of Rutland: Volume 2. Ed. William Page(London, 1935), , British History Online. Web. 21 July 2024.

In this section


Tichecote (xi cent.); Tikencote (xii cent.); Tykencot (xiii cent.); Tykingkote (xiv cent.); Totyncote, Tetyncote (xv cent.); Thekencote (xvi cent.).

The parish of Tickencote, in the eastern part of the county to the north-west of Stamford, contains 1,293 acres, of which five are covered by water and the greater part of the remainder are laid down to permanent pasture. The subsoil is Inferior Oolite and, by the river, Great Oolite. The Great North Road, which here follows the line of Ermine Street, lies just within the north-eastern boundary of the parish; the small portion of the parish lying to the north-east of this road contains Warren Wood and the building known as Tickencote Warren. The village is picturesquely situated on the southern slope of the hill from the Great North Road to the River Gwash, which flows through the parish, and beside the river there is a mill, only recently out of use. The houses, which are of stone, include the former rectory opposite the church, which is of considerable interest, and a number of thatched cottages, two of which have been burnt down and not yet rebuilt. Alterations appear to have taken place in the village streets. It seems probable that there was a definite road where the path runs south-east of the school and the present flagstaff, erected by Col. Wingfield in commemoration of His Majesty's Coronation. The path joins the road in the direction of Great Casterton. Probably this road branched off to join the earlier road by the church. This road led round the west end of the church and thence to the south of it, along the Rifle Range erected about 1906.

The Hall stands a short distance south-west of the church, with Tickencote Park to the north and west. It is a well-designed early 18th-century (fn. 1) building of two principal stories in the Italian style of the period, with tall sash windows, eaves, cornice and quoined angles. On the main front the central block has a pediment containing a shield with the arms of Wing field, a semicircular flight of steps to the entrance, and projecting wings. (fn. 2) A detached low two-story 17th-century building with mullioned windows and stone-slated eaved roof, which stands a short distance to the south-east, is apparently part of, or belonged to, an older house, but was later used as offices and stables.

There are besides the main village two groups of farm buildings, Tickencote Lodge and Wild's Lodge, the latter now used as cottages. Both groups are close by the river. There is a wood north-west of the village known as Tickencote Launde, and Tickencote Lodge and Wild's Lodge are suggestive of forest land.


TICKENCOTE was held at the time of Domesday (1086) by the Countess Judith (fn. 3) and thence passed to the St. Liz family and the Kings of Scotland, as parcel of the Honour of Huntingdon, until in the reign of Henry III, on the death of John le Scot, the honour was divided among his co-heirs and Tickencote followed the descent of the Hastings purparty. (fn. 4) By the time of Edward III the ' corpus of the honor was dismembered and that feudal description ceased to have any great significance.' (fn. 5)

In 1086 Grimbald held of the Countess 3 hides less one bovate in Tickencote. (fn. 6) He was succeeded by his son, Robert Grimbald, (fn. 7) who founded the Priory of Austin Canons at Owston and gave them the church of Tickencote, which gift was confirmed by Robert de Chesney, Bishop of Lincoln (1147–68). (fn. 8) The descent of the Grimbald family has been traced under Diddington (co. Hunts, q.v.). (fn. 9) William Grimbald, apparently son of Robert, granted land in Tickencote to Henry, son of Richard de Tickencote, in 1199. (fn. 10) Robert, son of William Grimbald, seems to have died in 1216, when the custody of his lands in Tickencote was granted to John de Candi. (fn. 11) This Robert Grimbald, or a son of the same name, in 1234 acknowledged the right of the abbot of Owston to present to Tickencote church. (fn. 12) He was returned as overlord of the manor in 1250. (fn. 13) William, son of Robert, who was a minor in 1265, married Mabel, sister of John Kirkby, Bishop of Ely, and their son Robert was of the age of 30 years in 1312. (fn. 14) The mesne lordship probably passed with Diddington (q.v.) to Robert's brother, William (d. 1328), then to William his son (d. 1350), and to Robert his son, who died young. (fn. 15)

The tenant holding at all events a part of the manor of the Grimbalds was Henry, son of Richard de Tickencote, who was granted 6 bovates of land here for a fifth of a fee. (fn. 16) Henry de Tickencote had licence to export bread in 1224. (fn. 17) Before 1234, however, the manor had passed to William le Daneys, who, with his overlord Robert Grimbald, consented to the presentation to the church of Tickencote by the abbot of Owston (co. Leic.). (fn. 18) William had married as his second wife Mabel, who was apparently heiress of the Tickencotes, as on the death of William in 1250 his widow Mabel had the custody of the manor (fn. 19) until the majority of the heir, John, which occurred in 1253. (fn. 20) John in that year had seisin of the manor, which had been in the king's hands on account of the debt owing from William de Plessetis, who had a lien on the manor from William le Daneys, saving the dower of Mabel. (fn. 21) John le Daneys seems to have died without issue before 1263, when lands in Tickencote were settled on Mabel for life with reversion to William, (fn. 22) son of Richard le Daneys, brother of Mabel's husband William. (fn. 23) William, son of William son of Richard, had a son Brice le Daneys, (fn. 24) who with Isabel his wife was holding lands in Tickencote in 1287. (fn. 25) Brice held a quarter of a fee and Hugh de Bussey half a fee there in 1305. (fn. 26) Before 1311, however, Brice had acquired the manor, which he settled in that year on himself and Joan, probably his second wife. (fn. 27) Brice was knight of the shire for Rutland in 1312 and took a prominent part in the affairs of the county. In the same year he was involved in a suit against Grimbald, son of Grimbald Pauncefort, heir of Brice's cousin, Ella le Daneys, as to lands in Hildesham. (fn. 28) Brice died before 1344, when Oger Daveys (Daneys) released to his brother Roland all claim to the manor of Tickencote and all other lands which formerly belonged to Brice in Empingham. (fn. 29) The relationship of Brice to the brothers does not appear. Roland was knight of the shire in 1352 and in 1362 died seised of the manor of Tickencote. (fn. 30) His widow, Elizabeth, held the manor for life, by gift of Alexander Skulthorpe and Richard Daneys, with remainder to John, son of Oliver (? Oger), then aged 24 years, and died in 1377. (fn. 31) John had livery of his uncle's lands, (fn. 32) so we may conclude that Oliver is a scribal error for Oger, brother of Roland. In 1400 John died seised of the manor leaving his son and heir John, aged 25 years. (fn. 33) In 1433 John Daneys, Kt., died seised of the manor, including a hall, chapel, dovecote, view of frankpledge and Court Baron, and left Robert his son and heir aged 23 years. (fn. 34) In 1434 Robert Daneys of Tickencote was sheriff. (fn. 35) In the following or same year he died without issue, leaving his sister Joan, the wife of Thomas Dale, aged 22 years, and Elizabeth aged 20, his co-heirs. (fn. 36) Thomas Dale was sheriff of Rutland in 1457 and John son of Thomas in 1468. (fn. 37) In 1479 John died seised of the manor, leaving William his son and heir aged 8 years. (fn. 38) In 1535 William settled the manor and died in 1536. His heirs were his daughters Anne Fetyplace, Joan Wollascot and his granddaughter, Margaret Lynne, (fn. 39) who inherited Tickencote. Margaret married John Campynett, and in 1551 he granted the manor of Tickencote and 40s. rent in Tickencote and Empingham to trustees for himself and Margaret in survivorship, with remainder to their heirs and with further remainder to the heirs of John. (fn. 40) This settlement led to much litigation, as John Campynett died in 1557, (fn. 41) and Margaret, who survived him, married Paul Gresham. John's brother, William Campynett, claimed the inheritance and lost his case. (fn. 42) On Paul's death Margaret married Robert Ratcliffe, but as Paul Gresham had previously settled the property upon their children, and as their sons died without issue, the property, on the death of Margaret in 1594, passed to their only daughter, Elizabeth, the wife of John Wingfield. (fn. 43) Elizabeth Wingfield died in 1602 seised of the manor of Tickencote, held of the king in chief by knight service, leaving John Wingfield, her husband, holding the premises by courtesy; her son and heir John Wingfield was aged 8 years. (fn. 44) Sir John Wingfield, Kt., the son, made a settlement on his marriage with Frances, daughter of Lord Edward Cromwell, and died in 1632 seised of the manor and a wood called Bowyowe Wood in Tickencote, tenements bought of Edward Maria Wingfield, leaving a son Richard, aged 12. (fn. 45) It is possible that Bowyowe Wood was the parcel of woodland in the parish of Tickencote containing 24 acres of which Robert, Earl of Salisbury, died seised in 1612. (fn. 46) Sir Richard was succeeded by his son, John Wingfield, in 1663, (fn. 47) who held the manor and also view of frankpledge in 1673. (fn. 48) John died in 1680 and was succeeded by his son John, who held the manor and died in 1734. (fn. 49) His son John died in his lifetime, but he was succeeded by his grandson John. (fn. 50) This John Wingfield held the manor and died in 1773, (fn. 51) his wife Sarah surviving him. (fn. 52) In 1787 Sarah Wingfield and her son, John Wingfield, were dealing with the manor and also free warren, courts leet and courts baron. (fn. 53) John Wingfield was succeeded by John Muxloe Wingfield, the owner in 1846 of all the soil of the parish except 3 acres of glebe. (fn. 54) He was succeeded by his son John Harry Lee Wingfield, who died in 1880. (fn. 55) His elder son, Col. John Maurice Wingfield, D.S.O., O.B.E., J.P., died in 1931 and left the estates to his nephew, John Llewellyn Parry, in tail male with a proviso that he should assume the name of Wingfield.

Wingfield. Argent a bend gules cotised sable with three pairs of wings argent upon the bend.

In 1185 the Knights Templars held in Tickencote of the gift of Ralph Grimbald one bovate of land which Asceline the priest had for 4s. (fn. 56) This holding is difficult to trace; in the report of Prior Philip de Thame to the Grand Master for a.d. 1338, there is no mention of its having come into the hands of the Hospitallers, and it is well known that some of the Templars' lands were never surrendered to them. (fn. 57) It is tempting to identify this holding with 78 acres of glebe mentioned in an undated 18th-century terrier in the Peterborough Diocesan Register, the fields now forming part of the manorial lands and probably now known as Rectory Fields. (fn. 58)

In 1504. there was a quitclaim to the heirs of Hugh Asherton of a holding in Tickencote. (fn. 59) In 1535 Sir Robert Peyton and Frances his wife had licence to settle a considerable estate in Lyndon and Tickencote on themselves for life, with remainder to their son Robert Peyton, with contingent remainders over. (fn. 60) In 1553 licence was granted to the said Frances, widow, her son Robert Peyton and others to grant the last-mentioned premises with some additions and view of frankpledge to John Hunt his heirs and assigns. (fn. 61) It is not clear how much of this holding was in Tickencote, but in 1673 the view of frankpledge had come into the hands of the Wingfield family. (fn. 62)


The church of ST. PETER consists of a vaulted chancel 21 ft. by 17 ft. 6 in., nave 32 ft. 6 in. by 21 ft. 6 in., north vestry 8 ft. by 7 ft. 3 in., and south porch 8 ft. 2 in. by 6 ft. 5 in., all these measurements being internal. The vestry and porch are opposite one another at the east end of the nave, the porch being carried up as a tower, with pyramidal slated roof. The chancel and nave are under a continuous slated roof with east and west gables. The vestry is the full height of the walls of chancel and nave.

With the exception of the chancel arch, which is a particularly rich example of Norman work, c. 1160–70 or perhaps a little later, the whole of the church was rebuilt in 1792 by Miss Eliza Wingfield from the designs of Samuel Pepys Cockerell. (fn. 63) The chancel, however, was rebuilt on the old plan and in imitation of the old work, (fn. 64) and though far from being an exact copy, still to a large extent preserves the main characteristics of the Norman building. No attempt was made to reproduce the old nave, Cockerell's design being meant to harmonise with and carry westward the main lines and features of the rebuilt 12th-century chancel: as a late 18th-century version of Norman architecture it has a certain historical value and interest, but the complete disappearance of any vestige of old work west of the chancel is much to be regretted. There exist, however, perspective drawings and a plan of the chancel made by Dr. Stukeley in 1731, (fn. 65) a plan of the whole building and other drawings made by Carter in 1780, (fn. 66) and a view from the north-east by Carter taken in 1785. (fn. 67) From these a fairly complete knowledge of the church as it existed in the half-century prior to its rebuilding can be obtained, though there are discrepancies in the drawings, and their accuracy has been questioned. (fn. 68) It is difficult, therefore, to determine with what amount of fidelity the old work was followed at the rebuilding.

Carter's plan (fn. 69) shows an aisleless nave about 33 ft. 6 in. by 23 ft., with north and south doorways near the west end, the former blocked, a west window of three lights, and north and south windows of two lights in the eastern half. The south doorway was covered by a porch. The north wall was of considerable thickness (fn. 70) at its east end, where it joined the chancel arch, but gradually narrowed westward, and the west and south walls appear to have been about 27 in. thick. The other drawings show that the south doorway was of 12th-century date, with an outer roundheaded arch of a single cheveron moulded order on jambshafts with cushion capitals, but the inner order or arch was apparently much later with a flat-pointed head. (fn. 71) The nave was covered by a low-pitched, leaded eaved roof, and over the chancel arch was a bell-cote with arched openings for two bells under a single gable surmounted by a cross and pierced by a small pointed opening. (fn. 72) The bell-cote, like others in the county, was probably of 13th-century date, in which period the nave may have been rebuilt. There was a 13th-century moulded tomb recess, (fn. 73) containing a coffin lid with floriated cross, in the north wall, but the evidence of the drawings is not sufficient to enable a definite date to be assigned to the nave as a whole. There is, however, no reason to suppose that the 12th-century south doorway was not part of the original structure, which was probably reconstructed in the 13th and altered in the 15th century. The north and south windows were square-headed and apparently of the latter period, and the low-pitched roof was probably then erected. (fn. 74) The west window is not shown in any of the drawings.

Sketch by Dr. Stukeley of Tickencote Church

The whole of the building is said to have been in a state of dilapidation and decay in the years immediately preceding the rebuilding. Both Stukeley's and Carter's drawings bear this out, as well in the chancel (fn. 75) as in the nave. The round-headed east window appears to have been lengthened downwards, its sill cutting into the wall-arcade below, (fn. 76) and mullions dividing it into three lights inserted. (fn. 77) The easternmost window on the north side had also been divided into two lights by a mullion. The other north window was blocked and a doorway had been cut through the wall below it. (fn. 78) On the south side little or nothing of the 12th-century walling remained, a chapel dedicated to the Holy Trinity having been added on that side early in the 14th century, and two pointed arches pierced through the wall, one on each side of the abutment (fn. 79) of the transverse arch of the vault. The chapel measured internally about 18 ft. by 15 ft., (fn. 80) but had long been demolished, the arches filled in and square-headed windows inserted.

In rebuilding the chancel the old materials are said to have been re-used where possible, (fn. 81) but a stair in the thickness of the wall at the north-east angle, which led to the roof space, or a chamber above the vault, was omitted, and part of the floor (at the west end) was raised. (fn. 82) The rebuilt elevations, as already pointed out, are conjectural restorations rather than copies of the then existing work: the whole of the south wall is new, the design being copied from what remained on the north side, and the cornice (fn. 83) has no relation to anything that was there before, the old roof being eaved.

The chancel is of two bays combined into one by the use of a sexpartite vault (fn. 84) and lighted on each side by two round-headed windows and by one at the east end. The external elevations consist each of four bays, formed by tall half-round buttresses, and are divided horizontally into three well-marked stages, with two more above in the east gable. At the eastern angles the buttresses form large, triple-clustered shafts (fn. 85) extending to the middle of the third stage. The ground stage throughout is occupied by a wall-arcade consisting of intersecting semicircular moulded arches, one full arch to each bay, springing from jambshafts with moulded abaci only, middle-shafts with scalloped capitals, all with plain bases on a continuous chamfered plinth and sub-plinth. The stringcourse above the arcade has a round between two quirks and forms the sills of the windows. The second stage is blank except for the windows, like the third stage on the north and south, the dividing stringcourse being decorated with a double billet. This string serves as a hood to the windows, and like the one below is taken round the buttresses. The window arches are of a single enriched moulded order on jambshafts with cushion capitals and moulded bases, the enrichment consisting of the same ornament as that used in the cornice. At the east end the third stage is occupied by a series of four round-headed recesses, or blind windows, the arches decorated with double cheverons on jambshafts, with cushion capitals and moulded bases, and an outer continuous billet-moulded order. Above this the gable is divided into two more stages by enriched strings, the topmost triangular portion having three squareheaded recesses with another above. (fn. 86) The fourth stage is occupied its full height by an arcade of continuous cheveron moulded arches, on either side of a tall round-headed window, the sill of which is extended downward to the middle of the stage below. This window has two continuous lines of billetmoulding, and an enriched sill supported by carved heads; there are also carved heads above and on either side of the opening. This upper window lights the roof space over the vault, which cuts across and blocks its lower portion, (fn. 87) though the opening is now glazed its full height. The whole of the work in the east front is of a very elaborate description, (fn. 88) nearly every part being enriched with cheveron, billet or other ornament, the only unrelieved surfaces being in the second stage. The middle buttress stops below the east window, but those on either side are taken, in receding stages, almost the full height of the wall.

Plan of Tickencote Church by J. Carter, Sept. 1780

Internally there is a string round the chancel at sill level and the windows have an outer cheveron arch on shafts with cushion capitals and moulded bases; the splays are continued round the heads. The vault ribs spring at the angles from low pillars with scalloped and cushion capitals varying in design, flanked by tall shafts carrying the moulded wall arches, (fn. 89) and the transverse arch from a similar halfround column or respond on the north side. (fn. 90) The ribs and the transverse arch are elaborately decorated on each side with cheverons and the circular boss at the intersection is carved with three small heads. The cells of the vault are plastered. The walls are of bare stone. There are no ancient ritual arrangements in the form of piscina, sedile or aumbry. (fn. 91)

The magnificent chancel arch is the chief feature of interest in the church and the only part of the fabric that was not taken down in 1792. It has been carefully preserved and there are no indications of its having been in any way altered or rechiselled. (fn. 92) Settlement has caused the arch to spread and has pushed the jambs outward; its shape is now an irregular half-ellipse. On the side facing the nave the arch is of six elaborately moulded and enriched orders with hood-mould, but towards the chancel of two orders only. On the west side the outer order rests on square jambs with moulded imposts, and the next four orders on angle-shafts with scalloped and other capitals varying in design, the abaci of which are similar to and continue the line of the chancel string. The shafts have moulded bases on tall double plinths. The inner order of the arch, which has a large round soffit moulding with an edge-roll on each side, springs from half-round responds, with cushion capitals, and moulded bases on square plinths with spurs. On the east side the outer order has a shallow hollow moulding with double cone ornament on the edge, and flat soffit. The enrichment of the arch on the west side is as follows: (i) the innermost order already described; (ii) cats' heads; (iii) battlemented, with cheveron on edge; (iv) grotesques, alternately heads and foliage; (fn. 93) (v) enriched cheveron on both planes; (vi) conventional leaf, or stepped tongue on the wall plane, and plain soffit; the hood-mould has a double billet. The effect of the whole is extraordinarily rich. (fn. 94) Over the arch in the thickness of the wall (fn. 95) is a passage 3 ft. 9 in. wide, access to which is now only by a trap-door in the vestry. (fn. 96) The chancel roof in its present form is modern, and how far it reproduces the old one is uncertain. Little, therefore, can be said regarding the reputed chamber, or priest's room above the vault, (fn. 97) and whether the stairway (fn. 98) at the north-east angle of the chancel was an original feature or a later insertion it is impossible now to say.

Plan of Tickencote Church

Below the south-east window of the chancel is a flat-arched recess (fn. 99) containing a defaced wooden effigy, said to be that of Sir Roland le Daneys (fn. 100) (d. 1363), removed from his tomb in the Holy Trinity chapel at the time of its demolition. (fn. 101)

The 13th-century font has a square bowl, with an arcade of intersecting round arches on each face, foliage above and a line of dog-tooth at each angle stopped by a head below the chamfered rim. The pedestal is modern.

There is a good oak altar-table with bulbous legs, given in 1627 by Lady Ann Beverly. (fn. 102) It stands on a slab of Purbeck marble. (fn. 103) There is a lectern, but no pulpit.

The design (fn. 104) of the new nave was based on that of the chancel, the lines of the sill string and cornice being carried all round the building, and the windows and buttresses are 'copied' from the older work. The nave, however, is much plainer in character, with three windows on each side and one at the west end. Internally the plaster has been stripped from the walls. The entrance is at the east end of the south wall, covered by the porch-tower, with lofty round-headed doorway of three orders; the tympanum has an inscription recording that the church was 'repaired' by Eliza Wingfield in 1792 'with that true sense of religion and reverence for her Maker which ever distinguished her life.' The tower is of three stages, with four tall round-headed openings on the south side in the upper stage.

As originally built a pulpit and desk were placed at the west end. (fn. 105) Some alterations appear to have been made in the pews in 1807, (fn. 106) but the present seating dates from 1875, in which year the church was reroofed and the former plain doorways from the nave to the vestry and porch were given 'Norman' casings.

An iron ring with pierced escutcheon of great beauty was attached to the south door of the old nave, but it has long disappeared. (fn. 107)

A fragment of medieval glass, with the head of Our Lord, is preserved in the middle window on the north side of the nave.

In the nave are memorials to John Wingfield (d. 1841) and other members of the family, and to the Rev. Maudaunt Barton (d. 1904), rector, in whose memory the vestry was restored. (fn. 108)

There are two bells in the tower, the first blank, the second by Thomas Norris of Stamford, 1630. (fn. 109)

The plate consists of a cup and cover paten (fn. 110) of 1607–8, 'given by John Wingfeld and Margarett his wife anno 1608,' and a paten and flagon of 1712–13, 'the gift of John Wingfeild, Esq., and Eliz. his Wife to ye Parish Church of Trikencote in ye County of Rutland on ye 25th of Decembr. 1712.' There were provided by a legacy of Col. J. M. Wingfield and dedicated on 28 April 1932 a silver-gilt chalice and paten, a silver cross and altar candlesticks made by the Goldsmiths' Company. There were also obtained with the same legacy various other gifts, including communion rails, standard candlesticks, credence tables and reredos, all of carved oak enriched by gilding.

The registers before 1812 are as follows: (i) baptisms 1574–1803, marriages 1574–1754, burials 1574–1803; (ii) marriages 1755–1812; (iii) baptisms and burials 1804–1812. (fn. 111)


The first authenticated mention of the advowson is found in the confirmation by Robert de Chesney, Bishop of Lincoln (1147–1168), of the gift of Robert Grimbald of the church of Tickencote to the priory of Austin Canons at Owston (co. Leic.). (fn. 112) In 1234, as already stated, the abbot of Owston presented to the church after acknowledgment of his right had been made by Robert Grimbald and his tenant William le Daneys. (fn. 113) In 1300 Brice le Daneys after suit renounced his claim to the right of presentation and the abbot and convent of Owston presented and continued to do so until the dissolution of that house. The last presentation was in 1528. (fn. 114) In 1553 the king granted to William Fitz William and Arthur Hilton (inter alia) the advowson and rectory of Tickencote, (fn. 115) which in 1553 the grantees conveyed to John Campynett. (fn. 116) John Campynett presented in 1556 and his brother, William Campynett, in 1563 and Gaspar Hunt in 1568. The Bishop presented on the next two occasions, and in 1623 John Wingfield presented, and the advowson has since descended with the manor. (fn. 117)

There are no charities in this parish.


  • 1. The house, which is built of Ketton stone, is said to have been erected in 1705. Stamford Mercury, May 23, 1862.
  • 2. There are five windows in the central block (of which three belong to the slightly advanced middle portion below the pediment) and one in each of the wings, making seven windows in all along the front.
  • 3. V.C.H. Rutl. i, 142.
  • 4. Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, ii, 300, 304.
  • 5. Ibid. 301.
  • 6. V.C.H. Rutl. i, 142.
  • 7. Farrer, op. cit. 302.
  • 8. Dugdale, Mon. Angl. vi, 424.
  • 9. V.C.H. Hunts. ii, 269.
  • 10. Feet of F. Rutl. Hil. 10 Ric. I, no. 4.
  • 11. Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i, 246
  • 12. Rot. Hug. de Welles (Cant. and York Soc), ii, 180.
  • 13. Cal. Inq. Hen. III, nos. 203, 275.
  • 14. Ibid. v, no. 320.
  • 15. V.C.H. Hunts. ii, 269–70.
  • 16. Feet of F. Rutl. Hil. 10 Ric. I, no. 4.
  • 17. Cal. Pat. R. 1216–25, p. 494.
  • 18. Rot. Hug. de Welles, loc. cit.
  • 19. Cal. Inq. Hen. III, nos. 203, 275. Emma, first wife of William le Daneys, was daughter and heir of Robert de Offord. William had by her two daughters (V.C.H. Hunts. ii, 323).
  • 20. Cal. Inq. op. cit. no. 275.
  • 21. Cal. Close R. 1251–3, p. 410.
  • 22. Feet of F. Rutl. East. 47 Hen. III, no. 58.
  • 23. V.C.H. Hunts. ii. 123.
  • 24. Ibid.; Assize R. 348, m. 6 d.
  • 25. Feet of F. Rutl. Hil. 16 Edw. I, no. 17.
  • 26. Feud. Aids, iv, 205.
  • 27. Feet of F. Rutl. Mich. 5 Edw. II, no. 5.
  • 28. Selden Soc. 1917, p. 233; V.C.H. Hunts. ii, 323.
  • 29. Cal. Close R. 1343–6, p. 336.
  • 30. Chan. Inq. p.m. 49 Edw. III, pt. i, no. 34.
  • 31. Ibid. 51 Edw. III (1st nos.), no. 9.
  • 32. Cal. Close R. 1374–7, p. 505.
  • 33. Chan. Inq. p.m. 1 Hen. IV, pt. 1, no. 33.
  • 34. Ibid. 12 Hen. VI, no. 22.
  • 35. Cal. Pat. R. 1429–36, p. 370.
  • 36. Blore, Hist. of Rutl. 62.
  • 37. List of Sheriffs (P.R.O.).
  • 38. Chan. Inq. p.m. 19 Edw. IV, no. 9; Cal. Pat. R. 1475–85, p. 195.
  • 39. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. ii), lix, 44; L. and P. Hen. VIII, xii, pt. 1, g. 539 (21).
  • 40. Cal. Pat. R. 1550–3, p. 60; Feet of F. Div. Cos. Mich. 5 Edw. VI; Recov. R. East. 5 Edw. VI, ro. 100.
  • 41. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. ii), cxv, 37.
  • 42. Cal. S.P. Dom. 1547–80, p. 700; Addenda, 1580–1625, p. 33.
  • 43. Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. ii), ccxlvii, 29.
  • 44. Ibid. ccxcv, 58.
  • 45. Ibid. cccclxx, 178.
  • 46. Ibid. cccxlii, 123.
  • 47. Blore, op. cit. 70.
  • 48. Feet of F. Rutl. East. 25 Chas. II.
  • 49. Blore, loc. cit.; Feet of F. Rutl. Trin. 6 & 7 Geo. II.
  • 50. Blore, loc. cit.
  • 51. Feet of F. Rutl. Hil. 29 Geo. II; Blore, loc. cit.
  • 52. Inst. Bks. (P.R.O.).
  • 53. Recov. R. Trin. 27 Geo. III, ro. 128.
  • 54. White, Hist. and Gaz. Rutl. 1846.
  • 55. Walford, County Families, 1916.
  • 56. Dugdale, Mon. Angl. vi, pt. 2, 829.
  • 57. The Hospitallers in Engl. (Camden Soc. 1855), lvii, lix.
  • 58. Peterb. Dioc. Reg.
  • 59. Feet of F. Rutl. East. 19 Hen. VII, no. 9.
  • 60. L. and P. Hen. VIII, viii, g. 962 (11).
  • 61. Cal. Pat. R. 1550–3, p. 274; Feet of F. Rutl. Hil. 7 Edw. VI.
  • 62. Ibid. East. 25 Chas. II.
  • 63. Gent. Mag. lxiv, 677 (July 1744): in an obituary notice of Miss Wingfield it is stated that 'she lived just to see rebuilt, at her own expense, the very ancient and singular church of Tickencote in Rutland, in a style of architecture as near the original as perhaps could be constructed by a modern artist under the direction of Mr. Cockerell, surveyor, of Savile-row, and execution of Mr. Heynes, mason, of Stamford.' John Carter in 1806 wrote: 'The improvements of St. Margaret's Church, Westminster, tell what fate must have befallen Tickencote, as the same architect bad the handling of both' (Gent. Mag. lxxvi, 34). Cockerell 'improved' St. Margaret's, Westminster, in 1791.
  • 64. 'Tickencote, till within a few years, was one of the most valuable remains in the kingdom, but it has been rebuilt sufficiently near in its likeness to the original to deceive many, and so far from it as to render it not a copy, but an imitation' (Rickman, Gothic Architecture, 7th ed. 77).
  • 65. Stukeley's sketch-book contains five drawings of Tickencote—(i) chancel arch and plan of chancel, (ii) south side of church dated July 20, 1731, (iii) east end, dated July 16, 1731, (iv) north side of chancel 'as formerly,' (v) north-east prospect. The sketch-book, now the property of Mrs. St. John, Dismore House, Hereford, was exhibited at the Society of Antiquaries, March 30, 1922. The Tickencote drawings have been photographed. There are engravings from Stukeley's drawings in Gough's edition of Camden's Britannia, ii, 223* (1789), Plate v: these are (i) east end, (ii) plan of chancel, (iii) section through chancel looking west, (iv) north side of chancel. There are also drawings of the south doorway and porch, and of the chancel arch in Ducarel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities (1767), pl. xiii.
  • 66. Carter, Anc. Archit. of Engl. (ed. 1845), plates 23, 34, and 77. These comprise (i) elevation and details of east end, (ii) details of chancel arch, (iii) monument in nave. Carter's original drawings further include a plan of the entire building dated September 1, 1780, and a draft of the south doorway and porch.
  • 67. In Grose's Antiquities (new ed.), vol. viii, J. Newton direxit. The engraving was published by S. Hooper, July 20 1787.
  • 68. Blore, in 1811, wrote: 'I hazard but little in stating that none of these engravings are very accurate. They do not carry the air of accuracy upon the face of them' (Hist. of Rutl. 72).
  • 69. It is dated Sept. 1, 1780.
  • 70. About 3 ft. 6 in.
  • 71. In Stukeley's north-east prospect the north doorway appears to have a semicircular tympanum, but in Carter's drawing of 1785 it is shown pointed.
  • 72. The upper opening appears to have been too small for a bell, though Stukeley shows it containing one. There is none in Carter's drawing. The bell-cote was over the west wall of the chancel, but was removed when the old nave was taken down and not rebuilt.
  • 73. It is figured in Carter, op. cit. pl. lxxvii, and in Blore, op. cit. 73. It had a tall moulded equilateral arch, the hood with head-stops.
  • 74. Carter described the body of the church as 'of the Tudor style, of common simple work,' and conceived that the south doorway and the tomb recess had been brought from some other fabric: Gent. Mag. lxxvi, 35 (Jan. 1806, in a description of the church as it was in 1780). But there is nothing to support such a view, which appears to have been founded on the belief that the nave was 'added to give room' in Tudor times: ibid. 34.
  • 75. In 1578 part of the chancel was pulled down and in 1586 the chancel windows were out of repair: Irons' Notes, Archd. Visit. Gough described the east end as 'rather cracked and decaying': Camden's Brit. ii (1789), 233*. Carter said that in 1780 much of the work had been 'havocked,' though the greater part of the intention was left: Gent. Mag. lxxvi, 34.
  • 76. It is so shown in Stukeley's and Carter's north-east views, but not on their east elevations, and these appear to have been meant to represent the east front in its original state; there are other discrepancies between them and the perspectives.
  • 77. So shown in the two perspectives, but not on the east elevations. But the mullions are shown on Carter's enlarged plan of the chancel dated September 1780. In the perspectives the window looks like a 13th-century alteration, and may have been so, but Blore states that a mason employed in the rebuilding assured him that the mullions and alterations in the window 'had not the appearance of antiquity, but were of clumsy workmanship': op. cit. 72. Carter, in his description of the church, makes no mention of alterations to the window.
  • 78. So shown in both Stukeley's and Carter's drawings.
  • 79. This appears to have been reconstructed and a tall octagonal column substituted for the original round one, the spring of the arch being thus heightened on that side.
  • 80. Its foundations were uncovered in 1840, those of the east and south walls, with pairs of buttresses at the angles, being intact. A great part of the foundations of the west wall had been moved in the digging of graves.
  • 81. Blore, loc. cit.: 'The greatest care was taken to preserve all the parts of the chancel which were fit to be used again and appeared to be members of the original design, and what was supplied was so far as possible carefully copied from the old materials.'
  • 82. Ibid. 73. The vault was rebuilt stone by stone, but some of the decayed filling of the cells was renewed.
  • 83. Apparently copied from the ornament of the east window, itself a variation of that of the outer order of the chancel arch.
  • 84. This use of a 12th-century sexpartite vault in an English parish church is unique, and its probable date seems to preclude its having been copied from Canterbury: see Bond, Gothic Arch. in Eng. 320.
  • 85. Compare the tower buttresses of St. Peter's, Northampton.
  • 86. Carter shows three square-headed recesses in this position, but in Stukeley's drawing they are round-headed and graded.
  • 87. Carter describes this as a 'large recess, and near its head a small opening lighting the roof': Gent. Mag. lxxvi, 34. It is so shown in his drawing.
  • 88. Carter thought it 'grand and rich' in 1780. 'Between each range there is a string, and at the angles of the elevation rise clusters of columns to the top of the building; similar single columns are likewise between the recesses. The capitals, architraves and strings are full charged with diagonals and other adornments': ibid.
  • 89. There are no wall arches on the south side, their place being taken by hood-moulds with head-stops over the windows.
  • 90. On the south side the transverse arch rests on the 14th-century respond, the capital of which is about 3 ft. higher than that of the column opposite.
  • 91. A drawing by Carter of the interior of the chancel looking south, dated Aug. 31, 1780, shows two blocked 14thcentury pointed arches of three moulded orders in the south wall, with squareheaded two-light windows in the filling. A small engraving made from this drawing together with a north-east view of the church is included in Carter's Specimens of Gothic Archit. (1824) vol. iii.
  • 92. The point is discussed by Blore, op. cit. 73. The 5th Lord Torrington in his Diary refers in 1792 to the arch as beautifully painted.'
  • 93. Amongst the former is a muzzled bear, and reversed heads of a king and queen (on one voussoir). Carter called this order 'a curious and extraordinary collection of masques, ornaments, costumic heads, grotesque figures, etc.': Gent. Mag. lxxvi, 34.
  • 94. The width of the opening, from face to face of responds, is 9 ft. 9 in. Carter described the arch as partaking 'of an oval shape,' and stated that the original colour was in many parts visible: ibid.
  • 95. The wall is about 7 ft. 6 in. thick.
  • 96. The passage affords access from the vestry to the bell-chamber over the porch, and to the roof-space above the chancel, by a round-headed doorway.
  • 97. A section through the chancel looking west, from Stukeley's drawing, showing the roof-space above the vault, is engraved in Gough's edition of Camden's Brit. 2nd ed. (1806), ii, 329 (pl. vii). Carter merely mentions the window 'lighting the roof.' Peck (Hist. of Stamford, 1727) mentions 'a large room over the body of the chancel, with a stone floor and stone stairs up to it, which (if an anchoret, or some such sort of religious person, did not formerly live in it) is alike strange in the designment': bk. viii, 53. Blore said nothing about this 'chamber.' The present floor above the vault is said to have been raised when the new roof was erected, and the ridge of the roof lowered, 'so that the possibility of a living chamber being constructed over the chancel can hardly be fairly judged now from the condition of the loft': MS. Rev. Mordaunt Barton, rector 1885–1904.
  • 98. It started in the thickness of the wall below the north-east window and turned at right angles along the east wall.
  • 99. It is 6 ft. 9 in. wide, 2 ft. 9 in. high, and the site is 14 in. above the sanctuary floor.
  • 100. He is represented in bascinet with camail, hauberk, fringed jupon, shoulder pieces, brassarts, vambraces, elbow and thigh pieces, jambs, knee-caps, articulated sollerets, and richly ornamented belt, but is without spurs or sword. The hands are in prayer, dog at feet, and cushion under head: A. C. Fryer, Wooden Mont. Effigies, 59; Arch. lxi, 545.
  • 101. The date of demolition is unknown.
  • 102. It is inscribed 'O precor aeterna tecum discumbere mensae Deo illi mensam hanc quae tibi Christe dedit. Ex dono Dae Annae Beverly, Anno Domini 1627.'
  • 103. It is thought to be the old altar slab.
  • 104. Describing the church as lately rebuilt in the Norman style, a writer in 1796 said 'it does the person who designed it much credit as there is more purity in it than is usually found in attempts of the sort': Gent. Mag. lxvi, 187 (March 1796). Another view was expressed by Blore (1811), who wrote, 'with respect to this imitative re-edification, if the architect has not been successful, he has the consolation to have many brethren in his profession who have failed in their endeavours to revive the architectural taste of our ancestors': loc. cit.
  • 105. As at Pickworth, erected 1821.
  • 106. An estimate dated October 18, 1807, provides for 'taking down the present seats and dividing the same into proper pews.' In 1862 the pews were described as 'high and closed.'
  • 107. It is figured in Carter's unpublished drawings and engraved in Parker's Glossary (4th ed. 1845), i, 158. Its whereabouts were unknown in 1862: Stamford Mercury, May 23, 1862.
  • 108. He was rector for nineteen years, and gave the choir stalls.
  • 109. North, Ch. Bells of Rutl. 154. The second bell is cracked and not used. There is a pit for a third.
  • 110. Figured in Hope, Ch. Plate in Rutl. 18. The bowl has the arms of Wingfield and is inscribed 'Tickencote in the Countie of Rutland'; the rest of the inscription is on the bottom of base.
  • 111. The last marriage in the first volume is in 1750, and the first burial in the third volume is in 1806.
  • 112. Dugdale, Mon. Angl. vi, 424.
  • 113. Rot. Hug. de Welles (Cant. and York Soc.), ii, 180.
  • 114. Irons' Notes, Linc.Episc. Reg.(Instit.).
  • 115. Cal. Pat. R. 1553, p. 303.
  • 116. Com. Pleas, Deeds Enr. Mich. 1 Mary, m. 19.
  • 117. Irons' Notes, loc. cit.