The copy used for the transcription is, in parts, barely legible. The transcribers comments are shown in Red.

Images, mainly of the house at North Wyke, have been omitted as the quality of the copy was too poor.

My thanks to Richard Capon for organising and proof-reading the transcription from a photocopy of a photocopy.

The document can also be downloaded/viewed in Portable Document Format (PDF).  This requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader to be viewed.

THE ANCIENT FAMILY OF WYKE OF NORTH

WYKE, CO. DEVON.

BY THE REV. W. WYKES-FINCH, M.A., J.P.

[Read at Sidmouth, July, 1903].

[Reprinted from the Transactions of the Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and Art.
1903-xxxv.pp.360-425.]

 

In the twenty-ninth volume of the Transactions of the Association there appeared a paper entitled "Some Reminiscences of the Wykes of South Tawton." In the preparation of this paper the author informed us that he had consulted the two leading county historians, Pole and Risdon, and other authorities, such as the Devon Visitations, by Colonel Vivian, and Worthy’s Devonshire Wills. He, however, frankly confessed that he was a novice at the work he had undertaken. And so it is to be feared he did not realise the importance of accuracy in such writings, nor the seductive fertility of the soil on which he was working in the production of statements that have much to do with the domain of the imagination. Probably in nothing do men more slip, or allow preconceived ideas to dominate their conclusions, than in the writing of family history. Too often a pleasing assumption speedily becomes a boasted fact: the imagination is feasted with indulgence, and senti mental adornment imposes on the unwary and sometimes "deceives the very elect." A single-minded devotion to the investigation of truth gradually falls into abeyance; the desire to convert the pride of fiction into unassailable fact grows apace, and the result becomes worse than misleading. But whatever the cause, the paper in question contains many errors. It was, the writer admits, his first effort in his apprenticeship to the profession of the family historian, and so this should arouse no surprise. At the same time it would be unfortunate to allow the paper to be handed down to posterity as historically correct.

Page 1

On this account, some members of this Association, shortly after its publication, urged on me the duty of reading another paper on the subject, corrective of it, and with wider objects. This is my excuse for obtruding myself on your attention in such a matter.

But, before I proceed with my story, allow me to say that the history of the Wyke family has long occupied my mind and been the object of my researches. And though North Wyke, with all its manors and lands, was lost to the family two hundred years ago, after forty years of litigation, yet from my childhood it cast a spell around my life, and became almost a fascination as time rolled on, so that practically all my days I have felt as if "possessed" with the spirit of my Wyke forefathers. And it thus arose. When about eleven or twelve years old, I well remember a conversation of my old aunt Betty, several years older than my father, who married a Mr. Percy and was born in 1792, and who indelibly impressed on my young mind the burning sense of the wrong she felt from her knowledge of the persistent and indescribable "wickedness", as she called it, whereby her grandfather, William Wykes, and his father before him, had been robbed of the North Wyke estates. She was a woman of strong temperament and great individuality, and so the indignation with which she told me the story of the ruin of the house, left so strong an impression on my mind that ever since I have had a very vivid recollection of the anger and the emphasis with which she denounced the "wickedness" that had brought about the uprooting and downfall of the family. Whether she knew all that is told in the many Chancery and other legal proceedings, I have no recollection, but that she was well acquainted with the distressful story, and had often heard it told both by her mother and grandfather, there can be no doubt, seeing the anger that filled her whole soul and gave life to her every word when she talked to me of the "wickedness" that had ruined them, and which will be described in extracts from Chancery proceedings later on. For her grandfather, William Wykes, was born some years before the death, in 1735, of his grandfather, Nathanael Wykes, who was the next heir male to the estates, after the death of his cousin Roger in December, 16 94, and who claimed them by filing Bills in Chancery and bringing actions of ejectment. We have here a remarkable instance of the length of time sometimes covered by the living touch with the dead, in regard to oral tradition and testimony.

Page 2

The said "wickedness", it cannot be doubted, was told by Nathanael to his grandson William, was by him told to his eldest grandchild, my aunt Betty, who in turn burnt it, as it were, into my young memory by words of fire, where it remains in all its freshness, though I have now passed my "threescore years and ten." So that I, so to speak, am placed in touch, through my long-departed aunt, with her grandfather’s grandfather, Nathanael, who was born about 1650, and as heir male to the North Wyke estates, on the death of his cousin Roger, made his claim both by Bills in Chancery and Acts of Ejectment in the King’s Bench. This clearly shows with what accuracy events that happened long ago are handed down by tradition, and what an important factor it is in family and local history. But for it, oftentimes eventful facts would be lost in the mist and darkness and confusion of the long-ago past.

The ever-memorable story told me of the family ruin naturally aroused in my boyhood mind a deep and lasting sense of the cruel wrongs that had been perpetrated, and an earnest desire to see them made right by the restoration of the estates to the old family. And, therefore, it is not to be wondered at that it is as fresh in my memory as the events of yesterday, how, a little time afterwards, I happened to read The Old English Baron, a rather "creepy" book, in which the story is graphically told of a young man who had been, by the teacherous murder of his father, robbed of his title and lands, but who recovered all through the revelations made to him by dreams and supernatural appearances. And I wondered whether by some such extraordinary intervention of Providence, I, like that young man, might some day find myself in possession of the ancestral estates. But, alas! Neither by "dream" nor by "vision", but by "purchase", did I recover the seat of my forefathers. Still, though this is s o, yet a pious mind can trace the same over-rulings of Providence in recovering it thus as in the case of the heir to the Lovel title and estates described in The Old English Baron, inasmuch as but for this, the old mansion of my Wyke ancestors would before now have probably passed beyond recognition, by the ruthless demolition of its Gatehouse, together with the fine masonry of the whole of the chapel wing, in order that the would-be purchaser might have no obstruction to his view across the court, but be able, as he described it, to look straight "forrid". Happily, this destruction of old masonry, as interesting and probably as ancient as any in the county, has been averted by the place coming into my possession.

Page 3

Thus an old mansion, most unique in character, has been saved from falling into the hands of the destroyer, and will, I hope, be long preserved for posterity, through its careful repair and restoration by the well-known mediĉval architect, Mr. George H. Fellowes Prynne, of London.

The cruel uprooting and unhappy downfall of the old and honourable house of North Wyke, brought about by persistent wickedness, so impressed my young mind, as I have said, that when I grew up, the fact still haunted my memory, and aroused within me a strong desire to discover how the dissolution and ruin of the family had been brought about, and so, as along ago as 1858, I used, as occasion allowed, to frequent the Reading-room of the British Museum to gather what materials I could towards its elucidation. And later on, I frequented for the same purpose the Record Office, that great National storehouse of the records of the rights and wrongs of families and of things done that concern almost everybody. There, on examining the State Papers publications, I discovered that in 1662 the whole estate had passed into Chancery, owing to a forcible entry into the mansion house by the violence of Richard Weekes, a gentleman pensioner at the Court of Charles II. And on further examination I fou nd that for nearly forty years [1662-1698] the contest was carried on by the heirs in succession, to save, if possible, both the estates and family; and also that "wickedness" did indeed flourish at the beginning of the struggle, and continued with unabated ingenuity until the conspiracy, after a litigation of nearly forty years, was crowned with success, and the posterity of the chief "confederate" remained in possession. How all this came to pass; how it began, continued, and ended; and how correctly my old aunt described it all as "wickedness" will appear in its chronological place and order.

The antiquity of this family is unquestioned. Its origin, however, has been made somewhat difficult of proof through the uncertainty of names and conditions of State during the Norman times and the loss of the family records. Westcote describes it as "a generous family of great age"; Lysons as "an ancient family"; and all the county historians testify to the fact that it flourished in Devon early in the thirteenth century. Pole says that "Anno 27 Hen. III. William de Wray held fourth part of a knight’s fee in Wyke". This is on the authority of Testa de Nevill, the date of which is,

Page 4

I believe, now fixed at 1227; and Risdon says, "North Wyke was the land of William de Wigornia, alias Chamberlain, in the reign of King Henry III." Apparently these two authorities differ; but if we bear in mind that at this period of our national history surnames were uncommon; that a person was known by the estate or office he held, or by the title, office, estate, or occupation of the father, and that the manors of Chevereston in Kenton and Wray in Moretonhampstead were also held by him, we readily see that William de Wray, William de Chevereston, and William de Wigornia [Wig’] are one and the same person. In one place he would be known as William "of Chevereston," in another as William "of Wray," and in another as William "of Wig’" or "Wik". Contemporaneously with this William, we have another "de Wigornia, alias Chamberlain," in Devon, named Robert, and mentioned both by Pole and Risdon, who state that he married Joan, daughter and co-heir of Sir Baldwin de Belston. These two, William and Robert, were certainly near blood-relations, most likely brothers, though Robert was probably the younger of the two, and it is rather remarkable that shortly afterwards, one Sir Richard de Wigornia, Kt., held the manor of Wyke in Bishop’s Lydiard, county Somerset, who obtained a licence for an oratory in his house in 1263, because he lived far from the church¹. It is also further remarkable that these "de Wigornias," both in Devon and Somerset, held lands of the name of Wyke not mentioned in Domesday, which is suggestive of the conclusion that they called these lands "after their own name."

Now no such name as "de Wigornia" is found in the Exeter Domesday. Nor does it appear among those who held knights’ fees in the West of England, either in Liber Niger or Liber Rubens, so that till towards the end of the twelfth century, or early in the thirteenth, the name does not appear among owners of land in this county. And yet, early in the thirteenth century, we find two of this name here [which emphasises the fact], William and Robert, holding high positions, and Robert certainly marrying a co-heir of a leading family of the county. So that a new name comes abruptly to the front, just as, a few years before, that of Courtenay had done, the possessors of which were favoured by the King and the greatest nobles of the West. The question, then, naturally arises, who was "William de

Page 5

Wigornia, alias Chamberlain," who was holding North Wyke with other Wykes in or about 1227, and upon whom had been bestowed royal manors, as well as other lands held under the most potent of the great families of Devon and Cornwall, such as the Earls of Devon, Cornwall, and Gloucester; Courtenay, Lord of Okehampton; Valletort, Lord of Hurberton and North Tawton; de Tony, Baron of Flamstead and Lord of South Tawton; Botreaux, Lord of Molland; and Brewer, Lord of Torr? That he had his origin in some well-known family is self-evident, because otherwise it would be well-nigh impossible to account for this favouritism in high quarters, and the distinguished marriage of his near-of-kin² to Joan de Belston. And if we give due weight to all the facts and circumstances that affect our inquiry, no reasonable doubt can remain in our minds that he was either the son, or grandson, of Robert, Earl of Mellent and Worcester [Wigornia]. Let us see. The said Robert had, besides a daughter, five sons by his wife Mabel, one of the daughters of Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, son of Henry I., viz. Waleran, Peter, Henry, William [and Robert?]. These were the near blood-relations of the great earls and lords I have just mentioned, as well as the King’s cousin. For they were the grandsons of the Earl of Cornwall, the King’s uncle, nephews of Richard de Redvers, Earl of Devon, who married their mother’s sister, and brothers-in-law of their cousin William de Vernon, sixth Earl of Devon, who married their sister Mabel. They were uncles of Robert Courtenay, Baron of Okehampton, through his marriage with their niece, Mary, daughter of the Earl of Devon, and of William, Lord Brewer of Torr, who married Joan, another daughter of the said Earl.³ They were also nephews of Roger de Valletort,⁴ Lord of Hurberton, whose son Joel became Lord of North Tawton. They were cousins of the Earl of Gloucester and of the Lords de Tony, through their great-aunt Elizabeth de Bello Monte, the mother of "Strongbow"; and of Botreaux, Lord of Molland, who married a sister of Earl Reginald’s mother.

Page 6

The said Reginald had been laden with lands, both in Devon and Cornwall, by his father, Henry I., for he bestowed on him all the Moretain estates in those two counties. He had also married a rich wife, daughter and heir of William Fitz-Richard, of Cornwall, and was undoubtedly the greatest magnate of the West, for he had vast possessions amounting to 215½ fees. Hence his influence at Court, as we might expect, was considerable. And this Ralph de Avenel, the third Lord of Okehampton, [ancestor of the Avenells of Loxbeare and Blackpole, and grandson of Baldwin de Brionne, Okehampton’s first lord,] found to his cost, after declining the honour of marrying one of his daughters, by taking to wife instead, Joan, daughter of Richard de Redvers, second Earl of Devon. Earl Reginald so resented this offensive slight that "he swore he would make him lose the lordship of Okehampton" [Risdon’s Notebook]. Accordingly, he told the King, his nephew, that the said Ralph was not in lawful possession o f the barony, inasmuch as his uncle Richard, elder brother of his father, William de Avenell, had, during his lifetime, made all his knights swear fealty to his brother-in-law, William de Abrincis, who had married his sister Emma, and that consequently Matilda, daughter and heir of the said William and Emma, was the true heir. "In this way Ralph de Avenell lost the lordship of Okehampton to this day" [Risdon’s Notebook]. The said, Matilda, or Maud, was at this time the widow of Robert d’Aincourt, by whom she had a daughter, Avis. Earl Reginald persuaded his nephew Henry II to give her in marriage to William, his half-brother, another of the sons of Henry I, and to determine the question in her favour. This he did, and thus she became Lady of Okehampton and wife of William Fitz-Henry, by whom she had another daughter, Matilda. The said Matilda married Reginald Courtenany, whose son Reginald, by a former marriage, took to wife Avis her elder half-sister, and became the mother of Robert Courtenay, who, th rough her, became heir of the Barony of Okehampton, as her sister died without issue. This Robert, the fortunate son of fortunate parents, married Mary, daughter of William de Vernon, sixth Earl of Devon, by his wife Mabel, daughter of Comte de Mellent and Comes de Wigornia, and by this alliance, the earldom of Devon, [after the death of Isabella de Fortibus, Countess of Devon and de Insula,] and the lordship of Okehampton, with all their knights’ fees, became united in the person of Hugh, son of the said Robert and Mary,

Page 7

towards the end of the thirteenth century.

When we bear in mind the powerful family connections of the Earl of Mellent and Worcester, we at once become aware how probable it is that, if there was occasion for it, his sons would be found holding estates in the West under the King, their cousin, and the great lords who were their near blood-relations. The question is, Did occasion arise which would strongly and naturally appearl on their behalf to their sympathy, and almost compel a generous response? Or, did anything occur to explain how it should come to pass, that sons of the most powerful of all the Norman chieftains should be found occupying lands in Devon and making their homes there, when their father’s lordships had been so many in Normandy and France? The answer is simple enough to those who are acquainted with the history of the early years of the reign of King John. For, in the year 1204, Philip Augustus, the King of France, seized the Duchy of Normandy. Earl Robert, the powerful vassal of both kings, found himself ground t o death between the upper and nether millstones of France and England. He was, indeed, a cousin of both kings, but between them he not only lost all his immense estates in Normandy and France, but fell into the bad graces of King John, [as so many did,] and, as one of the "Normanni," was at the same time stripped of his English estates, though after a time the King relented and forgave him, but acted very fitfully towards him, at one time restoring, and at another confiscating his English lands, and in the end paid him a small annuity out of the Exchequer.⁵ Such was the fall of this great and distinguished family. At one fell swoop it was hurled from one of the greatest and proudest positions that can be attained by subjects. He and his, thus deprived for ever of their vast Norman and French inheritance, were thrown upon the bounty and generosity of their powerful English relations. Earl Robert survived his terrible downfall only about three years, though his widow Mabel did not die before about 1220. During her widowhood she also received from the King a small yearly payment out of the King’s Exchequer.⁶

Such were the circumstances at this time of the family, and if, under them, we had not found some of its sons soon after the terrible crash, living amongst their great territorial relations, and holding lands under them, it would have

Page 8

been a matter of some surprise. For, in storm and tempest, the instinct of self-preservation arouses us to make every effort to find our way to some safe harbour or friendly port, and in case of shipwreck to use every means that will help us to shore. That Earl Robert had at least four sons we know from the Norman Rolls, viz. Waleran, Peter, Henry, and William. Some other authorities mention a fifth, Robert. But William and Robert were the Christian names, as Pole and Risdon state, of the two "de Wigornias, alias Chamberlain," who were settled in Devon, and flourishing there in the first half of the thirteenth century; that is, within a few years of the ruin and death of the said Earl Robert. Of course, there is the question, if the said William and Robert were sons or grandsons of the powerful Earl of Mellent and Worcester, whose elder sons, Waleran and Peter, were usually called "de Meulan," or "de Mellent," how came it to pass that the younger sons are known in the Devon histories as "de Wigornia"? I think the answer is easy and pretty conclusive. Their father, we must remember, was de jure "Comes de Wigornia." In 1204 he was expelled from France and Normandy, his vast estates confiscated, and his honours there lost for ever. His title of "de Mellent" had no longer any meaning, and all that made the name a great power in those countries was escheated to the Crown of France, so that the sons also lost their foothold there. Indeed, their lives there would have been unsafe, seeing that King Philip Augustus refused to grant terms of submission to the said Earl.⁷ Outcasts from both France and Normandy, and driven from all their possessions there, they could no longer be correctly described as "de Meulan," or "de Mellent." The name had ceased to have its old territorial meaning in this country, as both title and estates were gone, the whole family outlawed, and the King of France in possession. Good reason, then, had the sons for the abandonment of the titular cognomen of "de Mellent", and equally good would they have for calling themselves "de Wigornia," as English residents. They would as naturally give up the one as take the other, seeing that the father was not only Earl of Mellent, which had ceased to be, but also "Comes de Wigornia." The change only involved the taking of one titular name in place of the other. And there were excellent reasons for it, seeing that their future lives would be passed within the limits of England.

Page 9

And in their choice of this name, we must bear in mind that at this period, [which is earlier than the general use of surnames,] it was not infrequent for younger sons to be known by the territorial titles of the father. Hence Roger, son of Waleran, Count of Mellent and Comes de Wigornia, who was prebend. of Brondesbury in St. Paul’s Cathedral,⁸ is called in the Register both "de Mellent" and "de Wigornia," and both Waleran and Peter, sons of Robert the Earl, are called "de Mellent" in the Norman Rolls. Again, Richard, brother of Henry III., was created "Comes de Cornubia." His son Walter is called "Walter de Cornubia, brother of Edmund the Earl," in the Patent Rolls of 28 Ed. I. M. 23; that is, after the title of his father. And as late as temp. Henry VII. this custom still to some extent prevailed, for Katherine, wife of Perkin Warbeck, is called Katherine de Huntly, after her father’s title.⁹

It may be observed that at the time of the Conquest the family was called "de Bello Monte," after their chief residence in Normandy. But before the middle of the twelfth century, this name seems to have fallen into disuse, and the sons became generally known by the father’s title, usually by that of "de Meulan," or "de Mellent," but sometimes by that of "de Wigornia," or "de Wirecestria," and this continued till the end of its Norman career.

Now if the history, circumstances, and surroundings, at this time of this distinguished family, be placed before us and carefully considered, we shall find it difficult to stop short of the conclusion that, if any sons survived their father, who died in 1207, they would almost certainly be found among their influential territorial relations in the West, and holding lands under them. It has already been seen that he had four, if not give, sons. The eldest, Waleran, who married in 1189 Margaret, daughter of Ralph de Fougeres, Lord of Brittany, was killed by a Turk in the Holy Land;¹ and Peter, the second son, was rector of Spettisbury and dean of Wimborne, in Dorset.² We cannot reasonably suppose that the other sons, Henry, William, and, according to some authorities, also Robert, all died in their father’s lifetime, but may with almost certainty conclude that he did leave one or more sons surviving him, and it may be the th ree. Of William and Robert I have already spoken.

1. Rot. Scacc. Normannio 
2. Ibid.

Page 10

The third son, Henry, was, I venture to suggest, the well-known "Henry de Ponte Audemar," who was a justiciar an. 9-16 King John. For Pons au de Mer was one of the ancient lordship castles of Earl Robert, and his chief residence in Normandy at the time his estates there were confiscated by the King of France. At that period it was not uncommon to call sons by the names of the places where they were born, and there cannot be much doubt that the said Henry de Ponte Audemar was born at his "place-name"; and consequently we may reasonably conclude that he was Earl Robert’s third son. He flourished just at the time the said Henry must have flourished, if at all, viz. From 1195 to 1220, and onwards. And what adds force to this conclusion is that, after the death, in 1217, of William de Vernon, Earl of Devon, who married Mabel, a daughter of "Comes de Wigornia," King John gave his lands into the custody of the said Henry³ during the son’s minority, and what more like ly than this if he was Mabel’s brother, and the King’s cousin?

Foss tells us that he was a "Normannus," and "custos" of the escheats of the King’s Bailiwick of the Evrin, and in 1198 bailiff of Caux: that shortly after 1216 he got into disgrace, as his lands fell into the King’s hands. This is proved by an entry in the Close Rolls of 2 Hen. III. [1218], whereby it is ordered that they be restored to him [Rot. Claus. 1, 330]. He was reinstated in the royal favour, and entrusted not only with the custody of the lands of the Earl of Devon, but also of Luke Fitz-John Pincerna. This fitful treatment of him by John quite corresponds with that meted out to Earl Robert. He could not transmit his name if a son, as no child could be known as "of" Pont Audemar. Hence his posterity would receive some other cognomen, which probably would be "de Wigornia" or "de Wig’"; and I would suggest that Luke Fitz-John’s manor of Teign Wyke got its affix from him, as did "Wyke South Teign"⁴ its prefix. If, as I strongly suspect, thi s was so, then the aforesaid William and Robert de Wigornia, alias Chamberlain, would be probably sons of the said Henry, and therefore gandsons of Robert, Comes de Wigornia; and this conclusion of descent and near relationship is strongly supported by other evidence, the careful examination of which, will, I think, leave us without a doubt, that the William de Wigornia, who held North Wyke temp. Henry III., was in direct descent from and near-of-kin to "Comes de Wigornia."

Page 11

1. The lands which William de Wigornia held early in the thirteenth century are those we should naturally expect a son, or grandson, of the Earl of Mellent and Worcester to hold. For Chevereston and Wray were royal sub-manors, and we can well understand King John, when ashamed and pitying, bestowing these upon him. Wyke in South Tawton he held under the powerful Lord de Tony, Baron of Flamstead; Wyke in Chawleigh, the Beers in Sampford Courtenay, and Shilston in Drewsteignton, he held under the Courtenays as lords of Okehampton, and the Wyke homestead in Chagford⁵ under the King, or his brother, the Earl of Cornwall. The lands he held in Throwleigh formed a part probably of the royal manor of South Tawton. The several homesteads named Wyke, with their appurtenances, viz. West Wyke, South Wyke, and East Wyke, etc., situated in the south of the parish of South Tawton, and lying not far from the boundaries of Chagford and Throwleigh, belong to the manor o f Ash,⁶ and at that period were probably waste, wherein the red deer from Dartmoor, close to, found shelter and grazing ground before the disafforestation of the county in 1204, when, being included in the sub-manor of Ash, these lands might naturally be expected to be granted to such men as the sons, or grandsons, of the ruined house of Mellent and Wigornia, by their many near relations, the great overlords of them. The same may be said of the lands called Wyke in North Tawton,⁷ where both the Earl of Cornwall and Valletort were lords, and in Winkleigh, which the Earl of Gloucester held. In every parish where William de Wigornia held lands, there the overloards were the near relations of the sons and grandsons of the said Earl Robert. All this is strongly confirmatory of the tradition that the Wyke family was Norman in its origin, and of the conclusion that William de Wigornia, who held North Wyke in 1227, was his son or grandson. To the same conc lusion came Mr. Charles Worthy, and its correctness could not well be doubted, even if there was no

Page 12

further proof; but there is much corroborative evidence forthcoming, which, if duly considered and weighed with the rest, will be found to form a chain of circumstances, all pointing to the same conclusion, and making it irresistible.

2. There is the ancient coat-of-arms of the Wyke family. This affords a most striking proof of the identity of William de Wigornia of North Wyke with William, the son or grandson of the Earl of Mellent and Worcester. For what is the coat? It is "Ermine, 3 Danish battle-axes, sable," and, be it observed, that it is the same, with change of tincture, as the ancient coat of the Danish kings [Planché]. There is no coat, nor ever has there been, more eloquent in its allusiveness, and yet, like most of the ancient coats, it is both full of simplicity and expression. It is unmistakable as to the martial deeds it symbolises. They are manifestly in the clash of arms and the close conflict of the bloody battle. And it is equally unmistakable that the heroes of these martial deds claimed a Danish origin. Now the said Earl Robert, on his succession to his father Waleran’s titles and estates in 1166, took also the place of his father as the head of the warrior line of "Bernard the Dane," a Saxon prince, who accompanied his cousin Rollo as second in command, on his invasion of Nomandy. The descendants of Bernard, all through to the Wigornias, had a renown in the battlefield and in the council chamber unsurpassed probably by any family that has ever taken part in affairs of State. The Wyke arms are undoubtedly amongst the earliest, and were probably, almost certainly, first used by William de Wigornia, who first held North Wyke, and designed by him to be descriptive of the notable place in history occupied by his forefathers. At all events, the coat is, in all its particulars, exactly that which sets before us the great career of this illustrious family and strongly corroborates the conclusion already arrived at. 
    
3. The field of this coat-of-arms is ermine. Now ermine, in the infancy of armoury, is said to have been allusive to statecraft, and especially to the administration of justice; just at the Danish battle-axes are allusive to a Danish origin, and renown on the battlefield. This allusiveness largely prevailed in the earliest days of English heraldry. Buotell writes: "The greater number of the earliest devices were adopted for the express purpose of their having some allusive association … with the names and titles of certain persons, dignities, and places …

Page 13

Devices of this kind addressed themselves in very plain and expressive language to the men of their own era. In them they saw the kind of symbolical writing that they could remember, as well as understand. They also liked the quaint style of suggestiveness that was a characteristic of these allusive devices."⁸ Now, as before observed, "Bernard the Dane" was both a great warrior and statesman, and after his death his son, and his son’s son, down to the Conquest, occupied very much the same postion as himself in all that concerned the State. And not long after the Conquest, the then head of this family, Robert, Earl of Mellent and Leicester, was chief minister of William Rufus, and a baron of the Norman Exchequer. His son Robert was Chief Justiciar of England, and both he and his twin brother Waleran, father of Earl Robert II., were also barons of the Norman Exchequer.

If, then, it be correctly assumed that ermine, in the early days of heraldry [1180-1280, when without doubt the Wyke coat-of-arms came into existence, and was most probaly first borne by the said William de Wigornia], was allusive to State and judicial administration, we at once recognise its extreme appropriateness on the shield of a son, or grandson, of the Earl of Mellent and Worcester, and see in it a further confirmation and proof of his identity with the Willliam de Wigornia of North Wyke, and especially if "Henry de Ponte au de Mar," one of the justiciars of King John, was his father.

4. It has already been shown that the sons of Earl Robert were the brothers-in-law of William de Vernon, sixth Earl of Devon, who married their sister Mabel, and also uncles of Robert Courtenay, Lord of Okehampton, who married their neice Mary, daughter of the said Earl, and through whom, later on, the Courtenays became Earls of Devon. Now, if we examine the Exeter Episcopal Registers and other records, we find that the Courtenay and the Wyke families were thrown much together in the affairs of life, and that members of the latter were sought out by the former for church and other preferment, and particularly within their own residential neighbourhood, in a way that is very suggestive of blood-relationship. For instance, in 1352 Sir William Wyke was rector of Woodleigh.⁹ The Earl of

Page 14

Devon, Hugh de Courtenay, had need of his services and presence, and so he is granted a licence of non-residence for a year, at the special request [insistendo obsequiis] of the said Earl. It would seem that, like many ecclesiastics of that day, he had been trained to other duties, for in a "Fine" passed in 1361, we discover that he was one of the Earl’s feoffees in regard to Powderham and other estates. In this we recognise at once the confidential and trusted position he held in the Earl’s family, and are, therefore, prepared to find that in 1356, the same episcopal registers inform us that he was in that year instituted to Kenn, [of which the Earl was patron,] not far from Powderham Castle.

In 1332, another member of the Wyke family, Sir Walter de Wyke, was instituted to Chumleigh, of which rectory the Earl of Devon, as Lord of Okehampton, was patron. He was also both lawyer and ecclesiastic, and was one of the bishop’s proctors.

Many are the instances in which members of the Wyke family, during the fourteenth century, received preferment at the hands of the Courtenays. And the same followed them into the fiteenth century. So that it seems difficult to stop short of the conclusion that ties deeper and stronger than those of ordinary friendship existed between the two families. In further illustration of this, it may be observed that Roger Wyke of Bindon, a younger son of William of North Wyke, accompanied the Earl of Devon in the war of Henry V. against France, and fought under his standard at the battle of Agincourt in 1415. And just before that, viz. in 1413, he sat as M.P. for Plympton, as the Earl’s nominee for that borough; and his nephew Richard, son of Richard of North Wyke, held the rectory of Sampford Courtenay, which is only three or four miles from Okehampton Castle, where the Courtenays were lords. In all this, and more of a like nature, we cannot but observe marked indications of a relationship exi sting between the two families, and such as we should naturally look for through intermarriage and common descent. Here, then, we have further support of the conculsion that William de Wigornia of North Wyke, alias Chamberlain, was identical with William, the son or grandson of Robert, Count of Mellent and Comes de Wigornia.

Page 15

5. The sequence of Saxon names among the children of "Warrior Wyke," by his wife Mary Giffard, is very observable and suggestive. A son born in 1553 was called Launcelot. In 1555 a daughter was christened Edith, and in 1557 another son was named Arkenwald – three children in succession with Saxon names. The conclusion seems to follow that the father intended to give some special meaning to this decided preference. Now if we recall the fact that "Bernard the Dane" was a Saxon prince, and that his great-grandson married a daughter of a Launcelot, we may, I think, reasonably conclude that the "Warrior" thereby intended to make nown his descent from him, and therefore his descent from "Comes de Wigornia." It must not be forgotten that in his day the family records were intact, and that he possessed full information of the history of the origin of his family. 
    
6. An old yeoman family, by name Arnold, held a moiety of the barton of North Wyke from 1786 to 1895. In their possession were some MSS., either original or copies, when it passed out of their hands; perhaps discovered hidden behind the panelling. These [so Mrs. Arnold, the widow of the late owner, has informed me] showed that the ancestor of the Wyke family, not only "came over with the Conqueror," but held high office and command under him. It is unfortunate, that though inquiries have been made, they have not as yet been discovered. They have been probably lost through the carelessness of those who knew not their value. But from the acquaintance of the Arnolds with them, they can, and do, bear testimony to the fact that the Wyke ancestor at the battle of Hastings was high in the favour of William, and of kin to him; and tradition bears the same testimony. There may still exist record evidence of the identity of William de Wigornia with the son or grandson of Comes de Wigornia, [as no do ubt the Wyke writings would have shown had they not been lost,] though I have not discovered it. Nor is this surprising, for [1] the younger sons and grandsons of the Earl of Mellent and Comes de Wig[ornia] settled in the county, if at all, in the troublous days of the unworthy King John, when most things were upside down, and soon after their expulsion from, and forfeiture of, their titles, lands, and offices in Normandy and France. And [2] because the charters and records, which contained much of Devon’s history, and had been preserved by the several religious houses in the county, were, at the dissolution of the monasteries, almost entirely destroyed.

Page 16

No county suffered, I believe, more in this respect. Direct evidence, therefore, may well fail in this matter, and all the more because the said William de Wigornia was wholly an under-tenant, and not tenant-in-chief, except of the lands he held in the royal manors, the record of which did not usually appear because free from geld.

7. It is a well-known fact that the de Mellents held offices in the Norman Exchequer,¹ and had much to do with it. It has already been seen that some of them held the office of Baron of that exchequer, and it may be, and probably was, that younger members became its chamberlains, and hence the "alias Chamberlain" as descriptive of the office held either by William de Wigornia or his father.

I might go on adding evidence to evidence, all bearing witness to the same conclusion, and clearly demonstrating that the circumstances, and arguments, and facts, I have adduced, are only compatible with the deduction that the founder of the Wyke family of North Wyke, "William de Wigornia, alias Chamberlain," was either a son or grandson of Robert, Earl of Mellent and Worcester. The conclusion is irresistible, and the proof as complete, I think, as one of the problems of Euclid, and if this be so, "quod erat demonstrandum" may well be added.

It can, then, be unhesitatingly affirmed, I believe, that William of North Wyke, called by Pole "de Wray", and by Risdon "de Wigornia," was a son or grandson of Robert, Earl of Worcester, and a near descendant of Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, son of Henry I., and thus could claim a long line of ancestors as great and illustrious as ever served a prince. For his father represented the main male line of that historic chief, "Bernard the Dane," who, for his services as second in command to his cousin Rollo, in the invasion and conquest of Normandy, obtained the lordships of Harcourt, Cailevile, and Beaufical. He was also minister to Rolo’s son and successor, William, and afterwards to William’s son, Richard, Duke of Normandy, as well as Regent of the Norman territories during Richard’s minority. He married a daughter of …… de Sprote, of the royal family of Burgundy. By her he left an only son and heir, Torf, who added Torville, Torcy, Torny, and Potatou to his paternal inheritance. He married Er temburga, daughter of Launcelot de Briquebec, a nobleman of Danish extraction, and had by her three sons. The eldest, Tourode, was lord of Pont Au de Mar, Torville, Torny, Potatou, and Borrye

Page 17

Tourode, and joint governor and guardian with his brother, Turchitil, to the aforesaid Duke William. He married Wiva, sister of Gunnora, wife of Richard, Duke of Normandy, and by her had five sons, the eldest of whom, Humphrey de Vetulis, was lord of Pont Au de Mar, Preaux, and Beaumont,² and founded two abbeys in France.^2a. By his wife, Albreda de la Haye, he had two sons, Robert de Bello Monte, who died³ s.p., and Roger, who succeeded to all the possessions of his father and brother, and accompanied Duke William in his expedition to England in 1066. This Roger de Bello Monte, "allied paternally to the Duke of Normandy,"⁴ married Adeline, daughter of Waleran, and sister and heir of Hugh, Earl of Mellent in France, and by her was father of three sons, viz. Robert, Henry, and William.

The said Roger de Bello Monte was one of the eleven great Norman chieftains mentioned by Hume in his History, who accompanied Duke William in his invasion of England. He possessed all the martial spirit and fire of his forefathers, and fully took his place amongst them as a race of warriors. For bold, and brave, and confident, he was not only in the forefront and thick of the battle of Hastings, but "distinguished himself early in the day, and broke down by a charge on the right the English palisade."⁵

Many and great were his deeds of valour, and to him fell much of the honour of that day’s victory. His young sons also on that day, Robert and Henry, did knightly service, and gloriously upheld the fame of their ancestors. Nor was William, their cousin, unmindful of the debt he owed them for their strenuous support n the fight that had won for him the great prize of the English crown, for he bestowed on the father, Roger, many an English manor of the vanquished Saxons, and knighted both sons on the field of battle,⁶ though the elder of them was barely seventeen years old.

Henry, the younger, was made constable of Warwick in 1068, and in 1085 created earl of the county.⁶ He was ancestor of a long and illustrious race, whose prowess, through the Beauchamps and Nevilles, and their powerful guidance in matters of State, are "writ large" in our national history.

The eldest son, Robert, was not only knighted on the field of battle by the Conqueror, but afterwards gratefully rewarded by him with the gift of many Saxon lands.

3. He was killed by Roger de Clare.
4. Dict. Nat. Biog.
5. Ibid.
6. DOYLE'S Official Baronage.

Page 18

In 1077, on the death of his mother, he succeeded to the great French earldom of Mellent.⁷ In 1098 he was chief minister of William Rufus, and also of Henry I. From 1103 to his death in 1118.⁷ In 1107, in consideration of his many and great services to the State – for, like his forefathers, he shone equally on the battlefield and in the council chamber – he was created Earl of Leicester.⁷ His fame was great throughout Europe, and he well sustained the family traditions and renown. Henry of Huntingdon [p. 306] thus describes him: "Fuit scientia clarus: eloquio blandus: astutia perspicax: providentia sagax: ingenio versipellis: prudentia insuperabilis: consilio profundus." If we have here no flattering picture of his gifts, and powers, and character, it is easy to understand his European repute, and that he stood out conspicuously among the most distinguished of that marvellous epoch-making period. H e was blessed also with a pious mind, for he founded three priories in England, viz. Monks Toft Priory in Norfolk, and Spettisbury and Wareham priories in Dorset. He married Isabel, daughter of Hugh the Great, Count of Vermandois and Valois, younger son of Philip I., King of France,⁸and had by her Waleran and Robert [twins], Hugh, created Earl of Bedford, and other children. He died in 1118, leaving his sons, then under age, to the guardianship of Henry I. They received the highest education of the day, and in company with their guardian visited Normandy in 1119.⁹

Waleran, the elder twin, in accordance with the custom then existing, took the Norman estates and the earldom of Mellent, whilst Robert, the younger twin, suceeded to the English earldom of Leicester, and was, as a warrior and statesman, as renowned as his father had been, and his life was largely interwoven with the history of the country. For six generations onwards, his descendants held the powerful and princely position of Earls of Leicester, and but for the overvaulting ambition of one of them, Simon de Montfort, it is impossible to say how long its glorious career might have continued. Simon, who had married the King’s sister, and overleapt the true position of a subject, was the last of the race at Leicester. He was undoubtedly a great patriot, and fell at the battle of Evesham, in 1265, in defence of the liberties of the country against the tyranical usurpations of the Crown.

Page 19

So I must take leave of this branch of the Mellent family, whose greatness thus collapsed in the national struggle for liberty, and return to the elder twin Waleran, with whom the story of the Wykes of North Wyke has to do. He, as already stated, succeeded to the earldom of Mellent and the Norman estates on the death of his father in 1118,¹ and thus became the most powerful of all the Norman chieftains. He was knighted at the age of sixteen, and invested with the earldom before he was nineteen.² He was evidently a man of strong and resolute character, had an indomitable spirit, shrank from no danger or undertaking, and possessed all the martial fire of his race. And being a near relation of the Kings of France and England, his pride of power and position seems to have urged him to a trial of strength with his King before he reached the age of twenty-one; and so, with the reckless, boldness of youth, he rebelled against his Sovere ign, and being driven from one Norman stronghold to another, he finally retreated to his castle of Beaumont [Bello Monte]. This he was compelled to surrender, and being made prisoner, was brought to England and remained in close confinement for five years.³ At the end of that time, viz. In 1129, he was pardoned and restored to the earldom and estates. Both he and his twin brother, Robert, were present at the death of Henry I. in 1135. No sooner, however, had Henry breathed his last, than Waleran, forgetful of his obligations to the old King, declined to hold his fiefs under the distaff of the Empress Matilda, and hastening to England, became so warm a partisan of Stephen, that he obtained a promise of his infant daughter, Mary, in marriage,⁴ and they were fianced 22^nd March, 1136 [Doyle]. The marriage never took place. History is silent as to the reason, for he was loyal to King Stephen during many years, though a man of turbulent and re stless temperament. The King fully recognised the great value of Earl Waleran’s friendship, and that he was of the highest importance to him to make use of his services. He was, indeed, Stephen’s first favourite. He therefore made him in 1138, joint lieutenant of Normandy, and 1141 commander of his army, and in 1144 created him Comes de Wigornia, as a counterpoise to Matilda’s brother Robert, the great Earl of Gloucester. Shortly afterwards, on some cause or other,

Page 20

his mind softened towards the Empress Matilda. It is said that this took place under the influence of the Abbot of Tewkesbury, which town he had burnt only a few years before in revenge upon Robert of Gloucester for burning Worcester during his absence from it. Whilst thus hesitating in his allegiance to King Stephen, he determined to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and so in 1145 he took the cross, and became a Crusader in the following year [Doyle]. The state of the country at the time might well invite him to take this step, for Hume thus writes of it:- "The weakness of both sides …… having produced a tacit cessation of arms in England, many of the nobility enlisted themselves in a new Crusade." In his changing mood, Earl Waleran would readily seize the opportunity afforded him. Probably, in his increasing years, painful recollections of having broken his promise to Henry I. on his death-bed disturbed him, as well they might. But, whatever the cause, it is certain that on his return he t ook up Matilda’s side, and when summoned by King Stephen in 1150 to surrender to him his castle of Worcester, he refused to do so. Whereupon, the King burnt the town, though he failed to take the castle. Not long after this event, Stephen and Matilda entered into a compact, to which both Waleran and his twin brother robert were witnesses, whereby all further bloodshed was stopped between them, and the succession of Matilda’s son Henry assured on the death of King Stephen. Waleran, however, had not finally parted with that fiery, insubordinate spirit which had characterised his previous life, for not long before his death, he rebelled against Henry II., as in his early days he had against Henry I., and with the same bad and good fortune as before, for he was again taken prisoner,⁶ and soon afterwards pardoned. But, martial and turbulent as his life had been, he yet proved himself to be a man of piety, for he liberally founded the Abbey of Bordesley,⁷ in the county of Worcester, and twenty-one days before his death, he entered his Abbey of Preaux, and there died 9^th April, 1166. His career was a varied and remarkable one. No subject could boast of a more illustrious birth, or display greater arrogance of self-assertion. He was undoubtedly the most princely subject that ever held official position in the county of worcester, and in the county of Devon his granddaughter Mary, who

Page 21

married William de Vernon, sixth Earl of Devon, is the ancestress of all the earls of that county that have been since. He married Agnes de Montfort, heiress of Gournay-sur-Marne, daughter of Amauri, Count of Evreaux,⁸ and by her had several sons, some of whom, no doubt, accompanied their first cousin, "Strongbow", to Ireland. That there were "de Wigornias" with him we know.⁹ The eldest of these sons was Robert, who succeeded Waleran as Earl of Mellent and Comes de Wigornia. His estates in Normandy were great, and in France and England considerable. He does not, however, seem to have exercised that control over events which his commanding position entitled him to do, but rather to have yielded to circumstances where his fiery, warlike, and indomitable father, and, indeed, all his predecessors, from Bernard to himself, would have resisted to the death. No wonder, then, that he had a rather inglorious and chequered career in Norman dy and France, seeing that he was a vassal of both his cousins, the King of england and the King of France, who were naturally hostile, so long as Normandy remained an appanage of the English Crown. On this account, there were fierce quarrels between them towards the end of the twelfth century, and the early years of the next. The result of this strife between the two nations was the conquest of Normandy by France in 1204, and the consequent confiscation of all the lands and lordships held by the Earl of Mellent, both in that duchy and France. Towards him the French King was bitterly hostile, for he refused to offer to him any terms, and probably because he feared his power, owing to his immense territorial possessions. Thus outlawed, he took refuge in England, where, being one of the "Normanni," he was very uncertainly treated by King John, who, as before stated, at one time escheated his English lands, and at another restored them. He died as the King’s annuitant in the year 1207, in name only Earl o f Mellent, but still "Comes de Wigornia," for of that he had not been deprived. Thus ended the splendour of this great Norman family in the main male line. Its illustrious career from Bernard to the close of the life of Earl Waleran has never been excelled, probably never equalled, by any family, as warriors and statesmen. But for its force of character, its power to govern and administer, we might never have heard of the Norman Conquest, and so

Page 22

never have been blessed with the marvellous blood-mixture of the Norman and Saxon races, which has evolved the most liberty-loving, the most self-reliant, and, therefore, the most imperial and colonising people in the world’s history; the greatest, the freest, the noblest in its aspirations of all nations; covering the world with its colonies, and bidding fair to make the English tongue the universal language of mankind. Bernard’s descendants seem to have occupied a position in the Norman history somewhat like that held by this county in Queen Elizabeth’s day, a position, the historical value and importance of which was so immense and far-reaching that it is impossible of calculation.

With the said Robert, Earl of Mellent and Comes de Wigornia, died the greatness of this the main line of the family. Ever afterwards, its members played a lower part in the world’s affairs and high concerns. But still we find that William de Wig[ornia] of North Wyke, temp. 1227, was lord of many lands, and that hs successors there were men of considerable position, and married into the chief families of the county.¹

During the thirteenth century, Wigornia is often written Wig’ in the charters and records of that period. This is seen in Noake’s Worcester, and is very general in the Episcopal Register of Bishop Giffard [1263-1303], lately published by the Worcestershire Historical Society. And it can be readily established as a fact, that, during this century, Wig’ [or Wyg’, and Wyk] or Wik, were indiscriminately written and identical. Innumerable are the instances which show this. A few will, however, suffice. In Testa de Nevill [p.468] we have Wigeb^ga, which just below becomes Wykeb^g’. At page 257 there is Wigh’m, and in the same page it is written Wycombe. At page 312 we have Wygetoft and Wyketoft, and Richard de Wiggebury [p.596] is on the same page written Richard de Wikebury. In Excerpta e Rot. Finium [vol.i.p.302] Wigehall is also written Wykehall, and in the index to the Eleventh Report of the Hist. MSS. Commission we have "Standwigg, alias Standwick" [Som.].² Wyg’ or Wig’, as may be observed in many of the

Page 23

Old indexes, is identical with Wyk’ or Wik’, and has been so handed down as a general rule, though in the parish of South Tawton, we have an instance of the survival of both forms in the name of an old property of the Wyke family, viz. that of Wickington or Wiggington. In a Star Chamber Proceeding, temp. Philip and Mary, it is written in both ways, Wyggyngton and Wyckington. We thus learn from Testa de Nevill and other authorities that the Latin form Wigornia or Wig’ soon gave way to its English form of Wyk or Wik, and therefore how it came to pass that William de Wigornia became William de Wik’.

The lands held by William de Wigornia, that is, de Wik’ [who henceforth will be called William de Wik’], were extensive, and though scattered over a considerable area, practically lay in one particular tract of the county: that along which the red deer would travel on their way between the two royal forests of Dartmoor and Exmoor, and which was of high importance to the great families of the county when the pleasures and excitements of the chase were the exclusive privilege of its territorial lords. For, among other lands, the said William held the manor of Wray in Moreton under the King, and Wyke in Chawleigh, under the Baron of Okehampton. Now on the examination of a map of the county, one is struck with the fact that a road [probably the old pack-saddle road] runs in an almost straight line through the district, extending from Moreton to Chawleigh, and that in its course it passes either through, or by, the parishes of Chagford, Drewsteignton, Throwleigh, South Tawton, Spreyton, Sampford Courtenay, North Tawton, Nymet Tracy or Bow, Honeychurch, Broadwoodkelly, Bondleigh, and Winkleigh;³ and, oddly enough, this road for two miles divides North Wyke [which is bounded on the west by the River Taw, and on the east by a small tributary,] into almost exactly two equal parts. And on a further examination of the district, made up of the above and other adjoining parishes, it will be seen that on both sides of the road that thus runs through it, there are many homesteads called Wyke, not one of which is mentioned in Domesday, nor earlier than the reign of King John. They are all within the tract of the county described, over the greater part of which there can be no doubt the red deer rambled at their

Page 24

free will. The River Taw waters a considerable part of this their tramping ground, and as it travels on its way to the sea, it is fed by streamlets passing through many a thicket where they would find abundance of shade and food and water, and where, so long as the forest laws were in existence, they could ramble without fear of disturbance from ordinary mortals. That along this route they of old wandered at pleasure, we are often reminded by the frequency of the name "Nymet" throughout it. After disafforestation, however, in 1204, a great change necessarily came over this part of Devon, and large tracts of waste lands would be brought into cultivation and enclosed. To these would be given names [unless they already had them] as circumstances might suggest. Now, on either side of the road I have indicated, the Wyke homestead, as I have said, prevails, and it seems to me impossible of explanation under ordinary circumstances. It appears in Chagford, in North Tawton, in Winkleigh, in Chawleig h, and several times in the large parish of South Tawton, all of which were, I believe, held by William de Wyk. I dare affirm that this does not exist, nor anything like it, in any other district of the county. Is it, then, of easy explanation? I think it is, and that we shall find no difficulty if we examine the facts. Now, who were the overlords of almost the entire tract covered by the parishes from Moreton to Chawleigh inclusive at that period? They were the near blood-relations of the said William de Wyk, for they were the King, the Earls of Devon, Cornwall, and Gloucester; the Barons of Okehampton and Flamsted [de Tony]; the Lords Valletort, Brewer, and Botreaux. After disafforestation, waste lands of considerable extent would be in the hands of these overlords, and at the same time each of them would feel deeply concerned in the ruin that had lately overtaken the great and historic house of Mellent and Worcester, and the consequent dependence of the family on the sympathy and generous grants of lands f rom their rich territorial kindred in the West. The conclusion almost necessarily follows, that many of these lands, and others at their disposal, were given to the said William after the expulsion, in 1204, of his family from all their Norman and French estates; and that where these lands had no name, he followed a not uncommon custom of the day of calling them "Wyk", after his own, and where they had, sometimes by adding it as a prefix or affix. Hence the frequency of the Wyke homesteads throughout the said tract. There is also on Dartmoor a

Page 25

"Wigford", and formerly, if not still, lands in or near Chagford called "Wygdon,"⁴ names left behind probably by the de Wigornias.

The old mansion of North Wyke lies about midway between Moreton and Chawleigh. It is certain that in the early days of the family in Devon, the Wyke lands lay scattered both north and south of their chief residence; on the south, through South Tawton and Chagford to Moreton, and on the north to Chawleigh through North Tawton and Winkleigh; and down to comparatively modern times [temp. Henry VIII. and Elizabeth] we know from Chancery Proceedings, p.m. Inqs., and other records, that the Wyke family held estates in Chagford, Drewsteignton, Gidley, Throwleigh, Spreyton, Sampford Courtenay, North Tawton, Nymet Tracy, Zeal Monachorum, Winkleigh, Bondleigh, and South Molton, besides a large part of the wide parish of South Tawton, wherein lies North Wyke, the overlords of which parishes were near-of-kin to William de Wyk, as has been shown.

The said William [known also as "de Wray" and "de Chevereston,"⁵ because he held those manors], I think, also held in "South Teign." It is certain that the Wykes held there in the thirteenth century from Subsidy Rolls, so probably from them it got the prefix of "Wyke". But as this prefix was added in the time of the said William, or his father, there can be, I think, no reasonable doubt that he held "Wyke South Teign" in Chagford. Now "Wyke South Teign" was a member of the royal manor of South Tawton, but it seems also to have had some connection with the royal manor of Kenton, where William held the manor of Chevereston. He therefore held South Teign, if not under the King or the Earl of Cornwall, his cousin, then under another cousin, Ralph de Tony, Baron of Flamstead, under whom he also held North Wyke, Ash,⁶ and the other Wyke homesteads in South Tawton early in the thirteenth century. Wyke in Chawleigh he held under his neph ew or cousin, Robert Courtenay, Baron of Okehampton Castle, but he probably

Page 26

held other lands there under Ralph de Tony, for the name of "Tonifield" still lives in the parish. Anyhow, the lands he held under the great de Tony family were many. This is readily explained by the fact that he was Ralph de Tony’s cousin, and still more readily, if, as I suspect, there had been intermarriage between him and a near relation of the said Ralph, whose mother, Constance de Bello Monte, was sister of Ermengarde,⁷ Queen of Scotland, and great-neice of "Strongbow"; and there is good reason to look for such a marriage, for they were cousins, and the Inq. p.m. would seem to imply it. Let us see. We know that William held largely under de Tony early in the thirteenth century. But we also know that one Roger de Wyke held the manor of Wyke in Sussex under the same de Tony, from Inq. p.m. 2 Ed. I., No. 28. This Inq. p.m. further informs us that the said Roger had a sister called Godhilda, a peculiar and uncommon Christian name, but yet not uncommon in the de Tony family. And the Inq. further informs us that he held lands in Clifford, in Herefordshire, one of the "de Tony" strongholds on the Welsh borders. This being so, we cannot reasonably avoid the conclusion that some progenitor of the said Roger and Godhilda had married into this family, and by that marriage, had obtained considerable grants of land from the de Tonys, and that that progenitor was his father, William de Wyk, for we cannot well doubt that the said Roger was William’s son.

In the Devon Assize Roll for 28 Henry III. we learn that both Roger and Walter de Wyke [the latter is also called "de Wig’" in this Roll] held in the "Hundred of South Tawton"; and Roger is mentioned in the de Tony Inq. p.m., 48 Henry III., as holding lands in South Tawton. This being so, we can scarcely doubt that the mother of the said Roger was a "de Tony", connected with Clifford, and so

Page 27

a cousin of "Fair Rosamond," who was herself a de Tony, through her mother, Margaret de Tony, and so near-of-kin to her lover, King Henry II. We may then fairly conclude that it was both by marriage and kinship that William de Wyk obtained his lands within the manor of South Tawton; and Roger, Wyke in Sussex and lands in Clifford. The said Roger died in 1274. His nephew, Walter de Wyk, was his next heir [Inq. p.m. 2 Ed. I., No. 28], and under age at the time. Walter followed William at North Wyke, and was in possession in 1278 [Pole]. He was probaly a son of Walter de Wyg’ "or Wyk’," mentioned in the Assize Roll of 1263, mm. 31 and 42, as resident in South Tawton. To him succeeded Roger, Walter, and Roger, 19 Ed. III. [Pole]. This Roger had two or more sons, viz. John, of North Wyke, High Sheriff of Devon in 1403, and William, who succeeded his brother on his death without issue. Wyke, in Chawleigh, one of the fees of the aforesaid Roger, was held in 1400 by Joel Wyke, who was certainly eit her his son or grandson, inasmuch as Roger held it in 1346. The said "Joel and his wife Nichola" had the grant of an "oratory 12^th June, 1400, to celebrate divine service in the chapel of St. James within their mansion of Flambard’s Wyke in Chawleigh."⁸ William, son of Roger, succeeded to the chief estates, lived at North Wyke,⁹ and is the first of his family in the Wyke pedigree of the Heralds’ Visitations, the earliest of which for Devon is dated 1531. In these visitations of family scrutiny as to the right of bearing particular arms, it is uncommon to find the Heralds taking notice of descent earlier than the reign of Richard II., because before that date heraldry had not become a science, nor the use of particular arms regarded as hereditary, and so crystallised into a family right. This "right", it was now the Heralds’ duty to look into and protect, by obtaining from every family that used arms a proof of their claim and righ t to use them. And this could only be done by the setting forth of their pedigree, and showing immemorial use, or by proof of some grant of arms since the reign of Richard II. The use, indeed, began as early as the end of the twelfth century. Till then seals were the distinguishing mark and right of men of rank and position. But for the next hundred and fifty years,

[Picture]. The picture shows the Effigy of Roger Wykes, Armiger. The text poorly copied but appears to be –

‘Effigy in the Parish Church of St. Andrew, Trent, Co. Somerset of Roger Wykes, Armiger, younger son of William Wykes of North Wyke in South Tawton, Devon by Katherine, his wife da. And h of John Burnell of Cockatree in the …. Parish. He obtained Byndon and Axmouth, Devon, 1406erected there the Lady Chapel 1425. He was the MP for Plympton St. Mary 1413, e.. launce(?) at the Battle of Agincourt 1415. His first w. was Joan wd. of Thomas Kettoway of Cayleway, da. of Thomas Bingham, Lord of Sutton-Bingham, Co.Somerset, … Cayleway .. da. of Thomas Bingham. Lord of Sutton Bingham, Co. Somerset. By his w. Mary, da. (by Alice his w. da’ of Sir William Filliol) of Sir Walter de Romesey and Ramsey who was grandson of Sir JohnWharton (a descendant through the Tyrrels Clares and Giffards of Richard 1^st. Duke of Normandy) by Ela his w. daur and co-h of John, Lord Biset, who was son (by Phillipa his w. da of William Malbane, Baron of Nantwich, of Thomas , Lord Basset a descendant (through the Dunstanvilles and Reginald, Earl of Cornwall) of King Henry 1^st.By his first w. Roger had John and probably other children. He entered into possession of her share of Rokebyrne, Hants, Combe Biset, Wilts 1448. He was Patron of the church of All Saints Sutton Bingham – 1422 to 1467. In right of his second w. Joan, h. of Biset he had during her life, Radbours Co. Dorset. His 3^rd w. was Joan, da. h. of Thomas Chasteleyne, Lord of Donnington and Trent, both in Co. Somerset, by Emma his w.,dau and co-h of John de Cantelupe, Lord of Chilton-Cantelo, Co.Somerset.

In right of his third w. Roger held a third of the Manor of Trent. He held lands in Croke Burnell, South Tawton (presumably from his mother) & elsewhere. Relinquishing his paternal coat armour, erm, three Dane-axes sa. He assumed that of his mother’s family, arg a chev betw three bernicles sa. Differentiating the chevron, which he bore ermines. Amongst over 70 variations of the name the predominant forms are Wake, Wike, Wyke, Wykes, and Weekes.

Page 28

armorial devices were changed at will, though their allusiveness to past history was generally kept. There went on, however, during the greater part of this time, a gradual evolution towards the stereotyping of particular arms, and claiming them as family rights. And before the end of the fourteenth century, they were regarded as the lawful possession of the users, to the exclusion of all others. It was doubtless on this account that the Heralds usually confined their attention to proof of pedigree and user from that period. Nor was this the only change that was completed in the reign of Richard II., for it was then that territorial names were generally taken as surnames, when the "name of the house" became the name of the family, and when, therefore, the "de" necessarily disappeared. And Pole states that this was so with the Wyke family, and that, henceforth, too, they were no more called "Wray". They were, therefore, no longer of Wyke, or of Wray, but "Wyke" only, as a surname. The afores aid William Wyke, sone of Roger, married Katherine, daughter and co-heir of John Burnell, of Cocktree and Cruke Burnell, and who brought with her Cocktree and other lands. By her he had four sons – Richard, Roger, Henry, and John. The second son, Roger, according to Pole and other Devon historians, had Bindon in Axmouth given to him by Nicholas Bache, in 1406. At this time he could hardly have been of age; for he did not marry before 1422, nor die before 1467. His lands seem to have come to him through his mother’s family, for he held a moiety of Cruke Burnell¹ in North Tawton, and I surmise that Bindon became his by gift of some member of the Burnells. Nicholas Bache, it may be, married Katherine’s sister, and died childless. And this would completely explain the fact of his abandonment of his father’s arms and the adoption of his mother’s. He married three times; each wife was called Joan, and a daughter of a great house. His first was Joan, daughter of Thomas Bingham, lord of the manor of Sutton Bingham, county Somerset; his second was Joan, daughter and heir of …… Bisset; and his third wife was Joan, daughter and heir of Thomas Chasteleyne, of Dennington and Trent, in Somerset, by Emma, daughter and heir of John de Cantelupe, of Chilton Cantelo. The said Roger was M.P. for Plympton in 1413; and in 1415 he accompanied his cousin,

Page 29

the Earl of Devon, in the invasion of France by Henry V.,² and took part in the glorious victory of Agincourt. From 1422 to 1467, when he died, he was patron of Sutton Bingham. On 16^th July, 1425,³ he obtained from Bishop Lacy a licence for an oratory in his mansion of Bindon. In 1448, on the death of his first wife’s cousin, Joan Romesey, he entered into possession of her share of Rokebourne, Hants, and Combe Bisset, Wilts. In right of his second wife, Joan, he had Radbournes, in Dorset, and in the right of his third wife, Joan, he held the manor of Trent, in Somerset, and there, in the church of St. Andrew, is his monumental effigy,⁴ clad in armour, with the head resting on a tilting helm, crested with a barnacle goose, in allusion to his mother’s coat-armour, which was "argent, a chevron between three barnacle geese, sable." His eldest son, John, married Joan, daughter and heir of John Camill, of Shapwick and Charborough, in Dorset. From that day to this Charborough has been held by his descendants. He died in 1488 [Inq. p.m. 4 Hen. VII., No. 46]. His son John succeeded him, and married Elizabeth, daughter of … Lites, of Lites Cary, county Somerset, and by her had two sons, John and Richard. The elder, John, married Anna, daughter of Sir William Hody, of Pillesdon, Dorset, and was father of William, who married Joan, daughter of Thomas Cary, of Tor Mohun, and died without issue 3^rd June, 1526 [Inq. p.m. 18 Hen. VIII.]. His next heir was his uncle Richard, "aged sixty" when the Inq. was taken. He married Joan, daughter of Somaster of ……….. and by her had four daughters, co-heirs, viz. Dorothy, aged five; Alice, aged four; Mary, aged two; and Elizabeth, aged one at the father’s death in 1527 [Inq. p.m. 19 Hen. VIII., No. 112]. Mary married Walter Erle,⁵ of Colyton, county Devon, and took with her Bindon and Charborough. The martial spirit of her race cropped up during the unhappy Civil War, when the whole of the West of England was torn by the rival factions and conscience drew the best of men into opposite camps. Among her descendants who took a prominent place in that unhappy strife were a grandson and a great-grandson of marked ability and capable generalship, both of whom

Page 30

obtained great repute as gallant soldiers. Theres were the Parliamentarian, Sir Walter Erle,⁶ of Charborough Park, who distinguished himself at the seige of Lyme Regis and Corfe Castle, and his cousin, Colonel John Giffard,⁷ head of the House of Brightleigh, the brilliant cavalier, whose praises are sung by Prince in his Worthies of Devon. They fought on opposite sides, though no doubt equally honest and patriotic. Fortunately, they did not come into personal conflict nor die during the struggle.

This branch of the House of North Wyke still flourishes at Charborough Park, in Dorset, and has shone throughout with a strong, steady light, holding its estates intact for over four hundred and fifty years, though these have passed through the distaff on no less than six occasions: [1] when Mary Wyke married Walter Erle;⁸ [2] when Elixabeth Erle married Henry Drax, of Ellerton Abbey, M.P. for Lyme Regis and Wareham; [3] when Sarah F. Erle-Drax married Richard Grosvenor, of Eaton Hall; [4] when Jane, his daughter, married John S. W. Sawbridge; [5] when Jane, daughter of Sawbridge Erle-Drax married Captain Burton of the Guards; and [6] when Ernle, daughter of Captain Burton, married the eldest son of Lord Dunsany. But in spite of this, [it may, indeed, be in consequence] from that day the Squire of Bindon married the heir of Charborough [about 1405] to the present time, they have ranked among the great families of Dorset, and the name of "Erle-Drax" is a househ old word in the county. It is a pity that the name of "Wyke" has disappeared, because they would have had no place there without it. Long, however, may they flourish as a prosperous branch of the old North Wyke tree, and show proof that the blood of an old warrior race still runs strongly in their veins.

Henry, the third son of William and Katherine Burnell, married Julian, daughter of John Lutterell, of ______. The marriage settlement is dated 8 Henry V. [Whittington, i. Weekes v. Weekes]. Richard, the eldest son, suceeded his father after 1420, but before 1426, when the said Richard married Elizabeth,⁹ daughter and co-heir of John Avenell, of

Page 31

Blackpool, in South Molton, by Joan, his wife, daughter and heir of Walter Gambon, of Blackpool and Moreston. The said John was a younger son of Robert Avenell, of Loxbeare, who, at that time, represented in the male line, Baldwin de Brionne [great-grandson of Rollo],¹ who married the Conqueror’s niece, and was made Baron of Okehampton and Vice Comes of Devon for life. He built the castles of Okehampton and Exeter, and had two sons – Richard, who succeeded his father and died s.p., and William de Avenell [so called because born at Avenell, in Normandy], who died in his brother’s lifetime. The said William founded Cowick Priory, and the chapel at Exeter Castle, with its four prebendaries. Ralph, his son, took the barony of Okehampton and the other honours of his grandfather, Baldwin, but was dispossessed, as already stated, through the injured sentiment and consequent resentment of the powerful Reginald, Earl of Cornwall. He married his cousin Joan, daug hter of Richard de Redvers, second Earl of Devon, and by her had several sons, who became heads of important houses in different parts of the kingdom. The heir of one of these sons, Isabell, carried Haddon Hall in marriage to the Vernon family. His son Nicholas married a daughter and co-heir of William Fitz-Reginald,² who held Sheepwash [given to him by the Conqueror] in the reign of Henry I. [Liber Niger]. Loxbeare was the seat of the Devon line from temp. Henry III., and the aforesaid John was a younger son of that house, and married Walter Gambon’s daughter, Joan, about 1400. Their daughter Elizabeth carried the manor of Blackpool and the arms of the barony of Okehampton and the Avenells into the Wyke family. Richard and Elizabeth seem to have lived chiefly at Cocktree, the old home of his mother’s family, the Burnells. He is usually described as "of Cocktree" in the eighteen old deeds, abstracts of which are to be found in Ch. Pro., Weekes v. Weekes [Whittington, i. 9 ]. In two of these, dated respectively 1428 and 1433, we have "Richard of Cocktree," and in one dated 1475 we read:-

"John Wykys, of Wyke, did grant and confirm to Thomas Fulford, Kt., John Speake, Esq., Michael Dennis, Gen., Richard Wekys, Clerk, all his lands … in Spreyton Yatton, Pollesland, … in Chevereston and Roborough in Parish of Roborough, …

Page 32

all which lately were of Richard Wykys of Cocktree, father of the said John Wyke …."

This seems to indicate that he lived and died at Cocktree. His father William, we know, both from these old deeds and "Fines", resided at North Wyke, and held Court there. Considerable architectural changes and additions were made during Richard’s tenure. Much of the older part of the house belongs to his time. The chapel wing, though not wholly as it is now, was his work. This seems to be evident from the fact that in 1439 he obtained a general licence to celebrate divine worship wherever he might be in residence. The licence was granted by Bishop Lacy and is as follows:-

"A° 1439. Licentia Celebrandi. Itm. Sexto die mensi# Octobris anno dni supradco apud Radeway dominus concessi# Licentiam Rico Wyke Elizabeth ux eius & Johannĉ Avenell³ ut in quocumq# loco honesto cultui divino disposito infra dioc Exonie# ubitat situat divina possint & utq# eorum posset ??sentia facere celebrar#. Dumtamen ecctiis poch infra quar limites hujus modi divina cor# tigerint [celebrari] nullum fiat p’indicm [seu] genet ad bn placitum dno tantummodo duratur &c.” [Lacy, fol. Clxxxviij.].(Note the hash sign is used here instead of a sign like a stretched 3 which I think is short for –que)

Translation: "Also on the sixth day of the month of October in the year of our Lord aforesaid at Radeway, the Lord Bishop granted his Licence to Richard Wyke Elizabeth his wife & Joan Avenell, that in any decent place whatsoever properly arranged for Divine worship, situated anywhere within the Diocese of Exeter they may be able, and each of them severally may be able, to cause Divine Service to be celebrated by any duly qualified Priests in the presence of themselves and any one of them; provided that no disadvantage be done, or accrue to the Parish Churches within the limits of which the said Divine Services shall happen [to be celebrated]. The said Licence to hold good during the Lord Bishop’s pleasure only."

This was a very generous grant, the Bishop being probably moved thereto by the said Richard’s munificence to the Church. He had three residences: his father’s, of North Wyke; his mother’s, of Cocktree; and hs wife’s, of Blackpool, in South Molton. The latter was held by Elizabeth’s ancestor, Walter Gambon, in 1303, who [or his son Walter] in 1332 obtained a licence for an oratory there to celebrate divine worship⁴. The general licence to the said Richard gave him chapels at his three residences. That at North

Page 33

Wyke would naturally be treated as the most important, because the mansion house of his forefathers for two hundred years. It still exists. In design it is wholly mediĉval, and corresponds very closely with the directions of King Henry III. to his servants [who were in charge of certain royal residences] as to the form and structure of chapels for his Queen [Liberate Rolls].⁵ The distinctive features of these chapels were [1] a sacrarium open to roof; [2] a moulded beam across the chapel carrying a gallery, overlooking the sacrarium; [3] a room behind this gallery, with a screen between, and used either for religious, or domestic purposes, as circumstances might require; [4] under this room [3] the chapel proper, for retainers, tenants, and servants. The North Wyke chapel corresponds exactly with this description, and it was no doubt completed before the "licence to celebrate" was granted in 1439. The said Richard had a large estate, a generous dispositi on, and a religious mind; hence no doubt the episcopal goodwill. He rebuilt the parish church⁶ [probably as lessee of the rectory^6a, and left it as a work for the admiration of all ages. The roof is finely timbered, and the bosses throughout beautifully carved with angels and other figures. The church consists of nave, chancel, north and south aisles, and the Wyke chapel. With the exception of the latter, which is of granite, the pillars, capitals, and arches are all of Beer stone, which is unknown elsewhere among the churches bordering on Dartmoor, where excellent granite abounds and is unquestionably the building stone of the district. This marked difference in the use of material is explained by the fact, that the Beer quarry adjoined, even if it was not actually a part of, the Bindon estate held by Roger, and that the stone was probably Roger’s gift in aid of his brother’s good work. Towards the end of his life, Richard added the Wyke ch apel as a last resting-place for himself and his posterity. He died before 1475, as we have seen. By his wife Elizabeth Avenell he had three sons – William, John, and Richard. John, the second son, was, I suggest, the "John Wykys" whose name so often appears in the Patent and other rolls of Edward IV.’s reign, as holding

Page 34

high and lucrative appointments under the King, and who was in such high favour that the King stood godfather to his son Edward. And it is significant that he appointed him warden of the Stannary Court in Devon and Cornwall, in which office the North Wyke family had been oftejn interested, and also that in one of the eighteen old deeds, dated 1475, we have the name "John Wykys" [a most unusual form] spelt exactly as in King Edward’s Letters Patent. Richard took orders, was rector of the Stannary town of Lydford, and built the beautiful tower there. He was alive in 1475, and died rector of Sampford Courtenay. His will was proved 6^th September, 1483, at the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, wherein his name is written Richard Wyxe.

William, the eldest son, succeeded his father about 1470. He is described in one of the eighteen old deeds as "William Wyke the elder" [1489]. He had several children, and among them a son William, and two daughters, the elder of whom, Margaret, married Simon Whiddon, and was grandmother to Sir John Whiddon, the judge, of Whiddon Park; and the younger, Alice, married Richard Taverner, lord of the manor of South Zeal, by whom he had an only child, Elizabeth,⁷ who married Richard Burgoyne,^7a recorder of Exeter, and was the ancestress of the Burgoyne branch that flourished in Devon.

The eldest son, William, married Jane, daughter of William Prideaux, of Adeston and Theuborough, escheator of Cornwall, by Alice, daughter and co-heir of Stephen Giffard, of Theuborough,⁸ and was the head of his house in 1500. In that year a striking occurrence happened in the parish of South Tawton, which is told in Notes and Queries, datesd 18^th May, 1895, and stated to be taken from the "Records".⁹ It is as follows:-

"About this time [A.D.1500] the two sacred and Royal Princes, Arthur and Henry, sons of the High and Mighty Sovereign Lord the King [Henry VII.], were sojourning under special care and tutelage in the County of Devon, and as was the custom for the promotion of health and pleasure the before-mentioned most Royal Princes were riding, mounted on Royal horses, in the neighbourhood of the said tenement of the said Thomas Bruteton … when the Prince’s horse, which was foremost, suddenly, and with exceeding

Page 35

malice and fury, occasioned by the intervention of some opposing and terrifying object, started aside, and to the imminent danger of the Prince could not be held by the reins, and being actuated by excessive rage would not endure the government of such young and tender hands, whereat several and many noble persons … much fearing for the safety of their young Prince, came with exceeding swiftness to the spot, and with them the other Prince his brother. But when they all perceived the dreadful rage and fury of the horse, not being able for their great danger to approach nearer, betook themselves to prayer, and the young Prince being still on the animal, went very near to death. Charles Bruteton, son of Thomas Bruteton, was employing himself, for the advantage of his Father, on some ploughed land near the spot, and drawn by the noise and confusion, on beholding the Prince’s plight and extreme danger, like a good and most loyal subject, did, to his personal and great peril, advance without fear , and taking the furious horse by the bridle, held it until some other persons could assist the Royal rider to dismount, and did thereby effectually save the life of the said Prince, who most graciously did, upon the spot, return abundant thanks to the said Charles Bruteton, giving at the same time many hopes of reward when the King should have been made known the particulars of the action … The King was then in London, and on hearing the above news, was pleased to grant in recompense to the said Charles Bruteton for his arms, two chevrons, whereunto were added three horseshoes, in commemoration of the above mentioned most worthy action. Whereunto was afterwards added a grant of 300 acres of good arable land of the King’s free gift."

The contributor to Notes and Queries [the correspondence referred to grants of horseshoes for coats-of-arms] added, "the scene of the adventure was at South Tawton", and "the arms described are emblazoned in one of the windows of the Guildhall at Exeter, commemorative of the late Charles Brutton, Esq., Mayor in 1845". Now the question arises, Whence came those young princes and whither going? They were the sons of a daughter of Edward IV., and at that time there lived in Devon another daughter, wife of the eldest son^9a of the Earl of Devon, who held Okehampton Castle as one of his residences. It may therefore be safely concluded that these young princes were at the time on a visit to their aunt at Okehampton Castle, and were ambitious to try their skill on the backs of horses invigorated by the air of Dartmoor. At no great distance from Okehampton Castle lies North Wyke [seven miles]. The mistress of the house there, Jane Prideaux, daughter of

Page 36

William, escheator of Cornwall, was a descendant of Roger de Mortuo Mari, Earl of March,¹ and therefore of kin both to the Countess and to the young princes. Then, too, "John Wykys," so high in favour with Edward IV., and so well known to the Countess and the young princes, was almost certainly her husband’s uncle, and it may even be that he was on a visit to the home of his forefathers at the time. There might, therefore, have been very strong reasons for bending their steps thitherward. Indeed, it is difficult to suggest that they could have been where they were except with the object of going to North Wyke, as there was no other family of importance near the spot where Prince Arthur was rescued from his peril. There can be, I think, no reasonable doubt that they were on their way to, and did actually visit, North Wyke at that time, and there is strong confirmation of this conclusion by the fact that over the gatehouse are the royal arms of the ear ly Tudor period placed there almost certainly circa 1500, which is about the date of the gatehouse² itself, and so commemorative of the event. Thus, there is attached to the royal arms, which still look down on the spot where the princes must, if at all, have obtained entrance, an intensely interesting story.

Prince Arthur died two years after his eventful visit to Devon, and lies buried in the choir of Worcester Cathedral not far from King John, in an ornate sepulchre. It is highly suggestive of some intangible energy why North Wyke should be so mixed up with Worcestershire. For [1] William de Wigornia, the first of his family at North Wyke, was the grandson of the most potent lord of his time Waleran, Comes de Wigornia. [2] Prince Arthur, not long after his visit there, dies and is buried at Worcester. [3] The writer of this paper is the present head of the Wyke family, one of the oldest in Devon, and in Worcestershire, where he is also resident, he represents [and so far as he knows alone] the greatest subject of all time who has taken part in that county’s affairs. [4] The rectory of Chaddesley Corbett, in the county of Worcester, was given by Thomas, Earl of Warwick, to the Collegiate Church of Warwick. The same Thomas, the son and heir of Alice de Tony, lady of South Tawton, gave th e rectory of South Tawton to the Collegiate Church of Windsor. These coincidences [for the writer’s residences are The Monks in Chaddlesley Corbett and

Page 37

North Wyke in South Tawton] strike one as rather out of the common. Whether they have any psychological or other latent meaning, bordering on the fringe of some hidden law, is beyond the ken of man. The aforesaid William died 31^st March, 14 He. VIII., and his Inq. p.m. was taken 7^th October, 15 Hen. VIII. [For an abstract of this see Trans. Devon. Assoc., 1902, p.638]. He had several children by his wife, Jane Prideaux – John, Richard, Thomas, and William, and a daughter Joan, who married John Baren. His eldest son John succeeded him, and was on his father’s death "aged twenty-seven years". He married Elizabeth, daughter and heir of William, son and heir of Humphrey Pokeswill, of Dorset and Chricheston [or Criston] in Somerset, by his wife Alice, daughter of William Wadham, of Catherston, county Dorset, son of Sir John Wadham, of Merifield, county Somerset, and Wadham, county Devon. The marriage settlement of William Pokeswill³ and Alice Wadham, dated tenth year of Henry VII., is in my hands, and well preserved. As it is more than four hundred years old, it may be interesting to t