Up

Early English Sydnors

1290-1370

Early Kent Citation

First Known Sydnor

 

KENT

(LISTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

 

E???.                PETER SYDNOR [de[1] SEDENORE], born circa 1290?,[2] living 1345, of Charing in Kent.

            Married probably[3] circa 1315? unknown.

               In 1328 at a visitation* held in the church of Charing on the Friday next after the Feast of St Hillary,[4] the following note was made: "Peter de Sedenore said he is willing to give satisfaction[5] therefore, because E. is a person of bad character and under sentence."[6]

               In the Kent Lay Subsidy* of 1334-5,[7] Peter lived in the hundred*[8] of Calehill [Calhelle],[9] lathe*[10] of Scray, and paid a fifteenth[11] tax in the amount of four shillings* and three pence*.   At the average assessment of thirty-nine shillings* per thousand acres,[12] Peter held approximately 110 acres.

 

E???.                WILLIAM SYDNOR [SEDENORE, SEDONERE SETENORE] (possibly Peter Sydnor1), born circa 1325?, living 1364 when the deeds were formed, of Egerton in Kent.[13]

            Married[14] possibly circa 1350? unknown.

               William from Egerton, together with others, held indentures*[15] dated 1364 for the denns*[16] of Newenden,[17] Birchley,[18] Elmhurst,[19] and Shirden.[20]  These were held of the manor* of Charing and of the archbishop of Canterbury.  William likely held land besides these leases. 

 

E???.                RICHARD SYDNOR[21] [SEDENORE], born circa 1325?, living 1364 when the deeds were formed, of Egerton in Kent.[22]

            Married possibly[23] circa 1350? unknown.

               In the Kent Lay Subsidy* of 1334-5,[24] Richard lived in the hundred* of Calehill[25] [Calhelle], lathe* of Scray, and paid a fifteenth[26] tax in the very modest amount of one shilling* and two pence*.  At the average assessment of thirty-nine shillings* per thousand acres,[27] Richard held approximately thirty acres. 

               Richard was shown, together with others, in an indenture* dated 1364 for the denn* of Elmhurst[28] that was part of the manor* of Charing and held of the archbishop of Canterbury.  Richard possibly held land besides this lease, although no other taxes were shown.

 

Endnotes:

[1]                  The use of various prepositions with surnames is discussed under the chapter on Surnames.

[2]                  See the chapter on Conventions about the techniques of indicating estimated dates.

               In this case, it has been presumed that Peter probably was an older person if he were testifying as to the character of fellow parish members.  Further, if Richard, who was shown in the Subsidy of 1334-5, was his son (although he could easily have been a cousin or younger brother), this would suggest an age of perhaps forty-five.

[3]                  There was no evidence that Peter was married other than the custom of the times.

[4]                  The Feast of St Hilary was probably 5 May, but possibly 28 February.

[5]                  The meaning of “give satisfaction” was unclear.

[6]                  See Some Early Visitation Rolls Preserved at Canterbury II, C. Eveleigh Woodruff, Archaeologia Cantiana, v.33 (_____), p.90.  This record did not establish whether the sentence against "E" was ecclesiastical or civil.  Possibly "E" was under the sentence of excommunication.  Why was Peter Sydnor agreeing to answer for a debt or liability?  Was Peter agreeing to fulfill an obligation for "E," perhaps a rent payment for property held in common?

[7]                  See The Kent Lay Subsidy of 1334-5, ed. H. A. Hanley and C. W. Chalkin, Kent Archaeological Society, v.18 (1964), p.102.  The boundaries of hundreds* in medieval England were ill-defined.  This subsidy was one of the first that has allowed an estimation of those lines.

[8]              A hundred* was an administrative district which varied widely in area land which probably consisted of one hundred taxable hides* or the ability to raise one hundred warriors or ten tithings*.  The hundreds seem to have been effected probably during the tenth century, and the assembly of notables and village representatives usually met once a month.

[9]                  The hundred* of Calehill held both the parishes of Egerton and Charing, two parishes in which later Sydnors held lands.  Egerton was the residence of William.

[10]             The lathe* was the primary administrative division of early Kent and consisted of several hundreds.  These were originally the provinces of the Jutish kingdom in Kent and by the time of the Conquest the jurisdiction of the lathes were substantially reduced.

[11]                 Taxes in this subsidy were assessed for tenths* in cities, boroughs and vills [villages]; for fifteenths* in the countryside.

[12]                 See The Kent Lay Subsidy of 1334-5, ed. H. A. Hanley and C. W. Chalkin, Kent Archaeological Society, v.18 (1964), p.67.

[13]          William was shown to be of Egerton in one of the leases noted below.

[14]                 There was no evidence that William was married other than the custom of the times.

[15]             Indenture* was a deed, sealed agreement or contract in as many copies as parties thereto, with a common notch, or indent, on all the parts to prove conformity.

[16]                 Denn* (or den, dene, dane, or dean) was a pig pasture, typically a deep, narrow, wooded vale of a rivulet, often used in early times for grazing swine and particularly located in the Weald of Sussex and Kent.  Many names of parishes in Kent conclude with this syllable that defines their origins.

[17]                 This deed for Newenden was found at Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; ms.Register H (corrected from Register N), f.56v, dated 9 September 1364 and confirmed 18 October 1364.  See Appendix.  There were eighteen tenants total, and the fee was seven shillings* eight pence*.  Of the other tenants named in this deed, Dennis Elmhurst shared tenancy in Birchley and Elmhurst.  William Baldock and Richard Pemell also shared tenancy in Elmhurst besides Newenden.  Richard Halinghurst, William Allen Jr, John Bydenden, and Richard Rumdenn also appeared in the lease for Shirden.

[18]                 This deed for Birchley was found at Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; ms.Register H (corrected from Register N), f.58, dated 9 September 1364 and confirmed 18 October 1364.  See Appendix.  There were eight tenants total, and the fee was six shillings* eight pence*.  Agnes Elmhurst (likely the Agnes, widow of Thomas Doul who also appeared in the deed for Newenden) appeared in the this deed and the one for Elmhurst.

[19]                 This deed for Elmhurst was found at Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; ms.Register H (corrected from Register N), f.60v, dated 20 November 1364 and confirmed 29 January 1364/5.  See Appendix.  There were nine tenants total, and the fee was nine shillings* seven and a half pence*.  Richard Sydnor appeared as co-tenant in this lease  This property at Elmhurst appeared to have stayed in the Sydnor family until about 1550 when they moved to Suffolk.

[20]                 This deed for Shirden was found at Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; ms.Register H (corrected from Register N), f.61v, dated 20 November 1364 with no date for confirmation given.  See Appendix.  There were eighteen tenants total, and the fee was twelve shillings* five and a half pence*.

[21]             Richard was shown as a younger brother since he held only one lease as opposed to the four leases which William held.  However, Richard could easily have been older, been a cousin, or even the son of William.

[22]          Richard was shown to be of Egerton in one of the leases.

[23]                 There was no evidence that Richard was married other than the custom of the times.

[24]                 This tax record was found at The Kent Lay Subsidy of 1334-5, ed. H. A. Hanley and C. W. Chalkin, Kent Archaeological Society, v.18 (1964), p.102.  See Appendix.  The boundaries of early hundreds* of medieval England have been largely conjectural.  This subsidy was one of the first that allowed an estimation of those borders.

[25]                 The hundred* of Calehill held the parishes of both Egerton and Charing, two parishes in which Sydnors later held lands.  Except for one William Sydnor Jr shown in the descent, the parishes of Egerton and adjacent Boughton Malherbe and Smarden were the home of many of the English Sydnors for earlier generations.

[26]                 Taxes in this subsidy were assessed for tenths* in cities, boroughs and vills; for fifteenths* in the country.

[27]                 This deed was found at The Kent Lay Subsidy of 1334-5, ed. H. A. Hanley and C. W. Chalkin, Kent Archaeological Society, v.18 (1964), p.67.  See Appendix.

[28]                 This deed was found at Dean and Chapter of Canterbury; ms.Register H (not Register N as shown in some references), f.60v, dated 20 November 1364.  See Appendix.