INTRODUCTION

I. THE MANUSCRIPT

The Langley Cartulary (British Library, Harleian MS. 7) was compiled for William Langley, esquire, of Knowlton in Kent, late in the reign of Edward IV. It deals not with William's patrimony, however, but with the estates of the West Midland Langleys of whom his mother, Isabel de la Pole, was the last surviving representative. She was, in fact, the niece and sole heir of John Langley whose will was proven on 23 November 1459. Her marriage to Walter Langley of Knowlton, the head of a hitherto unrelated family of the same name, seems to have been deliberately designed in order to preserve the estates in the name of Langley.

A curious feature of this Cartulary is that the greater part of the property to which it refers was not only not in the hands of the man who had the Cartulary compiled, but was virtually irrecoverable by him. John Langley had been able to pass on to his namesakes the bulk of his family's muniments but only part of the property they had once enjoyed. Most of the Warwickshire estates, for example, had long since passed out of Langley hands.

While the content of the Cartulary was basically determined by these muniments, it was also modified by the family arrangements of the Kent Langleys themselves. Walter Langley died between 25 February and 9 March 1470. During the next twelve months Isabel closely regulated the descent of her property by means of feoffees. After her death her youngest son, John, was to have her father's manors of Potcote and Grimscote, Northants. Of her uncle's manors, Edmund was to have Over Siddington and Siddington Langley, Glos., and William Langley, her eldest son, those of Chesterton and Turkdean, Glos., Oldbury, Salop., and the Warwickshire manors of Shortley and Atherstone-upon-Stour. On 11 May 1474, following their mother's death, William exchanged Atherstone for Potcote and Grimscote and acknowledged Edmund's title to Siddington. Siddington and Atherstone deeds, no doubt, passed to William's brothers with the estates; they form no part of the Cartulary.

The manuscript comprises 237 paper folios measuring 11¾ by 8½ inches, of which 32 are blank. There are 15 quires with a variable number of folios to the quire. A single folio (fo. 158) has been inserted within the tenth quire but it is a contemporary insertion not a later one. None of the quires is distinct in content except for the last which contains only the Langley pedigree and most run on from the previous quire. The Cartulary was put together in a single process with just a few documents added on blank folios slightly later.

A folio heading in the main hand gives the year as 17 Edward IV (4 March 1477-3 March 1478) and in all probability the bulk of the work was completed at that time. In a different, less accomplished hand, are a terrier of William Langley's land at Grimscote said to have been made at Hallowe'en 19 Edward IV (31 October 1479) and the Langley pedigree, written while William was still alive. He died on 10 February 1483. The great majority of marginalia are contemporary, written in either the main hand or that of the terrier and pedigree. A quitclaim to the manor of Chesterton and a variety of notes and memoranda are also in this hand (Nos. 99-101, 139, 153-55).

Though the main hand is a reasonably tidy and clear cursive, the Langley Cartulary is not a polished production. Minor inaccuracies abound, whilst occasionally more serious errors in transcription have tended to obscure the sense. Superficially the material appears to be arranged on a topographical basis with section headings. On a closer inspection, this arrangement is seen to break down. The first section, for example, though headed Turkdean goes on to deal with Fairford, Glos., and Brightwell and Ewelme, Oxon., whilst the Coventry section beginning fo. 137v deals with a whole variety of places stretching from Ashover in Derbyshire to Ashcott in Somerset. Two of the folio headings indicate that the Cartulary was put together from a number of smaller collections. On fo. 130r we have copia de uno pixide tangente diversa tenementa in Covent[rel and on fo. 137v copia de uno saculo de evidensia de Coventr[el.

The manuscript was compiled from deed-boxes and similar sources with little or no attempt at reorganisation. Documents were transcribed as they came out of box or sack. Eight sections can be distinguished possibly representing eight separate collections. These are:

1. Nos. 1-44 dealing mainly with Turkdean, Fairford, Brightwell and Ewelme.

2. Nos. 45-101 dealing mainly with Chesterton (with three additions in the later hand).,

3. Nos. 102-164 dealing with Potcote and Grimscote, together with provisions made for the succession to Langley estates during 1470-74 (and a few additions, including the terrier, in the later hand).

4. Nos. 165-175 dealing with Sawston, Cantab., and Harlington, Beds. (These are, in fact, deeds of the Kent Langleys.)

5. Nos. 176-261 dealing with Coventry and environs including Shortley.

6. Nos. 262-292 taken from a deed-box and dealing exclusively with Coventry.

7. Nos. 293-530 the largest collection, taken from a sack and dealing with a variety of places including Coventry and environs; Ashover, Derbyshire; Ashcott, Greinton and Walton, Somerset; Bicester and Bignell, Oxon; Baddesley Ensor, Harborough Magna, Long Compton, Stareton, Shipston-on-Stour, Tanworth, Warwick, Wolfhamcote and elsewhere in Warwickshire; and Uffcott, Wilts.

8. Nos. 531-566 dealing mainly with Dorsington, Milcote, Weston-on-Avon and Wolfhameote.

It is unlikely that great use was made of the Cartulary. Though the marginalia indicate that it was studied in its day, it does not appear to have been used to initiate action for the recovery of lost Langley estates. Indeed there was little time to do so. William Langley died leaving one son aged about 11, who died childless on 3 November 1518. His heirs were the three daughters of his uncle, Edmund Langley. Of the subsequent history of the manuscript virtually nothing is known. A piece of paper and a scrap of parchment affixed to an odd folio at the beginning of the Cartulary bear the names Butler and Jerome Fytzherbert respectively. It almost certainly became the property of the seventeenth century antiquary Sir Sirnonds D'Ewes and passed to the Harleian Library with his collection in 1705.

Il. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LANGLEYS AND THEIR ESTATES

i. Accumulation The origin of the Langleys is difficult to penetrate. Their pedigree is headed by a Walter de Langley. Though accredited with knighthood, Waiter is a rather shadowy figure. He held property, perhaps a manor, at Pinley near Coventry and an estate at Siddington near Cirencester. The latter he seems to have owed to his wife, Emma de Lacy. Between 1 1 89 and 1 213 he gave a church and 3 virgates of land at Siddington to the knights of St. John of Jerusalem.

The real founder of the Langley fortunes was Walter's son Geoffrey. His early years were, however, inauspicious. Though he had succeeded at Pinley by 1222, his land at Siddington was retained by members of related families. He sued first Isabel de Cardonville and after her death Hasculf de Harborough. The case was in progress during 1228-9 and Geoffrey appears to have recovered soon after. Later he augmented the estate by purchasing a further carucate from Hascuif's heirs.

By December 1234, perhaps through marriage, Geoffrey had acquired land at Long Compton, War. A second marriage, before 25 September 1236, brought him the manor of Turkdean, Glos., with land and rents at Brightwell, Ewelme, Haseley and Standhill, Oxon., Hawridge, Bucks., and Woodborough, Wilts. It was primarily by service to the Crown, however, that Geoffrey succeeded in raising the family's fortunes.

Sir Geoffrey de Langley first appears in royal service during the monopolization of office by Peter de Rivaux. He functioned as constable of St. Briavels, deputizing for Peter, during the winter of 1233-4. Joining the royal curia he became knight-deputy to the Earl Marshal and Marshal of the Household. He may have deputized for Gilbert Marshal who died in June 1241; he certainly did so for his successor Waiter. Twice during these early years Geoffrey was employed by the King as a proctor in ecclesiastical affairs.

The Gascon campaign of 1242-3 proved a watershed in his career. On his return he was detached from the household, given custody of the honour of Arundel and then recruited to the forest eyre. From late 1244 to early 1250 he was associated with the general forest eyre conducted under the headship of Robert Passelewe. On 4 March 1250 he was made Chief Justice of the Forest on both sides of the Trent, an office which he exercised for a space of two and a half years until 25 October 1252.

As Chief Justice of the Forest he earned the rather unenviable enmity of Matthew Paris. According to the St. Albans chronicler he had gained a reputation for parsimony whilst Marshal of the Household. Now he was to be particularly zealous, if not unrestrained, in the interests of the King. Though the Chronica Majora is highly exaggerated in tone there is no doubt that Geoffrey's northern eyre was a particularly lucrative one and may well have caused murmurings.

By 1252 Geoffrey was at the height of his power and high in royal esteem. A member of the Council, he functioned as escort, and perhaps guardian, to the King's daughter, Queen Margaret of Scotland, during 1252-3, and in March 1254 took responsibility for the English and Welsh lands of the young Prince Edward. His appointment as Edward's steward proved, however, to be a disaster, for in attempting the shiring of Perfeddwlad he provoked the Welsh rising of November 1256. According to Matthew Paris he conducted himself here in a typically high-handed manner whilst the Dunstable annalist writes of his boasting before the king and queen that he had the Welsh in the palm of his hand. To an extent, though, Geoffrey may have been the scapegoat for the failure of royal policy. Out of favour with the King, he was eventually pardoned on 14 February 1258. He was unpopular, too, with the opposition baronage, and was among those royalists whose lands were pillaged in the spring of 1263. Understandably he was little in evidence in national affairs during the troubled years 1258-67. He had died by 22 September 1274.

Whatever his calibre as a royal servant, there is no doubt that Geoffrey profited handsomely both in terms of royal gifts and in terms of cash and opportunity for investment. He was directly endowed with land during his early years in forest justice. On 22 April 1245 he was granted the reversion of the manors of Milcote and Dorsington, War.; this took effect on 9 April 1246. Meanwhile, on 29 March 1246, he had received Stamfordham "of the lands of the Normans", initially pending the reversion of Milcote and Dorsington though he was afterwards allowed to retain it. Finally, on 29 April 1248, he was allowed to exchange Stamfordham for the Warwickshire manor of Atherstone-upon-Stour, formerly held by the royal steward Geoffrey de Crowcombe. In the same category should be placed the manor of Stareton which he received from Waiter Marshal, Earl of Pembroke, before June 1243, no doubt as payment for his services whilst Marshal of the Household. Before his death, in November 1245, Waiter had quitclaimed the rent due from Geoffrey's land at Long Compton and had given him land and rents in the town of Warwick and in Cotes and Hardwick.

During these years Geoffrey was busily acquiring land from other sources. In essence he was employing the cash reward of royal service to exploit the opportunities offered by his favoured position. In three cases he gained valuable estates through the acquittance of debts to Jews. These were the core of his estate at Stivichall purchased from Wilham de Lucy in or around 1240, the estate centred on Bisseley near Coventry and later known as the manor of Shortley, acquired from Henry d'Aubigny during 1244-5, and Ashover in Derbyshire which he took on lease for a term of 22 years in 1251 and purchased outright sometime during the next five years. Ashover and Stivichall were acquired by Geoffrey at one and two removes, respectively, from an impecunious landowner. The detail of these transactions reveals a good deal about the traffic in encumbered estates during the mid-thirteenth century. By the same means he acquired rents at Bearley, War., and at Heydon in Ewelme, Oxon.

Several of Geoffrey's other major acquisitions are more difficult to categorise. From John de Monmouth he gained the manor of Chesterton close to Siddington at a date later than 1236 and closer to 1252. Geoffrey may have discharged John's debts to the Jews; but although John did have such debts, he does not appear to have been in serious financial difficulties. Geoffrey's acquisition of Harborough Magna between 1246 and 1252 was, in part at least, a family settlement. Hasculf de Harborough was the relative from whom he had recovered his estate at Siddington. Now Harborough passed to Geoffrey and Hasculf was given in return a life-tenancy of Little Dorsington. More curious is Geoffrey's acquisition of Weston Mauduit. The Langley Cartulary contains no charter of enfeoffment but only two minor grants by Williarn Mauduit of land lying close to Milcote. The inquisition in 1268 on the death of William's son, Earl of Warwick since 1263, records his alienation of land worth £15 per annum in Weston, and Geoffrey was clearly holding this estate before his death in 1274.

Geoffrey also managed to endow his son Walter with an independent estate during his own lifetime. In 1243-4 he was married to an heiress, Alice Breton, with manors at Wyken and Wolfhameote, War., and Bignell, Oxon. In the years which followed his father made considerable additions to the first two properties by buying out both undertenants and independent freeholders. Even before this, Geoffrey had begun building an estate in Somerset which was intended for his eldest son. Numerous small properties were added to the core of an estate at Ashcott acquired from Walter de Chauton. Richard de Chauton was later to sue (successfully) for the return of the property on the grounds that his father had enfeoffed Walter de Langley when the latter was under age. The Langley interest in Ashcott and neighbouring places was certainly established by 1242.

Geoffrey paid considerable attention to the improvement and consolidation of his estates. This can be seen most clearly on the Langley estates south of Coventry. In addition he steadily expanded his income from urban rents in Coventry itself and invested in mills around the town. No less than eight of these were in Langley hands by the middle of the century.

Though the work of an opportunist, Geoffrey de Langley's accumulation was not an entirely haphazard one. A close look at the geographical location of his estates reveals three concentrations; south of Coventry, around Cirencester, and in south-west Warwickshire.. These were kept in demesne, while some, at least, of his outlying property tended to be leased. His monastic benefactions must be seen against this background. The outlying Warwickshire manors of Harborough Magna and Stareton passed to the Cistercian houses of Combe and Stoneleigh at annual rents of £10. 6s. and £20 respectively. His small estate at Long Compton in the southern tip of Warwickshire was given to the Augustinian priory of Wroxton after the Battle of Evesham.

The overall value of the Langley estates is difficult to calculate. Available figures, based on the inquisitions post mortem of Geoffrey and his eldest son Waiter, yield a total of £160. 9s. 2d. This excludes the considerable estate in Somerset and other Midland properties including the land at Long Compton. Allowing for undervaluation, Geoffrey's income at its height can hardly have been less than £200 per annum. In addition his son, Walter, was holding the three manors of Wyken, Wolfhamcote and Bignell for which no figures are available.

After so rapid an accumulation one would expect the Langleys to have risen further, through marriage if not otherwise, and to have reached the parliamentary peerage during the course of the fourteenth century. That this did not happen is largely due to the division of estates after the death of Sir Geoffrey. Siddington, Atherstone-upon-Stour, Milcote, Little Dorsington, Weston Mauduit, Harborough Magna, Pinley and Stivichall with rents in Coventry passed to his eldest son Walter. But the inheritance of his second wife and the lands of their joint enfeoffment, viz. Chesterton, Turkdean, Stareton and Shortley with property at Brightwell, Heydon and Chalgrove, and further rents in Coventry and Warwick went to their son Master Robert de Langley, and afterwards, by some obscure family agreement to Geoffrey de Langley, junior, full brother to Sir Walter. The Somerset lands had also passed to Geoffrey though he lost them in stages between 1280 and 1295. By 1287 he had acquired Atherstone from his nephew Sir John. He was dead by August 1297.

Although both branches acquired further lands by marriage, and the elder continued to consolidate especially in the Coventry arei, nevertheless they were to remain families of essentially local influence in the counties of Warwick and Gloucester. By the second quarter of the fourteenth century the wheel of fortune was beginning to turn.

The later history of the Langley estates is essentially one of dispersal followed by partial recovery and the extinction of the line. A cartulary, by its very nature, tells much of the accumulation of a landed estate and rather little of its decline. However, by combining the internal evidence of the Cartulary with other sources, principally the Chancery records and the deed collections of the recipients of Langley property, it is possible to piece together a fairly coherent account of the disintegration of the Langley patrimony. The prime interest in doing so is that it reveals not only something of the intense competition for land among the gentry, a competition made more acute in this period by the complications and uncertainties of the land law, but also of the respective roles played by physical violence, patronage and, in particular, collusive action in attempting to frustrate or by-pass action at law.

Since I have dealt elsewhere with the failure of the elder line only the outline is necessary here. Sir John de Langley died between April and July 1326. By an entail his property passed to his youngest son Geoffrey and Geoffrey's wife Mary jointly. Geoffrey died in the following year and Mary afterwards married Sir William de Careswell . Through the action of Master Thomas de Langley, Sir John's only surviving son, a jointure was now created for Mary and William with successive remainders to Geoffrey, the young son of Geoffrey de Langley, and his heirs, and to the heirs of William de Careswell. Thomas acquired a life-tenure of the manors of Uffcott and Bignell. As a result of this manoeuvre William de Careswell held the estates until his death on 3 May 1359 by which time the heir was Joan daughter to Geoffrey son of Geoffrey. To secure his position William had acquired her wardship and married her to John de Charlton.

But Charlton was not allowed to keep his prize and over the next few years Joan's inheritance began to dissolve. Abducted and ravished apparently, she appears in the autumn of 1363 as the wife of Sir John Trillowe. Although Charlton was successfully bought off, Trillowe nonetheless felt it necessary to seek the protection of the lord of Tamworth, Sir Baldwin de Frevill. A series of transactions left Baldwin, by July 1366, as the owner of all Joan's property in North Warwickshire. She and Trillowe retained Siddington and the South Warwickshire manors of Milcote, Dorsington and Weston Mauduit. When Joan died, in October 1368, there were five claimants to the remnants of her inheritance, in addition to Trillowe. The five were: Sir John de Peyto, grandson of Robert de Langley, lord of Wolfhamcote; John Worth, great-grandson of Christine, sister of Sir John de Langley; the heir male John de Langley, esquire, of Atherstone-upon-Stour; Elizabeth de Barndsley, also of the junior line; and Peter de Careswell. After a period of disturbance Sir John Worth emerged triumphant. He held Siddington after Trillowe's death in March 1374 and Milcote with reversions to Dorsington and Weston Mauduit after Joan's belated inquisition post mortem, held in October 1375, named him as heir.

Of the various actions taken during the confusion among the most interesting is that of Sir John de Peyto. Immediately on Joan's death he had entered Milcote. He was sued by Peter de Careswell at Michaelmas, but meanwhile he had made an enfeoffrnent to uses making this action redundant. The feoffees included Ralph, Earl of Stafford, and the royal mistress, Alice Perrers. Even so, despite his patrons, Peyto was ousted - not by Careswell but by the tenacious and violent Trillowe, who continued to hold both Milcote and Siddington despite interruptions until his own death.

This collusive employment of the use deserves special mention for it is not an isolated case. It was the subject of a statute of Parliament in 1377. The same phenomenon is seen several times, later, in the history of the junior line. As is well known, the use was developed during the first half of the fourteenth century to avoid the deleterious effects of wardship, to devise land to relatives other than the heir by primogeniture, and to pay off outstanding debts after the death of the tenant. Since the gentry will have had most to gain overall from the general application of this device, it has been argued that the impetus towards its development came from them rather than the higher nobility. Interestingly, although they went in for their share of entails and jointures, the Langleys do not seem to have employed the use in this way until the heiress, Isabel, used it closely to regulate the descent of her property and pay off her debts in the spring of 1470. In the history of the Langley estates the use figures, rather, collusively, to protect a contested title, or to return an estate to the heir where his succession might otherwise be in doubt. For example, an inquiry of 1375 tells how Master Thomas de Langley had alienated the manor of Bignell to his overlord, William de Bohun, Earl of Northampton. His son Humphrey de Bohun, had given it "to certain persons, names unknown, to re-enfeoff the right heirs of Geoffrey son of John de Langley". The heir was found to be Sir John Worth, who was in possession by October 1377. Similarly, Sir John Worth, himself probably childless, conveyed Siddington to a group of feoffees who included Sir William de Beauchamp and Sir Lewis de Clifford. After his death they granted a life-estate to his widow with reversion to John de Langley of Atherstone-upon-Stour. Milcote he conveyed to two clerics who re-enfeoffed him in tail with successive remainders in tail male to Sir William de Beauchamp and Sir Lewis de Clifford, and remainder over to his own right heirs. William Beaucharnp sold it, however, to William Grevill, the merchant of Chipping Campden. By the turn of the century, of Joan's inheritance only Siddington (with land at Tarlton and Rodmarton) remained in Langley hands, reunited with the junior line in the person of John de Langley of Atherstone-upon-Stour.

The erosion of the estates of the junior line began earlier but was less spectacular. Sir Edmund de Langley died shortly before Michaelrnas 1316. Since he had had Chesterton entailed upon himself, his first wife and their heirs, that manor passed on his death to his daughter, Joan, who later married Roger de Ledecote. His Oxfordshire property passed to the Berefords, initially no doubt as his second wife's dower. The manor of Turkdean, once held by Edrnund's mother in dower, was fraudulently alienated by his stepfather's brother, Henry Seuar. Shortley and property in Coventry were retained by Alexander de Bicknor whose niece had married Edmund's heir, Geoffrey, who barely survived his father. John de Langley, Edmund's second son, succeeded without difficulty only at Atherstone-upon-Stour, perhaps as this manor was held of the Crown. When he came of age he successfully sued Alexander de Bicknor for the Shortley estate. John's financial difficulties, stemming perhaps from his litigation, caused him to sell off much of his urban rent and to raise further cash using his Shortley property as surety. He, too, seems to have left a son under age. Sir Baldwin de Frevill, who had already acquired Pinley, Stivichall and Wyken, now intruded into Shortley. Thus the second John de Langley began life with only one manor. Throughout his life he was known as John de Langley of Atherstone-upon-Stour.

This John initiated a process of recovery. By June 1397 he was in possession of the ancestral home of Siddington. Meanwhile, by 1381, he had acquired the manor of Oldbury in Shropshire through his marriage to Joan, daughter of Henry Goldsmith. He married his own daughter to a serjeant-at-law with Northamptonshire property, one William de la Pole. And, finally, towards the end of his life he secured the manors of Chesterton and Shortley.

The recovery of these two manors allows us to see the collusive operation of enfeoffment to uses more clearly as the relevant documents were surrendered to the plaintiff and found their way into the Cartulary.

Let us begin with Shortley. Sir Baldwin de Frevill probably entered the manor before 1372. He died in 1375. A second Baldwin de Frevill died in 1387. His feoffees conveyed the manor to Henry de Walton and others, who in turn enfeoffed Nicholas de Peshall and others for the life of Joyce, wife of Sir Adam de Peshall and widow of Baldwin II, with reversion to Baldwin de Frevill III. This was completed by 8 November 1385. Some time afterwards Elizabeth de Barndsley, the Langley claimant, and her husband John brought a case of novel disseisin against Sir Adam de Peshall and eventually received judgement in their favour. In January 1403 John de Barndsley sued Sir Adam for trespass committed at Shortley on 10 April 1397. Judgement was given for the plaintiff at Lent 1404. Meanwhile, however, Baldwin de Frevill III had died, in 1400, leaving a child as his heir. His estates, including Shortley, were taken into custody and wardship given to Thomas Beaufort. By now Elizabeth must have died for in petitioning for redress, John claimed to hold by courtesy of England. Again he recovered seisin.

But John de Barndsley soon faced a serious and tenacious claimant in John de Langley of Atherstone-upon-Stour. By October 1409 negotiations were taking place between the Langleys and the Barndsleys over both Shortley and Chesterton. On 29 September 1412 Barndsley leased the latter to his son William. William conveyed it to feoffees - Sir Walter Hungerford, Sir John Berkeley, Sir William Hawkford and others - on 25 July 1414. On 1 5 November the two sides put their disputes in the hands of arbiters; but nothing came of this for Langley sued Barndsley for both manors in the summer of 1416. Meanwhile, William de Barndsley seems to have died for by December 1415 Edward de Chesterton, his cousin and heir, had decided to intervene. He appointed attorneys to eject unlawful occupiers from the manor of Chesterton, and ten days later conveyed the manor to a group of feoffees. These quitclaimed to two of their number - John Brytt and his wife Eleanor - during February and March 1416. John and Eleanor received similar quitclaims of the manor of Shortley on 14 June 1416. The intention to thwart the Langley claim, however, did not succeed and John de Bamdsley formally surrendered both manors to John Langley, son of John de Langley of Atherstone-upon-Stour, on 15 June 1417. His father had recovered Shortley on 25 February but died on 21 May.

The history of Shortley and Chesterton in the later fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries points to what was no doubt a common course of action in the case of disputed lands: violent occupation followed by enfeoffment to uses, preferably involving the socially more powerful. Though legal process might ultimately triumph it took time, money, and an extremely tenacious litigant.

John Langley, who had taken a prominent part in the re-acquisition of Shortley and Chesterton, continued the process of recovery. He sued Sir Reginald de Grey for the manor of Turkdean in the summer of 1423 and in the same year opened proceedings for the recovery of Langley lands at Brightwell. In both cases he was successful though litigation was slow. He seems to have had some knowledge of the law. He conducted his own suit against Reginald de Grey, while his will speaks of a book of statutes and another register bought from his sister Margery, wife of the serjeant-at-law William de la Pole. He possessed seven manors, viz. Siddington Langley, Over Siddington (which he purchased from one John Stonehouse), Chesterton, Turkdean, Shortley, Oldbury and Atherstone, with property at Sevemhill and Bridgnorth in Shropshire, at Tarlton, Fairford and Lechlade in Gloucestershire, and minor lands in Oxfordshire and Berkshire. A rough indication of his landed income can be gained from the inquisitions post mortem of his successors. Property worth £75. 6s. 8d. is recorded. Adding Atherstone-upon-Stour (worth £14 in 1274) and allowing for undervaluation John's income can hardly have been short of £ 100 per annum. In short he was a substantial member of the West Midlands squirearchy.

John Langley was dead by 23 November 1459. In his will he made provision for the souls of his father and mother, and arranged for a marble stone to commemorate his grandfather in the church of Atherstone-upon-Stour, but there is no mention of a wife or children. Thus it is with deliberate foresight that his niece Isabel was to convey the property to the Langleys of Knowlton.

Even so, name and property were not to remain united for long. Though Isabel left three adult sons, the line was not to endure. John Langley was succeeded at Atherstone-upon-Stour by his daughter Elyn. She and her husband conveyed the property to Sir Richard Empson in 1496. Edmund Langley died in April 1490 and his son Waiter in October 1502. The boy's heirs were his three sisters. They and their husbands formally divided his property on 3 April 1506. William Langley, the commissioner of the Cartulary, died as early as 10 February 1483 and his son John, the last of the name, on 3 November 1518.