Peverel, the alleged son of William the Conqueror, was at Hastings and rewarded by the Conqueror with large land holdings in the Midlands. As well as founding Lenton Priory in Nottinghamshire he also founded St James’ and provided it with land near Duston as well as the mill and advowson of Duston. The advowson means that the monks had the right to appoint the priest at Duston. The abbey grew so that it held the advowson of ten churches as well as farms and other land holdings.
The abbey founded at the beginning of the twelfth century was for the black canons of St Augustine but it wasn’t until 1173 that the buildings in stone were completed. Building work continued into the next century with Henry III supplying two oaks for the building of the church tower. The king also granted rights to an annual fair which continued after the Dissolution in Northampton itself. In 1291 the abbey took control of landholdings outside their walls that belonged to the exiled jewish community and a new building project began.
On 19 May 1536 Cromwell’s commissioners arrived to find the monastery in good repair, the abbot a godly man and the black canons all doing what they should have been doing – so not music to Cromwell’s ears. The king believed that the commissioners had been bribed and although it was valued at more than £200 a year came under the scope of the SuppressionAct of 1536. The abbot died the same year but the canons paid the fine that gained them the right to remain open. It was an eye-watering £333 6s 8d. Eventually Dr Layton arrived at the end of Augst 1538 and the surrender document was signed. Abbot Brokden who oversaw the final years of the abbey was paid a pension of £11 6s 8d and gained the rectory of Watford.
The area where the abbey once stood is still known as St James’ End. The Abbey Works was built on the site of the abbey so there’s not much in the way of evidence above ground.
‘Houses of Austin canons: The abbey of St James, Northampton’, in A History of the County of Northampton: Volume 2, ed. R M Serjeantson and W R D Adkins (London, 1906), pp. 127-130. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/northants/vol2/pp127-130 [accessed 20 July 2021].
I
I am not a religious minded man but a believer in the only almighty being. To me a sort of feeling for monks exists .Teachers book keepers and farmers gardeners and cooks. Builders and artists who built for God so grandly to impress us even now with what ewe are sadly left with . I dare say as it was man made and invented it had to run into trouble of corruption one day. Man know nothing else but greed. How lucky is the man who feels no want to be filthy rich or steal from another. I think it was greed and wanton robbery that cost us even today in loss of beauty and houses of grander design than has ever been made since to impress God and man alike . In the beginning Monks educated the masses and made our own education possible today. I was put through hell by Jesuits to learn as they demanded. But after two years in Palestine later I know no Jesus ever existed . God made me man I am his son as we all are his children .The monk a little on the wrong tracks never the less did well and I alone may miss them for their simplicity and learned ways .The feed the poor and became doctor to the ill without charge .In reality it had to crumble eventually owing to its high perch ideals. A bad King who had a murderous Welsh father who demanded he breed sons to keep Tudor name on Throne he stole .Good blog like the story and the theme of time and space.
It has always been my understanding that William ‘the Conqueror’ was always faithful to his wife there negating William Peverell as a son, alleged or otherwise. But maybe I am wrong, I have been known to be on occasion.
He was a loyal husband, unusually so in fact – but the story spread that Maud Peverel was his mistress and a whole myth sprang up because no one expected a medieval king to not have mistresses and they couldn’t understand why William Peveril was such a favourite. The Peverils didn’t mind either because royal blood was a good thing on a local level whether legitimate or not. Also there’s a theory that it helped improve Saxon-Norman relations…
Imagine my surprise when I opened an email and started reading a comment that seemed very familiar. It was a reply to the comment I wrote concerning William ‘the Conqueror’ being faithful to his wife. Thank you for your response. I found it interesting but I will not be including William Peverell in my family tree under GGF William. I have a number of Peverell’s in my tree so maybe he will show up at some time in the future. I am greatly enjoying your postings in the History Jar. They provide some interesting, and sometimes comic, relief to the otherwise dry accounts of the lives of ancestors. Thank you for all the hard work you do in making ancestry a little more interesting and amusing.
A pleasure. History shouldn’t be dry, after all its about people in all their hues. Having said that the Corn Laws weren’t high on my favourite topics at university.