In 1374 the Langley estates in Lancashire were left to 9-year-old Roger de Langley. On behalf of the boy’s guardian, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, the Sheriff of Lancashire took control of the Langley estates and its young heir during the boy’s minority. It was the law for heirs who were minors to be taken into care and have their inheritance and their marriage in the hands of someone like the duke. The lands and the marriage were often sold off to others, sometimes together but often separately.
Anyway, all was not quite as cut and dried as first seemed, because young Roger wasn’t a direct heir, but someone else was. She was a former nun called Margaret de Prestwich, one of two sisters. They too had a guardian, the conniving Richard de Radcliffe, who wanted to wangle it so the Langley estates came to his family. It’s a long story, but suffice it that he bundled Margaret, the elder sister, off to a convent at the age of eight, where she would take her vows at the age of fifteen. Her younger sister was married to Richard de Radcliffe’s son and heir. Bingo, Radcliffe gained all things Langley.
Margaret wasn’t a happy nun, however, and at the age of seventeen, two years after taking her vows, she eloped with a certain dashing scoundrel named Robert de Holand of Clifton. Yes, the same Holands as the Dukes of Kent and Exeter. Robert was from one of the many junior branches. He possessed lands adjacent to the manor of Prestwich, which he and his new wife Margaret felt was hers, not Roger de Langley’s. So they moved in, dug in and stayed put.
Nuns, even if they spurned their vows, could not inherit lands or property of any kind, but it was Margaret’s contention that she had been forced to take the veil. There were witnesses to corroborate her version, and considerable argy-bargy ensued, until eventually in 1394/5 there was a court case which was rigged in Roger de Langley’s favour. After all, he’d been Gaunt’s pet ward, and Gaunt was going to support him even at the expense of the truth…and of Robert de Holand of Clifton, who was not a fellow to take this lying down. Great royal duke or not, Robert had Prestwich and Robert was going to keep it!
He and Margaret refused to leave Prestwich, and Robert harassed Roger’s other manors, stealing cattle and property and being a general pest. But he was justifiably angry because he knew that Margaret had never willingly consented to take her vows.
“….On the morning of the Feast of Ascension (11 May) in 1374, the villainous Robert de Holland ‘with many others assembled with him, armed in breast plates and with swords, and bows and arrows, by force took possession of the said lordship [Prestwich] of the duke [of Lancaster, Gaunt, in defiance of the Sheriff, and to the contempt of the Lord Duke’…” from Origin of the name Langley (prestwich.org.uk)
There are many variations of the Prestwich struggle handed down. One is that that the young Roger and either his sister or his young bride were kidnapped by Robert and managed to escape. Another is that they fled before Holand and his men arrived.
“….Young Langley and his sister escaped to the shelter of the forest which covered the slopes of the Irwell valley, cared for by loyal retainers until Lancaster rescued them….”
The modern pantomime Babes in the Wood is widely believed to be based on the story of Roger de Langley and his sister escaping to the wood, from where Robin Hood himself comes to their rescue.
You can read about the history of Agecroft Hall here, and about its more recent perambulations to Richmond, VA, here. The latter link contains some great illustrations.
But I have to point out that for the Roger de Langley of 1374 to have built Agecroft Hall in Tudor times, he must have been pretty darned long-lived! Yet another instance of placing the Tudors in absolutely every corner possible?
murreyandblue 