It covered some 8,600 individuals. About 320 of those are gentry that lived on Combe Down and about 2,900 are ‘ordinary’ people that that lived on Combe Down or in Monkton Combe. The other 5,000 or so are ‘linkers’, i.e. the people who link families across the generations (most of these are in the gentry, where the ‘marriage market’ – pragmatic marriages made for the preservation or transfer of wealth was general) and ‘partners’ as not everyone born on Combe Down stayed and many moved away when they married.
I’ve added another 600 people of which about 400 are ‘ordinary’ people that that lived on Combe Down or in Monkton Combe and the rest their spouses who did not.
I hadn’t realised but it’s a year since I last wrote anything about the site which was Update to ‘Our Block’ and before that it was October 2018 with More Combe Down cousins. That is actually what has stopped me from publishing anything as I have been working on a Combe Down family tree or, more accurately, a Combe Down family maze.
If you recall that far back you may remember that there were a number of posts about how the families in the ‘big houses’ were related. I’ve taken that further. I’ve also added and linked a many ‘ordinary’ families who live on Combe Down and in Monkton Combe as I can.
The grand result of that is that the tree or maze now covers some 8,600 individuals. About 320 of those are gentry that lived on Combe Down and about 2,900 are ‘ordinary’ people that that lived on Combe Down or in Monkton Combe. The other 5,000 or so are ‘linkers’, i.e. the people who link families across the generations (most of these are in the gentry, where the ‘marriage market’ – pragmatic marriages made for the preservation or transfer of wealth was general) or the ‘partners’ as not everyone born on Combe Down stayed and many moved away when they married.
Ralph Allen bequests, Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette – Thursday 23 August 1764
I have just updated the ‘Our Block‘ page after Ian & Susan Parsons at 121 Church Road kindly lent me the deeds that they have in their possession.
Interestingly, most of them were for Claremont House, 109 Church Road but they also encompass Claremont Cottage, 107 Church Road, Claremont Lodge, 119 Church Road as well as Ian & Susan’s property 121 Church Road, which has been called Rosemere.
Solicitors’ filing systems are a never ending wonder, but I guess that as Claremont House was broken up into flats 121 became the ‘logical’ place to put all it’s history. I’m glad about that as old deeds can be a small mine of information as all the properties aforementioned were traded as one entity for a long time.
As stated, solicitors’ filing systems are a never ending wonder and another interesting inclusion was a deed from 1768. It seems to be a cuckoo as it relates to London Road properties and transactions by Lewis Clutterbuck, who was a lawyer, member of Bath City Council 1753 – 57 and town clerk, 1757 – 76. He was also mentioned in Ralph Allen’s will receiving a £100 bequest. His family owned Newark Park, at Ozleworth near Wotton-under-Edge. Why it’s with the deeds for Claremont….
Delving through the documents shows that Claremont was constructed c 1805 – 1806 along with 113 – 117 and Hopecote (which was, originally 3 properties).
We know that 119 was originally 2 properties and it became clear that at some time between 1878 and 1893, 121 was built as a block of stables.
The current structure is due to substantial alterations as the documents show that permission for ‘provision of a mansard roof’ was granted 4 Dec 1973, the ‘erection of a single storey extension to the rear,’ on 17 Aug 1978, the ‘erection at first and second floor level over existing garage’ on 16 Aug 1979 and the ‘erection of a garage’ on 17 Dec 1981.
Rev John Clark Knott (1818 – 1907) lived at Combe Hill House. His brother William Henry Smith Knott (1804 – 1851) was married to Sabina Judith Bernard (1812 – 1861). Her cousin Sabina Pool Atherton (1828 – 1913) married Charles Henry Gabriel (1821 – 1900). Thus the knotts were related to the Atherton / Gabriel family and all the others.
James Ledger Hill (1839 – 1912) lived at Combe Grove Farm. His wife wife Mary Tucker (1849 – 1931) was the daughter of William Henry Tucker (1814 – 1877) and his wife Emily Hannah Hendy (1815 – 1885) who lived at West Brow in the 1870s. James Ledger Hill’s daughter, Grace Hill (1881 – 1959) was married to Dermot Gun O’Mahony (1881 – 1960). His grandfather was Robert Gun Cuninghame (1792 – 1877) and one of his sons was Col Robert George Archibald Hamilton Gun Cuninghame (1818 – 1880) who married Isabella Tottenham (1817 – 1880), the daughter of Rt Rev Lord Robert Ponsonby Tottenham (1773 – 1850) and The Hon Alicia Maude (1782 – 1866), a daughter of Cornwallis Maude 1st Viscount Hawarden and his third wife Anne Isabella Monck Viscountess Hawarden (1759 – 1851) after whom Isabella Place is named.
So now to the the Allen, Atherton, Bennett, Bryan, Cruttwell, Daubeney, Disney, Falkner, Fortt, Gabriel, Gore, Hope, Howard, Maude, Morley, Richardson, Vivian and Wingrove families we can add the Candler, Hill, Knott, Langford, Tucker families who have been involved in the development of Combe Down or lived here for a reasonable period and show that all are inter-related.
Even more evidence of property, power, position and patronage being the cornerstone of the class system, at least in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries, because it’s “not what you know, but who you know”.
I have now proven it to my own satisfaction, though I am still working on the complete, single family tree. As it’s not finalised with all citations etc it may be a while before I publish on the site, so I have uploaded a zipped GEDCOM for anyone who may be interested.
Let me try to explain. You’ll also find some conclusions at the end.
It’s well known that Ralph Allen was the first of the movers and shakers, responsible for building the first community on Combe Down but that he left no surviving children. His will stipulated that his estates were for the use of his wife during her lifetime. After she died the Bathampton Manor & estates were to go to his brother Philip Allen (1695 – 1765) and Prior Park in trust to:
Gertrude Tucker (abt 1727 – 1796 ), his niece (daughter of his sister Elizabeth Allen (1702 – 1731)) and her issue, sons and oldest first but daughters equally, but if none then
Move on some time and the Bennetts have left Widcombe Manor and acquired Rougham Hall in Suffolk. Maj Philip Bennett (1837 – 1875) married Barbara Sophia Harriet Disney (1838 – 1929) who was the great, great, great grand daughter of Rev John Disney (1677 – 1729). He was also the grandfather of Henry Woolhouse Disney Roebuck (1733 – 1796) who built Midford Castle. After the death of Maj Philip Bennett, Barbara Sophia Harriet Disney married The Hon Harbord Harbord (1836 – 1894), a son of Sir Edward Harbord, 3rd Baron Suffield (1781 – 1835). Though they had no children this marriage tied the Bennett, Disney and Harbord families together.
In 1911 Mary Morley (1855 – 1917), the daughter of Samuel Morley MP (1809 – 1866) lived at St Christopher, also residing there was her niece Rebekah Wilbraham Phibbs (née Taylor) (1877 – 1952) the daughter of Herbert Wilbraham Taylor (1847 – 1899) and her sister Rebekah Hope Morley (1842 – 1877). Mary Morley was the niece of Rhoda Mary Hope (1828 – 1910) and a cousin of Dr Charles Middleton Coates (1857 – 1933) who both owned Hopecote. Herbert Wilbraham Taylor was a grandson of Sir William Gosset CB KCH (abt 1783 – 1848) and Gertrude Martha Daniell (1789 – 1849). Gertrude Martha Daniell was the daughter of Ralph Allen Daniell MP (1762 – 1823) whose grandmother was Gertrude Allen (1697 – 1789) – Ralph Allen‘s sister. This links the Hope and Morley families to the Allen, Maude, Bennett, Disney, Vivian, Wingrove, Harbord, Atherton and Gabriel families.
Evelyn Pierrepont (1665 – 1726) 1st Duke of Kingston upon Hull, 1st Marquess of Dorchester KG PC
Capt. William Tucker RN (abt 1728 – 1770), the nephew of Ralph Allen was married to Diana Marriott (1740 – 1816). Her father was Rev Dr Randolph Marriott DD (1699 – 1782) and her mother Lady Diana Feilding (1706 – 1756) the daughter of Basil Feilding (1668 – 1716) 4th Earl of Denbigh and 3rd Earl of Desmond and Hester Firebrace (1670 – 1726) Countess of Denbigh and Countess of Desmond. One of her father’s siblings was Lady Mary Feilding (1670 – 1697) Countess of Kingston-upon-Hull who was married to Evelyn Pierrepont (1665 – 1726) 1st Duke of Kingston upon Hull, 1st Marquess of Dorchester KG PC. One of Evelyn Pierrepont’s sons was William Pierrepont (1692 – 1713) Earl of Kingston-upon-Hull who married Rachel Baynton (1695 – 1722), which brought Great Chalfield Manor and much of the old Bath Priory property in central Bath to the Pierrepoints. In the 1730s Gen Evelyn Pierrepont (1712 – 1773), 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, sold the old Bath Abbey Orchards land in Bath to John Wood the Elder (1704 – 1754) and his business partner James Leake who went on to design and construct housing and named the streets Pierrepont Place and Pierrepont Street in homage. The rest of the lands passed to Charles (Medows) Pierrepont (1737 – 1816) 1st Earl Manvers, grand son of Evelyn Pierrepont (1665 – 1726) 1st Duke of Kingston upon Hull when the 2nd duke died without issue.
Everything noted in the last five paragraphs links the Bryan, Daubeney, Gore, Howard, Fortt and Richardson families to the Allen, Maude, Bennett, Disney, Vivian, Wingrove, Harbord, Hope, Morley, Falkner, Cruttwell, Atherton and Gabriel families as well as the Pierreponts.
So what, you may reasonably say. It’s just a whole load of old families you may add. I find it more fascinating than that.
Property, power, position and patronage were the cornerstone of the class system (and still are?) in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Their lands and estates were often made up of tenanted farms, in which case the gentleman could live entirely off rent income so that they did not have to to actively work. They could even pass off most of the administrative work to a steward. This allowed them to pursue other careers at court, in the military or politics from which they could gain even more property, power, position and patronage. The nobility and gentry had good reason to make sure that they married other people of a similar ilk who understood the ‘rules of the game’ and only to ‘let in’ those who had made it to a similar status whom they then absorbed in the ‘rules of the game’. It still goes on today, think of quangos.
In another tenuous coincidence I have discovered that Benjamin Wingrove (1773 – 1840), who has his own page on this site, and was an attorney, land speculator, agriculturalist and road builder is the 1st cousin 1x removed of the wife of the husband of the 7th great-aunt of our son-in-law. I said it was tenuous!
His children also prospered. Francis (1733 – 1795) became a well known baker.
His daughter Mary (1742 – 1803) married John Hensley (1737 – 1802) a coachmaker based in Broad Street.
Another son William (1745 – 1786) was a brewer and died quite young but married Martha Whittaker (1737 – 1795) a daughter of Thomas Whittaker (1702 – 1760) of Bratton, Wiltshire. The Whittakers were clothiers, fullers, corn and sheep farmers. After her husband died Martha became a pump mistress at the baths. The pump mistresses were widows of good repute. They needed to have reasonable means as the annual rent was £840 but the potential was that they could make a good profit and set themselves up for retirement. The covenant was with Mayor, aldermen and citizens and the duties included opening and shutting the pump rooms, keeping the rooms tidy and fit for the reception of Nobility, Gentry, Inhabitants and others and paying all taxes. It related to baths and vaults at the Kings & Queens Baths, Hot Baths and Cross Bath.
Martha Wingrove, Pumper – Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette – Thursday 9 July 1795
Anthony Wingrove becomes Captain – Kentish Gazette – Tuesday 1 April 1794
Another daughter, Elizabeth (1749 – 1822) married Robert Forman (1741 – 1792) an attorney.
His son John Wingrove (1739 – 1790) ran the Marlborough Tavern, 35 Marlborough Buildings, Walcot, Bath and the Fox & Hounds, Walcot Street. He married Anne Blatchly (1740 1822) on 14 February 1764. They had six children in 11 years, but 4 died in infancy or childhood. His eldest son John (b 1765) became a ribbon weaver in Bristol.
Wingrove, Marlborough Tavern coach horses – Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette – Thursday 2 May 1793
John Wingrove, Fox and Hounds – Bath Chronicle and Weekly Gazette – Thursday 6 December 1787
The Curo cable care plan was abandoned after negative feedback during the consultation process but what I find interesting is why it was put forward? Did Curo really believe that it would receive planning permission in Bath’s World Heritage Site?
A quick review of this would have shown the obstacles that the Curo cable care plan would have faced in getting any planning approval – presumably why they said they intended to bypass the usual planning system and go straight to the Secretary of State for Transport.
"Government guidance on protecting the Historic Environment and World Heritage is set out in National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 07/09. Policies to protect, promote, conserve and enhance World Heritage properties, their settings and buffer zones are also found in statutory planning documents. The Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan contains a core policy according to which the development which would harm the qualities justifying the inscription of the World Heritage property, or its setting, will not be permitted. The protection of the surrounding landscape of the property has been strengthened by adoption of a Supplementary Planning Document, and negotiations are progressing with regard to transferring the management of key areas of land from the Bath and North East Somerset Council to the National Trust."
Further reading would have shown:
"The site boundary is the municipal boundary of the city. This covers an area of approximately 29 square km. As noted in chapter 1, Bath is exceptional in this respect as the World Heritage inscription in almost every other city worldwide covers only a part of the urban area and not the entire settlement. Venice and its lagoon is the closest European comparator.
The property was inscribed in 1987 without a boundary map, which was not uncommon at that time. The description of the ‘City of Bath’ was taken to mean that the boundary encompassed the entire city and it was managed accordingly. This boundary was subsequently confirmed by letter (dated 17 October 2005) from the UNESCO World Heritage Centre."
"Bath remains a compact city, contained largely within the hollow in the hills as previously described. The city does not have significant ‘urban sprawl’ and high quality built development directly adjoins high quality landscape at the urban edge. The skyline is predominantly characterised by trees or open pasture. The green hillsides provide a backdrop to the urban area and are visible from most of the city centre. Bath is well provided for in terms of parks and open spaces, with the River Avon cutting through the city centre providing natural beauty and sense of calm. All of the above contribute to an impression that the city is smaller than it actually is."
"The Green Setting of the City in a Hollow in the Hills
42. The compact and sustainable form of the city contained within a hollow of the hills
43. The distinct pattern of settlements, Georgian houses and villas in the setting of the site, reflecting the layout and function of the Georgian city
44. Green, undeveloped hillsides within and surrounding the city
45. Trees, tree belts and woodlands predominantly on the skyline, lining the river and canal, and within parkland and gardens
46. Open agricultural landscape around the city edges, in particular grazing and land uses which reflect those carried out in the Georgian period
47. Fingers of green countryside which stretch right into the city"
as well as various maps:
World Heritage Site extent
So, why was the Curo cable care plan put forward? It would seem that it was most unlikely to get planning permission – unless there’s something I don’t know about.
Ordinary folk living their lives as best they can, given that they had been described as living in an area that was designated “in the most deprived 20% of the country”, who are given a master plan to regenerate their community by the housing association that owned many of the affordable homes in the area and a council that granted the housing association outline planning permission.
That outline planning permission was, later, adjudged, in a Judicial Review, to have been given without: ” due regard to the need to remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic or to take steps to meet the needs of such persons The relevant characteristics were age, disability, race and pregnancy or maternity … The grant of outline planning permission on 30 November 2017 was unlawful, and that outline planning permission will be quashed.”
Quite what all this proves, other than that my blogging frequency has declined, I don’t really know. Having said that it’s interesting to me to see the range of subjects that have been covered.
Also, there are many things that are within the site that have not been covered by the blog. I find the money troubles that Cornwallis Maude, 1st Viscount Hawarden seems to have inflicted on himself quite fascinating. I’m not particularly risk averse but the way some of the aristocracy behaved back in the 18th century really does boggle my mind – though, I suppose it shouldn’t given all the financial shenanigans we see today! Even so having mortgages of £18,008 18s 0d in 1799 on land that was doubly mortgaged to different lenders, seemingly without their knowledge and not having the wherewithal to pay the interest does seem slightly risky.
So many of these things are so normal to so many of us these days that we barely even think about them and, sadly, when we do, it’s too often to criticize the ‘patriarchal attitudes’ or similar of the people who pushed them and who were, in their day seen as progressive. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.