The date of de Faukeham’s death is not known, but he founded a chantry in Fawkham church in 1274 and is last heard of four years later; almost certainly he lies buried in the ‘Founder’s tomb’ recessed in the north chancel wall of Fawkham church. His Fawkham manor descended to his two daughters, Rose and. Sarah, and was eventually partitioned between then to the great confusion of its subsequent history. Long before that, Scotgrove had passed into the possession of one Richard de Gatewyk, probably already by 1274 in which year Richard was a witness to the deed by which de Faukeham founded his chantry.⁶
   On Richard’s death Scotgrove seems to have passed unchallenged to his eldest son, John de Gatewyk, but on John’s death issue arose as to whether his brothers, Richard and William, were entitled to their reasonable parts of their father's inheritance at Ash, or whether the whole belonged to John’s three daughters and. co-heiresses, Katherine, Margaret and Elizabeth, all of whom were under age. With infants concerned no compromise would have been possible and the two brothers took out a writ, to which their three nieces were, by their guardian, defendants. The ensuing proceedings appear to have begun in 1312-13 before the justices in eyre in Kent but, because of the difficulty and

importance, or has Hasted says, ‘the nicety’ of the matter, were removed to the Court of Common Pleas, where the hearing commenced three years later.
   Richard was soon dismissed from the suit; he had released his right at the age of fifteen and such release was found to be good by the Custom of Kent. William, who met with some initial success in that part of the land that had belonged to his father was shown and found to be gavelkind., soldiered on; the real battle was over the land which Mabel de Torpel had granted to William de Faukeham. That, it was claimed for the infants, was frank fee, or liberum feodum. The tenure had been changed from gavelkind to knight service by a grant confirmed by royal charter and its descent was thenceforth to the eldest son, in this ease the infants’ father. For William it was said that by the Custom of Kent no one could. change gavelkind except the King and the Archbishop and that they could only do so in the case of lands held directly from them. No change could have been made in this instance, since Mabel had not been the King’s immediate tenant.
   During an adjournment on this puissant issue, King Edward II himself entered the lists by writing to the justices of the Common Pleas to inform them that it was his prerogative right to change the