and John Colepeper, clerk, at ferme his manor of Skottegrove in Kent and five marks of yearly rent in Sussex, at an annual rent of sixteen marks. The demise was for William’s life, which may have been the extent of his interest; such would have been the case if he was tenant by the Curtesy of a deceased wife’s estate. The rent was to be paid to him in the church of St Paul in the suburb of Canterbury, from which it is apparent that he was then living, as perhaps he always had lived, in that city. Me may well have been one and the sane as the de Wavere, Christian name unkown, who in 1360-61 was one of the two Bailiffs by whom Canterbury was governed.¹⁴
   From about this tine, something of a false trail in the Scotgrove story was laid by Thomas Philipott who, after wrongly concluding that the Gatewyk family remained

in possession until after the knighting of the Black Prince, wrote:—
   '... I discover by some old Deeds that commence for the reign of Richard the second, that the Frankenhams were Lords of the Fee, who before the latter end of Henry the fifth were gon (sic) out, and then it came to own the Propriety of Poynings, and went along with this name until it devolved to Sir Edward Poyning, who held it in possession at his Death, which was in the twelfth year of Henry the eighth ...‘. 
   Hasted followed Philipott as to the Frankenhams, but concluded that after they were extinct, Scotgrove came into the possession of the Colepepers.¹⁵
   The fee to which the deeds seen by Philipott related must presumably have been the superior fee that had once belonged to William de Faukeham, in