Aspects of Kentish Local History

   There is reasonable excuse for the misreading of these arms, as the three tigers are almost formless masses (in my reconstruction I have adhered to the outline but added detail from other sources), though, knowing what the charges should be, it is possible to detect something of the shape of a crouching animal. The tinctures are naturally absent. The shield is not of a formal type but of a more fanciful outline, made up of scrolls and reminiscent of the cartouches in Elizabethan maps; the date, 1568, is clear beyond question.
   Now, as I have mentioned above, these arms were not only assumed by some to be those of Roper, but also to give the date of the erection of the building, but this I think cannot be. The builder beyond doubt was William Roper, son-in-law of Sir Thomas More, and his initials W.R. appear in cut brick on one of the finials of the gable. William's floruit was 1495-1577. He inherited Well Hall on the death of his father, John Roper, in 1524 and there was not another owner with these initials till 1597, which is much too late for this building. William Roper married Margaret More in 1525, the year following his succession to the property, and this fact, together with the existing architectural details, make it more than likely that the whole was erected in view of his approaching marriage and that its date is c. 1525. The given date, 1568, falls, it is true, within this Roper's lifetime, but if this is to be taken as the date of the building, why should he insert into the walls of his

house the coat of arms of someone else? True also it is that he was descended from this ancient family of Tattershall and they had been earlier owners of the estates, but their association with Well Hall ceased about 1450, a century or more before the date on the stone, his grandmother being the last of the Tattershalls to be resident here. It is suggested that William Roper may have intended to decorate the front of the building with coats of arms of his forbears, but then surely some trace of shields of arms of Chichele, Kene, Roper, Knollys and More should be found, but this is not so. This is the only coat of arms extant.
   More important, however, is the clear evidence that these arms are an insertion into an already existing wall. It is apparent from the photograph that the two stones forming the coat are not in correct alignment and a close examination shows that the mortar surrounding the stone is of a different character to that used in the body of the wall and also that some bricks were removed and replaced by others of a different type.
   What is the explanation of it all? Again I cannot say, but speculation is easy. Possibly William Roper or his descendants had antiquarian leanings, and finding these arms, perhaps on the site of a former house of the Tattershalls, brought them home and built them into the wall to confuse antiquaries of a later age, but whatever may be the reason for their preservation here, to use them for dating the building is,