https://beaumontarchives.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-beaumonts-house-at-darton.html
in which I really hoped to lay to rest the old red herring about the Beaumonts' house at Darton being "the Oaks." And in 2019 I added further evidence at the bottom of that piece. I have also added a piece about the "concluding chapter" at Darton Hall.
At least one Beaumont seems to have lived at a place called "Oaks" but that is in Almondbury, near Huddersfield. I refer to the fifteenth century Lawrence Beaumont of the Oaks, who has nothing whatever to do with Darton.
Almondbury lies to the south-east of Huddersfield. Oaks Lane has become called Fleminghouse Lane. Here is the location
 |
| National Library of Scotland - "side by side" |
and here is a house there, which looks like it has stood there a few years!
 |
| Google street view 21 May 2020 |
"Lawrence Beaumounte of the Oaks, yeoman" was one of the several members of the Beaumont party or clan who were involved in a feud with the Kaye family in about 1470, being mentioned in the settlement award but without explaining his role. (1)
As Laurence Beaumond, he and his son Oliver were granted a 20 year lease of "a tenement in Almondbury called the Okes" at a rent of 26s 8d in 1484. (2)
He also had a daughter called Joan, who married John Baildon in about 1465. Here he is Lawrence Bemond "de les Okes." (3)
And he also had a son Robert, for one such (described as a "scoler" but not sounding like a very studious one) was said to have broken into Thomas Beaumont's house (Whitley Hall seems to be meant) in 1484 and stolen £20 in money, aided and abetted (so it was said) by Lawrence Beaumont of Okes in Almondbury (his father) and others. (4)
No primary source tells me for sure where Lawrence Beaumont of the Oaks fits in, but the family tree mentions three Lawrences. The first being the younger son of Roger Beaumont of Crosland Foss, the second being one of the many younger sons of Henry Beaumont of Lascelles Hall, and the third being the nephew of the first. Chronologically the third one is too late, so he may well be the first or second.
In his 1796 pedigree which is part of this Archive, R.H. Beaumont identified Lawrence of the Oaks as the second of those three. He did not give his reasoning but simply wrote that he settled at a place called ye Oaks in the Parish of Almonbury, as supposed, and marryed and had Issue as sup[posed]
Not being what he would have thought of as gentry, these people were somewhat off RHB's radar.
(1) DD/WBL/12 in the Whitley Beaumont archives now in West Yorks Archives. The catalogue is all that I have seen, but it is a detailed summary of the judgment or award settling the dispute. The dispute goes under various names on the internet such as the "Hall Bower murders." I think it more likely to have been a long-running family feud rather than a single pitched battle.
(2) Spencer Stanhope archives StSp/4/11/4/2. SpSt/4/11/4/1 of 1321 also refers to "Okes in Almondbury." Information is from the catalogue.
(3) William Paley Baildon, "Baildon and the Baildons," vol. 2 p.355, citing Wakefield Court Rolls. Mr Baildon thought that Lawrence of the Oaks was son of Roger.
(4) Baildon, op & vol cit, p.356, citing K [Kings] B [Bench] Ancient Indictments, bundle 355, no.9.
.........
In the first (2019) edition of her book "Beaumont Crusaders and Campaigners," (pp.187-188) the author whose pen name is Lucy la Zouche assumed that "Oaks" (in context of Lawrence and others) was the one at Darton, and fell into various other traps. Presumably this is all due to the old muddles, and thus an entirely understandable series of mistakes. She goes on to reproduce some of the old stuff about Oaks and Darton, which I have been doing my best to put right. Moreover I am well aware that in pointing to errors made by other people, I may myself be wrong, or get something else wrong in the next sentence.
EMB
22 May 2020
