Volume 1 - Sussex: In the Beginning - The Alchornes of Rotherfield by Steve Green

Introduction

The surname, who’s meaning I have not been able to confirm, has two common spellings - Alchin and Allchin, and less commonly Allchen. For the purposes of this history and for ease of use I have standardised the spelling to Alchin except where there is a direct quotation that provides a different spelling.

The surname is almost certainly related to Allcorn / Allchorn / Alchorne which is found mainly in the county of Sussex from as early as the 14th century. It seems likely that the family, at the time that surnames began to be formed in the 13th and 14th century, were living on the Manor of Alchorne near Rotherfield.  It may possibly be a derivation of the Saxon personal name Alcuin, the most famous of that name being the 8th century A.D., English born advisor to Charlemagne, King of the Franks and later Holy Roman Emperor. The name may also have northern French / Flemish origins.

In 1331 the export of unwashed wool was prohibited by King Edward III (the huge profits which resulted were used by the King to fund the prosecution of his wars in Scotland and France - in effect this decision allowed the 100 Years War to occur). The King encouraged weavers from Flanders to settle in England in towns and villages such as Cranbrook where they taught the English the methods of broadcloth production. These Flemish weavers spread throughout the surrounding area in the following years.

The surname Alchin is found mainly in Kent in the towns and villages south of the Thames estuary with a particular concentration in a 10 mile radius around the large town of Maidstone, particularly south and west of Maidstone in the villages of Leybourne, East and West Malling, Fawkham, Meopham, Birling, Ryarsh, Aylesford, Wateringbury, Linton, Marden, Boughton Monchelsea, Chart Sutton and Staplehurst (see map below). In Sussex the original surname changed gradually from Alchorne to Allcorn in the 18th century.

The first mention I have found of the Alchin surname is in the Kent Lay Subsidy Rolls of 1334/35. This was a taxation of the Fifteenth and the Tenth granted to Edward III in the eighth year of his reign by the Abbott of St Augustine and Sir Thomas Bacon. These subsidies were granted to the King to finance his wars in Scotland and France. The sum of 2 shillings and 8 pence was levied on Adam Alkin of the Hundred of Ringslow and 1 shilling on the widow of John Alkyn of the Hundred of St Martin (Poultney).

The main trades followed by the men of the family were those of miller, paper manufacture, sawyer, carpenter and agricultural labourer. The millers became quite prosperous whilst those who became sawyers and carpenters were much less well off. The men folk of my branch  of the family were carpenters and sawyers for at least 200 years and so they tended to move around a bit. They seemed to move backwards and forwards between the Mallings and Meopham in particular but they also spent time in the larger towns of Chatham, Dartford and Gravesend. They were however descended from the branch of the family who were miller at Leybourne.

There is a strong possibility that the earliest surviving parish record of the Alchin family is at Rotherfield in Sussex. It was there that William and Eleanor Alchin had a son they named Anthony in 1554 - for the next 300 years Anthony was a name used regularly by my Alchin ancestors. A generation later and Isaac Alchin and Alice Baker had three children at Rotherfield in the 1580’s who they named Thomas, Elizabeth and William (Isaac Alchin is also recorded in the parish registers as Isaac Alchorne). The names of these four children are also the same names used by the Alchins only 20 miles north in Kent during the following century.

By researching parish registers it is possible to trace the northeastward movement of the surname. In the 1580s the surname appears in the parishes of Chevening, Tonbridge, Brenchley and Cranbrook which form a line running from northwest to southeast on the Kent / Sussex border. The earliest surviving record of the surname in Kent are at Brenchley, Cranbrook and Tonbridge, each located near the county border with Sussex.

Thomas Mepham married Joan Alchin at Brenchley in 1573 and there are several baptisms there in the following 20 to 30 years. Thomas Alchin and Margaret Girdler baptised five children at Cranbrook - Francis (1568), John (1570), Henry (1571), Alexander (1572) and Esther (1574). Richard Alchin and Louisa Blundel baptised one child at Tonbridge - John (1587). George Alchin and Marjory Roofe baptised one child at Cranbrook - John (1603). And lastly Henry Alchin and Sarah Rolfe also baptised one child at Tonbridge - Henry (1605).

In the 18th and 19th centuries the Alchin family were particularly prolific at East Malling. The family is found at a number of principal locations within the parish - Mill Street, Well Street, New Hithe Lane, Larkfield Heath and The Rocks. There were also a number of related Alchin families living at West Malling although these families seemed in general to be more prosperous. For instance George Alchin, Attorney at Law, was buried in the churchyard of St Mary’s, West Malling in January 1755 and Thomas Alchin, Gent, was buried there on 8th November 1769.

The Alchins of Meopham and East Malling tended to be carpenters or labourers. The Alchin family living at Ditton appear to have been the most prosperous of all. They owned a mill (a paper mill?) and the census of 1851 describes them as landed proprietors. A scion of this branch of the family was later knighted when he became a physician to King George V from 1910-1912.

The earliest mention of Alchins at Meopham is the baptism of Parnell Alchin, daughter of Thomas Alchin, on 3rd October 1619 and her subsequent marriage to Thomas Harman on 2nd February 1641. Another early wedding at Meopham was the marriage of John Alchin to Elizabeth Death on 23rd May 1641. My family had some small holdings of land there until at least 1821.

In the earliest recorded generations in the 17th and 18th centuries, the family named their sons Richard, Anthony, John, Thomas and Henry almost exclusively. The families began to use George and William from the early 1700’s. Throughout the 19th century christian names such as Francis, George, Henry, John and William recur in most generations.

Unquestionably there is a certain amount of speculation involved with any genealogical research prior to the 19th century. Before 1841 there are generally no census records to cross-check against and the parish registers have often either not survived or give insufficient information. Sometimes however a parish record will survive which will give a small but invaluable clue - for instance the repeated appearance of a man called Thomas Couchman in connection with the Alchin family.

At other times naming patterns and occupations can be used by the genealogist to provide support in establishing relationships between these ancestors. It is not until the baptism of the children of William and Ann Alchin at Meopham at the turn of the 19th century that I am able to establish with any absolute certainty who my ancestors really were.

More and more probate records are becoming available through the Internet. These can be invaluable in establishing family relationships; sometimes if the researcher is lucky they can provide information covering three or even four generations - for instance see the Will of Thomas Alchin of Leybourne dated 1701 which can be found at the beginning of Part 3 in Volume 2.

Finally in a number of cases there will always be some doubt as to where a particular individual or family sits within the family lineage. Naming patterns and occupations can all provide evidence but not proof. This can only be provided by a combination of the census, which began in 1801 but only provided sufficient information for genealogists from 1841, parish registers if they are complete and Wills which can provide the best proof of all. These ambiguities, which I have tried to identify in the text, may be resolved as further information is released to researchers over the next few years but inevitably there will be some mysteries which will never be satisfactorily explained or resolved. Suffice it to say that it is more likely than not that all those identified in Part 3 and Part 5 of this history are descended from Thomas Alchin of Leybourne.

||   Previous Page  ||  Next Page  ||