England & Wales Hardwicke Marriage Index
Marriages 1754 - 1837
Upper Heyford St Mary

The Parish

The parish of Upper Heyford, also rendered Heyford Warren, lies in north central Oxfordshire not too far from its border with neighbouring Northamptonshire. Upper Heyford is a small and compact village lying about 7 miles northwest of the large market town of Bicester. Upper Heyford sits away from major roads, about 2 miles east of the A4260 road which connects Oxford with Banbury and lying on the eastern banks of the River Cherwell. Much of Upper Heyford is built on the valley slopes of the Cherwell running westwards from a broad lane. At the time of this transcript Upper Heyford would have been a farming community, pastoral in the valley and arable on the higher grounds. The parish, today, is still dominated by its abandoned air base - one of the first to be built during World War 1, it saw life through the RAF and after World War 2 was leased by the US Air Force as a nuclear strike base before closing in 1993. The Cherwell drains the parish southwards before joining the Thames at Oxford and thence the North Sea. Upper Heyford is sited at between 80 and 110 metres above the sea, the slope eases to its east on to a broad plateau of similar height. Upper Heyford parish was of a fairly typical size for northern Oxfordshire, it covered just over 1,600 acres and would have supported a population of around 330 parishioners. In Domesday times Upper heyford was shared between Miles Crispin & Robert d'Oilly, it offered 11 ploughs, 2 mills and 2 fisheries rendering an impressive 900 eels per annum.

The Church

St Mary's church sits at the western end of the village right on the banks of the Cherwell and accessed along the narrow lane of Church Walk. Sadly much of the church is a Victorian rebuild albeit retaining the Perpendicular style of the only original piece. The western tower is true Perpendicular but the main body of chancel, nave and northern aisle was built in 1865 by a pupil of Pugin, Talbot Bury. Some original pieces were reused but they were minor. The rebuild is clearly of little architectural merit as Pevsner dismisses the building in a handful of lines. The church is screened by low hedges and brick walls and a pair of wooden gates grants access. The churchyard is broadly square and there are few impediments to photography.