Page Updated:- Thursday, 12 January, 2023.


Earliest 1828-

Queen's Head

Open 2020+

73 High Street

Green Street Green

01689 853455

Queen's Head

Above postcard, circa 1910, kindly sent by Mark Jennings.

Queen's head 1918

Above postcard, 1918, kindly sent by Rory Kehoe.

Queen's Head 2019

Above photo 2019.

Queen's Head sign 1985

Above sign, 1985.

With thanks from Brian Curtis

Queen's Head sign 1987Queen's Head sign 1987

Above signs March 1987.

Queen's Head sign 1993

Above sign September 1993.

With thanks from Brian Curtis


Canterbury Journal, Kentish Times and Farmers' Gazette 03 July 1852.


One evening last week two fellows, respectably dressed, drove up at a rapid pace, with a horse and gig, to the "Queen's Head Inn," at Green-Street Green, to refresh themselves and horse. They excited some little curiosity, as they did not wish the ostler to assist in taking out, and also wished the vehicle to be put in the coach-house out of sight. However, they had but just comfortably seated themselves before another party drove up (two of the Tunbridge Wells police in disguise), who made no more ado, but instantly seized them as prisoners, on suspicion of stealing a gold watch that afternoon from a lady at the Wells. On searching them no watch was to be found, though articles were, to which their right was disputed. The police then commenced a diligent search and set others to help; and eventually the gold watch was discovered (secreted in a corner of the stable) by the ostler. They were speedily handcuffed, and started off on another less agreeable visit to the place they had so hastily left. To lull suspicion, the thieves had a few oranges in a basket. Next day the prisoners who gave their names as James Lennox, alias Percival, and George Mills, were committed for trial for stealing the watch, with its appendages, from Ephriam Cottage, the property of Maria Hellings.


Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser 23 September 1867.


Charles Dunmall, of "Queen's Head," Chelsfield, was convicted on the evidence of Police-constable Watson, of allowing certain horses to stray upon the Sevenoaks road. Defendant was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.


From the Bromley and District Times, Friday 19 June 1897.

Adulterated beer. Publican find 10.

At the Bromley Petty sessions on Monday, Mr. Coles Child presiding, William Stone, publican, of Green Street Green, near Chelsfield, was summoned by the excise authorities, for having in his possession certain beer which have been diluted, on the 7th April. He pleaded not guilty.

Mr. G. Hamson Dennis, barrister, instructed by Mr. Livock, Supervisor for the district, prosecuted, and Mr. L. W. Gregory, solicitor to the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society, defended.

Mr. Dennis explains that the proceedings were taken under act 48 and 49, Victoria, chapter 51, subsection 2. On the day in question an officer went to the defendants house to take samples of beer from Messrs. Nalder and Collyer's Brewery. Two of the casks were like, one being on draught and "fined," and the other being as received from the brewer. A publican was permitted to add finings for clarification, but nothing else. The marks on the casks were X433, and by these the brewer was enabled to know what beer was in these casks. From that he could say what was the original gravity of the beer. Samples and both barrels had been submitted to the analysis, and while that from the unopened casks corresponded pretty nearly with the brewers "gravity," the second showed adulteration to the extent of 2-3.10 gallons of water in 36 gallons.

James Lockyer proved taking the samples and submitted them for analysis. Witness asked him if the one on draught had been "fined," and he said it had been with about half a gallon, which was the usual quantity.

William Alabaster, brewer to Messrs. Nalder and Collyer, said the gravity of the beer was 47 1/2 degrees that is 1047 1/2 degrees.

Cross examined:- That was the gravity at which it was sent out from the brewery. He superintendended the whole process, although he was not always there.

Charles Henry Burge, an analyst at Somerset House, said he received the samples securely sealed on the 10th April. he explained them. As to the samples marked "unfined" he found the strength to be 1048.05 degrees, which was in practical agreement with the brewers gravity. The sample marks "finded" had a strength of 1044.30. In other words the "finded" sample had been diluted to a degree equivalent to 2- 3.10 gallons of water to the 36 gallons.

That was a case.

For the defence, Mr. Gregory first submitted on the law of the case, that there was nothing for him to answer. He insisted that the beer should have been traced most thoroughly into his clients possession.

Mr. Dennis said that in the Metropolitan courts such evidence was not generally insisted upon. However, as this was the first case brought in the Bromley Court, and as he did not know what view the bench might take, he had come prepared with such evidence, although he did not think it was necessary. It was not material even whether the defendant adulterated the beer. It was sufficient to prove that adulterated beer was found in his possession. However, the Excise Authorities took a reasonable view of the matter, and where it was proved that a publican had not adulterated, then they did not press for penalties. But the onus of such proof was with the publican.

The Bench consulted in private and overruled the objection.

Mr. Gregory then urged that while he did not dispute the analysts result, yet the defendant himself strongly denies having adulterated the beer, or having any knowledge that have been adulterated. Possibly, after he had "fined" it, someone else repeated the process, unaware that it has already been done. The defendant the kept the house for a long number of years, and was a man of the highest respectability. Mr. Gregory humorously added that by adulterating the beer the public had certainly not been harmed. He pleaded for a nominal fine, pointing out that this was the first prosecution of the kind in his district, and it would act as a warning to others, and thus achieve what was, doubtless, the object of the Excise authorities.

The Bench find the defendant 10 and costs 13s. 60.



HARDSTONE Maria 1828+ Pigot's Directory 1828-29

HICKMOTT Richard 1832-41+ (also farmer age 40 in 1841Census) Pigot's Directory 1832-34

FISHENDEN Thomas 1851+ (age 66 in 1851Census)

GALLAWAY Thomas 1858-61+ (age 42 in 1861Census)

DUNMALL Charles 1867+

RAIN Henry 1871-74+ (age 48 in 1871Census)

BOWEN Henry 1881-82+ (age 54 in 1881Census)

STONE William 1891-97+ (age 43 in 1891Census)

EPSOM S 1898+

MITCHELL Arthur Samuel 1901-03+ (age 23 in 1901Census) Kelly's 1903

BASSETT Henry 1911+ (age 44 in 1911Census)


Pigot's Directory 1828-29From the Pigot's Directory 1828-29

Pigot's Directory 1832-34From the Pigot's Directory 1832-33-34

Kelly's 1903From the Kelly's Directory 1903



If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-