Domesday Landholders 1066-1086 J-R

Where bynames are attested by contemporary sources, they are placed between [* *] in the translation (and by round brackets in the Names index and Statistics database); where not, an estate name, normally that of the most substantial manor or that held in 1086 by survivors, is employed, bracketed by chevrons in the translation, indexes and database. The conventions used for identifying various satellite sources are described in the documentation of the translation, indexes and database. As the exact location of most Domesday places is uncertain, distances between vills and manors in the notes are approximate walking distances.

JOCELYN [* OF TUSCHET *]. The Jocelyns who held Newton, Croxton and Tabley in Cheshire11, Kniveton, Allestree and Mackworth in Derbyshire12, and Ashwell in Rutland13 from Earl Hugh of Chester, are identified as Jocelyn Tuschet, or Jocelyn of Tuschet, by the descent of his manors to his son and grandson: Farrer, Honors, ii. 28-32, 254-55; Statham. 'Later descendants', pp. 91-103. He may also be the Jocelyn with a subtenancy on Earl Hugh's manor of Weaverham with Antrobus14, whose descent has not been traced; these vills are six and eight miles from Jocelyn 's manor of Tabley. There are no other Jocelyns in Cheshire; Jocelyn the Breton, a tenant of the earl at

11 CHS 19,1-3
12 DBY 4,2
13 LIN 13,38. RUT 6,16
14 CHS 1,1
Slapton in Northamptonshire, is the one other Jocelyn on the Honour of Chester. Jocelyn's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2977) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 236.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* SON OF LAMBERT *]. Although his tenancies devolved upon six tenants-in-chief, all but one1 of the Jocelyns in Lincolnshire may be Jocelyn son of Lambert, a tenant-in-chief whose Honour is confined to that county. Of the six, only one - the bishop of Lincoln2 - had a Jocelyn among his tenants outside the county.
Jocelyn son of Lambert is named as the tenant of Gilbert of Ghent at Hagworthingham3 and of the bishop of Durham at Blyborough4, so he may also be the bishop's tenant at Pickworth and its dependency, particularly as the bishop acquired this from Aghmund (q.v.), the principal predecessor of Lambert's son5, while another of the bishop's tenants, Lambert (q.v.), is probably a relative of Jocelyn, if not his father. Both the bishop of Lincoln and Ivo Tallboys were involved in a claim concerning Aghmund's land6, suggesting that Ivo's tenants at Scotton and Cuxwold7 and the bishop's at Willingham, Elsham, Worlaby, Croxton, Owersby and Kingerby8 may also be the son of Lambert. Additionally, in the bishop's case the descent of these manors indicates that his tenant and that of the bishop of Durham are the same man (below). There are other links. One of the bishop's manors lay in Willingham-by-Stow, where Jocelyn held in chief, and Owersby and Kingerby are a mile from Jocelyn's manor of Osgodby; Ivo himself was probably a tenant of Jocelyn at North Willingham9. The Jocelyn who held Normanby and Tealby from Drogo of la Beuvrière10 is also likely to be Lambert's son. The manors are a few miles from his manor of Worlaby and there is a distinct possibility that Drogo's tenant Lambert (q.v.) is, if not Jocelyn's father, then a relative.
Less certainly, Alfred of Lincoln's tenant Jocelyn may be Lambert's son. His tenancies are all in Kesteven or Lindsey South Riding where they are intermixed with manors which Jocelyn held in chief or as a tenant of the bishop Durham and Gilbert of Ghent: Torrington11 is two or three miles from Holton and Bleasby; Boothby Graffoe and Somerton12 are six to eight miles from Braceby; 'Sempringham' and Billingborough a similar distance from Pickworth13, and Alvingham and Cockerington14 eleven miles from Maltby-le-Marsh. There is also a tenurial link, albeit slight. Of the tenancies in Lindsey South Riding, Cockerington had been resumed as demesne by the time of the Lindsey Survey (18/1), Alvingham cannot be disentangled from other holdings in the vill, and Torrington was held by a Jocelyn (16/9) who is possibly Lambert's son though it is usually assumed that he was dead by the date of the Survey, his fief being held by his son, Gilbert; possibly the scribe's information was not up-to-date. However, Gilbert son of Jocelyn did hold Stixwould from Alan, Alfred of Lincoln's son (13/8). This manor was held from Alfred by a Siward in 108615, so some reconfiguration of Alfred's tenancies had occurred which involved Jocelyn's heir.
The tenants of the bishop of Durham at Pickworth and Braceby and of the bishop of Lincoln throughout the county have previously been identified as one man by the descent of their manors to
1 LIN 13,38
2 OXF 6,12
3 LIN 24,53
4 LIN 3,4
5 LIN 3,33-34
6 LIN CW13
7 LIN 14,25;40
8 LIN 7,2;19-20;26;28;58
9 LIN 28,21
10 LIN 30,3-4
11 LIN 27,20-21
12 LIN 27,59
13 LIN 27,57-58
14 LIN 27,22;25
15 LIN 27,19
the Amundeville family; but the evidence cited above suggests that Amundeville is an alias of Jocelyn son of Lambert. Dr Clay identified the ancestor of the Amundeville family as probably the Jocelyn (Ivelin) of Amundeville who witnessed a charter of Fécamp abbey on the eve of the Domesday Inquest: 'Family of Amundeville', pp. 109-110. Dr Keats-Rohan, however, cites charter evidence to prove that this identification is 'certainly wrong', as is Jocelyn's place of origin in Mondeville (Calvados: arrondissement Caen) which Loyd derived from that identification: Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 4. She suggests instead one of two Emondevilles, respectively in Seine-Maritime and Manche, the former being the more likely. In view of this uncertainty and the derivation of the bulk of Jocelyn's Honour, however, it is perhaps possible that the family name has an English origin, derived from Jocelyn's predecessor, Aghmund, though no such English place-name other than Amounderness survives.
The manors of Jocelyn son of Lambert are recorded in Coel (no. 2581) and include the tenants of Gilbert of Ghent and Ivo Tallboys; Jocelyn of Amundeville is identified as another man whose manors include two of the three held from the bishop of Durham and all of those from the bishop of Lincoln (no. 2993); and the tenant of Alfred of Lincoln is identified as a third individual (no. 3357), the manors of all three being referenced in Domesday people, pp. 233, 236-37. The tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Normanby is unidentified (no. 34233), its dependency assigned to Drogo's demesne.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* THE BRETON *]. Jocelyn, who held Slapton in Northamptonshire1 from Earl Hugh of Chester, is identified as the tenant-in-chief in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 216-219. They are recorded in Coel (no. 155) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 235-36.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* THE LORIMER *]. It is possible that all Jocelyns in Little Domesday are one man, whose various aliases are Jocelyn the lorimer, Jocelyn of Loddon, Jocelyn of Norwich, Jocelyn a man of Frodo, Jocelyn a man of the Count of Mortain and perhaps Jocelyn of Ely. Most of the Jocelyns in East Anglia are tenants of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds: at Quidenham, Blo Norton, Mundham and Norton Subcourse in Norfolk2, and at Oakley and Stuston in Suffolk3 where he is described as a man of Frodo, Abbot Baldwin's brother. The Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin indicates that these manors were held by one man, though some shuffling of his tenancies occurred at some point, the most significant being that Loddon, held by Frodo in Domesday Book4, is assigned to Jocelyn while Mundham is held by Frodo: Feudal documents, pp. 10, 22-23. Jocelyn's tenure of Loddon identifies him as the Jocelyn of Loddon whose widow was granted his lands by the abbot: Feudal documents, p. 109.
The abbey's tenant may also be Jocelyn of Norwich, who held land on his own account alongside Jocelyn of Loddon in the vill of Norton Subcourse5. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Jocelyn the lorimer, who held a fief and two manors in Essex6 - one claimed by Ely abbey - is another of his aliases, as is Jocelyn of Ely, whose nephew was granted land by Ramsey abbey, a grant witnessed by the prior and monks of Ely: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 249-50. One of the two remaining Jocelyns in East Anglia was a tenant of Ely abbey at Rattlesden(SUF 21,1)
1 NTH 22,9
2 NFK 14,7-8;36;42
3 SUF 14,137-138
4 NFK 14,35
5 NFK 65,15
6 ESS 64,1. 1,2. 9,7
while the other, a tenant of Robert Malet at Maneuuic in Suffolk1, was partially under its jurisdiction; since the abbey had no Jocelyns on its Honour, the link, those slight in some cases, has some weight. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies Malet's tenant as the man who granted tithes in Huntingfield to the Malet foundation of Eye priory; but this tithe was subsequently referred to as the tithe of Rocelin, and the family as the FitzRocelins, so Jocelyn in the Eye cartulary (p. 72) may be a scribal error for Rocelyn. Neither Malet or Bury St Edmunds had other Jocelyns on their Honours. Jocelyn's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 691) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 234, apart from Rattlesden, assigned to another man (no. 8426), and Maneuuic, assigned to Jocelyn of Hollesley (no. 8222).
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHAIS <OF BARCHESTON>. Although the manors are roughly twenty miles apart, tenants of William son of Corbucion at Weston-under-Wetherley and Barcheston in Warwickshire2, are almost certainly the same man, the only Johais in Domesday Book. When next recorded at the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the tenancies are in the hands of different families, though a half-fee in both vills was held by the Hastings family in the fourteenth century: VCH Warwickshire, v. 5; vi. 252. Johais is unidentified in Coel (nos. 28503, 28505).
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN. John is a fairly common name which occurs on five fiefs and more than fifty manors, distributed among eighteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and nineteen of his tenants-in-chief. It is more common after the Conquest than before, when eight manors in five counties were acquired by four tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN <OF ORTON>. The tenants of the bishop of Lincoln and of Eustace the sheriff, who both held manors in Orton Waterville and Stilton in Huntingdonshire3, are almost certainly the same John. Similarly, those of Erneis of Buron at Coleby in Lincolnshire4 and Newsome Farm5 in Yorkshire are probably one man, though the descent of the tenancies across the two counties cannot be traced to one family: Early Yorkshire charters, x. 1 note 10, 62-63, 86-87. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests the tenants of the bishop, sheriff and Erneis are the same man, which is possible in view of the comparable status of their manors and the rarity of the name in region. With the exception of a tenant of Osbern of Arques at Green Hammerton6, they are the only Johns in circuit six or on the Honours concerned. Green Hammerton is ten miles from Newsome Farm, three from Tockwith, where the descendants of the Buron tenant had an interest, so Osbern's tenant may be the same John. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8725) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284, where Weston Favell in Northamptonshire7 is also assigned to him. The tenant at Green Hammerton is identified as another man (no. 8866).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SUF 6,19
2 WAR 28,8;10
3 HUN 2,6-7. 19,4-5
4 LIN 34,24-26
5 YKS 24W18
6 YKS 25W24
7 NTH 48,13
JOHN <OF THURLESTONE>. As the only Johns in Devon, the predecessors of Iudhael of Totnes at Bovey and Thurlestone are almost certainly one man1; the vills are thirty miles apart. It is possible that he is John the Dane, but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN <OF WOODCOTE>. John is a comparatively rare name in the north. If John of Orton is excluded, it occurs four times in the fourteen counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and those of circuits four and six. Three of the four, tenants of Henry of Ferrers at Woodcote in Leicestershire2 and Rodsley and Osleston in Derbyshire3 are probably therefore one man. He contributed the tithes of Sudbury, Aston and Osleston in Derbyshire to the foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Sudbury and Aston were held by other Ferrers' tenants in Domesday, so some re-arrangement of his tenancies had taken place by the date of the charter (1087-1100); the descent of Woodcote has not been traced; Leicestershire Survey, p. 47. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3855) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* SON OF WALERAN *]. John, who held Henny in Essex as one of the Annexations of Waleran, is almost certainly his son who held a manor in Henny on his own fief4. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 489) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* THE DANE *]. The predecessors of Matthew of Mortain at Milborne St Andrew and Overmoigne in Dorset5 and Shipton Moyne in Gloucestershire6 are very probably John the Dane, named in Exon. as Matthew's predecessor at Clevedon7 in Somerset and of the bishop of Wells at Yatton in the county. The other manor on Matthew's fief in Somerset was held by Thorkil the Dane, one of his other two manors in Gloucestershire by Strang the Dane, and one of the two in Essex by Aki the Dane8. The Denyes family, which retained an interest in several of these manors, may be descendants of John and Thorkil: Oggins, 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance', 57-67. Dr Williams suggests that John and Strang may in fact be the same man, John being the 'Christian' name of Strang: 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 26. John was probably the sheriff named as an overlord at Dinedor in Herefordshire9, who otherwise was a sheriff without a landed interest. Only two other pre-Conquest lords of this name are recorded in Domesday Book, both predecessors of Iudhael of Totnes on respectable manors at North Bovey and Thurlestone in Devon10. The distribution suggests they may be John the Dane, though there are no links to confirm this. A list of John's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 316, which does not include the manors in Devon or connect John to the sheriff. He ranks John eighty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen.
.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* THE USHER *]. John, who held 'Winterborne' among the king's sergeants in Dorset, is named John the usher in the Geld Roll for the county11: VCH Dorset, iii. 135. John had similar
1 DEC 17,22;33
2 LEC 14,26
3 DBY 6,62-63
4 ESS 40,4. 90,46
5 DOR 46,1-2
6 GLS 73,2
7 SOM 6,14. 44,1
8 ESS 53,1-2
9 HEF 10,19
10 DEV 17,22;33
11 DOR 57,10
service holdings in Wiltshire1 and Somerset2, where he is given his byname in Exon. on the last three of the Somerset manors. According to Exon. he was also a tenant of the bishops of Winchester and Wells and of Glastonbury abbey in the county3. It is not unlikely that he is the tenant of Roger of Courseulles at 'Edstock'4, and of Cranborne abbey in Dorset5, the only other tenants of this name in the south-west. 'Edstock' is adjacent to Cannington, held by John the usher according to Exon.6; the two Cranborne manors are adjacent to each other. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 297) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.
.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL. Judicael is a rare name, borne by five unidentified men, all possibly one of the two landowners who are accorded bynames. It is sometimes confused with Judhael.
.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL [* THE HUNTER *]. The Judicaels whose urban properties and rural manors in Girton and Histon in Cambridgeshire were acquired by the Count of Mortain are almost certainly Judicael the hunter, whose manors of Barton and Grantchester also devolved upon the Count, all five forming a tight group in and around Cambridge7. At Barton, Judicael is described as King Edward's hunter. As the name is rare and the functions related, he may be Judicael the falconer, on the royal manor of Redenhall in Norfolk8, the one other pre-Conquest Judicael. If so, he survived until 1086, initially as falconer to Earl Ralph Wader.
.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL [* THE PRIEST *]. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Judicael who held Yatton in Wiltshire9 and Wyboston in Bedfordshire10 may be Judicael the priest, who had small fiefs in Norfolk11 and Suffolk12 and was probably a canon of Cherbourg, appointed by the Conqueror. The manors are of comparable size and the name is rare, but there are no precise links between them; the manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 716; VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 199. A stronger case can be made for the one other tenant, who held Langley in Warwickshire from Robert of Stafford13 and may be the Judicael the priest who witnessed his charter of 1072: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178, 181. Judicael's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 972) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 282, apart from the tenant of Langley, identified as another Judicael (no. 3640) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291 under the form Ludichel.
.............................................................................................................................................
COUNTESS [* JUDITH *]. The Countess named in the Huntingdonshire Claims concerning Little Catworth in Huntingdonshire14 can only be Countess Judith, her claim being based on the grant of Catworth to Earl Waltheof (q.v.), her husband. The manor concerned is either entry 13,4 or 13,5.
1 WIL 68,18-19
2 SOM 46,6-11
3 SOM 2,8. 6,7. 8,26
4 SOM 21,32
5 DOR 10,2;4
6 SOM 46,9
7 CAM B1. 12,2-5
8 NFK 1,131
9 WIL 25,27
10 BDF 55,4
11 NFK 44,1
12 SUF 64,1-3. 75,5
13 WAR 22,26
14 HUN D18
The Countess is the only Judith in Domesday Book. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 267) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 286-87.
.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI. The name Karli is common in Yorkshire, fairly so in Lincolnshire, but comparatively rare elsewhere, occurring once each in Berkshire, Surrey, Somerset and Derbyshire; twice in Hampshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, and three times in Sussex, one survivor holding a manor in Lincolnshire and in Yorkshire. The manors in southern England distinguished by the large proportion of high status manors, most of them acquired by one tenant-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI <OF DONISTHORPE>. Karli, whose tiny holding worth twelve pence at Donisthorpe in Derbyshire was acquired by Nigel of Stafford1, has no links with other Karlis.
.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI <OF NORTON>. All Karlis in southern England may be one man, a predecessor of Alfred of Marlborough in Surrey2, Hampshire3, Wiltshire4 and Somerset5, who contributed roughly half the value of Alfred's Honour. It seems likely that he was the father of the Godric and Godwin, sons of Karli, whose valuable manors in Kent were acquired by Bishop Odo6. Toli, who shared Higham with Godwin7 and held another valuable manor at Cray8 six miles from Godric's manor of Wickham9, may be another of his sons, the three of them perhaps being the three brothers from whom Humphrey Visdeloup acquired the valuable manor of Boxford in Berkshire10, or the three thanes from whom he obtained another valuable manor at Benham11; Humphrey inherited his most valuable manor - Speen12 - from Karli and four-fifths of the value of his Honour from his family if these identifications are correct. The three other Karlis in southern England are Sussex landowners, their manors - freehold or held directly from the king - devolving upon the lords of the respective Rapes rather than a designated predecessor13; but given the distribution of the name, it is not unlikely these, too, are Karli of Norton. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 317-18, which accidentally omits Rowde in Wiltshire14. He ranks Karli nineteenth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Rowde would raise him a place and, if correctly identified, the family estate would rank it in the top dozen.
.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI [* SON OF KARLI *]. All Karlis in Yorkshire are probably one man, a member of the powerful family of Karli son of Thorbrand which conducted a long-running feud with the earls of Northumbria but made common cause with them to lead the northern rebellion of 1068 against Norman rule: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 29-31, 40, 59. Orderic Vitalis
1 DBY 14,9
2 SUR 33,1
3 HAM 36,1-2
4 WIL 26,1-15
5 SOM 34,1
6 KEN D17. 5,25;105
7 KEN 1,105
8 KEN 5,24
9 KEN 5,25
10 BRK 54,2
11 BRK 54,3
12 BRK 54,1
13 SUS 10,60;114. 13,14
14 WIL 26,2
names 'four sons of Karli' among the rebel leaders: Cnut (q.v.) and Sumarlithi (q.v.) are named in the tract De obsessione Dunelmi, Thorbrand (q.v.) is readily identifiable, and Gamal (q.v.) is probably a fourth son. For reasons considered below, the Domesday Karli is unlikely to be Karli son of Thorbrand himself but may be a close relative, perhaps a fifth son of whom Orderic was unaware or a grandson, as some historians have suggested.
This Karli is probably the Karli at Hunmanby, the largest and most valuable of his manors, acquired by Gilbert of Ghent1. As Gilbert was appointed castellan of the second castle in York after the suppression of the revolt and Hunmanby is his only manor in Yorkshire, it may have been his prize at the expense of one of the main rebels. Karli of Hunmanby very likely also held the other large and/or valuable manors in the county, principally Nafferton, held by William of Percy in 10862 and Rounton, Flixton and Burton Fleming3, retained by the king. All but Rounton lay in Torbar or Hunthow wapentakes where it is not unlikely that the remaining manors of Karli were held by the same man. In Hunthow, Cnut and Gamal also held several manors, Karli himself holding Bridlington, Auburn, Staxton, Fordun, Sewerby, Marton and Fraisethorpe4. Most of these manors are substantial but waste in 1086, as are those in Torbar, retained by the king if waste5 or held by William of Percy if not6. Percy also obtained more of Karli's manors, in Dic and 'Yarlestre' wapentakes7 where he also acquired manors from other members of Karli's family. Like Gilbert of Ghent, Percy was charged with the defence and pacification of the north after the suppression of the rebellion and profited at the expense of the same family. The one other large manor in the East Riding, Wharram Percy, waste and retained by the king8, is also likely to have been held by the same Karli; it is three or four miles from those retained by the king at Towthorpe and Burdale9.
Four more manors were held by a Karli in Yorkshire, among which Redmere in Holderness10, was probably held by Karl of Hunmanby, Holderness being at one stage at least a family lordship, his grandfather Thorbrand being 'Hold' of the area; the manor was acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière who also obtained other manors from Karli's family, including their ancestral home at Rise. Less certainly, Stub House in 'Skyrack' wapentake11 and Rathmell in Craven12, though isolated from Karli's other manors, may have been his too. Rathmell is just a few miles from some of the manors of Gamal son of Karli, four of them acquired by Roger of Poitou who held Rathmell in 1086. Stub House is surrounded by manors held by the family, though none of them are nearby. Bolton in the East Riding is in a similar situation13, with the difference that Karli retained Bolton for two decades, one of only two Karlis to survive the Conquest. Most, but not all, of his family was massacred at Settrington in 1073 in the final act of its blood feud with the earls of Northumbria. If Karli at Bolton is, indeed, a surviving member of the family, then his circumstances were extremely reduced, his manor being worth just four shillings.
As the family is prominent in the history of the north in the eleventh-century and took a leading role in the revolt against Norman rule, its members were presumably major landowners, so the scale of landholding suggested by these identifications is not implausible. If the bulk of them are correct, then the manorial income of Karli and his family was in excess of £100 in 1066, though
1 YKS 20E1-4
2 YKS 13E16
3 YKS 1N41. 1E17;23
4 YKS 1E12-13;18. 5E45-46. 29E10
5 YKS 1E22-23;26;41-42
6 YKS 13E15
7 YKS 13N9-11;19
8 YKS 1E54
9 YKS 1E41-42
10 YKS 14E18
11 YKS 1W15
12 YKS 30W9
13 YKS 29E5
in Yorkshire the assessment of their lands - more than 600 hides - is probably a better guide to their status. If included in Clarke, English nobility, their manorial income would rank them among the three dozen wealthiest untitled laymen; in assessed land, they were exceeded among laymen only by the royal family and some earls.
.............................................................................................................................................
KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. Karski is a rare name which occurs twice each in Derbyshire1 and Nottinghamshire2, all four probably being Karski father of Alsi (q.v.) who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' over Workshop3. Alsi can be identified as a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Nottinghamshire and of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire, the tenants-in-chief who acquired three of Karski's four manors. His Derbyshire manor lay in the same Hundred as that of his son, and those in Nottinghamshire in the Hundred where Worksop lay. The second Derbyshire manor, at Eyam, was retained by the king.
.............................................................................................................................................
KENTWIN <OF COMPTON>. The three Kentwins in Domesday, predecessors of the Count of Meulan at Woodcote, Compton Verney and Frankton in Warwickshire4 are almost certainly one man.
.............................................................................................................................................
KENWARD [* THE SHERIFF *]. Kenward is a rare name, all seven occurrences probably referring to one man whose manors cluster near the borders of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire. Three of his manors devolved upon Gilbert son of Turold, one in each of the three counties5; three others on the bishop of Worcester, who subinfeudated all three to Robert the bursar6. Gilbert's manors lay either side of Robert's, while Duntisbourne Abbots, acquired by Roger of Lacy7, is adjacent to Gilbert's manor at Oakley. Kenward is described as a royal thane in the Duntisbourne entry. He is probably Kynewardus de Lauro, witness to a document of Robert of Stafford in 1072, and the Kinewardus, past sheriff of Worcestershire, named in Hemming's cartulary: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178, 180; Hemingi cartularium, p. 82; Bates, Regesta, no. 349, pp. 997-99. Lauro is probably Laugherne (Laure), one of his manors8: Round, 'Domesday survey of Worcestershire', pp. 267-68. Kenward (Kinewardus), addressed in a writ to the magnates of Berkshire in the 1040s, is conceivably the same man, though 'otherwise unknown': Harmer, Writs, pp. 131, 558; Green, English sheriffs, pp. 22, 87. Dr Williams, who names him Cyneweard of Laugherne, suggests that in addition to these manors he may also have held a second manor in Duntisbourne where no pre-Conquest is named9; it had been given to St Peter's of Gloucester by the mother of Roger of Lacy. She suggests he was 'almost certainly' related to the family of Wulfstan II, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (d. 1023): Williams, 'Gloucestershire', pp. 24-26. Kenward's kinsmen - Alric, Azur and Godric - held a number of other manors in the county: Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', pp. 24-26.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 DBY 1,33. 6,4
2 NTT 9,35;53
3 NTT S5
4 WAR 16,3;11;29
5 GLS 52,1. WAR 33,1. WOR 20,4
6 WOR 2,13;19;73
7 GLS 39,7
8 WOR 2,13
9 GLS 10,13
KETIL [* ALDER *]. The name Ketil is fairly common in East Anglia, especially in Norfolk; but family wills identity many of the Domesday manors held by Ketil Alder - most of them acquired by Ranulf Peverel - at Frating in Essex1; Harling, Stratton, Hainford, Walsingham, Carleton, Melton and Kettingham in Norfolk2, and Onehouse and Rushford in Suffolk3: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 84-91, 197-204. Ketil's own will identifies Archbishop Stigand as his principal lord, bequeathed his heriot of 'a helmet and a coat of mail and a horse with harness and a sword and a spear'. On the Peverel manor at Walsingham, Ketil is described as a thane of Archbishop Stigand, and at Onehouse as a royal thane. As Stigand's thane, Dr Williams suggests he is almost certainly the anonymous thane of Stigand at Ashwellthorpe4, where land in the vill was bequeathed to him by his uncle Edwin, and probably also the archbishop's man at Thurton and Stoke Holy Cross5, and the predecessor of the abbey of St Benedict of Holme (to which the family made donations) at Billockby6: World before Domesday, pp. 5, 150 note 32. Stoke devolved upon a Tovi, whose holdings in Hackford and Holkham had been held by a Ketil7; and since Tovi had only three named predecessors, it is likely the three Ketils on his fief are one man; Holkham is a fairly substantial manor.
Dr Clarke assigns to Ketil Alder manors acquired by Reginald son of Ivo8. None of these are mentioned in the three wills, nor is Ketil described as a man or thane of Archbishop Stigand on any of them; but these are not necessarily fatal objections since Ketil is only once described as Stigand's thane on the Peverel manors and many of the holdings named in the wills were in different hands in Domesday Book. The total estate of Reginald's predecessor is comparable to that assigned above to Alder, whose holdings at Stratton and Mayton9 lie between those of Reginald's predecessor at Great Witchingham, Scottow and Sloley10. The combined estates include all but two of the Norfolk manors held by a Ketil worth more than £1, both of those conceivably held by the same man (or men): Great Snoring is two miles from Walsingham, Wells-next-the-Sea four, less from Stiffkey11. It may be significant that Wells was held in 1086 by an Aldgyth, one of three landowners of that name in East Anglia, the only one with a significant holding. Aldgyth is the name of one of Ketil Alder's sisters. Her mother, most of whose manors lay in Norfolk, bequeathed her a manor at Chadacre in Suffolk12, held by the Countess of Aumale in 1086; but the family bequests are complex (Fleming, Kings and nobles, pp. 141-43) and may have been reshuffled in the intervening four decades more often than the documentation reveals. A list of Ketil's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 318-19, which does not include Snoring, Wells, the holdings identified by Dr Williams, or those acquired by Tovi. Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would place him in the top fifty. Dr Williams estimates his assessed land at 25 hides; the holdings itemised above total twice that amount.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL [* FATHER OF EDRIC *]. It is likely that all five Ketils in Gloucestershire are Ketil father of Edric. At 'Duntisbourne' and Windrush, Ketil - said to be the same man - retained his manors
1 ESS 34,34
2 NFK 19,15. 26,2. 32,2-5
3 SUF 34,6. 37,6. 56,1
4 NFK 5,6
5 NFK 48,3. 49,8
6 NFK 10,90
7 NFK 48,1-2
8 NFK 21,2;24-25;27-28;32;36
9 NFK 26,2
10 NFK 21,28;32;36
11 NFK 1,92-93. 21,24-25. 60,1
12 SUF 46,2
among the king's thanes for two decades1. As the name is uncommon in the area, it is probable that he is the Ketil who held a second manor in 'Duntisbourne' before the Conquest2, and likely that he is the unnamed father succeeded by Edric son of Ketil at Baunton and Alkerton3. If these identifications are valid, Ketil lost his most valuable manor, acquired by William son of Baderon, and allowed his son to hold the two most substantial of the other four holdings. William had no other predecessors of this name, and there are no Ketils among the survivors outside Gloucestershire who appear likely to be Edric's father. Ketil is unidentified in Coel (nos. 29891-92); see also Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 35.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF BUCKNALL>. Ketil, whose waste manor at Bucknall in Staffordshire was retained by the king4, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom are nearby.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF EDENSOR>. The name Ketil is uncommon in central England, occurring only six times in the ten counties of circuits three and four. In these circumstances, it is likely that the group of eight manors held by Ketil in Derbyshire belonged to one man. Six were acquired by Henry of Ferrers and the seventh, at Mugginton, was held by Ketil as his tenant5. Although the eighth holding, 'Langley'6, was in the king's hands, it 'lay in' Edensor, one of the manors acquired by Ferrers7, both 'Langley and Edensor being shared with a Leofnoth Sterre (q.v.). All eight manors are within four or five miles of at least one of the others. Ketil survived with less than a fifth of his pre-Conquest wealth. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32358).
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF HALSALL>. Ketil, whose land worth eight shillings at Halsall in South Lancashire was acquired by Roger of Poitou8, is unlikely to be the same man as Roger's predecessors in Yorkshire and Norfolk, given the scale of his holding and the distances involved.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF SOMERFORD>. Ketil, who shared with two others a holding at Somerford in Cheshire9 worth six shillings, acquired by Earl Hugh, is unlikely to be the same man as the earl's predecessors in Hampshire and Northamptonshire, given the scale of his holding and the distances involved.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL [* THE STEERSMAN *]. Ketil, assigned by the Conqueror 'land for one plough' in Stockbridge Hundred in Sussex10, is identified in later documents as Ketil the steersman (esterman), with a carucate of land 'lying without the gate' of Chichester and houses in the city: Regesta, i. nos. 352, 460. His name is uncommon south of the Thames, so in view of his office it is not unlikely that he is the Ketil who held a number of substantial manors before the Conquest - most of them in freehold from the king - to the west of Chichester, around Southampton Water and
1 GLS 78,2-3
2 GLS 32,2
3 GLS 78,5;16
4 STS 1,34
5 DBY 6,1;43;75-76;78;95;101
6 DBY 1,32
7 DBY 6,101
8 CHS R1,38
9 CHS 26,1
10 SUS 11,42
its approaches. If so, he had exempt land in Southampton itself (alongside the notorious steersman, Stephen son of Erhard), the handsome manor of Dibden and perhaps Utefel by the side of Southampton Water1, Fratton on Portsea Island2, Bicton and Avon on the river above Christchurch harbour3, Warnford in the Meon Valley leading to the Solent4, and manors on the Isle of Wight5. There are no other Ketils in Sussex or Hampshire, and none of the five tenants-in-chief who acquired his manors had other Ketils among their tenants or predecessors in southern England; the Ketils west of Hampshire appear to be unrelated. Ketil is unidentified in Coel (no. 16215).
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT. The name Ketilbert is rare outside Yorkshire, occurring six or seven times, distributed among four Midland counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief; it is sometimes treated as interchangeable with Ketilbiorn, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Osbern/Osbert, Thorbert/Thorbiorn. The scribe himself appears uncertain as to whether there is a difference in the names, often dropping the final character, which occurs several times in the counties of circuit six: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 302-304; Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 43.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT <OF CROWLE>. As the names are rare, it is not unlikely that the Ketilbert who held land at Powick in Worcestershire and the Ketilbiorn in the adjacent vill of Pixham, both paired with an Alwy, are one man and the same man as the Ketilbert at Crowle, eight miles away6, the one other Ketilbert or Ketilbiorn in circuit five.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT <OF FOLKSWORTH>. As the names are rare outside Yorkshire, it is probable that the Ketilbert or Ketilbiorn (Chetelber) who held Folksworth in Huntingdonshire in 10667 is the Ketilbert in the adjacent vill of 'Washingley'8, which he had held since 1066. He may therefore be the Ketilbert at Carlton in Bedfordshire9 and Braybrooke in Northamptonshire10, both of whom retained their manors for two decades. The manor of Folksworth is fairly substantial, so Ketilbert might be the Ketilbert at Crowle in Worcestershire, another respectable holding; but there are no links to confirm this and the Worcestershire holdings are all pre-Conquest. A more likely link is with either (or both) of the surviving Ketilbiorns, of Holwell or Nettleton; but there are no more specific links. All three tenants are unidentified in Coel (nos. 552, 27479, 32738).
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN. Outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the name Ketilbiorn is rare, occurring in four counties on the lands of five tenants-in-chief; it is sometimes treated as interchangeable with Ketilbert, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Osbern/Osbert, Thorbert/Thorbiorn. The scribe himself appears uncertain as to whether there is a difference in the names, often dropping the final character, which occurs several times in the counties of circuit six: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 302-304; Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 43.
1 HAM S2. NF9,2;42
2 HAM 34,1
3 HAM 21,4. 22,1
4 HAM 6,6
5 HAM IoW1,10. 6,1;3;14
6 WOR 8,10a;10c. 19,14
7 HUN 12,1
8 HUN 29,1
9 BDF 57,6
10 NTH 56,31
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF BACONSTHORPE>. Ketilbiorn, whose tiny holding at Baconsthorpe in Norfolk was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany1, has no links with his namesakes. Count Alan had no other predecessors or tenants of this name, and there were no more Ketilbiorns in East Anglia.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF CUBBINGTON>. As the names are rare, it is possible that the Ketilbiorns2 or Ketilberts3 in Warwickshire are one man, though the manors devolved upon three tenants-in-chief. Cubbington is three miles from Radford Semele4, and both about ten from Church Lawford5. Ketilbiorn has been identified as a brother of Thorkil of Warwick, whose family had an interest in Ketilbiorn's manors of Cubbington and Radford: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 280, 283-84, 286-88.
.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF HOLWELL>. Ketilbiorn, who held land worth six shillings at Holwell in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln6, has no links with other Ketilbiorns or Ketilberts, though as a survivor with a rare name he may be the same man as Ketilbiorn of Nettleton or Ketilbert of Folksworth, the other survivors. The bishop had no other predecessors or tenants named Ketilbiorn or Ketilbert, and there were no more in the county. Ketilbiorn is unidentified in Coel (no. 26201). .............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF NETTLETON>. All Ketilbiorns and Ketilberts in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire may be one man, the king's thane in Lincolnshire7, ancestor of the Keal family: Thomas, English and the Normans, p. 403. Although the predominant name-form in Lincolnshire is Ketilbiorn, as only Ketilbiorn held land in the county in 1086, he is presumably the Ketilbert (Chetelbertus) who had 'not paid tax on all his land'8. He held Grasby in 10669, so unless this is a scribal error he not only survived for two decades but prospered in the process perhaps, as Dr Thomas suggests, because his expertise in falconry was a valued asset to the new political elite. As his name is uncommon and he was a landowner before the Conquest, it is not unlikely that he is the Ketilbiorn who preceded the bishop of Bayeux at Elsham and Nettleton10 and Osbern the priest at Binbrook11; Nettleton is four miles from Grasby and Binbrook five from one of the dependencies of Nettleton.
In Yorkshire, where the predominant name-form is Ketilbert or is indeterminate (Chetelber, etc), those at Wombwell, Wildthorpe and Darfield in Strafforth wapentake were pre-Conquest lords12, the tenant at Worsborough a survivor13. They may be the same man, however, since the manors are a few miles apart, in adjacent wapentakes. If they are, then it is not improbable he is the Lincolnshire thane. Some slight support for this conclusion is that the survivors at Nettleton and
1 NFK 4,46
2 WAR 16,53
3 WAR 12,5. 17,56
4 WAR 16,53. 17,56
5 WAR 12,5
6 LEC 3,16
7 LIN 68,5-15. CS17;20;34;37
8 LIN C20
9 LIN 68,15
10 LIN 4,16;23-25
11 LIN 53,2
12 YKS 10,19;21. 29,3
13 YKS 9,77
Worsborough shared their manors with a Gamal, though the name is common. Finally, the one Ketilbiorn in Nottinghamshire is a survivor who like the Lincolnshire thane retained his manor - at Gamston -1 for two decades. It is not entirely impossible that one or other (or both) of the survivors, Ketilbert of Folksworth and Ketilbiorn of Holwell, are the same man: a surprisingly high proportion of Ketilbiorns and Ketilberts held land in 1086. Ketilbiorn's Lincolnshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3840) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 173; the tenants at Gamston and Worsborough are unidentified (nos. 35510, 37438).
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND. Kolbrand is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among the lands of as many tenants-in-chief and across four counties between Devon to Yorkshire, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF CREECH>. Kolbrand, whose fairly modest manor at Creech in Dorset in 1066 was acquired by Roger of Beaumont2, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of whom was some seventy miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF CULM>. As the name is rare, the Kolbrands on respectable manors at Hockworthy and Culm in Devon - about eight miles apart - are likely to be the same man, though the manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief3. It is possible that he is the same man as the Dorset Kolbrand, some seventy miles away, but there are no links between them other than broadly comparable manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF MALTON>. As the name is rare, the two Yorkshire Kolbrands, at Malton and Leavening4 - six miles apart - are likely to be one man; he is unlikely to be the same man as any of his southern namesakes, the nearest of them roughly 150 miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF WALSGRAVE>. Kolbrand, whose modest holding at Walsgrave in Warwickshire was acquired by Richard the forester5, has no links with his namesakes, all of them 150 miles or more away.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM. Outside Lincolnshire, the name Kolgrim is uncommon, occurring eleven times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, one borne by the only survivor outside Lincolnshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM <OF ARLESTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Kolgrims whose adjacent holdings in Arleston and Barrow in Derbyshire were acquired by Henry of Ferrers6 are very probably one man. He has no links with his namesakes outside the county.
1 NTT 16,2
2 DOR 28,3
3 DEV 16,77. 36,18
4 YKS 1N66. 29E30
5 WAR 44,7
6 DBY 6,82;85
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM [* OF GRANTHAM *]. All Kolgrims in Lincolnshire are probably one man, named Kolgrim of Grantham in the Ramsey cartulary, no doubt from his connection to the town, in which he had full jurisdiction1: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 131; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 108. He is one of only two Kolgrims still holding land twenty years after the Conquest - the other in Somerset2 - and the only one to prosper.
Kolgrim held Ewerby, Ingoldsby, Belton, 'Houghton' and Gonerby with their dependencies in his own right, many of which he had held for since before the Conquest3. He also held Fulbeck, Leadenham, Westby, Billingborough, Stoke Rochford and North Hykeham from Count Alan of Brittany4; a second manor in Stoke and 'North Stoke' and Witham on the Hill from Drogo of la Beuvrière5, and Skinnand from Robert of Stafford6. Almost all these manors were later held by his heirs as part of the Wensley fee of the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 255-58. Additionally, the tenant of Peterborough abbey at 'Houghton'7 must be Kolgrim of Grantham, who had the abbey as his tenant in the same vill8; and he is probably the thane Kolgrim at Westby9, a vill in which he held in chief. Of the remaining manors, Austhorpe10 is an outlier of his manor of Ewerby, both held for two decades; Silk Willoughby11 is four miles from Ewerby; and Kelby12, where Bishop Remigius, Kolgrim 'and their companions' had meadow and underwood in the manor, five miles from Willoughby. Finally, he is probably the tenant of Crowland abbey at Sutterton Dowdyke13 since there a history between his heirs and the abbey, which subsequently established its rights to the advowsons of many of the churches on the Wensley fee, perhaps a quid pro quo for the tenancy at Dowdyke: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 257. Two claims refer to Kolgrim's manor of Belton14. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2935) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 174.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLLUNG. Kollung (Collinc) is a rare name which occurs twice, once each in Shropshire and Derbyshire; it is possibly the same name as the equally rare Culling (Culling, Cullingus), a burgess in Colchester and Ipswich; but it is improbable the burgess is either of the rural Kollungs.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLLUNG <OF HATTON>. Kollung, whose modest shared manor in Hatton in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers15, has no links with his one namesake, at Steel in Shropshire, or with the urban Culling.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 LIN 1,9
2 SOM 7,11
3 LIN 67,1-4;7;13-17;20-21;24-27
4 LIN 12,48;52;55;91-92
5 LIN 30,25-26;32
6 LIN 59,18
7 LIN 8,12
8 LIN 67,21
9 LIN 68,19
10 LIN 45,4
11 LIN 48,13
12 LIN 3,35
13 LIN 11,5-8
14 LIN CK60-61
15 DBY 6,49
KOLLUNG <OF STEEL>. Kollung, whose modest shared manor in Steel in Shropshire was acquired by Roger of Courseulles1, has no links with his one namesake, at Hatton in Derbyshire, or with the urban Culling. .............................................................................................................................................
KOLSVEINN. Kolsveinn is a common name in Lincolnshire but rare elsewhere, occurring once in Kent, Wiltshire and Devon, and four times in Cambridgeshire. The Kolsveinns in Kent, Wiltshire and on three manors in Cambridgeshire are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
KOLSVEINN [* OF LINCOLN *]. Although his manors were held from eight tenants-in-chief, it is likely that all Kolsveinns in Lincolnshire are the English tenant-in-chief in the county, one of three Kolsveinns - the others in Cambridgeshire and Somerset - holding land in 1086. Known from later records as Kolsveinn of Lincoln, he was singled out by Sir Frank Stenton as one of only two Englishmen holding tenancies-in-chief 'of the first order' at the time of the Domesday Survey ('English families', p. 1). Although an Englishman, he apparently held no land before the Conquest. Many of his tenancies are in vills where he held in chief2, these and others3 apparently in the hands of his heirs, the de la Haye family, in either the Lindsey Survey or in the Cartae of 1166: Holt, 'Carta of Richard de la Haye', pp. 291-93; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 107. Only the tenants of Earl Hugh at Bullington4 and of Drogo of Beuvrière at Claxby5 appear to have no such associations; but the former is within five miles of a cluster of Kolsveinn's manors, and the descent of the latter fief was disrupted almost as soon as the Domesday Survey was complete. Kolsveinn was involved in numerous Claims, in many of which he is identified as holding the manors concerned6, though there is little reason to doubt that he is the Kolsveinn involved in the remainder7. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2934) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 175.
............................................................................................................................................. LAMBERT. Lambert is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-one times, distributed among eleven counties and the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief, all post-Conquest tenants. There are no significant clusters, but the Lamberts of Cambridgeshire, Essex and Norfolk held substantial manors. ............................................................................................................................................. LAMBERT <OF GONERBY>. Three of the four Lamberts in northern England are associated with Jocelyn son of Lambert (q.v.) so are probably a relative, conceivably his father, though it is curious in that case that his endowment is modest and his son's substantial. A Lincolnshire claim refers to Jocelyn and his father8, though in terms which do not make it clear whether the father is still alive. Lambert was a tenant of Jocelyn at Enderby in Lincolnshire9, and is probably the tenant of the bishop of Durham at Gonerby10, Jocelyn himself being a tenant of the bishop. Similarly, he is
1 SHR 4,7,5
2 LIN 3,1;3;36. 8,13. 24,2. 40,2
3 LIN 4,2. 28,3. 40,3
4 LIN 13,26
5 LIN 30,36
6 LIN CW2;8. CK31;54;64
7 LIN CS7. CN26. CK34
8 LIN CS3
9 LIN 28,38
10 LIN 3,31
probably the one Lambert in Yorkshire, a tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Sutton on Hull1, Jocelyn probably holding a tenancy from Drogo in Lincolnshire. It is unlikely that Lambert is the same man as his namesake in Cheshire, the one other northern Lambert, who has no apparent associations. Lambert's Lincolnshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9259) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 286, where Odo of Bayeux in the commentary should be the bishop of Durham; the Yorkshire Lambert is unidentified (no. 37902), as is the Cheshire tenant (no. 28472). .............................................................................................................................................
LAMBERT [* OF ROSAY *]. The Lamberts who held West Wratting and West Wickham in Cambridgeshire2 and Waterden and Rudham in Norfolk3 from William of Warenne are probably Lambert of Rosay, who granted tithes or land in his Norfolk manors to the Warenne foundation of Castle Acre priory: Monasticon, v. 49, no 1. The Cambridgeshire manors descended to his heirs: VCH Cambridgeshire, vi. 117, 192. He was from Rosay in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 86-87. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 976) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 287.
.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC. Landric is an uncommon name which occurs sixteen times, distributed among four counties and the lands of the king and three of his tenants-in-chief, all post-Conquest tenants. The name is rare in the sense that it may have been borne by only three men.
.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC <OF "BRIME">. As the name is rare, it is probable that the Landrics who held Maidenhead in Berkshire4 and a cluster of three manors in Northamptonshire5 from Giles of Picquigny are the same man, who is possibly also the tenant of Guy of Raimbeaucourt at Aldwincle6, the one other Landric in the Midlands. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1576) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.
.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC [* OF HORNBY *]. The Landrics who held land in Danby Wiske, Cowton, Ainderby Mires and Hutton Hang in Yorkshire7 and in Killingholme, Welton and Holbeach in Lincolnshire8 from Count Alan of Brittany, are identified by the descent of these manors as Landric of Hornby (in Ainderby parish), alias Landric of Holbeach, named in charters of the Honour of Richmond and the Red Book of Thorney. Landric's descendant, probably his great-grandson, was Conan son of Ellis, also known as Conan of Hornby, who held a fee of five knights from the Honour of Richmond in the same vills (apart from Danby) in the late twelfth century : Early Yorkshire charters, v. 39, 272-73, 284-85. Landric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2462) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.
.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC [* THE CARPENTER *]. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Landrics who held land at Bishopthorpe and Acaster Selby, three or four miles to the south of York9, are Landric the
1 YKS 14E46
2 CAM 18,5-6
3 NFK 8,102;109
4 BRK 34,2
5 NTH 43,6;8;11
6 NTH 41,6
7 YKS 6N36-37;53;131
8 LIN 12,7;37;84
9 YKS 29W27-28
carpenter, who had 10 1/2 messuages in the city 'which the sheriff gave into his charge'1. The Yorkshire Claims2 reveal that he also held land (with a dubious title) at Pallathorpe and Mulehale, also in Ainsty wapentake3, held by Nigel Fossard and three thanes respectively according to the main text4. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2450) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.
.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER". Langfer is a rare name whose origin is obscure. It occurs four times in Domesday Book, once each in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire and twice in Suffolk, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 308.
.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF HARGRAVE>. As the name is rare, it is possible that the Langfer with a small manor at Hargrave in Huntingdonshire acquired by Eustace the sheriff5 is the Langfer at Horn in Northamptonshire; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF HORN>. As the name is rare, it is possible that the Langfer with a respectable holding at Horn in Northamptonshire acquired by the bishop of Durham6 is the Langfer at Hargrave; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF WESTERFIELD>. As the name is rare, the free man Langfer with fourteen acres at Westerfield in Suffolk acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville7 may be the Langfer on a tiny holding at Wadgate8, despite the twenty or so miles separating them.
.............................................................................................................................................
LAURENCE <OF DENCHWORTH>. Laurence is a rare name which occurs three times, so the tenants of Robert of Stafford at Denchworth in Berkshire9 and Wilbrighton in Staffordshire10 are almost certainly one man, despite the distance separating the manors. Hervey of Wilbrighton held land in the two vills from the Honour of Stafford in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 846, 967. The Stafford properties are roughly equidistant from the third Laurence, at Bosworth in Leicestershire, a tenant of Robert of Vessey11, possibly therefore the same man. The descent of Bosworth is unrevealing, being absorbed into another manor in the vill by the time of the Leicestershire Survey (pp. 23, 33). Laurence's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1662) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 289.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER. The name Leodmer occurs roughly two dozen times, distributed among nine counties between Devon and Derbyshire and the lands of eleven tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Essex and Hertfordshire, two manors being held by survivors. The name is sometimes confused
1 YKS C20
2 YKS CW30
3 YKS CW30
4 YKS 5W35. 29W11
5 HUN 19,13
6 NTH 3,1
7 SUF 32,2
8 SUF 7,109
9 BRK 42,1
10 STS 11,54
11 LEC 16,7
with Leofmer, and Lemar may be one or the other or possibly a different name, as also the one Leomer. These forms add four counties and ten tenants-in-chief to the distribution.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF AFFLINGTON>. Leodmer (Leodmar), who held a small holding at Afflington in Dorset acquired by Roger of Beaumont1, has no links with his namesakes, or with Leofmers or Lemars, none within a hundred miles.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF ASH>. As the name is uncommon, the Leodmers (Leimar, Ledmar) from whom Ralph of Pomeroy acquired land in the adjacent vills of Ash and Putford in Devon2 are probably one man; he has no links with other Leodmers, or with Leofmers or Lemars, all distant.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF BARTON>. The Leodmers (Ledmer) whose modest holdings in the neighbouring vills of Barton, Burnaston and Bearwardcote in Derbyshire3 were acquired by Henry of Ferrers are very probably one man. He has no links with his namesakes elsewhere, or with Leofmers or Lemars, all distant.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF BYGRAVE>. It is likely that the Lemars and Leodmers on four manors in Odsey Hundred in Hertfordshire are one man, despite the different name forms and the acquisition of the manors by two tenants-in-chief, the bishop of Chester4 of Bygrave (Lemarus) and Broadfield (Ledmaer) and Ralph of Limésy5 of Hainstone and Caldecote (Lemar, Lemarus). In all four cases Lemar/Leodmer is described as a man of Archbishop Stigand, who had no dependants with this name or its variants elsewhere; Caldecote and Bygrave, the two principle manors, are five miles apart. As the name-forms are uncommon, the archbishop's man may also be the Lemarus at Graveley6, six miles from Bygrave, and the Ledmarus at Astwick in Bedfordshire7, two miles from Caldecote, five from Bygrave. If so, then like others of his status he survived on a fragment of his once substantial estate, retaining the modest holding at Astwick, one of two Leodmers holding land in 1086. Earlier in the century, a Leofmer (Leommaere) of Bygrave, perhaps an ancestor, was restored to the estate (unspecified) taken from him by Ealdorman Aethelstan: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 60-61, 173. Leodmer is unidentified in Coel (no. 291). .............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF HORSEHEATH>. Leodmer (Ledmarus), whose half-virgate at Horseheath in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Hardwin of Scales8, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Leodmer holding land in the county, though several Leodmers and Lemars are recorded among the jurors there, all in different Hundreds from Horseheath: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton), pp. 38, 99-100. The Inquisitio (p. 37) also records a Lemar (Lemmarus) at Babraham, seven miles from Horseheath.
1 DOR 28,7
2 DEV 34,5;7
3 DBY 6,34;94
4 HRT 7,2-3
5 HRT 23,1-2
6 HRT 36,3
7 BDF 23,47
8 CAM 26,9
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF WENHAM>. Leodmer (Ledmerus), who shared a holding at Wenham in Suffolk worth ten shillings acquired by the bishop of Bayeux1, has no links with other Leodmers, though Higham, one of the manors of the Leodmer the priest, a predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne, is four miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF WHITTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Leodmers (Leimer, Lemer) whose manors at Whitton and Polmere - five miles apart - in Shropshire were acquired by Roger son of Corbet and the earl of Shrewsbury2, are probably one man. He is the only Leodmer, Leofmer or Lemar in circuit five.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER [* THE PRIEST *]. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Leodmers (Ledmarus) who preceded Count Eustace at Claret Hall and Belchamp in Essex and Higham in Suffolk3 are his predecessor at Bendysh Hall, Leodmer the priest4. Both Claret Hall and Bendysh are substantial, and Belchamp is close to Claret Hall. Leodmer is almost certainly the priest who was head of the substantially-endowed collegiate college of St John at Clare5, a mile away across the border with Suffolk, the caput of the Honour of Richard of Clare in Suffolk. Leodmer the priest was also a predecessor of Richard of Clare at Gestingthorpe6. All these manors are within a few miles of each other and are further linked by indications that Richard of Clare had interests in the manors acquired by Count Eustace7. A Leodmer of Hempstead also occurs on the fief of Richard of Clare, annexing Braintree8, about ten miles from Gestingthorpe. Alternative bynames are not uncommon, but Leodmer of Hempstead was a reeve9, active after the Conquest, so unlikely to be the priest.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODWIN. Leodwin (Leduinus) is an rare name, occurring eight times in Domesday Book, once in Devon, twice in Yorkshire, the remainder in Lincolnshire. A Leofwin in Somerset10 is rendered Leodwin (Letuuinus) in Exon.; a similar inconsistency may be suspected in some of the Lincolnshire entries.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEODWIN [* SON OF RAVEN *]. As the name is rare, the only Leodwin in the country in 1086, the king's thane at Kexby11, is probably Leodwin son of Raven, named as having full jurisdiction in place of Healfdene the priest12; Healfdene held nearby13. Leodwin's jurisdictional privileges are recorded in Coel (no. 5639) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 289; the Leodwin at Kexby is omitted from Coel and Domesday people.
1 SUF 16,36
2 SHR 4,4,19. 4,27,19
3 SUF 5,6
4 ESS 20,25-26;77
5 SUF 25,1
6 ESS 23,4
7 ESS 90,54;64
8 ESS 90,48
9 ESS 90,76
10 SOM 24,13
11 LIN 68,29
12 LIN C3
13 LIN 68,27-28
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA. Leofa is a rare name which occurs once in Hampshire in 1086, once in Somerset at both dates, and once in Huntingdonshire before the Conquest.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF BEERE>. Leofa, who retained a small holding among the king's clerics in Somerset for two decades1, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the other survivor, at Shalfleet in Hampshire. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 14719).
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF SHALFLEET>. Leofa, who held Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight in 1086 from Jocelyn son of Azur2, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the other survivor, at Beere in Somerset. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 6896).
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF WARESLEY>. Leofa, whose manor of Waresley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf3, has no links with his distant namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFEVA <OF LAWFORD>. Leofeva is a fairly common name. Of the six survivors, three occur in Warwickshire, two identified as Leofeva the nun4, whose alms land was subsequently granted to Kenilworth priory: Regesta, iii. no. 418. In these circumstances, it is not unlikely that the third Leofeva, a tenant of Thorkil of Arden at Little Lawford5, is also the nun, though the descent of her holding, held by the Craft family for a fifth of a fee from the earldom of Warwick in the thirteenth century, suggests otherwise: Book of Fees, pp. 508, 957. Although this is not conclusive, Leofeva is here treated as a second individual. She is unidentified in Coel (no. 28385).
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFFLED. Leoffled is an uncommon name. There are single occurrences in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, two each in Berkshire and Shropshire, and three in Colchester and Suffolk, but the name is fairly common in Herefordshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFFLED [* WIFE OF THORKIL *]. As the name is uncommon, all Leoffleds in Herefordshire and Shropshire may be Leoffled wife of Thorkil White (q.v.), named in two late Anglo-Saxon lawsuits: Robertson, Charters, pp. 150-53, 186-87, 399-402, 435. Since the latest date of one of these is 1035, and may be as early as 1016, Leoffled was probably dead by 1086. Her manors were acquired by two tenants-in-chief, Nigel the doctor6 and Hugh the ass7. The lawsuits refer to her husband's manor of Wellington8, acquired by Hugh the ass, who is named elsewhere as Thorkil's successor9, the bulk of Hugh's fief coming from Leoffled and Thorkil. Leoffled also provided half of the fief of Nigel the doctor in Herefordshire, her manors being distributed around those acquired
1 SOM 16,8
2 HAM IoW8,9
3 HUN 23,1
4 WAR B2. 43,1
5 WAR 17,47
6 HEF 7,1-3;5
7 HEF 29,3-8;10;15. SHR 8,1-2
8 HEF 29,11
9 HEF 1,65
by Hugh the ass. Finally, the Letflede (Leodfled) from whom Hugh the ass acquired Hatfield1 may also be Thorkil's wife. Although Leodfled and Leoffled are regarded as different names by von Feilitzen, the former is rare, occurring only once more in Domesday Book, so its occurrence on the fief of Hugh the ass suggests a scribal error: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 309, 311. A list of Leoffled's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 345-46, which does not include those in Shropshire. Dr Clarke ranks Leoffled and her husband fifty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the Shropshire manors were both waste, but the addition of one manor attributed to Thorkil would raise husband and wife a place.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFKETEL. Leofketel is a rare name which occurs only twice, both on pre-Conquest holdings.
........................................................................ counties and the lands of the king and xxx of his tenants-in-chief.............................
LEOFKETEL <OF AUGHTON>. As the name is rare, the Leofketel with four bovates at Aughton in Yorkshire2 may be the Leofketel of Nottinghamshire; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFKETEL <OF MORTON>. As the name is rare, the Leofketel with a small, shared holding at Morton in Nottinghamshire3 may be the Leofketel of Yorkshire; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFMAN <OF SOBERTON>. The Leofmans who held the consecutive manors of Hayling Island and Soberton in Hampshire4 are almost certainly one man. Both manors - twelve miles apart - are fairly substantial, and Leofman was deprived of both of them by King Harold during his brief reign. There are no other Leofmans in Domesday Book.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH. Leofnoth is a very common name which occurs almost 120 times, distributed among twenty-one counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and more than forty of his tenants-in-chief. There are large clusters in Northamptonshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire and smaller ones in Wiltshire and Shropshire; the name is almost entirely absent in eastern England, with none in Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and the three counties of Little Domesday and only two occurrences each in Kent and Yorkshire. Survivors held single manors in Sussex, Northamptonshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire and three in Cornwall.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Almost 90% of the Honour of Ralph son of Hubert came from a Leofnoth or Leofric, evidently his designated predecessors. He acquired Middleton in Derbyshire from Leofnoth and his (unnamed) brother5, the majority of Ralph's holdings in that county having been held jointly by Leofnoth and Leofric6. It is probable therefore that the Leofnoth who preceded Ralph elsewhere in Derbyshire7 and Nottinghamshire1 is the same man, the only
1 HEF 1,11
2 YKS 5W21
3 NTT 9,34
4 HAM 1,12-13
5 DBY 10,16
6 DBY 10,9-15;17;22;24
7 DBY 10,1-7;18-19;21;25;27
Leofnoth in Nottinghamshire, and one of two in Derbyshire. A single Leofnoth in Staffordshire, a post-Conquest landowner, may be him, though there are no links to confirm this. A list of Leofnoth's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 321-22, which includes those given above, apart from dependencies. The brothers are ranked by Dr Clarke forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen. Dr Williams suggests that Leofnoth may be the same man as Leofnoth son of Osmund: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF BRANSTON>. Leofnoth, who held a manor worth £1 at Branston in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln in 10662, has no links with other Leofnoths, and the bishop no other tenant or predecessor of this name.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF CALDY>. All Leofnoths in Cheshire may be one man, the predecessor of Robert of Rhuddlan at Caldy and five other manors in Willaston Hundred and another three in Ati's Cross3, a substantial estate in Cheshire terms, on a par with the assessed land held by Earl Morcar. Leofnoth may also be the Leofnoth who held all or most of the remaining manors, a group clustered around Cogshall, in Tunendune and Bucklow Hundreds, held in 1086 by Earl Hugh4, Richard of Vernon5, William son of Nigel6, and Ranulf Mainwaring7. Richard and Ranulf also acquired Moulton and Winnington in other Hundreds8, the latter a mile from Cogshall. The remaining manor, acquired by William Malbank at Minshull, is twelve miles south of Cogshall. If these manors were held by a second Leofnoth, he would rank fifteenth among pre-Conquest lords; it seems more likely there was one Leofnoth rather than two substantial landowners of that name in a small county. If so, his manorial income - very modest in national terms - would rank him immediately after the king and the earls in the county. See also Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 323; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF VERYAN>. The Leofnoths who held Tredower and Elerkey in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain in 1086, and Halvana in both 1066 and 10869, are probably one man. He is one of two survivors of this name south of the Thames, and one of three who retained the same manor for twenty years. He does not appear to be related to the others, in Sussex and Northamptonshire. There are no pre-Conquest Leofnoths in Cornwall, and Leofnoth has no links with the predecessor of Baldwin the sheriff in Devon. Leofnoth's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1692) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 290.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Although Leofnoth is a common name and Leofnoth's patronymic is supplied only once, his substantial estate in the south Midlands may be largely reconstituted from its tenurial and geographical characteristics. He was a significant predecessor of Walter of Flanders, who acquired his entire fief in Northamptonshire10 and the bulk of his manors
1 NTT 13,6;9;11-12;14
2 LEC 3,14
3 CHS 3,3;5;7-10. FD2,1;3-4
4 CHS 1,36. 26,4
5 CHS 5,4
6 CHS 9,24;26
7 CHS 20,9
8 CHS 5,8. 20,2
9 CON 1,1. 5,24,4-5
10 NTH 39,1-18
in Bedfordshire1 from him. In Bedfordshire, Leofnoth is described as a royal thane in most entries, and so may be the man of King Edward who held the substantial manor of Ellesborough in Buckinghamshire2. The one other Leofnoth in the county, at Wavendon3, was a lord of men and so is perhaps the lord of Ellesborough, named the son of Osmund at Wavendon, this manor lying between those of Walter's predecessor in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. Wavendon is also adjacent to the only other manors in Bedfordshire held by a royal thane named Leofnoth4, which were acquired by another Flemish tenant-in-chief, Walter brother of Sihere, probably the nephew of Walter of Flanders; the estates of uncle and nephew descended together: Farrer, Honors, i. 61, 73-76.
One other manor in Bedfordshire was held by a Leofnoth who was a lord of men, at Carlton5, surrounded by the manors of Osmund's son. Finally, he may be the Leofnoth who held half-a-dozen manors in Northamptonshire. These do not record the lordship detail to aid identification; but the manor at Grimsbury6, held 'with full jurisdiction', devolved upon another of the Flemish tenants-in-chief, Gunfrid of Chocques; and those at Litchborough and Croughton7 were held freely and are adjacent to others held by Osmund's son. One of these devolved upon the Count of Mortain, who acquired another manor from Leofnoth8. That, though, was somewhat apart and modestly endowed. It is also possible, as suggested by Dr Clarke, that Osmund's son is the Leofnoth whose manor at Berkswell in Northamptonshire9 was acquired by the Count of Meulan, in which case he may have held the other manor in Berkswell, recorded in the Warwickshire folios10, along with others nearby acquired by the Count from a Leofnoth11. This Leofnoth held freely; some of his properties were modestly substantial; and two of them were reasonably close to those acquired by Walter of Flanders. There are no other Leofnoths in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire or Warwickshire.
A Leofric son of Osmund is recorded at Tilsworth in Bedfordshire12, and a lease of circa 1050 names Leofric son of Osmund and his brother Leofnoth: Baxter, 'Earls of Mercia', pp. 25-26. On this basis, Dr Williams suggests that the two Domesday sons of Osmund are the brothers named in the lease, who may also be the brothers Leofric and Leofnoth whose considerable estate in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire was acquired by Ralph son of Hubert: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note 66. Though possible, the latter suggestion seems unlikely. Leofric and Leofnoth are common names, of course, and the considerable estate of the predecessors of Ralph son of Hubert was allocated on antecessorial principles, his acquisitions cutting into the territorial blocks allocated to William Peverel and Roger of Bully, suggesting that he was endowed before those blocks were created: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 162. No such characteristics distinguish the southern manors of Leofric and Leofnoth. Of the tenants-in-chief in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire or Warwickshire, only Miles Crispin acquired a significant manor from both a Leofric and a Leofnoth, Whitchurch and Henton in Oxfordshire13 being his only manors from either. On the other hand, Walter of Flanders Leofnoth's principle predecessor on the reconstruction suggested above, had no predecessors named Leofric.
1 BDF 32,1;3-6;8-9
2 BUK 43,1
3 BUK 12,38
4 BDF 33,1-2
5 BDF 24,20
6 NTH 48,11
7 NTH 13,1. 18,64
8 NTH 18,40
9 NTH 19,2
10 WAR 16,27
11 NTH 19,1;3. WAR 16,24;31
12 BDF 22,1
13 OXF 35,9;20
Like many others of his condition, Leofnoth son of Osmund may have survived on a fragment of his former holdings, as a tenant of Walter of Flanders at Plumpton, a manor he had retained for two decades1. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 319-20, which does not include Astwick in Northamptonshire or the Meulan manors other than Berkswell, or that of his man at Carlton in Bedfordshire. Leofnoth is ranked twenty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would not affect this. The tenant at Plumpton is unidentified in Coel (no. 27318).
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* "STERRE" *]. Although Leofnoth is a common name, it is uncommon in the north Midlands, except in Derbyshire. Apart from Leofnoth brother of Leofric, the name occurs once in Staffordshire, twice in Leicestershire, and not at all in Nottinghamshire. In Derbyshire, all Leofnoths apart from Leofric's brother are predecessors Henry of Ferrers or the king2, a distribution which suggests that Henry's predecessors may be Leofnoth Sterre, Henry's predecessor at Breaston3, notwithstanding Dr Fleming's thesis on the allocation of land by wapentakes: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 151-52, 163-65. Of the three royal manors , Marsh is adjacent to Breaston and Leofnoth shared 'Langley' with Ketil, as did Henry's predecessor at Edensor. One of the two Leicestershire Leofnoths was also Henry's predecessor4, so may be the same man. There are no other Leofnoths on Henry's Honour.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC. Leofric is one of the most common names in Anglo-Saxon England, occurring in all but three counties and the lands of more than eighty tenants-in-chief. There are large clusters in Northamptonshire and Suffolk and lesser ones in Devon, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire. English survivors occur in nineteen entries, distributed among thirteen counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. Ralph son of Hubert acquired approximately 90% of his Honour from a Leofnoth or a Leofric, evidently his designated predecessors. As the majority of Ralph's holdings in Derbyshire had been held jointly by Leofnoth and Leofric5, Leofric is presumably the unnamed brother of Leofnoth at Middleton6, which Ralph acquired from the two of them. Leofnoth's brother is very probably also the Leofric who occurs elsewhere on Ralph's fiefs in Derbyshire7, Nottinghamshire8 and Staffordshire9, who may also have held Ingleby in Derbyshire10, where the name of the landowner is omitted. He may also be the predecessor of Nigel of Stafford (q.v.) at Kingsley11, since he preceded Ralph in the same vill, where Nigel was Ralph's tenant12, the only other Leofric in the county. In Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, by contrast, the name occurs frequently; but as it is a common name, and much of the land was allocated by wapentake, it is impossible to determine whether any of these Leofric's are Leofnoth's brother; only one of the manors, however, is valuable.
1 NTH 39,13
2 DBY 1,30;32. 17,21. 6,26;28;34;53;55;101
3 DBY 6,65
4 LEC 14,28
5 DBY 10,9-15;17;22;24
6 DBY 10,16
7 DBY B6. 10,8;20
8 NTT 13,1;3;8;10
9 STS 15,1-2
10 DBY 10,23
11 STS 16,2
12 STS 15,2
Leofric's brother is identified as Leofnoth son of Osmund (q.v.) and a Leofric son of Osmund, predecessor of William Peverel, is recorded at Tilsworth in Bedfordshire1. On this basis, Dr Williams suggests that the Domesday sons of Osmund are the brothers Leofnoth and Leofric sons of Osmund named in a lease of circa 1050 names: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note 66; Baxter, 'Earls of Mercia', pp. 25-26. While not impossible, it seems more likely that William's predecessor is another man since Ralph appears to have been allocated the lands of his predecessors at an early date, before William Peverel was allocated his territorial block in the north: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 162. Peverel's predecessor is therefore likely to be another man. A list of Leofric's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 321-22, which agrees with that above apart from dependencies. The brothers are ranked forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF BOTTESFORD>. Leofric is a common name but it is probable that the Leofrics from whom Robert of Tosny acquired the majority of his manors in Leicestershire2 are one man, the Leofric who held the substantial manor of Bottesford around which the fief clustered and upon which several others were dependent. It is possible that Robert acquired his entire fief in the county from this man, since those entries where he is not named or implied have no recorded pre-Conquest lords. One ambiguous entry names him and three other thanes collectively as holding a group of entries and could imply that Leofric was the overlord of those manors he did not hold directly. Robert of Tosny had another predecessor of this name, at Woolsthorpe in Lincolnshire3, five miles from Bottesford, so perhaps the same man. It is also possible that he is the same man as Leofric the noble, son of Leofwin, despite the ubiquity of their forenames. Both held land in Stathern4, which is approximately half-way between the centres of their respective clusters of manors, at Bottesford and Melton Mowbray; but the name is common in Leicestershire, so Leofric of Bottesford is here treated as another man.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. Although the name Leofric is common, it is likely that the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers on four manors in Derbyshire are one man. Twyford, Stenson and Normanton are adjacent, and Leofric shared a holding with Gamal at Normanton and Tissington5. The fourth holding, at Linton6, is about nine miles from Swepstone in Leicestershire7, held by the one other Leofric on Henry's Honour, perhaps therefore the same man. Twyford is a valuable manor in Litchurch wapentake, most of which was probably allocated to Henry as a block (Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 164), so it is not unlikely that Leofric was the predecessor of other tenants-in-chief, of whom the most likely is William Peverel. However, the name is common and Leofric held manors in two other wapentakes where Henry was not as dominant, so the predecessors of Peverel and Ferrers are here treated as different men.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF WILLOUGHBY>. Guy of Raimbeaucourt acquired the bulk of his Honour from a Leofric, who contributed manors in Leicestershire8, Lincolnshire9, and Northamptonshire1. Those
1 BDF 22,1
2 LEC 15,1-7;15-16
3 LIN 18,27
4 LEC 15,16. 29,18
5 DBY 6,7;86;91
6 DBY 6,19
7 LEC 14,23
8 LEC 23,2;5-6
9 LIN 39,1-4
in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire are all connected to Stanford, and Leofric is the only named predecessor of Guy in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, in both of which counties he had at least one substantial manor. Leofric contributed about 20% of Guy's Honour, perhaps a little more since he may be the unnamed predecessors on Guy's Leicestershire manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Tilsworth in Bedfordshire, held by the royal thane Leofric son of Osmund2, is one of the most valuable manors acquired by William Peverel and practically his entire fief in the county so possibly allocated on an antecessorial basis, in which case William's predecessor at Bolsover, Glapwell, and Shirland in Derbyshire3 may be the same man. Though modest in comparison to Tilsworth these manors are not insignificant by Derbyshire standards and were probably held by one man: Glapwell is three miles from Bolsover and nine from Shirland. A royal thane might be expected to hold more but his name is common and there are no apparent links with unidentified Leofrics on other manors, the most valuable being Willian in Hertfordshire4 and Twyford in Derbyshire, the latter perhaps the more likely since Henry of Ferrers may have acquired Twyford and other manors as part of a block grant of the wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 164. However, as the name is common Henry's predecessor is here treated as another man. It has been suggested that Peverel's predecessor is Leofric, brother of Leofnoth son of Osmund (q.v.), but there are problems with that identification too.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* THE NOBLE SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Geoffrey of la Guerche acquired almost two-thirds of his Honour from Leofric or Leofwin, evidently his designated predecessors. Leofric is described as the son of Leofwin on his Leicestershire manors5, and as Leofric the noble (cilt) in Lincolnshire6. He may have preceded Geoffrey on other manors on his Leicestershire fief, where few predecessors are recorded. He is probably also the Leofric from whom Geoffrey acquired substantial manors in Northamptonshire7 and Nottinghamshire8. Geoffrey of la Guerche married his sister, Aelfeva: VCH Warwickshire, i. 275-76. Father and son are not included in from Clarke, English nobility, where their combined estate would rank them forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFSI. Leofsi is a fairly common name, occurring about forty times, distributed among sixteen counties and the lands of the king and about more than two dozen tenants-in-chief. The name is almost entirely absent in the south-west, and outside Lincolnshire it is rare north of the Wash. One Leofsi survived in Buckinghamshire, another in Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFSI <OF HOLLINGTON>. It is probable that the Leofsis who preceded Henry of Ferrers on modest, shared holdings in the adjacent vills of Hollington and Shirley in Derbyshire9 are one man. There are no other Leofsis on the Ferrers Honour, and the three Leofsis recorded in the six adjacent counties - all in Yorkshire - appear to be unrelated.
1 NTH 41,3;7
2 BDF 22,1
3 DBY 7,1-2;5
4 HRT 34,7
5 LEC 29,3-4;18
6 LIN 63,1
7 NTH 47,1a-1c
8 NTT 19,1
9 DBY 6,42-43
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN. Leofwin is a very common name which occurs roughly 350 times, in every county except in Rutland and on the lands of the king and almost a hundred of his tenants-in-chief, with large clusters in Sussex, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk. Leofwins survived on almost forty manors though the number of individuals holding them is probably less than half that number.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* CAVE *]. Leofwin Chaua, who held Wavendon in Buckinghamshire in both 1066 and 1086, is probably the same man as Leofwin Oaura at Simpson and Leofwin at 'Wanden' during the same two decades1. It is possible that he is to be identified as Leofwin of Nuneham, who also survived on the same manors for twenty years, one of them in Wavendon; but the forename is common in Buckinghamshire so Cave is here treated as another man. Leofwin Chaua, Leofwin Oaura, and Leofwin of Nuneham are recorded as different individuals in Coel (nos. 199, 689, 1651), referenced in Domesday people, p. 290; the Leofwin at 'Wanden' is unidentified (no. 1555).
.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] LEOFWIN. Earl Leofwin is given his title on more than sixty manors in eight counties between Devon and Hertfordshire. Where his title is omitted, his name is so common that he is difficult to identify. Even in the Sussex heartland of the Godwinson family, where Leofwins are thick on the ground, there are few cases where a reasonably secure identification may be suggested. It is likely, for instance, that most if not all of the substantial manors held by a Leofwin in the county2 belonged to the earl, as there are no other identified Leofwins in Sussex; but only at Worthing and Sompting3, where the interdependence of manors and the coincidence of the names of Earl Godwin, Leofwin and Tosti suggest a family interest, is an identification reasonably certain. The Leofwin who held Lancing may also be the earl4, Lancing lying a mile from Sompting, with which it shared an important strategic situation overseeing Shoreham harbour; it is the largest and most valuable manor held by a Leofwin in the county. Applesham, held from Earl Godwin, is another possibility, on similar grounds5. Less certainly, Duncton, Burpham and Streat6, each assessed at more than five hides or £5, may have been his, though not here allocated to him.
Dr Lewis has suggested that Odo succeeded Leofwin as earl in Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire after 1066: 'Early earls', pp. 217-18. Odo was certainly his main successor, acquiring fifteen of his seventeen demesne manors in those counties where he is given his title, and many of those of his men. It is likely, therefore, that he is the Leofwin who preceded Bishop Odo at Islington in Middlesex7, Libury in Hertfordshire8, and on one or more of the manors in Kent held by an unidentified Leofwin. Of these, he is likely to be the Leofwin who held the valuable manor (£12) of Bekesbourne from King Edward9 and perhaps Frinsted10, also held from the king and a few miles from his demesne manors of Leeds and Sutton Valence. He is less likely to be the bishop's predecessor who held Siffleton jointly with Wulfwin, or who shared Pising with five other lords, or held the small manor in the lost vill of Leueberge in the same
1 BUK 57,8-10
2 SUS 11,21;68. 12,40. 13,20;38;43
3 SUS 13,36-40
4 SUS 13,43-44
5 SUS 13,20
6 SUS 11,21;68. 12,40
7 MDX 11,2
8 HRT 5,10
9 KEN 5,122
10 KEN 5,66
Hundred1. Although the bulk of his manors lay in eastern England, Earl Leofwin was also the predecessor of the bishop in Somerset2, so he may be the Leofwin from whom Odo acquired the substantial manor of Rampisham in the neighbouring county of Dorset3, each manor constituting the bishop's fief in that county, probably therefore acquired by antecession. Finally, Count Eustace of Boulogne may have obtained Stanford and Laver4 from the earl, these being by a considerable margin the most valuable manors held by a Leofwin in Essex, and just a few miles apart; Essex was part of Leofwin's earldom: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 67, 303.
A list of the earl's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 200-203, which also attributes Islington, Libury, Rampisham, Stanford and Laver to him, but not the Sussex manors of Applesham, Worthing, Sompting and Lancing, or Bekesbourne and Frinstead in Kent; it does not include his men at Hemel Hempstead and King's Langley in Hertfordshire5. Leofwin is ranked thirteenth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would raise him to twelfth place. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies an almost identical estimate (£283) of his manorial income; the Statistics database total (£321) is higher.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* FATHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Geoffrey of la Guerche acquired almost two-thirds of his Honour from a Leofric or Leofwin, evidently his designated predecessors; he married Leofwin's daughter: Dugdale, Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1; Round, 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', pp. 275-76. Leofwin himself is named as Leofric's father on two of Geoffrey's Leicestershire manors6. He is almost certainly therefore the Leofwin who preceded Geoffrey on his entire fief in Warwickshire7, and probably also Geoffrey's predecessor at Burton-on-the-Wolds in Leicestershire8, and possibly on several other manors on the fief among those where the pre-Conquest lords are not named. He may also be the Leodwin from whom Geoffrey obtained two of his most valuable manors in Lincolnshire9; Geoffrey had no other predecessor with this uncommon name, and philological arguments point to the same conclusion: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', pp. 33-34. He is probably also the Leofwin who preceded Hugh of Grandmesnil at Thurcaston10, which had been held by Geoffrey of la Guerche but was exchanged with the king for other manors11. Father and son are not included in Clarke, English nobility, where their combined estate would rank them forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN <OF ASTON>. Although the name is common, it is likely that the Leofwins who survived among the king's thanes in Derbyshire at Coal Aston and Handley12 are one man, who may be the other survivor in the county, the tenant of Roger of Bully at Beighton, a few miles from Aston, and perhaps also Roger's predecessor at Dore, five miles from Aston13. As it is likely that Leofwin of Aston survived in the area for twenty years, he may be the Leofwin who shared the
1 KEN 5,43;174;189
2 SOM 4,1
3 DOR 4,1
4 ESS 20,43;45
5 HRT 15,10-11
6 LEC 29,3;18
7 WAR 31,1-12
8 LEC 29,14
9 LIN 63,2-5;9;11
10 LEC 13,19
11 LEC 29,1
12 DBY 17,5-6
13 DBY 16,3;5
royal manor of Unstone in 1066 with Edwin who, like Leofwin, was Roger's predecessor at Dore1. Roger had other Leofwins among his predecessors, Leofwin the noble at Breaston2 and a Leofwin at Thrumpton in Nottinghamshire3, either or both conceivably the same man; but the name is common and the Derbyshire manors modest, so the Derbyshire Leofwin is here treated as a separate individual. All three tenants are unidentified in Coel (nos. 32485, 32496-97).
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* OF BARTON *]. Leofwin, who preceded the bishop of Lisieux on his fief in Oxfordshire4, 'can safely be identified' as Leofwin of Barton, who early in the reign of the Confessor witnessed a charter concerning Great Tew, which lies in the same Hundred as the bishop's fief: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', pp. 380-81. Although his name is common, it is not unlikely that Leofwin also held Rodmarton and Lasborough in Gloucestershire5, two of the three manors on the fief of the bishop of Lisieux there; Lasborough and Barton are the most valuable manors held by a Leofwin in either county. The bishop had no other predecessors of this name, and Oxfordshire none who are unidentified. The name is fairly common in Gloucestershire, where the most valuable of other manors held by a Leofwin - Syde, Siddington and Oakley - lie between those of Leofwin of Barton in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire; but the name is common and there are no links to confirm an identity in these cases.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* OF NUNEHAM *]. The Leofwins who held Mursley, Maids Moreton, Beachampton and Wavendon in Buckinghamshire are probably Leofwin of Nuneham, named in the fief heading and on the first manor in the group6 and as holding five burgesses in the county town at Drayton Parslow before the Conquest7. He held the very valuable manor of Nuneham Courtney8 which he granted it to Abingdon abbey with the approval of Odo of Bayeux; but the Conqueror seized it after Odo's disgrace and granted to another landowner, presumably Richard of Courcy, who held it in 1086: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 12-13. He may also be the Leofwin who retained his three valuable manors in Oxfordshire during the same two decades9, and is possibly the man here identified as Leofwin Cave, another survivor on his pre-Conquest manors in Buckinghamshire, one of which lay in Wavendon, alongside that of Leofwin of Nuneham. Dr Williams suggests he may be the one other survivor in the county, a tenant of Roger of Ivry at Beachampton10, where one of Leofwin of Nuneham's manors lay, and possibly the Leofwin Doda whose manor at Wilmcote in Warwickshire acquired by Osbern son of Richard, who also obtained one of his manors from Leofwin of Nuneham's mother11: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 117-18. Leofwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 689) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 290, apart from the Oxfordshire manors, assigned to two other men (nos. 28081, 28088), and Beachampton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1484).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 DBY 1,9. 16,4
2 DBY 16,1
3 NTT 9,79
4 OXF 8,1-4
5 GLS 30,1-2
6 BUK 57,1-5
7 BUK B13. 40,1
8 OXF 32,1
9 OXF 58,24-25;30
10 BUK 41,5
11 WAR 37,2;9
LEOFWIN [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Leofwin, who held land in Leominster in 10861, is very probably Leofwin the interpreter, named in two other entries, where he held 'as much land in Leominster as is worth 25s' in one, and land at Yarpole in the same manor2. He may also be Roger of Lacy's tenant at Mawfield3 and his predecessor at Heath and Yarsop4, the only other Leofwins in the county. Roger of Lacy had a significant presence on the royal fief, in particular on components of the manor of Leominster5, and in that context the absence of Leofwins on all fiefs in the county other than his own may be significant. Roger had predecessors (though not tenants) of this name in Berkshire and Gloucestershire, but the name is a common one. There are no more surviving Leofwins in adjacent counties.
................................................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* THE NOBLE OF BACTON *]. The Leofwins whose respectable manors of Purleigh and Colne Engaine in Essex were acquired by Walter the deacon are probably Leofwin the noble, his predecessor on a second, more valuable manor in Purleigh6; Walter's Honour was modest and his predecessors few. Leofwin cilt also held the substantial manor of Helions Bumpstead in Essex7 and Ulverston in Suffolk8, where he is also named as a free man, as at Wickham Market9 in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 146). Most of the Honour of Walter the deacon lay in Suffolk, where he had six named predecessors, three of the Leofwins having manors sufficiently valuable to suggest they are the noble Leofwin. At Milden, Leofwin is described as a royal thane named Leofwin of Bacton, so he is evidently the Leofwin who held the valuable manor of Bacton and its dependency10, the most valuable of his holdings, where he is described as a free man of Earl Harold. He is perhaps also Walter's predecessor at Akenham, Wintesham and Bruntuna11, which lay within a few miles of Leofwin cilt's manor of Ulverston. Leofwin of Bacton was also the overlord of men acquired by Robert Malet12. Several other Leofwins held valuable manors in the two counties, one of them a royal thane at Ingham in Suffolk13, a predecessor of Roger of Poitou who may be the same man as his predecessor Leofwin Croc on other valuable manors in Essex and Suffolk; but there are no specific links to connect him with Walter's predecessor.
.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* THE NOBLE OF CADDINGTON *]. Leofwin the noble, who held Kensworth and (probably) Caddington in Hertfordshire14 and Caddington, Streatley, Beeston and Meppershall in Bedfordshire15, is probably Leofwin of Caddington, whose father bequeathed him land in three of those vills: Fowler, 'Some Saxon charters', pp. 53-54; Keynes, 'Lost cartulary of St Albans', pp. 275-79. Leofwin the noble is described as a royal thane on three of these manors so may be the royal thane Leofwin elsewhere in the area. This was almost certainly the case at Meppershall, where the vill was split (as was Caddington) by the county boundary, both halves being acquired by
1 HEF 1,38
2 HEF 1,10c;36
3 HEF 10,31
4 HEF 10,13;59
5 HEF 1,3;5;8;10b-10c;15;18;38
6 ESS 42,2;4;6
7 ESS 38,4
8 SUF 16,30
9 SUF 16,4
10 SUF 41,7-8;10
11 SUF 41,5;15;17
12 SUF 6,212;217
13 SUF 8,32
14 HRT 13,1-2
15 BDF 12,1. 24,18. 25,14. 48,1
Gilbert son of Solomon1. Walter of Flanders succeeded the royal thane on five manors in Bedfordshire2; he also acquired three manors in Hertfordshire, on the first and most valuable of which Leofwin is described as a man of Earl Harold3. William of Auberville4, Geoffrey de Mandeville5, Walter Giffard6, Nigel of Aubigny7 and William Speke8 all succeeded to manors of the royal thane, and Peter of Valognes9 and Ralph Tallboys' daughter10 to those of Earl Harold's man. Nigel of Aubigny, who acquired the land of one of Leofwin's men11, also obtained Millbrook from Godwin son of Leofwin12, possibly Leofwin of Caddington's son. Of these nine tenants-in-chief, only Geoffrey de Mandeville had a predecessor named Leofwin elsewhere; Nigel had no other predecessor named Godwin.
The only other manors held by a Leofwin in these two counties were at Clifton and Totternhoe in Bedfordshire13 and Boarscroft and Bozen in Hertfordshire14. Clifton is surrounded by the manors mentioned above, and Totternhoe is six miles from Caddington, so both may have been held by Leofwin of Caddington, particularly the valuable manor of Totternhoe, even though Leofwin is there described as Earl Waltheof's man. As Fowler pointed out, the unidentified 'Puttanho' in the will of Leofwin of Caddington's father is a likely scribal error for Totternhoe, 'by the common mistake of p for Þ, Thotenho being a known early spelling of this name': Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 105. Bozen, on the other hand, is unlikely to have been his, as it is tiny and in the lordship of Godwin of Benfield. Clifton and Boarscroft raise an intriguing possibility, as both were still held by Leofwin in 1086, Boarscroft held 'at a revenue' from the tenant-in-chief who superseded him. Perhaps, as Fowler suggested, this is another example of an English magnate clinging to a fragment of his previous estate: Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 105; Abels, 'Introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', p. 36.
A royal thane named Leofwin held Ingham in Suffolk15 but has no tenurial or other links with Leofwin of Caddington; and Leofwin the noble occurs in Essex, Suffolk, Shropshire and Derbyshire. Stenton was of the opinion that the title cilt was 'unlikely to have been applied to two different persons of the same name', identifying Leofwin the noble in Derbyshire16 as Leofwin of Caddington on that basis: VCH Derbyshire, i. 322. As there are no links other than the title cilt, there is no way of testing Stenton's suggestion, though the concentration of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire manors and the ubiquity of the name Leofwin suggests that more than one noble Leofwin is the more likely situation. If the identifications suggested above are valid, Leofwin's estate was worth £100, which would rank him among the fifty wealthiest landowners in England, in the top forty untitled laymen, if included in Clarke, English nobility.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HRT 40,1
2 BDF 32,10;12-15
3 HRT 30,1-3
4 HRT 29,1
5 HRT 33,2
6 BUK 14,42
7 BDF 24,18
8 BDF 25,14
9 HRT 36,11
10 HRT 44,1
11 BDF 24,25
12 BDF 24,9
13 BDF 8,6. 40,3
14 HRT 15,8. 20,12
15 SUF 8,32
16 DBY 6,29. 16,1
LEOFWIN [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. Most if not all Leofwins in Warwickshire may be one man. The Leofwins at Flecknoe and Fillongley in Warwickshire1 and Kemerton and Oridge in Gloucestershire2 have been identified as an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, named at Alveston3 as a son of Brictwin, Thorkil's grandfather: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 282-83, 288, 291, 293-94. All of these manors were held in 1086, but the Alverton text reveals that Leofwin was also a landowner twenty years previously. He may therefore be both the tenant and predecessor of the Count of Meulan in Warwickshire, where Thorkil and the Count shared other predecessors and tenants. The Count acquired Harbury and Cubbington from Leofwin4, Harbury being a 'family' vill identified by Dr Williams and Cubbington shared with another member of his family. The Count's tenant at Shuttington5 has Thorkil as a neighbour at Ermendone and Syerscote, two and four miles respectively on either side of Shuttington. The Count's predecessors at Milverton, Bourton and Shuckburgh6 are not as clearly linked; but Bourton is valuable and since these are all but one of the remaining unidentified Leofwins in the county, it is not unlikely they are Thorkil's uncle. The Count also had a predecessor named Leofwin in Leicestershire; but the name is common and Thorkil's family appears to have no associations with the county, or with the one remaining Leofwin in Warwickshire7. The tenants on one manor in Flecknoe and at Fillongley and Shuttington are identified as a kinsman of Thorkil in Coel (no. 9858) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291, those on the other manors in Flecknoe being unidentified (nos. 28594-95); the Gloucestershire subtenancies are not recorded.
.............................................................................................................................................
LISOIS [* OF MOUTIERS *]. All men named Lisois - at Beeston in Bedfordshire8, Mundon in Essex9, Lakenheath in Suffolk10, and on six manors in Norfolk11 - are almost certainly Lisois of Moutiers, named at Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire12. All ten manors were acquired by Eudo the steward (q.v.), Lisois' named predecessor on three of them; a fourth, at Beeston, is stated to be 'not of Lisois Holding', impugning Eudo's title and emphasising Lisois' status as as official predecessor. J.H. Round suggested that the Leofsi who preceded Eudo at Harlow in Essex13 is a corruption of Lisois, which is likely given that he, like Lisois, gave title to Eudo in circumstances involving dubious additions to his manors: 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 492. No other Leofsi appears as an intermediate landowner or is involved in claims in Domesday Book. As an intermediate landowner, Lisois is not included in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.
.............................................................................................................................................
LOSOARD <OF ROLLESTON>. All Losoards in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man, tenant of the bishop of Bayeux at Barnby, Coddington and Rolleston in Nottinghamshire14 and Hemswell, Tealby and Rigsby in Lincolnshire15. He was a delinquent taxpayer16 and his men
1 WAR 3,7. 5,1. 44,11-12
2 GLS 19,2
3 WAR 3,4
4 WAR 16,7;53
5 WAR 16,22
6 WAR 16,2;30;32
7 WAR 4,1
8 BDF 21,13
9 ESS 25,5
10 SUF 28,2
11 NFK 24,1-4;6. 66,100
12 CAM 25,9
13 ESS 25,2
14 NTT 7,2-3;5
15 LIN 4,8;41;61-64
16 LIN C20
imposed a new toll in Grimsby, though Losoard denied it was done with his authority1. He claimed land in Well against Gilbert of Ghent apparently granted him by bishop Odo, but the jury expressed scepticism as to Odo's right to it. By the date of the Lindsey Survey (15/6), Losoard's son, Richard, held Rigsby from the Honour of Richmond, his descendants, the Nevilles of Pickhill, owing castle-guard at Richmond for Rigsby and Rolleston: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 153-57; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 66-67. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2994) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291.
............................................................................................................................................. LUDI <OF ASHFORD>. Ludi is a rare name which occurs twice, once at Marston Stannett in Herefordshire2 and once at Huntingdon in Shropshire3. Although the manors are modest, almost forty miles apart, and acquired by different tenants-in-chief, it is not unlikely they were held by one man. More certainly, the Shropshire Ludi is probably the same man as Lethi at Ashford Carbonnell, immediately adjacent to Huntingdon, though this was acquired by a third tenant-in-chief and the name is believed to be of different origin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 319, 321. As Dr Lewis has observed, 'the likelihood that Ludi and Lethi were different men, bearing virtually unique but extraordinarily similar forenames, and holding adjoining manors, must be regarded as slim': 'Introduction to the Shropshire Domesday', p. 20. A Lodi - perhaps the same name as Ludi - who held a hide at Moulsoe in Buckinghamshire4, has no apparent connection. ............................................................................................................................................. LUDO [* OF VRED *]. All Ludos in Domesday Book are probably one man. Both his manors in Somerset5, and six of his eight in Devon6, were held from Walter of Douai, a seventh being held 'wrongfully with Walter's' land on the fief of Odo son of Gamalin7. His eighth manor, acquired by Gotshelm at Farway8, is ten miles south of a cluster of four of the other manors. Ludo is named in the Glastonbury cartulary Ludo de Utreto, which Dr Keats-Rohan suggests 'is perhaps poor orthography for Vred (Veretum)', nine miles east of Douai. Ludo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 978) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291. ............................................................................................................................................. LUDRIC. Ludric is a rare name which occurs three times, in as many counties, as predecessors of as many tenants-in-chief. .............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC <OF FULSCOT>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Fulscot in Berkshire9 was acquired by Roger son of Seifrid, has no links with either of his namesakes in Herefordshire or Warwickshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 LIN CN14
2 HEF 32,1
3 SHR 4,11,2
4 BUK 14,45
5 SOM 24,12;22
6 DEV 23,13;17-20;22
7 DEV 42,16
8 DEV 25,23
9 BRK 49,2
LUDRIC <OF HILLBOROUGH>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Hillborough in Warwickshire was acquired by Osbern son of Richard1, has no links with either of his namesakes in Berkshire or Herefordshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.
.............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC <OF YAZOR>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Yazor in Herefordshire was acquired by Roger of Lacy2, has no links with either of his namesakes in Berkshire or Warwickshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.
.............................................................................................................................................
"LUNEN" <OF GLATTON>. Lunen is a rare name which occurs twice, once as the tenant of the entire fief of Count Eustace in Huntingdonshire3, a second time as a tenant of the abbey of Ramsey at Great Gidding4, three miles from the substantial manor of Glatton5, the centre of the Count's fief. Gidding and Glatton were in the hands of their tenants-in-chief again in the twelfth century, so their descent offers no guide to the identity of the Domesday tenants: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. 50, 141, 178, 218. As the name is rare and its distribution narrowly restricted, however, it is improbable there was more than one Lunen. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3703) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 292.
.............................................................................................................................................
LUSTWIN <OF OTLEY>. The six Lustwins in Domesday Book are likely to be one man, who may be the father of Thorsten son of Wine, an East Anglian magnate whose widow Aelgyth (q.v.) held several manors in Domesday bequeathed to her by her husband. A Lustwin named in Thorsten's will is possibly Thorsten's father, Wine being a short-form of Lustwin: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 78-85, 197-99. It seems likely that he is related to the Domesday Lustwin, though whether he is Thorsten's father is uncertain. All his manors are in Suffolk, though none of them in the vills named in Thorsten's will, or nearby. There is little reason to doubt, however, that they are held by one man, though in the hands of four tenants-in-chief in 1086. All are in south-east Suffolk. Both the predecessors of Robert Malet6 and Humphrey the chamberlain7 were under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield, Roger of Poitou's under Wihtgar son of Aelfric (whose son witnessed Thorsten's will) and Ely abbey, which received several bequests in the will8 and declares Lustwin a 'friend of ours' in the Book of Ely: Liber Eliensis (ed. Fairweather), pp. 187-89. Robert Malet's predecessor also had associations with Ely, as did the sixth Lustwin, Roger Bigot's predecessor at Ringshall9.
.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS. Maccus is a rare name which occurs once in Cornwall, twice in Yorkshire and three times in Lincolnshire, as a predecessor of four tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 WAR 37,5
2 HEF 10,58
3 HUN 9,1-4
4 HUN 6,21
5 HUN 9,4
6 SUF 6,118;184
7 SUF 52,1
8 SUF 8,12;66
9 SUF 7,56
MACCUS <OF COCKERINGTON>. Maccus, whose manors at Cockerington, Cadeby and Kelstern in Lincolnshire were acquired by Alfred of Lincoln1, is probably the same man in each case. He is the only Maccus in the county and his manors form a tight cluster in 'Louthesk' wapentake. He has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare, he is possibly the Maccus at Preston in Holderness.
.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF FURSNEWTH>. Maccus, who held Fursnewth in Cornwall from the Canons of St Petroc between 1066 and 10862, is the only survivor of this name. He has no links with his namesakes in northern England. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1707) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 292.
.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF OUSEBURN>. Maccus, whose manor of Ouseburn in Yorkshire was acquired by Maelcolumban3, has no links with his namesakes; but as the name is rare, he may be the same man as the Maccus at Preston and, if so, also the Lincolnshire Maccus.
.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF PRESTON>. Maccus, who shared the manor at Preston in Yorkshire acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière with seven other thanes4, has no links with his namesakes; but as the name is rare, he may be the same man as those in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, his manor lying roughly midway between theirs.
.............................................................................................................................................
"MACHEL" <OF COCKERMOUTH. The English lords with the obscure names of Machel and Machern whose modest manors in Lancashire were acquired by Roger of Poitou5 are almost certainly the same man. Their names are otherwise unknown and their manors four miles apart: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 323.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAGNI. Magni is a rare forename which occurs three times. It may be the same name as Manni, another rare name, though the two are regarded as being distinct but 'occasionally ... confused' in Domesday: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 323-24.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAGNI <OF WARESLEY>. Magni, whose shared manor at Waresley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf6, has no links with his namesake in Suffolk.
.............................................................................................................................................
MANASSEH [* THE COOK *]. All men named Manasseh in Domesday Book are probably Manasseh the cook, so named in the Geld Roll for Brunsell Hundred in Dorset, where his manor of Stalbridge lay7: VCH Dorset, iii. 141-42. It is likely that he died at about the date of the Geld Rolls and the Domesday Survey since three manors in Somerset attributed to him in the Geld Roll for
1 LIN 27,25;27-29;33
2 CON 4,17,1
3 YKS 29W14
4 YKS 14E48
5 YKS 30W38-39
6 HUN 23,1
7 DOR 3,6
Somerset were held by his wife in Domesday Book1: VCH Somerset, i. 530-31. He is probably therefore the Manasseh who bought Bletchingdon in Oxfordshire without the king's permission but did not hold it in 1086, his son retaining a messuage in Oxford attached to Bletchingdon2. No other Manassehs are recorded in Domesday Book. Manasseh's manors, with those of his wife and son, are recorded in Coel (nos. 1904, 992, 4744) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 294-95, where it is suggested that he or his son may be the Manasseh Arsic who succeeded to the barony of Wadard of Cogges (q.v.). If the identification suggested above is correct, as seems likely, Manasseh the cook died before Wadard so cannot be Manasseh Arsic; the name of the cook's son is unknown.
.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED. Manfred is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among three counties as tenants on the fiefs of four tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED <OF CHUBWORTHY>. As the name is rare, it is very probable that the Manfreds who held three manors in Somerset from William of Mohun3 are one man, who may also be the tenant of William the goat at Colebrook in Devon4, twenty-five miles to the south; the one other Manfred, over 200 miles away, is unlikely to be the same man. Manfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8110) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293
.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED <OF THORPE>. As the name is rare, the tenant of Ralph of Limésy at Thorpe and its dependency in Nottinghamshire5 is probably also the tenant of Ilbert of Lacy in the adjacent vill of East Stoke6. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8782) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293.
.............................................................................................................................................
MANNI. Manni is a rare forename which occurs six times, seven if Manno in Somerset7 is taken as the same name. It may be the same name as Magni, another rare name, though the two are regarded as being distinct but 'occasionally ... confused' in Domesday: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 323-24.
.............................................................................................................................................
MANNI [* SWART *]. As his name is rare and occurs only in Suffolk, it is likely that the Manni who held the respectable manors of Mells and Yoxford acquired by Robert of Tosny8 is Manni Swart, predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany on the substantial manors of Cowlinge and Bramfield9. Bramfield lies between Mells and Yoxford, a few miles from either. As the only Manni with demesne manors, Manni Swart is probably the overlord of an Ali on two Suffolk manors10. There are no other Mannis in Domesday Book unless Manno in Somerset be one11; but as the name Magni is even rarer, Manni Swart is very probably the Magni Swart whose valuable manor of
1 SOM 6,1. 46,24-25
2 OXF B9. 58,27
3 SOM 25,14;40;47
4 DEV 19,23
5 NTT 14,7-8
6 NTT 20,3
7 SOM 25,22
8 SUF 44,3-4
9 SUF 3,1;3
10 SUF 7,19;54
11 SOM 25,22
Chessington in Surrey was acquired by Miles Crispin1, particularly as the one other manor on Miles' fief was probably held by Manni's son, Ulf, Miles acquiring the fief by antecession. Ulf son of Manni (q.v.) also held a manor alongside his father in Suffolk. Finally, he may be the one other Magni in East Anglia, who shared land worth eight shillings at Benhall in Suffolk with six other free men. The status of this holding suggests otherwise; but is was acquired by Magni Swart's predecessor, Count Alan of Brittany2, and important pre-Conquest landowners are to be found elsewhere in East Anglia included by the scribe among groups of free men on small plots of a similar nature.
.............................................................................................................................................
MARTIN <OF WOUGHTON>. Martin is a rare name, borne by two tenants-in-chief on modest fiefs - a single manor at Woughton in Buckinghamshire3 and a fief in Lincolnshire worth less than Woughton4. A Martin also held one small pre-Conquest manor at Walgrave in Northamptonshire5. As Round observed, the tenancies-in-chief were 'probably' held by one man, despite the absence of 'even a common tenure by an English predecessor to account for his lands lying thus far apart': 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', p. 215. It may be that the English lord of Walgrave is the link between them, Walgrave lying roughly a third of the distance from Woughton to the Lincolnshire manors, in a straight line. If so, then Martin had prospered from humble beginnings. He was not succeeded by English descendants. By the date of Lindsey Survey, his manors were in the hands of magnates who were evidently not his direct descendants (2/4;11;18-19), as was Woughton when next recorded: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 515. Martin's tenancies-in-chief are recorded in Coel (no. 1604) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 295-96.
.............................................................................................................................................
MATILDA. Apart from one reference to the queen's daughter Matilda6 and a single tenant in Somerset7, only the Conqueror's wife bore this name after the Conquest; the name occurs on three pre-Conquest manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* QUEEN *] MATILDA. The numerous post-Conquest references to the queen, or the king's wife, refer the Conqueror's queen, Matilda, who died in 1083 though still represented in Domesday Book as holding a fief in Buckinghamshire and manors in several counties three years later. Queen Edith, the Confessor's wife, who died in 1075, appears never to be referred to simply as 'the queen' after 1066, her forename being supplied, though an entry in Lincolnshire is arguably ambiguous8. As an intermediate landowner, Matilda's manors are not included in the Statistics database; Coel (no. 874) credits her with the escheated Buckinghamshire fief and 'premiums' paid to the queen in Bedfordshire, Warwickshire and Norfolk, referenced in Domesday people, pp. 296-97.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER. Mauger is a fairly common name which occurs more than forty times, distributed among thirteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of fourteen tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners. There is a cluster in Somerset and a smaller one in Essex.
1 SUR 29,2
2 SUF 3,101
3 BUK 47,1
4 LIN 45,1-4
5 NTH 18,79
6 HAM 67,1
7 SOM 17,8
8 LIN 68,24
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF ALVERTON>. Mauger, who held a jurisdiction of Staunton[-in-the-Vale from William of Aincourt in Nottinghamshire1, is the only Mauger in the county or on the Aincourt Honour. It is unlikely he held land elsewhere, his namesakes in the northern counties being identified with reasonable confidence. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER [* OF CARTERET *]. As all Maugers in Dorset2, Somerset3 and Devon are tenants of the Count of Mortain, who had no such tenants elsewhere on his extensive Honour, they are almost certainly one man, Mauger of Carteret, named by Exon. on the Count's fiefs at Donningstone in Devon4 and Clapton in Somerset5. Mauger also held Barton St David in the county on his own account, where his byname is supplied6. He may have been the father of Drogo and Humphrey of Carteret (q.v.), important tenants in the south-western counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 612) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF EDLINGTON>. The six Maugers in Yorkshire are almost certainly one man. Five are tenants of William of Percy7, their lands later forming part of the Vavasour fee on the Percy Honour: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 118-37; Early Yorkshire families, p. 95. The fee included a tenancy in Hessle (in the West Riding) held from the Lacy Honour, Ilbert of Lacy's tenant at Hessle in 1086 being the sixth Mauger in the county8. Hessle was probably granted to Ilbert because it was in the heart of his Honour of Pontefract, where no other lay tenant-in-chief held land. Neither Ilbert or William of Percy had other Maugers on their Honours. Mauger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4629) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF GOSBERTON>. As the tenants of the bishop of Lincoln at Grayingham, Messingham, Wyham and Gosberton Cheal in Lincolnshire are the only Maugers in the county9, they are probably one man; the bishop had no Maugers among his tenants elsewhere. Mauger was succeeded by his son Richard at Grayingham by the date of the Lindsey Survey, Messingham and Wyham being apparently without tenants (1/11. 4/4. 10/2); the tenancies were in several different hands by the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 194, 1075. Mauger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2997) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.
.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF ILKESTON>. It is all but certain that the Maugers who held the substantial manor of Ilkeston and the adjacent manor of Shipley in Derbyshire from Gilbert of Ghent10 are one man. The two manors form Gilbert's entire fief and there are no other Maugers in Derbyshire; Gilbert had no other Maugers on his Honour. Mauger is presumably the man who granted land at Reighton in
1 NTT 11,3
2 DOR 26,34;60
3 SOM 1,12. 19,2-3;11;16-19;48;59
4 DEV 15,57
5 SOM 19,68
6 SOM 46,21
7 YKS 13W2-4;8-9
8 YKS 9W53
9 LIN 7,16-17;24-25;34-37
10 DBY 13,1-2
East Yorkshire to Gilbert's foundation of Bridlington priory, c. 1114: Regesta, iii. no. 119. According to evidence cited by Dr Keats-Rohan, his heir was probably his daughter, Emma, who married into the Tison family: Early Yorkshire charters, xii. 4-8. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2989) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN. Merewin is a rare name which occurs on seven manors, distributed among the lands of as many tenants-in-chief and five counties between Surrey and Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF BAYSHAM>. As the name is rare, the Merewins at Baysham and Mathon in Herefordshire may be one man, described as Earl Oda's thane at Mathon, acquired by Roger of Lacy1. On similar grounds, he is possibly the Merewin at Hillmorton in Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF FYLING>. Merewin, whose small holding at Fyling in Yorkshire was acquired by William of Percy2, has no links with his namesakes, all of whom are remote.
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF HASLINGFIELD>. Merewin, whose tiny holding of twelve acres at Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany3, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom hold land in adjacent counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF HILLMORTON>. As the name is rare, the Merewins at Hillmorton and Grafton in Warwickshire may be one man, particularly as he shared both with a Scroti, an even rarer name, found only in Warwickshire4. He is the only surviving Merewin, finding refuge on the fief of the Count of Meulan, like many other Englishmen. It is just possible that he is the same man as the Merewin at Baysham in Herefordshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28307).
.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF THORNCROFT>. Merewin, whose hide and plough at Thorncroft in Surrey were acquired by Richard of Tonbridge5, is the only Merewin south of the Thames; he has no links with his distant namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
MERLESWEIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. It is probable that all Merlesweins in Domesday Book are one man, Merleswein the sheriff. He is named as sheriff6 and a designated predecessor of Ralph Paynel in the Claims for Lincolnshire7, those for Yorkshire also implying that he is Ralph's recognised predecessor8. As he is named sheriff in the Lincolnshire folios, he is usually assumed to
1 HEF 1,54. 10,39
2 YKS 13N1
3 CAM 14,38
4 WAR 16,35. 37,7
5 SUR 19,39
6 LIN CW12
7 LIN CK5;31
8 YKS CW38
be sheriff of that county, though it would make more sense if he were sheriff of Yorkshire, where the political weight of a magnate-sheriff was needed; if so, he was followed in that post by his successor Ralph Paynel: Green, English sheriffs, p. 89. He was one of only five magnates who had full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues in the county1; and a late tradition states that he was given an official position in the north by Harold in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge: Walker, Harold, p. 142.
Merleswein is a classic case of an English lord supplying title to a Norman baron. Virtually the entire Honour of Ralph Paynel came from him: all Ralph's land in Somerset2, Devon3, Gloucestershire4, Yorkshire5, and Lincolnshire6. The few apparent exceptions can be explained. Ralph's manor at Sandburn in Yorkshire was illegally acquired according to the Canons of York7, as was Burton-le-Coggles in Lincolnshire, previously held by Earl Morcar according to the Lincolnshire Claims8; while those at Broughton and Scawby9, previously held by Grimkel, had in fact been in Merleswein's possession in 1066, granted to him by Grimkel in an attempt to evade forfeiture10. Ralph's one other manor, at East Carlton in Northamptonshire11, where his predecessor was a Thorkil, may be the exception proving the rule; but it is also possible that Merleswein was Thorkil's unnamed overlord, overlords not normally being recorded in the circuit in which Northamptonshire lay. Those manors of Merleswein which did not devolve upon Ralph Paynel were those which intruded into the territorial blocks allocated to others: the Count of Mortain's Cornish fiefdom12, Count Alan's honour of Richmond13, the royal manor of South Petherton14, and Walter of Douai's fief in north Somerset15, east of the river Parrett, the Paynel manors lying to the west. There is little reason to doubt that these too were held by the sheriff rather than other well-endowed Merlesweins, all apart from the Cornish manors lying in counties in which the sheriff had a significant presence. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 322-24, which does not include Tarlton in Gloucestershire16 Pillaton in Cornwall17 or others without valuations. Dr Clarke ranks him eighteenth in wealth among the nobility, eighth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him one place in each case. .............................................................................................................................................
MILES. Although Miles is a common name, it is very rare in the sense that it was borne by a small numbers of individuals, possibly only three, the few who are unidentified probably being one of the three accorded bynames; all are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 YKS C36
2 SOM 31,1-5
3 DEV 32,1-10
4 GLS 44,1
5 YKS 16E1-5. 16N1-2. 16W1-6
6 LIN C5. 35,1-17
7 YKS C25
8 LIN 35,13. CK5
9 LIN 35,2;16
10 LIN CW12
11 NTH 31,1
12 CON 5,1,1-2;10. 5,2,18. 5,3,20;24. 5,4,5. 5,17,4. 5,24,4
13 YKS 6N151
14 SOM 1,4
15 SOM 24,21-23;29
16 GLS 44,1
17 CON 5,2,18
MILES [* CRISPIN *]. Miles, who held twenty messuages in Wallingford, is identified as Miles Crispin by their dependence on his manor of Newnham Murren in Oxfordshire1. He is probably also the Miles on an anonymous manor in Kingsclere Hundred in Hampshire2, identified by his relationship with Wigot of Wallingford (q.v.), whose granddaughter and heiress he probably married: Sanders, English baronies, p. 93. Miles was lord of Wallingford, sometimes named Miles of Wallingford: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 16-19. He may also have been known as Miles Molay, the reference to whose lands in Wallingford3 may refer to his messuages attached to Newnham Murren. Dr Keats-Rohan, however, suggests that Molay may be another man, whose family occurs in Wallingford records in the twelfth century (no reference supplied). Miles' manors are recorded in Coel (no. 168) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 297-98; that of Molay separately (no. 369).
.............................................................................................................................................
MILES [* DE "BELEFOL" *]. As the name is rare, it likely that the tenants of Roger of Rames at Stonham Aspal and Coddenham in Suffolk4 are Miles de Belefol, Roger's tenant at Otley5. There are no other men of this name in eastern England or on Roger's Honour. Miles' manors are recorded in Coel (no. 424) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 298.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR. The name Morcar occurs frequently but is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by no more than half-a-dozen individuals. As all unidentified Morcars occur in Mercian counties, it is likely that the majority were Earl Morcar. Survivors held four manors, three in Buckinghamshire and one Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] MORCAR. In the Midlands, the manors of Morcar at Saltby in Leicestershire6, Alfreton in Derbyshire7 and Gunthorpe and Elton in Nottinghamshire8 were acquired by Roger of Bully and probably therefore from a single predecessor, likely to be the earl in view the substantial scale of Saltby (£9) and Gunthope (£15). He may also be the Morcar at Newbound9. This devolved upon William Peverel; but since he had a block grant of most of Broxtowe wapentake, the tenurial factor is probably not significant: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 148. Neither Bully or Peverel had other Morcars on their Honours. The son of Aelfeva at Warkton in Northamptonshire10 is almost certainly the earl; another Morcar with a mother of that name is improbable.
The majority of unidentified Morcars occur in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. In Yorkshire, where Morcar is never accorded his title, there can be little doubt that he held the royal manors11 and had 'full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues' in the county12. He is almost certainly the Morcar whose manors were acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière13, some of their valuations - £56 - implying royal or comital origins. Similar considerations apply to those acquired
1 BRK B2. OXF 35,11
2 HAM 69,40
3 BRK B8
4 SUF 38,6;19-20
5 SUF 38,25
6 LEC 18,3
7 DBY 16,7
8 NTT 9,74-75;110
9 NTT 10,18-19
10 NTH 8,13
11 YKS 1Y1;4;6-11;14
12 YKS C36
13 YKS 14E2;4-7;9-10
by the bishop of Durham1 and, less certainly, to those of Count Alan of Brittany2. The remainder were dependencies of these manors3, apart from those allocated to Morcar of Smeaton.
In Lincolnshire, the Morcar who received the third penny is evidently the earl4. As in Yorkshire, the bulk of his manors were retained by the king, or devolved upon the bishop of Durham and Drogo of la Beuvrière. For the most part, his title is supplied; but where it is not, the status of such manors as Wellingore, Carlton, Bytham and others5 suggest the earl, and it is in any case highly improbable that either the bishop or Drogo had two predecessors with this rare name. Two other tenants-in-chief acquired manors from a Morcar, Alfred of Lincoln6 and Countess Judith7. The status of Judith's manor suggests the earl, while those of Alfred cluster just a few miles to the east of the earl's manors of Keelby, Limber and Habrough and his large manor of Caistor8. The Lincolnshire Claims record a conflict of interest between Drogo and Alfred involving Morcar9; and the will of Ulf and Madselin reveals that all three tenants-in-chief had an interest in Ulf's estate, both circumstances consistent with the predecessors of Drogo and Alfred being the same man: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, no. 39, pp. 95-97;207-12. Ulf's will reveals that Countess Judith also had an interest in his estate, though not in its Lincolnshire manors.
A list of the manors of the earl and his men is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 215-17, which does not include Dorney in Buckinghamshire10 or the manors of Count Alan here attributed to Earl Morcar. Morcar is ranked second in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would not affect this. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 129, lists other estimates of his manorial income, his own being considerably higher than others; the Statistics database total (£987) is closer to that of Dr Clarke. Edwin was the son of Earl Algar (d. c. 1062) and brother of Earl Edwin (q.v.); his career is documented by Dr Baxter (pp. 48-57).
.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF BURSTON>. As the name is rare, the two free men of Edric of Laxfield at Burston in Norfolk11 and Burgate in Suffolk12 are probably the same Morcar; the vills are some seven miles apart. He has no links with other Morcars outside East Anglia.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF CLIFTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Buckinghamshire tenants of the bishop of Coutances at Clifton13 and of Countess Judith at Hardmead and Broughton14 are one man. Clifton Reynes and Hardmead are four miles apart, and no other Morcar south of Yorkshire held land in 1086. He may also be Morcar, Earl Harold's man, who preceded Urso of Berchères at Shenley Brook End15, and the overlord of a man with half a hide at Woughton on the Green16. Woughton is two miles from Broughton and four from Shenley. Earl Morcar was an overlord in the
1 YKS 3,1-3;8
2 YKS C28;30;32-33. 6N162. 6W2;5-6. 6E1
3 YKS 5E6;16;33;37. 11E6-9. 13E6. 26E3. 29E4
4 LIN T3
5 LIN 1,6. 3,31. 30,25;27;29-30. CK50
6 LIN 27,3-6;57
7 LIN 56,9-10
8 LIN 1,65;67;77-78
9 LIN CN5
10 BUK 23,2
11 NFK 7,10
12 SUF 7,77
13 BUK 5,18
14 BUK 53,9-10
15 BUK 45,1
16 BUK 12,31
county, his man, Aldred, holding Dorney1; but Dorney is at the other end of the county. Morcar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1899) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 298.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF ROWTON>. Morcar, who shared Rowton in Shropshire with another lord in 10662, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Morcar in Shropshire and adjacent counties not identified in the text as the earl.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF SMEATON>. As the name is rare, the Morcars who held two manors at Smeaton in Yorkshire3 as predecessor and subtenant of Ilbert of Lacy, and shared both with an Ulfkil, are very probably one man. On similar grounds, he is may be the Morcar who preceded Richard of Sourdeval on a cluster of manors at Treeton, Wales, Ulley and Brampton4, the first and last of which he also shared with an Ulfkil. Apart from the earl, no other Morcar held land within forty miles. He is not recorded in Coel, where the manor is assigned to the tenant, Robert, rather than the subtenants.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORIN. Morin is a rare name which occurs in four counties on the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
MORIN [* OF CAEN *]. As the name is rare, the Morins who held Stedcombe, Wilmington and 'Beer' in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff5, and Leonard among the king's servants6, are probably Morin of Caen, named in the Geld Roll as owing tax in two of the three Hundreds in which the manors lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xxxi, xxxiv. There are no other Morins in the south-western counties of circuit two. Morin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1778) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 299.
.............................................................................................................................................
MUNDRED [* THE SHERIFF *]. All eight Mundreds in Domesday may be one man, who was probably the sheriff of Earl Hugh of Chester, since he held the city of Chester from him 'for £70 and 1 gold mark. He also had all the Earl's pleas in the County and the Hundreds, except Englefield, at a revenue of £50 and 1 gold mark'7. He was the earl's tenant at Eastham, Upton and Bartington in Cheshire8 and on two manors in Suffolk9, and very likely his subtenant - tenant of Robert son of Hugh - at Chowley10. Probably, though less certainly, he held a hide at Ellesmere in Shropshire alongside a fellow sheriff, Reginald11. Ellesmere, like Eastham, Upton, and presumably the city of Chester, had been held by Earl Edwin. Mundred's manors are recorded in Coel (no.
1 BUK 23,2
2 SHR 4,27,26
3 YKS 9W47-48
4 YKS 5W20;23-25
5 DEV 16,169;173-174
6 DEV 51,14
7 CHS C24
8 CHS 1,22;34. 26,3
9 SUF 4,30-31
10 CHS 2,13
11 SHR 4,1,19
3829) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 299, apart from the Suffolk manors, assigned to another man (no. 2031).
.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH. Murdoch is a rare name which occurs five times, once in Sussex in 1086, four times in Yorkshire in 1066.
.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH <OF ALDINGBOURNE>. Murdoch, a man-at-arms of the bishop of Chichester, is the only Murdoch in southern England1; he was presumably an Englishman though unlikely to be the same man as his distant Yorkshire namesake. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 15655).
.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH <OF HILSTON>. As the name is rare, the four Yorkshire Murdochs are probably one man. His manors of Hilston, Catwick and Roos in Holderness were acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière2, and his three messuages in York by Gilbert Maminot3. Although he held nothing in 1086 according to Domesday Book, he or a descendant probably survived like many other Englishmen on a lower rung of the tenurial scale, his name being borne by a family 'of some importance' in the following century: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 171.
.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS. Nicholas is an uncommon name which occurs on two fiefs and eleven manors, distributed among nine counties and on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by half-a-dozen men, all post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS <OF HANNEY>. Nicholas, who held a hide from Abingdon abbey at Hanney in Berkshire4, does not appear among the list of the abbey's knights; he has no links with his namesakes elsewhere. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1869) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300.
.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS [* OF KENNETT *]. As the name is uncommon, the tenants of William of Warenne at Kennett in Cambridgeshire5 and Elveden, Herringswell and Tunstall in Suffolk6 are probably Nicholas of Kennett, named as a juror in Staploe Hundred in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 1, 97). He is the only Nicholas in eastern England. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1613) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300, where he is confused with the tenant of Alfred of Marlborough at Kennett in Wiltshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS <OF STAFFORD>. Nicholas, who claimed to farm Thorpe in Staffordshire as part of the royal manor of Clifton Campville7, may be the sheriff of the county, named as N. de Estafford in a writ of William Rufus, perhaps the Nicholas the sheriff named in a case by Burton abbey
1 SUS 3,3
2 YKS 14E3;34;53
3 YKS C14
4 BRK 7,22
5 CAM 18,8
6 SUF 26,3-4;6
7 STS 16,1
against his descendant, Stephen of Beauchamp: Regesta, i. no. 456; Burton cartulary, pp. 8-10; Green, English sheriffs, p. 75. He is recorded in Coel (no. 3621) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 300-301, where he is assigned the Warwickshire manors of Countess Godiva farmed by Nicholas, here assigned to Nicholas the bowman.
.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS [* THE BOWMAN *]. Nicholas, who farmed the escheated fief of Countess Godiva in Warwickshire1, may be Nicholas the bowman, a tenant-in-chief in the county2, as suggested by Lennard: Rural England, p. 144. Nicholas was also a tenant-in-chief in Devon3 and, as the name is uncommon, may be the tenant of Alfred of Marlborough at Kennett in Somerset4 and Chelwood in Wiltshire5; their descent has not been traced: VCH Wiltshire, xii. 91. It appears from the cartulary of St Peter's, Gloucester, that he was also known as Nicholas de la Pole: Historia ... Gloucestriae, i. 74; Round, 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', p. 280. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 126) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300, apart from those of Godiva, assigned to Nicholas of Stafford.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* FOSSARD *]. Of the 128 manors which the Count of Mortain subinfeudated in Yorkshire, 126 were granted to men with two forenames, Richard and Nigel, the majority to Nigel, too numerous to list here. Nigel is evidently Nigel Fossard, named once in York and in several entries in the Yorkshire Claims which connect him to manors he held from the Count6, later documentation identifying a number of others: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 325-426. He is probably the one other unidentified Nigel in Yorkshire, who held six carucates from the bishop of Durham in a dependency of Welton7, where he held several other dependencies from the Count: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 297. Nigel's tenancy became a tenancy-in-chief in 1088, later known as the barony of Mulgrave: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 66-67. The Count of Mortain had tenants named Nigel on a small fief in Cornwall and single manors in Northamptonshire and Suffolk. His Northamptonshire tenant appears to have no discernible links with Fossard; and although those in Cornwall and Suffolk are the only Nigels in those counties, neither do they, though the possibility cannot be excluded. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2458) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 302-303; the Cornish tenant is identified as another man (no. 230); the Northamptonshire tenant is unidentified (no. 27130); and the Suffolk subtenant is not included in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF AUBIGNY *]. The Nigels who held Austrey in Warwickshire8 and Catton in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers9 are almost certainly Nigel of Aubigny, who married Henry's daughter, Amice; he held land in Austrey in chief10, and he and Amice granted the tithes of Catton to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 64-65. He may also be Henry's tenant at Swepstone in Leicestershire11, where his son held two carucates which
1 WAR 15,1-6
2 WAR B2. 40,1-2
3 DEV 48,1-12
4 SOM 34,1
5 WIL 26,21
6 YKS C5. CN5. CE10;13;18. CW11
7 YKS 3Y8
8 WAR 19,6
9 DBY 6,17
10 WAR 41,1
11 LEC 14,23
belonged to its assessment in the Leicestershire Survey (p. 19). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Henry's tenant at Wallingford and on the valuable manor of Willington in Berkshire, and the tenant of Stephen son of Erhard at Padworth1. Nigel had alienated his one manor in the county to St Albans abbey2; but his son, Henry of Aubigny, retained an interest there, granting land in Bedfordshire to Abingdon abbey: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 146-49. Stephen son of Erhard (q.v.) may be Nigel's tenant in Bedfordshire3. The reversal of roles of tenant and tenant-in-chief between the two counties is odd; but as these are the only Nigels in Berkshire or Stephens in Bedfordshire, an even odder coincidence is involved if these are different Nigels and Stephens. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 12) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 301, apart from Swepstone, attributed to Nigel of Stafford, and Austrey, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28442). Coel adds Linton4, here attributed to Nigel of Stafford.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF BURCY *]. Nigel, who held a small fief from Earl Hugh in Cheshire5, is almost certainly Nigel of Burcy, who granted the tithes of two of his manors to St Werburgh's abbey: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 41-42. He may also be the Nigel who held part of Salford from Roger of Poitou6, the only other Nigel in Cheshire. As the descent of his manors appears to have been disrupted, this cannot be verified: Charters, p. 51. Neither the earl or Roger of Poitou had other tenants of this name elsewhere. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3482) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 301, apart from Salford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 29184).
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF GOURNAY *]. The Nigels who held Farmborough, Clewer, Backwell and Keyford in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances7 are probably Nigel of Gournay, named in Exon. as the bishop's tenant at Barrow, Swainswick, Englishcombe and Twerton8. Farmborough and Barrow were acquired from an Edric; Clewer and Backwell shared with a Fulcran. The bishop had no tenants named Nigel in other counties, and only one tenant-in-chief in Somerset had an unidentified Nigel among his tenants. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1680) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 301-302.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The Nigels who held Windeseres and Linton in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers9 are almost certainly Nigel of Stafford; the manors were held by his son, William of Gresley, in the Leicestershire Survey (p. 46). He is possibly also the Nigel who held Twycross from Henry10, not included in the Survey. The descent of his manors identifies him as the tenant of the bishop of Chester at Wolseley, Moreton and Tamhorn in Staffordshire11: Liber Niger Scaccari Staffordscira, p. 153. He may also be bishop's tenant at Hixon, Coley and Drointon12, a few miles from Wolseley and Moreton, as the bishop had no tenants of this name elsewhere on his small
1 BRK B1. 21,8. 64,1
2 BRK 12,1
3 BDF 24,7
4 LEC 14,34
5 CHS 25,1-3
6 CHS R5,6
7 SOM 5,18-19;30;55
8 SOM 5,32;38;44-45
9 LEC 14,30;34
10 LEC 14,10
11 STS 2,7;18;22
12 STS 2,6;17;19
Honour, which support only a handful of tenants. Nigel's tenure of Morton suggests he is the Nigel with a small fief in Staffordshire1, one of whose manors was in Moreton. If so, then he is probably the tenant of Ralph son of Hubert at Kingsley, another of the manors on his small fief lying in that vill, both acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord2. Finally, he may be the tenant of Richard the forester at Thursfield, Whitmore, Hanford and Clayton3. The latter three manors were probably held by one man as they were subsequently in the hands of the family which held Knutton, responsible for castle-guard at Newcastle-under-Lyme: Book of Fees, pp. 143, 593. This was later held by Henry of Audley, who married one of the heiresses of Nigel of Stafford's grandson, Ingenulf; the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme then included Clayton and Thursfield: Eyton, Domesday studies: Staffordshire, pp. 51, 80-82, 87-89. In 1215, the manor of Newcastle was given by King John to the earl of Chester, who granted rents in Thursfield and other vills owing castle-guard to Henry of Audley: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 393-94; Book of Fees, pp. 594, 1285; VCH Staffordshire, viii. 184. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2776) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 302, apart from Linton, attributed to Nigel of Aubigny, but with the addition of Swepstone, here attributed to Aubigny.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL <OF WIVENHOE>. The Nigels who held an anonymous holding in Middlesex4 and Wivenhoe, Stapleford and Dickley in Essex from Robert Gernon5 may be one man. The Essex manors were in the hands of two families in the thirteenth century; but the Honour escheated in the interval and was re-granted by Henry I: VCH Essex, iv. 227; x. 281; Book of Fees, p. 608. Only two other tenants-in-chief had tenants named Nigel in the two counties, and Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the tenant of one of these, Hugh de Montfort, may also be the same man; his manor of Markshall is in the Hundred of Lexden, where Wivenhoe lay. Nigels are uncommon in this region: only two other tenants-in-chief had such tenants in the neighbouring counties of East Anglia, Cambridgeshire or Hertfordshire, and Robert Gernon had none elsewhere. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2112) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 304.
.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL <OF WORTHYVALE>. Nigel, who held a fief from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall6, is probably the Nigel who held a virgate in Lancarffe from St Petroc's according to Exon.7, perhaps a duplicate of the virgate he held 'of the Honour of St Petroc's' on his fief8; he is the only Nigel in the county, with no links to the Nigels who held from the Count in Northamptonshire, Yorkshire or Suffolk. His manors were later held by the Boterel family: VCH Cornwall, ii. part 8, p. 58. They are recorded in Coel (no. 230) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 303. .............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* THE DOCTOR *]. Nigel, who held a small fief from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Shropshire9, is probably Nigel the doctor, who also held a fief from the king and the manor of Bromfield from St Mary's of Bromfield in the county10: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, x. 1-2. He was a tenant-in-chief in three other counties and a tenant in several more. No other Nigels are
1 STS 16,1-3
2 STS 15,2. 16,2
3 STS 13,1-2;4;6
4 MDX 14,2
5 ESS 32,25;27;39
6 CON 5,6,1-10
7 CON 4,22
8 CON 5,6,6
9 SHR 4,24,1-4
10 SHR 3d,6. 9,1-2
recorded in Shropshire, Herefordshire or Worcestershire, and those in the two other adjacent counties of Cheshire and Staffordshire are identified as Nigel of Burcy and Nigel of Stafford respectively. Nigel is probably also Earl Roger's tenant in the New Forest1, Hampshire being one of the other counties where he held in chief. He also held four houses in Southampton2. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 359) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 303.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN. Norman is a fairly common name which occurs more than fifty times, distributed among a dozen counties between Devon and Derby, with clusters in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Somerset and Suffolk. By convention, the translation renders post-Conquest Normanni as Norman; pre-Conquest as Northmann, though some Normans may, of course, be surviving Northmanns.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN [* OF ARCY *]. The tenants of William of Percy at Habrough, Cabourne and Reasby in Lincolnshire3 - the only unidentified Normans in the county - are almost certainly Norman of Arcy, who held in chief in two of the vills4. In the Lindsey Survey (8/1. 11/3;6), all but two bovates of these manors were in the hands of the Percy family. Two bovates (in Cuxwold) were held by Robert of Arcy, and there were Arcy fees in Cabourne, Cuxwold and Reasby at a later date, though Norman of Arcy held nothing in chief in those vills in 1086: Book of Fees, pp. 167, 1022, 1076. It appears that the Lindsey Survey is misleading. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2416) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 305.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN <OF HALLATON>. Apart from the tenant of William of Percy in Lincolnshire, all unidentified Normans north of Bedfordshire are concentrated in Leicestershire and may be one man. He was the tenant of Geoffrey Alselin on his entire fief5, farmed four manors on the escheated fief of Aubrey of Coucy6, and may be the one other Norman, a tenant of Robert of Vessey at Shenton7, whose descent throws no light on his identity: Nichols, History and antiquities of Leicestershire, iv. 526-27. Neither Robert or Geoffrey had a tenant or predecessor named Norman or Northmann elsewhere on their Honours. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8457) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN [* OF NOSTERFIELD*]. Norman, who held Camps and Horseheath from Aubrey de Vere8, is very probably Norman of Nosterfield, the juror in Chilford Hundred, where the two manors lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 28). Nosterfield itself is not recorded in Domesday; it is a mile from Camps and less than three from Horseheath. There are no Normans elsewhere in the county, and Aubrey had no other such tenants on his Honour; the one Northmann, at Trumpington sixteen miles away, has no links with Norman. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2169) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 305.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HAM NF3,3;5;11;14-16
2 HAM S3
3 LIN 22,3-4;8-9;13
4 LIN 32,3;23
5 LEC 28,1-5
6 LEC 10,6;11-13
7 LEC 16,2
8 CAM 29,7-8
NORMAN [* THE HUNTER *]. Norman, who held a small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury1, is probably Norman the hunter, who gave land at Booley, a dependency of his manor of Brockhurst2, to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38. There are no other Normans (or Northmanns) in Shropshire, or on the Honour of the earl; but in Sussex, where the other major component of that Honour lay, the Norman who held Rodmell in Sussex from William of Warenne3 may be the same man since he is probably Norman the hunter who gave land to the Warenne foundation of Lewes priory: Chartulary of Lewes, i. 12. He, too, is the only Norman in the county. He may have come from Macé in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Alençon), where he gave land to Saint-Martin of Sées on his son becoming a monk: Bates, Regesta, no. 271, pp. 815-17. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1837) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306, with the addition of Frankwell, here assigned to Northmann of Mereworth.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN. Northmann is a common name, though unevenly distributed among seventeen counties, with significant concentrations in Suffolk and Yorkshire and lesser clusters in Devon, Essex, Kent and Northamptonshire. By convention, the translation renders pre-Conquest Normanni as Northmann; post-Conquest as Norman, though some surviving Northmanns may be recorded as Norman where their native origin is not apparent.
.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN <OF MEREWORTH>. The name Northmann is not common in the south-east, where all Northmanns are identified by Dr Clarke as the magnate with legal privileges in eastern Kent4. In Kent5, Surrey6 and Sussex7 he had no lord but the king, and several of his manors are of appropriate status for a regional magnate. At least one substantial manor devolved upon each of the three tenants-in-chief in Kent, while his single valuable manor in Surrey8 was acquired by Haimo the sheriff, his predecessor on two manors in Kent, including Mereworth, the most valuable of all9.
Due to its division into Rapes tenurial associations in Sussex, where the holdings are more varied in size, have little or no relevance to pre-Conquest landownership; but three of the four tenants-in-chief acquired at least one valuable manor, more likely to have been held by one man rather than several wealthy individuals with a name uncommon in the area. There can be less confidence with the smaller Sussex properties; but if Dr Clarke is correct in his identification, Northmann was one of the many English magnates permitted to survive on a fragment of their previous estates, holding a small part of the manor of Frankwell10 he had previously held in its entirety, serving moreover as one of a number of men-at-arms in the entourage of the Norman who had supplanted him.
It is also possible, even likely, that Northmann of Mereworth is the pre-Conquest tenant of Abingdon abbey in Berkshire11, the only man of this name in the county. His status among Abingdon tenants is unique. He had five manors when only one other tenant had more than one, Blaecmann having two if he is the same man as Blaecmann the priest. Northmann also held the
1 SHR 4,25,1-7
2 SHR 4,25,2
3 SUS 12,4
4 KEN D17
5 KEN 5,96. 9,44;46;48. 12,3-4
6 SUR 30,2
7 SUS 9,8;32;86. 10,38. 13,8
8 SUR 30,2
9 KEN 12,3-4
10 SUS 9,8
11 BRK 7,2;9;15;19-20;46
largest single tenancy, the most valuable single tenancy, and more than twice as much in land and in value than any other Abingdon tenant. Only one lay tenant of the Church in the country held ecclesiastical estates worth more in value before the Conquest. Northmann was evidently a powerful and influential man, and only Northmann of Mereworth fits that description, since it is improbable that a landowner should hold such an extensive ecclesiastical estate without a lay estate of his own. It is curious that the abbey's chronicle fails to mention this man though devoting a paragraph to the one post-Conquest Norman in the county, who gave the tithes of his manor of Winterbourne1 to the abbey: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 246-47; cf. 381-82, 385. A list of Northmann's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 325, which does not include the Berkshire manors. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the Berkshire manors would raise him ten places. His tenancy at Frankwell is assigned to Norman the hunter in Coel (no. 1837).
.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN [* THE SHERIFF *]. Northmann the sheriff is identified by his title on four occasions: once on the single manor - consisting of burgesses in Ipswich2 - he held on his own account; once as the predecessor of Roger Bigot at Darsham3; and twice on the fief of Robert Malet, as his predecessor at Wrabetuna and his tenant at Ash4. He was sheriff of Suffolk, succeeded by William and Robert Malet, then Roger Bigot, which almost certainly accounts for the hugely disproportionate number of Northmanns on Roger's fief - and a few on Malet's - too numerous to list here. The scribes were confident enough of being understood to abbreviate his name to a simple N almost three dozen times on the Bigot fief. The abbreviation occurs only twice more, both times in Suffolk, both probably referring to the sheriff. At Walton, the name is given in full later in the entry and Northmann appears to have held it at both dates5; at Hemley, he is an overlord6, all such overlords in the county likely to be the sheriff in the absence of another landowner of that name with significant - or any - demesne land.
Of the one hundred times where the name or abbreviation is stated or implied in Suffolk, it occurs only six more times on other fiefs. One of these, on a substantial manor at Cavendish acquired by Ralph of Limésy7, may be the sheriff, since he held from King Edward and Ralph had no other predecessor of this name, nor any tenant named Norman. On three other manors, Northmann was an overlord, so probably the sheriff; in the remaining two cases, a free man, without links to suggest he may be the sheriff8, though the possibility cannot be excluded since other apparently insignificant free men listed as part of a large group by the scribes can be identified as important landowners, particularly on the fief of Roger Bigot. Roger had no Normans or Northmanns among his predecessors or tenants outside the county, and Robert Malet had one, a Northmann in Yorkshire, unlikely to be the sheriff, though even he cannot be confidently excluded in view of the Malet presence in the county from an early date.
Of the nine post-Conquest Normanni in Suffolk not identified above as the sheriff, the tenants of Robert Malet at Farnham and Bredfield are most likely to be him9, both being fairly close to other of his manors, and he is also likely to be the Northmann with a presence in Malet's borough of Dunwich10. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is also the tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds at
1 BRK 35,2
2 SUF 63,1
3 SUF 7,36
4 SUF 6,91;290
5 SUF 31,13
6 SUF 39,5
7 SUF 43,2
8 SUF 74,13. 76,19
9 SUF 6,135;258
10 SUF 6,84
Risby1, which is possible; the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin refers to him as Norman of Risby: Feudal documents, p. 137. It is possible, too, that the remaining Normans in Suffolk are the sheriff, since Bigot or Malet (or both) held land in the vills - Aldeburgh, Bredfield, Glemham and Westerfield - concerned; but, again, there are no specific links to confirm this. Northmann's tenancies (apart from Bredfield) are recorded in Coel (no. 893) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306, where it is suggested he may have been related to Roger Bigot by marriage.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD. Odard is a rare name which occurs on one fief and about ten manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief. There is some uncertainty about its relationship with Oder and Huard. According to Forssner, the names Huard, Oder, and Odard are distinct: Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 154-55, 194, 196. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests they may be interchangeable. Circumstantial evidence suggests that all Oders, who occur on two fiefs in Norfolk, may be Huards; and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin records an Oder (Odarus) where Domesday has Odard (Odardus): Feudal documents, p. 19. Elsewhere, the case for identifying Odard and Huard is not clear. Unidentified Odards and Huards both occur in four counties, on the lands of five tenants-in-chief, the only overlap being the occurrence of an Odard and Huard in Leicestershire; but they are tenants on different fiefs. No pre-Conquest lords bear these names.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF ASTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Odards who held Halton, Weston, Aston-by-Sutton and Whitley in Cheshire from William son of Nigel and Dutton from Earl Hugh of Chester are one man2; Dutton lies between Halton and Whitley, three to four miles from either. Odard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8390) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF FOULTON>. Odard, who held Foulton in Essex from Swein of Essex, has no links with his distant namesakes3. He is the only Odard or Huard in the county, and Swein had no other such tenants elsewhere. Coel identifies him as Huard of Noyers (q.v.), who held Bengeo in Hertfordshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD [* OF HOTOT *]. Odard, tenant of Robert of Tosny at Bottesford in Leicestershire4, is almost certainly Odard of Hotot, who witnessed an agreement between Robert of Tosny and the abbot of St Albans for the foundation of Belvoir priory; his descendants granted land and tithes in Bottesford and elsewhere: Foulds, 'Origins of the Hotot family', pp. 79-81. Odard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3567) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307, where it is suggested that he came from Hotot-en-Auge in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux).
.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF ILMINGTON>. Odard, who held Ilmington in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan5, has no links with other Odards or Huards. Coel identifies him as the Huard at Peatling in Leicestershire, some forty miles to the south.
1 SUF 14,1
2 CHS 9,17-19;26. 26,2
3 ESS 24,65
4 LEC 15,15
5 WAR 16,64
.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* OF BERNIERES *]. Odo, who held a small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury1, is probably Odo of Bernières, who granted land at Broadstone to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey; he is probably also Odo, miles, who granted Hordley, one of the manors on his fief, to the abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33-34, 39, 43, 45. Broadstone belonged to Stanway, one of five manors held from Reginald the sheriff by an Odo, who is therefore likely to be Odo of Bernières2. Odo's son, Roger, made a further grant to Broadstone in which his father is named Odo of Rushbury, thereby identifying the tenant of Roger of Lacy in that vill3: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 15. There are no other Odos in Shropshire or on the Honour of Earl Roger. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3016) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 308.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODO <OF BOTELET>. The Odos who held land at 'Perran' in Cornwall from the Canons of St Neot's4, and a fief and part of Canons' manor in St Neot from the Count of Mortain5, are probably one man; many of the Count's tenants were partially endowed at the expense of the Cornish churches. No other Odo held land in the county, and the Count had no such tenants elsewhere on his Honour. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 236) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 311.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* OF WINCHESTER *]. Odo of Winchester held exempt land in Southampton before the Conquest and several manors among the king's thanes in Hampshire6, Berkshire7 and Wiltshire8 in 1086. He also shared a small fief in Sussex9 with Aldred (q.v.), almost certainly his brother named in the Winton Domesday and on three manors in Hampshire. Their relationship suggests that he was also known as Odo the steward, who held land alongside Aldred in the large episcopal manor of Micheldever10, and that he is the Odo whose four consecutive manors among the king's thanes of Devon is followed by three held by Aldred11: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', pp. 427-28; 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 417; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 115-16. If so, he was also known as Odo son of Edric, so-named in the Geld Roll for Axmouth Hundred, where one of those manors lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xxvii, xxxv. Round suggested that he is also the king's thane at Dibden in the New Forest12, and the pre-Conquest lord of an anonymous holding in Somborne Hundred and Chawton in Hampshire13, and of Wimborne Minster in Dorset14. Chawton was acquired by Hugh of Port, whose steward was given the very valuable manor of Chaddleworth in Berkshire by Odo of Winchester15; and the Odo at Wimborne is identified in Exon. as Odo the treasurer, a description consistent with Odo's byname and his favoured status as a royal official. Round also suggested that he is the Oda whose substantial manor of Compton in
1 SHR 4,18,1-3
2 SHR 4,3,9-10;17-19
3 SHR 4,8,5
4 CON 4,26
5 CON 4,28. 5,14,1-6
6 HAM S2. 69,1-3;7
7 BRK 65,1-4
8 WIL 67,1
9 SUS 14,1-2
10 HAM 6,16
11 DEV 52,22-28
12 HAM NF9,2
13 HAM 23,25. 51,2
14 DOR 1,21
15 BRK 10,1
Berkshire was granted to the bishop of Coutances1. Odo was evidently an Englishman, so-named in the Geld Roll for Devon, so the name-form may be more appropriate than the Odo usually favoured by the scribe, who did however twice name him Oda of Winchester2. Although Odo and Oda are thought to be of different origin, one authority believes it to be 'a useless task ... to keep them distinct in detail': Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 198-99. Odo's official status suggests he may be the Odo on two royal manors in Hampshire3, and he is possibly the tenant of Bockhampton4, seven miles from Chaddleworth, the only other Odo in either county. He is probably the Odo the chamberlain whose son claimed land at Chelborough in Dorset5. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 301) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 308-309, apart from Devonshire manors, identified as Odo son of Edric (no. 806), and the subtenant at Micheldever, identified as Eudo the steward.
.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. Odo, tenant of Count Alan of Brittany at Harston, Wendy, Whaddon, Wilbraham and Quy in Cambridgeshire6 and Fencote, Kirkby Fleetham, Langthorne and Hackforth in Yorkshire7, is almost certainly his chamberlain in all eight cases, so named in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis on the first three Cambridgeshire manors (ed. Hamilton, p. 46, 58, 64). Of the other two, Wilbraham was later part of the Chamberlain's fee, held by Odo's descendants from the Honour of Richmond, and Quy is three miles from Wilbraham. Three of the four Yorkshire holding were also part of the Chamberlain's fee, Langthorne being later alienated to St Mary's of York, when it may have included Hackforth , their combined total being four carucates, the size of the grant: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 167-79. Probably, though less certainly, the one other Odo on the Honour of Richmond, at Holbrook in Suffolk8, is also the chamberlain, Odos being rare in East Anglia, only two other tenants-in-chief having tenants there. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1176) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 308, apart from the tenant of Holbrook, who is unidentified (no. 11620).
.............................................................................................................................................
OGER. Oger is a rare name, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief but borne by only four unidentified tenants in 1086, two of whom are probably the tenant-in-chief Oger the Breton.
.............................................................................................................................................
OGER <OF DIDLINGTON>. Oger, who held a carucate and a ploughteam at Didlington in Norfolk from William of Warenne9, has no links with other Ogers, all remote; he is the only Oger in East Anglia. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 9210), his carucate assigned to William's demesne.
.............................................................................................................................................
OGER <OF TOLLER>. Oger, who held Toller in Dorset from Waleran the hunter10, has no links with other Ogers. His manor recorded in Coel (no. 1758) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312.
1 BRK 6,1
2 BRK 10,1. HAM 21,1
3 HAM 1,W1-2
4 BRK 48,1
5 DOR 36,8
6 CAM 14,21;26;31;65-66
7 YKS 6N56;59-60
8 SUF 3,68
9 NFK 8,89
10 DOR 40,9
.............................................................................................................................................
OGER [* THE BRETON *]. The Ogers who held Burton-le-Coggles in Lincolnshire1 and Aldwincle in Northamptonshire2 are probably the tenant-in-chief in those counties, Oger the Breton, the notorious enemy of Hereward the Wake. The Lincolnshire Claims3 reveal that Burton-le-Coggles was held illegally by its tenant-in-chief, Ralph Paynel, since it had been held by Earl Morcar, who was not Ralph's predecessor. The earl was the predecessor of Oger on several of his manors, and the Wake family - Oger's heirs - later had an interest in the vill: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 107-108; Book of Fees, pp. 1048, 1078. Aldwincle is less than four miles from Oger the Breton's manor of Thrapston4; Oger shared the tenancy with two others in 1086 so the descent of his portion is uncertain: VCH Northamptonshire, iii. 164-65. Oger is probably to be identified as Oger son of Ungemar, whose fief at Austhorpe in Rutland5 is similar to his small single-manor fiefs in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the unknown Ungemar may be a alternative form of the Breton Gingomar, recorded circa 1060. All claims involving Oger in the Lincolnshire Claims relate to manors of Oger the Breton6. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1180) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 311-12.
.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD. Oidelard is a rare name which occurs fourteen times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of three tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of men, all post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD [* THE LARDERER *]. As the name is rare, the Oidelards who held three manors from Eustace the sheriff in Winwick, on the border of Huntingdonshire7 and Northamptonshire8, are almost certainly his tenant at Grafham, Oidelard the larderer9. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2494) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312.
.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD [* THE STEWARD *]. As the name is rare, the Oidelards who held manors from Ralph of Mortimer in Hampshire10, Berkshire11, Wiltshire12, Oxfordshire13, Herefordshire14 and Shropshire15 are very probably one man, possibly Oidelard the steward, tenant of St Augustine's, Canterbury, on the valuable manor of Northbourne in Kent16: Ballard, An eleventh-century inquisition, p. 21. His Mortimer tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1660) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312, where he is described as 'perhaps' Ralph's steward; the tenant of St Augustine's is identified as another man (no. 1916).
1 LIN 35,13
2 NTH 41,6
3 LIN CK5
4 NTH 52,1
5 RUT 4,14
6 LIN CK40-41;43-44;46;48
7 HUN 19,16-17
8 NTH 55,4
9 HUN 19,22
10 HAM 29,8;13. NF5,1
11 BRK 46,6-7
12 WIL 41,2
13 OXF 30,1
14 HEF 9,2
15 SHR 6,21
16 KEN 7,19
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING. Ording is a rare name which occurs three or four times, once (doubtful) in Cheshire, once in Norfolk, and twice in Kent, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING [* OF HORTON *]. Ording, who held part of Horton Kirby from King Edward1, is probably Ording of Horton, who had full jurisdiction in Sutton Lathe, where Horton lay2. His manor is modest for the privileges he enjoyed, but there appear to be no others which can be attributed to him, even if possible scribal errors are taken into account. Half of those who enjoyed similar privileges3, however, do not appear as landholders at all: Williams, World before Domesday, p. 54.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING <OF MULBARTON>. Ording, who held the manor of Mulbarton in Norfolk acquired by Ralph of Beaufour4, has no links with his remote namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING <OF TRAFFORD>. Ordm, whose manor of Trafford in Cheshire was acquired by Earl Hugh5, has no links with others who may be represented by this name-form, perhaps Ording or Ordmer, neither of which occur elsewhere in Cheshire or on the Honour of the earl of Chester: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 336.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDMER. Ordmer is an uncommon name which occurs fewer than twenty times, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of the king and twelve of his tenants-in-chief, three manors being held by survivors.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDMER [* OF BADLINGHAM *]. Ordmer, who held Badlingham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany6, is almost certainly Ordmer of Badlingham, a juror in 'Staploe' Hundred, where Badlingham lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 1). As he retained his manor for two decades, it is likely he is the Ordmer who preceded the Count at Wilbraham7, both Ordmers being dependents of Edeva the fair. He is less likely to be the one other Ordmer in the county, one of ten Freemen on a manor of Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Meldreth8 according to the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 109). Count Alan had no other Ordmers on his Honour. Ordmer's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 6626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313; see also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 87-88.
................................................................................................................................................................
ORDMER <OF SOMERSAL>. Ordmer, who shared a modest at Somersal in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers9, may be the Ordmer who preceded Robert of Stafford on four manors in
1 KEN 5,18
2 KEN D25
3 KEN D25
4 NFK 20,34
5 CHS 1,23
6 CAM 14,67
7 CAM 14,65
8 CAM 31,2
9 DBY 6,32
Staffordshire1. They are the only Ordmers in those counties, and little if any tenurial significance can be attached to Henry's acquisition since he acquired the bulk of 'Appletree wapentake, where Somersal lay, probably as a block grant of all unallocated land in the wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 164-65. One of Ordmer's four Stafford manors lay in Tixall, where the other part of the vill was held by Henry of Ferrers, his one tenancy in the county2. Henry held Tixall from the earl of Shrewsbury, who acquired it from Almund (q.v.), whose son Alward held Polmere in Shropshire from the earl with Ordmer as his subtenant3, he being the only Ordmer in the county. Although the mechanisms which might produce these links are unclear - exchanges, perhaps - it seems unlikely they can be explained as simple coincidences. Alward's subtenant is probably therefore Robert and Henry's predecessor, surviving by the grace of another survivor, albeit in very modest circumstances, on a manor worth four shillings. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31102).
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC. Ordric is a fairly common name which occurs almost forty times, distributed among fifteen counties, the lands of the king and almost two dozen of his tenants-in-chief, survivors - probably three men - holding eight manors in 1086. The distribution of the name is skewed, concentrated in the West Midlands and the south-west, the remainder of the map being almost empty, with one occurrence north of the Wash, and three in the eastern and south-eastern counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC <OF CROOME>. The Ordrics who held Eycot in Gloucestershire4 and Croome, White Ladies Aston and Oddingley in Worcestershire5 are probably one man, one of two survivors of this name in the Midlands, the other being an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick. Curiously, Ordric's predecessor at Oddingley is a Thorkil; but that name is not uncommon in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and there are no discernible links between Thorkil's many family members and these counties. Ordric may be the steward of the bishopric named in a writ of William Rufus of 1095 as liable for a relief of £40, or possibly the Ordric Black (blaca) whose liability was £5: Hemingi cartularium, pp. 79-81; Round, Feudal England, pp. 308-313. The steward's relief was the largest demanded by the king so was perhaps that due from the bishop's demesne. The Ordric at Eycot is identified as the steward in Coel (no. 2246) but is not recorded in Domesday people; the Worcestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 31736, 31772-73).
................................................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC <OF ORDSALL>. Ordric, whose modest holding shared with three lords at Ordsall in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully6, has no links with his distant namesakes to the south.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. The Ordrics who held nine manors in Warwickshire are probably the uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, seven of his manors - at Hodnell, Calcutt, Harbury, Ratley, Compton and Ettington7 - lying in vills dominated by Thorkil and his relatives: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 284, 291, 295. Of the other two, Wormleighton, held by Thorkil in 1086, is surrounded by family vills; and Wishaw, acquired by William son of Corbucion, is
1 STS 11,12;31;53;58
2 STS 8,23
3 SHR 4,27,19
4 GLS 3,3
5 WOR 2,32;55-56
6 NTT 9,19
7 WAR 16,34. 17,31;37;50;57;59. 44,13
adjacent to one of them, at Marston1. Wishaw was held for twenty years, as was Calcutt and perhaps Ettington (where no pre-Conquest lord is named); no other Ordric in Domesday did so, and only a tenant of the bishop of Worcester held land in 1086 elsewhere in the Midlands. Ordric held Ettington from the king, seven of the other eight manors occurring on the interrelated fiefs of the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick. Neither they nor William son of Corbucion had Ordrics among their tenants or predecessors elsewhere on their Honours. Ordric's three tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4760) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF. Ordwulf is a moderately common name which occurs on almost thirty manors in Domesday Book and a few more in Exon. for Devon, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief. All Ordwulfs are pre-Conquest lords, one surviving until 1086. Their distribution is skewed, all but two in Berkshire occurring in the four south-western counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF BANWELL>. The Ordwulfs who held land and a mill in the adjacent vills of Congresbury and Banwell in Somerset2, in both of which the bishop of Wells had an interest, are probably one man, conceivably Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain. If so, he was another great pre-Conquest lord allowed to eke out a meagre existence on a fraction of his previous estate. However, an unusual number of native landowners survived on the Count's lands, so it is unusual if his predecessor failed to do so while surviving elsewhere. As there are no apparent links between the two Ordwulfs, they are treated here as different men. Ordwulf of Banwell is the only survivor of this name. His manor at Congresbury is recorded in Coel (no. 386) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF GROUNDWELL>. Ordwulf, whose modest holding at Groundwell in Wiltshire3 was acquired by Humphrey de L'Isle, has no links with his namesakes, though in view of the distribution of the name it is conceivable that he is Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF ILSLEY>. The Ordwulfs who preceded Geoffrey de Mandeville at Ilsley in Berkshire4 are probably one man. The two parts of the vill constituted a fairly substantial holding so he may be the English magnate, Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain on many manors in the south-west; but there is no more precise link, and the manors of the Count's predecessor are more than a hundred miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF TEHIDY>. The distribution of the name suggests that most if not all Ordwulfs in the south-western counties are one man, implicitly described as the predecessor of the Count of Mortain in a rubric5 which states that 'the Count holds the undermentioned seven lands, with Ordwulf's land', perhaps implying that Ordwulf held the previous forty-six manors, either in
1 WAR 17,61. 28,4
2 SOM 1,21. 6,9
3 WIL 27,13
4 BRK 38,1-2
5 DEV 15,47
demesne or as overlord. He is explicitly stated to hold fourteen of them, plus one later holding1; and satellite texts emphasise that the seven lands were not of Ordwulf's Honour2. His principle manor acquired by the Count was Tehidy in Cornwall3.
Of the five remaining Devonshire manors, the Count's predecessor almost certainly held Broadclyst and Haxton4, since Haxton was acquired by the bishop of Exeter in an exchange with the Count of Mortain, and Broadclyst was a valuable royal manor, revealed by a satellite text to have been farmed by Reginald of Vautortes, subinfeudated by the Count with several of Ordwulf's manors5. Of the two manors acquired by Roald Dubbed6, Lamerton was a high status manor, while the Count of Mortain had an interest in Weare. The one remaining holding, at Woodhuish7, was surrounded by those of Ordwulf of Tehidy and acquired by Richard son of Turolf, a tenant of the Count who had another of Ordwulf's manors8. It is likely, therefore, that all Devonshire Ordwulfs are the Count of Mortain's predecessor.
Elsewhere, the two manors of an Ordwulf in Cornwall were acquired by the Count9, as was Brushford in Somerset10. There are no apparent links between Ordwulf and his four remaining namesakes, though it is not impossible that they, too, are the Count's predecessor. Of the four, the two Berkshire manors here attributed to Ordwulf of Ilsley are the most likely candidates in view of the value of Ilsley (£9). If Ordwulf held Ilsley, it is not improbable that he had Groundwell, en route to Devon; and if he also held the part of the royal manor of Congresbury11, then he survived until 1086 on a tiny fragment of his Honour. But without confirmatory links, these four manors are here assigned to different men. A list of Ordwulf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 326, which includes only those manors acquired by the Count of Mortain. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of the other five manors attributed to him above would place him comfortably within the top forty.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY. Ordwy is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, on modest holdings distributed among six counties, the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Bedfordshire. Survivors held five manors, four of them in Bedfordshire. With one exception, all Ordwys occur in the Midland counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY <OF ANSTIE>. Ordwy, whose modest holding at Anstie in Surrey was acquired by William son of Ansculf12, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Ordwy south of the Thames.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY [* OF BEDFORD *]. As the name is uncommon, the Ordwys who held Biddenham, Stanford and 'Westcotts' in Bedfordshire13 in both 1066 and 1086 - the only Ordwys to retain their
1 DEV 15,3-5;8-10;39-46;49
2 DEV 15,47-52
3 CON 5,1,12
4 DEV 1,56. 2,9
5 DEV 15,44-46
6 DEV 35,1;10
7 DEV 35,1
8 DEV 15,42
9 CON 5,1,9;12
10 SOM 19,16
11 SOM 1,21
12 SUR 21,5
13 BDF 56,3. 57,10;12
manors for twenty years - are probably Ordwy of Bedford, who claimed to be a tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds on a second manor in Biddenham1. This entry, which implies that Ordwy of Bedford, Ordwy the burgess, and Ordwy the reeve are the same man, also suggests that he is the overlord of Wulfmer in Sutton2, since a Wulfmer is the man the jury says he dispossessed in Biddenham. His manors in Biddenham are recorded in Coel as held by two men (nos. 419, 1626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313, the tenants of the other two are unidentified (nos. 556, 558).
.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY <OF HEMINGFORD>. Ordwy, whose respectable manor of Hemingford in Huntingdonshire was acquired by Eustace the sheriff3, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORM. The name Orm occurs only north of the Trent, once in Cheshire and Lincolnshire, twice in Derbyshire and over sixty times in Yorkshire, distributed among the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief. Survivors held two manors in Derbyshire and seven in Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORM <OF WYASTON>. As the name is rare outside Yorkshire, the Orms who held Wyaston and Ireton in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers4 are probably the Orm who granted land at Ireton to Tutbury priory, possibly Orm de Ocoura (Okeover), who witnessed a charter between Burton abbey and Robert of Ferrers in the 1120s; the abbey held land in Okeover5: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65; Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 9, plate vii. Orm's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3859) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 314.
.............................................................................................................................................
ORM [* SON OF GAMAL *]. Although the name is common in Yorkshire, it is likely that the Orms from whom Hugh son of Baldric acquired the largest part of his Yorkshire fief and his most valuable manors are the same man in most if not all cases6. He is probably Orm son of Gamal, commemorated on the sundial of St Gregory's Minster, Kirkdale, near Kirby Moorside, which records that he bought the minster 'when it was quite broken down and ruined, and he had it built anew from the foundations in honour of Christ and St. Gregory in the days of King Edward and of Earl Tosti', which dates it between 1055 and 1065, and probably later rather than earlier in the decade: Page, 'How long did the Scandinavian language survive', p. 179. Orm held a manor in Kirby Moorside, acquired by Hugh7. He may also be the Orm whose manors in Acklam Hundred were acquired by Odo the bowman, one lying in Raisthorpe, where Hugh's predecessor also had a manor, and another within a couple of miles of that vill and shared with a Gamal, conceivably his father, though the name is common and his father died in 10638. Dr Lewis suggests he is also the Orm who held the strategically important manor of Halton in Cheshire9, which probably incorporated the once royal burhs at Runcorn and Thelwall and commanded the Runcorn Gap at the head of the Mersey estuary: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15. It is not unlikely that he is the Orm on many other manors in Yorkshire, though there are no specific links to connect
1 BDF 6,1
2 BDF 53,27
3 HUN 19,23
4 DBY 6,59;92
5 STS 4,6
6 YKS C26. 23N7-8;17-25;29;34-36. 23E14;19
7 YKS 23N19
8 YKS 23E14. 26E5;6-8
9 CHS 9,17
him. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 327-28, which does not include Halton; Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-third in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Halton would raise him two places.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN. Osbern is one of the more common names in Domesday Book, the forename of seven tenants-in-chief holdings twenty fiefs between them, and occurring elsewhere more than 170 times, distributed among twenty-eight counties and the lands of the king and more than thirty of his tenants-in-chief. It is interchangeable with the less common Osbert, as with Gamal son of Osbert, Osbern Male, Osbern of Brouay, Osbern of Sacey, Osbern Paisforiere, Osbern son of Ledhard, Bishop Osbern of Exeter, and as with the names Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Thorbert/Thorbiorn.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN <OF BEECH>. The Osberns who held Beech from both Battle abbey and the Count of Eu1 are probably one man, named in the Chronicle of Battle abbey, pp. 48-49. He may also be the tenant of the abbey at Penhurst, in the same Hundred2; Battle had no other tenants of this name. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 15713, 15717, 15812).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF BROUAY *]. Osbern, tenant of Countess Judith in Bletsoe in Bedfordshire3, is 'undoubtedly' Osbert of Brouay, who held the other half of the vill from Hugh of Beauchamp4 and Sharnbrook from him as Osbern of Brouay5: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, pp. 96-97. He may also be the tenant of the Countess at Sudbury6 and at Stapleford in Lincolnshire7, as 'tentatively' suggested by Farrer: Honor, ii. 309-12. Countess Judith had one other tenant named Osbern, at Stonton Wyville in Leicestershire8, possibly the same man; the descent of this manor has not been traced: VCH Leicestershire, v. 309. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 444) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318, apart from Stonton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 26629).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF EU *]. Osbern, who held the church of Woking in Surrey from the king, may be Osbern of Eu who held the church of Leatherhead from him9 and that of Farnham from the bishop of Winchester, with a hide in Hampshire, probably the hide and virgate on the episcopal manor of Bentley,10. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies this Osbern as Bishop Osbern of Exeter (no. 840), who held another manor in Woking11, which is possible. However, bishops are normally accorded their title in Great Domesday and do not normally hold subtenancies from other bishops, so Osbern of Eu is perhaps more likely. He is possibly also the one other tenant of this name in either county, at Chilcomb12 - also held from the bishop of Winchester - as suggested by John Morris. Osbern was a canon of St Paul's, from Eu in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Fasti
1 SUS 8,4. 9,25
2 SUS 8,8
3 BDF 53,8
4 BDF 23,27
5 BDF 23,31
6 BDF 53,15
7 LIN 56,9-10
8 LEC 40,28
9 SUR 1,2;9
10 SUR 3,1. HAM 2,25
11 SUR 4,1
12 HAM 3,1
Ecclesiae Anglicanae, i. 69. His churches at Leatherhead and Farnham are recorded in Coel (no. 701) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315; the tenants at Bentley and Chilcomb are unidentified (nos. 6131, 6140).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. The Osberns who held several manors from Hugh of Grandmesnil in Leicestershire1, Northamptonshire2 and Warwickshire3, are probably Osbern of Neuf-March, his identity suggested by their descent as the 'family fee' of the Neuf-Marché family: Crouch, 'Normans and Anglo-Normans', p. 54 note 10. Hugh had no other tenants of this name. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3702) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 314-15, where it is suggested he was 'probably' the ancestor of the Neuf-Marché family, originally from Neuf-Marché in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). Dr Crouch, however, argues that the byname derives from the Grandmesnil castle of Neuf-Marché in the Norman Vexin in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Evreux).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF GEOFFREY *]. Of the twenty-five Osberns in Sussex, twenty are tenants of the Count of Eu, who appears to have had at least three such tenants but is unlikely to have had many, if any, more. Osbern son of Geoffrey, who held two of the most valuable manors, at Laughton and Willingdon4, is likely to have had others, including perhaps the most valuable of all, in Bexhill5. He may be the Osbern who held six consecutive manors which follow Laughton, four in the Edivestone Hundred, where Laughton lay; and he is perhaps also the Osbern on a second manor in West Firle - possibly a duplicate of the first - which is in 'Totnore' Hundred with Preston, all seven manors lying in these two Hundreds6. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held 'Bassingham' in Staple7. Osbern's father is identified as Geoffrey of Balliol in later sources, from Bailleul-Neuville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 11. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 592) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF HUGH *]. Osbern, who held land at Bodiam from the Count of Eu8, is named Osbern son of Hugh in the Chronicle of Battle abbey, pp. 122-23, 254-57, which records that his wife Emma gave the abbey a mill at Criel in Upper Normandy, from where she presumably originated (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). Criel is just a few miles from Eu, the centre of the Count's Norman Honour. A Criel family were tenants of Battle abbey: Searle, Lordship and community, pp. 67, 85, 100, 120, 132-33, 143, 165, 341. Osbern's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 982) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF RICHARD *]. Osbern, who held a small fief in Shropshire and a subtenancy at Condover from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury9, is probably Osbern son of Richard, whose descendants retained an interest in one of the manors, at Badger: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire,
1 LEC 13,38;57
2 NTH 23,5-7
3 WAR 18,14
4 SUS 9,52;70
5 SUS 9,11-12
6 SUS 9,53-58;71
7 SUS 9,131
8 SUS 9,120
9 SHR 4,1,2. 4,17,1-3
ii. 62-63. He is possibly the one other Osbern in the county, who held Forton from Roger of Lacy1: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Shropshire Domesday', p. 22. Osbern was a tenant-in-chief in Shropshire and in four other counties. He was the son of Richard Scrope, pre-Conquest lord of Richard's Castle and other manors in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire, most of them acquired by his son. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2585) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 316, apart from Condover and Forton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30669, 30898).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF TEZZO *]. The Osberns who held Gresford in Cheshire2 and Stainton, Reasby, Maidenwell and Newball in Lincolnshire from Earl Hugh of Chester3 are probably his tenant in Cheshire, Osbern son of Tezzo4, perhaps the father of Hugh son of Osbern (q.v.). Osbern and Hugh shared Gresford, and both are named in full at Edritone5. In Lincolnshire, all but one of their manors were acquired from a Godric; Osbern's identity is confirmed by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 175-78. Earl Hugh had no other tenants named Osbern. See also Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 51-52. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2587) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 316.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* THE PRIEST *]. Osbert, who held land in Marston in Lincolnshire6, may be Osbern the priest, who held land in the same vill7. Osbert's manor (though not Osbern's) is recorded in Coel (no. 10839) but not, apparently, in Domesday people.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERT. Osbert is not a particularly common name, occurring little more than two dozen times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of fifteen tenants-in-chief, the only concentration being in East Anglia, with only three occurrences north of the Wash, one of which is the only pre-Conquest landowner, a Gamal son of Osbert in Yorkshire8. The name is, however, demonstrably interchangeable at with the far more common Osbern, as with Gamal son of Osbert, Osbern Male, Osbern of Brouay, Osbern of Sacey, Osbern Paisforiere, Osbern son of Ledhard, Bishop Osbern of Exeter, and as with the names Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Thorbert/Thorbiorn.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERT <OF STOKE>. Osbert, who held Stoke and its dependency in Nottinghamshire from Walter of Aincourt9, has no links with other Osberts, though it is possible that he is the Osbert at Marston in Lincolnshire, the only other tenant north of the Wash. Osbert of Stoke is unidentified in Coel (no. 35412).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSFRITH. Osfrith is an uncommon name which occurs on one fief in Cornwall and seventeen manors elsewhere, five in East Anglia, one in Lincolnshire, the remainder in Devon. The one survivor held the fief in Cornwall.
1 SHR 4,8,14
2 CHS 27,3
3 LIN 13,24-25;33;45
4 CHS 24,1-9
5 CHS FD5,3
6 LIN 57,35
7 LIN 54,1
8 YKS C36
9 NTT 11,6-7
.............................................................................................................................................
OSFRITH <OF OKEHAMPTON>. In view of the distribution of his name, it is not unlikely that all Osfriths in Devon and Cornwall are one man. He held substantial manors in both counties: in Cornwall he was a tenant of the Count of Mortain on a dozen manors1, eight of them retained since 1066; in Devon all eleven Osfriths were pre-Conquest landowners, nine predecessors of Baldwin the sheriff2. One of his manors, at Kelly3, is a few miles across the county boundary from Trelaske, held by the Count of Mortain's tenant4. It seems likely that the two predecessors are one man, his manors allocated according to the counties in which they lay, a not uncommon procedure, particularly where one or more of the tenants-in-chief dominated the county or counties concerned, as in this case. The other Devon Osfriths held Challonsleigh5 and Train6 in Plympton Hundred, near the coast or its estuaries, between Osfrith's manors at Manely and West Prawle. A list of Osfrith's pre-Conquest manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 328, which includes Challonsleigh and Train but not Baldwin's manors of Burston or Filleigh7. Osfrith's 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 235) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 311. Dr Clarke ranks Osfrith eighty-eighth in wealth among pre-Conquest lords; Burston and Filleigh would raise him half-a-dozen places.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEARD <OF DARENTH>. Osgeard is a rare name which occurs three times, all in Kent and all on reasonably substantial holdings, which may therefore have been held by one man8. The name is easily confused with another rare name, Osgeat, but their distributions are sufficiently distinct to separate them.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT. Osgeat is a rare name which occurs five times, once each in Essex and Suffolk, thrice in Bedfordshire, probably borne by three men.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF BROMHAM>. As the name is rare, it is probable that the three Osgeats in Bedfordshire are one man, listed among the royal reeves in 1086 at Bromham and holding land in an unnamed vill in the same Hundred9, where he is called a royal reeve. He held Bromham for twenty years, so he may be King Edward's man at Northill in 106610. Bromham and Northill lie either side of Bedford, where he was perhaps a reeve in the borough. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2044) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF COLCHESTER>. Osgeat, who had a house in Colchester11, has no links with his namesakes, and is unlikely to be the free man in Suffolk or the reeve in Bedfordshire, in view of their differing status. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 5750).
1 CON 5,13,1-12
2 DEV 16,3;11;15;55;80;107-108;157;176
3 DEV 16,11
4 CON 5,13,11
5 DEV 21,16
6 DEV 35,27
7 DEV 16,55;80
8 KEN 5,17;180. 9,45
9 BDF 57,18;20
10 BDF 23,56
11 ESS B3a
.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF STERNFIELD>. Although the name is rare, it is improbable that the free man who shared a holding at Sternfield in Suffolk with fifteen other free men1 is related to either of his namesakes, the householder in Colchester or the reeve in Bedfordshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC. Oslac is an uncommon name which occurs seventeen times, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief; two survivors held a manor each in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. Its distribution is skewed, falling into three groups, in Shropshire, the Midlands, and East Anglia and Essex, with a solitary outlier in Devon recorded in Exon.; there are no significant clusters.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF FLECKNOE>. Oslac, who held land in Flecknoe in Warwickshire from Thorkil of Warwick2, may be one of Thorkil's relatives. Flecknoe is a 'family' vill and Oslac's predecessor - Edwin - possibly another member of Thorkil's family: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 293-94. If so, then it is unlikely he is the same man as the other survivor, Oslac of Lubenham, whose manors were in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire where the reach of Thorkil's clan does not appear to have extended. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28373).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF INGRAVE>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Ingrave in Essex was acquired by Ranulf brother of Ilger3 might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF KESGRAVE>. Oslac, whose ten acres at Kesgrave in Suffolk was acquired by Robert Malet4, has no links with his namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Soham, Thorpe or Wantisden, no great distance away.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF LETHERINGSETT>. Oslac, whose manor of Letheringsett in Norfolk was acquired by Walter Giffard, may have held its dependencies in Bodham and Hunworth, where no pre-Conquest landowners are named5.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF MONTGOMERY>. Oslac, whose shared site of Montgomery and its dependencies in Shropshire was acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury6, was evidently a man of substance. The manor is very extensive - over fifty hides - exempt from all tax by King Edward, and held by the three landowners who shared it 'for hunting'. One of Oslac's co-owners was the magnate Siward the fat (q.v.). Despite his substance, no normal demesne manors can be confidently assigned to Oslac. He has no namesakes within the county and no links with those outside. Among these, the Midland landowner Oslac White is the most likely to be the Shropshire Oslac.
1 SUF 7,143
2 WAR 17,29
3 ESS 37,1
4 SUF 6,114
5 NFK 25,17;21-22
6 SHR 4,1,35-36
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF OTTERY>. Oslac, who according to Exon. shared a manor at Ottery in Devon with two other thanes Robert of Aumale1, has no links with his remote namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF SOHAM>. Oslac, whose modest manor at Soham in Suffolk was acquired by Hugh de Montfort2, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Thorpe or Wantisden, no great distance away.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF STEVINGTON>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Stevington in Essex was acquired by Tihel the Breton3 might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF SWANTON>. In view of the rarity of the name, it is likely that the Oslac with a modest pre-Conquest holding at Swanton in Norfolk is the same man as the lord of two free men at Carleton in the same Hundred4; but less likely to be the same man as Oslac of Letheringsett on the opposite side of the county.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF THORPE>. Oslac, whose ten acres at Thorpe in Suffolk were acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester5, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Soham or Wantisden, no great distance away.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF TOLLESHUNT>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Tolleshunt in Essex was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux6 might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF WANTISDEN>. Oslac, whose three acres at Wantisden in Suffolk were acquired by Count Alan of Brittany7, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Soham or Thorpe, no great distance away.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC [* WHITE *]. All but one of the Oslacs in the Midlands may be Oslac White, named as overlord of two Freemen on the royal manor of Barford8 but apparently without demesne manors of his own. Flecknoe apart (below), the Midland Oslacs cluster on the borders of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, their manors devolving upon five tenants-in-chief. White's nearest namesakes held a tight group - within two miles of each other - of four manors astride the county boundary, at
1 DEV 28,2
2 SUF 31,3
3 ESS 38,2
4 NFK 9,221-222
5 SUF 4,7
6 ESS 18,45
7 SUF 3,91
8 NTH 1,21
Marston Trussell and Thorpe Lubenham, acquired by Hugh of Grandmesnil1; East Farndon, held by Oslac among the king's thanes in 10862; and Lubenham3, acquired by the archbishop of York. Eight to nine miles from this group are Swinford and Walcote, held by one man and acquired by Robert of Bucy4. With one exception, these manors are isolated, no other Oslac holding land within a hundred miles. The exception, Oslac of Flecknoe in Warwickshire, is conceivably the same man, though his family connections suggest otherwise. If correctly identified, Oslac White, like many others, appears to have survived on a fragment of his previous estate, at East Farndon. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27546).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER. Osmer is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times, on modest holdings distributed among six counties between Devon and Cheshire - none on the eastern side of the country - and the lands of the king and eight of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Cheshire. Survivors held four manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF BOWOOD>. As the name is uncommon, the tenants of the bishop of Salisbury at Bowood and Buckham in Dorset5 - six miles apart - are very probably one man, who is also likely to be the king's thane who succeeded his father at Otterhampton in Somerset6, these being the only surviving Osmers in Domesday Book apart from a priest in Derbyshire. As he was preceded by his father, he is unlikely to be the Osmer in Devon, the only other Osmer south of Leicestershire. Osmer's manor at Bowood is recorded in Coel (no. 365) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320, under the form Oswar; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 2547, 15313).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF LEIGH>. As the only pre-Conquest lords in southern England, the two Osmers in Devon, at Rocombe and Leigh in Halberton7, are possibly the same man though his manors are modest, some thirty-five miles apart, and devolved upon different tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF NEWTON>. The Osmer whose waste manor of Newton Grange in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers8 is somewhat isolated from his namesakes, with whom he has no links. It seems unlikely he is the same man as the Osmer in Cheshire, some forty miles away, or the priest at Derby in 10869.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF PEATLING>. Osmer, whose modest holding at Peatling in Leicestershire was acquired by the Count of Meulan10, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of whom is the one survivor north of the Thames, a priest in Derby.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 NTH 23,2
2 NTH 60,5
3 LEC 2,3-4
4 LEC 17,7-8
5 DOR 3,17-18
6 SOM 47,25
7 DEV 16,127. 17,50
8 DBY 6,8
9 DBY B11
10 LEC 44,5
OSMER <OF SHIPBROOK>. Given the distribution of the name, it is likely that most if not all ten Osmers in Cheshire are one man. Six of his manors devolved on Richard of Vernon, three on William Malbank, and Claverton on Hugh son of Osbern1. Four of Richard's six manors form a tight group2, the other pair - Audlem and Crewe3 - spanning Malbank's manors of Austerson and 'Wisterton', Malbank's third manor, at Frith, being shared by a Leofwin who also shared 'Wisterton' with Osmer4. Hugh son of Osbern's manor at Claverton, though somewhat apart, was connected via a holding in Northwich, adjacent to Richard of Vernon's main cluster. See also Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 323; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 20.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* BENZ *]. Osmund is an uncommon name north of the Wash, occurring twice in Cheshire and not at all in Rutland, Staffordshire or Yorkshire. Otherwise, there is a group of interrelated clusters in Nottinghamshire and the adjacent parts of south Derbyshire, south Lincolnshire and the northern tip of Leicestershire, the widow's peak of land between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. There are no Osmunds to the north, and none for roughly forty miles south of southern-most vill in this cluster, a distribution which suggests that many of the manors within this area may be held by one man. If so, he is probably Osmund Benz, a king's thane at Ilkeston in 1066 and 1086 in Derbyshire, who is probably the thane Osmund at Cellesdene in the same wapentake at both dates5; only one other Osmund in the country - in Hampshire - retained his manor during those two decades. Benz is perhaps also the Osmund at Sandiacre, four miles from Ilkeston, another of the thanes of 10666.
No other Osmund in this area held the same manor for twenty years, but other tenants-in-chief had an Osmund both as predecessor and as tenant. In Leicestershire, Robert of Tosny acquired seven manors from a group of four thanes which included an Osmund7 an Osmund also being his tenant at Hose8, between one and six miles from three of these manors. Similarly, Ralph of Buron acquired Denby in Derbyshire9 and three manors in Nottinghamshire10 from an Osmund and had Osmund as a tenant at Hucknall and Lamcote in the same county11.
In Lincolnshire the links are more tenuous. Robert of Stafford acquired Boultham, Rauceby and Silk Willoughby from an Osmund12 but had no tenant of that name, while the bishop of Lincoln had Osmund as a tenant at Quarrington and Evedon13 but no Osmunds among his predecessors. The bishop's tenant and Robert's predecessor may, however, be the same man, since Quarrington is a couple of miles from both Willoughby and Rauceby. The one other Osmund in the county, a predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Thimbleby14, the only Lincolnshire Osmund outside Kesteven, is almost twenty miles from the nearest of his namesakes. This Osmund may be a different man, though one characteristic might suggest otherwise. Thimbleby is a fairly substantial
1 CHS FD5,2
2 CHS 5,5;7;10-11
3 CHS 5,12-13
4 CHS 8,31;35;38
5 DBY 17,13;18
6 DBY 17,16
7 LEC 15,1-7
8 LEC 15,14
9 DBY 11,3
10 NTT 15,1-3
11 NTT 15,4;7
12 LIN 59,3;12;15;20
13 LIN 7,48;50
14 LIN 30,18
manor, the most valuable of those in Lincolnshire, and Osmund Benz - if all these Osmunds are Osmund Benz - had few such manors for a landholder with land in several counties.
Two other tenants-in-chief had predecessors but not tenants in these counties: in Derbyshire, Henry of Ferrers acquired Osmaston and its dependency1, and in Nottinghamshire Grove and its dependencies devolved upon Roger of Bully2. If Dr Fleming's thesis on 'block' grants by wapentake is valid, the tenancies-in-chief are not a significant identifying characteristic because Roger of Bully and Henry of Ferrers were granted the bulk of the wapentakes concerned: Kings and lords, pp. 162, 164. Since Osmaston is nine miles from the Benz manor of Sandiacre, and eleven from that at Ilkeston, this Osmund, too, is conceivably Osmund Benz. The Bully manors are slightly further apart; and in the absence of a tenurial association, there is no basis for an identification other than the broad distributional pattern.
The more tenuous of these suggested identifications should be seen in three contexts: none of the seven tenants-in-chief had predecessors or tenants named Osmund outside the region; only two other tenants-in-chief had an Osmund as both tenant and predecessor elsewhere in Domesday Book; and distribution of the name north of the Wash is limited and patterned. The manor of Osmund Benz at Ilkeston is recorded in Coel (no. 3064) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318; the bishop of Lincoln's tenant is identified in Coel (no. 12080) but not included in Domesday people; the remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 26407, 32511, 35501, 35504).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* OF ANJOU *]. Osmund, uncle of Guy of Anjou (q.v.) who preceded his nephew at Anmer in Norfolk3, is probably Osmund of Anjou, named on the royal manor of Hatfield in Essex4, both being intermediate landowners. No other Osmunds fit this description. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND <OF EATON>. The Osmunds whose manors in Surrey5, Hampshire6 and Wiltshire7 devolved upon Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are probably one man. All were subinfeudated to the same tenant, Turold nephew of Wigot (q.v.), who held only one other manor from the earl. In Surrey, Earl Roger's entire fief was acquired from Osmund, and in Wiltshire two of his three manors there. After the king and the earls, Osmund was one of Earl Roger's most significant predecessors. Only one other Osmund held land before the Conquest in those three counties, an insignificant holding at Bentley in Hampshire8. Dr Williams suggests Osmund may have been Turold's father: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 102. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 329. Dr Clarke ranks him seventieth in wealth among untitled laymen.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* THE DANE *]. Osmund, from whom Giles brother of Ansculf acquired Stuchbury in Northamptonshire, is probably Osmund the Dane, from whom he also obtained the nearby holding in Thorpe Mandeville9. Giles had no other predecessors or tenants named Asmund or Osmund. There are other Osmunds in the county, none with links to Giles' predecessor, though the Osmund
1 DBY 6,88-89
2 NTT 9,22-24
3 NFK 8,31
4 ESS 1,3
5 SUR 18,2-4
6 HAM 21,3;5
7 WIL 21,1-2
8 HAM 69,15
9 NTH 43,7-8
at Syresham1 is a few miles away, the manor of Halse to which it belonged only two miles across the fields.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Osmund, who held Pomeroy among the king's thanes in Wiltshire in 1066 and 10862, is named Osmund the interpreter in the Geld Roll for Bradford Hundred, where Pomeroy lay: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 198. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1767) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 319, where he is identified as 'possibly' the tenant of Swein of Essex (q.v.) at Milborne Stileham in Dorset3, though the grounds for doing so are not apparent; Milborne is over fifty miles from Pomeroy, Galton and Woodstreet, held by another king's thane, Osmund the baker, being far closer4. See also Tsurushima, 'Domesday interpreters', p. 208.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK. The forename Ospak occurs four times, twice each in Nottinghamshire and Norfolk, all modest properties held by pre-Conquest landowners, likely to have been held by one man in each county.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK <OF DALLING>. As the name is rare, the Ospak who held a modest holding at Field Dalling in Norfolk in 10665 is probably the overlord of a free man at Antingham6, eighteen miles away. He may have been the father of Ansketil son of Ospak, tenant of Robert Gernon at Barningham7, almost exactly midway between Dalling and Antingham.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK <OF SIBTHORPE>. As the name is rare, the Ospaks whose modest manors in Sibthorpe and Saxondale in Nottinghamshire8 were acquired by Count Alan of Brittany and Roger of Bully may be one man, his manors devolving upon different tenants-in-chief perhaps in consequence of the allocation of much of the county by wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-64. The vills are eight miles apart.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD. Oswald is a rare name which occurs once each in Hampshire and Staffordshire, twice in Somerset and nine times in Surrey.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFWOLD *]. As the name is rare, the Oswald who held a small fief among the royal thanes in Surrey9, identified there as the abbot (of Chertsey)'s brother, is almost certainly the Oswald who held Effingham from the abbey of Chertsey, and probably the Oswald who held a second manor in Effingham and another in Mickleham from Richard of Tonbridge10; he retained both manors in Mickleham and three of those he held in chief for twenty
1 NTH 21,1
2 WIL 66,8
3 DOR 56,53
4 DOR 57,17-18
5 NFK 1,42
6 NFK 9,150
7 NFK 66,99
8 NTT 2,1. 9,103
9 SUR 36,1-5
10 SUR 8,20. 19,19;44
years. The one remaining Oswald in the county was a predecessor of Richard1, so probably the same Oswald. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 915) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320, apart from Mickleham and the Chertsey manor, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 15453, 15512).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF DURBOROUGH>. As the name is rare, the Oswalds who held Durborough and Marksbury in Somerset from the abbey of Glastonbury in 10662 are probably one man. He is the only Oswald in the south-western counties or on the Glastonbury Honour.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF HINTS>. Oswald, who held land for seven ploughteams from the bishop of Chester at Hints in Staffordshire in 10863, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom occur north of the Thames. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31348).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF TWYFORD>. Oswald, whose wife Aldgyth held the substantial manor of Twyford in Hampshire from the bishop of Winchester after 10664, will have been a significant landowner; but he held no land in his own name in 1066 so his identity is unknown. There are no other Oswalds in southern England whose identity is not reasonably certain. Twyford was by a considerable margin the most valuable manor held by an Aldgyth in 1066 or 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD. Osward is a fairly common name which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and more than twenty of his tenants tenants-in-chief. With a single exception, the name occurs only south of the Wash, with a marked clustering in Kent, Surrey and Sussex, where all but one of the twenty most valuable manors lay. There is a scattering of manors in the western counties between Wiltshire and Worcestershire. Survivors held ten manors spread across six counties between Wiltshire and Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD [* OF NORTON *]. In view of the distribution of the name, it is likely that most if not all Oswards in the adjacent counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex are Osward of Norton, who had full jurisdiction in western Kent5 and was perhaps the sheriff named on the royal manor of Dartford6: Green, English sheriffs, p. 50. Dr Williams suggests that some of these manors may have been held by another Osward, Osward of Harrietsham, named in a charter of the late 1040s, on the grounds that apart from his byname the Osward who held Harrietsham7 was not succeeded by Hugh of Port, the tenant who succeeded Osward of Norton on several other manors in Kent (including Norton) and was one of his successors as sheriff: World before Domesday, pp. 49-50, 57, 173 notes 31-37, 177-78 notes 99-104. However, although Hugh was Osward's most important successor, there were eight others in Kent alone; and as aliases from estate names are common in the period, 'of Harrietsham' may well be one of them, like Norton itself. Osward was the predecessor of the
1 SUR 19,13
2 SOM 8,8;29
3 STS 2,22
4 HAM 2,4
5 KEN D25
6 KEN 1,1
7 KEN 5,63
bishop of Bayeux at both Harrietsham and Norton and on most of his other manors in Kent1 and also acquired the single manor held by an Osward in Essex2. The bishop's predecessor may also be the Osward who held the three remaining Kentish manors: Crayford and Sheppey3 from the archbishop of Canterbury according to the Domesday Monachorum (pp. 85-86), and Sellindge, acquired by Hugh de Montfort4. The substantial manor of Crayford was adjacent to the royal manor of Dartford where Osward was active as sheriff, and the valuable manor of Sellindge lay in western Kent, where Osward of Norton had full jurisdiction.
In Sussex, where the allocation of each of the Rapes to a single tenant-in-chief obliterated Anglo-Saxon tenurial arrangements, it is likely that the Oswards who held land in four of the Rapes are this man. In three of the four Rapes at least one of his manors was substantial, and in the fourth the single manor was not negligible and was held from King Edward, like the majority of others5. In one case, manorial links confirm a connection, two of the tenants-in-chief having an interest in Claverham6. Additionally, two of the manors were held by Osward at both dates7, and a third in 10868. These manors are among his most modest in the three counties, so it is possible that Osward was allowed to survive on a fraction of his former estate, as happened to many other English magnates. Finally, in Surrey, two of the three manors were valuable or very valuable9, while the third was acquired by Haimo the sheriff10, Osward's successor in that office in Kent in 1086. Apart from the status of most of his manors, what makes these tenuous associations reasonably persuasive evidence of identity is the absence of Oswards elsewhere on the map, with not a single name in the adjacent counties: none in Hampshire, and none at all in circuits three and four or in Suffolk.
A list of Osward's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 329-31, which does not include Crayford and Sheppey, recorded in the Domesday Monachorum, or the manors acquired by William of Warenne11 and William of Braose12 in Sussex. Dr Clarke ranks Osward thirty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him several places, higher still if allowance is made for the income he probably derived from managing the royal manors: Williams, World before Domesday, p. 57. Osward's 1086 holdings are attributed to three unidentified tenants in Coel (nos. 15786, 16363, 16366).
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD <OF ORDSALL>. Osward, whose land at Ordsall in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully13, has no links with his namesakes. There are no other Oswards in the county or on the Honour of Roger of Bully.
.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD [* OF TREWSBURY *]. Osward, who held Trewsbury in Gloucestershire from Gilbert son of Turold14, is named Osward de Trusseberie in a charter of Henry I: Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 5. As his name is not particularly common, he may be the one other Osward in
1 KEN 5,63;70;91;111;115-118;143;153
2 ESS 18,14
3 KEN 2,7;37
4 KEN 9,24
5 SUS 9,3;14;94;114;123. 10,35;87;91. 12,24;27;32. 13,50
6 SUS 9,94;114. 10,87
7 SUS 12,24;27
8 SUS 9,14
9 SUR 15,2. 34,1
10 SUR 8,26
11 SUS 12,24;27;32
12 SUS 13,50
13 NTT 9,19
14 GLS 52,2
Gloucestershire, who held Rodmarton1 - three miles away - in 1066 and 1086, and perhaps the Osward who held in Nether Stowey in Somerset for two decades2. He shared Stowey with an Alward, and Osward of Trewsbury was preceded at Trewsbury by an Alward who, in turn, may be the Alward who succeeded Osward at Milton3. These are the only three manors in Domesday Book where Alward and Osward appear together; and since the Stowey entry shows that both were survivors from 1066, this is unlikely to be a coincidence, though the manors were in different hands by the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 819; VCH Gloucestershire, xi. 238; VCH Somerset, v. 193. Alward and Osward may have been brothers, or close relations. Trewsbury is recorded in Coel (no. 8793) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 15150, 29893).
............................................................................................................................................. OSWULF <OF HARDWICK>. The Oswulfs on adjacent manors in Hardwick and Burston in Buckinghamshire4 acquired by Miles Crispin and both subinfeudated to a William are probably one man, possibly Oswulf son of Frani, though there are no links to confirm this. There are no other Oswulfs on Miles' Honour. ............................................................................................................................................. OSWULF <OF WILLINGHAM>. Oswulf, whose virgate worth three shillings at Willingham in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany5, has no links with his namesakes. There are no other Oswulfs in the county or on the Count's Honour. .............................................................................................................................................
OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. It is likely that most, if not all, Oswulfs in the ten counties of circuits three and four are Oswulf son of Frani, designated predecessor of Robert of Tosny in Hertfordshire, where Robert acquired his fief from Oswulf6, and named in full on his manors acquired by Robert at Cheddington in Buckinghamshire7 and Studham in Bedfordshire8. On three of these, he is described as a royal thane, so he is probably the royal thane Oswulf who preceded Robert at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire9 and Oakley in Bedfordshire10. The third manor on Robert's Bedfordshire fief was also held by an Oswulf, evidently the same man11 since the three manors constituted Robert's fief. In view of this pattern, he is likely to be the Oswulf who preceded Robert in Leicestershire12 and Northamptonshire13. In both counties, Frani of Ashley (q.v.), perhaps Oswulf's father, held land within four miles of one of these manors, in Northamptonshire as Robert's predecessor14.
The son of Frani is also named as the lord of men whose lands were acquired by the Count of Mortain, Count Eustace of Boulogne and Robert d'Oilly in Hertfordshire15, so he may be the
1 GLS 78,4
2 SOM 35,12
3 SOM 46,17;19
4 BUK 23,24-25
5 CAM 14,57
6 HRT 21,1-2
7 BUK 18,2
8 BDF 26,1
9 BUK 18,3
10 BDF 26,2
11 BDF 26,3
12 LEC 15,1-7
13 NTH 26,1;6;8
14 NTH 26,10
15 HRT 15,7. 17,1. 19,1
Oswulf at Wigginton, where the Count acquired the land of his man, Leofric1, and perhaps at Furtho in Northamptonshire2, where an Oswulf preceded the Count. Of the five remaining Oswulfs in the two circuits, the man of King Edward on the valuable manor of Sherington in Buckinghamshire, four miles from Clifton Reynes, is probably the Frani's son, and perhaps also the Oswulf at Moulsoe, five miles south of Sherington3. The two manors in the county acquired by Miles Crispin4, though possibly his also, have no discernible links and are here attributed to another Oswulf, as is the one manor in Cambridgeshire. No Oswulf in this area survived until 1086. A list of Oswulf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 331-32, which does not include the Leicestershire manors or Moulsoe and Sherington. Dr Clarke ranks Oswulf eighty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him a dozen or more places. .............................................................................................................................................
OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. All Othenkars in Domesday Book may be one man, who is perhaps the Oingar son of Alnoth of Nottingham whose (unspecified) land in the county was granted to the Church of Durham shortly after the Domesday Survey: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. The form Oingar is otherwise unknown but will fit no one else in Domesday Book. The seven Othenkars in Nottinghamshire are probably the same man since all were predecessors of Roger of Bully5, only one them in a 'Bully' wapentake. Willoughby-on-the-Wolds6, somewhat isolated from the other manors, lay in the block of territory held by William Peverel, suggesting Roger acquired it by antecession: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 148-52, 162-64. Roger acquired the land of an Alnoth at Thrumpton, eight miles south-west of Nottingham, one of two Alnoths in the county, the other possibly the same man (below).
The one Derbyshire manor, at Shipley7, devolved upon Gilbert of Ghent, who also acquired Croft and Wainfleet in Lincolnshire8, his manors bracketing those in Nottinghamshire. Of the remaining Lincolnshire holdings, those acquired by Jocelyn son of Lambert included one in Wainfleet alongside Gilbert9, and jurisdictions of the bishop of Bayeux's manor of Ashby Puerorum10 in Markby and Bag Enderby, the other two vills the bishop acquired from Othenkar as dependencies of Ashby11. Only Willoughton12 has no obvious links with other manors, though it is of comparable status.
Less certainly, the tenant of Countess Judith at Gaddesby in Leicestershire13 may be Alnoth's son. This Othenkar, the only survivor, may have held the manor before the Conquest, too, since no 1066 lord is recorded. Gaddesby is some eleven miles south of Othenkar's manor of Willoughby14 and is adjacent to Rearsby, held by an Alnoth - the other Alnoth in the county - before the Conquest. If he is the son of Alnoth, then like many of his peers he was left holding a fragment of his previous estate in 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 26636).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HRT 15,5
2 NTH 18,55
3 BUK 5,20. 14,45
4 BUK 23,24-25
5 NTT 9,1;76;92;96;100;106;108
6 NTT 9,92
7 DBY 13,2
8 LIN 24,74-75
9 LIN 28,41
10 LIN 4,65-66
11 LIN 28,39-40
12 LIN 48,1
13 LEC 40,35
14 NTT 9,92
OTTO. The name Otto is difficult to disentangle from the more common Odo/Oda and other forms, Otto the goldsmith, for instance, appearing as Otto, Otho and Odo. Forssner has declared it to be 'a useless task' to separate the forms: Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 198-99. Apart from the one Odo who can be identified as the goldsmith, Odo is here treated as a separate name. There appear to be no grounds for identifying the other two Othos in the text1 with the Ottos discussed below.
.............................................................................................................................................
OTTO <OF CHEADLE>. Otto, who held a half-hide at Cheadle among the king's thanes in Staffordshire in 10862, does not appear to be related to his one namesake, the goldsmith. His name-form (Otha) is unique in Domesday. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31626).
.............................................................................................................................................
OTTO [* THE GOLDSMITH *]. Odo, who held Hawkstead in Suffolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds3, is almost certainly Otto the goldsmith, who subsequently donated land there to the abbey, a gift confirmed by Henry I: Feudal documents, pp. 61-62. Otto was a minor tenant-in-chief in Cambridgeshire and Essex, and managed royal lands in Essex and Suffolk. His son, another Otto, succeeded him: Round, 'Early reference to Domesday', pp. 555-57. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 121) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 320-21.
.............................................................................................................................................
OWEN <OF LYE>. Owen (Ouen), whose manors at Lye in Herefordshire were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer and Gruffydd Boy4, is the only man of this name in Domesday Book. The name might be confused with Owine; but there are no links between the bearers of those names.
.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE". Owine is a rare name which occurs four times, once each in Derbyshire and Essex and twice in Cheshire: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 342. The rural Owines are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE" <OF AUSTERSON>. The Owines whose modest manors of Basford and Austerson in Cheshire - six miles apart - were acquired by William Malbank5 are very probably one man. As his name is very rare, it is possible he is the same man as the one other rural Owine, on a comparable manor at Bradwell in Derbyshire, some forty-five miles away; but there are no links to confirm an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE" <OF BRADWELL>. Owine, whose share in the modest manor of Bradwell in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel6, has no links with his namesake in Cheshire, though as his name is very rare, he might be the one other rural Owine, in Cheshire, some forty-five miles away; but there are no links to confirm an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SUR 19,33. WIL 69,92
2 STS 17,19
3 SUF 14,13
4 HEF 9,14. 31,7
5 CHS 8,27;31
6 DBY 7,8
"OWINE" <OF COLCHESTER>. Owine, who had a house in Colchester1, has no links with his northern namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI. The name Palli occurs twice, once each in Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, both borne by pre-Conquest lords.
.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI <OF BLEDISLOW>. Palli, whose small manor of Bledislow in Gloucestershire was acquired by Walter the bowman2, might be the one other Palli, at Middleton in Warwickshire, but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI <OF MIDDLETON>. Palli, whose fairly substantial manor of Middleton in Warwickshire was acquired by Hugh of Grandmesnil3, might be the Palli at Bledislow in Gloucestershire, his one namesake, but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE. Payne is a fairly common name which occurs which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among nineteen counties and the lands of the king and eighteen of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in the adjacent counties of Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. All but three Paynes are 1086 landowners, tenants of fifteen tenants-in-chief, none of whom appears to have had more than one tenant of that name. Although fairly common, no tenant-in-chief bore this forename.
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE [* FATHER OF EDMUND *]. Payne is a rare name in 1066, occurring once each in Gloucestershire and Norfolk and once or twice in Hampshire. In the last two counties, Payne is probably the father of Edmund, since he is succeeded by Edmund son of Payne in Norfolk4, and in Hampshire he may be the father who preceded an Edmund at 'Michelton'5, while his unnamed manor in the New Forest lay in the same Hundred of Boldre as one of Edmund's6. He is probably the Payne who held two manors in Boldre itself7, though the text is unclear as to when he held these manors. He may, however, have survived the Conquest, the only other Payne in Hampshire holding land at 'Buckholt' in the New Forest8, in the Hundred where two of Edmund's manors lay9, one of which he acquired from a Saewin, Payne's predecessor at 'Buckholt'. Payne is unidentified in Coel (no. 6693).
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF CLANFIELD>. The Paynes who held Westbury in Buckinghamshire10 and Clanfield and Bourton in Oxfordshire11 from Roger of Ivry are probably one man. The Oxfordshire manors
1 ESS B3a
2 GLS 58,3
3 WAR 18,4
4 NFK 46,1
5 HAM 69,20
6 HAM NF9,26;45
7 HAM NF9,19
8 HAM NF9,3
9 HAM 69,51;54
10 BUK 41,2
11 OXF 29,18. 59,12
are adjacent, and held by the only Paynes in the county; while Clanfield was held at a later date by Ralph Hareng, who also had land in Westbury: Book of Fees, pp. 822, 871, 892; VCH Oxfordshire, xv, 81. There are no other Paynes in Oxfordshire or on Roger's Honour. Payne's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321.
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF COMPTON>. The Paynes who held Compton Bassett and Cumberwell from Humphrey de l'Isle are probably one man, the only Payne in the county, with the same predecessor on both manors1. Humphrey's Honour is confined to Wiltshire and is unlikely to include two Paynes among his comparatively few tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11534) but are not included in Domesday people.
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF HOGGESTON>. William son of Ansculf's tenants in Buckinghamshire2, Staffordshire3 and Worcestershire4 may be the same Payne, although some of these manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 369-70, 415-17, 424; Book of Fees, p. 968. The Staffordshire and Worcestershire manors are within three miles of each other; and of the seven in Buckinghamshire, five lie within a four mile radius of Stewkley, the other two being three miles apart, though William's fief in the county extends some sixty miles from north to south. His Staffordshire and Worcestershire tenants are the only Paynes in those counties, while the two other Paynes in Buckinghamshire may be identified as other men with reasonable confidence. Payne was William's wealthiest tenant, with a number of substantial manors in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1903) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321, where the Staffordshire reference is missing.
.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF LUBBESTHORPE>. William Peverel's tenants at Tetchwick in Buckinghamshire5, Barby in Northamptonshire6, 'Lubbesthorpe' in Leicestershire7 and Basford in Nottinghamshire8 are probably the same Payne. In the last three counties, he is the only Payne in the county; and the descent of the three manors, albeit broken, offers circumstantial evidence to support his identification: Farrer, Honors, i. 168-73. The descent of Tetchwick was interrupted by forfeiture: Farrer, Honors, i. 222-26. He is one of Peverel's more important tenants, only two others being significantly better-endowed. Payne's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3705) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321.
............................................................................................................................................. PAYNE [* THE STEWARD *]. The Paynes who held Anstey in Hertfordshire9 and six manors in Cambridgeshire10 from Hardwin of Scales are probably his steward, named in the Inquisitio Eliensis as a juror in Whittlesford Hundred, where his manor of Duxford lay (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). He is the only Payne in Cambridgeshire, and one of three in Hertfordshire. The other two, both tenants of the bishop of London, may also be Hardwin's steward since their manors at Pelham and
1 WIL 27,2;5
2 BUK 17,9-12;14;26;29
3 STS 12,14
4 WOR 23,13
5 BUK 16,3
6 NTH 35,8
7 LEC 25,3
8 NTT 10,51
9 HRT 37,20
10 CAM 26,16;44-47;49
Meesden1 are adjacent to his manor of Anstey, Meesden being acquired from an Alward who may be the Alward who held Anstey. Neither the bishop or Hardwin had other Paynes on their Honours. The manors of Hardwin's tenant are recorded in Coel (no. 983) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321; those of the bishop's tenant are unidentified (nos. 6990, 6995). .............................................................................................................................................
PETER [* OF VALOGNES *]. P, or Peter, named on royal manors in Essex, is very probably Peter of Valognes, sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire2: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 39, 47. He may also be the Peter who held Libury from the bishop of Bayeux and Graveley and Boxbury from William of Eu - all in Hertfordshire - and Great Ryburgh in Norfolk from William of Warenne, since he held in chief in those vills and at Graveley his officer, Roger, held part of the manor from him3. He probably also held Rye House in the county as well as Libury from the bishop of Bayeux4, Bishop Odo having no other Peters on his extensive Honour; and he is very probably the one other unidentified Peter in the county, at Berkesden5, where he intervened officially in an exchange involving Libury. He was a tenant-in-chief in Essex and Hertfordshire and four other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 395) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 322-23, apart from Graveley and Boxbury, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 7187, 7192).
.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT. If the tenants-in-chief Picot of Cambridge and Picot of Sai are excluded, Picot is not a particularly common name, occurring twenty-six times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief. There is one cluster in Yorkshire/Lincolnshire but otherwise an un-patterned scattering between Hampshire and Staffordshire. All Picots are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF CAMBRIDGE *]. Picot is a common name only in Cambridgeshire, where Picot of Cambridge was sheriff and tenant-in-chief, 'a starving lion, a footloose wolf, a deceitful fox, a muddy swine, an impudent dog' who, according to the Liber Eliensis (ed Fairweather, p. 25), acted 'as if the whole county was one carcass, he claimed it all for himself'. He is very probably the unidentified Picot on all entries in the county, named as such on several of them in the satellite texts6: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton pp. 52-53, 75, 78, 84, 93-94, 106, 123). The context indicates his identity in entries relating to the royal lands7 and to his activities at Orwell8. In the remaining cases, he either held in chief in the vills concerned, or had another tenancy in the vill where he is accorded his byname9. His official status also identifies him as the Picot on the royal manors of Wethersfield in Essex10 and Barrow and Badmondisfield in Suffolk11. He may also be the tenant of Robert Gernon, his fellow sheriff whose daughter he married, at Patching and Arkesden in Essex12. There are no other Picots in Essex or East Anglia. He founded St Giles in Cambridge, endowing it with many of the churches and tithes of his lands: Liber de
1 HRT 4,13;17
2 ESS 1,19;25-27
3 HRT 5,9. 28,1;5. NFK 8,113
4 HRT 5,25
5 HRT 37,19
6 CAM B12-13. 5,24. 14,39;41;58. 31,7. 36,1. 41,9
7 CAM 1,14-16;23
8 CAM 13,8
9 CAM 3,2;4. 5,11. 33,1. 41,10-12;16
10 ESS 1,13
11 SUF 1,120-121
12 ESS 32,35;43
Bernwelle, pp. 40-41. He is identified by some authorities as the same man as Pirot of Wyboston (q.v.). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 650) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 324, apart from those held from Robert Gernon, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 5165, 5175).
.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF LASCELLES *]. Picot, tenant of Count Alan of Brittany on five manors in Yorkshire1 and another three in Lincolnshire2, is identified as Picot of Lascelles in the Lindsey Survey (8/2) and in contemporary and later documents: Book of Fees, p. 154. His manors formed the Lascelles fee held by his descendants from the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 182-96. There are no other Picots on the Count's Honour or in Lincolnshire, and no links with the one Picot in Yorkshire who cannot be identified with confidence3. Picot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2463) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 324-25.
.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF PERCY *]. Picot, tenant of William of Percy at Bolton upon Dearne and Sutton upon Derwent4, is probably Picot of Percy, who witnessed Percy charters early in the following century and whose descendants were the Percys of Bolton Percy: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 201-205; xi. 105-18. Bolton upon Dearne was later held by the Normanville family, but there is little reason to doubt it was held by the Picot who held Sutton in 1086. Like Sutton, it was acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord, Northmann; and the descent of the William of Percy's tenancies shows some shuffling between Picot and another tenant, Roscelin of Fulstow (q.v.), who held in Bolton Percy in 1086, though this did not descend to his successors, the Normanvilles: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 286. There are no other Picots on the Percy Honour. It is possible that Percy is the one other Picot in Yorkshire who cannot be confidently identified - at 'Little Braham' about fifteen miles to the west of the nearest of Picot's holdings - but there are no links to provide confirmation. Picot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4630) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 325.
.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF SAI *]. Picot, who held a fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury5, is almost certainly Picot of Sai, named by Orderic Vitalis as one of the earl's chief vassals to whom he gave a position of authority (ii. 262-63; iii. 146-47). Picot is a nickname, his forename being Robert, lord of Clun: Calendar of documents: France, p. 233; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 112-13. He may also be the Picot who held Mytton from St Mary's of Shrewsbury, Mytton being less than a mile from his manor of Fitz6. It is also likely he is the one other Picot who held from the earl of Shrewsbury, holding Wepham in Sussex - the only Picot in the county - from him, the most valuable of Picot's tenancies7. It was the earl's practice to enfeof his major tenants in both counties. Picot had a tenant of is own named Picot, a man-at-arms in Shropshire8 who is perhaps more likely than his lord to be the one other Picot in the county, a subtenant of Roger son of Corbet at Worthen9. Picot of Sai was from Sai in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 96. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2972) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 325.
1 YKS 6N27;28-30;58
2 LIN 12,14-17;19
3 YKS 24W16
4 YKS 13W7. 13E12
5 SHR 4,20,1-27
6 SHR 3d,5. 4,20,15
7 SUS 11,74
8 SHR 4,20,8
9 SHR 4,4,20
.............................................................................................................................................
PILWIN <OF SIBTHORPE>. The name Pilwin occurs twice, on manors in the adjacent vills of Elston and Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire1, acquired by different tenants-in-chief but both enfeoffed to an Arngrim, so very probably held by the same Pilwin before the Conquest.
............................................................................................................................................. PIROT <OF WYBOSTON>. All Pirots in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man. His name is rare, occurring nine times, seven as a tenant of Eudo the steward (q.v.): at Babraham, Pampisford and Sawston in Cambridgeshire2; Beeston and Northill in Bedfordshire3; Hawkwell in Essex4, and Glemham in Suffolk5. Streatley and Wyboston in Bedfordshire6 were held from Nigel of Aubigny, either as part of the marriage portion of Pirot's wife, or of Nigel's Honour, the only such cases on the Honour. They span the Bedfordshire manors held from Eudo. Apart from their tenurial and distributional characteristics, Pirot's manors descended together: Farrer, Honors, iii. 155-57, 217-19. He has been identified as Picot the sheriff, Pirot being seen as a scribal error. At Babraham and Pampisford, the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 36, 38) does render Pirot as Picot; both Pirot and Picot held land in those two vills7; and marriage portions for both Picot's and Pirot's wives are recorded8, a striking coincidence since marriage portions are a rare occurrence in Domesday Book. However, the arguments against the identification are compelling. The Domesday scribe altered the familiar Picot to the unfamiliar Pirot, suggesting errors being corrected, and Pirot's name is preserved as a patronymic among his descendants (Farrer, op. cit.). Moreover, it is difficult to credit that both the Domesday scribe and those of Little Domesday made the same error in four counties, but only on the manors of Eudo and Nigel, from neither of whom Picot the sheriff held land. Finally, though not in itself conclusive, Picot's manors did not descend by the same route as those of Pirot: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 97; Domesday people, pp. 324-26. Pirot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 988) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 324-26. .............................................................................................................................................
PLEINES [* OF SLEPE *]. Pleines, who shared four hides at St Ives in Huntingdonshire with two other tenants of Ramsey abbey9, is named Pleines of Slepe in the abbey's cartulary: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 129. His name is unique, of unknown derivation. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 987) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.
.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL. Rabel is a rare name which occurs only among post-Conquest landowners in Cornwall and Norfolk.
.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL <OF TREGUNNICK>. Rabel, who held two small manors in Cornwall from Count Robert of Mortain10, is one of two men in Domesday Book to bear this name, the other a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk. Rabel's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1689) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.
1 NTT 6,5. 20,1-2
2 CAM 25,1-3
3 BDF 21,14-15
4 ESS 25,11
5 SUF 28,6
6 BDF 24,18;24
7 CAM 1,15. 32,8
8 CAM 21,9. 24,18
9 HUN 6,7
10 CON 5,24,16-17
.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL [* THE ENGINEER *]. As the name is rare, the Rabel who held two houses and two messuages in Norwich1 is probably Rabel the engineer, alias Rabel the carpenter, who had a small fief in the county2. His fief, together with land in Norwich, was granted by Henry I to Robert son of Walter: Regesta, ii. no. 987. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 114) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.
.............................................................................................................................................
RADA <OF REDENHALL>. Rada, who held the substantial manor of Redenhall and its dependencies in Norfolk under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield3, is probably the Rada who held the respectable manor of Sotherton in Suffolk, fifteen miles south-east of Redenhall, from Earl Harold4, these being the only Radas in Domesday Book.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER. Rainer is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs, more than thirty manors and in a number of Claims, distributed among fourteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and sixteen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Devon and Lincolnshire. All Rainers are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* OF BRIMEUX *]. The tenants of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Arram and Hatfield in Holderness5, and at Kettleby across the Humber in North Lincolnshire6, may be Rainer of Brimeux, a tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire7. Drogo and Rainer both came from the Pas-de-Calais and shared at least two tenants, Baldwin of Flanders and Kolsveinn of Lincoln. Like many of Drogo's men, his tenant Rainer appears to have lost his lands after Drogo's flight, as did Rainer of Brimeux himself, replaced by Ralph of Criol by the date of the Lindsey Survey: English, Lords of Holderness, pp. 139-40. Drogo had no other tenants of this name. Rainer's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2425) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 356, apart from Kettleby, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 34236).
.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* OF THONGLANDS *]. Rainer, who held a hide in the manor of Tugford in Shropshire granted by Reginald the sheriff to Shrewsbury abbey8, is probably Rainer of Thonglands, named in a charter confirming various gifts to the abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. no. 1, p. 2. The hide was located at Thonglands: Book of Fees, pp. 963, 971. There are no other Rainers in Shropshire, on the Honour of the earl of Shrewsbury, or on the fiefs of his sheriff. Rainer's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8239) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 356-57.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* THE STEWARD *]. The Rainers who held Germansweek, Kigbeare, Payhembury, Langford, Tedburn, Rockbeare and Dotton in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff9 are probably his
1 NFK 1,61
2 NFK 55,1-2. 66,101-102
3 NFK 128-31. SUF 1,92
4 SUF 48,1
5 YKS 14E30;39
6 LIN 30,6
7 LIN 40,1-26
8 SHR 4,3,8
9 DEV 16,8;22;95-96;119;133-135
steward, named in Exon. as the Rainer who held Greenslade from him1. Six of the eight manors were later held by the same family, named from Langford; and of the other two, Payhembury is five miles from Langford, Kigbeare eight from Germansweek, between the latter and Greenslade: Book of Fees, 755, 763, 785-87; Feudal Aids, i. 314. As the name is rare in the region, the one other Rainer in the county, at Lowton2, seven miles from the steward's nearest manor, may also be the steward. Apart from the tenant of Robert son of Gerald in Wiltshire3, these are the only Rainers in the south-western counties. Rainer's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1721) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 351, apart from Lowton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4257). See also Mason, 'Barons and their officials', pp. 246-47.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH. Ralph is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring well over a thousand times and in every county except Rutland. More than seventy Ralphs have different bynames, three of the earls and almost two dozen tenants-in-chief, Ralphs also occurring as tenants of almost 130 other tenants-in-chief. Apart from the two earls, Ralphs appear on four manors in pre-Conquest contexts in Domesday Book or the satellite texts.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* RALPH *] BAYNARD. Baynard, or R Baynard, who occurs in Essex and East Anglia, can be identified as Ralph Baynard, tenant-in-chief in those counties, sometime sheriff of Essex. His official functions identify him on the royal fief in Essex4, while references to his Holding, or his predecessors, identify him elsewhere5. He is almost certainly the Baynard responsible for five annexations in the Norfolk folios6, since he held in chief in the vills concerned. As he is the archbishop's tenant elsewhere7, he is probably the Baynard who held Malling in Sussex8 and Walworth in Surrey9 from him, and probably also the Baynard at Pachesham in Surrey10 and Westminster in Middlesex11, given their proximity to London and Baynard's Castle, to which the family gave its name: Mortimer, 'Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 241-43, 252. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 123) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 327.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* BLOIET *]. The Ralphs who held Hillmarton and Lackham in Wiltshire12 and 'Duntisbourne' in Gloucestershire13 from William of Eu are probably Ralph Bloiet, his tenant at Silchester in Hampshire and, according to Exon., at Yeovilton and Hinton Blewitt in Somerset14. The Wiltshire and Gloucestershire manors descended to the Bloiet family: Book of Fees, p. 724; GLS 31,7 Ralph note. He may also be the Ralph who held another manor in Duntisbourne, and manors in 'Shipton' and 'Littleton'15, from Durand of Gloucester16. William of Eu had no other
1 DEV 16,56
2 DEV 47,14
3 WIL 42,2-3;8
4 ESS 1,17a;27
5 ESS 28,9. NFK 9,232. 13,10. SUF 4,36. 7,15. 76,20
6 NFK 66,35-39
7 ESS 2,9
8 SUS 2,1b
9 SUR 2,4
10 SUR 5,17
11 MDX 4,2
12 WIL 32,9;12
13 GLS 31,7
14 SOM 26,3;5
15 GLS 53,9;12
16 GLS 53,3 Ralph note
Ralphs on his Honour, but Durand had two, one at Cliddesden in Hampshire1, ten miles from Silchester, the other at Ashperton in Herefordshire2, whose descent has not been traced: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 62, 117. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 150) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 328, where William's tenant at 'Duntisbourne is identified as Bloiet, the other Ralphs being unidentified (nos. 6455, 16991, 16994, 29716, 29767, 29770, 30469).
.............................................................................................................................................
EARL RALPH [* OF HEREFORD *]. There are three Earl Ralphs in Domesday Book, but Earl Ralph of Hereford, nephew of Edward the Confessor, husband of Countess Gytha (q.v.), and father of Harold son of Earl Ralph (q.v.), is normally easy to distinguish, either through association with his wife or son3, because died before 1066 (d. 1057), or by the distribution of his lands in the Midlands and the west, where the other earls are absent; Lincolnshire - where he is presumably the Earl Ralph who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in Lincolnshire4, since the other possiblity earl, Ralph the constable, occurs in the same list. - is the only county where he and another Earl Ralph are recorded. His manors are distributed among the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire. He was subsequently known by the unflattering nickname of Ralph the timid, after an inglorious encounter with the Welsh in 1055 when, according to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, he fled the field 'before any spear had been thrown'. His career and lands are documented by Dr Williams, who points out that he held Chalfont, and possibly also Chalton, in Bedfordshire5, in addition to the manors attributed to him in Domesday Book: 'The king's nephew', pp. 327-43. He had also held Glaston in Northamptonshire6, which he granted to Peterborough abbey, though it was in lay hands at the time of Domesday Book: Hugh Candidus, p. 69; Early charters of eastern England, p. 246. Lists of his manors are given by Williams (p. 332) and Clarke, English nobility, pp. 224-25, who does not include Lighthorne or Radway in Warwickshire7. Dr Clarke ranks Earl Ralph with his wife and son twenty-sixth in wealth among the nobility; the additional manors, with those attributed to his wife, would place the family comfortably in the top twenty; only a modest part of this was retained by his son.
.............................................................................................................................................
EARL RALPH [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Ralph the constable and his son, Ralph Wader, both earls of East Anglia, are often simply designated 'Earl Ralph', 'Earl R', or even just 'Ralph' or 'R', by the scribes of Little Domesday. In most cases the two earls can be distinguished by the context. References to Ralph the Elder or Ralph the constable identify the father unambiguously, as do pre-Conquest contexts, though he is sometimes anachronistically named 'Earl Ralph', a title he did not have before 1066. Apart from one entry where he is named in full as Earl Ralph the constable8, and two references to when he 'became earl'9, Ralph the elder is normally named Earl Ralph in a post-Conquest context only alongside his wife or son, though there are one or two ambiguous cases10. He settled in England at an early date and succeeded Gyrth as earl of East Anglia after the Conquest, dying sometime between 1068 and 1070. His origins, career and relationships are documented in Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 60-61, 109; Keats-Rohan,
1 HAM 37,1
2 HEF 22,1
3 GLS 61,1-2. WAR 38,1
4 LIN T5
5 BDF 8,1. 54,3
6 NTH 56,36
7 WAR 29,1. 44,6
8 SUF 1,101
9 NFK 1,96-97
10 NFK 1,75;149
Domesday people, pp. 44-45. A list of his manors - too numerous to list here - is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 332-34, which does not include his demesne manors of Buckenham, Ashby, Hoveton and Filby in Norfolk, or the many East Anglian free men whose holdings have no separate valuation. Dr Clarke ranks Ralph eleventh in wealth among untitled laymen, twenty-first among the nobility; the additional manors would place him in the top ten and twenty respectively. ............................................................................................................................................. EARL RALPH [* WADER *]. Ralph Wader and his father, Ralph the constable, both earls of East Anglia, are often simply designated 'Earl Ralph', 'Earl R', or even just 'Ralph' or 'R', by the scribes of Little Domesday; but they can normally be distinguished by the context. References to his forfeiture identify the son unambiguously, as almost certainly do references to his 'Holding', or in most cases to the succession of Godric the steward, who assumed control of much of his forfeited land on behalf of the Crown. Ralph Wader was also a designated predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany for some of the Count's East Anglian manors. Where other identifying characteristics are lacking, he is probably the intermediate 'R' or 'Ralph' on manors where pre-Conquest lords are named, though one or two cases are ambiguous1. Apart from Whaddon in Cambridgeshire2, Munden and Wallington in Hertfordshire3, and Sampford and Bentley in Essex4, all his manors - too numerous to list here - lay in East Anglia. His byname - Wader - is recorded in the one Cambridgeshire entry5. He succeeded his father as earl sometime between 1068 and 1070, rebelled and forfeited in 1075-1076. His origins, career, relationships and rebellion are documented in Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 59-63, 109; Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 44-47; and Marten, 'Rebellion of 1075', pp. 168-82. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database. .............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF ASHBY>. The tenants of Countess Judith at Ashby Folville, 'Newbold' Folville and Welby in Leicestershire6 are stated to be the same Ralph on the first two manors and may be the Ralph on the tiny holding at Welby, though its descent has not been traced: Farrer, Honors, ii. 320-21. Ashby - the most valuable manor - and Newbold were later held by the Folville family, from which both vills derive their surnames. Judith had one other Ralph among her tenants, at Lavendon in Buckinghamshire7, shared between three individuals in the thirteenth century: Feudal Aids, i. 74; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 382. Ralph's Leicestershire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8948) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 346; the tenant at Lavendon is unidentified (no. 1531).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF BAGPUIZE *]. The Ralphs who held 'Ashden' and Kingston Bagpuize in Berkshire8 and Barton Blount, Alkmonton and Bentley in Derbyshire9 from Henry of Ferrers were identified as Ralph of Bagpuize by Round: 'Bachepuz charter', pp. 152-55. The Abingdon chronicle names the Ralph at Kingston as Ralph of Bagpuize (Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 42-43, 176-79), while a charter of the reign of Henry II issued by his descendant Robert in the Hallimot of Barton identifies Ashden as another Bagpuize manor. The Barton of the Hallimot is evidently Barton Blount, earlier named Barton Bagpuize: Lay subsidy of 1334, p. 45. Land in Alkmonton and
1 NFK 1,75;149
2 CAM 19,4
3 HRT 16,2. 35,3
4 ESS 1,30. 35,3
5 CAM 19,4
6 LEC 40,32-33;38
7 BUK 53,5
8 BRK 21,3;14
9 DBY 6,34-36
Bentley was also held by Ralph's descendants from those of Henry of Ferrers: Book of Fees, p. 994; Derbyshire charters, nos. 238-39. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1571) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 329; he probably came from Bacquepuis in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Evreux).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF BIGNOR>. The Ralphs who held a site in Arundel and subtenancies in Buddington, Glatting, Stopham, Wittering and Bignor in Sussex from Robert son of Theobald, tenant of the earl of Shrewsbury1, are probably one man, ancestor of the Sanzaver family, who later held these manors or had interests in the vills in which they lay: Salzman, 'Family of Chesney', pp. 32-34; Farrer, Honors, iii. 24-26. Earl Roger had no other Ralphs among his tenants or subtenants in the county, although a Ralph the cook was his tenant in Shropshire and an unidentified Ralph in Warwickshire with modest holdings. Ralph's Sussex manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2147) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345, apart from Stopham, Wittering and Bignor, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 16190, 16222, 16265).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF BUCY *]. The Ralphs who held Wantley, Woolfly and Shermanbury - stated in the text be one man - and Kingston-by-sea (once Kingston Bucy) in Sussex from William of Braose2 are identified as the Ralph of Bucy named in several Braose charters by the descent of his manors: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 395-97, 406; Book of Fees, p. 689; VCH Sussex, vi/i. 133-34. He may also be one of the Ralphs at Lancing3: VCH Sussex, i. 370, 379; vi/i. 41-42. William had at least one other Ralph among his tenants - Ralph son of Theodric - so identifying other Ralphs on his fief is problematic. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 920) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331; he was probably from Boucé in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 21.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF CARDIFF>. Ralph, who held part of the royal manor in Walton Cardiff in Gloucestershire, may be the Ralph who farmed Tewkesbury for the king4. His successors were the Cardiff family, from which Walton derives its surname. Tewkesbury itself was subsequently held by the earl of Gloucester, whose stewards were the Cardiffs. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4387) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 344.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF COSTENTIN *]. The Ralphs who held 'Fouswardine' and Oldbury in Shropshire from Reginald the sheriff, and Petton from Robert the butler5, are identified as one man by the descent of these manors: Feudal Aids, iv. 218, 231, 242; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 133, 137; x. 308-309. Ralph was perhaps the father of the Hugh de Constantino, who gave land in Petton to Shrewsbury abbey and his name to Eaton Constantine, a later acquisition: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38, 41; Eyton, Antiquities, viii 1-2. Petton was later held by a different family, named from the vill. Neither Reginald or Robert had other tenants named Ralph, and there are no other unidentified Ralphs in the county. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8791) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345.
1 SUS 11,2;13;24-25;47;78
2 SUS 13,23-25;28
3 SUS 13,44
4 GLS 1,24;38
5 SHR 4,3,67-68. 4,6,3
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF CRANBORNE *]. The Ralphs who held two manors in 'Tarrant' in Dorset1 may be Ralph of Cranborne, who owed tax in Langeberge Hundred in the Geld Roll for the county, though it is not possible to determine from which of the two manors the tax was due: VCH Dorset, iii. 138. He also held West Parley in Cranborne Hundred, where his byname is recorded2, and is probably the tenant at Wimborne St Giles of Cranborne abbey3 - one of only two on its small Honour - from which his byname presumably derives. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331, apart from those in 'Tarrant', whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 2919, 2956).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF ELLESBOROUGH>. The Ralphs who held the valuable manor of Ellesborough in Buckinghamshire4 and West Bromwich - misplaced under Northamptonshire5 - and Wombourne in Staffordshire6 from William son of Ansculf are probably one man, the manors being later held by a William son of Guy from the heirs of William son of Ansculf: Liber Niger Scaccarii Staffordscira, pp. 198-200; VCH Staffordshire, xvii. 14. William had one other Ralph on his Honour, identified in the text as Ralph of Fougères7. Ralph of Ellesborough is confused with a tenant of William son of Corbucion at Sibford8 in Coel (no. 9388) and Domesday people, p. 346, where the commentary fits Ralph of Ellesborough and his three manors but is applied to Ralph of Sibford and his one manor. Coel lists the tenants at Ellesborough, West Bromwich and Wombourne as unidentified (nos. 1323, 27299, 31553), naming the Ralph at Wombourne Adulfus. Sibford was added by the scribe on a blank space following the fief of William son of Ansculf but is clearly attributed to William son of Corbucion; it should probably have been entered in the Oxfordshire folios. Ralph of Ellesborough was succeeded by Guy de Opheni, possibly his son, and may have originated from Offignies in Picardy (Somme: arrondissement Amiens): Domesday people, p. 346.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF GRENVILLE *]. Ralph, who held Wotton Underwood in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard9, is probably Ralph of Grenville, who witnessed a Giffard charter from the Conqueror's reign: Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. 1074; Early Buckinghamshire charters, pp. 65-71. His family held three fees of the old enfeoffment from the Giffard Honour in 1166 and had interests in the vill in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 131. The other Ralphs on the Giffard Honour may be identified as another man with reasonable confidence. Ralph's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1675) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 333. He was probably from Grainville-la-Teinturière in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 47-48.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF KIMCOTE>. The Ralphs who held Cotes de Val, Poultney, Misterton, Walcote, Kimcote and Swinford in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln are stated in the text to be one man10, though his manors were in the hands of several families at a later date: Nichols, History and
1 DOR 54,9. 55,29
2 DOR 54,10
3 DOR 10,3
4 BUK 17,2
5 NTH 36,3
6 STS 12,8
7 BRK 65,18
8 STS 12,30
9 BUK 14,14
10 LEC 3,5-10
antiquities of Leicestershire, ii/i. 106; iv/i. 306, 316, 318. He also may be the Ralph who held Branston1 - almost forty miles to the north - from the bishop, since Roger and William of Mortein held land from the bishop in Walcote and Branston respectively in the late thirteenth century. The bishop also had Ralphs among his tenants at Dunsby, Haconby and Willoughby in Lincolnshire2, and Clifton in Nottinghamshire3, these manors closer to Branston than Kimcote, so possibly held by Ralph of Kimcote. They are the only other Ralphs in Nottinghamshire.
The Lincolnshire manors were in the hands of the Salvain family by 1166, since Ralph Salvain then held a fee of four knights from the bishopric, subsequently stated to be in Dunsby; and his heirs were also tenants of the bishop at Willoughby: Red Book, i. 375; ii. 516; Book of Fees, pp. 179, 1031. On this basis, it has been suggested that the Salvains were descendants of the Domesday Ralph, which is possible; but since the descent of the manors between the 1130s and 1160s is unknown, it is equally possible that theirs was a new enfeoffment: Early Yorkshire charters, xii. 97-103; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 80-81. The Salvains also had interests in Nottinghamshire, where Osbert Salvain was sheriff between 1128 and 1130: Green, English sheriffs, p. 68. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8790) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345; the tenants at Clifton are unidentified in Coel (nos. 35152, 35156).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF LANQUETOT *]. Ralph, who held Hempton in Oxfordshire from Walter Giffard4, is probably Ralph of Lanquetot, his tenant on several manors in Bedfordshire and Suffolk, since Hempton was later merged with the Chesney manor of Deddington and Ralph's daughter married Roger of Chesney: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 97; VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 91. According to the Abingdon chronicle, Ralph held Lyford in Berkshire from the abbey, though this is attributed to Walter Giffard in Domesday Book5, Ralph perhaps being his unrecorded subtenant there: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 387. As Ralph was one of the three most important tenants - the three honorial barons - on the Giffard Honour, he may be the Ralph on most or all of the seven manors held from Walter in Buckinghamshire, several of them substantial, none negligible6. Walter evidently did not have seven, or even several, tenants named Ralph in a single county; but the manors were in the hands of several families in the thirteenth century, the Lanquetot manors in Bedfordshire being held by two more families: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 407, 483; iv. 168, 289, 382, 512; VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 219, 267. In the thirteenth century, another Ralph of Lanquetot held a quarter fee in Lenborough from the Englefield family, who leased Edgcott to the family of that name7, so these manors may be attributed to Ralph of Lanquetot in 1086. Of the remainder, the tenant of Wotton Underwood was probably Ralph of Grenville, whose family were connected with the vill and the Giffard Honour from an early date. The other tenancies are not recorded before the late twelfth century, and in the meantime the Giffard Honour had escheated and was in the hands of the Crown for a generation: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 62-63. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 668) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 333-34, apart from Pitstone8, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1276).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 LEC 3,14
2 LIN 7,30-31;53
3 NTT 6,8;11
4 OXF 20,4
5 BRK 7,24
6 BUK 14,14;19;33;35-36;43;48
7 BUK 14,33;35
8 BUK 14,9
RALPH [* OF MARCY *]. It is likely that the Ralphs who held seven manors in Essex from Haimo the sheriff are Ralph of Marcy, tenant of Count Eustace of Boulogne in Essex and Suffolk. Notley and Rayne are said to be held by one Ralph, identified as Ralph of Marcy by an entry for Notley on the Count's fief1, who may also be the Ralph on the preceding manor of Faulkbourne2, while the Ralph at Ryes is similarly identified by an entry on the royal manor of Harlow3. Of the remaining manors, Greensted and Navestock are said to be held by one man, and the following manor of Kelvedon Hatch was probably later absorbed into Navestock4; the Marcy family had an interest in all three: Round, 'Early reference to Domesday', pp. 553-55; 'Domesday survey of Essex', pp. 502-503; VCH Essex, iv. 59, 65, 143. Ralph probably also held Magdalen Laver from Count Eustace5, later held by his descendants from those of Eustace: VCH Essex, iv. 105. Neither the Count or Haimo had other unidentified Ralphs on their Honours. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 676) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 334, apart from Laver, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4742).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF MONTGOMERY *]. The Ralphs who held Snelston and Cubley in Derbyshire6 and Ecton in Northamptonshire7 from Henry of Ferrers are probably Ralph of Montgomery. Walter of Montgomery held four fees of the 'old enfeoffment' from Earl Ferrers in 1166, and a Ralph of Montgomery - conceivably the Domesday tenant - witnessed a Ferrers' charter in the 1120s: Red Book, i. 337; Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 9. William of Montgomery held land in all three vills in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 934, 993; Feudal Aids, i. 258; iii. 16. Ralph probably came from either Saint-Germain-de-Montgommery or Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 68. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2979) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 334-35.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. Ralph, who held Elton in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully8, is probably Ralph of Neuf-Marché, who witnessed his foundation charter for Blyth priory and whose descendants gave land in the area to the priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, pp. xxvi, xxxiii-iv, 209, 231-32. Roger had no other tenants of this name on his extensive Honour. Ralph's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3717) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336, where it is suggested that he came from Neufmarché in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe); but the place-name might apply to many places; the identification is rejected by Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 72.
............................................................................................................................................. RALPH [* OF POMEROY *]. The one Ralph in Cornwall, who held Whitstone from the Count of Mortain9, may be Ralph of Pomeroy, his tenant at Hollowcombe in Devon according to Exon.10, who also held Dunsdon - across the border from Whitstone - in which the Count took an unwelcome interest11. He was a tenant-in-chief in Somerset and Devon, where he may be the tenant
1 ESS 20,6
2 ESS 28,2-4
3 ESS 1,3. 28,6
4 ESS 28,13-15
5 ESS 20,45
6 DBY 6,53-54
7 NTH 25,3
8 NTT 9,110
9 CON 5,24,24
10 DEV 15,66
11 DEV 34,2
of his brother William the goat (q.v.) on six manors, having interests of his own in several of the vills. He held in chief in Awliscombe1, and is named in Exon. at Yowlestone2: Devonshire Domesday, pp. 707-708. Puddington is adjacent to Yowlestone and like Ash acquired from the English lord Alward son of Toki3, while Matford is adjacent to his manor of Peamore4 and Whimple lies between his manors of Aunk and Strete Ralegh5. According to Exon., Ralph held seven manors in Devon from Iudhael of Totnes6 and it is likely that he is the Ralph who held another twenty-one manors from Iudhael. Almost all these manors can be found in the possession of one of two families at a later date. The Bolley family, which held eight7, also acquired five of those attributed to Ralph of Pomeroy in Exon.; two others8 were 'also' held by the same Domesday Ralph; of the other eleven, eight descended to Richard son of Stephen and his heirs9: Feudal Aids, i. 316-17, 321, 323-24, 331-35. The three remaining manors - Ford, Stadbury and Okenbury10 - are adjacent to or near neighbours of one or more of the other manors. The majority of the manors in both groups lie in the same four Hundreds so may have been separated some time after Domesday. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 712) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336, apart from Whitstone, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2411). .............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF QUESNAY *]. The Ralphs who held six manors in Sussex11 and five in Norfolk12 from William of Warenne are probably Ralph of Quesnay, named on a subtenancy of the huge manor of Bosham13, identified by the descent of his Warenne tenancies. On the same basis, Farrer identified the Ranulf (Rardulphus) who held Stinton and Kerdiston in Norfolk from Warenne14 as the same man: Round, 'Note on the Sussex Domesday', pp. 140-43; Farrer, Honors, iii. 313-22. He may also be the Ralph who held Heyford in Oxfordshire from Miles Crispin15, since Roger of Quesnay held a manor in the same vill from the father-in-law of Miles, Robert d'Oilly16. Both manors would have descended to the Honour of Wallingford, from which Ralph of Chesney held two fees in 1166: Red Book, i. 309; Eynsham cartulary, i. 411-23. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be the Ralph who held 1 1/2 hides from Geoffrey de Mandeville at an unknown location in 'Ossulstone' Hundred in Middlesex17. His descendants held land in the county: Farrer, Honors, iii. 318. Warenne has no other Ralphs on his Honour. Ralphs manors are recorded in Coel (no. 608) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF REUILLY *]. Ralph, who held the valuable manor of Tarlton in Gloucestershire from Ralph Paynel18 - effectively his whole fief since a second manor was abandoned - may be
1 DEV 19,25
2 DEV 19,33
3 DEV 19,14;39
4 DEV 19,9
5 DEV 19,20
6 DEV 17,20;23;25-28;44
7 DEV 17,24;45-46;55;66-67;103;105
8 DEV 17,102;104
9 DEV 17,9;36-37;57;64;91-92;94
10 DEV 17,56;63;65
11 SUS 12,13;33-34;40;49-50
12 NFK 8,15;24;107-108;122
13 SUS 6,1
14 NFK 8,1-2
15 OXF 35,19
16 OXF 28,12
17 MDX 9,2
18 GLS 44,1
Ralph of Reuilly, named in Exon. as Paynel's tenant on four of his five manors in Somerset1, the fifth being the least valuable. Paynel had no other Ralphs on his Honour. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 911) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF SAVENAY *]. R of Savenay, who held land in Kenton and Burstall in Suffolk from Bishop Odo of Bayeux2, can only be Ralph of Savenay, who held another eight manors from the bishop in Suffolk; no other landowner in Domesday has this byname. He is probably also the Ralph whose possession of Ashfield - held from the bishop - was disputed by Earl Hugh of Chester3. Ashfield is in Claydon Hundred, where Ralph had three other manors, one - Debenham - adjacent to Ashfield. Debenham was held from Ranulf Peverel, with three other tenancies; he was also a tenant of Ely abbey in the county. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 735) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 337, apart from Ashfield, the subject of a dispute, which is assigned to Bishop Odo's demesne. Coel assigns to Ralph another four manors in Suffolk as a tenant of Roger Bigot4, here attributed to Ralph of Tourlaville.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF TOURLAVILLE *]. R, who held three manors from Roger Bigot in Suffolk, is evidently Ralph of Tourlaville, who 'also' held the preceding manor5 as well as Briusyard6, and Ringstead in Norfolk7 from him. He is probably also the Ralph who held another manor in Bruisyard from Roger, together with Rendham and Swefling, all said to be held by one Ralph8. Roger had one other unidentified tenant named Ralph on his Honour, at Titchwell in Norfolk9, who may be this man whose manor at Ringstead is five miles away; another Ralph, however, also held land in that manor. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 749) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 338, apart from Bruisyard, Rendham and Swefling, attributed to Ralph of Savenay; the tenant at Titchwell is unidentified (no. 9518).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* PAYNEL *]. Ralph Paynel, a tenant-in-chief in six counties, is identified as the Ralph who held Sturton in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy10 by a charter from the 1090s: Early Yorkshire charters, vi. 68. His predecessor was a Grimkel, the only Grimkel on the Lacy Honour perhaps the predecessor of Ralph on two of his Lincolnshire manors. Ralph's manor is attributed to Ralph the steward in Coel (no. 9371) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 343; Lennard, Rural England, pp. 94-98, totals his manors for each county and provides a valuable analysis of his fee.
.............................................................................................................................................
R[ALPH] SON OF H[ERLEWIN]. Ralph son of H and R son of H, who held Hunstanton and Sturston in Norfolk from Roger Bigot11, are almost certainly Ralph son of Herlewin, who held six other manors in the county from Roger, including a second manor in Hunstanton. He was also known as Ralph of Hunstanton: Farrer, Honors, iii. 117. He is probably also the tenant of Reginald
1 SOM 31,1-4
2 SUF 16,8;35
3 SUF 16,34
4 SUF 7,145-148
5 SUF 7,86;98-101
6 SUF 7,73
7 NFK 9,8
8 SUF 7,145-148
9 NFK 9,117
10 YKS 9W5
11 NFK 9,118;120
son of Ivo at Massingham, where he held another manor from William of Ecouis1, and at Stanford2. Reginald had no other tenants of this name, and William none in the county, but Roger Bigot had an unidentified Ralph at Titchwell, six miles from Hunstanton and five from another of the manors of Herlewin's son, at Ringstead. However, another Bigot tenant, Ralph of Tourlaville, also held land in the same manor of Ringstead3. It is conceivable that the two bynames refer to the same Ralph, but unlikely since they occur in the same entry and there is no trace of the Tourlaville holdings among those held by the descendants of Herlewin's son: Farrer, Honors, iii. 117-19. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Herlewin is Herlewin son of Ivo (q.v.), also a tenant of Reginald son of Ivo in Norfolk, and perhaps his brother. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 548) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 340, where there are errors in the commentary; the tenant at Titchwell is unidentified (no. 9518)..
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* SON OF JOCELYN *]. The Ralphs who held Dart, Dart Raffe and Worth in Devon from William of Poilley4 are probably Ralph son of Jocelyn, named in a grant of 1093 by William of Poilley of the tithes of his manors to St Martin's of Sées which included 'the three manors of Ralph son of Jocelyn': Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Pedley, a fourth manor held by Ralph5, is said in the grant to be held in demesne by William, but was possibly also held by the son of Jocelyn in 1086 since William's Honour was small and his tenants few: five are named in Domesday and three in the grant, which appears to included all his manors; the fees had undergone some re-arrangement since 1086, half-a-dozen manors changing hands. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2037) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 339.
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* SON OF THEODRIC *]. Ralph, who held land in Cokeham in Sussex6 from William of Braose, is probably Ralph son of Theodric, who held the other part of the vill from William, in which case he 'also' held Dankton7. He has been identified as one of the two Ralphs who held land in Sompting and Lancing from William8, the second Ralph named in the text as 'another' Rodulfus, evidently a scribal error for Ralph, named in the previous entry9. All these manors are within a mile or two of each other. There is no 1166 Carta for the Bramber fee; different families held fees in Sompting and Lancing in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 689-90. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2107) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 341, where Ralph is identified as the Rodulfus at Sompting rather than the Ralph of the previous entry, who is unidentified (no. 16459).
.............................................................................................................................................
[* RALPH *] SON OF TUROLD. R, Ralph, and the unnamed son of Turold who between them held thirteen manors in Essex from Bishop Odo of Bayeux are probably Ralph son of Turold, named as the bishop's tenant at Sampson's Farm and Hanningfield and on ten manors in Kent. The scribes normally used extreme abbreviation only where the identity of the tenant appeared certain, so R10 must be Ralph son of Turold, the bishop having no other tenant in Essex whose name began
1 NFK 19,8
2 NFK 21,11-12
3 NFK 9,8
4 DEV 21,6;13-14
5 DEV 21,10
6 SUS 13,41
7 SUS 13,42
8 SUS 13,38;44
9 SUS 13,39
10 ESS 18,38-42
with that letter. The other sons of Turold in Domesday Book - Gilbert and Ilbert - were not tenants of Bishop Odo so those in Essex1 are probably Ralph, who is named 'son of Turold of Rochester' at Wricklesmarsh in Kent2, the Domesday Monachorum (p. 102) supplying his forename. The Ralph at Thorrington3 may also be Turold's son, since his father Turold of Rochester (q.v.) annexed this manor, also holding alongside his son in Hanningfield. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 493) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 341, apart from Thorrington, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4683).
.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* TALLBOYS *]. The Ralphs at Sandy and Dean in Bedfordshire4 are probably Ralph Tallboys, identified by his official activities and his intermediate status. At Sandy, he is explicitly stated to have been the sheriff, a position in which he was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hugh of Beauchamp (q.v.): Green, English sheriffs, p. 25. He was the brother of another sheriff, Ivo Tallboys (q.v.). He died before 1086. His depredations as sheriff are writ large in the Bedfordshire folios. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WALTER *]. Ranulf, who held Kinwarton in Warwickshire from the abbey of Evesham5, was identified as the brother of the abbot and ancestor of the Wrottesley family by his descendant, Major-General G. Wrottesley. According to the Evesham chartulary, Abbot Walter also granted his brother Littleton and Bretforton in Worcestershire6, Weethley in Warwickshire7 and Stoke in Gloucestershire8: Wrottesley, History of the family of Wrottesley, pp. 10-12; Thomas of Marlborough, p. 179. These manors are all held by the abbey in demesne in Domesday Book; but a Ranulf held Abbots Morton in Worcestershire9, and since the abbey had only two named tenants, Ranulf and Urso, it is likely that this Ranulf is the abbot's brother, some re-arrangement of the abbey's fees having occurred. Ranulf's manor at Kinwarton is recorded in Coel (no. 4750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352; the tenant at Morton is unidentified (no. 31945).
.............................................................................................................................................
R[ANULF] BROTHER OF ILGER. R brother of Ilger at Tuddenham in Suffolk10 can only be Ranulf brother of Ilger, the only brother of Ilger in Domesday Book. He was a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk and in seven other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 461) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 355.
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* FLAMBARD *]. Ranulf the cleric, who held three sites on the royal manor of Guildford11, is probably Ranulf Flambard, the notorious minister of William Rufus, who held the church on the royal manor of Goldalming and the manor of Tuesley, as well as manors in six other
1 ESS 18,1;4-5;8;10-11;34
2 KEN 5,31
3 ESS 18,43
4 BDF 21,6. 57,13
5 WAR 11,4
6 WOR 10,5-6;8
7 WAR 11,5
8 GLS 12,8
9 WOR 10,13
10 SUF 67,15
11 SUR 1,1b
counties. He is probably also the R Flambard, tenant of the abbey of Malmesbury at Charlton in Wiltshire1, where he held a second tenancy from the abbey2; the one other Flambard in Domesday Book is Humphrey, in Sussex. It is possible, though unlikely, that Ranulf is the sheriff, who had another site in Guildford: Green, English sheriffs, p. 78. At Bile in the New Forest3 Flambard is said to have 'held' a hide, now in the Forest; which might suggest he had settled in England before the Conquest; but the formulae is more likely to refer to the period between the Conquest and the loss of his hide to forest law, rather than the usual 'before 1066'. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 479) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 354 (as bishop of Durham), apart from the tenants at Guildford and Charlton (nos. 15315, 16682), who are unidentified.
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* OF MAINWARING *]. The Ranulfs who held a fief and two manors in Cheshire4 and three in Norfolk5 from Earl Hugh of Chester are identified by their descent as Ranulf of Mainwaring, ancestor of the family of that name: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 15, 42; Farrer, Honors, ii. 227-29; Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, p. 55. He may also be the Ranulf who held Tilston and Christleton in Cheshire6 and Buscot in Berkshire7 from Robert son of Hugh, a tenant of Earl Hugh, though Buscot was held by another family in the thirteenth century: Honors, ii. 22-25; VCH Berkshire, iv. 512-13. The earl and Robert shared several other tenants: Drogo, Fulco, Humphrey and Mundred. The one other Ranulf on the Honour of Chester, at Aston8 five miles from the Mainwaring manor of Blacon, is possibly also Mainwaring. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3480) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 354, where it is suggested he was from Le Mesnil Guérin, now named Pont-Farcy, in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire).
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* OF STRINGSTON *]. Ranulf, who held Stringston in Somerset from Alfred of 'Spain'9, is very probably Ranulf of Stringston, named in the Geld Roll for Williton Hundred, where Ralph held another manor from Alfred in Alfoxton10: VCH Somerset, i. 532. It is likely that he is the Ranulf who also held Merridge11 from Alfred12. All three manors were acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord and components of all three manors lay in the same Hundred of Cannington; Alfred had no other Ralphs on his Honour: VCH Somerset, vi. 114, 172. Swang13, also in the same Hundred, was possibly held by the same Ranulf, though there is no link to confirm this, and the manor was held from another tenant-in-chief. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1991) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352, apart from Merridge, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 15162).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 WIL 8,9
2 WIL 8,6
3 HAM NF8,1
4 CHS 20. 27,1-2
5 NFK 6,2-3. 66,97
6 CHS 2,5-6
7 BRK 18,2
8 CHS FD7,1
9 SOM 35,4
10 SOM 35,13
11 SOM 35,20
12 SOM 35,20
13 SOM 21,29
[* RANULF *] PEVEREL. R Peverel and R Pev who occur on several manors in East Anglia1 must be Ranulf Peverel, a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk and Suffolk and six other counties. Three occurrences of Pev or Peverel2 are also Ranulf Peverel, identified by references to his predecessor Saxi3, and to his tenant Ralph of Savenay (q.v.); the other Peverel, William, did not hold land in East Anglia. Ranulf Peverel may also be the Ranulf who held Welbatch and Stapleton in Shropshire from Roger son of Corbet4. Peverel was a tenant-in-chief and the only other Ranulf in the county. His Honour was forfeit before 1130 so the descent of the tenancies may not be relevant, though the fact that they were held by different families in the thirteenth century is consistent with the heirs of the Domesday tenant or tenants suffering the same fate of those of the tenant-in-chief: Sanders, English baronies, p. 120; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vi. 108, 119. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1503) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 355-56.
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* SON OF WALTER *]. R son of Walter, who held Knodishall in Suffolk from Roger Bigot, must be Ranulf son of Walter, who held the previous manor5. He was an important tenant of Roger Bigot in East Anglia, given his byname on one other manor in Suffolk and thirteen in Norfolk. He is probably also the Ranulf who held a group of four manors from Roger6 - said to be held by one man - since two are in vills where he is accorded his byname on other holdings. Similarly, he is very probably the Ranulf at Saxmundham, with outliers in Peasenhall and Knodishall, his byname being recorded on one holding in Knodishall; he may also have held the following manor7. Roger had no other Ranulfs on his Honour. Roger's tenant does not appear to be related to the R son of Walter who held Buckminster in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln8. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 488) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 354-55.
.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* THE LATINIST *]. Ranulf, who held Knottingley in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy9, is very probably Ranulf the Latinist (Grammaticus) who gave tithes in Knottingley to Ilbert's foundation of St Clement, Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87. He is probably also the one other Ranulf among Ilbert's tenants, at Shippen House and Sturton Grange10. The St Clements charter attributes to him land in Darrington11 and his descendants held land in Hardwick12, both in other hands in 1086 so some shuffling of tenancies occurred later: Early Yorkshire families, pp. 35-38. The one other Ranulf in Yorkshire, a tenant of Erneis of Buron at Dunsforth, in the same part of the West Riding, has no discernible links with Ilbert's tenant. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4620) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352; the tenant at Dunsford is unidentified (no. 38160).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 NFK 9,194. SUF 16,26. 21,39. 25,112
2 SUF 16,23;30. 38,11
3 SUF 34,10;12-13;17-18
4 SHR 4,4,1-2
5 SUF 7,21
6 NFK 9,161-164
7 SUF 7,71-72
8 LEC 3,15
9 YKS 9W58
10 YKS 9W4
11 YKS 9W51
12 YKS 9W54
[* RANULF *] THE SHERIFF. The anonymous sheriff of Surrey who held the royal manor of Childerditch in Essex1 may the sheriff Ranulf who held a site in Guildford in Surrey from the king in 10862. It is possible, though unlikely, that he is Ranulf Flambard: Green, English sheriffs, p. 78. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4311) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 353.
.............................................................................................................................................
RATHI [* OF GIMINGHAM *]. Rathi, who preceded William of Warenne at Gimingham in Norfolk, is almost certainly Rathi of Gimingham, William's predecessor at Repps, two miles away3. As the name is very rare and its distribution localised, the two other Rathis in Domesday Book, both in eastern Norfolk, are likely to be the same man, though their manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief; they are roughly twenty miles to the south and ten miles apart4.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN. Raven is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times on small or tiny holdings, scattered among ten counties between Buckinghamshire and Yorkshire, on the lands of the king and ten tenants-in-chief; all but two Ravens are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF BROXTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Raven whose modest holding at Broxton in Cheshire5 was acquired by Robert son of Hugh may be related to either of the other Ravens in the county; but there are no links to confirm this; their manors, equally or more modest, are twenty or more miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF DUTTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is possible that the Raven whose modest holding at Dutton in Cheshire worth five shillings6 was acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester is the Raven at Warburton or Broxton, twelve and twenty miles away respectively; but there are no links to confirm either.
............................................................................................................................................. RAVEN <OF GOLDSMITHS GRANGE>. Raven, who held a small manor among the king's servants at Goldsmith's Grange in Leicestershire7, has no apparent links with his namesakes. It is unclear whether his closest neighbour, at Normanton in Nottinghamshire some sixteen miles away, survived the Conquest. The one definite survivor, at Yoxall in Staffordshire, is roughly forty miles away. Raven is unidentified in Coel (no. 26655). .............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF LAMPORT>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that Bishop Wulfwy's man at Lamport in Buckinghamshire8 is the thane Raven in the adjacent vill of Dadford9. Although modestly endowed, Lamport is the most valuable of the Raven manors, and Dadford one of the few worth as much as £1.
1 ESS 1,23
2 SUR 1,1c
3 NFK 8,119;128
4 NFK 24,6. 52,2
5 CHS 2,14
6 CHS 26,2
7 LEC 42,8
8 BUK 43,6
9 BUK 57,7
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF LANGER>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravens whose shared manors at Langer and 'Alston' in Suffolk were acquired by Roger Bigot are one man1, but perhaps unlikely that he is related to the one other Raven in East Anglia, on an equally modest holding at Occold on the other side of the county.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF NORMANTON>. It is unclear whether Raven, who held a tiny manor of two bovates at Normanton among the king's thanes of Nottinghamshire2, held it before or after the Conquest, or at both dates. His nearest namesake, at Goldsmiths Grange in Leicestershire some sixteen miles away, was a survivor so is possibly the same man.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF NORTHILL>. It is probable that Raven, Wulfmer of Eaton's man on two manors at Northill in Bedfordshire3, is one man. His has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF OCCOLD>. As the name is uncommon, the Raven whose shared manor at Occold in Suffolk worth ten shillings was acquired by Robert Malet4 is possibly Raven of Langer; but there are no links to confirm this and Langer is on the other side of the county.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF OUSEBURN>. Despite the comparative rarity of the name, it is perhaps unlikely that the Raven who held one of five manors in Ouseburn before the Conquest5 is related to the other Raven in Yorkshire, at Torp in the North Riding, some forty miles or more away.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF "TORP">. Despite the comparative rarity of the name, it is unlikely that the Raven whose manor worth five shillings in the lost vill of Torp in the North Riding of Yorkshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany6 is related to his one namesake in Yorkshire, at Ouseburn in the West Riding.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF WARBURTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is possible that the Raven whose modest holding at Warburton in Cheshire worth five shillings was acquired by Osbern son of Tezzo7 is the Raven at Dutton or Broxton, twelve and twenty miles away respectively, or even Raven of Broxton, thirty miles away; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF WINSTER>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravens who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Winster, Stanton and Birchover in Derbyshire8 are one man. Birchover is a
1 SUF 7,100-101
2 NTT 30,16
3 BDF 21,14-15
4 SUF 6,193
5 YKS 1W30
6 YKS 6N17
7 CHS 24,6
8 DBY 6,2;73-74
dependency of Stanton, and a little over a mile from Winster. Less certainly, he may be the Raven at Handley, eleven miles to the east1.
............................................................................................................................................. RAVEN <OF YOXALL>. Raven, who shared land on a dependency of the bishop of Chester's manor of Lichfield in Staffordshire with another survivor2, has no links with his namesakes elsewhere. He is one of two surviving Ravens, the other at Goldsmiths Grange in Leicestershire, some forty miles away. The thane at Normanton in Nottinghamshire is somewhat closer but it is unclear whether he survived the Conquest. Raven is unidentified in Coel (no. 31349). ............................................................................................................................................. RAVENGAR <OF BECKNEY>. It is probable that all Ravengars in Domesday Book are one man. The name occurs five times, all in Essex, four in Barstable Hundred, the fifth in the neighbouring Hundred of Rochford, on four occasions named for his depredations after the Conquest3. At Beckney4 he is said to have 'held' the manor, normally meaning before the Conquest. Since Beckney was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who also held two others where Ravengar was active, he is probably the same man here, too; and it may be suspected that he 'held' as an intermediate landowner, rather than in 1066; the manor is, however, attributed to him as the pre-Conquest lord in the Statistics database. .............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL. Ravenkel is an uncommon name which occurs on two dozen manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, all but three of the manors lying in the northern counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, the one cluster being in Yorkshire, where the only survivors are recorded.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF ARLESTON>. Ravenkel, who shared a small manor at Arleston in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers5, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF CLAYTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravenkels who preceded William Malbank at Aston and 'Clayton' in Cheshire6 are one man; and since the holdings of the other two Ravenkels in the county, at Burwardsley7 and Edritone8, lay between Aston and 'Clayton', they may also have been held by him.
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF DILWYN>. As the name is uncommon, the Ravenkels in the adjacent vills of Dilwyn and Luntley in Herefordshire, both acquired by Ilbert son of Turold (q.v.), are very probably one man9. The manors are modestly valuable, including two of the three worth £1 or more. Ravenkel has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.
1 DBY 17,7
2 STS 2,22
3 ESS 9,2. 18,6-7. 30,21
4 ESS 18,15
5 DBY 6,85
6 CHS 8,44. FD3,1
7 CHS 2,21
8 CHS FD5,3
9 HEF 1,32-33
.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF HIMLEY>. Ravenkel, who shared land worth twenty-four shillings at Himley in Staffordshire acquired by William son of Ansculf1, has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* CNUT *]. All Reginalds in Wiltshire are probably Reginald Cnut, who held Chippenham in chief. The remaining Reginalds are tenants of Miles Crispin2, two of whom are named Reginald Cnut in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210, 215-16. Reginald Cnut is identified as Reginald son of Croc, a tenant-in-chief in Hampshire3 and ancestor of the Foliot family, by the descent of his manors, which include the Crispin manors of Chilton Foliat and Draycot Foliat in Wiltshire4, as well as nine manors in Oxfordshire held from the fiefs of Robert d'Oilly, Miles Crispin and the escheated fief of William son of Osbern5: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 308, 312-13; Farrer, Honors, iii. 234-37. The last of these manors, Albury, identifies Cnut as the Reginald who held eleven messuages in Wallingford dependent upon that manor6; most of these manors can be traced as part of the Honour of Wallingford. Given the very close ties between Robert d'Oilly and Roger d'Ivry (q.v.), it is possible that Reginald Cnut is the Reginald who held Northbrook and Brookhampton from Roger7 and, if so, the tenant of Robert of Stafford in the former of those vills8. None of the three tenants-in-chief had a tenant named Reginald elsewhere on their Honours. Finally, Cnut is possibly the Reginald who held subtenancies on royal manors in Berkshire9 and Oxfordshire10, the only Reginald to do so in Great Domesday. Reginald Cnut (no. 186) and Reginald son of Croc (nos. 170, 577) are identified as different men in Coel, where Reginald Cnut is credited with the manors listed above, apart from those in Hampshire attributed to the son of Croc; those of Roger of Ivry's tenant, identified as another man (no. 12171), and one of the two manors of Miles in Somerton11, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 27997).
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD <OF FLINTHAM>. Reginald, who held a small manor at Flintham in Nottinghamshire from Walter of Aincourt12, has no links with his namesakes. He is Walter's only tenant of that name, and the only Reginald in Nottinghamshire or the four adjacent counties. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 35432).
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* OF ST HELENS *]. The Reginalds who held seven manors from the abbey of Abingdon in Berkshire13 are probably Reginald of St Helens, who witnessed one of the abbey's charters and is stated in the list of knights appended to abbey's chronicle to have held Frilford and Lyford, two of his Domesday manors14: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 50-51, 322-23. This list also attributes Garsington and Hendred to him; the latter does not appear as an Abingdon manor
1 STS 12,12
2 WIL 28,2;6-7;9;12-13
3 HAM 59,1. S3. IoW1,6
4 WIL 28,2;7
5 OXF 28,23-24. 35,12;14;34. 59,16-18;22
6 BRK B3;8
7 OXF 29,9;13;20
8 OXF 27,8
9 BRK 1,24
10 OXF 1,10
11 OXF 35,34
12 NTT 11,25
13 BRK 7,5;7-8;18;25;27;46
14 BRK 7,18;25
in Domesday, but Garsington was held by another tenant, Gilbert, so there had been some re-arrangement of the Abingdon fees. There is little reason to doubt, however, that Reginald is the same man on all these Abingdon manors since, with a single exception1, he is the only Reginald in the county. The abbey had no tenants named Reginald elsewhere. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1012) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 348.
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* OF VAUTORTES *]. The Reginalds who held twenty-five manors from the Count of Mortain in Devon2 are probably Reginald of Vautortes, named in Exon. as his tenant at Bigbury in the county3, at Beercrocombe and Charlton Adam in Somerset4, and on the fief and three other manors he held from the Count in Cornwall5. He is no doubt the Count of Mortain's unnamed tenant - though the text speaks of 'men' - who withheld dues belonging to the royal manor of Ermington at Fardel, Dinnaton, Broadaford and Ludbrook6, he being the Count's only tenant in those vills7. He is the only Reginald in Cornwall and one of only two in Somerset, so some of the remaining sixteen Reginalds in Devon may be him, though there are no links to identify them. His heirs owed the service 59 knights for the barony of Trematon, the most valuable of his Domesday manors8: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 90-91. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 228) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 348-49.
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* THE BRETON *]. Reginald the Breton held Lidgate in Suffolk and, according to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, was a tenant of Bury St Edmunds at Great Livermere9 together with his brother Hubert the Breton, who does not occur elsewhere: Feudal documents, p. 22. Their tenancies at Livermere cannot be identified in Domesday Book, where the only tenant was the abbot's brother, Frodo, holding different amounts of land and men. The abbey had no other tenants named Reginald, and Reginald no links with his namesakes in the county, both tenants of Hervey of Bourges10. Reginald's fief is recorded in Coel (no. 157) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 347.
.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. It is likely that all Reginalds in the five counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Sussex and Warwickshire are Reginald of Balliol, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury's sheriff of Shropshire. He is identified as the sheriff in Sussex11 and Staffordshire12 by the descent of his manors there: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vii. 202-11. In Shropshire, where Reginald succeeded Warin the bald as sheriff, he was succeeded in turn by Alan son of Flaad to his lands and office: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 70-71. Reginald was one of the earl's major tenants-in-chief in Shropshire and a tenant-in-chief in his own right in Staffordshire. He is almost certainly the Reginald who built Oswestry castle13, and probably the Reginald who held land
1 BRK 1,24
2 DEV 15,26-30;36-37;45-46;48;50-53;64-65;67-72;75;78-79
3 DEV 15,44
4 SOM 19,28;43
5 CON 2,12-14. 5,2,1-33
6 DEV 1,23
7 DEV 15,67;69-70;72
8 CON 5,2,11
9 SUF 14,68
10 SUF 67,2;16
11 SUS 11,46;67;116
12 STS 8,4-6
13 SHR 4,1,11
alongside the English sheriff Mundred1 and acquired part of Broome2 from an Austin - an uncommon name - from whom he also obtained Cardington, which he held in chief. He can be identified as the Reginald with a small fief and another manor in Cheshire, mostly acquired from a Thorth3, probably Thorth of Wroxeter (q.v.), his predecessor and sometimes his tenant on half-a-dozen of his Shropshire manors4. Finally, he is probably the tenant of Earl Roger in Warwickshire5, where he is preceded on some manors by an Almund, probably Almund father of Alward (q.v.) from whom he acquired several Shropshire manors: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 55-56. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1836) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 348. He was from Bailleul in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 11-12.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* REGINALD *] WADARD. Reginald Wadard, who held Somerton and Fritwell in Oxfordshire from the bishop of Bayeux, may be the son of Wadard of Cogges (q.v.), one of Odo's honorial barons well-known from his appearance in the Bayeux Tapestry. Reginald may have lost these manors after the forfeiture of the bishop and his father, since they descended - like Wadard's - to the Arsic family; the mesne tenancy was later held by the Pipards: VCH Oxfordshire, vi. 139, 291. An unnamed Wadard's son - presumably Reginald - who held Thrupp as a tenant of Roger of Ivry6 and Barford as his subtenant7, may be the same man, though Stenton doubted this: 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', p. 381. However, though there is no direct tenurial link, it seems unnecessary to postulate two sons of Wadard in one county. At Barford, at least, Wadard's son retained his land, perhaps protected by his association with Roger; Barford passed to a Walkelin Wadard, then his daughter: VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 46-47. Reginald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4730) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 350.
.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD. The name Reinbald occurs on four small fiefs and two dozen manors but is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals. It occurs in ten counties, on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by two or three individuals.
.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD [* OF CIRENCESTER *]. Reinbald the priest, alias Reinbald the chaplain8, Reinbald of Cirencester9 and Reinbald the chancellor10, held land before and after the Conquest and was chancellor to Edward the Confessor and (probably) to William the Conqueror. Most of his manors and churches are recorded in a grant of Henry I of 'the whole tenure' of Reinbald to the abbey of Cirencester, which identifies him where his byname is omitted at Bray in Berkshire11 and Boycott in Oxfordshire12, and probably as the anonymous priest at Shrivenham in Berkshire13: Cartulary of Cirencester abbey, i. 21-24. This 'whole tenure' is not exhaustive, however, since Reinbald is
1 SHR 4,1,19
2 SHR 4,28,1
3 CHS 22,1-2. 27,3
4 SHR 4,3,14;20;26;30-31;69
5 WAR 12,3-5;7
6 OXF 29,16
7 OXF 9,6
8 GLS 1,42
9 BRK 61,1
10 HEF 1,46
11 BRK 1,22
12 OXF 49,1
13 BRK 1,33
identified by one of his bynames in Domesday as holding land in Wallingford in Berkshire, Frome and Rode in Somerset, Boveney in Buckinghamshire, and Eldersfield in Herefordshire. It is also probable that he is the Reinbald who held land attached to the church on the royal manor of Cheltenham1, and he is identified as the Reinbald holding from Westminster abbey in Longdon2 by the satellite text Evesham A, which locates one of these entries at Eldersfield, revealed to have been held by the chancellor in an Herefordshire entry for that vill. He may therefore be the tenant of the abbey at Elmstone in Gloucestershire3, and his brother the tenant of the abbey of Gloucester at Ampney4 where Reinbald himself held land in the other part of the vill. The otherwise unknown Reginald the chaplain, who held the royal manor of Wincot5, is possibly a scribal error for Reinbald. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Reinbald is the son of Bishop Peter who held land from the king at Reading. Reinbald's manors are discussed and mapped by Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 194-97, 211-13; see also Oxford DNB, xlvi. 364-65. His 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 616) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 351, with the addition of Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire, here assigned to another Reinbald.
.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD [* OF TUBNEY *]. The tenant of the abbey of Abingdon at Leckhampstead, Frilford and Tubney in Berkshire6 is named Reinbald of Tubney in the abbey's chronicle, which reveals that he held these three manors and two others, these two latter subsequently restored to the abbey. A later source, the untrustworthy 'List of knights' of the abbey, appears to attribute several other manors to him: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 322; Hudson, 'The abbey of Abingdon', pp. 193-94. A son-in-law of Abbot Reginald, he involved the abbey in his troubles with the king, lost his lands, was reinstated a few years later, but did not ultimately retain Leckhampstead, his most valuable manor, which was enfeoffed to Henry I's chamberlain, Herbert. His son, Adelelm, became a monk at Abingdon, which may explain the space devoted to his father in the chronicle: Historia, ii. 54-59, 190-91, 196-99, 246-47, 381. It has been suggested that he also held a small fief in Oxfordshire, here assigned to Reinbald of Cirencester, chancellor of England: Historia, ii. p. cxxii, note 665. Reinbald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1579) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 350-51.
.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD <OF UPTON>. Reinbald, who held Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire from Arnulf of Hesdin7, may be Reinbald of Cirencester, the chancellor, Upton being seven miles from his manors of Frome and Rode. However, the descent of most of the chancellor's manors has been traced and does not include Upton, and Arnulf acquired no other of his manors: Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 212-13. Upton was in the hands of the Cormeilles family a century later, too late to be conclusive evidence of the identity of the Domesday tenant in view of the upheavals in the Hesdin Honour in the interval: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 110; viii. 82. On balance, this Reinbald seems more likely to be a different man from the chancellor.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 GLS 1,1
2 WOR 8,9b-9c
3 GLS 19,2
4 GLS 10,12
5 GLS 1,42
6 BRK 7,14;18-19
7 WIL 25,23
REINBERT [* THE SHERIFF *]. The name Reinbert occurs almost three dozen times, once as Reinbert the Fleming, an intermediate landowner in Gloucestershire1, the remainder in Sussex, all but two of them on the fief of the Count of Eu2, all probably therefore the Count's sheriff in the Rape of Hastings, alias Reinbert the steward, Reinbert of Hastings and Reinbert of Sutton: Regesta, ii. nos. 619, 752; Green, English sheriffs, p. 81; Round, 'Some early grants', p. 70. The two Reinberts who held Alciston and Bathurst from Battle abbey3 are probably also the sheriff, who had another manor from the Count in Alciston. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 917) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 357.
.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP R[EMIGIUS OF LINCOLN]. Bishop R on the fiefs of the bishopric of Lincoln in Cambridgeshire4 and Huntingdonshire5 can only be Bishop Remigius of Lincoln. In Lincolnshire, Bishop R at Owmby6 is almost certainly Remigius, who had a manor in the vill; and at Wilsford he is evidently the Bishop R who bought the manor for the Church of Lincoln7. The interest of 'Bishop R, Kolgrim and their companions' in the ninety acres of underwood at Kelby8 is probably explained by their claim on lands and jurisdiction of Arnketil, one of the pre-Conquest landowners9. No other landowner in Domesday is named Remigius. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 838) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 357-58.
.............................................................................................................................................
ABBOT R[HIWALLON]. Abbot R, who held a house in Ewelme in Oxfordshire10, may be Rhiwallon, abbot of New Minster, Winchester, from 1072-88: Heads of religious houses, p. 82.
.............................................................................................................................................
RHIWALLON <OF PULLOXHILL>. All laymen named Rhiwallon are almost certainly one man. All five occur in Bedfordshire, three on a tight cluster of manors at Chawston, Roxton and Great Barford held from Hugh Beauchamp11, a fourth involved in a claim concerning Chawston, there described as Hugh Beauchamp's man12. In view of the rarity of the name and its distribution, the other Rhiwallon, a tenant of Nigel of Aubigny at Pulloxhill13 sixteen miles south of Barford, is likely to be the same man; the descent of his manors has not been traced. Dr Keats-Rohan suggest he may have been a relative of Nigel as the name occurs in the Aubigny family. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 991) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.
.............................................................................................................................................
RIBALD [* BROTHER OF COUNT ALAN *]. All Ribalds in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man, a tenant of Count Alan of Brittany and probably his half-brother. He held ten manors from the Count in Yorkshire14 and another dozen in Norfolk15. His Yorkshire manors were
1 GLS 73,3
2 SUS 9,1;4;11;15-16;19;21-22;64-69;82;85-97;104;115
3 SUS 8,1;5
4 CAM 3,2-3;5-6
5 HUN 2,9
6 LIN 14,21
7 LIN 51,12
8 LIN 3,35
9 LIN CK13
10 BRK B9
11 BDF 23,34-36
12 BDF 25,7
13 BDF 24,17
14 YKS 6N87;90;94;99;102;106;125-126;152-153
15 NFK 4,3;6-7;14;20-22;25;35-36;43;45;52
later part of the Middleham fee, named from his manor in that vill1, the fee being later held by his descendants, with considerable accretions. The descent of the Norfolk manors is less well documented but the most valuable of them - Pickenham and Hethersett2 - can be traced as part of the same fee and there is no reason to doubt that the remainder were also: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 297-315. Ribald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 859) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 358.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF BEAUMAIS *]. Richard, who held Preen and Meadowley in Shropshire from Helgot of Holdgate3, is 'not improbably' Richard of Beaumais, a clerk of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who may have granted Preen to Wenlock abbey. He was later bishop of London (1108-1127) and 'viceroy' of Shropshire: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 149; ii. 192-201; vi. 221; Mason, 'Officers and clerks', pp. 253-54. He witnessed charters in favour of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, pp. 30, 33. He was from Beaumais-sur-Dive in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen) in Lower Normandy: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 13-14. His Shropshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1492) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 362-63.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD <OF BRAMPTON>. Although the name is common, the Richards who held fourteen manors from Ralph of Mortimer in Wiltshire, Herefordshire and Shropshire may be one man. Two of the three Herefordshire manors lay in Birley, the third - Kinnersley - being held in the thirteenth century from the lord of Birley4 who held from the Mortimer Honour of Wigmore: Book of Fees, p. 803. With one exception, the Shropshire manors fall into two closely related groups, centring on Brampton5 and Wall town6 respectively. The exception, Huntington7, lies between the two groups. One manor from each group - Kinlet and Brampton - was held by Brian of Brampton from the Honour of Wigmore in the mid-thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 963. Brian also held Ashton in Herefordshire from the Honour, though not Kinnersley and Birley, so a process of fragmentation and estate building had occurred since Domesday: Book of Fees, pp. 799, 804, 814. Brian also held Alderton in Wiltshire from the Honour, one of two manors in the adjacent vills of Surrendell and Alderton8 held by a Richard from Ralph of Mortimer in 1086 who is therefore likely to be Richard of Brampton: Book of Fees, p. 963. Ralph of Mortimer had two other tenants named Richard, at Walton in Somerset9 where Richard is named Richard de Barra in Exon., and at Grimsby in Lincolnshire10. Either or both might be Richard of Brampton, but there are no links to confirm this. Richard's Shropshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9385) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 368, apart from Huntingdon and Wall Town, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30911, 30924), as are those in Herefordshire (nos. 30293-95), Lincolnshire (no. 34393) and Wiltshire (nos. 17032, 17034).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 YKS 6N99
2 NFK 4,6-7
3 SHR 4,21,7;12
4 HEF 9,15-17
5 SHR 6,23-26
6 SHR 4,11,14. 6,5-6;9
7 SHR 4,11,3
8 WIL 41,7;9
9 SOM 29,1
10 LIN 36,1
RICHARD [* OF GUILDEN MORDEN *]. Richard, who held Guilden Morden in Cambridgeshire from Geoffrey de Mandeville1, is undoubtedly Richard of Morden, a juror in 'Arringford' Hundred (where Morden Lay) named in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and the Inquisition Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 51, 98). He is the only Richard in the county apart from the tenant-in-chief Richard son of Count Gilbert, though other Richards are named among the jurors. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 287) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 365, where he is identified a Richard Gernet, a tenant of Geoffrey de Mandeville in Essex; see also Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 38.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF MONTGAROULT *]. Richard, who held Brocton in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury2, may be Richard de monte Warold (or de montewarult), who witnessed charters in favour of Shrewsbury abbey, the one unidentified Richard holding from the earl in the county: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, pp. 30, 33. His manor - the entries are duplicates - is recorded in Coel (no. 8232) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 360, where his byname is identified as Montgaroult in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan).
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF NEWARK *]. Richard, who held part of the large episcopal manor of Cropredy in Oxfordshire from the bishop of Lincoln3, is probably Richard of Newark, who gave tithes in Claydon to Evesham abbey early in the next century, Claydon being part of the manor of Cropredy: Eynsham cartulary, i. 37; VCH Oxfordshire, x. 186. The bishop had no other tenants of this name. Richard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4731) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 360.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF SACKVILLE *]. With one exception, the Richards who held Rockland in Norfolk4 and eleven manors in Essex5 from Eudo the steward are probably Richard of Sackville, named as Eudo's tenant at Aspenden in Hertfordshire and Rivenhall in Essex; his identity is suggested elsewhere by the descent of his manors: Round, 'The Essex Sackvilles', pp. 223-26; Farrer, Honors, iii. 168, 271. The exception is Eudo's tenant at Broxted6, identified as Richard son of Count Gilbert. Richard of Sackville was the wealthiest of Eudo's tenants. Richard's estate was later known as the Honour of Richard of Sackville: Red Book, i. 365; ii. 501. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 726) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 361.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF SOURDEVAL *]. Of the 128 manors which the Count of Mortain subinfeudated in Yorkshire, 126 were granted to men with two forenames, Richard and Nigel; and of the forty-nine unidentified Richards in the county, forty-six are the Count's tenants; Farrer's counts are higher than this: VCH Yorkshire, ii. 154. It is probable, therefore, that all forty-six - too numerous to list here - are Richard of Sourdeval, who held two messuages in York, is named as the Count's tenant at Aislaby7, and is party to several Claims8, one of which names him as the Count's tenant at Middleton9. His estate, later known as the barony of Hooton Pagnell after his most valuable
1 CAM 22,7
2 SHR 4,12,1. 4,27,30
3 OXF 6,13
4 NFK 24,1
5 ESS 25,1;6-10;16;20-21;23-24
6 ESS 25,12
7 YKS C8. 5N9
8 YKS CE6-7;31. CW6
9 YKS 5E27-28
manor1, passed to Ralph Paynel, who married his daughter: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 55-56. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2459) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 362.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF STANTON *]. The Richards who held subtenancies on the manors of Stanton Lacy and Aldon from Roger of Lacy2 are probably Richard de stantuna, who witnessed a grant to Roger of Lacy in 1085: Galbraith, 'Episcopal land-grant', p. 372. The manors are five miles apart; Roger had no other tenants named Richard on his Honour. Richard is unidentified in Coel (nos. 31182, 31190).
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF VERNON *]. Richard, whose lands owed salt-dues at Nantwich3, is identified as Richard of Vernon by reference to his lands in the Hundred of Warmundestrou, these being part of the fief he held from Earl Hugh in Cheshire. He was also the earl's tenant in Norfolk, where his byname is supplied. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 758) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 362.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SCROPE *]. Richard Scrope was one of the Normans who settled along the Welsh border during the reign of Edward the Confessor, as did his son Osbern (q.v.) who succeeded him on several manors where Richard is identified as Osbern's father rather than by his own name4. Osbern is once named Osbern son of Richard Scrope5, though more commonly Osbern son of Richard. Where not associated with Osbern6, Richard may be identified by his pre-Conquest status, and in one case by his association with Richards Castle, built by and named after him7: Round, Feudal England, pp. 320-26; Barlow, Edward the Confessor, p. 94. The three other Richards who held land before the Conquest - two in Nottinghamshire8, and one in Worcestershire9 - are unlikely to be Scrope.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF ALAN *]. Richard, who held three free men in the royal manor of Ormesby in Norfolk 'by the gift of Bishop Herfast'10, is probably Richard son of Alan, who held more free men in the same vill and others in Scratby from Herfast's successor, Bishop William of Thetford. He is probably also the Richard with another small subtenancy in the manor of Hemsby11, two miles from Ormesby, all these holdings being in the 'Flegg' Hundreds, where no other Richards held land. The bishop of Thetford had one other tenant named Richard, at West Tofts12, possibly the same man, though Tofts is a more substantial manor and is on the other side of the county. Richard's manors in 'Flegg' are recorded in Coel (no. 552) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 363; the tenant at Hemsby is unidentified (no. 9714).
1 YKS 5W14
2 SHR 7,4;6
3 CHS S1,7
4 WOR 19,1-2;7;10. SHR 5,1
5 WOR 19,1
6 WOR 2,14
7 HEF 12,2
8 NTT 3,4. 9,88
9 WOR 25,1
10 NFK 1,59
11 NFK 10,30
12 NFK 10,4
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF COUNT GILBERT *]. Richard, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne, a relation of the Conqueror, was a tenant-in-chief in nine counties, with lands whose value ranks him among the ten wealthiest laymen in 1086. He was nevertheless the tenant or subtenant of the king and at least five other tenants-in-chief, on manors in four counties. In most cases, he is identified by one of his aliases - son of Count Gilbert, of Clare, or of Tonbridge - and in some others by reference to his known predecessors, Fin the Dane1 or Wihtgar son of Aelfric2. In Kent, he is the Richard who held woodland or resources in a series of manors3, identified by references to his 'territory', the Lowy of Tonbridge. Most of these subtenancies in Kent were on the manors of Bishop Odo of Bayeux, from whom a Richard held a number of manors, including the very substantial manor of Hadlow4. He may also have held the valuable manors of Banstead and Fetcham in Surrey from Odo5. Fetcham was later held from the Honour of Clare; while Banstead was the marriage portion of the wife of Nigel of Mowbray, Mabel, 'who seems to have been the daughter of Roger, earl of Clare': VCH Surrey, iii. 254, 285. The name of Mabel's father is illegible in the relevant document (Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, pp. 180-81); but the status of Banstead, which was acquired it from an Alnoth, who may be the Alnoth of London (q.v.) from whom Richard of Tonbridge obtained several of the manors on his fief in Surrey, suggests the identification. Richard was also a tenant of Eudo the steward at Broxted in Essex6, identified in a pre-Domesday royal writ ordering the restitution of Broxted to the abbey of Ely, taken from it after the Conquest: Bates, Regesta, no. 121, pp. 426-27; Liber Eliensis, pp. 204-205. Richard retained the manor, his descendants holding a half-fee in the vill from the abbey in 1166: Red Book, ii. 525. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 306) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 363-64.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF RAINFRID *]. Richard, tenant of Miles Crispin at Appleton and Eaton in Berkshire7, Ickford and Chearsley in Buckinghamshire8 and Draycot and Alkerton in Oxfordshire9, is almost certainly Richard son of Rainfrid on most of these manors and probably on all of them. He is so-named as donor to abbey of Bec of the tithes of Appleton, Ickford and Alkerton and (apparently) of the manor of Swyncombe10: Bates, Regesta, no. 167, pp. 559-61. Domesday Book does not record Richard's interest in Swyncombe, which is said to be held by Bec directly from Miles himself. Richard's three manors which do not appear in this grant may have come to him from the same source as those which did. Appleton had been held by Healfdene of Hanslope (q.v.), who also held Eaton and Chearsley in 1066; no pre-Conquest lord is recorded at Draycot, or at Swyncombe, Ickford and Alkerton, so it is not unlikely that Richard was endowed with all the manors which Miles acquired from Healfdene. His identity on all six manors is confirmed by their descent: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 320-22. Richard also held land in Wroxton not recorded in Domesday, which was granted by his son Hugh to Abington abbey after his death: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 158-63. Miles had no other Richards on his Honour. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1574) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 364.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SUF 8,59
2 SUF 8,35;47. 29,1
3 KEN 3,5. 4,12-13. 5,2;44;52-53
4 KEN 5,60;62
5 SUR 5,8;22
6 ESS 25,12
7 BRK 33,6-7
8 BUK 23,8;10
9 OXF 35,16;32
10 OXF 35,33
RICHARD [* SON OF TUROLF *]. Although Richard is a common name, the Count of Mortain appears to have had only two Richards among the tenants on his vast Honour: Richard of Sourdeval in Yorkshire and Richard son of Turolf in the south-western counties, who between them held eighty-two manors. The identity of Richard son of Turolf is complicated by the alternative forms of the Domesday scribe, notably filius Turulfi and filius Turoldi and their variants, also found in the charters of the Count; but there is little doubt that they represent the same man, whatever the correct form of his father's name. Richard, a tenant-in-chief himself in Devon1, is identified in Domesday Book or Exon. as the Count of Mortain's tenant at Cosawes in Cornwall and St Marychurch in Devon, and as a tenant of the bishop of Exeter at Burniere in Cornwall and of Baldwin of Exeter at Martin in Devon. In Cornwall, the Phillimore editors suggest that the Richards who held twenty-eighty consecutive manors2 may not all be the son of Turolf named in Exon. on the first of them, largely on the grounds that the scribe used 'Richard holds', rather than 'He also holds' in some of the following entries. But this is the scribe's usage on several subsequent fiefs, and Richard's is delimited by the usual conventions: a blank line separating his from those which preceded and followed, with his name interlined in red in the first entry on the fief. Elsewhere in Cornwall the three unidentified Richards are tenants of the king, the bishop of Exeter and the Canons of Bodmin3; the first and third of these effectively tenants of the Count of Mortain, while the Bishop's manor at Tinten is seven miles from Burniere, the two manors spanning two held by Richard son of Turolf. In Devon, the manors of the four Mortain Richards4 were held of the Honour of Cardinham by the successors of Richard son of Turolf: Book of Fees, pp. 768, 795-96; Feudal Aids, i. 316; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iv. 44; vii. 462; Sanders, English baronies, p. 110. Richard was possibly also the Count's tenant at Carlingcott in Somerset5, apparently resumed by the Count or his successor, who granted the demesne tithes to the priory of Montacute: Two chartularies, pp. 120-21. Most other Richards in Devon are tenants of Baldwin the sheriff; and since Exon. reveals that Turolf's son was his tenant on one manor, he may have held others, which have not been identified. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 165) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 364-65.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE ARTIFICER *]. Richard, who held a small fief in Northamptonshire6, is probably Richard the artificer (Inganie), who had four houses in the county town7 and similar service fiefs in Buckinghamshire8 and Oxfordshire9. He claimed land belonging to the Forest in Huntingdonshire10, his lands and those of his brother William being associated with a forest serjeanty of pre-Conquest origin: Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', p. 294. William also had manors in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire. Dr Williams suggests that Richard 'may well be' Richard the forester/huntsman of Warwickshire and Staffordshire; but though their comparable forest serjeanties are very suggestive, what is known of the descent of the Engaine fee does not support an identification, and a forestership covering six counties would be unusually extensive: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 117. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1605) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 366-67, with a revisionist note on the descent of his lands and the Engaine forestership.
1 DEV 30,1-4
2 CON 5,3,1-28
3 CON 1,1. 2,8. 4,16
4 DEV 15,35;49;73;76
5 SOM 19,60
6 NTH 59,1-4
7 NTH B21
8 BUK 42,1
9 OXF 58,1
10 HUN D24
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE BUTLER *]. Domesday Book records two butlers on the Honour of the earl of Shrewsbury, Robert and Richard. Eyton demonstrated that Richard is probably the butler to Reginald the sheriff, since the manor held by Richard the butler from the earl of Shrewsbury at Morville was located at Tasley and Henley, which descended to Reginald's successors, the FitzAlans: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 30, 84. Reginald had a tenant named Richard on six of his manors1, who is possibly the same man: Mason, 'Officers and clerks', pp. 249-40. The manors were in the hands of several families in the thirteenth century, but there are suggestive links between them. Acton Reynald was then held by Thomas Butler from the Stanton family of Stanton-upon-Hine-Heath, the parish in which High Hatton lay2: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 75; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, x. 61-63. Of the remaining manors, one is unlocated3; the other two, at Lutwyche and Brocton4, are linked tenurially, Lutwyche held by a family of that name from the tenant of Brocton, also named from the vill in which his manor lay: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 71. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 737) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 367.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE FORESTER *]. The Richards who held Calcutt from Thorkil of Warwick5, and Grandborough, Shuckburgh, Hillmorton and Radway among the kings thanes and servants in Warwickshire6, are identified as one man, the forester at Harborough and Bramcote and the hunter at Sowe and Chesterton, all on the same fief7, by a thirteenth-century narrative of the endowment of Richard Chiven, or Cheven, by William the bastard to guard the forest of Cannock, and the subsequent history of its fees: Book of Fees, pp. 1274-78. Dr Slade suggests Richard may have been the son of the Cynewin (Chenuin) who held Codsall among the king's thanes in Staffordshire in 1066 and 10868, though Codsall did not descend with Richard's lands: 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', p. 35. Richard also held part of the royal manor of Stoneleigh in Warwickshire9 and a fief in Staffordshire10, and may have held Little Onn11, seven miles from his manor of Rodbaston, held by the one other Richard in the county. Dr Williams suggests he may be the same man as Richard the artificer: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 117. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 5869) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 365 (partially duplicated on p. 368), apart from Calcutt, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28362). The commentary in Coel is the more informative of the two.
.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE PRIEST *]. Richard, who held Perlethorpe in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully12, may be Richard the priest, who witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. Roger had another Richard among his tenants, at Wyfordby and Burton in Leicestershire13, possibly the same man since only one Richard is named in the Blyth
1 SHR 4,3,2-3;12-13;29;59
2 SHR 4,3,2-3;59
3 SHR 4,3,29
4 SHR 4,3,12-13
5 WAR 17,20
6 WAR 44,3-6
7 WAR 44,1-2;7-8
8 STS 17,1
9 WAR 1,9
10 STS 13,1-10
11 STS 17,16
12 NTT 9,37-38
13 LEC 18,4-5
cartulary and he is the only Richard in the county; but the name is common. Richard's Nottinghamshire manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9331) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 367; the Leicestershire tenant is unidentified (nos. 26473-74).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD. Roald is a rare name. Roald Dubbed held a fief in Devon, a Roald is named in Hampshire, another in Leicestershire, and two in Lincolnshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD [* FATHER OF THORI *]. As the name is rare, the Roald who held Ewerby and its dependencies in Lincolnshire1 may be the Roald who held a manor in Belton before the Conquest2, the father of Thori (q.v.) who had a manor in the same vill. Roald is the only pre-Conquest landowner of this name. He may also be the Roald who held Gopsall in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers3; his father held manors to the north and south of the county and is probably the Thori (q.v.) who preceded Henry of Ferrers on one of his Derbyshire manors. Roald is unidentified in Coel (nos. 26360, 34829), where the dependencies of Ewerby are assigned to the tenant-in-chief, Kolgrim.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD [* SON OF FATHERLING *]. As the name is rare, the Roald who held Lomer, south-east of Winchester, from the abbey of St Peter's4 is probably son of Fatherling (q.v.) - named in the Winton Domesday (pp. 39, 103, 170) - who held a cluster of manors north of the city. Roald's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9891) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT. Robert is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring almost two thousand times and in all Domesday counties. Very nearly ninety Roberts have different bynames, almost forty of them tenants-in-chief, Robert also occurring as a tenant of 130 other tenants-in-chief. The only Robert to appear in pre-Conquest contexts is Robert son of Wiuhomarch.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* BLUNT *]. Blunt5 and R Blunt6, who occur on several manors in Norfolk, are almost certainly Robert Blunt, sheriff of the county, where he was a tenant on several manors. A Roger Blunt occurs on a single manor in Devon, and Robert had a brother, Ralph, who died before 10867; but Robert is securely identified by the nature of the references in Norfolk, all of which refer to official activities as sheriff. He was also a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Middlesex and Wiltshire, and may be the Robert who held Blunsdon - Blunt's dun, a coincidence? - in the latter county from Edward of Salisbury, held in 1066 by Aki, perhaps the Dane who was Robert's principal predecessor8: Darlington, 'Domesday survey of Wiltshire', p. 106. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 151) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 370, apart from Blunsdon, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 16829).
1 LIN 67,1-4
2 LIN 67,13-17;19
3 LEC 14,11
4 HAM 6,5
5 NFK 58,3
6 NFK 1,113;216. 8,5. 10,69. 51,9
7 SUF 66,1
8 WIL 24,21
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* BURDET *]'S WIFE. Robert's wife, who held Croft in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil1, is probably Robert Burdet's wife, the tenant of Robert of Bucy at Ratcliffe2. Her son, Hugh (q.v.), held two manors in the county from Hugh of Grandmesnil. Robert Burdet himself evidently died before 1086; but the Domesday scribe normally refers to widows as wives. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3533) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 442.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* ROBERT *] COUNT OF EU. The Count of Eu, a tenant-in-chief in Essex, Huntingdonshire and Sussex, also named on several manors in Kent and Sussex, is never accorded his forename in Domesday Book, where his son and heir William, a tenant-in-chief in his own right in nine counties, is never described as Count of Eu. There is therefore an element of uncertainty as to whether the 'Count of Eu' is Robert or William, though probably the former, despite the existence of a copy of a probably-authentic writ of the Conqueror naming Count William of Eu: Bates, Regesta, no. 21, pp. 158-60. It may be, of course, that the ambiguity is deliberate, reflecting genuine uncertainty as to ownership. It is certainly highly unusual that William is regularly named William of Eu, without a title, if were recognised as Count. No other of the Conqueror's earls were treated in this manner. Robert is thought to have died about 1092 but to have spent the last decade of his life in Normandy. The Count's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 265) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 373; William's (no. 2150) at pp. 477-78.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* D'OILLY *]. Robert d'Oilly, castellan of Oxford castle, tenant-in-chief in eight counties, and sheriff at different dates of Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, is also the tenant of perhaps a dozen other tenants-in-chief. Since Robert is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, identifying him in the absence of his byname is often problematic. His official status, however, makes it probable that he is the Robert managing royal manors in Berkshire3 and Warwickshire4, while the chronicle of Abingdon abbey identifies him as the Robert who held Sandford-on-Thames and Arncott in Oxfordshire from the abbey, and South Weston from Earl Hugh of Chester5: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 32-35, 98-101. Robert was buried in the abbey and his affairs loom large in its chronicle, so he may be the unidentified Robert who held a hide at Appleford in Berkshire6, two miles from his holding in the manor of Sutton Courtney7; the abbey had no other Roberts among its tenants.
Elsewhere, the descent of Marston, Adderbury, Watlington, Watcombe, Noke, Swerford, 'Ingham' and Worton makes it likely he is the tenant there, and therefore 'also' at Kirtlington and Hensington8: Oseney cartulary, iv. 2-4, 7-8, 24-27, 32-36,51-52; vi. 10, 158-59, 236, 428; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 77; VCH Oxfordshire, viii. 216-17, 220-21; ix, 18; xii. 43; Book of Fees, pp. 821, 837. The Robert who held land in pledge from a Saewold at Little Minster is almost certainly Robert d'Oilly, since he held land on the same terms from Saewold in Rofford9. Robert may have held land from the bishop of Lincoln in Oxfordshire, where his heirs held a fee from the bishopric: Red Book, i. 375. Two of the three Roberts who held from the bishop are plausibly identified as other Roberts, so the remainder, at Banbury and Cropredy, whose holdings cannot be traced, may
1 LEC 13,37
2 LEC 17,29
3 BRK 1,12-13
4 WAR 1,6
5 OXF 9,4. 15,1;5
6 BRK 7,28
7 BRK 1,13
8 BUK 4,25. OXF 27,6. 59,3-4;7-9;20;28-29
9 OXF 58,33
be Robert d'Oilly1. Some support is provided by the fact that part of Cropredy was held by a Roger, possibly Roger of Ivry (q.v.), shared manors being a characteristic of these two 'sworn brothers' in arms (below).
In other cases where the evidence of descent is inconclusive, other factors point to Robert d'Oilly. Unidentified Roberts in vills where d'Oilly is tenant-in-chief may be him, particularly where he is a tenant elsewhere of the tenant-in-chief concerned, as at Heyford in Northamptonshire2, and Watlington, Ducklington, and Kirtlington in Oxfordshire3, confirmed by the evidence of descent in two of these cases. Robert d'Oilly was famously a 'sworn brother' of Roger d'Ivry according to the cartulary of Oseney abbey; and although the formulation is that of a later age, Domesday Book provides unmistakable evidence of their close association, in the form of joint holdings at Stowe, Newington, Arncott, and Sandford, and manors held in the same vill at Great Shefford, Shirburn, and Rousham, or in the adjacent vills of Finmere and Hethe4, as well as being joint founders of St George in the Castle: Oseney cartulary, iv. 1. Similar pairings of a Robert and Roger suggest the identify of one or other, occasionally both men, as at Horsenden, Toot Baldon, Noke, Worton, and possibly Cropredy5. As all other Roberts on the escheated fief of William son of Osbern have been identified above as Robert d'Oilly, it is possible that he is the Robert at South Newington6; the vill, whose descent has not been traced, is surrounded by his manors, some two or three miles away.
The relationship of Robert d'Oilly and Miles Crispin (q.v.), his son-in-law, suggests further identifications. They, too, held in several of the same vills - Aston Sandford, Betterton, Heyford, Thurleigh, Watcombe - which tends to confirm the identity of Robert as Robert d'Oilly at North Marston and Aston Sandford and in the adjacent vill of Ilmer, and perhaps also at Hartwell, close to Crispin's manor of Upton7. Hartwell and Aston were acquired from the same predecessor; so, too, were Ilmer and Horsenden, so the Robert in the latter vill is possibly also d'Oilly, a possibility strengthened by the fact noted above that Roger (of Ivry) held in the same vill from the same tenant-in-chief. All four vills lay within a few miles of each other.
In Warwickshire, the Robert at Barston8 is probably d'Oilly, who acquired another manor in the same vill from the same predecessor. Dr Williams has pointed out that all but one of Robert d'Oilly's manors in the county were acquired from kinsmen of Thorkil of Arden, five held as a tenant of Thorkil himself, which suggests that the Robert who held Napton from Thorkil, previously held by his kinsman Edwin, may also be d'Oilly9: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 100-104. The one other Robert on Thorkil's fief, at Weston-under-Wetherley, three miles from d'Oilly's tenancy at Lillington10, may be the same man, as perhaps is the Robert who held in Napton and Weston from the Count of Meulan11, manors in those vills being held as two fees from the descendants of Thorkil and the Count: Book of Fees, p. 509. The Robert who held Aldridge and Barr12 from William son of Ansculf in Staffordshire is probably also d'Oilly, both being held by his descendants: Liber Niger Scaccarii Staffordscira, pp. 202-203. Robert d'Oilly also held Shenstone in Staffordshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors in Berkshire and Oxfordshire are recorded in Coel (no. 379) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 378, apart from those of the
1 OXF 6,12-13
2 NTH 4,36
3 OXF 59,3;6;8
4 OXF 7,16. NTH 4,30-31
5 BUK 4,8-9. OXF 6,13. 7,19;28. 59,7;29
6 OXF 59,19
7 BUK 4,4;22-23;25. 32,1
8 WAR 44,15
9 WAR 17,28
10 WAR 17,53
11 WAR 16,31;52
12 STS 12,24-25
bishop of Lincoln and Newington, Swerford and 'Ingham', whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 27699, 28123-4, 28133). The tenants of the Warwickshire manors are unidentified (nos. 28303, 28327, 28371, 28399), and those in Staffordshire attributed to another Robert (no. 9383). Hartwell in Buckinghamshire is assigned to d'Oilly; Ilmer and Aston to Robert of Romney; and remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 1129, 1135, 1455).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* FATHER OF AUCHER *]. Robert, who held ten hides from the bishop of Lincoln in Thame in Oxfordshire,1, has been identified as the ancestor of the Chevauchesul family, perhaps the father of Aucher and grandfather of Robert Chevauchesul, who flourished at Tetsworth in the first half of the twelfth century, Tetsworth probably being included in the ten hides of Thame: VCH Oxfordshire, vii. 148-49. It is also suggested that he held Banbury, Cropredy and Wykham from the bishop2, though these were more probably held by Robert d'Oilly and Robert son of Walkelin. His manor, together with Chetwode in Buckinghamshire3, is assigned to Robert de Tham in Coel (no. 744) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 380, with the comment that the Buckinghamshire Robert de Tham may be the unnamed son of William Taum (or Tahum) recorded in Kent or 'alternatively' the bishop of Lincoln's tenant at Thame, who is 'probably' Robert d'Oilly.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* ROBERT *] MALET. R Malet and Ro Malet, who occur on dozens of manors in Essex and East Anglia, cannot be anyone other the tenant-in-chief Robert Malet. These abbreviated forms are particularly common in Suffolk, where Robert held more than three hundred manors and was sheriff of the county. He is almost certainly also the 'Malet' who occurs in dozens of entries in Suffolk, too numerous to list here. The only possible source of confusion is with his father, William, who is probably the 'Malet' referred to in the Yorkshire Claims4. Ambiguities in East Anglia are rare, father and son normally distinguished by the fact that William died early in the Conqueror's reign and Robert held nothing in his own right before then. The few ambiguous cases5 are likely to be Robert Malet, who is clearly the Malet in the majority of entries, there being no certain or even probable case where it is his father. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 347) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 389-91.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* MARMION *]. The Roberts who held Appleby with Risby and Winteringham in Lincolnshire from Gilbert of Ghent6 may be Robert Marmion, who held Winteringham and perhaps Risby from Walter of Ghent in the Lindsey Survey (1/2). A later Robert Marmion held three fees in Winteringham from another Gilbert of Ghent in 1212, and Robert's son, William, held the same three fees 'of the old enfeoffment' three decades later: Book of Fees, 190, 1070. The Robert who held another valuable manor from Gilbert, at Stow, is possibly the same man7. Robert's manors are attributed to another of Gilbert's tenants, Robert of Armentières, in Coel (no. 113) and Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Stow, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 33955).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 OXF 6,10
2 OXF 6,12-13;15
3 BUK 4,36
4 YKS CW31
5 SUF 1,102. 4,42. 16,30
6 LIN 24,10-12
7 LIN 24,92
ROBERT [* OF ARMENTIERES *]. Robert, who held Ewelme in Oxfordshire from Gilbert of Ghent, is almost certainly Robert of Armentières, who had a house in Wallingford attached to Ewelme. He 'also' held Hanborough, the two manors constituting Gilbert's fief in Oxfordshire1. In 1166 David de Armere - probably his grandson (Keats-Rohan, Domesday descendants, pp. 291-92) - held the largest fee on the Honour of the earl of Huntingdon in 1166: Red Book, i. 381-84. If Robert did so in 1086, then he may be the Robert who held the manors of Whichford in Northamptonshire2 and Whatton in Nottinghamshire3, the two most valuable of the manors subinfeudated by Gilbert; a John of Armentières was a Ghent tenant in Northamptonshire in the Northamptonshire Survey, albeit on a different manor. Robert is named in the Abingdon chronicle as witness to a charter recording a grant made by Gilbert to the abbey so he is possibly Gilbert's tenant in the county4, the one other Robert on his Honour other than Robert Marmion: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, pp. 18-21. If these identifications are correct, Robert was indeed Gilbert's most substantial tenant in 1086 by a considerable margin, his manors being worth more than twice that of any other tenant. Gilbert of Armentières is next in wealth, between them having more than half the value subinfeudated to lay tenants, suggesting that Robert and Gilbert are relatives and perhaps also relatives of Gilbert of Ghent himself. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 113) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Whatton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35538). Coel also attributes to Robert of Armentières the manors here assigned Robert Marmion.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF ASHTON>. Although the name is common, it is likely that the Roberts who held six manors from Humphrey de l'Isle in Wiltshire are one man5. Humphrey's Honour is confined to the county; and of the dozen names among his tenants, only two others occur more than once, and of these Hugh's two manors are modest while the two more substantial manors of Payne (q.v.) were probably held by one man. All Robert's manors are fairly substantial and included five of the seven most valuable held by Humphrey's tenants. His total holding was almost half as valuable as that retained by Humphrey himself, worth almost four times that of any other tenant. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 16926-29, 16934, 16944).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF BARLBOROUGH>. The Roberts who held three manors in Derbyshire from Ralph son of Hubert are probably one man6. Two of the manors are in Stretton, which at a later date was held from Barlborough: Feudal Aids, i. 247. Ralph had two other Roberts among his tenants, one identified in Domesday as Robert of Bucy7, the other an unidentified Robert in Leicestershire8. Robert's Derbyshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9379) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395; the Leicestershire tenant is unidentified (no. 26507).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BASKERVILLE *]. Robert, who held Eardisley from Roger of Lacy9, is probably Robert of Baskerville, whose descendants made the castle the caput of their holdings: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 47, 100-101. He is probably also the Robert at Stretton, Yazor and
1 OXF 38,1-2
2 NTH 46,7
3 NTT 17,16-18
4 BRK 37,1
5 WIL 27,7-10;14;24
6 DBY 10,4;7-8
7 STS 15,1
8 LEC 22,1
9 HEF 10,46
Yarsop1, Baskerville manors at a later date: Herefordshire Domesday, p. 43; Book of Fees, p. 803. He may also be the Robert who held Yarlet in Staffordshire2 from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, the manor later being granted by the Baskervilles, with the consent of their Lacy overlord, to abbey-Cwmhir: Plea Rolls of the reign of Henry III, p. 26; Chetwynd, 'History of Pirehill Hundred', pp. 106-107. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4706) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Eardisley (no. 30350), whose tenant is unidentified.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BEAUMONT *]. Robert, who held Landcross in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff3, is probably Robert of Beaumont, named as owing tax on land held from the sheriff in the Geld Roll for Merton Hundred, where Landcross lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xviii. He is probably also the Robert who held land in Ashford, where he held the rest of the vill from Baldwin according to Exon.4. Robert is not named in Domesday Book; but according to Exon. he held five other manors in the county from Baldwin5. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9075) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 374-75, apart from Landcross, Ashford and Whitestone6, assigned to Robert son of Ivo.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF BITTESWELL>. The tenants of Geoffrey of la Guerche at Bitteswell and Dalby in Leicestershire7, Cestersover in Warwickshire8 and Blyborough in Lincolnshire9 may be the same Robert, though the name is common and manors in the hands of different families in the thirteenth century: Charters of Mowbray, p. 263. All three families held several other manors from the Honour, so there had been changes in their distribution since Domesday, unsurprisingly in view of the forfeiture of Geoffrey's successor Robert de Stuteville in 1106. According to the Lindsey Survey (2/7), Blyborough was resumed as demesne of the tenant-in-chief by the 1120s. The witnesses to the la Guerche foundation charter of 1077 for Monks Kirby include two Roberts, one identified as Robert Burdet: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1. Burdet, however, appears to have died before 1086, since no manors are attributed to him, though his wife and son are tenants in Leicestershire. Geoffrey possibly therefore had just the one tenant named Robert in Domesday. Robert may be the Robert who held another manor in Bitteswell, on the escheated fief of Aubrey de Coucy. If so, he 'also' held Swinford10. In Warwickshire, Geoffrey of la Guerche was in charge of Aubrey's escheated fief and no doubt had some influence on its composition in Leicestershire. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9355) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394 where the references for the two Coucy manors and for Cestersover are omitted.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. The Roberts who held Scalford, Oadby and Wigston Magna in Leicestershire11 and Bisbrooke, Wothorpe and 'also' Boughton in Northamptonshire12 from Countess Judith are probably Robert of Bucy, identified by the descent of his manors: Farrer,
1 HEF 10,24;58-59
2 STS 8,12
3 DEV 16,40
4 DEV 16 66;85
5 DEV 16,65-66;67-68;137
6 DEV 16,40;85;137
7 LEC 29,7;19
8 WAR 31,10
9 LIN 63,1
10 LEC 10,9-10
11 LEC 40,23;25
12 NTH 56,25;59-60
Honors, ii. 365-69; VCH Rutland, ii. 175. Bucy held seven other manors in Leicestershire from the Countess and was himself a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, in which capacity he held other manors in Scalford and Boughton. The Countess had another Robert on her Honour at Sutton in Bedfordshire, conceivably the same man though the name is common and the holdings modest1. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2544) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375; the tenants at Sutton are unidentified (nos. 493, 495).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF CHERRY HINTON *]. Robert, who Teversham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Robert of Cherry Hinton, the juror of Fleamdyke Hundred, that vill being assessed together with Teversham, both vills lying in Fleamdyke Hundred2: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 25). The same Robert probably also held Eversden from the Count3, land in both vills being held by the same family in the thirteenth century: VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 62; x. 176. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4957) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, where Hinxton4 and Haslingfield5 are also attributed to him, the latter here assigned to Robert the priest. The remaining Roberts on Count Alan's Honour can be identified with some confidence.
.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF CLAVILLE. R of Claville, who held Stratton in Suffolk from Robert Malet6, is almost certainly Robert of Claville, his tenant at Swefling. Only two other Clavilles occur in Domesday, the brothers Walter and Gotshelm, whose manors lay in the south-western counties. Oddly, the Domesday scribe has signalled that Walter of Claville might be an error for Walter of Glanville7, and Robert Malet had a Robert of Glanville among his tenants in Suffolk whose manor at Great Glemham is only a mile from Swefling. The orthography of the two names, however, is distinct and the toponyms are plausible though - again oddly - related: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 29. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 617) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375.
.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF COURSON. R of Courson, who had two manors at Uggeshall in Suffolk8, is almost certainly Robert of Courson, tenant of Roger Bigot on several other manors in East Anglia. One manor in Uggeshall was held from Earl Hugh of Chester, the abbreviation there presumably stemming from a geographically arranged source. The only other landowner with this toponym is Hubert, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Berkshire and Staffordshire. Earl Hugh had no other tenants named Robert in Suffolk. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF DOYNTON>. The Roberts who held the valuable manor of Doynton and 'Lee' and Gaunts Earthcott in Gloucestershire from the bishop of Coutances9 are probably one man, a Thomas of Doynton holding Lea and Earthcott in the thirteenth century: Cartulary of St Mark's
1 BDF 53,23-24
2 CAM 14,2-4
3 CAM 14,46
4 CAM 3,1
5 CAM 14,38
6 SUF 6,110
7 DOR 41,1
8 SUF 4,14. 7,8
9 GLS 6,5;7-8
hospital, pp. 180-81, 183-85. Bishop Geoffrey had tenants of this name in five other counties, several with manors of comparable value to Doynton butnone of whom appear to have links with the Gloucestershire tenant; all but one of them1 are unidentified in Coel. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4388) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF DUN *]. Robert, who held Dalbury in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers2, is almost certainly Robert of Dun, who granted tithes in the vill to Tutbury priory, confirmed by his descendant Roger: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 65, 108-109. Henry had several tenants named Robert, two of them in Derbyshire identified in the same record, one holding land in the adjacent vill of Ashe. Three others are unidentified, one or more of whom may be Robert of Dun since Robert of Dun - possibly the Domesday tenant - held two fees of the Ferrers Honour by 1135, a substantial burden for one modest manor, though he may of course have acquired more land in the interval: Red Book, i. 337. There are no clues as to which of unidentified tenants might be Dun. He probably came from Le Bourg-Dun in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2982) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 376.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF GLANVILLE *]. R of Glanville, who occurs several times on the fief of Robert Malet in Suffolk3, can only be Robert of Glanville, his tenant at Honing in Norfolk and on eight other manors in Suffolk. He is probably also the R of Glanville who held Burgh and two other manors from William of Warenne4, and the Robert who held the intervening free men in Boulge and perhaps Debach, dependent on Burgh5; he held the church of Boulge from Robert Malet6. There are no other Glanvilles in Domesday Book apart from a scribal dithering at Afflington in Dorset, where the scribe was uncertain of the byname of Walter of Claville and hedged his bets, adding above Walter of Glanville 'or Claville'. Curiously, Robert Malet had a Robert of Claville among his tenants in Suffolk whose manor at Swefling is only a mile from the Glanville manor of Great Glemham. The orthography of the two names, however, is distinct and the toponyms are plausible though - even more curiously - related: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 29. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 647) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 376, apart from the Warenne tenant at Boulge, who is unidentified (no. 13506).
.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP R[OBERT OF HEREFORD]. Bishop R, who claimed the manor of Montford in Shropshire7, is probably the bishop of Hereford, Robert Losinga (1079-1095), though possibly the new bishop of Chester, Robert of Limésy (1086-1117): VCH Shropshire, i. 291. Whoever he was, the claim was unsuccessful for the manor was subsequently granted to Shrewsbury abbey by Roger of Lacy, whose family later held land in the vill: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76. He is certainly R bishop of Hereford who held a hide in the royal manor of Writtle in Essex8. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2515) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.
1 BUK 5,1
2 DBY 6,97
3 SUF 6,124;158-160;179;181
4 SUF 26,16;19-20
5 SUF 26,17
6 SUF 6,181
7 SHR 4,4,23
8 ESS 1,24
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF HERILS *]. The Roberts who held Tibshelf and Wingfield in Derbyshire1 and Stapleford in Nottinghamshire2 from William Peverel are probably Robert of Hérils, identified by the descent of his lands: Book of Fees, pp. 984, 992; Farrer, Honors, i. 154-58, 181-82. Farrer tentatively suggested he is also the Robert who held Bolsover from William3, his one other tenant of that name in Derbyshire, which is not unlikely since the Hérils family held land at Oxcroft in Bolsover parish at a later date: Book of Fees, p. 1321. Robert's descendants were tenants of other manors on the Peverel Honour, including Gonalston4, held in demesne in 1086, so some re-arrangement of fees occurred. Robert may have come from Hérils, just south of Port-en-Bessin in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Bayeux). Another Robert held from William at Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire5: Farrer, Honors, i. 147-48, 246-48. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2976) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 376-77, apart from Wingfield, assigned to Robert of Pavilly (no. 2986).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF MOUTIERS *]. The Roberts who held Syerston in Nottinghamshire6, Cowling, Kirklington, Yarnwick, Burneston and Howe in Yorkshire7 and Lea and its dependencies in Lincolnshire8 from Count Alan of Brittany are very probably Robert of Moutiers, his tenant at Treswell in Nottinghamshire, identified by the descent of his lands: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 242-55. The Lincolnshire manor was subinfeudated to the Trehamton family before the Lindsey Survey (4/2) and subsequently held directly from the Honour of Richmond. This may have occurred when Robert's heirs were disinherited, his grandson being reinstated in the 1140s when the service of Geoffrey Trehamton was reserved; a trace of the original Moutiers interest nevertheless remaining: Early Yorkshire charters, iv. 27-28; v. 242 note 9. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Robert may have been the brother of Lisois of Moutiers (q.v.); it is probable they were related in some way: ibid. v. 246. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3020) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, apart from Cowling, whose tenant in unidentified (no. 37197). Following its normal practice, Coel assigns the dependencies of Lea to the tenant-in-chief, Count Alan; but the Lindsey Survey (4/2) confirms that they were held with the manor by the tenant.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF NOYERS *]. As there are only five names among the tenants of the bishop of Lisieux, it is very probable that the Robert who held Bow Brickhill in Buckinghamshire from him is Robert of Noyers, his tenant on the previous manor of Crafton (in Wing), the two manors constituting the bishop's fief in the county9, both acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord. The bishop had no other tenants of this name but Robert of Noyers also held Gayhurst from him, as a subtenant of Odo of Bayeux10. It is not unlikely that Walter Giffard's tenant on a second manor in Bow Brickhill11 is the same Robert, and perhaps also his tenants at Littlecote and Akeley12, the only other Roberts on his Honour. Although the name is common, this identification receives some
1 DBY 1,36. 7,13
2 NTT 10,16
3 DBY 7,1
4 NTT 10,3
5 NTT 10,2
6 NTT 2,3
7 YKS 6N128;147-148;151;158
8 LIN 12,4-6
9 BUK 6,1-2
10 BUK 4,42
11 BUK 14,49
12 BUK 14,17;26
slight support from the fact that another Robert with a manor in Littlecote1 is the only Robert on the Honour of Miles Crispin, likely therefore to be the same man. Less certainly, he may be the tenant of Jocelyn the Breton at Grove2, two miles from Crafton and three from Wing. Jocelyn had no other tenants of this name. These manors were in the hands of different families in the thirteenth century. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 692) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, apart from Littlecote, Akeley and Grove, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 1274, 1283, 1407, 1505).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF PENN>. The Roberts who held Penn, Oxley, Ettingshall and Bushbury in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf3 may be one man. Penn and Bushbury were later held as a single fee, while Oxley is less than a mile from Bushbury and Ettingshall three from Penn, all four in the same Hundred: Book of Fees, p. 543. William had other tenants named Robert in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Worcestershire; but the name is common and there are no discernible links between them. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests Robert of Penn held Linford in Buckinghamshire4, though the grounds for doing so are not apparent, Linford being the smallest and not the nearest - some fifty miles from the Staffordshire manors - of these tenancies; it was later held by the Hauville family: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 392. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9383) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395, together with Aldridge and Barr in Staffordshire, here assigned to Robert d'Oilly; the Northamptonshire and Worcestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 32030, 32033).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF PONT-CHARDON *]. Robert, who held Charles in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff5, is almost certainly Robert of Pont-Chardon who 'also' held the following manor of Mockham, his byname supplied there by Exon. He is probably also the Robert who held Hagginton from Baldwin6, a manor sandwiched between Charles and Heanton, another manor attributed to Pont-Chardon by Exon., which also assigns Blakewell, another of Baldwin's manors, to him7. He also held Welwyn in Hertfordshire from Robert Gernon, where his byname is supplied. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 713) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 378.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Robert, who held Byfield, Boddington, Trafford, Marston, Radstone, Middleton, Blakesley and Yelvertoft in Northamptonshire from Earl Hugh of Chester8 - said to be one man in the text - is almost certainly Robert of Rhuddlan, a tenant-in-chief in Cheshire and one of the principal tenants of the earl, his kinsman. According to Orderic Vitalis (iii. 238-39), Robert of Rhuddlan granted the churches of Byfield and Marston to the abbey of St Evroul . His son William was either disinherited or a bastard (Crouch, 'Administration of the Norman earldom', pp. 75-76), which makes it difficult to identify Robert elsewhere; but it is likely he held Mentmore in Buckinghamshire9 and Bisley in Gloucestershire10 from the earl, both valuable manors and neither apparently held by the descendants of Robert son of Hugh, the other major tenant named Robert on the earl's Honour and the only likely alternative : Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59 note
1 BUK 23,23
2 BUK 44,4
3 STS 12,6;9;18-19
4 BUK 17,21
5 DEV 16,71
6 DEV 16,70
7 DEV 16,74
8 NTH 22,1-8
9 BUK 13,1
10 GLS 28,1
3; Farrer, Honors, ii. 13-15, 51-52, 211-15, 219-34. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1669) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 379.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF ST QUENTIN *]. Robert, who held Thurvaston in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers1, is very probably Robert of St Quentin, who gave tithes in the vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Several other Roberts were tenants of Henry in the county, but none have links with Thurvaston. Robert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2980) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 379.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF STAFFORD *]. Robert, who held Acton Trussell in Staffordshire from the bishop of Chester2, is identified as Robert of Stafford, a tenant-in-chief in Staffordshire and six other counties, by the descent of Acton, held by his successors from the bishopric: Red Book, i. 263; Book of Fees, p. 967. He is also the Robert who shared the borough revenues with the king, identified in an entry on his fief3. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 739) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 381, apart from Acton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 31291).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF STRATFORD *]. Robert, who held Stratford in Suffolk from Swein of Essex4, is probably Robert of Stratford, a tenant-in-chief with a small fief in the county. Swein had no other tenants of this name there. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8870) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 380.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF THURLASTON>. The Roberts who held Thurlaston and Wibtoft (or Willey) in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan5 may be one man. Although the name is common and the manors held by different families in the thirteenth century, the disruption in the descent of many Meulan fees makes descent a poor guide to Domesday identities: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 82, 258. The Count probably had another tenant named Robert in the county - Robert d'Oilly - and three such in one small county seems unlikely when there are few Roberts on other fiefs combined. The vills are a dozen miles apart. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8993) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394, where he is also assigned Dorsington in Gloucestershire6, here attributed to Robert the butler.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF VATTEVILLE *]. Robert, who held Shalford in Surrey from Richard of Tonbridge7, is probably Robert of Vatteville, Richard's tenant on eight other manors in the county, most of them valuable, Shalford itself being the most valuable of all, the most valuable on Richard's fief. Robert 'is said to have sold the manor to Robert de Dunstanville' though the record source for this statement 'cannot be verified': VCH Surrey, iii. 107-111. Richard had no other Roberts among his tenants in Surrey, but he had two in Essex, both with valuable manors, one held by Robert of
1 DBY 6,64
2 STS 2,3
3 STS B12. 11,7
4 SUF 27,9
5 WAR 16,33;40
6 GLS 40,1
7 SUR 19,37
Vatteville, the other possibly his too1. Richard also had three Roberts on his Honour in Suffolk; two with modest manors; but the third, Desning2, is the most valuable of those he subinfeudated by a considerable margin. It seems likely that this Robert is Robert of Vatteville. He is by a long way Richard's most favoured honorial baron. Even without the unidentified manors, his manorial income is three times that of any other tenant on the Honour; with them, six times. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 5816) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 382-83, apart from Shalford and Desning, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 15534, 13325).
.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF VAUX. R of Vaux, who occurs once on the royal manor of Worlingham in Suffolk3 and thirteen times on the fiefs of Roger Bigot in Norfolk4 and Suffolk5, is almost certainly Robert of Vaux, Roger's tenant on many other manors in those counties and also in Essex, his wealthiest tenant. His byname is borne by only one other landowner, Aitard of Vaux (q.v.), probably a relative since his lands are also concentrated on Bigot fiefs in East Anglia. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 382.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF VERLY *]. Robert, who held Little Birch in Essex from Robert Gernon6, is probably Robert of Verly, his tenant on four other manors in the county and himself a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk. He was identified by J.H. Round from a now-lost thirteenth century inquisition which listed Birch among the manors held by Verly's descendants from those of Gernon: 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 389. His byname is borne by his brother Hugh in Essex, and by a William in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Robert Gernon had four other Roberts among his tenants in Essex, at Bollington, Rainham, Widdington and Shortgrove, the last two held by one man7, all possibly Verly; but the name is common and there are no specific links, though Widdington and Shortgrove were acquired from a Wulfwin, possibly Verly's predecessor at Birch. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 755) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 382; the subtenant at Bollington is omitted from Coel, and the tenant at Widdington and Shortgrove is unidentified (nos. 5173-74). Coel identifies the Robert at Rainham8 as a different man (no. 2111) from Robert the lascivious named elsewhere in the entry.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SAVAGE *]. The Roberts who held Broadwater and ten other manors in Sussex from William of Braose9 are probably Robert Savage, or silvaticus, witness to Braose charters for the abbey of Saumur about a decade after Domesday: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 396, 398, 401. Another Robert Savage held Broadwater in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 689. All the Braose manors held by Robert descended to his heirs, ultimately the Camoys family: VCH Sussex, p. 447 note 6; vi/ii. 65. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 921) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392, apart from Ashington10, whose tenant is unidentified.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 ESS 23,6;41
2 SUF 25,3
3 SUF 1,22
4 NFK 9,3-4;233-234
5 SUF 7,16-17;24;40;44-45;49-50;54
6 ESS 32,26
7 ESS 32,20;28;41-42
8 ESS 32,28
9 SUS 13,30;33-36;40;42-43;47;56-57
10 SUS 13,47
R[OBERT] SON OF CORBUCION. R son of Corbucion, who claimed free men or land at Kirby Cane and Wheatacre in Norfolk of the fief of Ralph Baynard1, is almost certainly Robert son of Corbucion, named in full elsewhere on Ralph's fief2, and himself a tenant-in-chief in Essex and East Anglia. The one other landowner with his patronymic is William son of Corbucion, a tenant-in-chief in Berkshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 575) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF *] FAFITON. The Domesday scribes appear unsure whether Robert is Robert Fafiton or Robert son of Fafiton. In Huntingdonshire, he is Robert Fafiton in the list of landowners and in the rubric of his fief, but Robert son of Fafiton - interlined - in the first entry3. He is Robert Fafiton in Middlesex4, Bedfordshire5 and Cambridgeshire6. To the scribe of the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, he is Robert son of Fafiton twice in six times, and both Fafiton and son of Fafiton in the entry for Trumpington on his fief (ed. Hamilton, pp. 35, 51, 70-72). Despite the preponderance of Robert Fafiton, his byname is believed to be a patronymic, though the forename Fafiton is not recorded: Tengvik, Old English bynames, pp. 182, 217. The Fafiton who occurs in the Claims for Huntingdonshire, is Robert, identified by the reference to his manor of Hail Weston and his predecessor there, Saxi7. He may be the Robert who held land from Picot the sheriff in Grantchester8, where he held in chief, the Inquisitio also naming him as the tenant of the Count of Mortain on another manor in that vill, as also at Barton9. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 218) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF GILBERT *]. Robert, who held Leigh in Somerset from William of Mohun10, is almost certainly Robert son of Gilbert, named in the Geld Roll for South Petherton Hundred where Leigh lay: VCH Somerset, i. 534. Another Robert held from William at Chubworthy11, and others in Dorset12 and Devon13; but the name is common and there are no other links to confirm an identification. Robert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2102) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 385; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 2823, 3785, 15067).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH *]. The Roberts who held Buscot in Berkshire14, Tackley in Oxfordshire15, Kegworth in Leicestershire16 and Sutton Bonington and its dependency in Nottinghamshire17 from Earl Hugh of Chester may be his tenant in Cheshire, Robert son of Hugh: Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 308-
1 NFK 31,12;17
2 NFK 31,11;44
3 HUN 25,1-2
4 MDX 15,1-2
5 BDF 30,1
6 CAM 38,1-5
7 HUN D13
8 CAM 32,15
9 CAM 12,2-3
10 SOM 25,5
11 SOM 25,40
12 DOR 36,7
13 DEV 18,1
14 BRK 18,2
15 OXF 15,3
16 LEC 43,6
17 NTT 3,1-3
309. At Buscot, Robert's subtenant was Drogo of les Andelys (q.v.), his tenant on five manors in Cheshire. Drogo also held two manors from Robert d'Oilly, which has led to the suggestion that d'Oilly may be the tenant at Buscot; but the later interest of the Patric family, who succeeded to part of his estate by marrying one of his daughters and heiresses, point to Robert son of Hugh. The Patrics also had interests in Sutton Bonington and Kegworth, the latter held together with Tackley in the later twelfth century: Farrer, Honors, ii. 22-25, 45-46, 79-80, 242-44; VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 197. The form of the entries on the final two manors of his Cheshire fief - separated by gaps in the manuscript and missing the regular 'also' - suggests the scribe may have been uncertain of the identity of Robert at Butley and Cranage1: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', pp. 7-8. Robert's manors - including Buscot, Butley and Cranage - are recorded in Coel (no. 2580) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 385; Tackley and Kegworth are assigned to a second Robert (no. 10301), and the Nottinghamshire manors to Robert son of William.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF IVO *]. The Roberts who held Morden and Stafford (or 'Wey') in Dorset from the Count of Mortain2 are very probably Robert son of Ivo, named in the Geld Roll for Loosebarrow and Cullifordtree Hundreds where these vills lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 136, 147. Robert's byname is not recorded in Domesday Book, but Exon. supplies it on five manors in Somerset3 and one in Devon4, all held from the Count of Mortain. The descent of his manors suggest he is the same man as Robert the constable, his alias in Exon. as the Count's tenant at Crowcombe and Hatch Beauchamp in Somerset5, the latter becoming the centre of the barony held by Robert's successors, the Beauchamp family: Sanders, English baronies, p. 51; Golding, 'Robert of Mortain', pp. 137-38. He is probably also the Robert who held five manors from the Count in 'Winterborne'6, several of which were later held by the Beauchamp family, as was Charmouth7 and Marston Magna in Somerset8: Book of Fees, pp. 751, 1468-69. The last of the Winterbornes is followed by an entry which begins Ipse Ro.9, a formulae indicating the tenant is the Robert of the previous entry. He may also be the Robert who held Moreton10, later held with 'Winterborne' by William of Lanvalay, whose daughter and heiress was the wife of John de Burgo, a Beauchamp tenant: Book of Fees, pp. 426, 667, 866. The two remaining manors in Dorset held by Robert from the Count11 each follow immediately one attributed to Robert son of Ivo, the scribe perhaps omitting an 'also' as he frequently did in the Dorset text. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 791) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 385-86, apart from Warmwell in Dorset12 and Marston Magna in Somerset, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 2741, 14815). Coel also assigns Landcross, Ashford and Whitestone in Devon to Robert, here attributed to Robert of Beaumont.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF ROSCELIN *]. The Roberts who held Corneybury, Berkesden and Wakeley in Hertfordshire from Count Eustace of Boulogne13 are probably Robert son of Roscelin, his tenant
1 CHS 2,30-31
2 DOR 26,7;16;24
3 SOM 19,13-14;35;66;85
4 DEV 15,10
5 SOM 19,7;29
6 DOR 26,13;18-19;30-31
7 DOR 26,67
8 SOM 19,73
9 DOR 26,32
10 DOR 26,56
11 DOR 26,25;57
12 DOR 26,57
13 HRT 17,4;8-9
at Reed in the county and at Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire, all except Wakeley being held by one man in 1166; Wakeley, whose descent has not been traced, may have been absorbed into its neighbour, Berkesden: Red Book, ii. 581; VCH Hertfordshire, iv. 20-21. He is presumably the same Robert son of Roscelin named in Exon. as the tenant of Ralph Paynel at Newhall in Somerset1. Ralph had no Robert among his tenants but Count Eustace had four in Essex2 holding manors of equivalent status to those in Hertfordshire; but the name is a common one and the Essex and Hertfordshire manors descended by different routes: Book of Fees, pp. 1428, 1430. He was a minor tenant-in-chief in Middlesex and Essex. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 508) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386; the tenants in Essex are unidentified (nos. 4729, 4736-37, 4769).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF SARLE *]. Robert, who held Ashe in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers3, is very probably Robert son of Sarle, who granted tithes in that vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. He is possibly the Robert in the adjacent vill of Hilton4; but the name is common and Henry had several Roberts identified as different men among his tenants in the county. Robert's manor of Ashe is recorded in Coel (no. 2978) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF THEOBALD *]. It is possible that the Roberts who held thirty-seven manors in Sussex from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are all Robert son of Theobald, his tenant at Arundel and Treyford and on a small fief in Shropshire. He was identified by J.H. Round as Robert of Arundel, and his lands as the core of the later Honour of Petworth, held by Jocelyn of Louvain, brother of Henry I's queen Adeliza, and later by a branch of the Percy family: Round, 'Some early grants', pp. 63-66. This link enables Robert to be identified with some certainty on two-thirds of his manors5, and with reasonable probability on most of the remainder6: Farrer, Honors, iii. 16-27, 30-36;40;52-54;97-98. The descent of a virgate in Sullington has not been traced7, and Farrer was inclined to identify the Robert at Storrington8 as another man, though Robert's descendants did have an interest in the vill: Honors, iii. 32, 81-82. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 498) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386, apart from Bignor and Hardham9, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 16264, 16266).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WALKELIN *]. Robert, who held two hides from the bishop of Lincoln in Wykham10, is probably Robert son of Walkelin, who later granted tithes in Wykham to Eynsham abbey: Eynsham cartulary, i. 36-37. He also held a mill at Banbury and part of the manor there from the bishop; and since he is one of two Roberts on that manor, he may also be the second Robert on the following manor of Cropredy11; the descent of neither has been traced: VCH Oxfordshire, x. 162-64. His manor of Wykeham and mill are recorded in Coel (no. 4341) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 27699, 27687).
1 SOM 31,5
2 ESS 20,35;41-42;67
3 DBY 6,37
4 DBY 6,46
5 SUS 11,10-14;17-25;27;31;47;57;60-61;78-79
6 SUS 11,50-53;55;69-73
7 SUS 11,58
8 SUS 11,48-49
9 SUS 11,78-79
10 OXF 6,15
11 OXF 6,13
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WALTER *]. The Roberts who held Worminghall and Shalstone in Buckinghamshire from the bishop of Coutances and Robert d'Oilly respectively1, and Waterperry in Oxfordshire from Robert2, are probably Robert son of Walter, d'Oilly's tenant at Oakley in Buckinghamshire which descended with Worminghall and Waterperry to Lovel de Brai: VCH Oxfordshire, v. 296. The bishop of Coutances held the other part of Shalstone in demesne. According to Exon., Robert son of Walter held Harptree in Somerset from the Count of Mortain3. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 487) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387, apart from Shalstone, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1366); Robert at Harptree is identified as different son of Walter (no. 1683).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WIDELIN *]. Robert, who held Seal and 'also' three other manors in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers4, is probably Robert son of Widelin, who granted tithes in Steyle to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Henry had another Robert among his tenants in the county, named Robert the hunter in the same source. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8765) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WILLIAM *]. Robert the usher, who held a small fief in Leicestershire5, is named Robert son of William the usher in a duplicate of his fief6. He may therefore be the Robert son of William who had similar small fiefs in Derbyshire7 and Nottinghamshire8 and the Robert the usher named in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 115) at Chesterton in Cambridgeshire9. The Leicestershire tenant-in-chief is treated as two men in Coel: Robert the usher, also identified as the Cambridgeshire tenant (no. 1701), and Robert son of William, holding the other fiefs (no. 3253), also identified as the tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester on two manors in Nottinghamshire10 here attributed to Robert son of Hugh: Domesday people, pp. 387, 389. Coel identifies another Robert son of William (no. 2004), named in the Geld Roll for Somerset, as a tenant of Robert of Courseulles11.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WIUHOMARCH *]. Robert son of Wiuhomarch, possibly of Breton origin on his mother's side, a kinsman and favourite of Edward the Confessor, had settled in England by the early 1050s: Harmer, Writs, pp. 51-52, 571. He is named as holding land in the nine counties of Cambridgeshire, Essex, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Suffolk and Wiltshire, the bulk of his manors lying in Essex, where he was sheriff after the Conquest, succeeded in that office and his lands by his son, Swein of Essex (q.v.). He was dead before 108612, though treated as alive at that date in one Domesday entry1. Where his byname is
1 BUK 5,1. 19,6
2 OXF 28,22
3 SOM 19,37
4 LEC 14,19-22
5 LEC 20,1-3
6 LEC 43,9-11
7 DBY 15,1
8 NTT 28,1-3
9 CAM 39,3
10 NTT 3,1;3
11 SOM 21,3-4
12 ESS 24,59
not supplied, he is identified as the Robert who preceded his son Swein in Essex2 and Suffolk3. As Swein acquired most of his Honour from his father, Robert may be the unnamed father succeeded by a Swein on three manors among the royal thanes of Dorset4 and another in Wiltshire5. Dr Williams suggests that this Swein may be Swein son of Azur, who succeeded his father on a number of manors in Northamptonshire, since Swein's predecessor at Ailwood in Dorset was an Azur, though not named as his father. The associations are suggestive but - Stoke apart - the identifiable manors of Swein and Azur are in the Midlands, all acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques; and although the Robert's manors are concentrated in eastern England, he certainly held one manor in the south-west, at Widhill in Wiltshire6.
A list of Robert's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 334-36, which does not include the three Dorset manors; Stapleford in Wiltshire; Witham in Somerset; three Cambridgeshire holdings recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 78-80;82); or Shoebury, Pudsey, Ashingdon and Sutton in Essex . It does not, of course, include manors acquired by Robert after the Conquest; but does add five Essex manors held by Swein where no pre-Conquest lord is named7. All were valuable; and as Robert's post-Conquest acquisitions are often recorded, it is not unlikely that he held these before 1066. Dr Clarke ranks Robert twentieth in wealth among the nobility, ninth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him a couple of places in each case, but without the five Essex manors, he would fall to twenty-seventh and twentieth respectively.
.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] THE BALD. R the bald, who held Whitwell in Cambridgeshire from Hardwin of Scales8, is probably Robert the bald, Hardwin's tenant at Kingston. He might also be the man-at-arms at Abington Pigotts9, named Robert in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 60), the one other Robert on Hardwin's Honour; but the name is common. No other Robert the bald occurs in Domesday, though a Richard the bald is named in Suffolk. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 167) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 370; the man-at-arms is recorded among miscellaneous knights (no. 18780).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BASTARD *]. The Roberts who held Goosewell and Sampford in Devon from William of Poilley10 may be one man, William's Honour being small and his tenants few. Robert is not named in William's grant of the tithes of all his manors to St Martin's of Sées in 1093, perhaps displaced by the Ascelin - who is not named in Domesday - who held two unnamed manors in the grant which are otherwise unaccounted for: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Robert may be Robert the bastard, who held a small fief in Devon, Goosewell being later held by the family which held the manors on this fief: Book of Fees, pp. 759, 765-66, 789-90. Robert's manors as tenant-in-chief are recorded in Coel (no. 135) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 370, 393; the tenant at Goosewell and Sampford (no. 2039) is identified as another man, possibly William's son or the Robert de Osereto who witnessed a second grant to Sées by William: Calendar, pp. 235-36.
1 SHR 3d,7
2 ESS 24,1;36-39;54;57;63;65-66
3 SUF 27,3;8-12
4 DOR 56,28-29;53
5 WIL 67,94
6 WIL 68,16
7 ESS 24,17;21-22;24;33
8 CAM 26,36
9 CAM 26,24
10 DEV 21,18;21
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *]. Robert, who held Ditchampton in Wiltshire from Odo of Bayeux1, is probably Robert the bursar, named in the Geld Roll for 'Cadworth' (Branch) Hundred where Ditchampton lay: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 209-10. He was the brother of the notorious Urso of Abetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, his heir. He may be the same man as Robert the king's officer in Gloucester2, a county in which he was tenant-in-chief: Taylor, Domesday survey of Gloucestershire, p. 127. He was also a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Warwickshire, and a tenant in three other counties. Bursars were normally modestly endowed but Robert was evidently not the domestic bursar of another tenant-in-chief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1834) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 383.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *]. Robert the bursar, who witnessed the foundation charter for Blyth priory, is probably the domestic bursar of Roger of Bully: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. Roger had tenants named Robert at Shelton, Grove and Weston in Nottinghamshire3, any or all of whom may be the bursar, who is not linked to a place in the charter. Grove and Weston, both later held by a Gilbert of Arches, were probably held by one man in 1086: Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, iii. 182, 261. As Roger had no other Roberts among the tenants on his Honour, it is possible that all three Nottinghamshire Roberts are one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9333), apart from Weston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35255).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BUTLER *]. Robert, who held Dorsington in Gloucestershire from Roger of Beaumont4, may be Robert the butler, Ralph le Boteler of Oversley granting the tithes of Dorsington to his foundation of Alcester priory in 1140: VCH Warwickshire, ii. 59; v. 199. The vill of Oversley was held by the Count of Meulan in 10865, and Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Count's tenants at Thurlaston and Wibtoft (or Willey) - the only Roberts on his Warwickshire fief - may also be the butler6; but as there does not appear to be any subsequent Boteler interest in those vills, that Robert is here treated as another individual: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 82, 258. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8993) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BUTLER *]. The Roberts who held Great Ness in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and Wootton from his sheriff are probably the earl's butler, to whom he gave a small fief7. Robert may have lost his lands after the forfeiture of the earl in 1102, and they were granted to the Honour of Montgomery, from which Ness and Wootton were subsequently held, Wootton in combination with Aston, a manor on Robert's fief8: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76, 89. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6760) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392; see also Mason, 'Officers and clerks', p. 249.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 WIL 4,4
2 GLS G4
3 NTT 9,2;22-24;70-71
4 GLS 40,1
5 WAR 16,63
6 WAR 16,33;40
7 SHR 4,1,17. 4,3,39
8 SHR 4,6,6
ROBERT [* THE HUNTER *]. Robert, who held Burton Lazars in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers1, is very probably Robert the hunter, who granted tithes in the vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Robert the hunter also held single manors from Robert d'Oilly and Robert of Stafford in Warwickshire, an unusual case of an (apparently) small landowner with several lords. His name is too common to establish whether he is to be identified with other Roberts. His three manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3865) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Although Robert is a common name, the Robert who held Teston and Bensted 'at a revenue' from Bishop Odo of Bayeux2 can be identified with some confidence as the Robert the interpreter who held eight other manors from the bishop on similar terms, often preceded - as at Teston and Bensted - by Aethelwold the chamberlain (q.v.). Like other men of the bishop, he also held land from St Augustine's, in Bromfeld3 and - according to the Domesday Monachorum (p. 87) - from the archbishop at Otford4. Despite his name, he was an Englishman, possibly named Leofgeat, who changed his name after the Conquest: see Lennard, Rural England, pp. 114, 150-51, 153, 155; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 83-85. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 327) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 389, apart from Teston and Bensted, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 7735-6), and Otford, assigned to the archbishop's demesne.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE PRIEST *]. Robert, who held a few acres from Count Alan at Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire5, is probably Robert the priest, who held another manor from him in the same vill according to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 72). He is identified as Robert of Cherry Hinton in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER. Roger is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring almost two thousand times and in every Domesday county except Rutland. Very nearly fifty Rogers have different bynames, twenty of them tenants-in-chief, Rogers also occurring as tenants of well over one hundred other tenants-in-chief. No Roger appears in pre-Conquest contexts.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* ARUNDEL *]. Roger, who held a hide at Sturminster Newton in Dorset from Glastonbury abbey6, may be Roger Arundel; land at Bagber (in Sturminster) was later held by the Fitzpaine family which acquired part of Roger's Honour of Poorstock by marriage: Feudal Aids, ii. 37; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 72-73. Roger was a tenant-in-chief in Dorset and Somerset. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 115) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395, apart from Sturminster, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2559).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* BIGOT *]. R Bigot and Ro Bigot, who occur in dozens of entries - too numerous to list here - in East Anglia, can only be Roger Bigot, a major tenant-in-chief in Essex and East Anglia
1 LEC 14,29
2 KEN 5,99-100
3 KEN 7,2
4 KEN 2,4
5 CAM 14,38
6 DOR 8,1
and sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. He is probably also the Roger at Sharpstone and Ulverstone1, both entries following those in which he is named, in the first case as lord of Ralph of Savenay, his tenant on several other manors. He is probably also the Roger supervising free men in an apparently official capacity in Norfolk2 and Suffolk3. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 144) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 396-98.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* BLUNT *]. Roger, who held Huxham in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy4, is named Roger Blunt (Flavus) in the Geld Roll for Wonford Hundred where Huxham lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xlvii. He probably also held Heavitree from Ralph5, both being later held by the same family: Feudal Aids i. 316. Ralph had more tenants named Roger than the remaining tenants-in-chief in the county combined, so it is unlikely there are more Rogers on his Honour than the three with recorded bynames. Unfortunately this consideration does little to distinguish them, as the one cluster among the manors, around Exeter and the estuary of the river Exe, contains two of the three bynames, Blunt himself and Roger son of Payne. It is possible, of course, that both are borne the same man, but impossible to verify. Reichel assigned Clyst St George, Gappah, Dunstone, 'Blackslade', Weycroft and Keynedon to Roger Blunt6, though later held by five different families, but did not give his reasons for doing so: 'Feudal baronage', pp. 561-62. Roger's manor of Huxham is recorded in Coel (no. 1809) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 408; the tenant at Heavitree is unidentified (no. 4095), as are those identified by Reichel (nos. 4065, 4080, 4082, 4093, 4096).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* D'OILLY *]. Roger, who held Bampton and Ascot d'Oilly and 'also' Kencot in Oxfordshire from Robert d'Oilly7 is very probably Roger d'Oilly, who is given his byname as Robert's tenant at Naunton in Gloucestershire. He may be Robert's nephew, or possibly his brother. His three Oxfordshire manors were held by another Roger d'Oilly in the 1240s, and thereafter by a succession of Rogers: Book of Fees, p. 837. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF BASKERVILLE *]. It is likely that the Rogers who held Charingworth, Combe Baskerville, Harnhill and South Cerney in Gloucestershire from Ralph of Tosny8 are Roger of Baskerville, though only Combe Baskerville apparently descended to his heirs. The four manors constitute two-thirds of the fief and are all substantial, so it is unlikely that several Rogers are involved. The Domesday text treats Harnhill and Cerney as a unit, with a combined value. Roger was probably also the tenant of Ralph of Mortimer at Stretton Baskerville in Warwickshire9, a Baskerville manor until the early thirteenth century: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 240. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2252) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 400, which assigns these manors to Roger but expresses doubts about one or more of them, suggesting some may have been held by Roger of Gloucester.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SUF 16,24;38
2 NFK 64,1
3 SUF 74,4
4 DEV 34,29
5 DEV 34,56
6 DEV 34,30;44;46;52;55;57
7 OXF 28,21;25-26
8 GLS 45,1-2;4-5
9 WAR 25,1
ROGER [* OF BERKELEY *]. Roger, who held Dodington in Gloucestershire from the bishop of Coutances, may be Roger of Berkeley, who held the remainder of the vill in chief1, the manors combining to produce a five hide unit. He is probably also the Roger who farmed the royal manor of Berkeley for the enormous sum of £170, and held some of its components2, as suggested by his byname and his tenure of other royal resources3. He had a small fief in the county and another in Wiltshire, where he held a messuage 'of the King's revenue' in Malmesbury4. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 428) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 401.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *]. The Rogers who held land at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire5, South Croxton and Stathern in Leicestershire6 and Tallington in Lincolnshire7 from Robert of Tosny are probably Roger of Bosc-le-Hard, identified by association with his brother William. They shared Clifton Reynes, there named as brothers, and so may be the Roger and William who held joint tenancies from Robert in the other three vills, and also the pair who shared a second manor in Stathern from Geoffrey de la Guerche8. Roger may be the one other unidentified Tosny tenant in the three counties, at Hose in Leicestershire9, later held from the heirs of Robert of Tosny by a Peter of Lincoln, who acquired other land held by the two brothers: Book of Fees, pp. 953-54. He is possibly also the Roger who held the remainder of South Croxton from the bishop of Lincoln10. Clifton and Tallington are assigned to Roger in Coel (no. 440) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 401, Geoffrey's tenant being identified as another man (no. 10238); the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 26198, 26402, 26408). Coel also identifies the tenant of Robert of Tosny on two manors in Essex as Roger of Bosc-le-Hard; but the Tosnys do not appear to have shared tenants, and neither of the manors descended to either branch of the Tosny family: VCH Essex, viii. 198.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF CHILDERLEY *]. Roger, a man of Bishop Remigius with three burgesses in Cambridge and a manor in Childerley11, is almost certainly Roger of Childerley, a juror in Chesterton Hundred where Childerley lay: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). The Childerley family held the manor well into the thirteenth century: VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. 42-43. The bishop had no other tenants of this name in the county but others in Oxfordshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire12, all but the latter being identifiable with some confidence. It seems unlikely that the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire tenants are the same man, the Lincolnshire manors being resumed as episcopal demesne by the date of the Lindsey Survey (11/9). Roger's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6684) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 403; the burgesses are assigned to the Lincolnshire tenant.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 GLS 6,9. 42,2
2 GLS 1,16-19;21
3 GLS G2. W14. 1,13
4 WIL M16
5 BUK 18,3
6 LEC 15,11;16
7 LIN 18,12
8 LEC 29,18
9 LEC 15,14
10 LEC 3,13
11 CAM B1. 3,6
12 LIN 7,21;23
ROGER [* OF COURSEULLES *]. The Roger who held a small fief in Cornwall and (according to Exon.) land at Treninnick from the Count of Mortain1 is the only Roger in Cornwall. He may be Roger of Courseulles, who is known to have held land in the county: Soulsby, 'Introduction to the Cornwall Domesday', p. 14. Roger is very probably also the tenant of Ralph of Pomeroy at Weycroft in Devon2, where Roger of Courseulles owed tax in Axminster Hundred, in which Weycroft lay; no other Roger had land there: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxiii. Eyton suggested that he is the Roger who held three manors in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances, named Roger Whiting in Exon.3, which assigns a fourth manor to him4; Whiting probably also held Radstock5 from the bishop, identified by his grant of the church to Bath priory: VCH Somerset, i. 452. Eyton was 'sure' of the identity of Whiting and Courseulles, which has been cautiously accepted by most authorities since, though the basis of Eyton's confidence is not apparent: Eyton, Domesday studies: Somerset, pp. 59-60; Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 11; Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', 412-13. Eyton also wrote 'we do not marvel' if other Rogers holding from the bishop were the same man, and believed he was also a tenant of William of Mohun. Professor Loud, however, has argued that Eyton was 'undoubtedly wrong' about the identity of Roger Whiting, pointing out that the Coutances' tenancies were held in 1166 by a Roger Witenge from the bishop's successors, those of Roger of Courseulles (including those he held as a tenant of Glastonbury abbey) devolving on Robert Malet: Loud, 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday', pp. 23-24. While not quite conclusive - the descent of the Courseulles barony is not entirely clear - this is the more convincing argument: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 38-39. Roger's manors (including those of Whiting) are recorded in Coel (no. 622) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 403, 412, apart from those of the Cornish tenant, identified as another man (no. 9389).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF EVREUX *]. R of Evreux, who held Great Bircham in Norfolk from William of Ecouis6, is almost certainly Roger of Evreux, William's tenant at Tasburgh in the county. The byname occurs elsewhere only as that of the abbey, bishop or Count. Roger is probably William's tenant at Ringstead, included in the valuation of Great Bircham, and possibly also at Buckenham7, the one other Roger on William's Honour. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 632) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 403, apart from Buckenham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 10324).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF GLOUCESTER *]. Roger, who held Lassington in Gloucestershire from the archbishop of York8, is probably Roger of Gloucester, who granted land which was once Ulfkil's - his Domesday predecessor at Lassington - to St Peter's of Gloucester for the soul of his brother Herbert: Historia Gloucestriae, i. 112, 118-19, 235-36, 352. He may also be the Roger who held Westmill in Hertfordshire from Ralph of Tosny9. Werri de Marinis held part of a fee from the archbishop of York in 1166 and family of Marines, which included a Gwerric, were subtenants at Westmill at a later date: Red Book, i. 95, 415; VCH Hertfordshire iii. 400. Roger was probably a relative of Durand of Gloucester, though the nature of the relationship is uncertain. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8992) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 412-13, where it is suggested
1 CON 4,22. 5,26,1-4
2 DEV 34,52
3 SOM 5,23;35;41
4 SOM 5,4
5 SOM 5,47
6 NFK 19,9
7 NFK 19,10;12
8 GLS 2,13
9 HRT 22,2
that he may also have been a Tosny tenant in Gloucestershire, on some of the manors here assigned to Roger of Baskerville.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF IVRY *]. Roger of Ivry, a tenant-in-chief in six counties, may have been sheriff of Oxfordshire: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 35, 69. Like his 'sworn brother', Robert d'Oilly (q.v.), he was a serial tenant, with tenancies from no fewer than eleven tenants-in-chief. In many cases his byname is supplied, and in others he can be identified by the descent of the manors, as at Westbury in Buckinghamshire1; Cowley, Forest Hill, Baldon, Yarnton, Barford St Michael, and Astrop in Oxfordshire2; and Whatcote and Rowington in Warwickshire3, held from his father-in-law: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 263; VCH Oxfordshire, i. 380; xi, 47; xiii, 3; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 149-50.
Where evidence of descent is inconclusive, circumstantial details suggest his identity. Tenants in vills where Roger was tenant-in-chief may be Ivry, particularly where he was a tenant elsewhere of the tenant-in-chief concerned, as at Westbury in Buckinghamshire and Whitehill in Oxfordshire4. His brotherhood with Robert d'Oilly provides another clue. Domesday Book provides unmistakable evidence of their association, in the form of joint holdings at Stowe, Arncott, and Sandford, and manors in the same vill at Great Shefford, Shirburn, and Rousham, or in the adjacent vills of Finmere and Hethe5. Similar pairings of a Robert and Roger suggest the identity of one or other, occasionally of both men, at Horsenden, Newington, Toot Baldon, Sandford, Noke, Worton, and possibly Cropredy6. These characteristics are sometimes combined, as on the escheated fief of William son of Osbern in Oxfordshire - where all fourteen unidentified Rogers or Roberts are possibly one of the two 'sworn brothers' - the Roger of Noke, Astrop, Milton and Worton7 being probably Roger of Ivry. Further confirmation is provided by the churches, tithes, or land in Astrop, Noke and Worton held by Oseney abbey, largely endowed by Robert and Roger and their families, as also at Baldon, Cowley, Forest Hill, Westbury, Woodperry, and Yarnton: Oseney cartulary, iv. 2-4, 7-8, 24-27, 32-36,51-52, 361-62; vi. 229, 236.
Less certainly, Roger of Ivry may be the Roger at Milton under Wychwood, adjacent to Ascot d'Oyley8, and at Whaddon and Drayton Parslow9, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan; the Buckinghamshire manors were acquired by Woburn abbey: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 346, 413. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 319) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 403-404, apart from Horsenden, whose tenant is identified as Roger of Beaumont; and Cowley, Forest Hill, Woodperry, Whitehill, Yarnton, Barford St Michael, Astrop and Milton-under-Wychwood, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 27717, 27725-26, 27733, 27742, 27792, 28110, 28125).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER OF IVRY'S WIFE [* ADELINA *]. The unnamed wife of Roger of Ivry on her Oxfordshire fief10 is identified by Orderic Vitalis (iv. 230) as Adelina, daughter of Hugh of Grandmesnil; she was a benefactor of Abingdon abbey and other churches: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 106-109, 162-63, 216-17, 386. Her mother and daughter were named Adeliza, her name being sometimes confused with theirs. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2725) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 443.
1 BUK 4,29
2 OXF 7,9;17-18;28;34. 9,6. 19,1. 59,10
3 WAR 18,12-13
4 BUK 4,29. OXF 7,25
5 NTH 4,31
6 BUK 4,8. OXF 2,1. 6,13. 7,28. 9,4. 59,7;29
7 OXF 59,7;10;21;29
8 OXF 59,21
9 BUK 4,26;28
10 OXF 55,1-2
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LACY *]. The tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Norbury, Walton and Blithfield in Staffordshire are probably Roger of Lacy1, the earl's tenant in Shropshire, as indicated by the descent of these manors: Eyton, Domesday studies: Staffordshire, pp. 84-86; VCH Staffordshire, iv. 156. At Norbury, the tenant is named Reger, an otherwise unknown name, a scribal error on the evidence of descent: Book of Fees, p. 967. Lacy is probably also the tenant of Hugh of Grandmesnil at Quinton and 'Weston Maudit' in Gloucestershire2, Quinton being held by Hugh of Lacy, who succeeded his brother in 1096, according to the satellite text known as Evesham N (no. 11). Another satellite, the Herefordshire Domesday, reveals that the Roger who held '3 churches, a priest and 32 acres of land' from Henry of Ferrers in the castlery of Ewyas Harold3 is Roger of Lacy, these assets being then held by Hugh of Lacy: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 53, 104-105. The tenant of Reginald the sheriff at Henley in Shropshire is probably also Lacy4, Henley descending to his heirs: Book of Fees, 964. It has been suggested that he held Montford in Shropshire5, a Lacy manor in the thirteenth century, though the text clearly assigns this to the tenant-in-chief, Roger son of Corbet: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76. Roger, a tenant-in-chief in five counties, was a serial tenant, holding manors from another eight tenants-in-chief where his byname is supplied, and possibly some others where it is not. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 666), which includes only Blithfield of the tenancies discussed above, the other six tenants being unidentified (nos. 29806-807, 30393, 39804, 31413-14, 314320). Most of the references to Roger's manors are accidentally omitted from Domesday people, p. 404.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. Roger, who held Little Dalby and Somerby in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers, is almost certainly Roger of Livet, who granted tithes in those vills to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory; he 'also' held the following manor of Burrough-on-the-Hill6. Robert of Livet held two fees from the Honour before 1135, but was succeeded by William Pantulf by 1166: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, i. 65; Red Book, i. 337. It is possible that all or most of the Rogers who held Congerstone, Shenton, Newton and Stretton-en-le-Field in Leicestershire7, Fauld in Staffordshire8 and Croxall, Edingale, another part of Stretton-en-le-Field, Sapperton and Mercaston in Derbyshire9 from the Ferrers Honour are also Livet. Only one Roger is named in the Tutbury cartulary; and although not a comprehensive list of tenants, it names three Ralphs, five Roberts and two Henrys, so it is unlikely that several Rogers are omitted, and one other Roger - the hunter - has been identified as a Ferrers tenant. The two Stretton manors are likely to be held by one man10, and Edingale was a dependency of Croxhall11. The descent of the manors reveals only that the process of fragmentation evident in the Red Book had progressed much further, perhaps as many as eight families sharing them: Book of Fees, pp. 946-47, 969, 985, 994-95. Roger probably came from Livet-en-Ouche in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Bernay): Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, p. 55. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3861) and referenced in Domesday
1 STS 8,10-11;27
2 GLS 62,4-5
3 HEF 13,2
4 SHR 4,3,48
5 SHR 4,4,23
6 LEC 14,31-32
7 LEC 14,13;15;25;28
8 STS 10,7
9 DBY 6,14-16;29;96
10 LEC 14,28. DBY 6,16
11 DBY 6,14-15
people, p. 404, apart from Fauld and Mercaston, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 31448, 32360).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *]. All unidentified Rogers in Nottinghamshire are tenants of Roger of Bully, who had only one other tenant of this name, on a minor holding at Wymeswold in Leicestershire1. It is likely that all his Nottinghamshire tenants are Roger of Louvetot, who is not named in Domesday but is roughly contemporary with the Survey since he succeeded to some of the manors of Eustace the sheriff, who died about 1100: King, Peterborough abbey, pp. 46-48; Henry of Pytchley, pp. 90-94. Roger was succeeded by William, who granted churches in Normanton-on-Trent, Wysall, Car Colston, Walkeringham, Gringley-on the-Hill, Misterton and Treswell in Nottinghamshire - all held by Roger in Domesday2 - to Roger of Bully's foundation of Worksop priory: Monasticon, vi/ii. 118, no. 2; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. 226; Cartulary of Blyth priory, pp. cxvi-cxvii. Of the remaining manors, Grasshthorpe and Sutton-on-Trent are one to three miles from Normanton, and Clifton and Spalford just across the Trent from there; Flintham is three miles from Car Colston, only 'Roolton' is apart3. It has been suggested that Roger may also have held the manor of Misterton, in addition to the jurisdiction he had there4, on the grounds that the formulae used - 'Roger has ...' - is ambiguous, Roger referring Roger of Louvetot the tenant, rather than Roger of Bully the tenant-in-chief. While possible, this is unlikely. The formulae occurs over thirty times on the fief, the only occasion where a tenant clearly held the manor being stated unambiguously, uncharacteristically at the end of the entry in what looks like a late addition5. Roger probably came from Louvetot in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 55. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3713) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 411, apart from 'Roolton', whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35222).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MEULLES *]. The Rogers who held Exbourne, Highhampton and Lashbrook in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff6 are probably Roger of Meulles, Baldwin's tenant at Lewtrenchard, all three manors being later held by a John of Meulles: Book of Fees, p. 784. According to Exon., Roger also held and Warson, George Teign and Petecote from Baldwin7. He may also be the Roger at Chichacott8, four miles from Exbourne. Baldwin had two other Rogers on his Honour, Roger son of Payne and Roger of Roerico9. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1720) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405, apart from Chichacott, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3491).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MILLY *]. Roger de Millai and other tenants of Earl Hugh of Chester gave tithes in Leicestershire to the abbey of St Evroul in 1081, Bates, Regesta, no. 255, p. 773. Earl Hugh had two tenants named Roger on his Honour, both in Leicestershire: at Loughborough, where Roger had two holdings, and in Theddingworth10. Their descent is unrevealing. Loughborough was held in demesne in Leicestershire Survey, subsequently granted to the Despenser family; and
1 LEC 18,2
2 NTT 9,69;90-91;107;120;122-124;129
3 NTT 9,3-4;44;62-63;108
4 NTT 9,121
5 NTT 9,28
6 DEV 16,18-20
7 DEV 16,9-10;59;139
8 DEV 16,4
9 DEV 16,155;168
10 LEC 43,2;5
Theddingworth, claimed by the king, was re-granted at an early date: Farrer, Honors, ii. 58-63, 78. Roger of Milly may have held either or both. He, or his heirs, may have been compensated elsewhere, for the family were later tenants of the Honour of Chester in Lincolnshire: Farrer, Honors, ii. 109, 126, 167-68, 172, 176, 184-85; Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 16-21, 395. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Roger was also the tenant of Robert son of Hugh at Broxton in Cheshire1, which is not improbable but unverifiable; and that he was from Meslay in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen). Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3831) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405, apart from the tenants at Theddingworth and on the smaller of the two Loughborough holdings, who are unidentified (nos. 26678, 26682).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MUSSEGROS *]. The tenant of Ralph of Tosny at Monnington-on-Wye in Herefordshire2 was identified by J.H. Round as Roger of Mussegros, who witnessed one of Ralph's Norman charters: 'Domesday survey of Herefordshire', p. 327; Calendar of documents: France, p. 219. He held a small tenancy in chief in the county; Monnington was held by his descendant, Miles of Mussegros, in the late twelfth century: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 35, 94. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3034) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF OLNEY *]. Roger, tenant of Countess Judith at Lavendon and Emberton in Buckinghamshire3, is probably Roger of Olney, her tenant at Clifton Reynes, which lies between them, two to three miles from either across the fields. All three manors were in the hands of different families when next recorded: Farrer, Honors, ii. 400-401, 408; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 340, 382. Roger had presumably held land in Olney - a mile from Clifton - but if so had relinquished it before 1086 as the one manor there was held in demesne by the bishop of Coutances4. The Countess had two other Rogers on her Honour: Roger of Bully in Yorkshire and a Roger in Cambridgeshire identified as the ancestor of the Oliphant family. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 698) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF PITRES *]. Roger, described as the brother of Durand the sheriff in one entry in Gloucestershire5, as Roger the sheriff in another6, and as Roger of Pîtres in Herefordshire7, was the father of Walter of Gloucester, also sheriff of the county and heir to his nephew, Durand, the family supplying three successive sheriffs of Gloucestershire: Green, English sheriffs, p. 42. He was dead before 1086. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF POITOU *]. R of Poitou on the royal manor of Brockdish in Norfolk8 is almost certainly the tenant-in-chief, Roger of Poitou, though a tenant of that name held land in Yorkshire. He may also be the Roger whose unnamed predecessor at 'Olden' in Suffolk had the patronage of two free men9, Roger of Poitou himself holding a free man in the vill1. Roger was a tenant-in-chief
1 CHS 2,14
2 HEF 8,6
3 BUK 53,3;8
4 BUK 5,13
5 GLS 2,10
6 GLS 56,2
7 HEF 1,72. 22,8
8 NFK 1,226
9 SUF 53,2
in both counties, and in five others, holding almost three hundred manors; he was a younger son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1502) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 409-11.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF POITOU *]. The Rogers who held 'Westerby' (Altofts) and Whitwood in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy2 are identified by the descent of these manors as Roger of Poitou, though not the tenant-in-chief of that name: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 235-36; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 70-71. Ilbert had no other Rogers on his Honour. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8611) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 413.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF QUESNAY *]. The Rogers who held Heyford and Ducklington in Oxfordshire3 and Wicken and Thenford in Northamptonshire4 from Robert d'Oilly are probably Roger of Quesnay (later Chesney); the first three manors were later held by the Chesney family, and Thenford is stated in the text to be held by the tenant of Wicken: Eynsham cartulary, i. 411-23; Farrer, Honors, iii. 62-63, 227-28. The other Rogers on Robert's Honour are probably Roger d'Oilly, a relative. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8298) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 402.
.............................................................................................................................................
RO[GER] OF RAMES. Ro Rames, who claimed a free man at 'Olden in Suffolk5, is almost certainly Roger of Rames, the only landowner with this toponomic in Domesday. He was a tenant-in-chief in East Anglia, Essex and Middlesex. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 716) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER OF RAMES' DAUGHTER. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Roger's unnamed daughter, who held two of his manors in Suffolk6, may be Wiberga, his tenant at Rayne in Essex7. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 717) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 198.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF "ROERICO" *]. Roger, who held Smallicombe in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff8, is named Roger de Roerico in the Geld Roll for Colyton Hundred, where Smallicombe lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxiv. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1794) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 407. His toponym has not been identified.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF STANTON *]. Roger, who held ten hides at Stanton Drew in the royal manor of Keynsham in Somerset9, is named Roger of Stanton in the Geld Roll for Keynsham Hundred, where Stanton lay: VCH Somerset, i. 528. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2087) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 407.
1 SUF 8,61
2 YKS 9W96;99
3 OXF 28,12;20
4 NTH 28,1-2
5 SUF 16,16
6 SUF 38,9;11
7 ESS 39,1
8 DEV 16,168
9 SOM 1,28
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* SON OF CORBET *]. The Rogers who held Minsterley, Trewern and Alberbury from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury1 are very probably Roger son of Corbet. All three manors were later held by the Corbets, and all lay in Reweset, which belonged to the manor of Alberbury: VCH Shropshire, viii. 195, 202, 310-11; Meisel, Barons of the Welsh frontier, pp. 62-64, 66, 69. Almost the entire Hundred was shared between the earl and the Corbet brothers, Earl Roger retaining only the most valuable manor in demesne. The Corbets had evidently been entrusted with the defence of this frontier area, centred on the castle they built at Caus. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2574) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 400.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* SON OF PAYNE *]. Roger, who held West Putford in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy2, is probably Roger son of Payne who according to Exon. held Peamore3 from Ralph, and Hennock from Baldwin the sheriff4; Richard son of Payne of Putford held a fee of two knights from the Honour of Berry Pomeroy in 1166. The other Ralphs on Baldwin's Honour can be identified with a degree of confidence; but Ralph had more unidentified Rogers than the remaining tenants-in-chief in the county combined. It is unlikely there were more Rogers among his tenants than the three recorded bynames suggest; but unfortunately, this consideration does little to distinguish them, as the one cluster among the manors, around Exeter and the estuary of the river Exe, contains two of the three bynames, Roger son of Payne himself, and Roger Blunt. It is possible, of course, that both are borne the same man, but impossible to verify. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1726) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 408, with the addition of Lydford and Great Torrington5.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* THE CLERIC *]. The Rogers who held small portions of Pevensey and Peelings from the Count of Mortain6 may be Roger the cleric, who held from him in Eastbourne, 'Cudnor' and Horsey. The manors are of comparable status and close to each other; and although Roger is a common name, it is remarkably rare on the vast lands of the Count of Mortain outside Sussex, where only one other tenant, Roger of Courseulles, occurs. It is possible, therefore, that the other unidentified Rogers on the Honour, also in Sussex, at Charleston and West Firle7, about a dozen miles from the manors of Roger the cleric, are the same man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 207) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 399, apart from Charleston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 15982).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* THE HUNTER *]. The Rogers who held Ilsley and Frilsham in Berkshire8 and Boylestone in Derbyshire9 from Henry of Ferrers were identified by J.H. Round from charters in the Ridware cartulary as Roger the huntsman, a dependency of Boylestone being held by hunting tenure: 'Tenure of Draycote-under-Needwood', pp. 1-10; Rydeware chartulary, pp. 257-58, 283-84. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11099), but not in Domesday people, the entry for Roger the hunter there (p. 411) referring to another man (no. 7838).
1 SHR 4,1,7-9
2 DEV 34,7
3 DEV 34,12
4 DEV 16,155
5 DEV 34,3;9
6 SUS 10,1;79
7 SUS 10,15;22
8 BRK 21,2;4
9 DBY 6,55
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* WHITING *]. Roger, who held the valuable manor of Radstock in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances1, is very probably Roger Whiting (Wythent), identified by his grant of the church to Bath priory: VCH Somerset, i. 452. He is named in Exon. as the bishop's tenant on several other manors in the county2. He has been identified by scholars from Eyton onwards as the same man as Roger of Courseulles: Eyton, Domesday studies: Somerset, pp. 59-60; Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 11; Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', 412-13. Professor Loud, however, has argued that the identification is 'undoubtedly wrong' since the Coutances' tenancies were held in 1166 by a Roger Witenge from the bishop's successors, those of Roger of Courseulles devolving on Robert Malet: Loud, 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday', pp. 23-24. Whiting is identified as Roger of Courseulles in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROGO [* SON OF NIGEL *]. Rogo is a rare name, borne only by tenants of Baldwin the sheriff in Devon3, who are all therefore probably Rogo son of Nigel, Baldwin's tenant at Appley and Porlock in Somerset according to Exon.4: Domesday Book (1816), iii. 294. If so, the Domesday scribe is in error, recording the name there as Drogo. Rogo has left his mark on the landscape, the surname of his manor of Holcombe Rogus5 preserving his name. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 907) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 413.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROLF. Rolf is a fairly common name which occurs about three dozen times times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, one cluster in Lincolnshire accounting for roughly two-thirds of the names The three manors in Devon and one each in Oxfordshire and Norfolk were held by tenants in 1086, the remainder by pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROLF [* SON OF SKJALDVOR *]. The distribution of the name make it likely that most if not all Rolfs in Lincolnshire are one man, Rolf son of Skjaldvor, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the county6. He was probably a relative of Abbot Brand of Peterborough and Ulf son of Topi, here identified as Ulf Fenman (q.v.). Ulf's will and the Peterborough chronicle itemise extensive grants made to the abbey by Abbot Brand, Ulf, and their relatives; and although Rolf is not among those named, he held four of the abbey's Lincolnshire manors, three of them in vills recorded in the will7, so he is likely to be one of the unnamed relatives referred to in the royal confirmation of the abbey's lands: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 207-12; Bates, Regesta, no. 216, pp. 686-88; Hugh Candidus, pp. 40-41, 69, 71-72.
Rolf's relatives provide some confirmation of his identity on the lands of the six other tenants-in-chief who obtained his manors. Apart from Abbot Brand and Ulf, these relatives are Alnoth, Eskil, Godric, Healfdene, Siric, Siuorthus, and Ulf's wife and mother, Madselin and Edeva. One or more of these held land in three of the vills where Bishop Odo of Bayeux acquired land from Rolf8; in two of those acquired by the bishop of Lincoln9; the one of Count Alan of Brittany1;
1 SOM 5,47
2 SOM 5,4;23;35;41
3 DEV 16,76-77;104-105;150;158;170
4 SOM 20,2-3
5 DEV 16,76
6 LIN T5
7 LIN 8,14;20-22
8 LIN 4,38;41;46-49;81
9 LIN 7,17;24-25
one of those of Alfred of Lincoln2; four of those of Drogo of la Beuvrière3; and two of those of Durand Malet4. Several of the relatives' names are common; but there are too many associations to be explained by coincidence. The distribution of the manors provides some additional confirmation. Both the bishop of Bayeux and Alfred of Lincoln acquired land from Rolf in Tealby5; the manors of Drogo and Durand Malet at Coates are within a mile of each other6, and those of Irby and Laceby little over a mile apart7; Alfred's manor at Caistor is a mile from Malet's at Nettleton8; and the bishop of Lincoln's at Wyham four miles from Count Alan's at Fulstow, which in turn is three from Malet's at North Thoresby9. Some, but not all, of these distributions may have been produced by chance.
Professor Whitelock has suggested that Skjaldvor is the name of Rolf's mother, recorded with her husband, Jol, in the Liber vitae of Thorney abbey: 'Scandinavian personal names', pp. 141-42. Jol granted land in three Lincolnshire vills to Ramsey abbey, and Skjaldvor is noted in its chronicle as a wealthy benefactor: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 280-81; iii. 167; Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, p. 199. If so, this is another link between Rolf and Peterborough, since Yawthorpe (Iolestorp), acquired by the abbey from Rolf10, may incorporate his father's name: Early charters of eastern England, p. 242. If this Rolf is the predecessor of Durand Malet in Lincolnshire, then he is probably also his predecessor in Nottinghamshire11 and Leicestershire12, the only Rolf in Nottinghamshire and one of two in Leicestershire. Only one other Rolf is recorded in the Midlands or the north, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Sibford in Oxfordshire13, unlikely to be the pre-Conquest son of Skjaldvor. A list of Rolf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 314-15, which includes those listed above apart from dependencies. He ranks Rolf sixty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen. The tenant at Sibford is unidentified in Coel (no. 27863).
.............................................................................................................................................
ROSCELIN. Roscelin is a rare name which occurs once each in Sussex, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, three times in Devon and four in Yorkshire, tenants of five tenants-in-chief, one in each county.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROSCELIN <OF FULSTOW>. The Roscelins who held Brinsworth, Thrybergh, Dalton and Bolton Percy in Yorkshire from William of Percy14 are probably one man, predecessor of the Normanville family who acquired the first three manors and also Bolton upon Dearne, held in 1086 by Picot of Percy, whose descendants later held Bolton Percy, some shuffling of the tenancies occurring in the interval (unless the scribe has confused the two Boltons). 'There is no doubt' that Roscelin is also the tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at Fulstow in Lincolnshire15, which also descended to the Normanvilles: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 286-94. There are no other Roscelins in northern
1 LIN 12,19
2 LIN 27,10-11;20;30-33
3 LIN 30,9-17
4 LIN 44,5-14;16-18
5 LIN 4,41. 27,11
6 LIN 30,13. 44,8
7 LIN 30,15. 44,9
8 LIN 27,10. 44,5
9 LIN 7,24. 12,19. 44,6
10 LIN 8,14
11 NTT 26,1
12 LEC 35,2
13 OXF 24,3
14 YKS 13W8;10-12
15 LIN 13,21
England. Roscelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3006) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL. Rosskell is a rare name which occurs nine times, once in Nottinghamshire, the reminder in Yorkshire, all on modest or meagre pre-Conquest holdings.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL <OF BRIDGFORD>. Rosskell, who shared land at Bridgeford in Nottinghamshire worth eight shillings acquired by Roger of Bully1, has no links with his distant Yorkshire namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL <OF STOCKTON>. As the name occurs only once outside Yorkshire, all or most of the eight Rosskells in the county are possibly one man. This is very likely the case with the tight cluster of four waste manors at Stockton, Newhall, Lofthouse and Alwoodley in the West Riding retained by the king2, which later formed part of the barony of William le Meschin: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 467-69. It is not unlikely that this Rosskell also held Linton3 and perhaps Ryther4, the former about four miles from Stockton and the latter acquired by Ilbert of Lacy because it lay within his 'territory' of the Honour of Pontefract. The remaining manors of Wath and Kirklington are some forty miles to the north but also acquired as part of a territorial block, that of Count Alan of Brittany5.

1 NTT 9,101
2 YKS 1W11-12;14;16
3 YKS 13W35
4 YKS 9W24
5 YKS 6N144;147