Domesday Landowners 1066-1086 S-Y

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.

SAERIC [* FATHER OF GUTHMUND *]. The cluster of five Saerics in Herefordshire - the only Saerics in circuit five - are probably one man. Four of his manors were acquired by Roger of Lacy, all subinfeudated to Guthmund, named as the father of Saeric on one of the manors, and as a thane of Earl Harold on another6. As there are no other Guthmunds in the region, it is probable that Saeric is Guthmund's father on all four, and is possibly also the one other Saeric in the county, at Newton7, roughly midway between two of those of Guthmund's father, a few miles from either, held in demesne after an intermediate change of tenure.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWIN. Saewin is a fairly common name which occurs almost sixty times, distributed among sixteen counties and the lands of the king and thirty of his tenants-in-chief. Its distribution is limited, no Saewins occurring north of the Wash, and most located in the south-western counties. Outside that area, there is a small cluster in Hampshire and a scattering elsewhere. Apart from Saewin of Kingston, all but four Saewins are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWIN <OF KINGSTON>. The Saewins who held five manors among the royal thanes in Nottinghamshire8 are probably one man. Two of his manors are in the same vill, and all within a
6 HEF 1,17. 10,51;53;71
7 HEF 24,7
8 NTT 30,19-21;23-24
few miles of each other in Rushcliffe Hundred. Few other Saewins held land in 1086, none in northern England, and there are no pre-Conquest Saewins in Nottinghamshire or the adjacent counties. Saewin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11667) but not in Domesday people.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD. Saewold is an uncommon name which occurs sixteen times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Oxfordshire where the majority of names and the most valuable manors occur, as do all six survivors.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF MACKNADE>. Saewold, whose half-ploughland at Macknade in Kent in 1066 was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux1, has no links with other Saewolds, all remote.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF MAMBLE>.As the name is rare, the Saewolds whose neighbouring manors at Mamble and Conningswick in Worcestershire were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer2 are probably one man. He was succeeded by his son on the smaller of the two manors. He has no links with other Saewolds and is unlikely to be the same man as closest namesake, Saewold of Waterstock, who survived until 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF MILFORD>. Saewold, whose tiny holding at Milford in Wiltshire worth fifteen pence was acquired by Humphrey de l'Isle3, has no links with other Saewolds.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF MILTON>. Saewold, a man of Wulfward White whose modest manor at Milton Keynes in Buckinghamshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf4, is very probably the overlord of a man with a virgate at Woughton, a mile away5; he has no links with other Saewolds, the nearest being the survivor Saewold of Waterstock.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF WATERSTOCK>. As the name is rare and its distribution distinctive, all Saewolds in Oxfordshire are probably one man, the lord of Waterstock in 10866. Of his eleven holdings, he held seven in 10867 and is the only Saewold in Domesday Book to hold land at that date, virtually guaranteeing his identity. Of the five manors he held in 1066, three devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief and formed a close group with Little Minster, held by Saewold for two decades8; the remaining property, Benson, is five miles from his manor of Rofford9. The manors are distributed to the east and west of Oxford, where Saewold, evidently a man of substance, held nine messuages, as well as two mills granted him by the king 'with his wife'10. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9218) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 418, apart from Oxford, Thame
1 KEN 5,148
2 WOR 16,2;4
3 WIL 27,27
4 BUK 17,31
5 BUK 12,31
6 OXF 6,16
7 OXF B10. 6,10;16. 58,31-34
8 OXF 45,1-3. 58,31
9 OXF 58,19;31
10 OXF B10. 58,34
and Waterstock, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 27619, 27681, 27703) and Minster, assigned to Robert d'Oilly, his subtenant there.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWOLD <OF WESTON>. Saewold, who held a modest manor at Weston in Warwickshire acquired by William son of Corbucion1, has no links with other Saewolds.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWULF. Saewulf is a fairly common name which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and two dozen of his tenants-in-chief. It occurs only once north of the Wash, with small clusters in the south-western counties and Hampshire. The majority of Saewulfs are pre-Conquest landowners, though there are survivors in five counties, all in the south-west.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWULF [* BROTHER OF SIWARD *]. Saewulf and his brother Siward are recorded as predecessors of Giles brother of Ansculf at Datchet in Buckinghamshire2; and since Giles acquired his whole fief from Siward and Saewulf3, it is probable they are the brothers elsewhere on his Honour, though variously described as men of earls Harold, Leofwin and Ralph. Giles also acquired three of his manors in Northamptonshire from Siward, and three of four in Berkshire from Siward or Saewulf4, the pre-Conquest lords of the fourth manor being anonymous. Apart from Siward Barn, there is only one other man of either name among the Berkshire landowners. If these identifications are correct, the brothers provided roughly 60% of Giles' Honour, over 75% if unnamed landowners are excluded. They are evidently his designated predecessors. The one other individual to contribute a significant portion of Giles' Honour, Leofric of Moreton (q.v.), shared Wappenham with Siward and is elsewhere associated with Saewulf, so he may be a relative.
The Count of Mortain also had predecessors named Siward and Saewulf in two of these three counties, Saewulf holding Staverton and Middleton Cheyney in Northamptonshire5. He is probably the Saewulf whose men held land in Burnham and Iver6, since no other Saewulf had demesne manors in Buckinghamshire. The one remaining Saewulf in the three counties, at Greatworth in Northamptonshire7, may be Siward's brother since his name is uncommon, and the manor, which is fairly substantial, lies approximately half-way between those of Giles at Wappenham and that of the Count of Mortain at Middleton, roughly five miles from either. Dr Williams, who identified these men 'with varying degrees of probability', provides further supporting arguments and a list of their manors: 'The king's nephew', 341-43. She does not include the Berkshire manors. If these identifications are valid, the brothers just fail to qualify for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility, though the addition of Harrowden, assigned by Dr Williams to Siward (q.v.) would change that.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 WAR 28,8
2 BUK 51,1
3 BUK 51,3
4 BRK 34,3-4
5 NTH 18,30;37
6 BUK 7,2. 19,1
7 NTH 2,4
SAEWULF <OF SHEINTON>. The Saewulfs whose manors in Sheinton in Shropshire were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer are the same man, the manors being partial duplicates1. He has no links with other Saewulfs.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWULF <OF SNELSTON>. Saewulf, who held part of Snelston in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers2, is the only man of this name north of the Wash. He has no links with other Saewulfs.
.............................................................................................................................................
SALO <OF BULKINGTON>. The tenant of the Count of Meulan at Bulkington in Warwickshire3 is probably the Salo whose manor of Bramcote was acquired by Earl Aubrey of Coucy before escheating to the Crown4, since the vills are adjacent and these are the only Salos in Domesday Book. If so, Salo had gone up in the world, his new manor being several times more valuable than the old. The Count's fief was a refuge for a number of other English survivors. Salo is unidentified in Coel (no. 28314).
.............................................................................................................................................
SASSELIN <OF LAYER>. Sasselin, who held a small fief in Suffolk5, is probably the Sasselin with a somewhat more substantial fief in Essex6, these being the only Sasselins in Domesday Book. His origin is unknown, the name apparently a diminutive form of Saxo, though the form is unique: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, p. 223. His principal manor - Layer - was acquired by Eudo the steward before 1120: Farrer, Honors, iii. 166, 199-201; Regesta, ii. no. 1231. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 812) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 417.
.............................................................................................................................................
SASWALO. Saswalo is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among eight counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief; all Saswalos are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
SASWALO [* OF BOUVILLE *]. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Saswalos who held Ilsley in Berkshire7 and Rycote and 'also' Wendlebury in Oxfordshire8 from Geoffrey de Mandeville, and who dispossessed Fairstead in Essex of fifteen acres which then 'lay in' the fief of Geoffrey de Mandeville9, are the same man, Saswalo of Bouville. His son William of Bouville (q.v.) was Geoffrey's tenant in Suffolk. Saswalo is accorded his byname in a plea in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 193-94) in relation to Hoo in Suffolk, where William was later recorded as taking land from Ely abbey. He may have come from Beuzeville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1588) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 417.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SHR 4,11,1. 6,32
2 DBY 6,53
3 WAR 16,41
4 WAR 14,4
5 SUF 59,1-2
6 ESS 57,1-6
7 BRK 38,1-2
8 OXF 39,2-3
9 ESS 34,7
SASWALO <OF BYTHAM>. Saswalo, who held Bytham in Lincolnshire from the abbey of Peterborough1, is possibly Saswalo of Ettington, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers whose manors of lie to the north, south and west of Bytham, though at some distance in each direction; but there are no links to confirm this. Saswalo is unidentified in Coel (no. 33312).
.............................................................................................................................................
SASWALO <OF ETTINGTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Saswalos who held Titchmarsh in Northamptonshire2, Ettington in Warwickshire3, Hoon, Hatton and Etwall in Derbyshire4, and Witton with Winterton in Lincolnshire5 from Henry of Ferrers are probably one man, ancestor of the Shirley family which, according to Round, has the 'all but unique' distinction of holding their principle manor - Ettington - from 1086 down to his own time: Peerage and pedigree, ii. 48-49. Saswalo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3349) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 417.
.............................................................................................................................................
SASWALO <OF NETHERFIELD>. Saswalo, who held a virgate worth 15d in Netherfield Hundred in Sussex acquired by the Count of Eu6, has no links with other Saswalos. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 15919).
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXFRITH. Saxfrith is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times, distributed among six counties and the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief; seven manors are held by survivors.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXFRITH <OF CATESBY>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Saxfrith who held Empingham, Catesby and Aceshille in Northamptonshire from William Peverel7 - said to be the same man in the text - is also the Saxfrith who held Ashby in Leicestershire8 and two manors in Old Basford in Nottinghamshire9 from William. Saxfrith's descendants gave land to religious institutions in at least one of these vills in each county: Farrer, Honors, i. 168-71, 219-20. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3706) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 417.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXFRITH <OF CLAPCOT>. Saxfrith, whose valuable manor of Clapcot in Berkshire was acquired by Miles Crispin10, is one of two pre-Conquest lords of that name, the other being Saxfrith the deacon in Yorkshire. There are no links between them or the tenant of William of Peverel in the Midlands.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXFRITH <OF HINSTOCK>. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the tenants of William Pandolf in the adjacent vills of Hinstock and Colehurst in Shropshire11 are the same
1 LIN 8,7
2 NTH 25,2
3 WAR 19,4
4 DBY 6,47;49;98
5 LIN 21,1-2
6 SUS 9,119
7 NTH 35,9-11
8 LEC 25,5
9 NTT 10,22;51
10 BRK 33,4
11 SHR 4,14,14-15
Saxfrith. There is nothing to suggest his identity with the other survivor in the Midlands, Saxfrith of Catesby; and what is known of the descent of the manors of that Saxfrith suggests otherwise. When next noticed in the mid-thirteenth century, Hinstock was held by the le Botiler family: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, viii. 20-24. Saxfrith's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9393) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 417.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXFRITH [* THE DEACON *]. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Saxfriths whose lands in Yorkshire were acquired by the Canons of York1 are Saxfrith the deacon, named as their predecessor at Rawcliffe and Wigginton. He may also be the one other Saxfrith in the county, who held Huby before the Conquest2, Huby being in the same wapentake as the other vills, five miles from the nearest of them. If so, he survived the Conquest, retaining Huby, the one manor which had some value - three shillings - albeit slight. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 38405).
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXI. Saxi is a fairly common name which occurs more than fifty times, distributed among a dozen counties south of the Wash and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief, with significant concentrations in Suffolk and to a lesser extent in Hampshire and Warwickshire. There are no surviving Saxis.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXI <OF AYLESTONE>. Although Saxi is a fairly common name, its distribution in the central Midlands is skewed, every manor in Leicestershire3 and all but one of those in Warwickshire devolving upon the Count of Meulan4, who almost certainly had just the one predecessor of this name. The exception, Bramcote in Warwickshire5, is surrounded by the Meulan manors, one of them - Weston6 - lying in Bramcote parish, suggesting that this too was held by the Count's predecessor.
.............................................................................................................................................
SAXI <OF CLATFORD>. It is likely that all Saxis of Berkshire and Hampshire are one man, lord of the very valuable (£20) royal manor of Clatford7 and five valuable manors, three of them royal, all held directly from King Edward8. The one other manor, at Empshott9, though modest, was shared with another magnate, Bondi the constable. No other Saxi held land south of the Thames. His nearest namesake, the royal thane or Guard holding valuable manors in Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, and Hertfordshire some forty miles away, is possibly the same man, though he is here treated as another individual in the absence of tenurial or other links. A list of Saxi's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 337, which does not include Empshott. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Empshott would not affect this.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 YKS 2N26-30
2 YKS 29N13
3 LEC 9,1-5. 44,8;10
4 WAR 16,9;12;15;28;38-40;43
5 WAR 44,2
6 WAR 16,3
7 HAM 1,25
8 HAM 50,1. 61,1. BRK 1,17-18;46
9 HAM 62,1
SCROTI <OF HILLMORTON>. The name Scroti occurs three times, all in Warwickshire in 10661, almost certainly all borne by one man. Two of his manors, acquired by the Count of Meulan, are in the same vill of Hillmorton, and he shared the third, held by Osbern son of Richard in 1086, with a Merewin who held land alongside him in Hillmorton, the only occurrences of Merewin in Warwickshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
SERLO. Serlo is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and some thirty manors, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and eleven of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Essex and the south-west, notably in Somerset; all Serlos are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
SERLO [* BLUND *]. Serlo, who held Glapwell in Derbyshire from William Peverel2, may be Serlo Blund, who donated tithes in Torp to the Peverel foundation of Lenton priory. The descent of the manor suggests that he is also the Serlo who held Ashover from Ralph son of Hubert3, both subsequently held by the Pleseley family: Farrer, Honors, i. 173-75. There are no other Serlos in the county; and neither William or Ralph had others on their Honours. Serlo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2983) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 419.
.............................................................................................................................................
SERLO [* OF BURCY *]. The tenant of Glastonbury abbey at Damerham in Wiltshire4 may be Serlo of Burcy, tenant of the abbey on five manors in Somerset according to Exon.5. He is possibly also the Serlo who held Netherbury in Dorset from the bishop of Salisbury6, though this cannot verified, 'considerable obscurity' surrounding the devolution of his manors: Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 414. Serlo was a tenant-in-chief in Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire, and tenant of the bishop of Wells as well as Glastonbury abbey. No other Serlo held land within two hundred miles. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 603) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 418.
.............................................................................................................................................
SERLO <OF WYMESWOLD>. The Serlos who held Kirby Muxloe and Wymeswold in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil are probably one man7. There are no other Serlos on Hugh's Honour or in Leicestershire and the seven adjacent counties, other than Serlo Blund in Derbyshire. Serlo is unidentified in Coel (nos. 26310, 26335).
............................................................................................................................................. SHEERWOLD <OF GOTHERS>. All fourteen Sheerwolds recorded in Domesday Book or Exon. may be one man, his name occurring only in the six adjacent counties between Cornwall and Gloucestershire. He was both tenant and predecessor of the Count of Mortain at Gothers in Cornwall8, and the Count's predecessor at 'Wey' and Creech in Dorset9 and Cricket St Thomas in Somerset, his one valuable manor10. He was also tenant of the bishop of Coutances at Rode in
1 WAR 16,35-36. 37,7
2 DBY 7,2
3 DBY 10,9
4 WIL 7,1
5 SOM 8,17;20-21;28;30
6 DOR 3,11
7 LEC 13,42;63
8 CON 5,24,10
9 DOR 26,14;54
10 SOM 19,1
Somerset1 and his predecessor at Cameley and Hallatrow2 according to Exon.. Exon. also records a Sheerwold holding from Glastonbury abbey at Butleigh and Pilton in 10663, which lie between Cricket and Rode, while Sheerwold's manor of Leigh4, acquired by William of Mohun, is adjacent to his manor of Cricket St Thomas. Of the remaining manors, Hillersdon and Poltimore in Devon5 lie between Gothers and Cricket; and the distance between Rode and Culkerton in Gloucestershire6 is a fraction of that from Gothers to Rode; Somerford in Wiltshire7 lay between them. In another context, this distribution might have little or no significance; but as the name is restricted to the area, geographical factors may indicate that these manors, too, were held by the same Sheerwold. Von Feilitzen suggested that all but the Gloucestershire Sheerwold may be the minster who occurs in three charters from the 1020s and 1030s concerning land in Dorset and Somerset: Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 356; Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon charters, nos. 969, 975, 979. Though he lost most of his land, Sheerwold was a little more fortunate than many of his peers, holding roughly a fifth in 1086 of what he had twenty years previously. His manor at Gothers is recorded in Coel (no. 249) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421; the tenant at Rode is unidentified (no. 14479). .............................................................................................................................................
SIBOLD <OF LOWICK>. The name Sibold occurs only once, as a tenant-in-chief with a small manor at Lowick in Northamptonshire8. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6548) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 419.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIFRITH. Sifrith is a rare name which occurs six or seven times, distributed among five counties and the lands of four or five tenants-in-chief; three manors were held by survivors. It has been suggested that the Siferth at Harrowden may be a scribal error for Siward brother of Saewulf (q.v.).
.............................................................................................................................................
SIFRITH [* THE REEVE *]. As the name is rare, it is very probable that the Siferth who held the consecutive manors of Haslingfield and Harlton in 'Wetherley' Hundred in Cambridgeshire from Picot the sheriff is the reeve of that Hundred named in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 68, 99). It is possible he is the one other such survivor, at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire9, but there are no links to confirm an identification; the vills are thirty-five miles apart.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR. If the tenant-in-chief Sigar of Chocques is excluded, Sigar is an uncommon name which occurs approximately - there are ambiguities - twenty times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief. With a single exception, the name is confined to eastern England, with one large cluster in Cambridgeshire, where the only survivor (or survivors) is also the most substantial landowner before the Conquest. Though considered separate names by von Feilitzen, tenurial and other linkages suggest that Sagar, Sidgar and Suthgar are probably variants of Sigar: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 352-53, 359-60.
1 SOM 5,54
2 SOM 5,62;65
3 SOM 8,18;20
4 SOM 25,5
5 DEV 42,18. 50,1
6 GLS 31,10
7 WIL 24,20
8 NTH 51,1
9 BUK 18,3
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF ABINGTON>. The status of the Freeman Sagar who held a half-virgate under Picot the sheriff at Abington in Cambridgeshire1 suggests he is unlikely to be the same man as Sigar the steward, though the name-form is probably a variant of Sigar. His subtenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 1653) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 416.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR ^[OF CHOCQUES]^. The Sigar named at Hatley St George in Cambridgeshire2 is identified as Sigar of Chocques by the reference to his manor of Rushden in Hertfordshire. He was a tenant-in-chief in Hertfordshire and in three other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 615) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 419-20.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF CLYFFE>. Sigar, whose share in the modest manor of Clyffe Pypard in Wiltshire was acquired by Alfred of Marlborough3, is the only Sigar in the west of England in 1066; he is unlikely to be related to his namesakes elsewhere.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF CORRINGHAM>. Sigar, whose substantial manor of Corringham in Essex was acquired by the bishop of London4, has a very slight association with the Lincolnshire Sigar, a predecessor of the Bishop of Bayeux, the bishop holding a hide in Corringham. Bishop Odo, however, held several manors in the same Hundred as a tenant-in-chief, so the association may be coincidental. It may also be coincidental that the one other Sigar with a substantial manor in Little Domesday, at Hockering in Essex, was a predecessor of Ralph of Beaufour, who may be related to the bishop of London - William of Beaufour - though the nature of the relationship is unknown. The association is suggestive but perhaps not sufficient for an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF HEALING>. The Sigars whose manors of Keelby and Healing in Lincolnshire were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux5 are almost certainly one man, the only Sigar in the county or, indeed, in England north of the Wash. Bishop Odo has a slight association with the Sigar in Essex, but this is likely to be coincidental.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF HOCKERING>. Sigar, whose substantial manor of Hockering in Norfolk was acquired by Ralph of Beaufour6, is just possibly the same man as the predecessor of the bishop of London at Corringham in Essex. These are the only Sigars with substantial manors in Little Domesday Book and the two tenants-in-chief may be related, the bishop being William of Beaufour. The nature of the relationship of Ralph and William is, however, unknown so the strength of the association cannot be gauged and is perhaps insufficient for an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF SIBERTSWOLD>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Sigar who held a prebend at St Margaret's as a Canon of St Martin's of Dover before the Conquest and land in
1 CAM 1,16. 29,12
2 CAM 32,25
3 WIL 26,17
4 ESS 4,9
5 LIN 4,28-33
6 NFK 20,14
Sibertswold in 1086 previously held by his father in prebend, is one man and the same man as Suthgar recorded at St Margaret's in the Excepta of St Augustine's (Ballard, An eleventh-century inquisition, pp. 27-28) and the Sidgar who held Newington, acquired by Albert the chaplain1. The latter forms are otherwise unknown, the shared ecclesiastical context suggesting they may be scribal errors for Sigar: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 358-59. Sigar's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 9300) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 420.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF WHITTON>. The free man Sigar - one of thirty - who held a fragment of the manor of Whitton in Suffolk in 1086 among the vavassors of the county2 is unlikely to be related to any of his namesakes, all distant and more substantial.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR [* THE STEWARD *]. It is almost certain that the Sigars who preceded Geoffrey de Mandeville on six manors in Cambridgeshire are the steward of Esger the constable, named as such in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 39) on the first of these manors, at Sawston3. On four of the other five manors he survived for two decades, the only Sigar in the country to do so apart from one Freeman; Thriplow and Foxton lie in the Hundred of Thriplow where Sigar the steward is named as an English juror4: Inquisitio (ed. Hamilton, pp. 43, 98). The circumstantial evidence for his identity could not be much stronger. Probably, though less certainly, he is also the Sigar whose manors of Fulbourn5 and Caldecote6 were acquired by John son of Waleran and David of Argentan, and the Sagar succeeded by Robert son of Fafiton at Dry Drayton7. Sagar was a man of Earl Waltheof, as was David's predecessor Caldecote, and both Drayton and Fulbourn are substantial manors, comparable to several of those held by the steward. These characteristics, plus the comparative isolation of the Cambridgeshire Sigars, suggest they are all the same man, with the possible exception of the Freeman at Abington: Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 43. Sigar's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 224) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 419.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGMUND. Sigmund is a rare name which occurs ten times, distributed among five counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief; three Sigmunds are pre-Conquest landowners, the remainder post-Conquest. The post-Conquest name is sometimes translated as Simon, but Simon and Simund occur at both dates.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGMUND <OF HANTHORPE>. As the name is rare, the Sigmunds who held Hanthorpe and Timberland in Lincolnshire from Heppo the bowman8 are very probably one man, one of two post-Conquest Sigmunds. It is possible he is the same man as the other post-Conquest Sigmund, Sigmund of Rockland, but there are no links to support an identification. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9183) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 420.
1 KEN M10-11;20. 13,1
2 SUF 74,13
3 CAM 22,2-4;8-10
4 CAM 22,3-4
5 CAM 35,1
6 CAM 39,1
7 CAM 38,5
8 LIN 61,4;7
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGMUND <OF ROCKLAND>. As the name is rare, the Sigmunds who held land at Peyton in Essex1 and at Barwick, Feltwell, Methwold and Houghton in Norfolk from William of Warenne2 are very probably one man. There are no other Sigmunds in either county or elsewhere on the Warenne Honour. It is possible he is the same man as the one other post-Conquest Sigmund, Sigmund of Hanthorpe, but there are no links to support an identification. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1857) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 420.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIGMUND [* THE DANE *]. The Sigmunds who held Crowle in Worcestershire from the bishop and Shelsley from Osbern son of Richard are almost certainly Sigmund the Dane, who held land from the church of Worcester in both vills according to Hemming3: Hemingi cartularium, pp. 251, 264-65. Hemming describes him as a miles of Earl Leofric of Mercia, and the Shelsley entry as a thane of Earl Edwin. He held Wolverton in Warwickshire, where his byname is recorded. He is the only pre-Conquest Sigmund. See also Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 174, 176-77.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* ABBOT *] SIHTRIC. Sihtric, who held Illand in Cornwall before the Conquest4, is probably the abbot of Tavistock, named in the previous entry. He is the only Sihtric in Domesday outside Suffolk.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIRED. The name Sired occurs thirty times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of thirteen tenants-in-chief. Its distribution is skewed, all but one name occurring in south-east England, with a cluster in Kent and a smaller one in Buckinghamshire. Three Sired's survived until 1086, all retaining their manors for two decades.
................................................................................................................................................................
SIRED [* OF CHILHAM *]. Sired of Chilham, who had jurisdictional privileges in eastern Kent and in the city of Canterbury5, is certainly the Sired who held the very valuable (£40) manor of Chilham6, and probably the Sired at Wickhambreux, Eastling, Luddenham and Pineham, all - like Chilham - acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, all valuable and all in eastern Kent7. The record of Sired's jurisdictional privileges appears to suggest that he was alive in 1086, though this may be a scribal idiosyncrasy; if he did survive, he lost all the land he held before the Conquest.
Sired, canon of St Martin's, Dover, held several manors in the same area. They were valuable, in lay hands in 1086, and the bishop of Bayeux had an interest in one of them, though he was of course lord of the town and meddled freely in the affairs of St Martin's. Sired the canon was alive in 1086 and, as noted above, so was Sired of Chilham according to a literal reading of the text. These are probably coincidences, though they possibly indicate that Sired of Chilham and Sired the canon are the same man; Dr Williams suggests the two Sireds are relatives: 'Lost worlds', pp. 61-62. A list of Sired of Chilham's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 337-38, who ranks him fifty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen. He is listed as a landowner at Dover and
1 ESS 22,10
2 NFK 8,33;37-38;108
3 WOR 2,78. 19,6
4 CON 5,1,17
5 KEN D17. C6
6 KEN 5,144
7 KEN 5,124;159-160;174;214
identified as the tenant of the Canons of St Martin's at St Margaret's1 in Coel (no. 614) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421, the latter here identified as Sired the canon.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIRED [* THE CANON *]. Sired, a canon of St Martin's of Dover at Farthingloe in 10662, is probably the Sired who held a valuable manor at Charlton from the community at the same date3, and possibly the canon of St Paul's, London, who held two manors in Middlesex before the Conquest. Sired had a son Deoring who also held a manor from St Martin's in 10664. By 1086, these manors were in lay hands; but Sired himself survived, in reduced circumstances, holding St Margaret's at Cliffe - previously held by his father - and a share in another unnamed holding of the community5. His manors in Kent lay within a few miles of one of those of the magnate Sired of Chilham, an odd coincidence in view of the distribution of the name. Dr Williams suggests that the two Sireds are relatives: 'Lost worlds', pp. 61-62. Sired's tenancy from the canons at an unknown location6 is recorded in Coel (no. 1925) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421; the other tenancy, at St Margaret's, is assigned to Sired of Chilham.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* BARN *]. Siward Barn was one of the most conspicuous of the rebels in the early years of the Conqueror's reign, imprisoned for his role in the revolts of 1069-71, released by the Conqueror only on his death-bed according to John of Worcester: Chronicle, iii. 46-47. He may subsequently have led an English contingent to aid the Byzantine empire: Godfrey, 'Defeated Anglo-Saxons', pp. 69-70. He cannot be identified holding land in 1086.
Although his byname is recorded in only a handful of cases, the bulk of his estate can be reconstructed. He was the principal predecessor of Henry of Ferrers by a considerable margin, accorded his byname on Henry's substantial manors at Lechlade in Gloucestershire, Grendon in Warwickshire and Whitton with Winterton in Lincolnshire. In Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire these were Henry's only manors, which suggests he acquired them as the officially designated successor to Siward, also implied by his claim to Amcotts in Lincolnshire because it was held by Siward Barn. Henry's fiefs in Warwickshire7 and Nottinghamshire8 may also have devolved upon him for the same reason, since Siward is the only pre-Conquest landowner named there, so may have held both fiefs in their entirety. Elsewhere, the distribution of his name or status of his manors tend to confirm his identity. In Berkshire three of the five Siwards are predecessors of Henry of Ferrers, the three with the most substantial manors9; and in Derbyshire every manor held by Siward was acquired Henry10. Siward Barn had full jurisdictional and market rights in both Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, and is named as the predecessor of Geoffrey of la Guerche at Aldingfleet in Yorkshire and Haxey in Lincolnshire, and of William of Ecouis at Sheringham and Salthouse in Norfolk; neither tenant-in-chief had other predecessors named Siward. As in Lincolnshire, Siward had full jurisdiction in his Norfolk holdings11.
1 KEN M6
2 KEN M22
3 KEN M3
4 KEN M19
5 KEN M6. P1
6 KEN P1
7 WAR 19,1-6
8 NTT 24,1-3
9 BRK 21,5;11;18
10 DBY 6,5;14-15;17;54;57;66;69-70;79;100
11 NFK 1,149
Henry of Ferrers had a predecessor named Siward at Stebbing in Essex1, a valuable manor, presumably held by Siward Barn. This raises an interesting possibility. The other half of Stebbing, an equally valuable manor, was also held by a Siward before the Conquest. But this manor was acquired by Ranulf Peverel2, who had a well-documented predecessor - Siward of Maldon - who is presumably his predecessor at Stebbing. Were Siward Barn and Siward of Maldon the same man? Some support for the identification is provided by their relationship to Hereward the Wake. Siward Barn's participation in his revolt is well-documented, and Siward of Maldon is referred to in the Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake, p. 291), in a context where its information appears credible, as a 'companion' of Hereward. Dr Hart (Danelaw, p. 644) nevertheless rejects the identification on the grounds that Siward Barn was 'essentially a man of the north'. It seems unlikely, however, that Hereward was supported by two Siwards, of almost equal wealth, who divided an Essex vill equally between them, only one of whom was noticed by the national chroniclers of the revolt. The alternative explanation seems more likely and would explain the prominence accorded to Siward Barn. The two Siwards are ranked by Dr Clarke seventeenth and twenty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; their combined resources would rank Siward Barn of Maldon fifth, a credible leader alongside Earls Edwin and Morcar and Merleswein the sheriff.
Most of the estates of Siward of Maldon are readily identifiable. He held four manors from Ranulf in Suffolk, on two of which his byname is supplied; of the twenty-three manors acquired by Ranulf in Essex, all but two were valuable or very valuable3, including Maldon itself. He is probably also the Siward who preceded Ranulf at Tollesbury and Rettendon4. Rettendon was held from the abbey of Ely, with which Siward had close associations, holding Kentwell in Suffolk5, later in the hands of the brother of the abbot of Ely, and possibly Pettaugh also6; and he donated an elaborately adorned Gospel Book to the abbey: Liber Eliensis (ed. Blake, p. 291). He may therefore be the Siward who is described as the abbot of Ely's man at Oakington and Toft in Cambridgeshire, and as holding under the abbot's jurisdiction in Oakington, though there described as Earl Waltheof's man7: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 110, 113). He is possibly also the Siward, man of Earl Harold, whose holdings at Hinxton and Childerley were acquired by the bishop of Lincoln8. These are the only other Siwards in the county, and Childerley is a few miles from Oakington. In Essex, the remaining Siwards - at Abberton, Emanuel Wood and Fryerning9 - may also be Siward of Maldon since Ranulf Peverel held land in the first of these vills and Siward of Maldon in the same Hundred as the other two.
Clarke, English nobility, pp. 338-39, 341-42, and Hart, Danelaw, pp. 640-47, list separately the manors they attribute to Siward Barn and Siward of Maldon. Dr Hart's lists include a few small holdings omitted by Dr Clarke plus all the properties attributed to Siward Barn of Maldon in this note, apart from Rettendon and Pettaugh. Additionally, Dr Hart suggests that Siward Barn held the manors of Henry of Ferrers in Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire for which no pre-Conquest landowner is recorded, and three of the four manors of an unidentified Siward in Gloucestershire10. The valuable Gloucestershire manors evidently belonged to a significant landowner, possibly Siward Barn, though Siward the fat is perhaps more likely. Dr Hart estimates Siward's assessed holdings at 205 hides/carucates, 167 without the Gloucestershire manors, the Statistics database total if those attributed to Siward of Maldon are excluded; Dr Williams estimates 109, apparently
1 ESS 29,2
2 ESS 34,20
3 ESS 34,9-13;18-20;23;26;30-31;33;36
4 ESS 9,14. 10,3
5 SUF 12,5
6 SUF 16,39
7 CAM 32,22;35. 43,1. 44,2
8 CAM 3,1;6
9 ESS 20,20. 21,10. 32,30
10 GLS 41,2. 48,1-2
excluding Stebbing and the Berkshire manors (which account for the difference): English and the Norman Conquest, p. 34.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* BROTHER OF SAEWULF *]. Siward and his brother Saewulf are recorded as predecessors of Giles brother of Ansculf at Datchet in Buckinghamshire1; and since Giles acquired his whole fief there from a Siward2 or Saewulf, it is probable they are the brothers in each case, though variously described as men of earls Harold, Leofwin and Ralph. Giles also acquired three of his manors in Northamptonshire from a Siward3, and three of his four manors in Berkshire from a Siward4 or Saewulf, the pre-Conquest lords of the fourth manor being anonymous. Apart from Siward Barn, there is only one other man of either name among the Berkshire landowners. If these identifications are correct, the brothers provided roughly 60% of Giles' Honour, over 75% if anonymous landowners are excluded. They were evidently his designated predecessors. Interestingly, the only other individual who contributed a significant portion of the Honour, Leofric of Moreton (q.v.), shared Wappenham5 with Siward and is elsewhere associated with Saewulf. Perhaps he is another relative.
The Count of Mortain also had predecessors named Siward and Saewulf in two of these three counties, Siward holding Amersham and Burston in Buckinghamshire6, and Irchester and Holdenby in Northamptonshire7. At Burston, Siward is described as a man of Earl Harold, and he shared Irchester with Countess Gytha, husband of the Ralph who was his brother's overlord in Buckinghamshire. He is probably the Siward whose man Alwynn held land at Burston8, where he had a demesne manor in the vill. The fact that almost every Saewulf and Siward in the three counties apart from Siward Barn may be linked to just one of two tenants-in-chief or their manors suggests the identifications are fairly secure. Dr Williams, who identified these men 'with varying degrees of probability', provides further supporting arguments and a list of their manors: 'The king's nephew', 341-43. She does not include the Berkshire manors but adds Harrowden9, not included here because the name-form - Siuerd - represents Siferth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 360. If these identifications are valid, the brothers just fail to qualify for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility; the addition of Harrowden would change that.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* FATHER OF AKI *]. Siward, predecessor of Robert the bursar in Lincolnshire, is almost certainly the father of Aki and Wiglac who had 'who had full jurisdiction and market rights' in the county10. Apart from one manor, Siward, Aki and Wiglac provided the entire fief of Robert the bursar in Lincolnshire11, Siward himself holding Scrivelsby, Tathwell and Haltham12. As Wiglac is a rare name, Siward is probably the father who shared Ludford with him. Ludford was acquired by William of Percy, so Aki's father is perhaps also Percy's predecessor at Stainfield13. It
1 BUK 51,1
2 BUK 51,2
3 NTH 43,1;3-4
4 BRK 34,2
5 NTH 43,4
6 BUK 12,4;13
7 NTH 18,81;86;92
8 BUK 14,18. 35,3
9 NTH 4,7
10 LIN T5
11 LIN 38,1-13
12 LIN 38,3-6;7;12
13 LIN 22,16;22
is likely, too, that he is the predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent at West Ashby and Driby1, valuable manors a few miles from several more of Siward's manors. Neither William or Gilbert had other Siwards on their extensive Honours. It is also likely he is the Siward who held Fulletby and its dependencies from the bishop of Durham before the Conquest2, three and five miles respectively from West Ashby and Driby, and perhaps also Snarford3, the one other Siward on the bishop's Honour. Many of these manors are valuable, or fairly so; and apart from Snarford, all lay in the South Riding of Lindsey, as do all the manors of Siward's sons.
Two other tenants-in-chief acquired manors in the Riding from a Siward who may be Aki's father: William Blunt at Withcall4 and Roger of Poitou at 'South Cadeby'5. Withcall is four miles from Tathwell; a dependency of Cadeby is six from Ludford, Cadeby and its dependencies lying between two groups of Siward's other manors; and Withcall and Cadeby are shared with a Godric. Neither tenant-in-chief had other Siwards on their Honours. Several more tenants-in-chief acquired manors from a Siward in the South Riding - Count Alan of Brittany, Ivo Tallboys, Alfred of Lincoln - but they also had Siwards among their predecessors elsewhere in Lincolnshire and outside the county so these Siwards may not be Aki's father. If all or most of these identifications are correct, the family held land worth almost £50. If included in Clarke, English nobility, the family would rank among the eighty wealthiest untitled laymen in 1066
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD <OF HEMINGTON>. Siward is an uncommon name in the five south-western counties of circuit two, where almost half the manors held by a Siward before the Conquest, and all but one of those worth more than £2, devolved upon Baldwin the sheriff. In Devon, Chawleigh and Holcombe are particularly valuable6, while three of the other four manors are fairly close to Chawleigh and very close to each other, only Wolborough lying in another part of the county7. In Dorset, Baldwin was preceded on the valuable manor Iwerne Courtney8 by the only Siward in the county, on Baldwin's only manor in the county, presumably therefore acquired by antecession. The one valuable manor held by Siward in Somerset devolved upon Baldwin9, one of only three he held there. It appears that Siward was a designated predecessor. A list of Siward's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 342, which does not include Holcombe (seemingly included in the value of Hemington) or Iwerne Courtney. Dr Clarke ranks him eighty-third in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Iwerne would raise him roughly twenty places.
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD <OF THISTLETON>. Siward is a common name, particularly in Lincolnshire. Even so, it is likely that most if not all the ten Siwards who preceded Alfred of Lincoln are one man, perhaps a designated predecessor. Three manors lay in Thistleton10, and three others are linked by manorial ties or proximity11. If Alfred did in fact have two predecessors of the same name in the same county - more than two seems improbable - then the Siward at Goxhill is the most likely second predecessor, being the most remote12. Of the remaining holdings, Stixwould lay between those
1 LIN 24,72-73
2 LIN 3,53-54
3 LIN 3,2
4 LIN 49,4
5 LIN 16,36-38
6 DEV 16,43;76
7 DEV 16,143-144;148;163
8 DOR 42,1
9 SOM 20,1
10 RUT 2a,9. LIN 27,47-48
11 LIN 27,42-43;49
12 LIN 27,1
grouped around Thistleton and the pair near the coast, at Huttoft and Theddlethorpe1. The Siward who held these is probably the Siward with a second holding in Huttoft2. Siward of Stixwould retained his land for two decades so may be the Siward Buss with a claim against Alfred of Lincoln3. He is unidentified in Coel (34085).
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* THE FALCONER *]. Siward, tenant of Glastonbury abbey at Dinnington in Somerset in 1086, is probably Siward the falconer, the royal thane who held land in the same vill according to Exon.4. He is probably also the Siward at Seavington5, two miles away, later held by a William the falconer: VCH Somerset, iv. 148, 205. It is also possible that Siward the falconer is the same man as Siward Guntram of Adber, another royal thane named in Exon.6. Finally, it is not improbable that Siward the falconer and Siward the hunter are one man. Siward, described as the hunter, held land at Micheldever in Hampshire7 and Chadlington in Oxfordshire8, in the latter case among the royal officials of the county. In both cases, Siward had held the same land in 1066, as had Siward Guntram and possibly Siward at Seavington, where no pre-Conquest holder is named. These are uncommon characteristics, though Siward is a common name. However, in default of a specific link, the hunter and falconer are treated here as different men. Siward the hunter is recorded in Coel (no. 1802) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421; the other Siwards are unidentified (nos. 14661, 15289, 15298-99).
.............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* THE FAT *]. Siward, 'thane and kinsman of King Edward'9, is identified by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 194-95; iii. 142-43) as Siward son of Aethelgar, brother of Aldred, great-nephew of King Edward, and original patron of Shrewsbury abbey, a detail which identifies him as Siward the fat (Grossus), credited by the abbey with promoting its foundation: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 1-5. In return for the land on which the abbey was built, he was granted Cheney Longville, which he held in 1066 and 108610. He is probably also the Siward who retained Frodesley, Overs, Neen Sollars and Milson between those dates11. He held Neen Sollars and Milson as a tenant of Osbern son of Richard, so may be the Saeward from whom Osbern acquired the adjacent vill of Tetstill12. Similar scribal errors may reasonably be suspected at Stanton and Cleobury (below).
Dr Williams has identified many of Siward's manors 'with reasonable certainty' from his patronage of Shrewsbury abbey and his relationship with his brother, Aldred: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 92-96. The sheriff Reginald of Balliol acquired the substantial manor of Upton Magna13, whose tithes had belonged to the abbey, from a Siward who is almost certainly Aethelgar's son. The other twelve manors acquired by the sheriff from Siward14 - thirteen if the Saeward at Stanton15 is a scribal error - are likely to have been his, too. Reginald also obtained Longnor from an Aldred, in all likelihood Siward's brother. The significance of the family
1 LIN 27,19;61-62
2 LIN 68,14. CS16-17
3 LIN CS9
4 SOM 8,36. 47,10
5 SOM 47,2
6 SOM 47,11
7 HAM 6,16
8 OXF 58,23
9 HEF 1,41. WOR X2
10 SHR 4,27,32
11 SHR 4,27,11;14. 5,8-9
12 SHR 5,2
13 SHR 4,3,24
14 SHR 4,3,1;23;33-34;38;41;43;51-53;57;59
15 SHR 4,3,3
connection is more apparent on the fief which Roger of Lacy held from the king, derived in its entirety from Siward and Aldred if the Saeward at Cleobury1 is a scribal error, as seems likely2. Siward was also a Lacy tenant at Waters Upton3. Ralph of Mortimer acquired manors from Aldred and Siward, too, and also from Shrewsbury abbey4.
Dr Clarke suggests that all but three of the remaining Siwards in the county are the son of Aethelgar, which is not implausible given that the four adjacent counties contain only five more Siwards between them. As Siward was a tenant of Earl Roger at Frodesley, Overs and Cheney Longville, he may have preceded him on a second manor in Overs5 and at Eyton6, and likely that he did so at Montgomery and Weston7, whose scale suggests a major landowner. His manor at Grinshill8 is about a mile from Reginald's manor of Acton Reynald, and Fenemere9 two from Myddle and also two from Walford, where Siward preceded Robert the butler10; while among the Corbet holdings, Ratlinghope11 is adjacent to Overs, Brompton12 roughly midway between Upton Magna and Frodesley, Leighton13 a mile from Trelystan, and Winsley and Bausley four to five miles from Eyton14. Similarly, the Helgot manors of Bouldon and Oxenbold15 lay between Siward's manors at Frodesley and Neen Sollars. Finally, the Siward who preceded Earl Roger on his valuable manor of Poulton in Wiltshire16 is probably Siward the fat. This is one of only three manors in the earl's fief, and the most valuable. The other two, moreover, can be accounted for by his succession to all the manors of the thane Osmund of Eaton (q.v.), so Earl Roger acquired his Wiltshire fief as the official successor of the two pre-Conquest lords concerned. Poulton is also the only valuable manor in the south-west which cannot plausibly be attributed to Siward of Hemington. Though he retained only a fragment of his extensive estate, with half-a-dozen modest tenancies from the earl, his sheriff, and Osbern son of Richard, Siward the fat was one of the more fortunate magnate survivors. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 339-40, which does not include one holding in Overs, and Waters Upton, Neen Sollars and Poulton. Dr Clarke ranks Siward forty-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Poulton would raise him half-a-dozen places. The post-Conquest tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3018) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421, apart from Waters Upton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 30893). .............................................................................................................................................
SIWARD [* THE PRIEST *]. The Siwards who held the consecutive manors of Osgodby and Cuxwold in Lincolnshire17 are probably Siward the priest of the preceding and subsequent entries, which include a second manor in Osgodby and another in the neighbouring vill of Owersby. He may be the same man as the priest and lawman who had full jurisdiction in Lincoln in 1066,
1 SHR 7,1
2 SHR 7,1-6
3 SHR 4,8,9
4 SHR 6,1;5;17-18
5 SHR 4,1,34
6 SHR 4,27,16
7 SHR 4,1,35-36
8 SHR 4,16,1
9 SHR 4,28,3
10 SHR 4,6,1
11 SHR 4,5,2
12 SHR 4,5,5
13 SHR 4,4,22
14 SHR 4,4,5;8
15 SHR 4,21,4;18
16 WIL 21,3
17 LIN 68,43-44
replaced after the Conquest by another Englishman. He had a wife and a son1. His estate had disintegrated by the date of the Lindsey Survey, Winterton and possibly the two holdings in Osgodby - there is a slight discrepancy in the assessment - held by St Mary's of York (1/16. 7/9), Owersby by the monks of Winghale (7/15), the other holdings apparently absorbed into different manors. A Siward the priest in Colchester is presumably another man2. Siward's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4472) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 421, apart from Osgodby and Cuxwold, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 34900, 349001).
.............................................................................................................................................
SKALPI [* THE GUARD *]. All Skalpis in Domesday Book are 'virtually certain' to be the same man, the Guard or thane of Earl Harold whose manor of Leighs in Essex was acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville3 and the Skalpi who preceded Robert Gernon at Ardleigh in Essex4 and Churchford, Stutton and Woolverstone in Suffolk5: Williams, 'Land and power', pp. 178-80. The one other Skalpi in Suffolk, an overlord at Burstall, in the Hundred of Sandford where Gernon's manors lay, is likely to be him also in the absence of another Skalpi with demesne land6. The entry for Leighs recounts that Harold had given the manor - which he had been given by Esger the constable - to Skalpi, who gave it to his wife as her dowry though he continued to hold it himself after 1066 until he 'went to where he died in outlawry in York[shire]'. The testimony of the Hundred is presumably intended to explain that Esger conferred title on Geoffrey as his antecessor. Finally, the form Calpus, which occurs only in Norfolk7, 'might ... be derived' from Skalpi according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 365 and is accepted as the same name in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England. As both forms are rare and localised, Calpus is probably also Earl Harold's thane, Skalpi.
.............................................................................................................................................
SKULI. Skuli is an uncommon name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among five counties in eastern England between Suffolk and Yorkshire, with one concentration in Norfolk. All Skulis are pre-Conquest landowners, their lands acquired by the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
SKULI <OF BASFORD>. Skuli's bovate at Old Basford in Nottinghamshire in 10668, is recorded three times in the Nottinghamshire folios. One of the entries is deleted, and the other possibly a duplicate. Skuli has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
SPEARHAFOC. Spearhafoc is a rare pre-Conquest name which occurs half-a-dozen times, all in Nottinghamshire and Suffolk, and borne by pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
SPEARHAFOC <OF BURTON>. As the name is rare, the Spearhafocs who preceded Roger of Bully on modest properties at Fenton, Sturton and 'West Burton' and its dependency in
1 LIN C2-3;14. CN16
2 ESS B3a
3 ESS 30,16
4 ESS 32,40
5 SUF 36,1-2;8;16
6 SUF 16,35
7 NFK 24,6. 38,4
8 NTT 10,23;52. 30,28
Nottinghamshire1 are almost certainly one man. Fenton is in Sturton parish, and 'West Burton' a little over a mile away. The Nottinghamshire landowner has no links with his Suffolk namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
SPEARHAFOC <OF GLEMHAM>. As the name is rare, the free men of Edric of Laxfield (q.v.), whose holdings in Glemham in Suffolk devolved upon two tenants-in-chief2, are probably the same Spearhafoc, but perhaps not the same man as Spearhafoc of Thorpe.
.............................................................................................................................................
SPEARHAFOC <OF THORPE>. Although the name is rare, Queen Edith's free man on a tiny holding at Thorpe in Suffolk3, granted by her to Peter of Valognes, may be a different man from Spearhafoc of Glemham, forty miles away; there are no links between them.
.............................................................................................................................................
SPIRTES [* THE PRIEST *]. All men named Spirtes in Domesday are probably Spirtes the priest, the predecessor of Nigel the doctor on manors in Wiltshire, Somerset, Herefordshire and Shropshire and so probably the Spirtes who preceded Nigel in the last two counties4 and also in Kent5 and Hampshire6. According to Exon., he also preceded Nigel on a subtenancy at Lamyatt, held from Glastonbury abbey7. Only one manor held by Spirtes the priest - at Woolston in Shropshire8 - was acquired by another tenant-in-chief. An entry for Bromfield in Shropshire, where he was a canon of St Mary's, reveals the interesting detail that he was exiled for unspecified crimes on the eve of the Conquest. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 342-43, which does not include Lamyatt or Nunney in Somerset, the latter held by Sainte-Marie of Montebourg in 1086, a gift by Nigel who probably also endowed the abbey with Sutton Veny in Wiltshire, held as his tenant, these being the only manors held by the abbey in England. Dr Clarke ranks Spirtes sixty-ninth in wealth among untitled landowners, one of the wealthiest clerks in the kingdom; the addition of the Somerset manors would raise him half-a-dozen places.
.............................................................................................................................................
"SPROT". Although there are four Sprots in Colchester alone9, the name is a fairly rare, occurring another thirteen times, ten times in Yorkshire and once each in Derbyshire, Essex and Suffolk. All rural Sprots are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
"SPROT" <OF BRADWELL>. Sprot, whose shared manor worth twenty shillings at Bradwell in Derbyshire10 was acquired by William Peverel, has no links with other Sprots.
.............................................................................................................................................
STANHARD [* SON OF ALWY *]. Most if not all Stanhards in Domesday Book are probably one man, Stanhard, son of Alwy of Thetford (q.v.), named as tenant-in-chief of a small fief consisting of
1 NTT 9,113-114;116-117
2 SUF 3,95. 6,45
3 SUF 37,2
4 HEF 7,6;8-9. SHR 9,2
5 KEN M21
6 HAM 63,1
7 SOM 8,30
8 SHR 4,20,18
9 ESS B3a
10 DBY 7,8
a single manor of thirty acres at Ousden in Suffolk1. He is probably the Stanhard who held a comparable one-manor, thirty-acre fief at an unnamed location in Essex2, a manor he had held since 1066. His father was a designated predecessor of Roger Bigot, Stanhard retaining many of his manors, on one of which he is named as Alwy's son3. He and his father are also named for their depredations at the expense of the abbey of St Benet of Holme on manors forming part of Roger Bigot's fief in Norfolk in an early twelfth-century memorandum emanating from the abbey: Stenton, 'St Benet of Holme', pp. 227-28. There is therefore little doubt that Alwy's son is Roger's tenant and predecessor in Suffolk4 and virtually none in Norfolk, where every Stanhard in Domesday Book is a Bigot tenant5.
Of the remaining Stanhards, he is likely to be the substantial urban landowner in Colchester, with 2 1/2 houses and ten acres and possibly another house6, his father probably being reeve of Colchester. He may also be the one other Stanhard in the county, the predecessor of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds at Waltham7; the abbey also had an interest in another of Stanhard's manors, at Barnham in Suffolk8. Stanhard is possibly the man named in the will of Wulfsi, who granted to land to St Edmunds in the early eleventh century: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 74-75, 185. In Suffolk, the predecessor of Robert Malet at Gislingham and Thornham Magna9 is likely to be Alwy's son, his overlord in both cases being Edric of Laxfield who was the overlord on manors held by him and his father on the Bigot Honour10. Edric was also joint overlord with Ely abbey of Stanhard at Burgh in Norfolk11, where the anonymous free man is named Stanhard in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 150). It is perhaps no coincidence therefore that two of the three remaining Stanhards have Ely associations: at Over in Cambridgeshire12 and Bealings in Suffolk13. The one remaining Stanhard, at Wortham in Suffolk14, is conceivably the same man though there are no links to confirm this. Stanhard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 99) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 422. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be Stanhard of Silverley, a juror in Cheveley Hundred in Cambridgeshire, which is not unlikely though unverifiable; his own manor - no longer held in 1086 - lay in Papworth Hundred.
.............................................................................................................................................
STANWIN <OF BOYTON>. All Stanwins in Domesday Book are very probably one man. His six manors are all in Suffolk, Henley, Peasenhall, Strickland and Boyton being acquired by Robert Malet15, Westerfield by Count Alan of Brittany16, and Heveningham by Roger Bigot17. Peasenhall is three miles from Heveningham, where Stanwin's overlord was Earl Harold, as at Henley, which is three miles from Westerfield. Elsewhere, Stanwin's overlord was Edric of Laxfield, a situation explained in two of the more interesting entries in Domesday Book18, which record that Stanwin
1 SUF 72,1
2 ESS 87,1
3 NFK 66,84
4 SUF 7,1;15
5 NFK 9,10;14-16-23;81;91-92;121;157-159. 66,84
6 ESS B3a
7 ESS 11,7
8 SUF 7,1
9 SUF 6,194;200
10 NFK 9,18;21;100
11 NFK 31,15
12 CAM 26,48
13 SUF 67,11
14 SUF 35,7
15 SUF 6,17;92;98;172.
16 SUF 3,61
17 SUF 7,13
18 SUF 6,92. 7,13
was Edric of Laxfield's man before Edric was outlawed, when Stanwin then became Earl Harold's man, claiming 'he was Edric's man with Harold permission in 1066' and offering to undergo trial to prove it. Apart from explaining how he came to have two overlords and proving that Bigot's and Malet's predecessors are the same man, the entry establishes what is often suspected but is difficult to demonstrate: that English landowners survived at a level lower than the Domesday Survey took cognisance of, for no land is attributed to Stanwin in 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
STAPLEWIN <OF MAPPERLEY>. Staplewin is a rare name which occurs three times, all three probably borne by one man. His manors at Thrumpton and Stapleford in Nottinghamshire1 were acquired by William Peverel, who also had charge for the king of Staplewin's holding Mapperley in Derbyshire2, eight miles from Stapleford.
.............................................................................................................................................
STENKIL. Stenkil is a rare name which occurs seven times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of six tenants-in-chief; one Stenkil survived until 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
STENKIL <OF KINGSTON>. Stenkil, who apparently preceded Henry of Ferrers on a five hide manor at Kingston Bagpuize in Berkshire3, may be a scribal error since the Abingdon chronicle records that this manor was held by 'a certain rich man' named Thorkil, who did homage to the abbey for Kingston. He was killed at Hastings, whereupon Henry of Ferrers seized the manor for himself: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, i. 222-25. Dr Hudson suggests that the Domesday scribe has confused this entry with a second five hide manor in Kingston Bagpuize4, which was held by a Thorkil: ibid., p. 225, note 511. Stenkil may have held this manor rather than that belonging to the abbey. Some confirmation is provided by another consideration. The Berkshire manor mistakenly attributed to Thorkil was acquired by William son of Ansculf, who was preceded at Witton in Warwickshire by a Stenkil who retained the manor as his tenant5 and who is probably the Berkshire Stenkil in view of the rarity of the name. If so, it is not unlikely that he is also the Stenkil at Weston in Northamptonshire6, which is rather closer to Kingston than Witton. Stenkil is unidentified in Coel (no. 28490).
.............................................................................................................................................
STENKIL <OF RIBY>. It is probable that the Stenkils at Riby, Swallow and Cuxwold in Lincolnshire are one man. Roger of Poitou acquired the first two manors7, in both of which Ernwin the priest (q.v.) had an interest, and Cuxwold8 is less than two miles from Swallow. In view of the rarity of the name, it is conceivable that he is the same man as Stenkil of Kingston, though there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
STENKIL <OF THORNTON>. Stenkil, whose modest holding at Thornton in Cheshire was acquired by Bigot of Les Loges9, has no links with his distant namesakes.
1 NTT 10,4;16
2 DBY 1,35
3 BRK 21,14
4 BRK 22,12
5 WAR 27,2
6 NTH 18,82
7 LIN 16,1-2
8 LIN 68,44
9 CHS 14,3
.............................................................................................................................................
STENULF. Stenulf is an uncommon name which occurs almost two dozen times times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief. With two exceptions, the name is confined to the north of England, the bulk of them occurring in two clusters, one in Derbyshire and another in Yorkshire, with a scattering in Cheshire and outliers in two other counties. The name is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, possibly no more than two or three. Survivors held two manors in 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
STENULF <OF SUTTON>. Most Stenulfs in Domesday Book may be one man, though his manors devolved upon ten tenants-in-chief. The seven Stenulfs in Derbyshire very probably are, the manors forming a cluster in the Hundred of 'Scarsdale', all but one of them within a couple of miles of at least one other. Five were acquired by Roger of Poitou, his entire fief in the county1, while Rowthorn2, acquired by Roger of Bully, is in the same parish of Ault Hucknall as two of the Poitou manors. The remaining Derbyshire manor, a modest property at Calow3, is two miles from that held by Stenulf from Roger at Sutton Scarsdale. Stenulf retained Calow in 1086, allowed to survive on a fragment of his once extensive if modestly-valued estate. Roger of Poitou was also preceded by Stenulf at Toxteth and Upholland in Cheshire4. Three other manors in Cheshire were held by a Stenulf, at Tilstone, Weaver and Clotton5, each a few miles from the others and so probably held by one man, despite devolving on different tenants-in-chief. The manors lie between those of Roger of Poitou in Cheshire and Derbyshire, so may also have been held by his precedessor.
The other surviving Stenulf, who held Tittensor in Staffordshire in 10866, may be the same man. Apart from his status as survivor, the sons of Stenulf are later recorded in Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire: Statham, 'Notes on Domesday tenants', pp. 174-75. Roger of Bully was preceded by a Stenulf in Nottinghamshire7, probably his predecessor at Rowthorn in Derbyshire (above). The one Stenulf in Shropshire is not unlikely to be Roger's predecessor, too, his waste manor in the lost vill of Bolebec being acquired by Roger's father, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury8. As his name is rare and the spread of his manors from east to west almost a hundred miles, it is not unlikely that Stenulf is the man who held seven manors in the West Riding of Yorkshire9, less than half that distance away. These form a fairly close grouping, so were probably held by one individual. They have no links with the manors to the south, but none can be expected as they lie in the centre of Ilbert of Lacy's Honour of Pontefract, from which other lay tenants-in-chief were excluded. The one other Stenulf in Yorkshire, at Rookwith10, forty miles further north of this cluster, might be the same man, though there are no links to support an identification. The one remaining Stenulf in Domesday Book, at Venns Green in Herefordshire, appears to be unrelated. Stenulf is unidentified in Coel (nos. 31500, 32500).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 DBY 5,1-5
2 DBY 16,8
3 DBY 17,9
4 CHS R1,5;25
5 CHS 2,33. 14,13. 23,3
6 STS 11,33
7 NTT 9,70-71
8 SHR 4,1,33
9 YKS 9W11;119;122;127;134-135;139
10 YKS 6N130
STENULF <OF VENNS GREEN>. As the name is rare, the Stenulf whose manor at Venns Green in Herefordshire was acquired by William son of Norman1 might be Stenulf of Sutton, who is possibly the one other Stenulf in Domesday Book; but his closest manor is seventy miles to the north and there are no links to connect them.
.............................................................................................................................................
STEPHEN. Stephen is an uncommon name which occurs on three fiefs and twenty-one manors, distributed among eleven counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, all held by tenants in 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
STEPHEN [* SON OF ERHARD *]. Stephen son of Erhard, who held a small fief in Berkshire, is named by Orderic Vitalis as the seaman who steered the Conqueror safely across the Channel in 1066, which makes it likely that he is Stephen the steersman, who had two houses in Southampton2 and a messuage in Warwick3. He is probably also the Stephen who held Dorsington and Milcote in chief in the county4 and was a tenant there of Bishop Odo of Bayeux at Arrow and Broom5, the latter descending with Milcote and Dorsington, since the messuage in Warwick belonged 'to the lands which these barons hold outside the Borough', there being no other Stephens in the county: Round, 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', p. 274; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 54. As the only Stephen in Northamptonshire, he may also be Bishop Odo's tenant at Roade6, waste and in the king's hands in 1086, presumably because held by Odo. Stephen may also be the tenant of William son of Ansculf at Englefield, Hodcott and Ilsley in Berkshire7, Englefield lying four miles north of his manor of Padworth. His tenant at Padworth has been identified as Nigel of Aubigny (q.v.), and it is possible that the arrangement was reciprocal, Stephen being Nigel's tenant at Shelton in Bedfordshire8. If so, Nigel is the only tenant of that name in Berkshire, and Stephen the only Stephen in Bedfordshire, which tends to support the identifications. Stephen's son, Thomas, played another critical role in Anglo-Norman history, captaining the White Ship which foundered in 1120, along with the heir to the throne and the heirs of many of the magnates. According to Orderic (vi. 296-300), there were two survivors from roughly three hundred on board, the captain choosing to drown rather than face the king. Stephen's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1906) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 423.
.............................................................................................................................................
STEPHEN [* SON OF FULCRED *]. Their distribution suggests that the cluster of manors held by Stephen at Hampton, Broadward and Marden in Herefordshire9 were held by one man. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Stephen son of Fulcred, who held Daylesford from the Church of Worcester10; the descent of Daylesford was disrupted so this cannot be verified: Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 172-79; VCH Worcester, iv. 336. There are no other Stephens in the five counties of circuit five; and neither the bishopric or the other two tenants-in-chief from who Stephen held his manors - Drogo son of Poyntz and William of Ecouis - had other Stephens among their tenants. Stephen's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 315) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 422.
1 HEF 16,3
2 HAM S3
3 WAR B2
4 WAR 36,1-2
5 WAR 4,1;6
6 NTH 2,9
7 BRK 22,4;6-7
8 BDF 24,7
9 HEF 1,29. 14,3. 35,1
10 WOR 2,42;44
.............................................................................................................................................
[* ARCHBISHOP *] STIGAND. All Stigands in Domesday Book may be the archbishop of that name, though his title is supplied in barely a third of the several hundred occurrences of his name. In fourteen of the sixteen counties where he held land, every Stigand is accorded one of his titles, bishop or archbishop. Only in Norfolk and Suffolk, where the bulk of his manors and most of his personal wealth is concentrated, is his title frequently omitted. There are no signs that any of these East Anglian Stigands are other than the archbishop, and many indications to the contrary. A significant proportion of his manors are royal, or occur on the fief of his brother, the bishop of Elmham; but, overwhelmingly, they are manors where Stigand wielded lordship over men, over two hundred such cases. 'In East Anglia alone ... more than one thousand thegns and freemen called Stigand their lord': Smith, 'Archbishop Stigand', p. 205. Dr Smith provides totals of his manorial wealth broken down by county; a manor in Northamptonshire is omitted from her list.
............................................................................................................................................. STORI. Stori is an uncommon name which occurs on about eighteen manors, distributed among the lands of seven tenants-in-chief and six counties, almost all in eastern England, with one cluster in Lincolnshire where the most valuable manors are located. A Stori in Yorkshire1 is probably a scribal error for Thori (Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', pp. 36-37) and another in Derbyshire may be so also2. The name is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, possibly only two. It is a Norse name, not recorded in Old English sources and rare in Scandinavian lands: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 376; Fellows-Jensen, Scandinavian personal names, p. 267. All Storis are pre-Conquest landowners, none surviving. .............................................................................................................................................
STORI <OF BOLINGBROKE>. It is not unlikely that all Storis in Domesday Book are one man, though in the absence of identifying links some are here identified as separate individuals; all, however, held at least one substantial manor, even in those counties where such manors are thin on the ground.
If all Storis are one man, then he is the Lincolnshire magnate who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the county of Lincolnshire, who is almost certainly the predecessor of Ivo Tallboys on his two highly valuable manors of Belchford and Bolingbroke3 and very probably the Stori who preceded Countess Judith at Hougham in the county4 since she held a messuage of his in Lincoln claimed by Ivo Tallboys5. As his name is rare, the link with Countess suggests that the Stori from whom Osbern son of Richard obtained his Bedfordshire fief may be the Lincolnshire magnate. At Easton6 Stori is described as a man of Earl Tosti, and elsewhere7 as a lord of other men; yet his Bedfordshire manors are modest for such status. Earl Waltheof and his wife Countess Judith succeeded Earl Tosti on many individual manors as well as in his earldom, which included Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire among other counties: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, appendix 2.
Stori is possibly also the man whose manors in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Warwickshire and Suffolk were acquired by Henry of Ferrers, the Count of Mortain, the bishop of Chester and William of Vatteville, each of whom obtained one respectable manor from Stori, a suggestive
1 YKS 19W3
2 DBY B16
3 LIN T5. 14,46-57;66-83
4 LIN 56,5
5 LIN C10
6 BDF 44,1
7 BDF 44,2;4
characteristic though in the absence of specific links these manors are here assigned to different men. A list of Stori's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 343-44, which includes only those in Lincolnshire. Dr Clarke ranks him eightieth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Easton would raise him a place, the remaining manors would place him in the top fifty.
.............................................................................................................................................
STORI <OF FARNBOROUGH>. Stori, who held the substantial manor of Farnborough acquired by the bishop of Chester1, may be the magnate Stori of Bolingbroke; but there are no links to support an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
STORI <OF GOTHAM>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Storis who preceded the Count of Mortain on the bulk of his fief in Nottinghamshire2 are one man, possibly the Stori of Spondon whose manor lay a dozen or so miles to the west who is perhaps also the magnate Stori of Bolingbroke; but there are no links to confirm either or both identifications.
............................................................................................................................................. STORI <OF LIDGATE>. Stori, whose substantial manor of Lidgate in Suffolk was acquired by William of Vatteville3, may be the magnate Stori of Bolingbroke; but there are no links to confirm his identity. .............................................................................................................................................
STORI <OF SPONDON>. As the name is rare, the Stori who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Spondon and its dependency in Derbyshire would appear to be the Stori who had jurisdictional privileges on his land4. That Stori, however, is described as a predecessor of Walter of Aincourt whose name is nowhere else linked to a Stori. Walter did, however, have a significant predecessor name Thori son of Roald (q.v.) who probably held another manor acquired by Henry of Ferrers; and since the scribe confused Stori and Thori elsewhere (Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', pp. 36-37), he may have done so here. Stori of Spondon is possibly the same man as the Stori at Gotham a dozen or so miles to the east who is perhaps also the magnate Stori of Bolingbroke; but there are no links to confirm either or both identifications.
.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI. Sumarlithi is a rare name which occurs eleven times, distributed among five counties between Devon and Lincolnshire, where the only cluster occurs. None of the manors are substantial, and all landowners are pre-Conquest.
.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI <OF BUNGAY>. The free man with forty acres worth one mark at Bungay in Suffolk5 acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester has no links with other Sumarlithis.
.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI <OF NORTHLEIGH>. Sumarlithi, whose virgate worth three shillings at Northleigh in Devon1 was acquired by Nicholas the bowman, has no links with his namesakes, all remote.
1 WAR 2,1
2 NTT 4,1-5;7
3 SUF 54,1
4 DBY B16. 6,67-68
5 SUF 4,19
.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI <OF WARESLEY>. Sumarlithi, whose half-hide worth ten shillings at Waresley in Huntingdonshire2 was acquired by Eustace the sheriff, has no links with other Sumarlithis.
.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI [* SON OF KARLI *]. Sumarlithi, who held Crambe in Yorkshire3, is probably the brother of Thorbrand and Cnut who held the nearby manors of Low Hutton and Burythorpe - four and five miles from Crambe - and several other manors in the same wapentake. Sumarlithi and his brothers are three of the 'four sons of Karli' who according to Orderic Vitalis (ii. 222-23) were among the leaders of the attack on York castle early in 1069: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 30-31. The tract De obsessione Dunelmi names Sumarlithi as one of the two sons who survived a massacre in 1073-1074 ordered by Earl Waltheof, whose ancestors conducted a long-running feud with Karli's branch of the family. The massacre took place on the occasion of a family feast at Thorbrand's house in Settrington; but Sumarlithi, who was not there, 'survives to this day': Morris, 'Marriage and murder', pp. 3-4; Early charters of northern England, p. 149. There are no other Sumarlithis in Yorkshire, where the bulk of the family lands lay; but it is not unlikely that Sumarfugl, who held the manor of Boltby4, is a corruption of his name. Sumarfugl is an otherwise unknown name, and Boltby was acquired by Hugh son of Baldric who obtained other manors from several members of Karli's family, several of them in the same wapentake of 'Yarlestre'. Boltby was subinfeudated to Gerard, who was also endowed by Hugh with manors of Sumarlithi's brothers, Thorbrand and Gamal.
The name being rare and the family substantial landowners, it is not unlikely that he is the Sumarlithi who held half-a-dozen manors in Lincolnshire. Three were acquired by the bishop of Durham5, whose predecessors were deeply involved in the feud between Karli's family and Earl Waltheof's ancestors and retained an interest in their possessions: Morris, 'Marriage and murder', pp. 1-5, 12-18. The other manors are no great distance away. Osgodby, acquired by Siward6, is about thirteen miles from the bishop's manor at Cadeby7 and also from Kolsveinn's acquisition at Ingham8 which is itself less than a mile from one of the three manors of Sumarlithi's brother Cnut (q.v.), two others being only a little further afield. The Tallboys manor at East Keal9 is the most distant, twenty miles to the south; but the Lincolnshire Claims10 reveal that Sumarlithi had held land at Greetham, seven miles from Keal and thirteen from the bishop's jurisdiction at Welton le Wold11. If all these manors belonged to Karli's son, he was still the least well-endowed of the four; and if the date of De obsessione Dunelmi is, as suggested, no earlier than 1100, then Sumarlithi survived with no visible means of support not, however, an uncommon situation: Morris, 'Marriage and murder', p. 7.
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 Sumarlithi and his family was in excess of £100 in 1066,
1 DEV 48,12
2 HUN 19,26. D9
3 YKS 1N92
4 YKS 23N13-14
5 LIN 3,20;48-49
6 LIN 68,46
7 LIN 3,48
8 LIN 26,11-12
9 LIN 14,79
10 LIN CS15
11 LIN 3,49
though 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.
.............................................................................................................................................
SVAVI. Svavi is a rare forename which occurs twice, once each in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
SVAVI [* FATHER OF SWEIN *]. As the name is exceptionally rare, it is likely that the Svavi who shared part of the manor of Mumby in Lincolnshire with a Swein (q.v.) is his father1, named as having full jurisdiction and market rights in the county and a messuage in the borough2.
.............................................................................................................................................
SVAVI <OF BOSWORTH>. Although the name is exceptionally rare, it is unlikely that the tenant of Robert of Bucy on a modest manor in Husbands Bosworth in Leicestershire3 is the same man as his one namesake, the father of Swein who had been succeeded by his father before 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 26445).
.............................................................................................................................................
SWARTBRAND [* SON OF ULF *]. All Swartbrands in Domesday Book may be one man, Swartbrand son of Ulf, named as a lawman with market and full jurisdictional rights in the city of Lincoln and as holding a third of the 'Lincolnshire fields'. He held some of these rights before the Conquest and in 1086, so he may the Swartbrand who held land among the royal thanes in both 10864 and 10665; the Lincolnshire Claims prove that he is the Swartbrand who claimed land at North Hykeham6 against a Siward, who may be a relative with whom he had a shared interest in the Nottinghamshire vill of Muskham7. He may also be the one remaining Swartbrand, whose manor of Burgh-le-Marsh was acquired by Eudo son of Spirewic8. Burgh is two miles from the manor of Ulf's son at Bratoft9. Swartbrand's father is probably the English magnate, Ulf Fenman (q.v.), who held land in the city and had full jurisdictional and market rights throughout the county. He held land in five of the same vills as Swartbrand: Burton, Candlesby, Burgh, Addlethorpe and Canwick. Swartbrand's £6 of land place him among the more prosperous survivors though this figure probably represents less than 1% of the land held by his father. Hart, Danelaw, pp. 275-79, lists Swartbrand's manors; his 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 2971) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 422.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWEIN [* OF ESSEX *]. Most if not all unidentified Sweins in southern England in 1086 may be Swein, son of Robert son of Wiuhomarch, a tenant-in-chief in Essex, Huntingdonshire, Oxfordshire and Suffolk and a man 'of quite exceptional interest': Round, 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 345. In Essex, where he was sheriff and the bulk of his manors lay, he is several times named by his
1 LIN 12,96
2 LIN C9. T5
3 LEC 17,15
4 LIN 68,1-4. CW1
5 LIN 68,8-12
6 LIN 12,92. CK29
7 NTT 30,7;46. CW16
8 LIN 29,26
9 LIN 68,9
byname, usually in his capacity as sheriff1, so he is probably the Swein recorded on other royal manors there2. Elsewhere, references to his dependants, his manors or to his father identify him as the Swein at Tollesbury, Tilbury and Colchester in Essex3. The only other Sweins in Essex, tenants of the bishop of Bayeux at Stambridge, Creeksea and Bradwell Quay4, may also be the sheriff, who held the other part of Stambridge in chief, and whose manors in Asheldham5 lay midway between Creeksea and Bradwell, roughly six miles from either.
Swein acquired most of his Honour from his father, Robert son of Wiuhomarch (q.v.), which suggests he may be the Swein who held four manors among the royal thanes of Dorset6 and another in Wiltshire7, on four of which he was preceded by an (unnamed) father. 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 on one of these Dorset manors8 is Azur, albeit not named as his father. The association is suggestive but the identifiable manors of Swein and Azur are in the Midlands, all acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques; and although the Honour of Swein of Essex is concentrated in eastern England, Robert son of Wiuhomarch certainly held one manor in the south-west, at Widhill in Wiltshire9.
Swein (Suin) may also have held the substantial manor of Yelling in Huntingdonshire10 from the abbey of Ramsey, six miles from his solitary holding as tenant-in-chief at Waresley. By 1166 Yelling was held by a family of that name, apparently unrelated to Swein's heirs: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. 379-83. Finally, the Swein who held Tooting in Surrey before the Conquest11 is probably Swein of Essex. He is described in a royal writ confirming his grant of Tooting to Westminster abbey as a 'kinsman' of King Edward, a description which will fit him but no other Swein; he does not appear to have held land elsewhere in 1066: Harmer, Writs, pp. 311-13, 357, 512, 573. His manors - including those in the south-west - are recorded in Coel (no. 636) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 424, apart from Yelling, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 32596).
.............................................................................................................................................
SWEIN [* SON OF ALRIC *]. Swein and his father Alric are named in grants made to Pontefract priory, their descendants holding eight fees of the Lacy Honour of Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 316-19. It is likely that the Sweins who held Kexbrough, Dalton and East Ardsley in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy are Alric's son12 as he was preceded on the last two by Alric while his descendants had an interest in Kexbrough: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 330. Ilbert had one other tenant named Swein, at Dodworth13, who may be the same man, Sweins being rare in 1086 (below) and Dodworth lying in the same area as the bulk of the manors of Swein and his father, adjacent to Silkstone, which Swein inherited from him. Like several of the manors of Alric and Swein, Dodworth was resumed into the Lacy demesne and granted together with Swein's church of Silkstone to the monks of Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 168-70. It has nevertheless been suggested that this Swein is a different man, since he held Dodworth in 1066 and Alric's son lived
1 ESS 1,2-3;27-28. 10,5. 90,35
2 ESS 1,13;25
3 ESS 9,14. 30,21. B3m. B3n
4 ESS 18,14;18;23
5 ESS 24,43;55
6 DOR 56,28-29;53;58
7 WIL 67,94
8 DOR 56,58
9 WIL 68,16
10 HUN 6,15
11 SUR 6,4
12 YKS 9W74;117;120
13 YKS 9W69
until the end of the 1120s: Thomas, 'A Yorkshire thegn', p. 3. If he held Dodworth in 1066, Swein was in his seventies or older when he died which, although uncommon, appears to be also the case with the Domesday landowners Forne, Frawin and Harding. Apart from Ilbert's tenants, only one Swein held land in Yorkshire in 1086, and he too retained his manor - at West Melton - for twenty years1. As the two manors are eight miles apart and only two other Sweins in Domesday Book retained their manors for two decades, it is likely that the Alric at Melton is also Alric's son. Swein's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8459) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 424, apart from Melton, whose tenant is unidentified (38296).
.............................................................................................................................................
SWEIN [* SON OF AZUR *]. Swein, who held the single manor of Stoke Bruerne as a tenant-in-chief in Northamptonshire2, is identified in the Borough entries as Swein son of Azur, with twenty-one houses in that vill3. As Gunfrid of Chocques acquired more than half his Honour from a Swein or an Azur, it is probable that the father and son are his official predecessors. From Swein, he obtained Wingrave in Buckinghamshire4 and eight manors in Northamptonshire5. Father and son may be the two thanes from whom Gunfrid acquired Flore, and among the four thanes at Wollaston in the same county6; they may even be the two Freemen who preceded Gunfrid on his Bedfordshire fief, a single manor likely to have been acquired by antecession7. Dr Williams suggests he may be the Swein who held four manors in Dorset, on one of which he was preceded by an Azur and on the other three by an unnamed father8: 'Domesday survey of Dorset', p. 52. The relationships are suggestive but the identifiable manors of Swein and Azur are in the Midlands, all (apart from Stoke) acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques. There are stronger reasons to identify the Dorset father and son as Swein of Essex (q.v.) and Robert son of Wiuhomarch. Swein's urban holding and his manor at Stoke is recorded in Coel (no. 3326) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 423.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWEIN [* SON OF SVAVI *]. Swein son of Svavi, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire before the Conquest, is evidently an important landowner. His messuage in Lincoln was acquired by Roger of Bully, so the Sweins whose manors at West Drayton in Nottinghamshire9 and Greetwell in Lincolnshire10 devolved upon Roger are probably Svavi's son. Roger had predecessors named Swein at Beighton in Derbyshire11 and in several vills in Yorkshire12 who may be the same man. The Yorkshire manors, respectable by the standards of the county, are all in Strafforth wapentake and form a fairly tight cluster, apart from Attercliffe and Sheffield13, six and seven miles respectively from the Derbyshire manor of Beighton14. West Drayton is approximately midway between these manors and Greetwell in Lincolnshire. Though not named in the entry, Swein may also have held land in Edenthorpe15, which the Yorkshire
1 YKS 29W5
2 NTH 50,1
3 NTH B29
4 BUK 50,1
5 NTH 48,3;5-10;17
6 NTH 48,4;14
7 BDF 37,1
8 DOR 56,28-29;48;53;58
9 NTT 9,31
10 LIN 17,1
11 DBY 16,3
12 YKS 10W20;22-23;25;29;32-33;39-40
13 YKS 10,42
14 DBY 16,3
15 YKS 12W27
Claims state was acquired from him by Fulco of Lisors1, who was subinfeudated by Roger with other of his manors2.
Sweins are more numerous in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire than in any other counties so it likely that several - perhaps many - of them are Svavi's son. He is almost certainly the Swein at Hardwick3, acquired by his predecessor Roger of Bully and the bishop of Lincoln. The bishop was preceded on his valuable manor of Welton and its dependency by a Swein, who is likely to be the same man, the only Swein on the bishop's Honour4. According to the Lincolnshire Claims5, Hardwick was acquired by the archbishop of Yorkshire from Ulf son of Topi, which cannot be reconciled with the main text or with Ulf's will, which records the transaction: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 209. However, the link between Hardwick and the archbishop suggests that the archbishop's predecessor at Billinghay and its dependency6 may be Swein son of Svavi. Finally, Count Alan of Brittany's predecessor at Mumby7 - the only Swein on his Honour - must be Svavi's son since he shared the manor with one of the two Svavis in Domesday Book, who is surely his father here. What makes these links more plausible is that fact that that none of the tenants-in-chief involved had other tenants or predecessors named Swein on their Honours, and the manors constitute four of the most valuable five held by the Sweins in the county. It is possible that Svavi's son is the same man as Swein the noble though there are no specific links to confirm this. If the other identifications are valid, Swein's holdings - worth almost £50 - qualify him as a magnate of regional significance; if included in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank seventy-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWEIN [* THE NOBLE *]. In Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, 45% of the Honour of Walter of Aincourt was contributed by a Swein, named Swein the noble on four of the five manors in Derbyshire and one of the six in Nottinghamshire. It is likely that he is the Swein on the fifth manor in Derbyshire8, in the same wapentake as the remainder; and on the other six in Nottinghamshire, all respectable if not substantial manors9. Walter had no tenants of this name elsewhere. Overall, Swein contributed about a quarter of Walter's Honour, his third most significant predecessor. He just falls short of the manorial income for inclusion in Dr Clarke's list of nobles of regional significance; but the name is common in the area so he may have held other manors. The Sweins who preceded Gilbert Tison had several of comparable status; and it is not unlikely that Swein the noble and Swein son of Svavi are the same man, though there are no links specific to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING. Sweting is a rare name which occurs once in each of five counties, on the lands of five tenants-in-chief, three Swetings being tenants in 1086. The name is easily confused with Swarting.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING [* GRANDFATHER OF MATTHEW *]. Sweting, tenant of Abingdon abbey on a modest manor at Garsington in Oxfordshire10, is identified in the chronicle of the abbey as the
1 YKS CW14
2 YKS 10W33;39-40
3 LIN T4
4 LIN 7,8-9
5 LIN CK10
6 LIN 2,40-41
7 LIN 12,96
8 DBY 8,4
9 NTT 11,4-5;12-14;33
10 OXF 9,8
grandfather of Matthew: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 324-25. He has no links with other Swetings. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4338) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 424.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING <OF FALKENHAM>. Sweting, a free man who shared 57 acres worth ten shillings with seven other free men at Falkenham in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot1, has no links with other Swetings. He is one of two pre-Conquest landowners of this name.
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING <OF SOUTHCOTE>. Sweting, who held 36 acres worth six shillings at Southcote in Buckinghamshire from William son of Constantine2, has no links with other Swetings. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 1457).
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING <OF SUTTON>. Sweting, who shared one and a half virgates worth four shillings at Sutton in Bedfordshire with another tenant of Countess Judith3, has no links with other Swetings. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 494).
.............................................................................................................................................
SWETING <OF TILBURY>. Sweting, a free man who held 30 acres worth seven shillings at Tilbury in Essex acquired by William of Warenne4, has no links with other Swetings. He is one of two pre-Conquest landowners of this name.
.............................................................................................................................................
TEPEKIN <OF HENLEY>. The three Tepekins in Domesday Book are very probably one man. His manors of Henley and 'Finesford' were acquired by Roger of Auberville5, Barkestone by Robert son of Corbucion6. His overlord at both Henley and Barkestone was Earl Harold, all three manors lying within a few miles of each other in the far south-east of the county, outside Ipswich.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEOBALD. Theobald is a fairly uncommon name which occurs thirty times, distributed among sixteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and thirteen of his tenants-in-chief, one cluster in Hertfordshire accounting for more than a third of the names.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEOBALD <OF BARLEY>. The Theobalds who held eleven manors in Hertfordshire from Hardwin of Scales are very probably one man7. There are no other Theobalds in the county, and Hardwin had none among his tenants elsewhere; most of Theobald's manors were later held by the fitz Ralph family, descendants of Theobald's grandson Ralph: VCH Hertfordshire, iii. 202, 210, 234; iv. 20-21, 39-40, 84, 111. Theobald was a juror in Thriplow Hundred in Cambridgeshire, described there as Hardwin's man: Inquisition Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 43, 98). No Theobalds held land in Cambridgeshire, but Hardwin's tenant may be the unnamed man-at-
1 SUF 7,98
2 BUK 33,1
3 BDF 53,25
4 ESS 22,2
5 SUF 29,11;14
6 SUF 40,4
7 HRT 37,2-3;5;9-11;15-19
arms who held Shepreth - in 'Wetherley' Hundred, adjacent to Thriplow - from Hardwin1: VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 256. Theobald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1000) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 426, where it is suggested he may be a relative of Hardwin, a Theobald of Scales occurring in the next generation; see also Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 39.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEOBALD [* THE DOCTOR *]. Theobald, who shared Widhill in Wiltshire with another royal servant, Humphrey the cook (q.v.), is almost certainly Theobald the doctor, both being named in the Geld Roll for the county2: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210. He may also be the Theobald who held Shrewton from Edward of Salisbury3, the one other Theobald in the county and the only unidentified tenant of this name in the south-west. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1831) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 426.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODGER. Theodger is a rare name which occurs three times, distributed among as many counties and tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest lords with modest holdings.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODGER <OF CLEVANCY>. Theodger, who shared a modest manor at Clevancy in Wiltshire with three other lords before the Conquest4, is unlikely to be related to his namesakes on comparable holdings in Hampshire and Northamptonshire. His manor was acquired by Alfred of Marlborough.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODGER <OF FARTHINGSTONE>. Theodger, who held roughly a sixth of a modest manor at Farthingstone in Northamptonshire5, is unlikely to be related to his two namesakes south of the Thames.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODGER <OF MAPLEDURHAM>. Theodger, who held 2 1/2 hides in the royal manor of Mapledurham in Hampshire before the Conquest6, has no links with his namesakes in Wiltshire and Northamptonshire. He is the most prosperous of the Theodgers, though modestly so.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODRIC. If the tenants-in-chief Theodric Pointel and Theodric the goldsmith are excluded, Theodric is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, five being pre-Conquest landowners and eight post-Conquest.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODRIC <OF NORMANTON>. Theodric, who shared land worth twenty shillings at Normanton in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers7, is the only Theodric north of the Wash. He has no links with other Theodrics.
1 CAM 26,32
2 WIL 68,16
3 WIL 24,35
4 WIL 26,16
5 NTH 18,57
6 HAM 1,8
7 DBY 6,91
.............................................................................................................................................
[* THEODRIC *] POINTEL. Pointel, who occurs twice each on the fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux1 and Ralph Baynard in Essex2, is probably Theodric Pointel, a minor tenant-in-chief in the county who also occurs several times on royal manors, once in the company of Ralph Baynard the sheriff, apparently serving him, or with him, in an official capacity. Pointel does not appear elsewhere as a forename, and occurs nowhere else as a byname. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1509) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 425, with the addition of the tenant of William of Warenne at Easton in Bedfordshire3, the only Warenne tenant in the county and the only Theodric on the Warenne Honour; the grounds for the identification are unclear.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODULF. Theodulf is a very rare name which occurs two or three times, twice as a tenant in Shropshire, once as a pre-Conquest landowner in Somerset, though the pre-Conquest name (Teolf) is possibly of different origin and a different name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 382-84.
.............................................................................................................................................
THEODULF [* THE MASON *]. Theodulf, who held 'Hawksley' and 'also' Pulley in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury4, may be Theodulf the mason (cementarius), named in charters of the abbey of Sées cited by Dr Keats-Rohan. He is the only post-Conquest landowner of this name and is possibly the only Theodulf in Domesday Book, the pre-Conquest Teolf of Somerset recognised by the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England and von Feilitzen (Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 382-84) as another Theodulf being possibly Tholf the Dane (q.v.). Theodulf's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 9227) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 425.
.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF. The name Tholf occurs roughly sixteen times, distributed among six counties and the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief, all in 1066. There are five occurrences in the northern counties and one in Suffolk; the remainder are in the south-west. The name is confused on occasions by the scribe with Toli while such rare or unique forms as Thurs, Teolf and Tous may represent Tholf though recognised as separate names in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England and von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 384, 386, 388-90, 397.
.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF <OF ASTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Tholfs who held land in the adjacent vills of Totley and Aston in Derbyshire5 are very probably one man. It is possible that he is Tholf of Tillington in Staffordshire, but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF <OF REIGHTON>. Tholf (Tof), whose shared manor at Reighton in Yorkshire6 was apparently untenanted in 1086, has no links with other Tholfs, all distant.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 ESS 18,7;19
2 ESS 33,4-5
3 BDF 17,7
4 SHR 4,27,5-6
5 DBY 17,4-5
6 YKS 1E16
THOLF <OF RENDHAM>.Tholf, a free man who shared thirty-five acres with four other free men at Rendham in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot1, has no links with other Tholfs, all distant.
.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF <OF TILLINGTON>. As the name is rare in the region, the Tholfs who held land at Tillington and Hanford in Staffordshire - a dozen miles apart - may be one man, though the manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief2.
.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF [* THE DANE *]. The Tholfs who preceded William of Eu at Deane in Hampshire3 and on six manors in Dorset4 are probably Tholf the Dane, his predecessor on the valuable manor of 'Somborne' in Hampshire. William also had predecessors named Toli (Tholi, Toli) in Devon5, Dorset6 and Wiltshire7, Thurs (Torsus) at Powderham in Devon8, Teolf at Tickenham in Somerset9 and Tous Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire. At Upton he is Toli in one entry10 and Tous in another, both referring to the same matter11. Although all these forms are regarded as separate names, this plethora of rare or unique forms on the Honour of one tenant-in-chief suggest scribal errors, as is clearly the case with the Toli recorded as Tous. Both the Tholf and Toli name-forms contributed substantial manors to their successor, as did Teolf of Tickenham. In Dorset, Toli's manor of Lytchett Matravers is six miles from Tholf's manor at Wareham, while the manors of Thurs and Toli constituted the fief of William in Devon. Tholf, Toli, Teolf, Tous and Thurs are therefore treated here as one man. Dr Clarke suggests that the Toli whose valuable manor of Shepton Montague was acquired by the Count of Mortain12 is the same man. As this is the only other substantial manor held by a Toli in the south-western counties and the Count had no other Toli (or variants) on his Honour, this is not unlikely. A list of Tholf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 350, which does not include Powderham, Tickenham or the manor in Upton Scudamore held by Tous. Dr Clarke ranks Tholf forty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him three places.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBERT. Thorbert is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-two times, distributed among thirteen counties and the lands of the king and as many of his tenants-in-chief, confined to England south of Northampton. The name is treated by the scribe as interchangeable with Thorbiorn at times, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Osbern/Osbert.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBERT <OF CHELLINGTON>. All Thorberts in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire are probably one man. The tenants of the bishop of Coutances and Robert of Tosny at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire13 almost certainly are, as also the tenant of Countess
1 SUF 7,148
2 STS 11,1. 13,4
3 HAM 32,2
4 DOR 34,2;6;8;12;14-15
5 DEV 22,2
6 DOR 34,5
7 WIL 32,16-17
8 DEV 22,1
9 SOM 26,8
10 WIL 32,17
11 WIL 25,23
12 SOM 19,57
13 BUK 5,19. 18,3
Judith at Sutton in Bedfordshire1, both she and the bishop acquiring manors from a Thorbert, Countess Judith at Lavendon2 - adjacent to Clifton - and the bishop at Chellington in Bedfordshire3, five miles from Lavendon, the most valuable of his manors. There are no other tenants of this name in the two counties, and only one other pre-Conquest landowner, who is possibly the same man (below). The bishop and the Countess also had a tenant named Thorbiorn at Horton in Northamptonshire4. As Horton is eight miles across the county border from Lavendon, and the only other survivors of this name are in Yorkshire and Essex, the coincidence of bishop, Countess and vill make it likely that Thorbiorn is a scribal error for Thorbert, the only tenant of that name in the county.
Less certainly, the one remaining Thorbert in the three counties, who held Turville in Buckinghamshire before the Conquest5, may be Thorbert of Chellington, Turville being the most valuable of all these manors, appropriate for a landowner with significant interests in three counties. If so, then all Thorberts - and two Thorbiorns - in the three counties are one man. One other Thorbert held land both before and after the Conquest, Thorbert son of Chembel, conceivably the same man, but there are no links to confirm this. Thorbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1820) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 429, apart from his subtenancy from Robert of Tosny.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBERT [* SON OF CHEMBEL *]. Thorbert, who held Marten among the royal servants of Wiltshire6, may be the man who held Swindon before the Conquest7, one of only two other Thorberts in the south-western counties. The Thorbert identified in these notes as Thorbert of Chellington also held land before and after the Conquest so it is not impossible he is the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. Dr Keats-Rohan tentatively suggests that the Thorbert at Marten may be Thorbert son of Chembel, who occurs in the Pipe Roll of 1130. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6658) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 429.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBIORN. Thorbiorn is an uncommon name which occurs in thirteen counties, twelve of them north of the Thames between Gloucestershire and Yorkshire, on the lands of more than twenty tenants-in-chief. There are small clusters in Essex, Northamptonshire and Yorkshire, and on the Honours of Count Alan of Brittany and the Count of Mortain. The name is treated by the scribe as interchangeable with Thorbiorn at times, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn and Osbern/Osbert.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBIORN [* OF ORWELL *]. Thorbiorn, whose manor of Orwell in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany8, is very probably Thorbert (Turbertus) of Orwell, an English juror of 'Wetherley' Hundred where Orwell lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 68). He is probably also the Thorbiorn who preceded Count Alan at Reed in Hertfordshire9; at Reed he was the man of Edeva the fair and at Orwell he held under her. Count Alan also had two Thorbiorns and a Thorbert among his predecessors in Norfolk, one of whom held under Earl Harold, Edeva's husband; another Thorbiorn, at Castle Acre, also held land under
1 BDF 53,26
2 BUK 53,5
3 BDF 3,10
4 NTH 4,28. 56,34
5 BUK 39,1
6 WIL 68,13
7 WIL 68,25
8 CAM 14,41
9 HRT 16,6
Harold1. These would be tenuous links but for the fact that they are the only Thorbiorns and one of only two Thorberts in the county.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBIORN <OF SIBTHORPE>. Thorbiorn, whose manor of Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire was acquired by William Peverel2, has no links with his namesakes, all remote; and Peverel has no other Thorbiorns - or Thorberts - on his Honour; neither name occurs elsewhere in the county.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBIORN <OF TOLLESHUNT>. All Thorbiorns and Thorberts in Essex may be one man. All but one of the Thorbiorns3 are predecessors of Haimo the sheriff, as are both Thorberts4. Haimo's predecessor is a man of substance. He had a house, a court, a hide of land and fifteen burgesses in Colchester, where he is designated as Haimo's predecessor, and also five substantial manors. It is likely, therefore, that he is the predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne at Tolleshunt5, the most valuable of the manors in 1066. Tolleshunt is between three and six miles from Totham and Osea Island, held by Haimo's predecessor. There are no other Thorbiorns or Thorberts on either Honour. It is possible, though unverifiable, that he is the Thorbiorn responsible for the annexation of twenty-two acres in Colne6, the one survivor of either name in the county, or indeed in Little Domesday. If so, this was a particularly steep decline in the fortunes of one of the more substantial landowners in the county before the Conquest.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORBRAND [* SON OF KARLI *]. All Thorbrands in Domesday Book are probably one man, Thorbrand son of Karli, lord of Settrington in Yorkshire, a county in which all his manors lay. Sixteen of his twenty manors - totalling over sixty carucates - were acquired by Berengar of Tosny7, whose entire fief in Yorkshire was obtained from either Thorbrand or Gamal (q.v.), the latter almost certainly Thorbrand's brother. A further two manors were held by the king in 10868, and one each by William of Percy9 and Hugh son of Baldric10, both of whom obtained many other manors from Karli's family. These last four manors lay in the same wapentakes as those of Berengar of Tosny, at no great distance from at least one of them. Thorbrand is almost certainly one of the four sons of Karli who were among the leaders of the first attack on York castle in 1069 according to Orderic Vitalis (ii. 222-23). Orderic does not name the sons; but according to the tract De obsessione Dunelmi which describes their long running feud with the House of Bamburgh, one of the last acts in this drama was the massacre of members of the family of Karli in the winter of 1073/74, 'when they were feasting together at their elder brother's house at Settrington', in the East Riding11: Morris, 'Marriage and murder', pp. 3-4; Early charters of northern England, p. 149. Thorbrand, who held the only manor in Settrington, is evidently the elder brother, one of those killed on that day. De obsessione Dunelmi names two of his brothers who survived the massacre, Cnut (q.v.) and Sumarlithi (q.v.), both of whom probably held land in the region, as did their father.
1 NFK 4,18;32-33. 22,16
2 NTT 10,2
3 ESS 28,2;5;12. B3b
4 ESS 28,17-18
5 ESS 20,57
6 ESS 90,80
7 YKS 8N1;8-10;23-28. 8W1-2. 8E1;3-4;6
8 YKS 1N48. 1W30
9 YKS 13N12
10 YKS 23N4
11 YKS 8E3
As noted above, Gamal was probably the fourth brother, a fifth (unrecorded by Orderic) may have been another Karli.
Although the eldest, Thorbrand does not appear to be the best-endowed of his family, though his assessed land of almost 100 hides - probably a better guide than manorial values to status in Yorkshire - would place him among the more substantial landowners in the county. As a family, Karli's sons enjoyed a manorial income in excess of £100 and assessed land of more than 600 hides if the bulk of the identifications suggested in these notes are correct, which would rank them among the three dozen wealthiest untitled laymen in the country if included in Clarke, English nobility; in assessed land, they were exceeded among laymen only by the royal family and some earls. 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, this is perhaps unsurprising.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORFIN <OF RAVENSWORTH>. It is probable that most - perhaps all - Thorfins in Domesday Book are one man. The name is confined to Yorkshire, for the most part to the North and West Ridings and the adjacent areas of Westmoreland and North Lancashire. The bulk of these manors were acquired by Count Alan of Brittany1, and these were almost certainly held by one man since most of them were used to endow Bodin brother of Bardulf (q.v.), a relative of the Count, all but two of whose manors came from Thorfin, evidently designated by the Count as Bodin's predecessor, a point emphasised in the text which several times records that only Thorfin's parts of shared manors went to Bodin2. Thorfin's manors in Craven went to Roger of Poitou, and the wasted manors of Amounderness were retained by the king3. As Dr Lewis indicates, their distribution points to a strategic role assigned to one important landowner to control the exits from the Yorkshire Dales, 'a vital sector of the Pennines, where the Roman road from the Eden valley over Stainmore enters Teesdale near Barnard Castle', the principal invasion route in and out of Yorkshire: Lewis , 'Introduction to the Lancashire Domesday', p. 33. Thorfin 'was the guardian of the Vale of York', and as such probably the Thorfin with land in and around York itself4, which makes it not unlikely that he also held the manors acquired by Count Robert of Mortain5, three of which lay between York and those acquired by Count Alan, one of them - Breckenbrough - seven miles from the nearest of Alan's manors. It is improbable that Count Robert had a second Thorfin among his predecessors, who held the other four manors. The one remaining manor, Staxton in the East Riding6, waste and retained by the king, is a few miles from several of those of the Count's predecessor.
Dr Lewis suggests that Thorfin might be Thorfin son of Thor, granted extensive rights in the area south-west of Carlisle by Gospatric at some date between 1041 and 1055: Lewis , 'Introduction to the Lancashire Domesday', pp. 33-34; Harmer, Writs, pp. 419-24, 531-36. If not, then he was perhaps a descendant bearing a 'family' name. A Thor shared two of the manors acquired by Count Alan from Thorfin7, though that name is common in Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 YKS 6N7;11;18;38-44;47;49-51;58;67;73;75-76;78;80;91;135-137;141
2 YKS 6N18;47;67;135
3 YKS 1L4. 30W7-8;35
4 YKS C3;29. SN,Y8
5 YKS 5N33-34;67-68;71. 5E70;72
6 YKS 1E18
7 YKS 6N11;18
THORFRIDH. Thorfridh is a common name but, with one exception1, entirely confined to the counties of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, where it occurs on the lands of the king and nineteen of his tenants-in-chief. All Thorfridhs are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORFRIDH <OF BOLE>. In view of the distribution of the name, it is probable that the Thorfridhs who preceded Roger of Bully at Barnby and Bole in Nottinghamshire2 are one man. The two vills are about ten miles apart. Roger had no other Thorfridhs among his predecessors.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER. Thorger is a rare name which occurs nine times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief. One Thorger survived as a tenant in 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF CAXTON>. As the name is rare, the Thorgers who held Weston and Caxton in Cambridgeshire, both acquired by Hardwin of Scales3, are probably one man. He was a royal thane, and the most prosperous of the Thorgers, so might be expected to have manors elsewhere; but he has no links with his nearest namesakes in Suffolk and Northamptonshire, or any others.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF HOPTON>. Thorger, who held a modest manor at Hopton in Suffolk before 10664, is the only Thorger in Little Domesday. His nearest namesake is the royal thane Thorger at Caxton in Cambridgeshire, some thirty miles away, conceivably the same man; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF HORSLEY>. As the name is rare, the Thorgers who held Horsley and Herdebi in Derbyshire5, both acquired by Ralph of Buron, are probably one man. If the site at Herdebi is in Coxbench, as suggested in the Place-Names of Derbyshire (iii. 570), then Horsley and Herdebi are adjacent. No other Thorger held land in Derbyshire or the adjacent counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF NEWTON>. Thorger, who held a small manor worth six shillings at Newton in Northamptonshire as predecessor and tenant of Countess Judith6, is the only survivor of his name; he has no links with other Thorgers. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27478).
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF PEDMORE>. As the name is rare, the Thorger whose manor at Pedmore in Worcestershire was acquired by William son of Ansculf7 may be the Thorger at Pixley in Herefordshire. Pedmore is a reasonably substantial manor, to which houses in Worcester were attached, Worcester lying between the two vills; but there are no specific links to support an identification.
1 NFK 34,4
2 NTT 9,54;118
3 CAM 26,6;42
4 SUF 1,51
5 DBY 11,2;5
6 NTH 56,30
7 WOR 23,12
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF PIXLEY>. As the name is rare, the Thorger whose small manor at Pixley in Herefordshire was acquired by Ansfrid of Cormeilles1 may be the Thorger at Pedmore; but there are no specific links to support an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF STEEL>. Thorger, who shared a thirteen-shilling manor at Steel in Shropshire with three other English lords acquired by Roger of Courseulles2, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORGOT [* LAG *]. Thorgot Lag was an important Lincolnshire landowner who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. He was one of the 'hostages for all Lindsey' held in Lincoln castle by the Conqueror during the northern revolt of 1068, later becoming a monk of Durham: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 27, 151-52. He is named as the predecessor of Robert of Tosny on several valuable manors in Lincolnshire, all of which Robert subinfeudated to his son Berengar. He is almost certainly, therefore, the Thorgot who preceded Robert at Buslingthorpe and Corringham in Lincolnshire3 and North Dalton and Naburn in Yorkshire4, also held by Berengar from his father. All Berengar's tenancies from his father came from Thorgot. As tenant-in-chief, Berengar himself acquired Broughton and Horley in Oxfordshire5 and Broadholme in Nottinghamshire6 from a Thorgot, the only man of this name in Nottinghamshire and one of two in Oxfordshire. Broadholme was shared with William Percy, so the Thorgot who preceded Percy on the manor of Wickenby in Lincolnshire7 may be Thorgot Lag. The manor and its dependencies lay in the same general area as those of Berengar, his manor of Buslingthorpe being four miles from Wickenby.
The three remaining Thorgots in Lincolnshire are also within a few miles of a Lag manor. One of them - Holton le Clay8 - was held by a Wimund in 1086, as was the one other Thorgot manor in Oxfordshire9, Wimund being a comparatively uncommon name. This is suggestive; but in the absence of tenurial or other associations, these Thorgots are treated as separate individuals, as are the three in Yorkshire. A list of Thorgot's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 344, which includes those assigned above to Lag, apart from Broadholme and Wickenby. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Wickenby would raise him four places; Broadholme had no value.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORI [* SON OF ROALD *]. The Thoris from whom Walter of Aincourt acquired manors in Northamptonshire10, Nottinghamshire11, Yorkshire12 and Lincolnshire13 are probably Thori son of Roald, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire. If, as seems likely, the Stori at
1 HEF 21,2
2 SHR 4,7,5
3 LIN 18,3-6
4 YKS 7E1-2
5 OXF 34,1-2
6 NTT 21,3
7 LIN 22,10-14
8 LIN 12,18
9 OXF 40,1
10 NTH 38,1
11 NTT 11,2-9;11;18-25
12 YKS 19W1-2
13 LIN 31,1;3-8. CK55
Rawcliffe1 is a scribal error for Thori, Thori provided Walter's whole fief in Yorkshire: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', pp. 36-37. In Nottinghamshire Walter's predecessor is the only Thori in the county. He may also be the Thori at Hougham and Ropsley in Lincolnshire2, both substantial manors. Ropsley is a mile from Thori's manor of Humby, and Hougham roughly midway between those of Cotham in Nottinghamshire and Belton in Lincolnshire, about seven miles from either. The one other Thori in Lincolnshire, at Bonthorpe and its dependency3, may be another man, Bonthorpe being one of the more modest manors, and almost fifty miles from the nearest of those of Walter of Aincourt's predecessor. Aincourt's predecessor is probably the one Thori in Derbyshire, though his manor of Sutton-on-the-Hill was acquired by Henry of Ferrers4. This is suggested by what appears to be a scribal error of Stori for Thori in an entry relating to a Stori who ' could make himself a church on his land and in his jurisdiction, without anyone's permission, and dispose of his tithe where he would'5. This Stori is described as a man of Walter of Aincourt, who had no Storis among his predecessors, so a scribal error similar to that in Yorkshire may reasonably be suspected here. Thori had a church at Sutton to which this entry may well refer, the two entries reinforcing the suggestion of a scribal error and the identification of Walter's predecessor at Sutton. Another link points to the same conclusion while explaining the association with Henry of Ferrers. Henry had a tenant named Roald (q.v.) who may well be Thori's father. His father is likely to be the Roald who held a manor in Belton, as did Thori himself6. The father appears to have survived the Conquest, but probably not his son, since the only Thori holding land in 1086 was at Hendred in Berkshire7, without apparent links to the Lincolnshire magnate.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* OF DIGSWELL *]. Thorkil, who held land at Digswell in Broadwater Hundred in Hertfordshire from Geoffrey de Mandeville8, is almost certainly Thorkil of Digswell, the juror in that Hundred, where Digswell lay: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). Thorkil had held Digswell for two decades so he may be the Thorkil who preceded Geoffrey at Bengeo9, six miles away, and the Thorkil at Libury10, eight miles from Bengeo, the only other Thorkils in the county. At Digswell and Bengeo, he is described as a man of Esger the constable. He may also be the Thorkil who held Wymington in Bedfordshire at both dates11, one of few Thorkils to retain the same manor for twenty years; the manors are forty miles apart. His manor of Digswell is recorded in Coel (no. 2815) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 428, the tenant at Wymington is unidentified (no. 490).
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL <OF HICKLING>. It is likely that most if not all Thorkils in Nottinghamshire are one man. Three tenants-in-chief acquired his manors: Ilbert of Lacy at East Stoke and Hickling in Newark and Bingham wapentakes12; Roger of Bully, with six holdings in 'Bassetlaw and 'Lythe'
1 YKS 19W3
2 LIN 7,54-55. 18,24
3 LIN 3,51-52
4 DBY 6,39
5 DBY B16
6 LIN 31,1
7 BRK 3,2
8 HRT 33,5
9 HRT 33,15
10 HRT 30,2
11 BDF 57,21
12 NTT 20,3-4;8
wapentakes1; and Ralph of Buron, at Cotgrave2. Roger and Ilbert may have obtained Thorkil's lands because they received blocks grants of unallocated land in those wapentakes, rendering tenurial considerations dubious or irrelevant: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 158, 162-64. Cotgrave lay in Bingham, a 'Lacy' wapentake, Ralph not being sufficiently important to have his own, so this Thorkil might be another man, though the vill is only five miles from Hickling. None of the three tenants-in-chief had predecessors or tenants of this name elsewhere; and although Thorkil is a common name, Thorkils are only numerous in one of the five adjacent counties, Yorkshire. Three others yield one name between them, and the majority of those in Lincolnshire can be attributed to Thorkil the Dane.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* OF WARWICK *]. All Thorkils in Warwickshire, Oxfordshire and Staffordshire may be Thorkil of Warwick, also known as Thorkil of Arden, a tenant-in-chief in Warwickshire, one of a handful of Englishmen who prospered under Norman rule. He is probably the Thorkil who held a half-hide at Barston in Warwickshire acquired by Robert d'Oilly3, since he held in chief in the vill - a 'family' vill - with Robert d'Oilly as his tenant: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', p. 293. Thorkil of Warwick survived elsewhere for two decades, almost certainly retaining Ashow and Brandon on his fief during that period, though the texts are ambiguous on this point. The descent of Drayton in Oxfordshire4 identifies him as the tenant-in-chief of this single-manor fief, which in turn means he is the Thorkil of a duplicate entry5, where he is mistakenly named Turstin by the scribe: VCH Oxfordshire, i. 422 note 4. The Abingdon chronicle names him as the abbey's tenant at Hill in 10666: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 10-13, 26-27. He may also be the Thorkil who held Syerscote in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford7, he and other members of his family witnessing charters of Robert of Stafford and his heir: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178-82, 195-98. Less certainly, he may be the Thorkil Battock at Kineton Green and the Thorkil at Ermendone and Exhall in Warwickshire, whose manors devolved upon William son of Corbucion8. There appears to be a connection of some kind between William and Thorkil's family, two of whom - Almer of Barston (q.v.) and Ordric of Ettington (q.v.) - may have been William's tenants in 1086, all three of their manors lying close to others held by Thorkil of Warwick. His byname suggests he is the Thorkil with four messuages in the borough9. It is not unlikely that he is the Thorkil at Chalgrove in Oxfordshire10, which devolved upon Miles Crispin, son-in-law of Robert d'Oilly, who held several manors from Thorkil himself. The one other Thorkil in the three counties, a tenant of William son of Ansculf at Rushall in Staffordshire11, has no apparent links; but as the one other surviving Thorkil in these counties he, too, is possibly Thorkil of Warwick. William had no other tenants of this name, and his one predecessor, at Kingston in Berkshire, was killed at Hastings: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, pp.222-25. Thorkil has been described as one of only two Englishmen with 'estates of baronial dimensions' in 1086. Much of his fief, however, was subinfeudated, and more than twenty English survivors had greater disposable income than he: Palmer, 'Wealth of the secular aristocracy', p. 280. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2559) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 429, apart from Exhall and the Staffordshire manors, whose tenants are
1 NTT 9,15;57-61
2 NTT 15,9-10
3 WAR 44,15
4 OXF 57,1
5 STS 12,31
6 WAR 7,1
7 STS 11,48
8 WAR 28,1-2;12
9 WAR B2
10 OXF 35,6
11 STS 12,26
unidentified (nos. 28507, 31519, 31572); Dr Williams suggests he held only Drayton outside Warwickshire: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 104.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. The Thorkils whose lands in Buckinghamshire1, Huntingdonshire2, Northamptonshire3 and Leicestershire4 devolved upon Countess Judith are very probably Thorkil of Harringworth, who granted land in Sawtry to the abbey of Ramsey and leased land in Conington from the abbey of Thorney, Harringworth, Sawtry and Conington being among the manors acquired by the Countess: Early charters of eastern England, pp. 38-39, 236-38. The tenurial link suggests that Thorkil of Harringworth is Thorkil the Dane, whose substantial manor at Leighton Bromswold5 was granted to the bishop of Lincoln by Earl Waltheof, husband of Countess Judith. He was probably one of the principal leaders of the Fenland revolt associated with Hereward the Wake: Liber Eliensis, ed. Blake, p. 179. The Red Book of Thorney records that his confiscated lands were granted to Earl Waltheof, which explains how Countess Judith came to be in possession of many of them: Early charters of eastern England, pp. 236-38.
Dr Hart suggests he is probably the neighbour of Hereward in Lincolnshire, holding land in the same wapentakes and even in the vills most closely associated with Hereward, Rippingale and Bourne6: Danelaw, pp. 636-40. He also suggests that he can be identified with Toki, who held estates in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk which descended to Frederic, the brother-in-law of William of Warenne who was slain by Hereward, the main evidence for this being that Domesday Book names him Tochil at Kennett7 and the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and the Inquisitio Eliensis variously as Tochillus, Thorkillus, Torchillus and Thurchillus at Trumpington (ed. Hamilton, pp. 50, 107). However, Tochil is a recognised form for Toki, and the Domesday scribe corrected the satellite forms at Trumpington to Tochi. Although liable to scribal confusion, Toki and Thorkil are distinct and common names, not equivalents: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 81-82, 385-86, 394-95. Frederic's successor is more likely to be Toki of Walton (q.v.).
If Thorkil is the predecessor of Countess Judith at Hollingdon in Buckinghamshire8, then he survived on this modest fragment of his previous estate. The tenant of Hollingdon is unidentified in Coel (no. 1527). A list of Thorkil's pre-Conquest manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 346-47, which does not include Leighton Bromswold or the Lincolnshire holdings, or connect Thorkil with either of his bynames. Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would place him among the top forty.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* THE PRIEST *]. Thorkil, who held a church in Huntingdon with Burgred9, is identified as Thorkil the priest by a more detailed account in the entry for Botuluesbrige10.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* WHITE *]. All Thorkils in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire may be Thorkil White. Earl William son of Osbern gave the manor of Old Radnor in Herefordshire to Hugh the ass 'when
1 BUK 53,1
2 HUN 20,1-2. D26
3 NTH 56,7-8;28;49
4 LEC 40,26
5 HUN 2,8
6 LIN 2,32-33. 12,90. 26,40-42. 27,40;51-53
7 CAM 18,8
8 BUK 53,1
9 HUN B12
10 HUN 19,9
he gave him the land of his predecessor, Thorkil'1. This Thorkil is almost certainly Thorkil White, who is accorded his byname on three of Hugh's manors2. Thorkil and his wife Leoffled (q.v.) are named in two late Anglo-Saxon lawsuits, one of which refers to one of these manors, at Wellington3: Robertson, Charters, pp. 150-53, 186-87, 399-402, 435. The bulk of the remainder Hugh's fief in Herefordshire came to him from Leoffled and Thorkil, who are probably therefore the husband and wife4.
Thorkil White may also be the Thorkil whose Herefordshire estates were acquired by Roger of Lacy5. Roger's manor of Lyde is three miles from Wellington and four from another White manor at Credenhill. In Gloucestershire, moreover, the only Thorkils in the county are predecessors of Hugh the ass6 and Roger of Lacy7, an unlikely coincidence if the predecessors of Hugh and Roger are different men. Thorkil may also have been the predecessor of William son of Baderon8, whose manors lay within a few miles of those of Roger of Lacy in Radlow Hundred. Both Roger and William acquired manors of comparable status to those of Hugh the ass; and between them the three tenants-in-chief succeeded to the manors of all Thorkils in Herefordshire and Gloucestershire.
The earliest of the lawsuits in which Thorkil was involved dates from the reign of Cnut (1016-1035), so Thorkil was probably dead before 1086. A list of his and his wife's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 345-46, which does not include Oxenhall in Gloucestershire9. Dr Clarke ranks Thorkil and his wife fifty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Oxenhall would raise them one place.
............................................................................................................................................. THORN. Thorn is a rare name which occurs three times in Yorkshire, five in Norfolk and nowhere else, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners. .............................................................................................................................................
THORN <OF HEMPNALL>. As the name is rare and its distribution skewed, it is very likely that the Thorns whose valuable group of manors in the south-east of Norfolk were acquired by Ralph Baynard are one man10. It is possible, but less likely, that he is the one other Thorn in Norfolk, with a ploughland at Hunstanton on the western edge of the county11: Mortimer, 'Baynards of Baynard's Castle', p. 248.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORN <OF HUNSTANTON>. As the name is rare, it is possible - but perhaps unlikely - that the Thorn with a ploughland on the western edge of Norfolk acquired by Roger Bigot12 is Thorn of Hempnall, whose valuable manors in the south-east of the county devolved upon Ralph Baynard.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORN <OF LINTON>. As the name is rare and its distribution skewed, it is likely that the two Yorkshire Thorns, at Linton on Ouse1 and at Catton2 sixteen miles to the north, are the same man,
1 HEF 1,65
2 HEF 29,2;11;20
3 HEF 29,11
4 HEF 29,12;16
5 HEF 10,25;32-34;37-38;44
6 GLS 63,1
7 GLS 39,2
8 HEF 15,6-7;9
9 GLS 39,2
10 NFK 31,6-8;10
11 NFK 9,9
12 NFK 9,9
despite Linton devolving upon the Count of Mortain and Catton on William of Percy. At Newton Kyme3, a similar distance to the south of Linton, the Yorkshire Claims reveal that Thorn had shared a manor with Ligulf4, possibly the Ligulf who was the Count's predecessor on many of his manors, and the successor to Thorn at Linton.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN. Thorsten is a fairly common name which occurs in ten counties on the lands of the king and sixteen tenants-in-chief, mainly in eastern England, with clusters in East Anglia, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. By convention, the translation renders pre-Conquest Thurstans and Turstins as Thorsten; post-Conquest, Turstin. The form Tursten which occurs only on two Yorkshire manors in 10865 probably represents surviving Thorstens.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN <OF CRANFORD>. The Thorstens who preceded William son of Ansculf on respectable manors at Wombourne and Ettingshall in Staffordshire6 are probably his predecessor on another valuable manor, at Cranford in Middlesex7, where he is described as a royal thane. Cranford is William's one manor in Middlesex, and his predecessor the only Thorsten in either county. He had no other Thorstens (or Turstins) on his Honour.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN <OF HARCOURT>. As the name is rare in the west of England, the two Thorstens in Shropshire - at Harcourt8 and Broome9 - may be one man. He is possibly the royal thane, Thorsten of Cranford, the only Thorsten in the four adjacent counties, his nearest manor being some thirty miles away; but the Shropshire manors are tiny, those in Staffordshire fairly substantial for that county, and there are no links to confirm an identification. Neither William Pandolf or Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who acquired these manors, had other Thorstens on their Honours. It seems unlikely that the earl's predecessor is the same man as his tenant Turstin on a half-hide in Sussex10.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN [* OF THETFORD *]. Thorsten, who held two tenancies in Great Snarehill in Norfolk from Roger Bigot11 and preceded him on another holding in that vill12, is undoubtedly Thorsten of Thetford, so-named in the first of the tenancies. He is presumably therefore the Thorsten who held a mill from Roger in Thetford itself, where he is described as a burgess13. Roger had no other Thorstens among his predecessors, and the one other in the county, at Wallington, twenty-five miles north-west of Snarehill, has no links with the burgess or with Roger. Thorsten's mill is recorded in Coel (no. 1629) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 432; the tenant of Great Snarehill is unidentified (no. 11238).
1 YKS 5N67-68
2 YKS 13N19
3 YKS 25W30
4 YKS CW3
5 YKS 9W33. 24W12
6 STS 12,8;18
7 MDX 19,1
8 SHR 4,14,10
9 SHR 4,28,1
10 SUS 11,20
11 NFK 66,76-77
12 NFK 9,74
13 NFK 9,1
.............................................................................................................................................
THORTH. The name Thorth occurs forty times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of the king and nineteen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Cheshire, Shropshire and East Anglia.
.............................................................................................................................................
THORTH [* OF WROXETER *]. All Thorths in Cheshire and Shropshire are probably one man, Thorth of Wroxeter. Thorth held three manors as both tenant and predecessor of Reginald the sheriff in Shropshire1 so is probably Reginald's predecessor on three other manors in the county2 and also the Thorth who held Langley at both dates there3. One of the manors acquired from him by Reginald was Wroxeter4, from which he is named in a confirmation of grants to Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 42. Thorth was probably also the sheriff's predecessor at Gresford in Cheshire5, and according to James Tait 'we may safely identify him' as the Thorth on the remaining manors in the county6, all held in 1066: Domesday survey of Cheshire, p 56 note 1; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 90; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15. There are no other Thorths in adjacent counties, and none of the tenants-in-chief who acquired his lands had tenants or predecessors of this name elsewhere. His tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 8238) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 428.
............................................................................................................................................. THORTH [* SON OF ULFKIL *]. All Thorths in East Anglia may be one man, Thorth son of Ulfkil. Six of his manors in Norfolk7 and another six in Suffolk were acquired by Ralph Baynard8. Several of these manors are valuable. Of the remaining Thorths, those on the substantial manors of Billingford and Babingley9 in the vicinity of Kerdiston and Terrington held by Ralph's predecessor, may also be him; and as the one substantial Thorth in the region he is likely to be the overlord at the lost vill of Rodenhala10 and perhaps the Thorth on a small holding at Blundeston11 in the adjacent Hundred, which cannot be too many miles from Rodenhala. Bulcamp12, in the same Hundred as most of the Suffolk manors, may have been his also. On most of these manors family wills identify him as Thorth son of Ulfkil, the nephew of Aelfgyth widow of Thorsten (q.v.) from whom the most substantial part of the Baynard fief was acquired: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 78-93; Mortimer, 'Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 248-51. Thorth's pre-Conquest holdings are sufficiently valuable to rank him among the ninety wealthiest untitled laymen before the Conquest if included in Clarke, English nobility. .............................................................................................................................................
THRASEMUND <OF MANSTON>. The three Thrasemunds in Domesday Book are probably one man. His manors at Orcheston in Wiltshire13 and Gold Hill in Dorset14 were both acquired by
1 SHR 4,3,30-31;69
2 SHR 4,3,14;20;26
3 SHR 4,27,10
4 SHR 4,3,26
5 CHS 22,1. 27,3
6 CHS 5,1. 9,5. 16,1. 20,1. FD7,1
7 NFK 31,1;17;31;33;43;45
8 SUF 33,4;6-7;9-11
9 NFK 32,1. 34,1
10 NFK 4,36
11 SUF 3,54
12 SUF 13,5
13 WIL 48,7
14 DOR 44,1
Osbern Giffard; Manston, which devolved upon Waleran the hunter, is adjacent to Gold Hill1. All three manors are respectable or substantial.
.............................................................................................................................................
TIHEL [* OF HELLÉAN *]. All Tihels in Domesday Book are almost certainly Tihel of Helléan, otherwise known as Tihel the Breton. He acquired his most valuable manors Norfolk from a Leofstan2, so can be identified as the Tihel preceded by Leofstan on the royal manor of Crackford in the county3. Similarly, as tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, he is very probably his tenant at Haverhill in Suffolk4, where he also held in chief, and is likely to be the Teher who held Wickford from the bishop5, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. The name is otherwise unknown in Domesday, so a scribal error for Tihel may be suspected. Tihel was a tenant-in-chief in all three counties. He is the only man with this forename in Domesday Book, though Tehel, a reeve of the abbot of Ely, occurs as a juror in Longstowe Hundred in Cambridgeshire: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that this Tehel is 'possibly' Tihel of Helléan, though reeve is an unlikely role for one of the Conqueror's barons. He may have come from Helléan in Brittany (Morbihan: arrondissement Pontivy). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 159) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 427.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI. Toki is a common name which occurs almost one hundred times times, distributed among twenty-two counties between Somerset and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and thirty-five of his tenants-in-chief, with a large cluster in Norfolk and a more dispersed cluster in the adjacent counties of Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. One survivor held three manors. The name can be confused with Thorkil.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI <OF BURGH>. Most of the manors of Toki in Lincolnshire may plausibly be assigned to Toki son of Auti. There is, however, one cluster of properties dependent upon the manor of Burgh-le-Marsh6, on the coast of Lincolnshire just north of the Wash, which is physically separate from others of the son of Auti and which devolved upon a tenant-in-chief - Eudo son of Spirewic - who obtained no other manors of Auti's son. Eudo's manors are, however, part of a larger block he held in the South Riding of Lindsey, which may have been granted to him for that reason, so the possibility that his predecessor is the son of Auti cannot be excluded.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI <OF PICTON>. The five Tokis in Cheshire may be one man. Picton and Hooton, acquired by Richard of Vernon7, lay in Willaston Hundred, as did Guilden Sutton, two miles from Picton, held by Robert son of Hugh in 10868. Elton and Manley in Ruloe Hundred, retained by Earl Hugh9, are a few miles away, Elton being also three miles from Picton. Only Norton, acquired by William son of Nigel10, is somewhat apart, ten miles from Elton. By Cheshire standards, the manors are not insubstantial, very few lay lords holding more land in 1066 in the county: Lewis, 'Introduction to
1 DOR 44,1
2 NFK 37,1-2
3 NFK 1,195
4 SUF 16,1
5 ESS 18,9
6 LIN 29,14;18-21
7 CHS 5,2-3
8 CHS 2,29
9 CHS 1,4;6
10 CHS 9,20
the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15; Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 324. By contrast to this fairly compact group, the nearest other Toki in any direction is fifty miles or so away, in Shropshire, Staffordshire or Derbyshire. See also
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI <OF WALTON>. The royal thane Toki, twice described as a predecessor of William of Warenne in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 22, 32-33), is almost certainly the Toki from whom William acquired his fief in Cambridgeshire1, twenty manors in Norfolk (8,7;21-22;30;47;62;68;98-101;103-105;107-108;110;116-118) and four in Suffolk2, including his principle and very valuable manor at West Walton in Norfolk3. He is probably the one other Toki in Cambridgeshire, at West Wratting4, where Warenne's predecessor had another manor; and perhaps also the predecessor of Peter of Valognes on two manors in Norfolk5, one of which lay in Holkham, where Warenne's predecessor had another manor. He may also be the Toki at Stiffkey and Wells-next-the-Sea, retained by the king6, his manor at Burnham Thorpe being six miles from Wells, two from its dependency at Holkham. It seems likely that he is the Toki who held Toketorp under archbishop Stigand and, if so, is also the archbishop's free man at Hales7. Toketorp and its variants may well preserve his name, the vill occurring on the fief of William of Warenne8. The remaining Tokis in Norfolk are likely to be Toki of Winterton, conceivably the same man though there are no links to confirm this.
Several of Toki's manors were initially acquired by William's brother-in-law Frederic, who was killed, perhaps by Hereward the Wake, in 1070, so Toki himself was dispossessed or died before that date. Dr Hart suggests that he may be the magnate Thorkil the Dane (q.v.). He, however, is consistently named Thorkil - and Toki consistently named Toki - in Domesday Book. A list of Toki's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 348-49, which does not include the two royal manors or Toketorp, Snoring, Egmere, Holkham, Hales or Testerton in Norfolk and Withersfield in Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks him thirty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him eight places.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI <OF WINTERTON>. Toki, who held Blakeney in Norfolk under Earl Harold9, is perhaps Earl Harold's free man at Broome10, both likely to be Toki of Winterton, who held a villager in Ingworth from Roger Bigot11, the tenant-in-chief at Broome who himself had a holding in Winterton (where no Toki occurs). It is conceivable that Toki of Winterton is the same man as Toki of Walton but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI <OF WOODCOTE>. The Tokis who Woodcote and land in the same Hundred as a subtenant of Robert son of Theobald in Shropshire12 and at Cotton as a tenant of the earl of Shrewsbury in the
1 CAM 18,1-8
2 SUF 26,4;9-11
3 NFK 8,21
4 CAM 26,8
5 NFK 34,10;19
6 NFK 1,89-90
7 NFK 4,14. 31,16
8 NFK 8,74;76
9 NFK 25,20
10 NFK 9,172
11 NFK 9,87
12 SHR 4,9,4
same county1 are almost certainly the same man, the only surviving Toki in Domesday Book and the only Toki in Shropshire or on the Honour of Earl Roger. He gave a hide of his manor of Woodcote to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33. His manor at Cotton is recorded in Coel (no. 9748) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 427; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 30903-904) though the commentary refers to a grant to the abbey.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOKI [* SON OF AUTI *]. Although the English magnate Toki son of Auti is accorded his patronymic only twice, the bulk of his substantial estate may be reconstructed with a degree of confidence. In Lincolnshire, he had the full jurisdiction, market rights and customary dues shared by only a handful of major pre-Conquest lords, his position there being acquired by Geoffrey Alselin, which makes it all but certain that he is the Toki son of Otti who had identical rights in Yorkshire2, and hence the Toki whose manors constituted the fief of Geoffrey Alselin in that county3. The Toki with similar rights in Nottinghamshire4 must be Auti's son, since all the manors held by a Toki in Nottinghamshire devolved upon Geoffrey Alselin5.
In addition to Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, Geoffrey acquired his entire fiefs in Leicestershire6, Lincolnshire7 and Northamptshire8 from a Toki, and all but one of his manors in Derbyshire9. The holdings of other Tokis in that county are, with one exception, claimed by Geoffrey Alselin or dependent upon his manors10, the exception - Sandiacre11 - lying two miles from his manor of Breaston. In Lincolnshire, two holdings where he is unnamed12 are identified on Geoffrey Alselin's fief as dependencies of his manor of Ruskington; while Stubton13 lay in the same vill as an Alselin manor, and Westby14 lay roughly midway between the Alselin manors in Leicestershire and clusters of those in Lincolnshire. The one other Toki in the county, whose manor of Burgh-le-Marsh and its dependencies was acquired by Eudo son of Spirewic15, may be another man, though since Burgh is surrounded by Eudo's manors in the South Riding of Lindsey where his entire fief lay, it may have been given him for that reason; the possibility that Toki at Burgh is the son of Auti cannot therefore be excluded.
With this one possible exception every Toki in the adjacent counties of Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire may be plausibly identified as the son of Toki. In these circumstances it is possible that the three other Tokis in Yorkshire are the same man, given his privileged position in the county. This is almost certainly the case on the substantial manor of Wadworth16, to which Geoffrey Alselin laid claim17. Wadworth is the most isolated of the three manors, Osgodby18 and Burghwallis1 lying between Alselin's Yorkshire and
1 SHR 4,27,1
2 YKS C36
3 YKS 18W1-3
4 NTT S5
5 NTT 12,1-10;12-17;19-21
6 LEC 28,1-5
7 LIN 64,1-19
8 NTH 44,1-2
9 DBY B5. 9,1;3-6
10 DBY 6,27-28;48
11 DBY 17,17
12 LIN 30,34-35
13 LIN 32,26
14 LIN 68,19
15 LIN 29,14;18-21
16 YKS 10W2
17 YKS CW19
18 YKS 5E17
Nottinghamshire properties. Although not named in the relevant entries, the Yorkshire Claims reveal that Alselin or Toki had an interest in Loversall, Bolton Percy, 'Haggenby', Acaster Selby, Ouston and Walton2, dependencies of his manors of Hexthorpe and Healaugh.
Virtually the entire Honour of Geoffrey Alselin was acquired from Toki, the few exceptions perhaps cases where Toki is the unnamed overlord of the manorial lord, overlords being unrecorded in circuit six where these exceptions occur. In Nottinghamshire, for instance, Toki held the largest of two Alselin manors in North Muskham3; but the layout of the text suggests that the dependencies of Muskham4 belonged to the smaller holding, held by a Wulfric. This would be unusual, and may be a scribal error. Toki's manor was originally omitted, so the dependencies followed Wulfric's manor. When the scribe realised his mistake and inserted Toki's manor in the margin, he may have neglected to make the necessary adjustment to assign the dependencies to him. Toki may also be an unnamed overlord at Etwall in Derbyshire5, Burton in Nottinghamshire6, and Cantley in Yorkshire7. Toki was probably dead or fled by 1086, the only Tokis in 1086 occurring in Shropshire.
A list of Toki's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 347-48, which does not include Sandiacre in Derbyshire; Osgodby and Burghwallis in Yorkshire, or Stubton and Westby in Lincolnshire. Dr Clarke ranks him twenty-eighth in wealth among the nobility, seventeenth among untitled laymen; the additional holdings would not affect this.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOLI. Toli is a moderately common name which occurs almost three dozen times, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of the king and sixteen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Lincolnshire and East Anglia and survivors in Oxfordshire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOLI <OF SANDIACRE>. Toli, who held Sandiacre among the king's thanes in Derbyshire in 1066 and 10868 is almost certainly the Toli who held Ilkeston before the Conquest9 since Ilkeston belonged to Sandiacre. He may also have held Ilkeston and two other manors in Sandiacre10 in 1086, the tenants being omitted from those entries. Surviving Tolis in Oxfordshire and Lincolnshire have no apparent links. There are no other Tolis in the county and only one other11 in any of the adjacent counties. Toli of Sandiacre is unidentified in Coel (no. 32508), where no tenant for Ilkeston is recorded.
.............................................................................................................................................
TONNI. Tonni and Tunni are uncommon in the sense that they were probably borne by few individuals: The two forms are confined to six counties and the Honours of as many tenants-in-chief, the great majority to just one Honour. A single, tiny manor was held by a survivor. Von Feilitzen suggests that Tunni is a 'possible alternative' of Tonni: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 386, 389. The Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England records them as the same name, the distribution of the two forms all but guaranteeing that this is correct.
1 YKS 9W37
2 YKS CW16;25;33-34;40-41. 13W12;14;16
3 NTT 12,11-12
4 NTT 12,13-14
5 DBY 9,2
6 NTT 12,18
7 YKS 18W2
8 DBY 17,15
9 DBY 17,14
10 DBY 17,16-17
11 YKS 1W64
.............................................................................................................................................
TONNI <OF APPLETON>. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Tonni who held part of the manor of Appleton in Yorkshire before the Conquest is the Tonni with a tiny manor at Acaster, just over a mile away, in 10861. Dr Clarke assigns Appleton to the English magnate Tonni of Lusby; but there are no indications that he was a survivor, and the link with the Acaster Tonni seems the more probable. Tonni is unidentified in Coel (no. 38323).
.............................................................................................................................................
TONNI <OF BERICOTE>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Tonnis who held Caldecote in Warwickshire before the Conquest and Bericote in 10862 are the same man, a survivor in reduced circumstances, accommodated on the fief of Thorkil of Warwick along with many other Englishmen. On similar grounds, he might be identified with Tonni of Lusby, since these Warwickshire properties are not too distant from the Lusby manors of Stowe and Kislingbury in Northamptonshire3. Furthermore, a Yorkshire Tonni also held land in 1066 and 10864 and was preceded by a Thorkil in a vill where William of Percy, one of Tonni of Lusby's successors, held land5. In these circumstances, it is possible that all Tonnis in Domesday are one man. However, it is perhaps more likely that the apparent links are coincidental and the Warwickshire and Yorkshire Tonnis are different men. Thorkils are common in Yorkshire; neither Thorkil of Warwick nor his father Alwin the sheriff of Warwickshire are known to have had any interests further north than that county; and there no indications on the extensive holdings of Tonni of Lusby that he was a survivor, or held land north of the Humber. The tenant at Bericote is unidentified in Coel (no. 38323).
.............................................................................................................................................
TONNI <OF LUSBY>. The Claims for Lincolnshire treat Tonni as a predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent6 who acquired from Tonni half his fief in Oxfordshire7, all but one of his manors in Northamptonshire8, and Langton, Lusby, Claxby and Well with their dependencies in Lincolnshire9, Lusby being the most valuable of those manors. Gilbert also obtained his fief in Berkshire10, and Culverthorpe, Willoughby and Kyme in Lincolnshire11, from a Tunni, evidently the same man since these are the only occurrences of Tunni, and Tonni is also a name borne by few men.
The remaining manors of Tonni in Lincolnshire, though acquired by William of Percy12, were those of the same Tonni, as the Lincolnshire Claims reveal13. A list of Tonni's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 350-51, which omits dependencies but adds Appleton in Yorkshire14, here assigned to Tonni of Appleton. Tonni is ranked fortieth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke. Hart, Danelaw, pp. 275-77, who lists both manors and dependencies, agrees with those given above. He makes the interesting point that Tonni is often associated with Gilbert
1 YKS 25W2. 29W29
2 WAR 2,2. 17,62
3 NTH 46,1;3
4 YKS 25W2. 29W29
5 YKS CW40
6 LIN CS23;30-31;33
7 OXF 38,1
8 NTH 46,1-6
9 LIN 24,16;24;61-71
10 BRK 37,1
11 LIN 24,37-44;54-60;76
12 LIN 22,17-19;23
13 LIN CS 30-31;33
14 YKS 25W2
of Ghent's principle predecessor, Ulf Fenman (q.v.), to whom he may have been related. Ulf and Tonni contributed the whole of Gilbert's fiefs in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, and 95% of that in Lincolnshire, where the bulk of his Honour lay.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI. Topi is a rare name which occurs five times in Domesday Book, distributed among that number of counties and tenants-in-chief, perhaps representing as many individuals; there are no survivors.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI [* FATHER OF ULF *]. As the name is rare, the Topi at Kirmington in Lincolnshire1 is probably the father of Ulf (q.v.), who held land in the same vill and whose bequests in a number of surrounding vills are recorded in his will: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97. He is possibly the same man as Topi of Digswell.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI <OF DIGSWELL>. Topi, who held Digswell in Hertfordshire2, has no direct links with his namesakes, though there is an indirect association with Topi father of Ulf through Peter of Valognes, who acquired Digswell from Topi and jurisdiction in Lincoln and his single Lincolnshire manor3 from Godric son of Edeva (q.v.), Edeva being the mother of Ulf son of Topi (q.v.). However, as he is the 'man' of Almer of Bennington, whose estate was almost entirely confined to Hertfordshire, he is unlikely to be the Lincolnshire magnate, the Valognes association apparently being a coincidence, though a curious one.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI <OF FRYERNING>. Topi, who shared a reasonably substantial manor at Fryerning in Essex acquired by Robert Gernon4, has no links with other Topis; Topi of Digswell, his closest neighbour, is some thirty miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI <OF "HOBBESTUNA">. The Ely Freeman with land in an unidentified Suffolk vill in 'Blything' Hundred valued at three shillings and acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville5 is unlikely to be related to other Topis even if he were a free man - as recorded in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 145) - since all other Topis are without tenurial or other links, and some considerable distance away.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOPI <OF WILSON>. Topi, whose holding worth three shillings at Wilson in Devon was acquired by Baldwin the sheriff6, has no links with other Topis, all remote.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI. Although the name Tosti occurs almost a hundred times, it is rare in the sense that it was borne by few individuals, perhaps no more than six, all pre-Conquest landowners. Two men, the
1 LIN 25,5
2 HRT 36,2
3 LIN C3. 60,1
4 ESS 32,34
5 SUF 32,30
6 DEV 16,146
earl and Tosti brother of Erik, are identified by title or byname, and it is probable that most other Tostis are one or other of these two.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI [* BROTHER OF ERIK *]. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Tostis whose manors of Audelby and Laceby in Lincolnshire were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux1 are the brother of the Erik (q.v.) who shared Laceby with him, both probably being the brothers named at Sawtry in Huntingdonshire in the Claims for the county2, a statement confirmed by the Ramsey chronicle which describes Tosti as 'a rich man' and 'one of King Edward's barons': Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 175, 199; Early charters of eastern England, p. 235.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] TOSTI. The Tostis who held the huge royal manors of Falsgrave and Hemingbrough in Yorkshire3 are almost certainly the earl. In view of their status, he is probably the Tosti who held the four most valuable manors outside Yorkshire: Polhampton in Hampshire4, held by William Bertram in 1086; Buckworth in Huntingdonshire5, held by the Count of Eu; Bingham in Nottinghamshire6, by Roger of Bully, and the anonymous manor of Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Northamptonshire7. The earl was a predecessor of Roger of Bully elsewhere in Nottinghamshire; and Buckworth was an outlier of Great Paxton8, held by King Edward in 1066, who had perhaps resumed it after Tosti's fall since it was held by Countess Judith in 1086, passing through the hands of Earl Waltheof, as did other of Earl Tosti's manors in Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire. The other two manors constituted the entire fiefs of William Bertram and the Count of Eu, neither of whom succeeded a Tosti elsewhere, which suggests their predecessors are the earl rather than two other individuals holding one valuable manor and nothing else; Earl Tosti held land elsewhere in both counties, as in the other two.
Elsewhere, the Tosti who held Frome in Herefordshire from Queen Edith is likely to be the earl, her favoured brother; and since it is improbable that any tenant-in-chief had two predecessors with his rare name, he is also the Tosti who held Putley if the Thostin of that holding is in fact a Tosti9; both holdings are surrounded by those of his brother Harold. The Tosti of Freshwater on the Isle of Wight10 is shown to be the earl by its dependence upon his manor in that vill11, and there can be little doubt that the Tosti at Somerton in Norfolk12 who 'went from England' is the earl, too. Finally, the Tosti who held a minuscule property at Worthing13 may be the earl, his father and brother having land in the same vill, Tosti's holding 'laying in' the large manor of Sompting, held from the Crown by a Leofwin, who is surely the earl, another of his brothers. He held two manors from which his name is omitted in the relevant entries: Hail Weston in Huntingdonshire, assigned to him (presumably as overlord) in the Claims14, and Mission in Nottinghamshire15, a dependency
1 LIN 4,17-22;69-71
2 HUN D27. 19,1
3 YKS 1Y3;5
4 HAM 31,1
5 HUN 10,1
6 NTT 9,97
7 NTH 41,2
8 HUN 20,8. D23
9 HEF 10,4;29
10 HAM IoW7,22
11 HAM IoW1,5
12 NFK 10,83
13 SUS 13,37
14 HUN 19,27. D11
15 NTT 1,65. 30,44
of the royal manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey in Lincolnshire1 where it is implied he preceded Earl Edwin. His manors of Bayford in Hertfordshire2 and Potton and Chalton in Bedfordshire3 are recorded as resumed by the Crown before the Confessor died.
A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 191-94, which includes the manors said to be resumed by the Confessor but not Southampton, Worthing, Frome, Putley or Somerton. Despite his exile and the certain loss of lands in Yorkshire and elsewhere, he is ranked eighth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies a rather higher estimate of his manorial income; the Statistics database total (£535) is slightly higher still; if Great Paxton is added, this total would rise to £564.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI <OF ALTHORP>. Tosti, who shared a holding worth five shillings at Althorp in Northamptonshire acquired by the Count of Mortain4, has no links with other Tostis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI <OF BURES>. As the name is uncommon, the Tostis with two modest holdings at Bures in Suffolk in 10665 are likely to be one man, though his holdings were acquired by different tenants-in-chief; he has no links with other Tostis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI <OF GRAFTON>. Tosti, who shared land worth a few pounds with three other English lords at Grafton in Warwickshire acquired by Osbern son of Richard6, has no links with other Tostis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI <OF LEYTON>. Tosti, whose modest holding at Leyton in Essex was acquired by Westminster abbey7, has no links with other Tostis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI. Toti is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among six counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners. Only the Berkshire holdings are substantial.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF CHALVINGTON>. Toti, whose modest holding at Chalvington in Sussex was acquired by the Count of Mortain8, has no links with his distant namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF DONNINGTON>. As the name is rare, the Totis whose three manors in Berkshire constituted the fief of William Lovet9 are almost certainly one man, the only substantial landowner of this name. His least valuable manor is worth more than any of those held by another Toti. He has no links with his namesakes.
1 LIN 1,38
2 HRT 1,18
3 BDF 53,20. 54,3
4 NTH 18,23
5 ESS 40,5. SUF 55,1
6 WAR 37,7
7 ESS 6,7
8 SUS 10,91
9 BRK 26,1-3
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF GRAFTON>. Toti, who shared land worth a few pounds with three other lords at Grafton in Warwickshire acquired by Osbern son of Richard1, has no links with other Totis. It is conceivable that he is the father of Azur, Warwickshire being the only county where a Toti and Azur son of Toti2 both held land; but there are no links to confirm an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF HIGHWAY>. Toti, who purchased a hide worth fifteen shillings at Highway in Wiltshire from Malmesbury abbey later acquired by Ralph of Mortimer3, has no links with other Totis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF SCREVETON>. Toti, whose modest holding at Screveton in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux4, has no links with other Totis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF WALLBURY>. Toti, whose modest holding at Wallbury in Essex was acquired by Richard of Tonbridge5, has no links with other Totis.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOVI. Tovi is a common name which occurs on one fief and more than seventy manors, distributed among sixteen counties and the lands of the king and more than forty of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Hampshire, Devon, Somerset and Gloucestershire. Apart from the fief, eight manors are held by survivors, distributed among six counties and as many tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
TOVI [* THE SHERIFF *]. Tovi, who preceded Alnoth son of Harding on five of his six manors in Somerset6, is probably Tovi the sheriff, named in Exon. on the first of the group. As such, he is likely to be the Tovi who held four hides at Belluton in the royal manor of Keynsham7, which identifies him as the Tovi whose manor in Belluton - a partial duplicate - was acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne8. Of the other two Tovis in the county, he may be the Tovi at Freshford9, eleven miles from Keynsham, and less certainly the Tovi at Berkley10, a manor of comparable status but some distance from the others; Round accepted this last identification: 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 419. No Tovis occur elsewhere on royal manors, or as predecessors of Alnoth or Count Eustace, or in Somerset. Tovi was sheriff of Somerset before and after the Conquest, named in a number of royal writs: Green, English sheriffs, p. 73.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 WAR 37,7
2 WAR 39,1;4
3 WIL 41,4
4 NTT 7,6
5 ESS 23,1
6 SOM 47,3-8
7 SOM 1,28
8 SOM 17,6
9 SOM 5,35
10 SOM 22,25
TOXUS [THE PRIEST]. Toxus, whose manor of Swyre in Dorset was acquired by William of Eu1, may be a priest, which appears to be interlined above his name, though the manuscript is unclear. He is the only man of this name in Domesday Book.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUBBI <OF NEWBOLD>. Tubbi, whose shared and modest holding at Newbold in Warwickshire was acquired by the Count of Meulan2, has no apparent connection with the one other Tubbi in Domesday Book, an overlord in Warwickshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUBBI <OF STOKE>. Tubbi, whose man held a hide in Stoke Poges in Buckinghamshire acquired by William son of Ansculf3, is an overlord apparently without demesne land unless he is the Tubbi at Newbold; but there are no links between them, and it is difficult to imagine the attraction of so distant and insubstantial an overlord.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD. Turold is a common name which occurs on one fifty and almost seventy manors, distributed among eighteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief, with significant clusters in Essex and Norfolk. All Turolds are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD [* NEPHEW OF WIGOT *]. Turold, tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Burpham, Worplesdon and Loseley in Surrey4, Penton Mewsey and Houghton in Hampshire5 and Castle Eaton and Milston in Wiltshire6 succeeded to all the manors of Osmund of Eaton (q.v.), one of the earl's most significant predecessors. Dr Williams suggests Turold is the nephew of Wigot of Wallingford, the earl's tenant at Meysey Hampton in Gloucestershire: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 102; Farrer, Honors, iii. 90-91. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2012) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 431.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD [* OF QUIEVRECOURT *]. Turold, who held Carlton-in-Lindrick in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully7, is very probably Turold of Quièvrecourt, one of two Turolds who witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. Turold's descendants founded a nunnery at Wallingwells, endowed with part of Carlton: VCH Nottinghamshire, ii. 89. He came from Quièvrecourt in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 21. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3714) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 430, where Markham, Kelham and Weston are also assigned to him8, with the comment that his manors are difficult to distinguish from those of a second Turold.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD [* OF ROCHESTER *]. Turold, who held Berewic in Essex from the bishop of Bayeux9, is probably the Turold of Rochester named on the previous manor, and probably also the Turold
1 DOR 34,8
2 WAR 16,59
3 BUK 17,6
4 SUR 18,2-4
5 HAM 21,3;5
6 WIL 21,1-2
7 NTT 9,50
8 NTT 9,10;59;70
9 ESS 18,37
who annexed land on the bishop's fief at Alresford1 - his byname again supplied in the previous entry - and the Turold who 'took 30 acres which are in the bishop of Bayeux's Holding' from the manor of Count Eustace of Boulogne at Fobbing2. He is named in full at Mucking, where he annexed thirty acres which were 'an adjunct of the bishop of Bayeux's Holding'. The bishop had no other tenants of this name. Turold may have died during the course of the Domesday Survey as he was succeeded by his son Ralph on two of the Essex manors3, and perhaps also at Wricklesmarsh in Kent4, held by 'the son of Turold of Rochester', identified as Ralph in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 102). Ralph son of Turold (q.v.) held several manors from the bishop, perhaps in succession to his father. Turold's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 725) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 431; they include Lamarsh, which should be assigned to another Turold, a tenant of Ranulf Peverel (no. 7596).
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD [* OF VERLEY *]. Turold, who held a fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is almost certainly Turold of Verley, who gave a hide in his manor of Little Drayton5 to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 34. He is probably also the one other Turold in the county, who held 'Little Eton', adjacent to his manor of Pitchford, from St Chad's6. Earl Roger had other Turolds among his tenants, all but one of whom may be confidently identified as the nephew of Wigot, the exception being a subtenant with a half-wide in the manor of Cocking in Sussex7. Turold was probably from Vesly in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Les Andelys). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2558) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 431; the subtenant at Cocking is unidentified (no. 16162), as here.
.............................................................................................................................................
TUROLD [* SON OF ODO *]. The Turolds who held Waresley in Huntingdonshire8 and Hassenbrook and Basildon in Essex from Swein of Essex9 may be one man. His successor at Waresley was Robert Waste: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. 376-79. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be the son of Odo and brother of William, both tenants of Swein in Essex. William son of Odo's manor of Wickford is five miles from Basildon, and Odo's at Hockley seven miles from Wickford, eleven from Basildon. Swein had no other tenants of this name. Turold's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1858) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 432.
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* MANTLE *]. The Turstins who held Bozeat and Courteenhall in Northamptonshire from William Peverel10 are identified as Turstin Mantle, who had a small tenancy-in-chief in Buckinghamshire, by the descent of his manors: VCH Northamptonshire, iv. 5, 243. Peverel had no other Turstins on his Honour. Turstin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 351) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 434, where mention of Ferrers and Giffard is an error, their tenants being recorded elsewhere.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 ESS 18,44
2 ESS 20,1
3 ESS 18,38;43
4 KEN 5,31
5 SHR 4,19,8
6 SHR 3f,1
7 SUS 11,11
8 HUN 16,1
9 ESS 24,6-7
10 NTH 35,14;25
"TURSTIN" [* OF CORMEILLES *]. Turstin, who held Syde in Gloucestershire from Ansfrid of Cormeilles1, is probably Turstin of Cormeilles, named in a later satellite text as holding burgesses and a mill in Gloucester (EvK116). He may have been Ansfrid's son and heir: Ellis, 'On the landholders of Gloucestershire', pp. 91-93, 189. There are no other Turstins on Ansfrids Honour and no more unidentified Turstins in Gloucestershire. Turstin's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4376) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 433.
................................................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" <OF GRENDON>. Turstin, who held a modest manor in Grendon in Warwickshire from Henry of Ferrers2, appears to have held no land elsewhere. He is the only Turstin in the county, and Henry had no other Turstins on his Honour. A Robert of Grendon held a fee from the Ferrers Honour in 1166, and also fees in Northamptonshire and Derbyshire, neither of which can be connected to a Domesday Turstin: Red Book, i. 327, 330, 339. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 11841).
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* OF WIGMORE *]. The Turstins who held Huntington, Lingen and Shirley in Shropshire from Ralph of Mortimer3 are the only Turstins in the county in 1086, so probably one man, predecessor of the Lingen family, tenants of the Mortimer Honour of Wigmore at Huntington and Lingen in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 963; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v. 74-79; xi. 332-34. Ralph acquired another Shropshire manor from Turstin of Wigmore4, identified by Eyton as the same man: Antiquities of Shropshire, v. 74-75; xi. 332-34. Round rejected this, identifying Turstin of Flanders as Turstin of Wigmore, named in Domesday as the husband of Agnes, daughter of Alfred of Marlborough5, herself identified in a later charter as the widow of Turstin of Flanders. This Turstin was endowed by William son of Osbern with manors at Downton in Herefordshire6 and Mawley in Shropshire7, manors later acquired by Ralph of Mortimer who, Round suggested, may also have acquired Wigmore castle from William's tenant, which would account for one of his bynames. Round assumed that this Turstin lost his original manors in consequence of the revolt of William's son in 1075, retaining only his wife's dowry, which was held by their descendants: 'Domesday survey of Herefordshire', pp. 303-304.
There is an alternative explanation of these facts. It is not known when Turstin married or when he died; the marriage may have taken place after 1075, and Turstin was probably alive in 1086 - this last is the straightforward reading of the Domesday text. If so, then he may have found grace after 1075, as a tenant of Ralph of Mortimer in Shropshire and of his father-in-law Alfred of Marlborough in Herefordshire and perhaps also in Wiltshire8, as suggested by Eyton, and by James Tait: 'Domesday survey of Shropshire', p. 289. Other tenants of William son of Osbern survived the events of 1075-1076; and even on Round's thesis Turstin had a prior connection - Wigmore - with Ralph of Mortimer. The argument from descent on which Round laid considerable stress is in itself unconvincing, since the manors later held by the descendants of Agnes are not attributed to Turstin in Domesday Book, and the one which is - Cowarne - is not among them, only the manor held solely by Agnes is. Manors held by Turstin in his own right may have descended by another route.
1 GLS 68,10
2 WAR 19,1
3 SHR 4,11,2. 6,14-15
4 SHR 6,3
5 HEF 19,10
6 HEF 9,2
7 SHR 6,3
8 WIL 26,21
Eyton suggested that the other three unidentified Turstins in Herefordshire may also be Turstin of Wigmore. He acknowledged that the Lingen family had no known interest in these tenancies, but pointed out that it had large (undefined) claims in the county, where the bulk of the early references to its affairs are recorded. Of these three, the tenant of William of Ecouis at Caerleon is more probably Turstin son of Rolf, whose own tenant at Little Marcle1 may well be a fellow-warrior like Turstin of Wigmore, though Marcle is nowhere near the frontier zone; the Lacy tenant at Stanford2 is a similar distance from Wigmore, some thirty miles inland. Neither tenant-in-chief had other tenants of this name, and the four counties adjacent to Herefordshire and Shropshire contain no other Turstins who are not plausibly identified. The third Turstin, a tenant of Alfred of Marlborough, is likely to be his son-in-law, Turstin of Wigmore3. Turstin's tenancies from Ralph of Mortimer are recorded in Coel (no. 8380) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 435, where the identification with Turstin of Wigmore - identified as another man (no. 696) - is found 'difficult to accept'; the tenants at Stanford and Marcle are unidentified (nos. 30382, 38426), and the tenant at Caerleon as Turstin son of Rolf.
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* SON OF ROLF *]. Turstin, who held eight carucates in the castlery of Caerleon in Herefordshire from William of Ecouis4, is probably Turstin son of Rolf, who held another six carucates beyond the Usk - in the frontier area around Caerleon - from the king. He is probably also the Turstin - said to be one man - who held two manors in Maids Moreton in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard5, from whom Turstin son of Rolf held Great Missenden and Burston, the first of which was later held with Maids Moreton: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 200-201. Walter had no other Turstins among his tenants. Turstin was the standard bearer at Hastings, the 'ardent warrior' making the first Norman advances into South Wales: Round, Studies in peerage and history, pp. 187-89. He was a tenant-in-chief in Herefordshire and seven other counties and, according to Exon., a subtenant of the abbey of Glastonbury at Butleigh in Somerset6, one of the counties in which he held in chief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 509) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 433-34, apart from Maids Moreton, whose tenant is unidentified (nos. 1285-86).
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* THE SHERIFF *]. All Turstins on the Honour of the Count of Mortain are probably his sheriff in Cornwall. Those who held twenty consecutive manors there from the Count almost certainly are. Exon names him as sheriff on the first, third and twelfth of these manors, and Domesday identifies another fifteen manors as 'also' held by the same Turstin7. Theoretically, the other three Turstins8 might be other individuals, though this appears highly improbable. Turstin is also named in Exon. as the Count's sheriff at Tregenna, taken from St Petroc's Church9, and on a subtenancy of the royal manor of Winnianton at Truthall, so he is likely to be the sheriff on three other subtenancies of Winnianton10. The same source identifies the tenant of Iudhael of Totnes at Froxton11 - the one other Turstin in the county - as the sheriff. He is probably also the Turstin who held parts of the royal manors of South Petherton and Crewkerne from the Count, at Cricket St
1 HEF 17,2
2 HEF 10,73
3 HEF 19,1
4 HEF 14,1
5 BUK 14,28-29
6 SOM 8,18
7 CON 5,4,4-11;13-18
8 CON 5,4,2;19-20
9 CON 4,22
10 CON 1,1
11 CON 6,1
Thomas1 and Easthams in Somerset2, five miles apart. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 229) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 435.
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* TINEL *]. The Turstins who held Tickenhurst, Woodnesborough and Each in Kent from the bishop of Bayeux3 - said to be one man - are probably Turstin Tinel, the bishop's tenant at Leueberge4, since the Domesday Monachorum (p. 102) assigns all four manors to one man. It is not unlikely that he also held Knowlton5, the most valuable of the Kentish manors of a Turstin and a mile from Tickenhurst, the next in value. Bishop Odo had a tenant named Turstin of Giron at Buckland6, apparently a different man since he was from Gueron in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Bayeux) while the continental associations of Tinel are with the départements of Eure and Seine-Maritime in Upper Normandy: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 45; Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 433-34. This Turstin may be the one other unidentified Turstin in Kent, at Ospringe7, a few miles from Buckland, the two manors lying at the other end of the county from those of Tinel. Turstin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 324) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 434; the tenants at Ospringe and Knowlton are unidentified (nos. 7809, 7822).
.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* WISHART *]. Turstin, who held Great Saling in Essex from John son of Waleran, may be the Turstin Wishart who held three houses and half a hide of land in Colchester from him8. There were no other Turstins in Essex, and John had none elsewhere on his Honour. Turstin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2062) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 435.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTBRAND. Uhtbrand is a rare name which occurs five times, once each in Cheshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire and twice in Derbyshire, where the one survivor occurs.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTBRAND <OF DENTON>. As his name is rare, the Uhtbrand whose modest manor at Denton in Lincolnshire in 1066 was acquired by Robert of Stafford9 may be the Uhtbrand at Trowell in Nottinghamshire, some thirty miles away; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTBRAND <OF TABLEY>. Uhtbrand, whose waste manor at Tabley in Cheshire was acquired by Jocelyn of Tuschet10, has no links with his namesakes, all remote.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTBRAND <OF TROWELL>. As the name is rare, the Uhtbrand whose manor in Aston-on-Trent was acquired by Henry of Ferrers is very probably the king's tenant in the same vill11, and perhaps the Uhtbrand with a fairly substantial manor at Trowell in Nottinghamshire, nine miles
1 SOM 1,4. 19,1
2 SOM 1,20. 19,33
3 KEN 210-212
4 KEN 5,196
5 KEN 5,199
6 KEN 5,157
7 KEN 5,145
8 ESS 40,2. B3p
9 LIN 59,1
10 CHS 19,3
11 DBY 1,38. 6,93
away, acquired by William the usher1. His tenancy at Aston is recorded in Coel (no. 9875) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 435.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTRED. Uhtred is a fairly common name which occurs more than seventy times, distributed among nine counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and fifteen of his tenants-in-chief. More than half the names occur in Yorkshire, with a large cluster in Cheshire and a smaller one in Devon. Survivors held nine manors, all in Yorkshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTRED <OF CROSBY>. All Uhtreds in Cheshire and South Lancashire may be one man. His twelve manors in the Hundred of West Derby in Lancashire, acquired by Roger of Poitou2, constitute a major estate of more than thirty hides, widely spread throughout the Hundred. Uhtred had significant jurisdictional privileges in Crosby and Kirkdale3, Crosby presumably being the centre of his estate which, as Dr Lewis has pointed out, may well have been a significant central-place for many generations, being the site of the Little Crosby Viking silver hoard. Kirkdale is just across the Mersey from Wallasey in Cheshire4, held by an Uhtred who may also be the West Derby magnate, as also at Norton south of the Mersey5, the one other Uhtred in Cheshire: 'Introduction to the Lancashire Domesday', pp. 29-30.
.............................................................................................................................................
UHTRED [* SON OF LIGULF *]. Uhtred, who succeeded Ligulf at Rudstone in Yorkshire6, may be his son, Ligulf being an important landowner, advisor to Earl Waltheof, one of whose sons was named Uhtred: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 67-68. The name is common in Yorkshire, borne by several other survivors who might be Ligulf's son but are without specific links to connect them. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4685) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 435.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF. Ulf is a very common name which occurs almost 250 times, distributed among twenty-six counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and sixty of his tenants-in-chief, with very large concentrations in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire and substantial groups in Devon, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and East Anglia. Survivors held thirteen manors distributed among ten counties between Devon and Yorkshire, only Leicestershire containing more than one survivor and only Hugh of Grandmesnil having more than one tenant of this name.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF [* FENMAN *]. Ulf, a predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent in eleven counties, is named Ulf Fenman on Gilbert's fiefs in Cambridgeshire, Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire and is three times specifically designated as Gilbert's antecessor7, so most if not all Ulfs on Gilbert's fiefs in Bedfordshire8, Buckinghamshire9, Cambridgeshire10, Huntingdonshire1, Lincolnshire2,
1 NTT 29,2
2 CHS R1,2;7;13;16;22;26-28;31-32;34;36;41
3 CHS R1,41
4 CHS 3,11
5 CHS 9,20
6 YKS 29E14
7 DBY 13,2. LIN CW17. CK44
8 BDF 27,1
9 BUK 22,1-2
10 CAM 23,1-5
Northamptonshire3, Nottinghamshire4, Oxfordshire5 and Rutland6 are very probably the Fenman. Ulf Fenman is also named as a predecessor of Oger the Breton at Haconby and Morton in Lincolnshire, and the Lincolnshire Claims name him as the predecessor of Geoffrey of la Guerche on several other manors in that county7, while manorial links identify him as the predecessor of Guy of Craon and Peter of Valognes at Threekingham and Burton8. Of these three tenants-in-chief, only Geoffrey had an Ulf elsewhere on his Honour, on a modest shared manor at East Norton in Leicestershire9; but since Geoffrey received this manor through an exchange, this Ulf may be another man. Ulf Fenman is several times described as a royal thane10, so he may be the royal thane Ulf who preceded William son of Ansculf on the very substantial manor of Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire11, another valuable manor at Tickford and a lesser one at Woolstone12, as well others held by his men in Caldecote and Hardmead13. If so, Newport was his most valuable manor outside Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Another royal thane, Ulf son of Manni, held land in the county; but though a substantial landowner, none of his manors were on the scale of Newport. William son of Ansculf had no other Ulfs on his Honour..
In Yorkshire, as in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, Ulf 'had full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues' and yet is recorded in the Claims (though not the main text) as holding only a single carucate in the county, in the hands of Ilbert of Lacy in 108614. The small fief of Gilbert of Ghent was held by Karli and Ketilbert15; and although it is possible that Ulf Fenman is their unnamed overlord, he surely had significant demesne holdings too. If so, he is likely to be the predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière16, the only Ulf with substantial manors in the county, some of which are located across the Humber from the Fenman's manors in north Lincolnshire. The difficulty with this explanation is that Drogo also acquired a number of manors in Lincolnshire and elsewhere17 from another substantial Lincolnshire landowner of this name, Ulf son of Topi18, and it seems improbable that the two significant Ulfs in the county are both Drogo's predecessors. This difficulty disappears, of course, if Ulf Fenman and Ulf son of Topi are the same man.
This may be the case, as there are other links between them. Many of the manors of Ulf son of Topi are documented in his will, a royal charter and the Peterborough chronicle which between them itemise extensive grants made to the abbey by Ulf and his relatives: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 207-12; Bates, Regesta, no. 216, pp. 686-88; Hugh Candidus, pp. 40-41, 71-72, 86. Apart from immediate family, Ulf was related in an unspecified but close degree to Abbot Brand of Peterborough and his brothers and relatives, Alnoth, Eskil, Godric, Rolf, Siric and Siuorthus. With the exception of Siric, all held land in vills named in Ulf's will or by Hugh Candidus as grants made to the abbey, and all held land in vills alongside other family members.
1 HUN 21,1
2 LIN C7. 24,5-22;25-34;36;45-53;77-78;80;82-105
3 NTH 46,7
4 NTT 17,1;4-6;9-18
5 OXF 38,2
6 RUT 5,15
7 LIN 63,10;12-14;21;25. CW17
8 LIN 57,40. 60,1
9 LEC 29,2
10 BDF 27,1. BUK 22,1. CAM 23,1;5
11 BUK 17,17
12 BUK 17,19;27
13 BUK 17,18;28
14 YKS CW4
15 YKS 20E1-4
16 YKS 14E11;23-25;31-32;36
17 LEC 36,1-2
18 LIN 30,6-8;20-21;32;36. CN27
Ulf Fenman held land in many of the same vills: Althorpe, Lavington, Manthorpe (with Witham), Morton, Riseholme and Sempringham, named among the donations of Ulf son of Topi; Addlethorpe, Beltoft, Belton, Burton, Candlesby, Hagworthingham, Lound, Riseholme and Scremby alongside an Alnoth; Appleby, Barholm, Greatford and Stowe with an Eskil; Addlethorpe, Burgh-le-Marsh, Burton, 'Holme' and Wainfleet with a Godric; Ingoldsby, Hykeham and Stainfield with a Siward; Addlethorpe and Haconby with Healfdene son of Topi, Ulf's brother; Stow St Mary with Edeva wife of Topi (q.v.); and possibly Rasen1 with a Rolf. Several of these forenames are common and so may not be the relatives of Ulf; but the pattern is too marked to be entirely or even largely due to a coincidence of forenames. Many of these vills are comparable to the 'family' vills in Warwickshire analysed by Dr Williams: 'A vice-comital family', pp. 279-95. Four of them were also shared with Swartbrand son of Ulf (q.v.), very likely the son of Ulf Fenman. Additionally, Ulf's will suggests he is the Ulf who held Lenton and Limber2.
Ulf Fenman is probably also to be identified with Ulf the noble, who held the manor of Creeton and its dependencies in Castle and Little Bytham3. These are the only manors of Ulf the noble in Domesday Book, a mediocre endowment for a man of this status. Creeton is four miles from Ulf Fenman's manor of Witham, and two from Bytham, the subject of a grant in Ulf's will. Additionally, the Ulf at Canwick is probably Ulf Fenman since Swartbrand claimed land in the vill through his father, Ulf4; and Ulf of Barnetby5 may also be the Fenman, Barnetby being four miles from his manor at Kettleby and acquired by Erneis of Buron who also acquired several manors from, Edeva, the mother of Ulf son of Topi.
Ulf is ranked third in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; adding the manors of Ulf son of Topi and his wife and brother (pp. 354-55) would place him on a par with Esger the constable, ranked second. Lists of the Ulf's manors are given by Hart, Danelaw, 267-79, and Clarke, English nobility, pp. 351-53. Dr Clarke omits dependencies, Dr Hart gives a detailed breakdown of the sokes. Neither includes the manors of William son of Ansculf or identifies Ulf son of Topi with Ulf Fenman; Dr Clarke assigns the Yorkshire manors acquired by Drogo to Ulf Fenman, but Dr Hart does not.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF <OF CARLTON>. Although the name is common, there is little reason to doubt that the Ulf who granted land at Stonegrave in Yorkshire to the Canons of York6 is the Ulf from whom they acquired twelve of the previous thirteen manors7. He may also be the Ulf who preceded the archbishop at Langtoft and Cottam8. Neither the archbishop or the Canons were preceded elsewhere by an Ulf. His most valuable manor was Carlton Husthwaite9.
Ulf has been identified as Ulf son of Thorald - 'Ulphus the son of Toraldus' - who endowed the Church of York 'with many large possessions', in memorable circumstances recorded by Camden (Britannia, p. 720) from an 'ancient book': 'This Ulphus governed in the west parts of Deira, and by reason of a difference like to happen between his eldest son and his youngest, about the lordships after his death, he presently took his course to make them equal. Without delay, he went to York, and taking the horn he was wont to drink from with him, he filled it with wine, kneeling upon his knees before the Altar, bestowed upon God and the blessed S. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, all his lands and tenements'. Camden appears to locate his story in the eighth century,
1 LIN 4,39
2 LIN 2,42. 25,3. CK10
3 LIN 51,7-9
4 LIN 6,1. CK18
5 LIN 34,4
6 YKS 2N15
7 YKS 2N2-4;6-14
8 YKS 2B16-17
9 YKS 2N14
the time of Alcuin; but subsequent scholars referred it to the reign of Cnut or shortly thereafter since a fourteenth century source - probably Camden's 'ancient book' - describes Ulphus as an earl, a title not current before then, and adds that his gifts were confirmed by Edward the Confessor, confirming a pre-Conquest date: Gale, 'Historical dissertation', pp. 192-93. When the lands of the Domesday Ulf were brought into the discussion, he became the preferred candidate: VCH Yorkshire, ii. 151-52.
There are, however, serious objections to this identification. According to Domesday, Ulf was still in possession of his lands in 1066. More significantly, the thirteenth century survey known as Kirkby's Quest records that the lands of Ulf which formed part of the Liberty of St Peter all lay in the East Riding, and were far more extensive than those of the Domesday Ulf, all of whose manors were in the North Riding, apart from the two acquired by the archbishop1. All the manors of Ulf in Kirkby's Quest were already in the hands of the archbishop or Canons in 1066 according to Domesday Book, apart from Dunnington, held by an Edwin and Slettan2: Kirkby's Inquest, pp. 62-63, 66, 68, 92. An attempt has been made to reconcile Domesday and Kirkby's quest by suggesting that Ulf donated only some his lands to the Church of York, retaining some manors - he is held to be alive in 1086 - for himself and his sons; but, apart from ignoring the inconvenient parts of the tradition, the thesis depends upon heroic assumptions about the identity of several unidentified Ulfs, Arnketils, Gamals, Northmanns and Orms in Domesday: Davies, 'Horn of Ulphus', pp. 1-11. If Ulf and his horn can be assigned to any known Ulf, then given the scale of his grants and the historical tradition, the most likely candidate remains Cnut's earl, Ulf Thorgilsson, despite his patronymic. The horn is now one of the treasures of the Minster museum.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF [* OF GLATTON *]. The Ulfs whose four manors in Huntingdonshire constituted the fief of Count Eustace of Boulogne in the county3 are evidently one man, probably the Ulf of Glatton who witnessed a charter of Ramsey abbey before the Conquest, Glatton being his principal manor: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 175-76; Early charters of eastern England, p. 236. Count Eustace had no other tenants or predecessors of this name.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF <OF NOCTON>. The Ulfs whose manors in Lincolnshire were acquired by Norman of Arcy4 may be the second Ulf - Ulf Fenman is the first - who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in Lincolnshire5, Nocton being the most valuable manor held by an Ulf who is not apparently Ulf Fenman. His manors are surrounded by those of Ulf Fenman, conceivably the same man; but the existence of a second Ulf with county-wide jurisdictional rights implies another Ulf of substance; and, unlike many of the manors of Ulf Fenman, those acquired by Norman do not lie in the 'family' vills of Ulf Fenman and his relatives, with the partial exception of Brocklesby.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF [* SON OF AZUR *]. The Ulfs who held Brafield and Houghton in Northamptonshire from Countess Judith6 are almost certainly Ulf son of Azur, whose manors in those vills she claimed from the bishop of Bayeux7. He may also be the Ulf who held Hardwick from her8, although the
1 YKS 2B16-17
2 YKS 2B8
3 HUN 9,1-4
4 LIN 32,1-2;32;34
5 LIN T5
6 NTH 56,56;63-64
7 NTH 2,2-3
8 NTH 56,47
Lincolnshire Claims state that Hardwick, presumed to be the outlier of Lavington in Lincolnshire, was sold to the archbishop of York by another Ulf, Ulf son of Topi1. The Countess had a second manor in Hardwick for which no pre-Conquest holder is named2, which may have been his, though this would not explain why she acquired both: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 207-12. A more likely explanation is that Hardwick of Ulf's will is not the Northamptonshire Hardwick but Hardwick in 'Well' wapentake in Lincolnshire3, in which case the link with the Countess is probably Swein son of Svavi (q.v.), from whom she acquired this Hardwick and another manor in Yorkshire. Azur's son may also be the Ulf who held Chadstone4, adjacent to Brafield, Countess Judith laying claim to it on the grounds that Ulf was the man of her husband, Earl Waltheof. This would account for the absence of Chadstone from the will of Ulf son of Topi, who has been tentatively identified as the Ulf in this entry: Anglo-Saxon wills, p. 208. Judith had one other predecessor named Ulf, at Markfield in Leicestershire5, possibly the same man; but the name is common and Markfield more than forty miles away. Ulf son of Azur may have been allowed to survive on a fragment of his previous estate, retaining a hide in Oxendon which he held in 1066, the only Ulf who was a tenant of the Countess6. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27480).
.............................................................................................................................................
ULF [* SON OF MANNI SWART *]. Robert of Tosny acquired his fiefs in Gloucestershire7 and Cambridgeshire8, one of his most valuable manors - Stone - in Buckinghamshire9 and two of the four in Suffolk10 from Ulf, probably the Ulf designated as Robert's predecessor in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 42). In Suffolk, Robert acquired the other two manors on his fief from Manni Swart (q.v.), which strongly suggests that Ulf is the son of Manni Swart, so-named at Theberton11. If so, then he is probably the Ulf whose valuable manor of Beddington in Surrey12 was acquired by Miles Crispin, his father supplying the other manor constituting Miles' fief. He may also be the Ulf on two valuable manors in Middlesex13 acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who also obtained Ickenham from a man of Ulfi son of Manni14, either Ulf or another son of Manni, more likely the former as Wulfsi would be a lord without demesne lands. He is perhaps also the Ulf whose man in Stone was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux15. As he is described as a royal thane on his Cambridgeshire manor, and as a royal Guard in Buckinghamshire, it is possible he is the royal thane who held other manors in Buckinghamshire, though it is more likely that these were held by the magnate, Ulf Fenman. Ulf and his father are probably the Mannig Sparcingesone and Ulf named in a charter of Bury St Edmunds: Early charters of eastern England, p. 249; VCH Suffolk, i. 504 note 132. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 355-56, which includes only those manors acquired by Robert of Tosny. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him more than twenty places, with those of his father, thirty.
1 LIN CK10
2 NTH 56,48
3 LIN T2-4
4 NTH 53,1
5 LEC 40,9
6 NTH 56,32
7 GLS 46,1-3
8 CAM 20,1
9 BUK 18,1
10 SUF 44,1-2
11 SUF 6,109
12 SUR 29,1
13 MDX 7,2;6
14 MDX 7,8
15 BUK 4,1
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFGRIM. Ulfgrim is a rare name which occurs once in Buckinghamshire and Nottinghamshire and on three manors and two Claims in Lincolnshire. It is used interchangeably by the scribe with Wilgrim; its derivation is uncertain but it has been suggested that Wulfgrim is the more acceptable form: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', p. 34. There are no surviving Ulfgrims or Wilgrims.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFGRIM <OF HARDMEAD>.Ulfgrim, Earl Leofwin's man, whose very modest manor at Hardmead in Buckinghamshire was acquired by Hugh of Bolbec1, is the one Ulfgrim in southern England; it seems unlikely he is Lincolnshire and Yorkshire lord of this name, the one other Ulfgrim in Domesday Book.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFGRIM <OF LAUGHTON>. As the name is rare, all Ulfgrims in Lincolnshire may be one man, the predecessor of Guy of Craon on the substantial manor of Laughton2, and of the bishop of Bayeux at Rasen and Cockerington3. A Claim concerning Laughton renders Ulfgrim as Wilgrim4, so the one Wilgrim in Domesday Book, predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany at Killingholme5, probably represents the same name as Ulfgrim. All these manors are in Lindsey, where another Claim describes the manors of Alsi and Ulfgrim as rightfully belonging to the bishopric of Lincoln, 'because they had £160 for the lands themselves before 1066', a massive sum which indicates the status of Alsi and Ulfgrim6 and must include more land than is assigned to either man in the text for the county. Alsi is very probably the predecessor of William of Percy, who had several valuable manors in Lindsey, one of them acquired by Percy as a tenant of the bishop of Lincoln7. Whatever the nature of Alsi's relationship with Ulfgrim, it probably identifies the latter as the one Yorkshire Ulfgrim, at Catton, where he was succeeded by William of Percy8.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFKIL. Ulfkil is a very common name which occurs on one fief and more 200 other manors, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and more than fifty of his tenants-in-chief. Its distribution is skewed, being confined to East Anglia and the Midland and northern counties; it does not occur south of the Thames or in circuit three. There are large clusters in East Anglia, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, and few substantial holdings anywhere. Survivors held one fief and some two dozen other manors distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFKIL [* BROTHER OF ALGAR *]. All Ulfkil's in Nottinghamshire may be one man, who survived in the county for twenty years, one of only four counties where an Ulfkil did so. The Ulfkils who held Clifton and Woodborough among the king's thanes in both 1066 and 10869 is likely to be the Ulfkil who held ten other manors among the thanes in 1066. In Woodborough itself, a second manor of Ulfkil was acquired by Healfdene of Cromwell (q.v.), who succeeded Ulfkil on
1 BUK 26,10
2 LIN 57,7-9. NTT 1,66
3 LIN 4,39;57-58
4 LIN CW15
5 LIN 12,7
6 LIN CS5
7 LIN 7,13
8 YKS 13N19
9 NTT 30,9;25
six others1. Of the two remaining manors, Strelley2 is between four and five miles from two of the above manors, Kingston-upon-Soar3 six miles from Clifton. At Kingston, Ulfkil is identified by a royal grant as the brother of Algar Cida, a grant which does not unfortunately name his other manors: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. Algar's brother is probably also the Ulfkil who preceded William Peverel on three of his Nottinghamshire manors since Clifton, held by Ulfkil in chief in 1086 (above), was originally assigned to Peverel with Ulfkil as his tenant, then deleted4, an entry which reveals that Ulfkil also held it in 1066, information missing from his entry among the king's thanes. Peverel's other two manors, at Eastwood and Beeston5, are each within three or four miles of one of those assigned above to Algar's brother.
Ralph of Buron and William the usher acquired manors from an Ulfkil who may be the same man. One of Ralph's three manors - Lamcote6 - lay in a vill where the thane Ulfkil had another manor; and the other two, Hucknall and Rempstone7, are each about six miles from one of the thane's. Bramcote8, acquired by William the usher, lies between the thane's vills of Beeston and Trowell, two miles from either. The remaining Ulfkils in the county, all predecessors of Roger of Bully9, are likely to be one man; and since he, too, was a survivor on three of Roger's manors10, it is not unlikely that he is Algar's brother, his manors allocated to Roger because of the wapentakes in which they lay, these being precisely those wapentakes where Bully obtained a block grant of all unallocated land: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 163. Three of these manors - Normanton-on-Trent, Sutton-on-Trent and Skegby - lie between two and five miles from the thane's manor of Carlton-on-Trent, while Roger's manor in the lost vill of Odestorp is in the same wapentake as Woodborough, where Algar's brother is named and the thane had a second manor.
Roger of Bully also had an Ulfkil among his predecessors in Yorkshire, all his manors lying in Strafforth wapentake11, roughly ten to twenty miles from the nearest cluster of his manors in Nottinghamshire. The Count of Mortain's predecessor also had several manors in that wapentake, his manors there and elsewhere being intermixed with those of Bully's predecessor, the Mortain manors also lying close to some of those of Ilbert of Lacy's predecessor, who is also his tenant on some of them. But the name is common in Yorkshire, and there are no specific links between the manors of the three predecessors. Peverel's tenant is unidentified in Coel (nos. 35336, 35612, 35628), as is Roger's (nos. 35184, 35216, 35323).
.............................................................................................................................................
ULFKIL <OF BUPTON>. All Ulfkils in Derbyshire may be the same man. Eleven manors of his manors were acquired by Henry of Ferrers12, all but two lying in 'Appletree' wapentake, and all but one within roughly five miles of one or more of the others. The exception, Tissington13, was shared with a number of other lords, three of whom shared another manor with Ulfkil; two others were shared with an Aefic, a rare name. The other Ulfkil in Derbyshire may also be the same man, though his manor devolved upon Nigel of Stafford14. It is five miles from the Ferrers acquisition of
1 NTT 30,2;5-6;30;33;36;45
2 NTT 30,31
3 NTT 30,22
4 NTT 10,6
5 NTT 10,32;34
6 NTT 15,7
7 NTT 15,4;6
8 NTT 29,1
9 NTT 9,11;32;40-42;51;66-68;128
10 NTT 9,11;41-42;128
11 YKS 10W8-9;12-13;27
12 DBY 6,7;36-38;45;52;56;60;90
13 DBY 6,7
14 DBY 14,4-5
Sinfin1, perhaps acquired by Nigel because his entire fief lay in Walecros wapentake, much of the land in Derbyshire being allocated by wapentake: Fleming, Kings and nobles, pp. 149-51, 160, 164-65. Neither Henry or Nigel had predecessors or tenants named Ulfkil in other counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
ULVAR <OF STANLEY>. Ulvar, whose modest manor at Stanley in Derbyshire was acquired by Robert son of William2, may be the only man of this name in Domesday Book, the Ulvar at Thorner in Yorkshire3 probably being a scribal error for Wulfbert (q.v.).
.............................................................................................................................................
UNBAN <OF BRETTENHAM>. The free man Unban named in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 140) as held by Eudo the steward at Brettenham in Norfolk4, has no links with his Derbyshire namesake.
.............................................................................................................................................
UNBAN <OF SUTTON>. The one Unban in Domesday Book, whose shared manor of Sutton in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers5, has no links with his namesake recorded in the Inquisitio Eliensis.
.............................................................................................................................................
UNTAN <OF COUGHTON>. It is probable that the Untains who preceded Thorkil of Warwick on two respectable manors at Dosthill and Coughton in Warwickshire6 are one man, these being the only such names in Domesday Book. It is not unlikely that he is also the Untan whose manor at Bradley in Staffordshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf7, Bradley being closer to the Warwickshire manors than they are to each other, though it has been suggested that Untan may be a variant form of Wulfstan, William's predecessor elsewhere in the county: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 402. The Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England accepts Untan and Untain as the same name.
.............................................................................................................................................
URFER <OF OFFLEY>. It is probable that all Urfers in Domesday Book are one man, whose manors in Warwickshire8 and Staffordshire9 were all held from Robert of Stafford, the Staffordshire manors having previously been held by a Wulfric and subsequently by Roger son of Henry in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974; Liber Niger Scaccari, Staffordscira, pp. 171-73. Urfer's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8157) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 439.
.............................................................................................................................................
URSO. Urso is a common name with a highly skewed distribution, all but a handful of the names occurring in the four adjacent counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire where the sheriff Urso of Abetot held his four tenancies-in-chief. There are
1 DBY 6,90
2 DBY 15,1
3 YKS 9W12
4 NFK 24,4
5 DBY 6,39
6 WAR 17,13;69
7 STS 12,23
8 WAR 22,24
9 STS 11,14;51-52
additional grounds for identifying the many unidentified Ursos within that area as the same man; and of the nine outside, two - possibly more - are probably also the sheriff.
.............................................................................................................................................
URSO [* THE SHERIFF *]. Distributional factors suggest that all Ursos in the four adjacent counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire may be Urso of Abetot, alias Urso of Worcester1, tenant-in-chief in those counties and sheriff of Worcestershire. Urso was a tenant of the king2, the bishops of Hereford and Worcester3, the abbeys of Coventry, Westminster, Pershore and Evesham4, the canons of Hereford5, and Odo of Bayeux, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, Ralph of Tosny, and Osbern son of Richard6. Despite this plethora of tenants-in-chief, all these tenants may be identified as the sheriff by the descent of their lands to his successor, his son-in-law William of Beauchamp: Round, Feudal England, pp. 170-74, 177-79; Book of Fees, pp. 140, 449, 610, 961; Feudal Aids, v. 305, 318, 326; Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 172-79, 182-85. Less certainly, the Urso with two manors in Oxfordshire may be the sheriff, though neither descended to his heirs. Chastleton7, seven miles from his manor at Sezincote, was held from the bishop of Bayeux, from whom he held land elsewhere; and Enstone8, three miles from his manor at Spelsbury, was held from Winchcombe abbey, abbeys being Urso's preferred victims. It is less likely, however, that the sheriff is the Urso holding land in Dorset and Wiltshire, as has been suggested, he perhaps being Urso of Berchères: Beauchamp cartulary, p. xix. Even so, Urso's holdings as a tenant were exceptionally large, some three to four times the size of those he held as tenant-in-chief. As Round observed, Urso's real power as a landowner lay not in his holdings from the Crown but in 'the vast extent of the land he held as an under-tenant': 'Domesday survey of Worcestershire', p. 264. Dr Williams provides a table of his Worcestershire tenancies which agrees with the Statistics database apart from the figure for the Church of Worcester: 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', p. 30; see also Williams, 'Spoliation of Worcester', pp. 397-99, 407-408. Urso's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1297) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 439, apart from Chastleton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 27765).
.............................................................................................................................................
VAGN. Vagn is a rare name which occurs nine times, distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
VAGN [* OF WOOTTON *]. All Vagns in Great Domesday are probably the Wagene de Wotton named in a grant to Coventry abbey, his byname derived from his manor of Wootton Wawen, whose 'surname' preserves his personal name. All his manors in Warwickshire were acquired by Robert of Stafford9, his manor at Tysoe being the most valuable in the county, where he was the most substantial predecessor of Robert by a considerable margin, contributing more to the value of his Honour than anyone other than Earl Edwin. As his name is rare, he may be the Vagn at Barr in Staffordshire, acquired by William son of Ansculf10; Barr is closer to some of the Warwickshire manors than they are to each other. He has been identified as a retainer of Earl Leofric of Mercia
1 GLS 65,1
2 HEF 1,38
3 WAR 3,6. WOR 2,17-18;25-28;35;49;51-54;79. 3,2
4 WOR 5,1. 8,2;4;7-8;9e;10b;11;27. 9,1b-1c;1e;5b-5c;6c. 10,12
5 WOR 12,2
6 WAR 37,2. WOR 11,1-2. 14,2. 15,9. 19,14
7 OXF 7,54
8 OXF 11,1
9 WAR 22,1-2;4;6-7;9;23
10 STS 12,25
who witnessed a number of charters in the 1040s and 1050s, and possibly as the Vagn whose legendary deeds are recorded in the Jomsviking Saga: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 240-42, 254.
.............................................................................................................................................
VAGN <OF WRENINGHAM>. Vagn, who held Wreningham in Norfolk from Hermer of Ferrers1, is the only post-Conquest landowner of this name. It is unlikely that he is the English landowner in the Midlands in 1066, with whom he has no tenurial or other links. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 10009).
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING. Viking is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times in Domesday Book and once more in a satellite text, distributed among five counties and the lands of eight tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Devon; all Vikings are pre-Conquest landowners, one of them surviving until 1086.
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF ASHENDON>. Viking, who held a modest manor at Ashendon in Buckinghamshire in 1066 and retained it as a tenant of Miles Crispin twenty years later2, is the only surviving Viking. He is possibly the same man as his Warwickshire namesakes, his manor being roughly as far from the nearest of the Warwickshire manors as they are from each other, though there are no links to confirm this. If he is the same man, he had come down in the world, though not as calamitously as most of his peers, his tenancy being worth about a fifth of the value of the manors of 1066. Viking is unidentified in Coel (no. 1393).
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF BARCHESTON>. As the name is rare in the Midlands, the three Vikings in Warwickshire are likely to be the same man. Two of his manors lay in Barcheston3, one of these held among the royal thanes in the county, as is the third at Hillmorton4. It is possible that he is also the Viking at Ashendon in Buckinghamshire, roughly the same distance from Barcheston as Barcheston is from Hillmorton; but there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF BURGATE>. Viking, who shared fifteen acres worth three shillings with eight other free men at Burgate in Suffolk5, is possibly the same man as the Viking at Helmingham, seventeen miles to the south; but his holding is tiny and there are no links to confirm an identification.
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF DULLINGHAM>. Viking, a man of Earl Harold recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 18) on a hide in Dullingham in Cambridgeshire acquired by Count Alan of Brittany6, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF HELMINGHAM>. As the name is rare in the region, the Vikings whose manors at Helmingham and Stonham in Suffolk were acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux are probably one
1 NFK 13,24
2 BUK 23,9
3 WAR 28,10. 44,9
4 WAR 44,5
5 SUF 7,108
6 CAM 14,75
man1. The manors are roughly half-a-dozen miles apart, and fairly prosperous for a free man. Less certainly, he may be the Viking on a small holding at Burgate, seventeen miles to the north, the one other Viking in East Anglia.
.............................................................................................................................................
VIKING <OF WHIPTON>. As the name is uncommon and the tenurial link robust, the eleven Vikings in Devon are probably one man. All his manors devolved upon William the goat2 and Ralph of Pomeroy3, who were very probably brothers and certainly related and who shared some tenants and predecessors4. With two exceptions - one of William's and one of Ralph's - the manors clustered around the head of the River Exe, eight miles separating Clyst St George and Exminster in the south from Huxham in the north. Some of Ralph's manors are roughly a mile from those of William: Whipton and Heavitree5; Matford and Peamore6. There are no other Vikings within 130 miles.
............................................................................................................................................. VILGRIP. Vilgrip is a rare name which occurs four times, five if the Vithgrip - the only such form in Domesday - at Ingestre in Staffordshire is, as seems likely, a scribal error for Vilgrip. The names are distributed among three counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief, all borne by natives, one of whom survived until 1086. .............................................................................................................................................
VILGRIP <OF EATON>. As the name is rare, the Vilgrips of Shropshire and Staffordshire may be one man, though his manors were acquired by three tenants-in-chief. Robert of Stafford, who acquired Church Eaton in Staffordshire7 from Vilgrip, also obtained Ingestre8 from a Vithgrip (Widegrip). As Vilgrip is rare and Vithgrip unique, a scribal error may reasonably be suspected. The two Staffordshire manors are roughly as far apart - a dozen miles - as Church Eaton is from Kynnersley in Shropshire, acquired by Gerard of Tournai; Wytheford, which devolved upon Reginald the sheriff, is seven miles from Kynnersley9. The four manors are of similarly modest status. The one other Vilgrip in Domesday is 170 miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
VILGRIP <OF FLOWTON>. Vilgrip, who shared a ploughteam with another free man at Flowton in Suffolk acquired by Roger of Auberville10, has no links with his namesakes. He may have survived on his holding until 1086, though the text is ambiguous. He is not included in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
VITALIS. Vitalis is a fairly common name which occurs almost three dozen times in Domesday Book and satellite texts, distributed among twelve counties and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief. There are few clusters, none large, though the bulk of the names occur south of the Thames, for the most part in the south-west, where all eight manors held by a Vitalis before 1066 are located.
1 SUF 16,22;26
2 DEV 19,8-9;22;26;38;45
3 DEV 34,12;29-30;52;56
4 DEV 19 William note
5 DEV 19,38. 34,56
6 DEV 19,9. 34,12
7 STS 11,65
8 STS 11,32
9 SHR 4,3,4. 4,23,1
10 SUF 29,4
.............................................................................................................................................
VITALIS <OF HILDERSTONE>. Vitalis, who held land worth ten shillings at Hilderstone in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford1, has no links with his namesakes. The impression that he was a minor landowner is reinforced by the difficulties experienced by his son in maintaining his hold on Hilderstone itself, documented by a charter of Stone priory of 1136: VCH Staffordshire, iv. 33. The name does not recur in the six adjacent counties. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3614) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 443.
.............................................................................................................................................
VITHFARI <OF BOBBINGTON>. The three Vithfaris in Domesday Book (Wifare, Wivar) may be one man, though his manors devolved upon three tenants-in-chief and have no specific links between them. The manors are, however, of comparable status and within a day's journey of each other. Ryton in Shropshire2, acquired by Osbern son of Richard, is ten miles from Bobbington in Staffordshire3, which is seventeen miles from Rushall in the same county4, these last two manors being acquired respectively by Robert of Stafford and William son of Ansculf, both held 'with full jurisdiction'.
............................................................................................................................................. WADA. Wada is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among four counties between Dorset and Nottinghamshire, on the lands of six tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners. Wado, Wadel, Wadilo and even Walo may be variant forms but have no tenurial or other links with Wada; the first three forms are occur only in the south-western counties of circuit two, as do two Walos: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 407-408. .............................................................................................................................................
WADA <OF BRAMPTON>. As the name is rare, the Wada whose land valued at five shillings and four pence in Old Brampton in Derbyshire was acquired by Walter of Aincourt5, may be one of the two Nottinghamshire Wadas, though there are no links to confirm this.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADA <OF HARWORTH>. Wada, who preceded Roger of Bully on land worth £2 at Harworth in Nottinghamshire shared with two other landowners6, may be the same man as the Derbyshire Wada, though probably not the Nottinghamshire Wada who preceded Gilbert of Ghent.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADA <OF MUNSLEY>. Wada, whose hide worth ten shillings at Munsley in Herefordshire was acquired by William son of Norman7, has no links with other Wadas, all remote.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADA <OF OLLERTON>. Wada, who preceded Gilbert of Ghent on a modestly endowed manor at Ollerton in Nottinghamshire8, is unlikely to be the same Wada as Roger of Bully's predecessor in
1 STS 11,27
2 SHR 4,17,3
3 STS 11,43
4 STS 12,26
5 DBY 8,2
6 NTT 9,55-56
7 HEF 16,1
8 NTT 17,3
the county. Both held land in 'Bassetlaw' wapentake, dominated by Roger, who was probably granted everything in the wapentake not previously allocated to other tenants-in-chief : Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-64. Gilbert had presumably acquired the land of his Wada before this grant, which implies that Roger's predecessor is a different man.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADA [* SON OF AETHELGYTH *]. As the name is rare, the Wada who held the valuable manor of Corfe Mullen in Dorset acquired by Robert son of Gerald is probably the Wada at Petersham, a few miles to the north1. Von Feilitzen suggested he is the son of Aethelgyth named in a Dorset charter from the mid-1040s: Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 407. He may be the Wada named in a writ of Edward the Confessor from the 1060s addressed to the authorities in Devon, possibly the sheriff of that county: Harmer, Writs, pp. 419, 529-31; Green, English sheriffs, p. 22, note 113.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADARD <OF COGGES>. All Wadards in Domesday Book are very probably one man, here named from the barony held by his successors, the Arsic family: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 36-37. Despite his importance and the number of his manors distributed among six counties, he is never accorded a byname. He is the Wadard depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry, perhaps because he was one of the principal tenants of Odo of Bayeux, who influenced if he did not commission the Tapestry. Wadard appears to have lost his lands with the fall of the bishop; his manors in Lindsey were in the hands of Manasseh Arsic by the time of the Lindsey Survey (2/19. 7/20. 8/16. 9/10. 11/20. 15/8. 16/15).
With few exceptions, all Wadard's manors and their dependencies were held from Bishop Odo: in Kent2, Surrey3, Wiltshire4, Dorset5, Oxford6, Warwickshire7, and Lincolnshire8. The exceptions are parts of two of the manors of St Augustine's9, an abbey which accommodated several of Odo's tenants; a piece of woodland in the royal manor of Milton Regis10, and a mill belonging to St Martin's of Dover, possibly against the will of the Canons and with the connivance of the bishop11. Although he did not hold a single virgate as a tenant-in-chief, Wadard was among the two dozen wealthiest landowners of 1086. Reginald Wadard (q.v.), probably his son, also held land from the bishop. Domesday Book gives the most complete account of Wadard's manors, not all of which can be traced among those of his successors. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2995) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 444.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADO. Wado is an uncommon name, confined to the south-western counties of circuit two, where Exon. occasionally represents the name as Wadel, possibly related to Wadilo, both forms also being confined to this area: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 407-408. Wado is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, perhaps as few as three. The different forms are itemised under four head-names in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England.
1 DOR 30,1. 55a,1
2 KEN D8. 5,13-14;55;164-165
3 SUR 5,27
4 WIL 4,3
5 DOR 4,1
6 OXF 7,6;14-15;21;24;27;29;32;37-38;41-43;46;48;65
7 WAR 4,3-4
8 LIN 4,2;7;9;23-25;28-33;39-40;53;59-60;74;81
9 KEN 7,19-20
10 KEN 1,3
11 KEN P19
.............................................................................................................................................
WADO <OF ASHBRITTLE>. As the name is rare, the predecessors of the Count of Mortain at Ashbrittle in Somerset1 and Modbury, Torridge, Bolberry, Shilston and Honicknowle in Devon2 are probably the same Wado, and very likely the Wadel and Wadilo at Whiteleigh and Widey, adjacent to Honicknowle, where Exon. renders Wadel as Wado3. The six Devonshire manors are spaced along the coast between Plymouth Sound and Bolt Head. According to Domesday Book, the Count also had predecessors named Wadel at Patrieda4 and Walo at Trecan5 in Cornwall who are possibly the same man. Trecan is near the coast, west of the Devonshire manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
WADO <OF BARFORD>. Wado, who held Barford St Martin's among the king's thanes of Wiltshire for two decades6, is the only survivor of this name. His manor is isolated from those of his namesakes, with whom he has no apparent links. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 17195).
.............................................................................................................................................
WADO <OF BROADNYMETT>. As the name is rare, the predecessors of Baldwin the sheriff at Broadnymett, Walson and Greenslade in Devon are probably one man; the vills are within a few miles of each other7. In all three cases, the Exon. form of the name is Walo, one of several alternative forms which suggests he may be Baldwin's predecessor Wadel at Warson8, in which case he is likely to be the Wadel in the adjacent vill of Lydford9.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALBERT. Walbert is a rare name which occurs seven times, distributed among two counties as tenants on the lands of three tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALBERT <OF FULSTOW>. As the name is rare, the Walberts who held Fulstow, Wold Newton, and Ravendale in Lincolnshire from the bishop of Durham10 are very probably one man. The manors form a fairly tight cluster and were held by one man in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 159. It seems unlikely he is the same man as the Staffordshire Walbert, whose nearest manor is a hundred miles away. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8240) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 444.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALBERT <OF ORTON>. The Walberts who held Orton, Seisdon and Bradley in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf11 are probably one man, whose manors form a fairly close group. As the name is rare, he may also be the other Staffordshire Walbert, a tenant of Robert of Stafford at Dilhorne12, some thirty-five miles to the north. William and Robert shared several other tenants. It
1 SOM 19,20
2 DEV 15,49-50;73;76;78
3 DEV 28,16
4 CON 5,1,18
5 CON 5,2,30
6 WIL 67,81
7 DEV 16,48;52;56
8 DEV 16,10
9 DEV 34,3
10 LIN 3,6-7;40
11 STS 12,7;17;23
12 STS 11,41
seems unlikely, however, that he is the same man as the Lincolnshire Walbert, a hundred miles away. Walbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 12099) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 444.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALERAN [* FATHER OF JOHN *]. Waleran, named on the Essex fief of his son John, is evidently the Waleran whose annexations in Henny and Halstead are recorded1, Henny being one of John's manors. He is probably also the Waleran who annexed a house in Colchester and arranged a payment of £20 from the mint2, subsequently pardoned by the king; his son had a significant presence in the town. His involvement with the mint implies an official role so he is possibly the one other Waleran in the county, annexing a Freeman on the royal manor of Lawford3, though the text implies - perhaps misleadingly - that this Waleran was still active. As an intermediate landowner, Waleran is not included in Coel or the Statistics database.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN. If Bishop Walkelin of Winchester is excluded, Walkelin is an uncommon name which occurs on one fief and nineteen manors, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief. It is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by no more than four individuals other than the bishop, all post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP W[ALKELIN]. Bishop W at Abington Pigotts, on the fief of the bishop of Winchester in Cambridgeshire4, is Bishop Walkelin of Winchester (1070-1098). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 836) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 445.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN [* NEPHEW OF THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER *]. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Walkelin who held Tur Langton and Lubenham in Leicestershire5, North Grimston in Yorkshire6 and North Witham and Billinghay and their dependencies in Lincolnshire7 from the archbishop of York is the nephew of the bishop of Winchester, the archbishop's tenant at Bishops Norton in Gloucestershire8. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3687) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 445-46.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN <OF ASLOCKTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Walkelins who held Aslockton and Car Colston in Nottinghamshire from Walter of Aincourt9 are one man; the vills are three miles apart and both held by the same man before the Conquest. No other Walkelins held land in the county or on Walter's Honour. It has been suggested that Walkelin was the ancestor of the Croc family, though the family does not make an appearance until the thirteenth century: Thurgarton cartulary, pp. cxii-cxiii, 214-215, 233-34. Walkelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 88) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 445.
1 ESS 90,46-47
2 ESS 17,1. B6
3 ESS 1,27
4 CAM 2,3
5 LEC 2,1-3
6 YKS 2B18
7 LIN 2,34-37;40-41
8 GLS 2,3
9 NTT 11,22-24
.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN <OF FAINTREE>. The Walkelin who held a very small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury1 has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Walkelin in the county or on the Honour of the earl. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8830) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 445.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN <OF HARROWDEN>. The Walkelins who held a block of seven consecutive manors in Northamptonshire from the bishop of Coutances2 are very probably one man; there is a marked tendency in the Northamptonshire folios for the fiefs to be arranged by tenants. Harrowden and Isham3 were held together in the Northamptonshire Survey, and Harrowden was held with Burton, Clipston and Edgcott4 in the thirteenth century, though they were apparently in other hands in the Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 370, 382-83, 389; Book of Fees, p. 934; Farrer, Honors, ii. 324-27. The bishop's tenant is possibly the one other Walkelin in the county, a tenant of Robert of Tosny at Ashley5, circled by Walkelin's other manors. Walkelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3686) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 445.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALO. Walo is a rare name which occurs seven times, distributed among five counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief. It is possibly a variant form of Wado, Wadel or Wadilo, though most Walos have a distinctive geographical or tenurial distribution: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 408-409.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALO <OF STAUNTON>. Walo, who preceded William of Mohun on a modest manor at Staunton in Somerset valued at fifteen shillings6, has no links with Walo of Trecan, the one other pre-Conquest lord of this name. His name may be a variant of Wado, a pre-Conquest name which occurs only in the south-west: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 408-409. There are, however, no tenurial or other links with the Wados in the region.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALO <OF TRECAN>. Walo, who preceded the Count of Mortain on a modest manor at Trecan in Cornwall valued at ten shillings7, has no links with Walo of Staunton, the one other pre-Conquest lord of this name. His name may be a variant of Wado, a pre-Conquest name which occurs only in the south-west: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 408-409. If so, then he may be the Count's predecessor Wado of Ashbrittle, two of whose manors were subinfeudated to Reginald of Vautortes, who held Trecan from the count in 1086. As the relationship of Wado and Walo is uncertain, however, Walo is here treated as a separate individual.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALO <OF WILLINGHAM>. All tenants in 1086 named Walo may be one man, though his manors are distributed among three counties and as many tenant-in-chief. In each county, the Walos held from one tenant-in-chief so - as the name is rare - it is improbable there was more than
1 SHR 4,16,1-2
2 NTH 4,5-11
3 NTH 4,5-8
4 NTH 4,5-7;9-11
5 NTH 26,10
6 SOM 25,18
7 CON 5,2,30
one Walo per county. The Sussex Walo, subtenant of Walter son of Lambert on the fief of the Count of Eu1, is probably also the Lincolnshire Walo, tenant of Jocelyn son of Lambert2, given their association with a Lambert, itself an uncommon name. Walter and Jocelyn are the only sons of Lambert in Domesday. It is not known if they are the sons of the same Lambert; but it is likely they were related in some way, since the successors of Walter - the Scotney family - were established in both counties, though the Lincolnshire branch is post-Domesday, its manors descending separately: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 74-75, 81-82; VCH Sussex, ix. 79, 253, 278. The names Lambert and Walter recur among the descendants of this branch of the family: Keats-Rohan, Domesday descendants, pp. 705-706. The tenant of Hugh son of Baldric in Yorkshire3 has no specific links with Lambert; but there are indirect associations between Hugh's Honour and the Scotney family, both having manors in Great Limber and Stainton-in-the-Vale in Lincolnshire, Stainton being the seat of the Scotney barony there: Early Yorkshire charters, vi. 165-67. The associations are slight and might be coincidental, but Walo's name is rare. The manors of the Sussex and Lincolnshire Walos are attributed to different men in Coel (nos. 2136, 3361) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 446-47; the Yorkshire tenant is unidentified (no. 38110).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALRAVEN. Walraven is a rare name which occurs once in Bedfordshire and four times in Lincolnshire, all five men being pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALRAVEN [* FATHER OF AGHMUND *]. Walraven, whose two manors at Canwick in Lincolnshire were acquired respectively by the bishop of Lincoln and Norman the fat4, is undoubtedly the father of Aghmund who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the city of Lincoln5, both tenants in chief being predecessors of this Aghmund (q.v.) and one or more of his brothers. It seems unlikely that he is the one other Walraven in Domesday Book, at Sewell in Bedfordshire, with whom he has no associations.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALRAVEN <OF SEWELL>. Walraven, Queen Edith's man, who held Sewell in Bedfordshire before the Conquest6, seems unlikely to be the one other Domesday Walraven, the father of Aghmund, whose family interests appear to be confined to the northern counties.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER. Walter is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring more than 750 times and in every Domesday county. More than forty Walters have different bynames, sixteen of them tenants-in-chief, Walters also occurring as tenants of almost one hundred other tenants-in-chief. No Walter appears in a pre-Conquest context.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* WALTER BROTHER OF *] SIHERE. Sihere, who appropriated land at Southill in Bedfordshire later acquired by Walter of Flanders7, may be Sihere brother of Walter, or possibly - since the scribe sometimes used the byname as a shorthand - Walter brother of Sihere, a nephew of Walter of
1 SUS 9,18;60
2 LIN 28,5-6;19
3 YKS 23N31-32
4 LIN 7,51. 33,2
5 LIN C2-3
6 BDF 1,4
7 BDF 32,15
Flanders, who held the following fief and whose lands were later part of the Honour of Odell held by the descendants of Walter of Flanders: Farrer, Honors, i. 61. Sihere is nowhere else recorded as a predecessor of his brother or nephew, and the forename does not occur elsewhere in Domesday Book. Walter's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 458) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 456.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* COCKERELL *]. The Walters who held Sezincourt and 'Icomb Proper' in Gloucestershire from Durand the sheriff1 are probably one man, his manors descending to the Cockerell family2. Durand had no other tenants of this name. Walter is unidentified in Coel (nos. 29765-66).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* DELAMARE *]. The Walters who held Rendcomb and Aylworth in Gloucestershire from Gilbert son of Turold3 are probably one man, his manors descending to the Delamere family: VCH Gloucestershire, vi. 80. Gilbert had other tenants of this name, in Somerset, Worcestershire and Warwickshire, possibly a different Walter, of Maine. The Walter of Rendcomb and Aylworth is unidentified in Coel (nos. 29755-56).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF AINCOURT *]. Walter, who held Horbling in Lincolnshire from the archbishop of York4, is very probably Walter of Aincourt, who held Billingborough - half a mile away - from the archbishop, both manors being held by Thorkil the Dane before 1066. The archbishop had no other Walters on his Honour. Walter was a tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire and in four other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 160) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 448.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF BEAUMAIS *]. Walter, who held Sawtry in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff5, is probably Walter of Beaumais (de Belmeis), named in a writ of William Rufus as forcefully detaining a half-hide in the vill belonging to the abbey of Ramsey, once held by Alwin the reeve and later by his wife6: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, i. 208; Regesta, i. no. 322. He is probably also the Walter who held Papworth in Cambridgeshire from Eustace7, named Walter de Helmes in the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, p. 111), perhaps a misreading of the initial letter. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he was from Beaumais in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen), and that he is possibly the Gauterius de Belmes who held land in the département before 1066. His Cambridgeshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1704) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 448, with the addition of Chicksands in Bedfordshire; Sawtry is assigned to Walter the monk.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF CAEN *]. Walter of Caen, alias Walter of Huntingfield, alias Walter son of Aubrey, is identified in the foundation charter of Eye priory, where Roger of Huntingfield grants the tithes of Huntingfield, Linstead and Bing to the priory, witnessed by Roger son of Walter of Huntingfield: Eye priory cartulary, i. 13. In Domesday Book, Huntingfield is held by Walter son of
1 GLS 53,7-8
2 GLS 53,7 Walter note
3 GLS 52,5-6
4 LIN 2,33
5 HUN 19,1
6 HUN 29,6
7 CAM 3,1;3
Aubrey and Bing by Walter of Caen1, the Walter at Linstead evidently being the same man2. As Walter son of Aubrey, Walter held three manors in Cambridgeshire from Walter Giffard3, but otherwise his manors were held from Robert Malet, all but one of them in East Anglia, where he is readily identifiable as W of Caen on several manors in Suffolk4, or at Loudham as W son of Aubrey5, a vill in which he also held as Walter of Caen6, or on four other manors in the county as Walter son of Aubrey7.
Elsewhere, the descent of his manors identifies him as the Walter who held Colne Engaine in Essex8; Thelveton, Semere and Woodton in Norfolk9 and Great Glemham in Suffolk10 from Robert Malet: Round, 'Early sheriffs of Norfolk', pp. 491-92; Book of Fees, pp. 1327-28; Eye priory cartulary, ii. 67, 70. He is 'also' Robert's one other Walter in Suffolk, at Cransford, three miles from the following manor of Great Glemham11. In Norfolk, where he held Kilverstone, he is perhaps the Walter on the two following manors12, and possibly at Burston and Roydon13, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. He may be the same man as William of Caen (q.v.). Walter's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 554) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 449, apart from Shotesham14, allocated to Walter the bowman, perhaps confusing Shotesham with Shottisham in Suffolk, held by the bowman15; he is also allocated Framlingham16, more probably held by William of Caen, if he is another man and not a scribal error (q.v.).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF DOUAI *]. Walter, who held the valuable manor of Castle Cary in Somerset on the fief of Walter of Douai17, has been identified as Walter of Bainton (de badentona), named in the Geld Roll for Braunton Hundred: Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 37; VCH Somerset, i. 535. This is almost certainly an error. Badentona is surely Bampton in Devon, not Bainton in Oxfordshire or Yorkshire, and Walter is the tenant-in-chief himself, not an imaginary tenant, as the form of the Domesday entry clearly indicates. Bampton is one of the two seats from which the Honour took its name, the other being Castle Cary: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 5, 27-28. Such aliases from a vill in the local area concerned are not uncommon in the Domesday texts. Walter of Douai's manors, including Bampton and Castle Cary, are recorded in Coel (no. 629) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 450-51.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF GRANDCOURT *]. The Walters who held Harpley, Fulmodeston, Croxton and Burnham Thorpe in Norfolk from William of Warenne18 are probably Walter of Grandcourt,
1 SUF 6,80;245
2 SUF 6,81-82
3 CAM 17,4-6
4 SUF 6,93;162;165;169-170
5 SUF 6,189
6 SUF 6,247
7 SUF 6,2;32;183;292
8 ESS 44,4
9 NFK 7,13;15
10 SUF 6,45
11 SUF 6,44
12 NFK 7,3-5
13 NFK 7,8;12
14 NFK 7,5
15 SUF 6,238
16 SUF 6,264
17 SOM 24,17
18 NFK 8,30;103-105
Warenne's tenant at Carlton and Weston Colville in Cambridgeshire1: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 23). His Norfolk manors are identified by grants by himself or his heirs of land and tithes in those vills to the Warenne foundation of Lewes priory: Farrer, Honors, iii. 389-92, 437. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 649) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 451-52.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF MAINE *]. Walter, who held Ubley and 'also' Ston Easton in Somerset from Gilbert son of Turold2, is almost certainly Walter of Maine, named in the Geld Roll for Chewton Hundred where both manors lay: VCH Somerset, i. 530-31. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Gilbert's son-in-law, who held Hadzor in Worcestershire3; and it is possible he is the Walter who held Stretton, Gilbert's one manor in Warwickshire4, of comparable status; but his forename is common. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 912) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 447; the tenant at Stretton is unidentified (no. 28542).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF PAILTON *]. Walter, who held Ullesthorpe in Leicestershire from Geoffrey of la Guerche5, may be the Walterius de Pallentuna who witnessed Geoffrey's foundation charter of 1077 for Monks Kirby priory in Warwickshire: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1. He is the only Walter among Geoffrey's tenants. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Pallentuna is Pillerton in Warwickshire, which has no tenurial associations with either Geoffrey or Walter; Pallentuna is more probably Pailton, a hamlet in Monks Kirby parish (Ekwall, Dictionary of English place-names, p. 356). Pailton is not named in Domesday Book but Geoffrey held the vill of Monks Kirby. Walter's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 10224) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 458.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF RICARVILLE *]. The Walters who held Easthall and 'Beverington' in Sussex from the Count of Mortain6, and Bevendean in Sussex7 and Roding in Essex8 from William of Warenne, are probably the same man since land in those vills descended to the Folkington family, named from another manor of the Count of Mortain9: Farrer, Honors, iii. 353-55. He may also be the tenant of the archbishop of Canterbury at South Malling in Pevensey Rape10, where the family later held a fee from the archbishopric: Red Book, ii. 473, 556, in which case he is likely to be Walter of Ricarville, listed as a knight of the archbishop in a document slightly later than Domesday Book: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 41-42, 105. In a document of circa 1095, the Count of Mortain complained that Walter of Ricarville had wrongfully seized certain lands, among them Withyham in Hartfield, when he was sheriff of the Honour of Pevensey: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 434-35. Hartfield was another manor held from the Count by a Walter in 108611, so it is not unlikely the Count's tenant on the other manors is his sheriff, who was also the tenant of the archbishop and William of Warenne. As sheriff of Pevensey Rape, he is probably the Walter who
1 CAM 18,1;4
2 SOM 42,2-3
3 WOR 20,6
4 WAR 33,1
5 LEC 29,5
6 SUS 10,4-5
7 SUS 12,18
8 ESS 22,8
9 SUS 10,42
10 SUS 2,1e
11 SUS 10,60
held burgesses in Pevensey itself and perhaps the Count's tenant elsewhere in the Rape1. He was probably from Ricarville-du-Val in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 86. He is perhaps Walter the sheriff addressed in one of the forged Battle abbey charters, though this is disputed: Bates, Regesta, no. 19, pp. 147-50. His manors are recorded in Coel and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 453, 458-59, where Malling and Hartfield are assigned to Walter of Ricarville (no. 2154) and the remainder to Walter, ancestor of the Folkington family (no. 1839), apart from 'Sidnor', whose tenant is unidentified (no. 16042); a note suggests Walter of Ricarville may also be ancestor of the Folkington family. He is also identified in Coel as the Count's tenant in Buckinghamshire2 and Northamptonshire3; the Northamptonshire Survey throws no light on the identity of the Count's tenant in that county: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 377, 381.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF RIVERS *]. Walter, son-in-law of Hugh son of Baldric, who held Marden in Wiltshire from him4, is named Walter of Rivers in the Geld Roll for the Swanborough Hundred where Marden lay, which records that Walter of Rivers owed tax on five hides, 'which Hugh gave to his daughter': VCH Wiltshire, ii. 185. Walter was also a tenant of Abingdon abbey at Beedon and Benham in Berkshire, the abbey's chronicle recording that he died leaving a 'very young son', whose guardianship was obtained by his wicked uncle Jocelyn, who tried with some success to disinherit him. The chronicle also reveals that Walter had originally held Benham from Humphrey of Bohun, a famous name otherwise recorded in Domesday Book only as a tenant-in-chief on a single manor in Norfolk: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 30-31, 156-59, 188-89; Regesta, ii. no. 956. Neither Abingdon, Hugh or Humphrey had other tenants named Walter. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 286) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 453, where the commentary mistakenly states that he was a tenant-in-chief in Hampshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF `SPAIN' *]. The Walters who held Woolmersdon, Goathurst and Hillfarrance in Somerset from Alfred 'of Spain'5 are probably Walter 'of Spain', named in the Geld Roll for North Petherton Hundred where Woolmersdon lay, and described as Alfred's brother in Exon. for the Goathurst entry: VCH Somerset, i. 533. Alfred had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Walter was from Epaignes in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Pont-Audemer): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 51-52. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1988) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 452.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* OF VERNON *]. Walter, who held the substantial manor of Churchill in Oxfordshire from Earl Hugh of Chester6, can be identified 'with certainty' as Walter of Vernon, the earl's tenant on four manors in Cheshire, by the descent of Churchill: Farrer, Honors, iii. 248-50, 276-79. He may also be the Walter who held part of Earl Hugh's great manor of Eastham in the Wirral along with several other of the earl's major tenants7. Eastham is circled by Walter's Cheshire manors, and Earl Hugh had no other tenants of this name. Walter was a tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 762) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 454, where the
1 SUS 10,1;24;55;58;74
2 BUK 12,32;37
3 NTH 18,82-83
4 WIL 51,1
5 SOM 35,1;19;22
6 OXF 15,4
7 CHS 1,22
commentary mistakenly states he was a tenant of the earl in Staffordshire, where Earl Hugh held no land.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* SON OF LAMBERT *]. Walter, who held Crowhurst in Sussex from Battle abbey1, is identified in the abbey's chronicle as Walter son of Lambert, the tenant of the Count of Eu in the same vill: Chronicle of Battle abbey, pp. 48-49. Walter held several other manors from the Count where his byname is recorded, and it seems likely he is the Walter who held seven consecutive manors which followed on from one of these, at Ripe2, and probably also the Walter at Filsham3, three miles from Crowhurst, and perhaps at Playden4, the one other Walter on the Count's Honour. Count Robert's son and successor had one tenant named Walter, at Streatley in Bedfordshire, conceivably the same man; its descent has not been traced: VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 383, note 57. Walter was the ancestor of the Scotney family, who held nine fees of the Honour: VCH Sussex, ix. 253, 278; Calendar of Inquisitions Miscellaneous, ii. no. 405, p. 102. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 545) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 455.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* THE BOWMAN *]. Walter, who held Thrandeston and 'also' Broom in Suffolk from Robert Malet5, is probably Walter the bowman, who gave his tithes at Gosewolde in Thrandeston to the Malet foundation of Eye priory: Eye priory cartulary, i. 12; ii. 71-72. The bowman was Robert's tenant on other manors in the county, a tenant-in-chief in Gloucestershire, and the custodian of royal lands in Wales. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 101) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 447.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* THE BUTLER *]. The Walters who Honeychurch, Nymet Rowland, Leigh, Beere, Bramford and Cheldon in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff may be his butler6, who owed tax in the Geld Roll for Wonford Hundred where Bramford7 lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xlvii-viii. Nymet was held with Leigh and Beere by Walter of Nymet in the 1240s, and Bramford, alias Rollstone, with Nymet and Beere by the Wolrington family early in the following century: Book of Fees, p. 783; Feudal Aids, i. 314, 370. Honeychurch and Cheldon do not appear to have later associations, though it may be relevant that a William of Leigh shared Honeychurch: Book of Fees, p. 784; see also Mason, 'Barons and their officials, pp. 246-47. Cheldon is five miles from Nymet. Baldwin had no other tenants of this name. Walter's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1733) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 457, apart from Cheldon, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 11552).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* THE MONK *]. The Walters who held Hinwick and Wymington in Bedfordshire from William Speke8 are identified by the descent of those manors as Walter the monk, tenant of Azelina, wife of Ralph Tallboys, at Old Warden in Bedfordshire and at Tadlow in Cambridgeshire: Farrer, 'The Honour of Old Warden', pp. 22-25. Walter may also have held Chicksands from her9,
1 SUS 8,13
2 SUS 9,74-81
3 SUS 9,14
4 SUS 9,109
5 SUF 6,202-204
6 DEV 16,27;45-47;123;147
7 DEV 16,123
8 BDF 25,5-6
9 BDF 55,12
since her eight tenants are unlikely to include two Walters whose manors are four miles apart. Walter's manors of Wardon and Tadlow are recorded in Coel (no. 370), together with Sawtry in Huntingdonshire, here assigned to Walter of Beaumais; the references in Domesday people, p. 457, include Chicksands, though this is assigned to Walter of Beaumais in Coel; the tenants of William Speke are unidentified (nos. 344-345).
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTER [* THUNDER *]. Walter, who held Loders in Dorset from the wife of Hugh son of Grip1, is probably Walter Thunder, her tenant at Turners Puddle, Swanage and 'Thorne' according to Exon.2, since Loders was later held by Egidius Tonere: Feudal Aids, ii. 11. Hugh's wife had no other Walters among her tenants. Walter's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1740) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 458.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTHEOF. Waltheof is a rare name in the sense that although it occurs more than a hundred times it is almost certainly borne by few individuals. Outside Yorkshire, Waltheof is identified as the earl in all but ten cases; von Feilitzen stated that these, too, are the earl: Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 403 note 1. Their distribution and character of the holdings suggest that this may be so in most but not all cases.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] WALTHEOF. The majority of unidentified Waltheofs occur in Yorkshire. Since it was part of his earldom, the presumption is that most if not all of these Waltheofs are the earl, who is accorded his title only once, at Hallam3. The remaining manors devolved upon the Count of Mortain4 and were probably therefore held by one man, who can scarcely be other than the earl. Hallam, south of the Humber and remote from the other Yorkshire manors, formed part of the huge territorial block in south Yorkshire and north Nottinghamshire held by Roger of Bully. Although described as part of his fief, Roger was actually a tenant of Countess Judith, Waltheof's wife, so the careful recording of the earl's title may have been designed to underline her lordship there.
Outside Yorkshire, the Waltheofs at Weston and Boughton in Huntingdonshire are shown to be the earl by the Claims and by his association with his wife Judith and with his predecessor in the earldom, Earl Tosti5, while the overlord at Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire6 is probably also the earl, the county being the part of his earldom in which he had the most significant presence: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Huntingdonshire', p. 334. He may also have held Osmaston in Derbyshire7. The manor was shared with an Aelgeat; but 'sharing' is a scribal device for aggregating pre-Conquest holdings merged after 1066. The earl had two manors within three miles of Osmaston, all three devolving upon the same tenant-in-chief, subinfeudated to the same tenant, suggesting a single predecessor. The remaining Waltheofs are probably two other men.
Waltheof was the son of Earl Siward of Northumbria and husband of Countess Judith, niece of the Conqueror; he was earl of Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire and other counties, probably in succession to Earl Tosti: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 302-308. After the Conquest, he was earl of Northumbria (1072-1076). He was executed for treason in 1076. A list of his manors is
1 DOR 55,24
2 DOR 55,16;42;44
3 YKS 10W41
4 YKS C27. 5N24;36;43-46;55;62;65;72;75-76. 5E60;62-67. 5W38
5 HUN 19,27;31. D3;11
6 CAM 40,1
7 DBY 6,58
given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 221-25, which does not include Weston in Huntingdonshire1 or Bozeat in Northamptonshire2, but adds Daventry3, where no pre-Conquest lord is named. Waltheof is ranked thirty-sixth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke, a ranking unaffected by these differences.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTHEOF <OF CHALFIELD>. Waltheof, who held a modestly prosperous manor at Chalfield in Wiltshire acquired by Arnulf of Hesdin4, is the only man of his name in the south-west. As every other Waltheof who did not survive until 1086 can be identified as Earl Waltheof, it is possible that he, too, is the earl; but the earl held nothing else south of the Thames before 1066, his closest manor to Chalfield is over a hundred miles away, and he has no tenurial or other links with this Waltheof, who is accordingly treated as another man.
.............................................................................................................................................
WALTHEOF <OF HILLMORTON>. The four Waltheofs recorded in Warwickshire are clearly one man. All four occur on the fief of the Count of Meulan, three of them in Hillmorton5, where two held their land in both 1066 and 1086, as did the Waltheof at Shilton6. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4752) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 446.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARENGAR <OF HEDINGHAM>. All Warengars in Domesday Book may be the same man. The Warengars who held two dozen manors in Essex and East Anglia are probably one man, despite holding them from four tenants-in-chief. Warengar's one tenancy from Count Alan of Brittany was at Stonham in Suffolk7, where he also had a manor from Roger Bigot8; while his manors on the fief of the bishop of Bayeux9 were held as Roger Bigot's subtenant. He was also Roger's tenant in Essex10, Norfolk11 and Suffolk12, his remaining manors - held from Roger of Rames - having several links to these. At Hedingham in Essex he was a tenant of both Rogers13, and Roger of Rames had claims on the Bigot manors of Stonham, Hemingstone and 'Olden'14, the latter involving the bishop of Bayeux. In addition to his Essex manor, Warengar held four others in Norfolk15, and Higham in Suffolk16, from Roger of Rames. He had held Coddenham from him - where he also had a manor from Roger Bigot17 - but Roger of Rames dispossessed him18. An entry for Hemingstone in Suffolk19 explicitly states that Warengar was a tenant of both Roger of Rames and Roger Bigot, a situation which appears to have arisen - like many other disputes involving
1 HUN 19,27. D11
2 NTH 56,39
3 NTH 56,21
4 WIL 25,8
5 WAR 16,35-37
6 WAR 16,45
7 SUF 3,59
8 SUF 7,64
9 SUF 16,12;16-17;38-39
10 ESS 43,1-2
11 NFK 9,199;202
12 SUF 7,63-68
13 ESS 39,3. 43,1
14 SUF 7,64;68. 16,16
15 NFK 1,226. 43,1-3
16 SUF 38,21
17 SUF 7,67
18 SUF 38,5
19 SUF 7,68
these tenants-in-chief - in the wake of the forfeiture of Earl Ralph Wader, Warengar's lord1: Williams, 'Meet the antecessores', 282-84. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the one other Warengar in Domesday, at Manston in Dorset2, may be the same man, which is possible in view of the rarity of the name and the status of the manor - comparable to Hedingham - but unverifiable. Warengar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 813) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 459-60.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN. Warin is a fairly common name which occurs sixty times in Domesday Book or satellite texts, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty-three of his tenants-in-chief, all 1086 landowners and all tenants apart from one serjeanty in Wiltshire. There are small clusters in East Anglia and Sussex, a light scattering in the Midlands, and rare occurrences north of the Wash.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN [* "MALICORNE" *]. The Warins who held land at Compton in Warwickshire3 and in the adjacent vills of Blymhill and Brineton in Staffordshire4 from Robert of Stafford are probably Warin Malicorne, who witnessed a Stafford charter for Evesham abbey two years after the Domesday Inquest: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 182-84. Blymhill and Brineton were held by one man in the mid-thirteenth century, Compton by another; but as the name is not particularly common, it is unlikely this was the case in 1086: Book of Fees, pp. 507, 543, 956, 967. Robert had no other tenants of this name. Warin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3616) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 460, where he is described as Robert's tenant in both counties though the Warwickshire manor is assigned to another man, a tenant of the Count of Meulan (no. 8994).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN <OF EYTON>. The Warins who held Eyton, Bratton and Horton in Shropshire5 from William Pantolf as a subtenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, are probably one man, the Eyton family later having interests in all three vills; Eyton suggested that Warin was the ancestor of that family, a cadet branch of the Pantolfs, whose arms they quartered: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, viii. 26-27,36-40; VCH Shropshire, xi. 129, 257. Earl Roger had tenants or subtenants named Warin in Sussex who may be the same man in most if not all cases, other of the earl's tenants holding land in both counties. The descent of the three subtenancies is untraceable6 and where the tenancies are traced they were later in the hands of different families7: VCH Sussex, iv. 171, 204; Farrer, Honors, iii. 35, 49, 55, 70. But as the name is not particularly common, it is improbable that the earl had several tenants or subtenants in Sussex, and another two in Shropshire (if the deceased Warin the bald is included). There are no other Warins in Shropshire, and two among the other four Sussex Rapes. Warin's manors in Shropshire and Sussex are recorded in Coel (no. 8899) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 461.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN [* OF FAVARCIS *]. The Warins who held Sugworth and Charney Bassett in Berkshire and Hill in Warwickshire8 from the abbey of Abingdon may be Warin of Favarcis, who witnessed
1 SUF 3,59
2 DOR 40,1
3 WAR 22,17
4 STS 11,55-56
5 SHR 4,14,18-20
6 SUS 11,40;53;87
7 SUS 6,1. 11,45;65;94
8 BRK 7,11;41. WAR 7,1
deeds of the abbey, described elsewhere as Warin the bald: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 126-27, 146, 150-51, 212-13, 228-29, 322-23, 381, 384, 386. Within a generation, Sugworth and Hill were in different hands (op. cit. ii. 202-203, 324-25, 387) so their descent throws no light on the identity of the Domesday tenant. Hill was granted to the abbey by Thorkil of Warwick, who also had a tenant named Warin at Wormleighton, conceivably the same man. Warin's tenancies from the abbey are recorded in Coel (no. 1585) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 460.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN <OF WORMLEIGHTON>. The Warins who held Lillington and Wormleighton in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick1, whose fiefs are to some extent related, may be one man, though the manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 507-508, 955, 958. Thorkil had previously held Hill2, whose tenant has been identified as Warin of Favarcis, conceivably the same man. Warin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8994) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 461, where Little Compton3, here assigned to Warin Malicorne, is also attributed to him.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN [* THE BALD *]. Warin, named as the predecessor of Reginald the sheriff on two Shropshire manors4, is Warin the bald, first Norman sheriff of the county, described by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 262-63) as 'small in body but great in spirit'. His successor granted the first of these manors - Tugford - to the abbey of Shrewsbury for the soul of his predecessor. Warin died on the eve of the Domesday Survey, having witnessed a charter in 1085: Galbraith, ' Episcopal land-grant', p. 372.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. Warin, who held land at Ditchling in Sussex from William of Warenne5, is probably his sheriff in the Rape of Lewes, named in a charter for Lewes priory: Early Yorkshire charters, viii. 63; Farrer, Honors, iii. 370; Green, English sheriffs, p. 82. William had no other tenants of this name. Warin's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2018) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 460-61.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER. Warner is fairly common name which occurs twenty-three times times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Essex and Nottinghamshire; all Warners are post-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER [* FATHER OF ROBERT *]. The Warners who held the manors of Shirland and Codnor in Derbyshire6 and Toton and Wollaton in Nottinghamshire7 from William Peverel may be one man, the father of Robert, who granted the tithes of Toton to Lenton priory: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Nottinghamshire', p. 229. His descendants apparently suffered forfeiture; but their principal successors, the Gray family, held land in the Derbyshire vills and in Toton and Chilwell in Nottinghamshire: Farrer, Honors, i. 148-51. By the thirteenth century, Wollaton and
1 WAR 16,50. 17,61
2 WAR 7,1
3 WAR 22,17
4 SHR 4,3,8;71
5 SUS 12,6
6 DBY 7,5-6
7 NTT 1,46. 10,25-26;35-38
two of its dependencies were in the hands of three families, which suggests their descent is an unsafe guide to 1086. Wollaton lay between Toton and Warner's Derbyshire manors: Farrer, Honors, i. 158-61, 239-40. William Peverel had no other Warners on his Honour. There is one other Warner in the two counties, at Cotgrave1, conceivably the same man though there are no links to confirm this. Warner's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2985) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 461; the tenant of Cotgrave is unidentified (no. 35507).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF ALLINGTON>. Warner, who held Allington in Sussex from William of Warenne2, may be the tenant of the Count of Mortain on a comparable holding at Barkham, the only other Warner in the county or in circuit one; but there are no links to confirm this. Warner of Allington is unidentified in Coel (no. 16400).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF BARKHAM>. Warner, who held Barkham in Sussex from Count Robert of Mortain3, may be the tenant of William of Warenne on a comparable holding at Allington, the only other Warner in the county or in circuit one; but there are no links to confirm this. Warner of Barkham is unidentified in Coel (no. 16123).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF "BRUTGE">. The Warners who held land at Brutge, Beversham and Colston in Suffolk from Hervey of Bourges4 are likely to be one man. They are the only Warners in East Anglia; the manors are within ten miles of each other; and Hervey had no tenants of this name elsewhere. Warner's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3718) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 204, under the form Garner.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF COTGRAVE>. Warner, who held Cotgrave in Nottinghamshire5 from Ralph of Buron, may be the same man as the tenant of William Peverel, the one other Warner in the North Midlands. The descent of the Buron Honour was disrupted and the previous tenants of Cotgrave unrecorded; it was later in the hands of the Malet family: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 122-24. Warner of Cotgrave is unidentified in Coel (no. 35507).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF DITTERIDGE>. The Warners who held Ditteridge in Wiltshire6 and Chilton in Somerset7 from William of Eu are probably one man even though the manors are almost forty miles apart, William's tenants being the only Warners in the south-western counties. Warner is unidentified in Coel (nos. 15097, 16993).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 NTT 15,10
2 SUS 12,50
3 SUS 10,115
4 SUF 67-5-6;8
5 NTT 15,10
6 WIL 32,11
7 SOM 26,7
WARNER <OF EWYAS>. Warner, who held land worth five shillings from Alfred of Marlborough at the castle of Ewyas Harold in Herefordshire1, has no links with other Warners, all remote. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 30440).
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF POINTON>. The Warners who held Laughton, Pointon and Swaton in Lincolnshire from Guy of Craon2 are probably one man. They are the only Warners in the county, and their manors are between three and six miles of each other in Aveland wapentake. Guy had no tenants of this name elsewhere on his Honour. Warner's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9349) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 461-62, where it is suggested that he was the ancestor of the Pointon, or Poynton, family.
.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF TURVEY>. Warner, who held a hide worth ten shillings at Turvey in Bedfordshire from Hugh of Beauchamp3, has no links with other Warners, none of them within fifty miles. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 274).
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN. Wazelin is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief, perhaps representing that number of individuals.
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN <OF COTHAM>. Wazelin, who held a modest manor at Cotham in Nottinghamshire4 from the bishop of Bayeux, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 35163).
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN <OF HARBURY>. As the name is rare, the Wazelins who held Smockington in Leicestershire5, Harbury and Chesterton in Warwickshire6 and Sutton in Derbyshire7 from Henry of Ferrers are probably the Vasolinus who gave two-thirds of the tithes of Harbury and Chesterton to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory, the presumed ancestor of the Boscherville family: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 65. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he was possibly a relative of Henry of Ferrers himself, whose father was named Walchelin, though Wazelin is considered a different name: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 239, 249. Henry and William of Boscherville each held three fees of the Ferrers Honour during the reign of Henry I, which appears to be the earliest mention of the family; later records show that one of these six fees included Harbury and Chesterton: Red Book, i. 337; VCH Warwickshire, v. 43; vi. 104. Wazelin's other Domesday manors seem insufficient to account for another five fees though the family may have acquired other lands in the interval, of course. There is, however, another possibility: that Henry's tenant is the same man as the tenant of Geoffrey of la Guerche on the substantial manor of Haxey in Lincolnshire8, the one other manor of substance held by a Wazelin. Haxey, like Harbury and Chesterton, was previously held by Siward Barn (q.v.), Henry of Ferrers' principal predecessor; and
1 HEF 19,1
2 LIN 57,11;13;19
3 BDF 23,30
4 NTT 7,1
5 LEC 14,14
6 WAR 19,3;5
7 DBY 6,39
8 LIN 63,7
since the two manors - another in Yorkshire - which Geoffrey acquired from Siward are two of the very few manors of Siward Barn in Great Domesday which were not held by Henry in 1086, this is a striking coincidence. Henry did have claims against Geoffrey in this part of Lincolnshire, albeit in relation to another manor1. The associations are slight though the rarity of Wazelin's name and the status of the manors lend them some credence. In the absence of a more direct links, however, the tenants are here treated as separate individuals. This Wazelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3862) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 445, under the name Walchelin.
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN <OF HAXEY>. Wazelin, who held the valuable manor of Haxey in Lincolnshire from Geoffrey of la Guerche2, is his only tenant of that name, and the only Wazelin in Lincolnshire. The Takel family later held a fee in Haxey from the Honour of Mowbray, Geoffrey's successors: Red Book, ii. 737; Book of Fees, pp. 192-93. It is possible that he is the same man as the tenant of Henry of Ferrers, the one other Wazelin of substance, as there are some slight associations between them. This Wazelin is unidentified in Coel (no. 34759).
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN <OF WEETING>. Wazelin, who held a modest property at Weeting in Norfolk from William of Warenne3, has no links with other Wazelins. He is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as Walchelin of Rosay, son of Lambert of Rosay (q.v.), another Warenne tenant, who granted land and tithes to the Warenne foundation of Castle Acre priory with his son, Walchelin: Monasticon, v. 49, no. 1. However, Walchelin and Wazelin (Waselinus) are considered to be different names; and the charter dates from about 1130, which makes it unlikely - though not impossible - that Lambert had a son old enough to hold land more than four decades earlier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 239, 249. Wazelin's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8159) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 444.
.............................................................................................................................................
WAZELIN <OF WITHERNWICK>. Wazelin, who held a carucate worth ten shillings at Withernwick in Yorkshire from Drogo of la Beuvrière4, has no links with other Wazelins. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 37896).
.............................................................................................................................................
"WEGE" <OF WOMERSLEY>. Wege is a rare name which occurs three times in Lincolnshire and once in Yorkshire. Although there are no links between them, it seems likely that the predecessors of Erneis of Buron at Coleby and Winteringham and of Geoffrey of la Guerche at Lound in the West Riding of Lindsey are the same man5. More certainly, Wege at Coleby probably held the Yorkshire manor of Womersley acquired by Ilbert of Lacy6, the predecessor Barth, who shared Coleby with Wege. Several of Barth's Yorkshire manors are within a few miles of Womersley. It seems likely that Barth and Wege were related in some way.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 LIN CW17
2 LIN 63,7
3 NFK 8,44
4 YKS 14E40
5 LIN 34,24-26. 63,8. CW18
6 YKS 9W49
[* WHITBY *], ST HILDA. St Hilda, which held land at Hackness, Suffield and Everley in Yorkshire on the fief of William of Percy, is the abbey of St Hilda of Whitby1. The entry implies that Percy held the land in some capacity. It is recorded as his demesne in Coel (no. 707).
.............................................................................................................................................
WIDARD. Widard is a rare name which occurs nine times, distributed among five counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief, though two of these occurrences may be a scribal errors for Widelard, if indeed the names are different, as is believed: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 253-54.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIDARD <OF FARLOW>. All Widards in Domesday Book - scribal errors apart - may be one man. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Widard who held Farlow from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury is also the tenant of Roger of Lacy at Hopton Wafers, four miles away2. He is named on the royal manor of Leominster in Herefordshire, where his holding in Farlow is valued3, and he is probably the Widard who held Rochford - nine miles south of Hopton Wafers - and Litley from Durand of Gloucester4. He may be the one other Widard in the region, with a messuage in Gloucester5. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held Birstall from Hugh of Grandmesnil6, which is possible but unverifiable; Birstall appears as the demesne of the earl of Leicester in the Leicestershire Survey (p. 40). The other two Widards in Domesday Book may be scribal errors for Widelard (q.v.). Widard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8857) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 463.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIDELARD [* OF BALLIOL *]. As the name does not occur again in Domesday Book, the Wielardus who held 'Binsley', Bardfield and Horseham Hall in Essex from Richard of Tonbridge is almost certainly Wildelardus de Bailol, who donated a small amount of land in Stoke to the Clare foundation of Stoke by Clare priory7: Stoke by Clare cartulary, i. 120. It is also probable that Richard's tenant at Withersfield in Suffolk8, whose name-form (Wilard) is unique, is the same man, and likely that so too is Richard's tenant at Thurlow in Suffolk9 with the uncommon name of Widard, borne by possibly only one other man in Domesday Book, Widard of Farlow. Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 253-55, records the three forms as separate names but it seems improbable that a single tenant-in-chief had two tenants with unique names, and a third with a rare name, all of which might be confused with each other; scribal idiosyncrasy is more likely. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is also the Widard who held Brighton in Sussex from William of Warenne10, who is possibly the son of Osbern son of Geoffrey of Balliol, a significant tenant of the Count of Eu in the county, probably from Bailleul-Neuville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 11; VCH Sussex, vii. 253, 255, 257. The name Geoffrey occurs in several generations of the family, and Widelard of Balliol's grant to Stoke by Clare priory was witnessed by a nephew, Geoffrey. The links, though slight, are
1 YKS 13N13
2 SHR 4,28,5. 7,3
3 HEF 1,10b
4 HEF 22,5;8
5 GLS G4
6 LEC 13,61
7 ESS 23,10;42. 90,52;75
8 SUF 25,84
9 SUF 25,104
10 SUS 12,14
perhaps sufficient to sustain an identification in view of the rarity of name-forms. Widelard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 996) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 465.
.............................................................................................................................................
"WIGAR". Wigar is a rare name which occurs fewer than ten times, some of them possibly scribal errors for Wihtgar if these are not simply variant forms as suggested by von Feilitzen: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 413-14. Apart from Wihtgar son of Aelfric (q.v.), the predecessor of Richard of Tonbridge in Essex and East Anglia, the name is rare in all its forms.
.............................................................................................................................................
"WIGAR" [* OF BENHAM *]. Wigar, who held Benham among the king's thanes in Berkshire in 10861, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom held land in the county or anywhere else south of the Thames. He is possibly the Wichtgari of Benham whose son Hugh was received into the fraternity of Abingdon abbey early in the twelfth century: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 212-13. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9329) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 466.
.............................................................................................................................................
"WIGAR" <OF CHURCHILL>. As the name is rare, the Wigars whose respectable manors of Churchill and Cradley in Worcestershire were acquired by William son of Ansculf2 are almost certainly one man; the vills are fifteen miles apart. There are no other Wigars or Wihtgars in the west Midlands or on William's Honour.
.............................................................................................................................................
"WIGAR" [* OF ORWELL *]. Wisgar, who held Orwell in Hertfordshire from Hardwin of Scales3, is very probably the English juror of Odsey Hundred, Wigarus of Orwell: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 101). It is probable, too, that he is the Wigar who held the following manor of Therfield from Hardwin4, and who preceded Hardwin at Wratting in Cambridgeshire5. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (Hamilton, p. 23) renders his name in this entry as Withgar and implies that the pre-Conquest lord survived to 1086, as did Wigar of Orwell. As the name is rare in all its possible forms, it is likely that Hardwin's tenant and predecessor is also the Wigar whose man Algar preceded Geoffrey of Bec at Barley and Cokenach in Hertfordshire6, both of which lay between the manors of Wigar of Orwell in Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire; he is otherwise an overlord without demesne land of his own. Dr Clarke identifies this Wigar as Wihtgar son of Aelfric: English nobility, p. 357. Wigar's two tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 222) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 465.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIGLAC [* SON OF SIWARD *]. All Wiglacs in Domesday Book are almost certainly the Wiglac son of Siward and brother of Aki who had 'who had full jurisdiction and market rights' over his father's land. He and his brother and father provided almost the entire fief of Robert the bursar in Lincolnshire7, only Fulstow being held by another man, Eskil8. Wiglac himself had Addlethorpe, 'Butchett' and Langton-by-Wragby9, all in Lindsey South Riding. He may have succeeded his father
1 BRK 65,11
2 WOR 23,7;13
3 HRT 37,6
4 HRT 37,7
5 CAM 26,8
6 HRT 34,9-10
7 LIN 38,1-13
8 LIN 38,14
9 LIN 38,8;10-11
at Wilksby1, which Dr Fellows-Jensen suggests may be formed from his name: 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', p. 36. Additionally, he held Ludford from William of Percy - also in the South Riding - but there is scarcely any doubt of his identity here as he shared the manor with Siward, who is presumably his father. The Lincolnshire Claims reveal that he had also held land in Claythorpe2 and Scremby3 - claimed by Robert the bursar but held by Earl Hugh of Chester and Gilbert of Ghent - but had forfeited both. Even without these manors, however, the family lands are worth almost £50. If included in Clarke, English nobility, the family would rank among the eighty wealthiest untitled laymen in 1066.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIGLAF <OF PRESTON>. The Wiglafs who held a burgess in Buckingham and four respectable or substantial manors clustered around the town4 are almost certainly one man, the only Wiglaf in Domesday Book. The four manors devolved upon the bishop of Bayeux, the burgess on Arnulf of Hesdin, who also held two of Wiglaf's manors as a tenant of the bishop. Wiglaf is three times described as a man or thane of Earl Leofwin.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIGMUND <OF SOUTHWOOD>. Wigmund, predecessor and tenant of Ralph Baynard at Southwood in Norfolk5, is the one pre-Conquest landowner of this name. Its form (Wimund) is identical to that of the post-Conquest Wimunds who occur in six counties, though he is assumed on tenurial grounds to be a native: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 413. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is possibly the tenant of Haimo the steward at Norton Mandeville in Essex, though his description as a 'free man' who held Southwood before the Conquest makes this unlikely. There is no suggestion on Ralph Baynard's fiefs that he acquired lands from the dispossessed followers of Earl Ralph Wader, which might account for the presence of a continental Wimund on his lands at an early date. Wigmund's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8826) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 498.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIGOT. Wigot is a fairly common name before the Conquest, rare in 1086. The pre-Conquest names are distributed among eight adjacent counties between Sussex and Warwickshire, in seven of which Wigots are lords of one or more substantial manors; apart from a priest6 and a hunter7, all these Wigots may be the magnate Wigot of Wallingford and in that sense, the name is as rare before the Conquest as after. The three survivors are distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIGOT [* OF WALLINGFORD *]. All unidentified Wigots of 1066 may be Wigot of Wallingford. Although his byname is recorded only three times, he can be identified with some confidence in other counties as the predecessor of both Robert d'Oilly, whose English wife was almost certainly Wigot's daughter, and of Miles Crispin, who very probably married Robert's daughter from that marriage. Wigot is explicitly named as Robert's predecessor at Tiscott in
1 LIN 38,5
2 LIN CS12. 13,3
3 LIN CS36. 24,47
4 BUK B10. 4,30;34-35;37
5 NFK 31,11
6 DEV 3,7
7 BDF 52,2
Hertfordshire1, and implicitly as the predecessor of Miles at Chessington in Surrey2. Miles or Robert acquired from Wigot or his men Langley and Letcombe in Berkshire3; Rodbourne and Manton in Wiltshire4; Shabbington, Quainton and Wavendon in Buckinghamshire, in each of which his byname is recorded; Goring, Gatehampton, Chesterton and Cuxham in Oxfordshire5; and Brawn and Alderley in Gloucestershire6. The relationship of Miles and Wigot identifies both of them on an unnamed holding in Hampshire7, which in turn identifies Wigot on the very substantial manor Broadwater in Sussex with which the Hampshire manor was exchanged8. It is likely that he is also the Wigot with two other respectable manors in that county, at Bepton and Aldrington9. These, of course, devolved upon the lords of their respective Rapes rather than by antecession, though Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who held Bepton, also acquired land in Middlesex from Wigot, at Harmondsworth, Harlington, Colham and Dawley10. Wigot can be identified there because his nephew Alfred (q.v.) retained part of Harlington as the earl's tenant, while another nephew was the earl's tenant at Hampton in Gloucestershire. Less certainly, Wigot of Wallingford may be the one other unidentified Wigot of 1066, whose manor at Wixford in Warwickshire was acquired by Evesham abbey11. The abbey claimed that the land was rightfully theirs, so the Wigot who withheld it was presumably a man of some influence or substance: Early charters of northern England, p. 79; Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 174-75. Wigot probably also held Ogbourne in Wiltshire12, where no pre-Conquest lord is named and the Geld Roll for the county refers to eighteen hides of royal land as 'Wigot's land': VCH Wiltshire, ii. 199-200. Dr Williams suggests that he may also have held most of the land which devolved upon Robert d'Oilly in Oxfordshire, where only two of his twenty-eight manors record a pre-Conquest lord - one of these being Wigot - and more than a dozen are worth £5 or more: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 100-101.
Wigot may have been a kinsman of Edward the Confessor and was a member of his household. He is likely to have played a critical role in the events of 1066 since the Conqueror was able to make the crucial crossing of the Thames at Wallingford, which may explain why several of Wigot's relations prospered after the Conquest: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 100-103. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 356-57, which does not include Ogbourne or Wexford but adds Clyst St Mary in Devon13, held by Wigot the priest according to Exon. Wigot is ranked twenty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would place him among the top twenty laymen; he would rank eighth if the Oxfordshire manors are also included.
............................................................................................................................................. WIGULF <OF CODDENHAM>. All Wigulfs in Domesday Book are probably one man, though his men and manors devolved upon five tenants-in-chief. His manors of Coddenham, Hemingstone, Willisham and Crowfield all lay in Bosmere Hundred in Suffolk14, the first two - acquired by Roger Bigot and subinfeudated to Warengar of Hedingham (q.v.) - being claimed by Roger of Rames,
1 HRT 19,1
2 SUR 29,2
3 BRK 33,9. 41,2
4 WIL 28,9;12
5 OXF 28,2. 35,1;18;31
6 GLS 64,1;3
7 HAM 69,40
8 SUS 13,30
9 SUS 11,15. 12,21
10 MDX 7,3-5;7
11 WAR 11,1
12 WIL 1,22
13 DEV 3,7
14 SUF 7,67-68. 8,56. 38,4
who himself acquired Crowfield. Roger claimed 'all the free men which Warengar holds from Roger Bigot'1 which, taken literally, would include another seven vills in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, in none of which Wigulf is mentioned in Domesday Book. At Crowfield, Wigulf was either the man or predecessor - the text is ambiguous - of Edric the steersman (q.v.), his lord at Aylmerton in Norfolk2. Wigulf's sixth manor, at North Barningham3, is three miles from Aylmerton. ............................................................................................................................................. WIHENOC. Wihenoc is a rare name which occurs in three counties, effectively on the lands on one tenant-in-chief in each, probably borne by three individuals, all post-Conquest landowners. .............................................................................................................................................
WIHENOC [* OF BURLEY *]. The Wihenocs who occur on almost twenty manors in Norfolk are almost certainly one man, Wihenoc of Burley, named for an annexation at Barton Bendish4, identifiable here and elsewhere as an intermediate landowner. Most of the references to him occur as a predecessor of Reginald son of Ivo5; three of the four on other fiefs also involving Reginald in some manner, two recorded in Domesday Book, the third in the Ely Inquisition6: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 194). One entry, at Beechamwell7, appears to suggest he active in 1086, stating that Wihenoc 'took 30 acres of the lordship of this land. He claims them of the King's gift'. 'He', however, probably refers to the tenant-in-chief, justifying his title and incidentally explaining why Reginald son of Ivo was not involved in this one entry. Another entry8 suggests that Wihenoc was succeeded by Ivo, then by his son Reginald, while another states that he was the predecessor of Hermer of Ferrers9, though he occurs nowhere else in relation to Hermer. As his name is probably Breton, it is likely that he lost his lands in the aftermath of the rebellion of Earl Ralph Wader in 1075. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed the Statistics database; he is included in Coel (no. 5888) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 466, as the tenant at Beechamwell.
............................................................................................................................................. WIHENOC <OF HELE>. As the name is rare, the Wihenocs who held Sprytown, Ashbury and Hele in Devon from Alfred the Breton10 are almost certainly one man - said to be so in the last two cases - the only Wihenoc holding land at the date of the Domesday Survey. Land in the three vills was held together in the fourteenth century: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, xiv, no. 325, p. 318. Reichel suggested that this Wihenoc is to be identified as Wihenoc of Monmouth, though that Wihenoc is likely to be dead or departed by 1086: Hundred of Lifton, p. 215. Wihenoc's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1785) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 466. ............................................................................................................................................. WIHENOC [* OF MONMOUTH *]. The Wihenoc who preceded William son of Baderon at Hill House in Gloucestershire11 is his uncle, brother of Baderon, lord of Monmouth and founder of Monmouth priory; his foundation charter being witnessed by his brother and nephew: Monasticon,
1 SUF 7,68
2 NFK 8,132
3 NFK 10,64
4 NFK 66,36
5 NFK 21,1;5;7-8;12-15;32;35. 66,44;49-50;52
6 NFK 1,61. 8,29. 15,14
7 NFK 9,233
8 NFK 8,29
9 NFK 66,49
10 DEV 39,2;7-8
11 GLS 32,9
iv. no. 1, p. 596; Calendar of documents: France, pp. 406-10. According to the Book of Llandaff, Wihenoc was entrusted with Monmouth castle after the rebellion of the Earl Roger of Shrewsbury (1075), and after an interval was succeeded by William son of Baderon, who held it in 10861: Liber Landavensis, pp. 266, 549-50. This would seem to preclude the possibility that he is either the East Anglian Wihenoc, who may have lost his lands for involvement in the rebellion which led to Wihenoc's acquisition of Monmouth, or the Devon landowner of 1086. As an intermediate landowner, his manor is not listed the Statistics database or in Coel. .............................................................................................................................................
WIHTGAR. Although the name Wihtgar is stated or implied almost 140 times in Domesday Book, it is entirely confined to the two counties of Essex and Suffolk and very largely to the fief of a single tenant-in-chief, a distribution which suggests that the bulk of the names refer to one man. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (Hamilton, p. 23) records a Withgar at Wratting2, but this is probably an error, corrected to Wigar by the Domesday scribe. Wigar, however, is possibly a variant form of Wihtgar, as suggested by von Feilitzen: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 413-14.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTGAR <OF EPPING>. In view its skewed distribution, it is possible that the Wihtgar whose manor at Epping in Essex was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany3 is Wihtgar son of Aelfric; Epping lies roughlytwenty-five miles south-west of his nearest manors. As there are no specific links to confirm an identification, however, he is here treated as another man.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTGAR <OF KEMBROKE>. Wihtgar, one of fourteen free men under the patronage of Northmann at Kembroke in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot4, is unlikely to be the magnate, Wihtgar son of Aelfric, though the scribes of Little Domesday did sometimes conceal important landowners among large groups of named free men.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTGAR [* SON OF AELFRIC *]. Wihtgar was the son of Aelfric - himself the son of another Wihtgar - an English magnate described in a late source as 'the famous Earl Aelfric', a deputy for Queen Emma in East Anglia. He founded and endowed St John's of Clare in the 1040s on such a lavish scale as to indicate that he was a very wealthy landowner: Robertson, Charters, p. 425; Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, p. 188; Mortimer, 'Honour of Clare', pp. 128-130, 220-21. His son, the Domesday Wihtgar, was among the wealthiest of the pre-Conquest magnates.
Wihtgar son of Aelfric is named only once in the Domesday folios5, but the bulk of his estate can be reconstructed from its distinctive tenurial and distributional profile. The name Wihtgar occurs only in Essex and Suffolk, where all but a handful of his manors were acquired Richard of Clare, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne, explicitly named as Wihtgar's predecessor on several occasions6, and implicitly on others7. Of those that devolved upon other tenants-in-chief, twelve are those of Wihtgar's free men, the son of Aelfric being the only plausible overlord; he is described as Richard of Clare's predecessor on five of these8, five others either lying in the same
1 HEF 1,48
2 CAM 26,8
3 ESS 21,1
4 SUF 7,121
5 SUF 25,1
6 ESS 23,30. SUF 25,25;35;78-102
7 SUF 25,56;103. 76,2-3
8 SUF 8,35;47;63. 29,1. 67,1
vill as another of his manors or within five miles of one of them1. The eleventh, Barham2, was acquired by Roger of Poitou, along with five others held by Wihtgar's men, the twelfth by the bishop of Bayeux3. Of the remaining Wihtgars, one appears to be a peasant4. Two demesne manors were acquired by other tenants-in-chief, Creeting5 and Ousden6, both in vills within five miles of other demesnes of Aelfric's son, while at Creeting he had another holding in the vill7. Only Epping in Essex8 has no apparent associations with Richard of Clare or the son of Wihtgar, whose nearest property was the sprawling manor of Thaxted, some twenty-five miles away. Dr Clarke has suggested that the Wigar who held Barley and Cokenach in Hertfordshire9 is also Wihtgar son of Aelfric, though he is perhaps more likely to be Wigar of Orwell (q.v.).
Wihtgar is ranked thirteenth in wealth among the untitled laymen by Dr Clarke, which depends upon attributing to him the very valuable manor of Clare. There is conflicting evidence on this point. Domesday itself is categoric: Wihtgar's father 'gave this manor' to St John's of Clare with his son's assent, a charter committing 'the whole place ... to the Church'; but the manor was taken into the Conqueror's hand10, then presumably re-granted to Richard of Clare. Later sources tell a different story, the grant involving only tithes of the manor and some of its dependencies: Early charters of eastern England, p. 71; Stoke by Clare cartulary, i. 54-58. If the Domesday version is accepted, Wihtgar's ranking would fall by half-a-dozen places. A list of Wihtgar's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 357-63, which includes only the manors and men in Essex and Suffolk acquired by Richard of Clare, Roger of Poitou and Odo of Bayeux, omitting Alderford in Essex11.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTLAC <OF THROUGHAM>. All Wihtlacs in Domesday Book are very probably one man, a king's thane who survived for two decades on manors in the New Forest and the Isle of Wight. Stanpit, Ripley and Througham were acquired by Hugh of Port12 who subinfeudated Througham to Hugh of St Quentin, the tenant-in-chief who obtained Wihtlac's manor of Bolderford13 and who may also be the Hugh who held Ripley from Hugh of Port. Througham was held 'jointly', the other landowner being almost certainly Aelfric Small (q.v.), who also held 'jointly' in the same vill. Their joint tenure identifies them as the Wihtlac and Aelfric who held Oxelei in the New Forest and Yarmouth and Yafford on the Isle of Wight jointly for two decades14. Wihtlac had held Oxelei and Yarmouth since 1066 so is almost certainly the Wihtlac on an anonymous manor in the New Forest among the king's thanes during the same two decades15 and probably one remaining Wihtlac, at Hinchelsea in the same Hundred16, whose manor had been engulfed by the Forest. The valuation of his hide at Bolderford at £10 looks very much like a scribal error. Wihtlac is unidentified in Coel (nos. 6921, 6930) or his holdings assigned to the king 17.
1 SUF 8,46;58. 16,11. 32,1. 43,4
2 SUF 8,66
3 SUF 16,38
4 SUF 7,121
5 SUF 32,1
6 SUF 72,1
7 SUF 16,11
8 ESS 21,1
9 HRT 34,9-10
10 SUF 25,1
11 ESS 23,11
12 HAM 23,63;65. NF6,2
13 HAM NF9,16
14 HAM NF9,33. IoW9,16;23
15 HAM NF9,12
16 HAM NF9,12
17 HAM NF9,12;33
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC. Wihtric is a rare name which occurs once each in Berkshire, Derbyshire, Hampshire and Staffordshire; twice in Shropshire, and eight times in Suffolk, on the lands of different tenants-in-chief in each county, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners, none of whose manors are worth more than £1.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC [* OF CARLEWUDA *]. The cluster of Whitrics in Suffolk suggest that most if not all are one man1, named Wihtric of Carlewuda at Stratton in Suffolk2 where he is described as Earl Harold's man in a second entry3. The notorious ambiguity of Little Domesday where the dates of free holdings are concerned make it impossible to be categoric, but it appears that Wihtric may have survived for two decades on most if not all eight holdings. They are all in south-east Suffolk, the remainder of East Anglia and Essex being Wihtric-free. Six of the eight are clustered on either side of the river Orwell below Ipswich. The other two, some twenty miles away, are related to each other by the patronage of the abbot of Ely and connected to the others by tenurial or other factors. Five were acquired by Roger Bigot, the other three having Bigot associations, either with his office of sheriff or with vills in which he held land. None are recorded in Coel. Carlewuda has not been identified.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF GORLEY>. Wihtric, whose hide worth £1 at Gorley in Hampshire4 was acquired by Osbern the falconer, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF HADLEY>. Wihtric, whose modest holding at Hadley in Shropshire5 was acquired by Reginald the sheriff, may be the Wihtric at Lee Brockhurst, though there are no links to confirm this; the manors are fifteen miles apart.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF LEE>. Wihtric, whose modest holding at Lee Brockhurst in Shropshire was acquired by Norman the hunter6, may be the Wihtric at Hadley, but there are no links to confirm this; the manors are fifteen miles apart.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF SANDON>. Wihtric, who shared a small holding at Sandon in Staffordshire with two others and 'could not leave with the land'7, has no links with his namesakes. Sandon was acquired by Robert of Stafford.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. Wihtric, one of seven lords whose land at Tissington in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers8, has no links with his namesakes.
1 SUF 1,102. 6,110. 7,61;76;83;119-120. 16,20
2 SUF 6,110
3 SUF 7,119
4 HAM 68,11
5 SHR 4,3,27
6 SHR 4,25,2
7 STS 11,10
8 DBY 6,7
.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF WOKEFIELD>. Wihtric, whose 1 1/2 hides worth £1 at Wokefield in Berkshire was acquired by Walter son of Other1, has no links with his namesakes.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM. William is the most common name in Domesday Book in 1086, occurring well over two thousand times and in every Domesday county. 130 Williams have different bynames, almost half that number being tenants-in-chief, Williams also occurring as tenants of more than 120 other tenants-in-chief. The name occurs fifteen times in pre-Conquest contexts in Domesday Book or satellite sources.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* BELLETT *]. William, who held 'Winterborne Belet' in Dorset as a royal servant, and Thornton and 'also' Bradford from William of Eu2, is named William Bellett in the Geld Roll for the Hundreds in which those manors lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 143-44, 146-47. His byname is recorded on several manors in Berkshire, Dorset and Hampshire, and according to Exon. he had previously held the royal manor of Hampreston from Queen Matilda3. He may have held the lost vill of Hiwes from William of Eu, which follows Thornton and Bradford, the scribe perhaps omitting an 'also'4; and he is probably the William who held Swyre and possibly also 'Tarrant' from William5. His descendants held Swyre by royal grant, possibly a confirmation after the forfeiture of the tenant-in-chief; the descent of 'Tarrant' has not been traced: Book of Fees, pp. 88, 260. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 138) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 463, including the royal manor of Melcombe Horsey6, where the text assigns him twelve acres of woodland.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* BLACK *]. The Williams who held seven consecutive manors in Silverton Hundred in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff7 may be William Black, named in Exon. in the first of the entries. At Aller, the last of the entries, he is named William of Aller in the Geld Roll for the Hundred: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxvii-viii. Such localised aliases are common in this and other sources and do not necessarily indicate another William. Five manors - two each in Ponsford and Kentisbeare and a fifth in Kingsford - were held by the same family in the thirteenth century; Dunsford was alienated to Ford abbey; the descent of Aller was evidently interrupted, since it was later held by Hugh Peverel directly from the king, as 'pertaining to his barony': Book of Fees, pp. 786, 1263. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1723) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 493.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* BONVALLET *]. William, who held Coughton in Warwickshire from Thorkil of Warwick8 is probably William Bonvallet, whose house in Warwick may be the one referred to in this entry9. He is may also be the William who held Harbury from Thorkil1, a vill in which he held
1 BRK 31,6
2 DOR 34,1-2. 57,3
3 DOR 1,19
4 DOR 34,3
5 DOR 34,8;12
6 DOR 1,30
7 DEV 16,97-103
8 WAR 17,69
9 WAR B2
in chief2. He was a tenant-in-chief one waste manor in Leicestershire and of the valuable manor of Simpson in Buckinghamshire3, held from him in pledge by the bishop of Coutances in 1086. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3079) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 468; the commentary is misleading in some respects.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* BROTHER OF ILBERT *]. William, who shared part of the royal manor of Dewsall with Ilbert as a subtenant of Ralph of Tosny4, is probably the brother of Ilbert son of Turold, who held Dinedor with his brother Ilbert from Ralph5. William's manor of Dinedor is recorded in Coel (no. 4671) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 490; the tenant at Dewsall is unidentified (no. 30080); Roger of Tosny should be Ralph in the commentary.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* "DE ALNO" *]. William, who held Ardleigh in Essex from Robert Gernon6, is probably William de Alno, his tenant on nine manors in Suffolk7. Ardleigh was acquired from a Skalpi and was dependent upon an unnamed manor in Suffolk, where William's most valuable manors - Churchford and Stutton - were acquired from a Skalpi, both about eight miles away. Robert Gernon had another William among his tenants in Essex, at Fryerning8, whose descent has not been untraced. He is perhaps the same man; although the name is common. Elsewhere on the Gernon Honour, William occurs only in Hertfordshire, where there are grounds for believing that all ten Williams are one man, William of Letchworth. In view of the large number of tenancies they each held from Gernon, is possible that William of Letchworth and William de Alno are the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. William's manors in Essex and Suffolk are recorded in Coel (no. 406) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 470, where it is suggested he was probably from Aunay-sur-Odon in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire), the area where the Gernon fee is located.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* DEVEREUX *]. The Williams who held the valuable manors of Eastleach and Hatherop in Gloucestershire from Roger of Lacy9 are probably William Devereux, who gave tithes in those vills to St Peter's of Gloucester: Regesta, ii. no. xlia, p. 410. He also donated a hide in Herefordshire, where Roger had several tenants named William. Of these, the Williams at Putley, Maund, Elnodestune and Street10 are probably Devereux, whose descendants held land in those vills: Herefordshire Domesday, p. 42; Book of Fees, pp. 801, 804-806, 817-18. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held four hides from Roger in his castlery of Ewyas Harold and the manor of Grendon11, which would account for all Roger's tenants of this name apart from the William at Staunton, a manor later held by the Baskerville family: Herefordshire Domesday, p. 49, 102. It is not unlikely that Devereux held land in the castlery, probably only a few miles from his lost manor of Elnodestune in the Golden Valley; Grendon was later held by a family which took its name from the vill: Book of Fees, p. 806. William probably came from Evreux in Upper Normandy (Eure). His
1 WAR 17,50
2 WAR 29,2
3 BUK 5,6
4 HEF 1,62
5 HEF 8,7
6 ESS 32,40
7 SUF 36,1-7;16-17
8 ESS 32,34
9 GLS 39,13-14
10 HEF 10,4;6;17;41
11 HEF 10,1;72
manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4391) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 474; the tenant of Staunton is unidentified (no. 30365).
.............................................................................................................................................
EARL [* WILLIAM OF WARENNE *]. There are two references in Domesday Book which appear to describe William of Warenne as an earl, significant because much of the discussion of the date of Domesday Book revolve around these entries, provoking debates as yet unresolved.
William of Warenne is believed to have been created earl of Surrey by William Rufus at some time between September 1087 and his death on 24 June 1088, yet Domesday Book appears to describe Warenne as an earl once on his Sussex fief1 and at Woodwalton in Huntingdonshire2. Both entries are, however, open to other interpretations. In Sussex, the relevant entry begins: 'Nigel holds 'Orleswick' from the Earl', instead of the expected formulae 'Nigel holds 'Orleswick' from William'. The entry, however, is one of fifty-five successive cases, this particular one involving another earl, Earl Godwin, so the scribe may have nodded momentarily, repeating 'earl' when he should have written 'William', as in preceding and succeeding entries. If the scribe was aware that Warenne was an earl, it is bizarre that he gave no indication of this on the remainder of his large Sussex fief.
The Huntingdonshire entry is as ambiguous. At Woodwalton, the tenant-in-chief, Hugh of Bolbec, is said to hold his one manor from Earl William. The only Earl William known to the Domesday scribe is Earl William son of Osbern (d. 1071); but he was long since dead by 1086 and his lands, though extensive, all lay in the south and west. Count - the same title - William of Eu succeeded his father Robert (q.v.) a few years after Domesday; but William is always William of Eu to the Domesday scribe, and the Count of Eu is always named simply by his title. Neither the deceased Earl William or the later Count William had any connection with Hugh of Bolbec, nor did William of Warenne, who is the favoured candidate for the 'Earl William' in question, in part because his fief immediately precedes that of Hugh of Bolbec. The scribe, however, made no explicit connection between the two fiefs, and tenants-in-chief did not hold fiefs from other tenants-in-chief. Stenton's suggestion that the scribe nodded, writing 'Earl William' when he intended 'King William' should not be dismissed, particularly in view of the fact that Warenne had no known interest in Bolbec's manor at this or any other date. Warenne's manors in Huntingdonshire form a tight group, all acquired from Earl Harold; Bolbec's single manor was some distance from this group and was inherited from Saxi. On balance, Stenton's explanation, though not conclusive, seems the most plausible explanation and Earl William of Warenne in 1086 a scribal creation.
The dating of Warenne's earldom derives from an anonymous chronicler, and two contradictory accounts by Orderic Vitalis, both written half a century after the event. Even if accurate, this would not necessarily supply a terminus for the writing of Domesday Book for we do not know how peerage creations were treated in the eleventh century. In the later middle ages, when procedures were presumably more formalised, news of the creation of peers could be circulated months before their official elevation. See further, Lewis, 'Earldom of Surrey', pp. 329-36; Roffe, The Inquest and the Book, pp. 242-48. See also William of Warenne below.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] WILLIAM [* SON OF OSBERN *]. William, in whose time Hugh held Sutton in Herefordshire3, is evidently Earl William, alias William son of Osbern4, who had reshaped the feudal geography of the region in the few years before his death in 1071, many of his activities still apparent in the Domesday record.
1 SUS 12,9
2 HUN 14,1
3 HEF 7,3
4 WOR 23,8
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* GOULAFRE *]. The Williams who held two manors at Gissing in Norfolk from Robert Malet1 are probably William Goulafre, Robert's tenant on several Suffolk manors, whose descendants held land in Gissing: Eye priory cartulary, ii. 58, 71. He is almost certainly the W Goulafre who held land at Kenton and Martley in Suffolk from Robert2, no other landowner in Domesday having this byname. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 294) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 491.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* LEOFRIC *]. William son of Richard, who held a small fief in Berkshire3, is identified as William Leofric through his predecessor, Asgot of Hailes (q.v.), from whom he acquired fiefs in Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire and Essex and probably the manor of Coleshill in Wiltshire4, his entire Honour. That William Leofric is William son of Richard is confirmed by the descent of his Berkshire manors with those in other counties: Book of Fees, p. 50; Round, 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 320. Dr Williams suggests that Asgot was his father, though the Berkshire entry would seem to preclude this: 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 34. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 331) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 492, apart from those in Berkshire, assigned to William son of Richard, identified as another man (no. 516): Domesday people, p. 488. Coleshill does not appear to be included in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* LOVET *]. The Lovets who held Theobald Street and 'Rodhanger' in Hertfordshire from Geoffrey of Bec5 and Great Glen in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil6 may be William Lovet, a minor tenant-in-chief in Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. The Domesday scribe did occasionally name landholders simply by their bynames, and the location of these manors fits the pattern of Lovet's tenancies-in-chief. Great Glen is a few miles from his manor of Theddingworth, as is Rodhanger from Flitwick and Crawley. Theobald Street was acquired from a dependant of the abbey of St Albans, to which Lovet subsequently granted Flitwick. The descent of Lovet's tenancies-in-chief is unknown before the end of the twelfth century, so little can be deduced from them about the descent of his tenancies elsewhere, which are also obscure, possibly due to interrupted descent: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 284; VCH Berkshire, iv. 91; VCH Leicestershire, v. 103-104, 314-15.
Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that in addition to Great Glen, William held Thurmaston in Leicestershire7 and Ladbroke in Warwickshire8 from Hugh of Grandmesnil, in which case he may also have held tenancies in Ladbroke from the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick9. Thurmaston, and some if not all of the Ladbroke manors, suffered interrupted descents, Ladbroke being re-granted to a family of that name, while Thurmaston was in the hands of the Canons of St Mary of Leicester at the time of the Leicestershire Survey (pp. 16, 39): VCH Warwickshire, vi. 144. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 339) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 492, apart from Thurmaston and two of the three manors in Ladbroke, whose tenants are unidentified (nos.
1 NFK 7,7;13
2 SUF 6,271;293
3 BRK 28,1-3
4 WIL 49,1a
5 HRT 34,2;8
6 LEC 13,58
7 LEC 13,62
8 WAR 18,9
9 WAR 16,47. 17,23
26333, 28366) or, in the case of one of the Ladbroke manors1, assigned to the demesne of the tenant-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* MALBANK *]. The Williams who held ten of the eleven manors on the fief of Earl Hugh of Chester in Dorset2, three of four in Somerset3 and two of the six in Wiltshire4, are probably William Malbank, one of Earl Hugh's principal tenants in Cheshire, named in the Geld Roll for Dorset and identified by the descent of his manors: VCH Dorset, iii. 132-33; Farrer, Honors, ii. 284-88; Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59. He is probably also the earl's tenant at Brickhill in Buckinghamshire5, and the tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Alstonfield and its dependencies in Staffordshire6, where his descendants had interests: Farrer, Honors, ii. 16-18, 261-62. He held a fief from Earl Roger in Shropshire, where his byname is supplied. In Cheshire, he is probably the William who held Wepre from the Canons of Chester, a vill in which he held in chief7; of the bishop of Chester at Wybunbury in Warmundestrou Hundred, where his fief was heavily concentrated; and of Earl Hugh at Eastham, which he shared with several other of the earl's major tenants8. Finally, since the bishop had only two lay tenants on his fief, both named William, it is likely he is the tenant at Tarvin9: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 89, 91, 101, 111. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 780) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 492-93, apart from the tenants in Buckinghamshire, Somerset and Wiltshire and on the manors of Tarvin, Wybunbury and Eastham in Cheshire, all of whom are unidentified (nos. 1255, 14736-38, 16789, 16793, 28627, 28631, 28622).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* MALET *]. Malet10, W Malet (frequent in Little Domesday), or plain William, can be identified as William Malet by one of several characteristics: he was the father of Robert Malet (q.v.), often named in relation to his son and their common predecessor, Edric of Laxfield (q.v.); he was dead before 1086, 'the day he died' being often mentioned in relation to title to his estates11; he is the only possible W Malet in Domesday Book; and he held land in England before 106612, a characteristic sufficiently uncommon among his namesakes to identify him as the William who preceded Roger of Poitou at Elsham and its dependency in Lincolnshire13, and Alfred of Lincoln at Linwood, Rasen and Rothwell in the same county14. As he is believed to have been entrusted by the Conqueror with burying the body of Harold after Hastings, the question of whether William Malet held land in England before the Conquest is a contentious one, and it has been suggested that the statement that he 'had' land in Alkborough15 might refer to a date between 1066 and his death in 1071 rather the before 1066: Hart, 'William Malet and his family', pp. 135-37. This would be an unusual though not unique usage; but if the William who preceded Alfred of Lincoln was William Malet, this argument is unconvincing because his manors were held together with other men with
1 WAR 16,47
2 DOR 27,2-11
3 SOM 18,1-3
4 WIL 22,1;5
5 BUK 13,4
6 STS 8,28-31
7 CHS A21
8 CHS B8. 1,22
9 CHS B4
10 YKS CW31-32
11 SUF 7,146. 67,29-30
12 LIN 14,29
13 LIN 16,33-34
14 LIN 27,7-9;14
15 LIN 14,29
unmistakably English names, Grimkel and Asfrith, so 'had' in that context is likely to be pre-Conquest. This might suggest that the William of these entries is another pre-Conquest William; but there is a further reason to connect these holdings with William Malet: all lay in vills in which his kinsman Durand held land in 10861. It may also be relevant that Alfred of Lincoln married a daughter of William Malet. The manors of Roger of Poitou also lay within five miles of Durand's manor at Searby2. Durand's relationship to William and Robert is unknown but believed to be close (Hart, 'William Malet and his family', p. 146), the most recent suggestion being that Durand was William's son: Oxford DNB, xxxvi. 312-13.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* MAUDUIT *]. The tenant of Abingdon abbey at Weston in Berkshire3 is identified as William Mauduit in the abbey's chronicle: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 198-99. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that he is also the abbey's tenant at Bessels Leigh4, named William the chamberlain of London in the chronicle, Maudit being a royal chamberlain, succeeded in that office by his two sons: Green, Government of England, pp. 261-62. Mauduit was a tenant-in-chief in Hampshire, where his family has left its mark on the landscape at Hartley Mauditt5. As his lands and office seem to have been firmly rooted in Hampshire and attached to the chamberlainship at Winchester, it is unlikely he was the chamberlain of London; the Abingdon chronicler makes no connection between the two Williams: Historia, ii. 186-89, 382. The abbey also had another William among its tenants in Rowbury Hundred, where Weston lay; but it is unlikely that William Mauduit is the same man as William of Jumièges, their family origins being in different départements of Upper Normandy, the Mauduits coming from Saint-Martin-du-Bosc (Eure: arrondissement les Andelys): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 62. Improbable as it appears, it seems that the abbey had three tenants named William within the confines of one small county. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 345) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 493.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF AUDRIEU *]. William, who held Blandford in Dorset from William of Eu6, is probably William of Audrieu, named in the Geld Roll as owing tax in Combsditch Hundred where Blandford lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 135. William of Audrieu was a tenant of William of Eu at Littleton and Compton in Wiltshire where William de Aldeleio is named in the Geld Roll for Rowborough Hundred as one of the two sons-in-law of Robert Blunt, whose manor at Lavington in Rowborough they shared: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 192. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William was the steward and cousin by marriage of William of Eu, hanged for suspected complicity in the latter's treason in 1096. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 405) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 470.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* BISHOP *] WILLIAM OF BEAUFOUR. William Belfou or de Belfou who held churches on the royal manors of Blewbury in Berkshire7 and Marlborough in Wiltshire8, is probably the royal clerk, William de Beaufai, nominated bishop of Thetford (1085-1091) at the Christmas court where the Domesday Inquest was launched. He is also Bishop W, who occurs often on the Norfolk fief of the
1 LIN 44,10-11;19
2 LIN 44,7
3 BRK 7,14
4 BRK 7,20
5 HAM 35,2
6 DOR 34,6
7 BRK 1,5
8 WIL 1,23i
bishops of Thetford. Elsewhere, Bishop W may be identified by association with other bishops of the see1. William's manors and those of the bishopric of Thetford are recorded in Coel (no. 139) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 482-83.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF BOSC *]. W of Bosc, who held 'the whole of this' group of six consecutive holdings in Carlford Hundred in Suffolk is almost certainly William of Bosc, tenant of Ranulf brother of Ilger on the previous manor2. He was also Ranulf's tenant at Mountnessing in Essex and he is possibly the William and the W who held the two following manors, in the same Hundred3. The scribe normally used extreme abbreviation of names only when their expansion was obvious, so the W at Ingrave and St Lawrence on the same fief may also be William of Bosc4, though Ranulf had a Walter at Yeldham5. The one other William on Ranulf's Honour, at Stagenhoe in Hertfordshire6, may be William of Bosc, he being Ranulf's only tenant in the county and Stagenhoe of comparable status to William's Essex and Suffolk manors. William was also a tenant of Roger Bigot on three manors in Suffolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 437) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 471.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *]. The Williams who held land at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire7, South Croxton and Stathern in Leicestershire8 and Tallington in Lincolnshire9 from Robert of Tosny are probably William of Bosc-le-Hard, identified by association with his brother Roger. They shared Clifton Reynes, there named as brothers, and so may be the William and Roger 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 Guerche10, there identified by a charter in the Belvoir cartulary: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Leicestershire', p. 293. William is probably also the one other unidentified William on the Tosny Honour, at Barkby in Leicestershire11, which was later held from the heirs of Robert of Tosny by a Peter of Lincoln, who held other manors of the two brothers: Book of Fees, pp. 953-54. William's manors in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire are recorded in Coel (no. 439) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 471; the Tosny tenants in Leicestershire are unidentified (nos. 26399, 26401, 26416), and the tenant at Stathern identified as another man, here named William of Queniborough.
.............................................................................................................................................
W[ILLIAM] OF BOURNEVILLE. W of Bourneville at Levington, Kuluertestuna and Stratton in Suffolk is evidently William of Bourneville, Roger Bigot's tenant on the preceding and following manors12, named in full on four other Bigot manors in East Anglia. He also occurs as W of Bourneville at Gislingham13 and as a subtenant of Isaac at Redles14. The byname does not occur
1 NFK 1,57;68;128. SUF 14,101;121
2 SUF 39,5-11
3 ESS 37,18-19
4 ESS 37,1;14
5 ESS 37,13
6 HRT 25,1
7 BUK 18,3
8 LEC 15,11;16
9 LIN 18,12
10 LEC 29,18
11 LEC 15,10
12 SUF 7,117-121
13 SUF 1,11
14 SUF 62,7
elsewhere in Domesday Book. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 604) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 472.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF BOUVILLE *]. W of Bouville1, a man of Geoffrey de Mandeville in Suffolk, is almost certainly the William son of Saswalo of Bouville named as Geoffrey's tenant at 'Finesford'2. He held several other manors in the county from Geoffrey under one of his aliases, as Saswalo's son3, or 'of Bouville'4, his byname as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux5. He may also be the William who held the manors of Dunmow, Roding and Shellow Bowells in Dunmow Hundred in Essex from William6, and possibly also Ardleigh7, which lay between the Dunmow manors and those in Suffolk, the Bouville lands being later farmed by an Adam of Dunmow in the Pipe Roll of 11308. Saswalo of Bouville (q.v.) was also a Mandeville tenant. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 421) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 471.
.............................................................................................................................................
W[ILLIAM] OF CAEN. W of Caen, who held Framlingham in Suffolk from Roger Bigot, is the William who 'also' held Dallinghoo, the following entry9. William of Caen held Thrandeston from Roger10. It is possible that the William of these entries is a scribal error for Walter of Caen (q.v.), a major tenant of Roger Bigot whose manors at Bredfield and Eye are two and four miles respectively from Dallinghoo and Thrandeston. William's manor of Thrandeston is recorded in Coel (no. 2662) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 472, where Framlingham is allocated to Walter and the tenant at Dallinghoo is unidentified (no. 12186).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF CAILLY *]. The descent of his manors suggests that the William who held Denver in Norfolk from William of Warenne, and the Warenne tenant W at Hillborough, Cockley Cley and Bradenham11, may be William of Cailly, named as a Warenne tenant at Trumpington in Cambridgeshire12 and as a juror in Thriplow Hundred in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 43, 50): Farrer, Honors, iii. 382-85. He held Heacham and Illington in Norfolk13 at a later date, though the form of the Domesday entries implies these were held in demesne in 1086: Early Yorkshire charters, vii. 109-11. He was probably from Cailly in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6632) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 472-73, with the addition of Heacham and Illington, here assigned to the Warenne demesne.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 SUF 21,95. 32,20
2 SUF 32,21-31
3 SUF 32,13-15
4 SUF 32,1-2;19
5 SUF 16,11
6 ESS 30,36;40-41
7 ESS 30,20
8 ESS 30,20;36;40-41
9 SUF 6,264-265
10 SUF 6,67
11 NFK 8,18;91-93
12 CAM 18,7
13 NFK 8,47;58
WILLIAM [* OF CHERNET *]. The identity of the William who held South Charford and Clatinges from Hugh of Port1 is established by the claim of William of Chernet for 2 1/2 virgates which he alleged belonged to his manor in South Charford2. Clatinges was held by the same William, both duplicated later in the fief3. He is probably the William Orenet - presumably a scribal error - who held land from Hugh at Milton in the New Forest4. According to Exon., his name was William Chernet - without the particle - a tenant of the wife of Hugh son of Grip in Dorset5. De Chernet is the normal form among his descendants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 300) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 473, where his byname is identified as a toponym and his place of origin as Carnet in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Avranches).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF DAUMERAY *]. William, who held Graston in Dorset from the wife of Hugh son of Grip, is probably the William of Daumeray who according to Exon. held Sturthill, the previous entry6. He also held Walditch as a royal thane, all three manors lying in the same Hundred within a few miles of each other. Sturthill and Graston were held together from the heir of the wife of Hugh son of Grip by William de Gouiz in the thirteenth century, as from the Conquest: Book of Fees, p. 93. According to Exon., William was also a tenant of Roger of Courseulles in Somerset7). Both tenants-in-chief had several other Williams among their tenants. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 627) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 473-74, apart from Graston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2947).
.............................................................................................................................................
W[ILLIAM] OF ECOUIS. W of Ecouis, who held Sharpstone in Suffolk from Ely abbey8, is almost certainly the William of Ecouis who held a second manor from the abbey. He was a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk and several other counties, and the only landowner in Domesday Book with this byname. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 736) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 479-80.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF JUMIEGES *]. The tenant of the abbey of Abingdon at Chieveley in Berkshire9 is named William of Jumièges in its chronicle, where it is recorded that the land was in a place called Bradley: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 136-37, 188-91. Thomas of Jumièges (Gimeges), presumably his descendant, held a half-fee from the abbey in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 844, 846, 853. The abbey had another William among its tenants in Rowbury Hundred, where Chieveley lay. It is unlikely, however, that William Mauduit is the same man as William of Jumièges (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen), their family origins being in different départements of Upper Normandy. William's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1646) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 474-75.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HAM 23,1-2
2 HAM 23,3
3 HAM 23,53-54
4 HAM NF10,1
5 DOR 55,10;13-14
6 DOR 55,19-20
7 SOM 21,36-37
8 SUF 21,27
9 BRK 7,12
WILLIAM [* OF KEYNES *]. William, whose block of manors as a tenant of the Count of Mortain in Northamptonshire are said to be one man in the text1, is almost certainly William of Keynes, whose descendants held several of them in the Northamptonshire Survey. He was a minor tenant-in-chief in the county and sheriff there: Green, English sheriffs, p. 63. It is unlikely, however, that he is the Count's tenant at Spratton and Grafton Regis in the county2, the remaining Williams on the Mortain fief. The fief is largely organised by tenants, and these manors were held in demesne or in the hands of the earl of Leicester in the Northamptonshire Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 374, 381. William of Keynes is also named as the Count's tenant on several manors in Sussex, where the descent of Eastbourne, Itford, Folkington, 'Sidnor', Selmeston, 'Renching', Langney, Eckington, Horstead Keynes and Birchgrove3 suggest he is the William on those manors too: Salzman, 'William de Cahagnes', pp. 181-202; Round, 'Some early grants', p. 71. Williams are numerous on this fief; and as the Count appears to have no other significant tenant of this name in Sussex, several other Williams there may be William of Keynes. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that this is the case at Burley, 'Warley' and Sperchedene4, all held by one man. She does not give her reasons; but as Burleigh was acquired from an Alfhere, both of whose other manors on the Count's Honour were enfeoffed to William of Keynes, this is not unlikely. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 607) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 472, apart from Itford, Folkington and 'Renching' in Sussex, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 15977, 16028, 16072), as are the tenants at Spratton and Grafton in Northamptonshire (nos. 27127, 27129).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF LESTRE *]. William who held Catherston Leweston and 'also' Corscombe in Dorset5 from the Count of Mortain is named William of Lestre in the Geld Roll for Whitchurch Hundred where Catherston lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 125-26. According to Exon., he was a tenant of the Count at Tattiscombe in Devon6 and Bickenhall in Somerset7, and he probably held Knighton and Hooke in Dorset8 and Poyntinton in Somerset9 from the Count, since Richard and William of Lestre had land in those vills in the thirteenth century: Monasticon, v. 167; Two chartularies, pp. 125-26; Book of Fees, pp. 87, 92, 424. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 779) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 475, with the addition of Bhompston10.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF LETCHWORTH *]. The Williams who held ten of the thirteen manors on the fief of Robert Gernon in Hertfordshire11 are probably William of Letchworth, the juror of Broadwater Hundred where six of the manors - including Letchworth - lay: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). Robert Gernon's lands were in the hands of the Montfichet family by the reign of Henry I, apparently by royal grant; Sanders, English baronies, p. 83; VCH Essex, i. 347. This may have affected the descent of the tenancies, which were held by the Argentan family and a cadet branch of the Montfichets in the thirteenth century: VCH Hertfordshire, iii. 63, 86-87, 120-22, 143-44, 189-90, 286; Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 40. In view of the large number of tenancies they each held from Gernon, is possible that William of Letchworth and William de Alno in Suffolk are
1 NTH 18,42-66
2 NTH 18,88-89
3 SUS 10,2;11;42;53;78;80;89;109-110
4 SUS 10,99-101
5 DOR 26,64-65
6 DEV 15,56
7 SOM 19,27
8 DOR 26,45;59
9 SOM 19,76
10 DOR 26,6
11 HRT 20,2-7;9-12
the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. William's Hertfordshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8722) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 475.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF MOHUN *]. William, who 'acquired' several royal manors in Somerset according to Exon.1, is very probably William of Mohun, who held a number of other royal manors according to Domesday Book or Exon.2. He may be the William the sheriff who accounted for the royal revenue of Cheddar in 10863, as he was certainly sheriff of the county at some point in the Conqueror's reign: Green, English sheriffs, p. 73. He was a tenant-in-chief in the county, and also in Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 681) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 476, with the addition of Holton and Rushton in Dorset4, though the text attributes Holton to the tenant-in-chief, William of Braose, the Rushton entry - 'W also holds' - referring either to him or to the tenant of the previous entry, Walter. Coel also includes Hammoon in Dorset5, a demesne manor in Domesday Book but assigned to a Turstin in Exon.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF NOYERS *]. W of Noyers, who occurs in relation to several royal manors and on the fief of the bishop of Thetford in Norfolk6 can only be William of Noyers, who farmed many royal manors in East Anglia and is named as the bishop's tenant on several others. He is probably also the W who held part of the manor of Saxlingham from the bishop7, the bishop having no other tenants in the county whose name begins with this initial; and he is perhaps the William who held South Elmham in Suffolk from the bishop8, the one other William on his Honour. He held the following manor and managed several royal manors in the same Hundred. His byname is borne by a Robert in Buckinghamshire and a Huard in Cambridgeshire, a juror there. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 690) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 476-77, apart from Elmham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 13140).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF PARTHENAY *]. W of Parthenay, who held part of Shernborne in Norfolk from Peter of Valognes9, can only be William of Parthenay, responsible for annexing a group of manors in Suffolk belonging to Bury St Edmunds10; no other landowner bore this byname. Although the forename is very common, it is not unlikely that he is the William who held Babingley and perhaps also Barney from Peter of Valognes, five and twenty miles respectively from Shernborne11; Peter had only one other William on his Honour, and there is only one more unidentified William in the three Norfolk Hundreds concerned. The tenant at Babingley is named William of Babingley and William of Rudham in the Valognes foundation charter for Binham priory (where he is the only William with an endowment), but local, alternative bynames are not uncommon and might be regarded as part of the process of integration: Dugdale, Monasticon, iii. 345-46, no 1. Peter's tenant at Rudham was Thorgisl according to Domesday Book12, so there had presumably been some re-
1 SOM 1,14-19
2 SOM 1,13;17;21-25;31
3 SOM 1,2
4 DOR 37,3;9
5 DOR 36,5
6 NFK 1,63;79. 9,167. 10,13;31-32;42;56;64;68;73-74;77. 16,5
7 NFK 10,7
8 SUF 19,16
9 NFK 66,88
10 SUF 76,8-12
11 NFK 34,1;17
12 NFK 34,11
arrangement of the Valognes' tenancies. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 705) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 478, apart from Babingley, whose tenant is identified as another man (no. 3674), referenced in Domesday people, p. 470, and Barney, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 10878). Coel comments on William of Parthenay that 'the context suggests that he was associated with Roger Bigot'; that it is likely that Parthenay is an error for Pentney, a Bigot manor held by Robert of Vaux who was 'perhaps' William's son; and that William was not necessarily alive in 1086. None of this is evident from the text.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF PERCY *]. William, who held the large manor of Catton in Yorkshire from Earl Hugh of Chester1, is almost certainly William of Percy, his tenant at Whitby2 who subsequently became tenant-in-chief at Catton: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 194-97; xi. 334-35. William was an important tenant-in-chief in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, with a holding in Nottinghamshire attached to land in Lincolnshire. Outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, he held a fief consisting of a single manor in Hampshire, acquired with his wife3. J.H. Round demonstrated that Percy's wife was Emma of Port and that the Domesday entry is an error, William being a tenant of Hugh of Port, not a tenant-in-chief, as were his descendants of Hugh's: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', p. 438. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 707) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 478-79.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM <OF PICKWORTH>. The Williams who held land at Hougham, Aisby, Burton-le-Coggles and Pickworth from Kolsveinn of Lincoln4 are identified as one man by their descent to Thomas of Pickworth and Jionec of Flintham in the Lincolnshire Survey: Holt, 'Carta of Richard de la Haye', p. 292. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9351) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 497.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF POITOU *]. The Williams who held Dunscombe, Lower Creedy and Yeadbury in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy5 are very probably William of Poitou, his tenant at Ogwell according to Exon.6, five of these six manors being later held by Robert the Poitevin, the sixth - Yeadbury - 'also' held by the same William in 1086, though in the hands of another family in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 762, 791. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 796) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 494-95.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM <OF QUENIBOROUGH>. William, who held Queniborough and Burton-on-the-Wolds in Leicestershire from Geoffrey of la Guerche7 - said to be one man in the text - is one of Geoffrey's two tenants of that name, the other here identified as William of Bosc-le-Hard8. Queniborough was subsequently held by Richard Courson in 1166, and by Ralph of Queniborough within the next two decades: Red Book, ii. 746; Charters of Mowbray, nos. 381-82 and p. 263. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9358), referenced in Domesday people, p. 497, with the addition of Stathern.
1 YKS 4E2
2 YKS 4N1
3 HAM 25,1
4 LIN 26,35;47-48;54-55
5 DEV 34,33;35-37
6 DEV 34,27-28
7 LEC 29,13-14
8 LEC 29,18
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF ROLLESTON *]. William, who held Sinfin in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers, is probably the William of Rolleston1 who granted tithes in that vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Rolleston is presumably Rolleston-on-Dove in Staffordshire2, though Henry's manor there was held in demesne; he had no land in the Nottinghamshire or Leicestershire Rollestons, and no Williams held land there either. Ferrers had no other tenants named William, and there were no more in the county. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2981) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 479.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF SAI *]. The Williams who held Moreton Say and Lowe in Shropshire from Roger of Lacy3 may be William of Sai, whose descendants were Lacy tenants at Stokesay and elsewhere; a William of Sai occurs in an Evesham satellite text of the late eleventh century (Evesham K). Roger had no other Williams among his tenants in the county, and all but one of those elsewhere on his Honour may be identified as William Devereux, the exception being his tenant at Staunton-on-Wye in Herefordshire, a manor held by the Baskervilles in the twelfth century: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 49, 102. Other Williams in that county are probably William Pandolf, apart from the tenant of Gerard of Tournai at Hatton. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8234) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 479; the tenants at Hatton and Staunton are unidentified (nos. 31059, 30365).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM <OF UTLEY>. The Williams who held Utley, Keighley, Oakworth and Newsholme before the Conquest4 are almost certainly one man; the manors forming a tight cluster in Craven. It is difficult to account for a William in this remote area in 1066. It is just possible he is William Malet, who probably held land in Lincolnshire at this date; but there is no reference to his presence in Yorkshire in 1066 in the numerous references to him in the Yorkshire Claims. He did, however, hold land at some point in Yeadon5, eleven miles from Keighley.
.............................................................................................................................................
[* WILLIAM OF *] VATTEVILLE. W of Vatteville, tenant of William of Warenne at Roding in Essex6, is very probably William of Vatteville, a Warenne tenant in Sussex, who also held a house in Colchester. He is certainly the Vatteville whose men claimed a manor at Lidgate in Suffolk7, where he held in chief; the Domesday scribes did occasionally use a byname as shorthand for a tenant's name. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 760) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 482.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF VERLY *]. William, tenant of the archbishop of York on nine holdings in Lincolnshire8, is almost certainly his tenant at Ulleskelf in Yorkshire9, William of Verly, Richard of Verly holding most of the Lincolnshire manors in the Lindsey Survey (16/4). Harpswell (2/16) and Keelby (11/21) were apparently resumed as demesne by that date, and Cuxwold was held by
1 DBY 6,90
2 STS 10,3
3 SHR 4,8,1-2
4 YKS 1E63-64;66-67
5 YKS CW2
6 ESS 22,7
7 SUF 70,1
8 LIN 2,1-2;5;8-10;17;23;27
9 YKS 2W6
another tenant, Alan of Muntcell (8/10), but was nevertheless probably held by William of Verly in 1086 since his descendant held its dependency, in Swallow (9/9). William can also 'be certainly identified' as one of the archbishop's anonymous knights at Patrington and Winestead1: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 152. Richard and Hugh of Verly witnessed many archiepiscopal acts recorded in Early Yorkshire charters. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2991) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 480, apart from the tenant at Harpswell, who is unidentified, and the man-at-arms in Patrington.
.............................................................................................................................................
W[ILLIAM] OF WARENNE. W of Warenne and W of War, who occur on many manors in Norfolk2 and Suffolk3, can only be William of Warenne, a major landowner in East Anglia and in ten other counties. No one else in Domesday has this byname. The scribe twice names him Earl William (q.v.). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 645) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 480-82. See also Earl William of Warenne.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* PANDOLF *]. The Williams who held the manors of Derrington, Moddershall and Almington in Staffordshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are probably William Pandolf, his tenant on the previous manor4. He is probably also the earl's tenant at Dawley in Shropshire5. All but Moddershall descended to his heirs, barons of Wem; and as the Staffordshire fief is ordered by tenants, Moddershall is probably his too: Book of Fees, pp. 964, 970, 975; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 4-95. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2521) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 493-94, apart from Dawley, whose tenant is unidentified (30710).
.............................................................................................................................................
W[ILLIAM] PECHE. W Peche, a tenant of Richard son of Count Gilbert at Gestingthorpe in Essex6, is almost certainly William Peche, Richard's tenant on two manors in Suffolk7, and very probably W Peche, tenant of Roger Bigot at Stoke Holy Cross in Norfolk8. He was also a subtenant of Aubrey de Vere at Belchamp Walter in Essex and a householder in Colchester9. No one else in Domesday Book has this byname. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1501) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 494.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* PEVEREL *]. The Williams who held ten of the twelve manors on the fief of the bishop of Bayeux in Northamptonshire are probably William Peverel10, though these manors were held by several individuals at the time of the Northamptonshire Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 368, 370, 371, 374, 377. Peverel is named in full on the first of the manors, at Hulcote, and held in chief in the second vill, Houghton. Although presented as normal tenancies, it is possible in view of the anomalous status of the bishop of Bayeux at the time of the Domesday Survey that Peverel was acting as a royal agent, which would account for the subsequent dispersal of the manors. He is almost certainly the William who held a fief consisting of the single manor of Farndish in
1 YKS 2A1
2 NFK 1,1;57;210-211. 4,3. 15,1;7-9. 16,5. 31,29. 40,1. 66,68
3 SUF 7,25. 21,1
4 STS 8,20-22
5 SHR 4,1,22
6 ESS 23,4
7 SUF 25,6;91
8 NFK 9,25
9 ESS 35,6. B3a
10 NTH 2,1-8;10;12
Bedfordshire1, his byname being supplied in the Northamptonshire portion of the same vill. He must be the W who claimed land against the bishop of Coutances in Raunds - which he held in chief - where the rationale of the claim by the bishop is registered2. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1504) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 494; confusingly, the fief heading in Bedfordshire is attributed to William the artificer (no. 3682), though the manor of Farndish is assigned to Peverel.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SHIELD *]. The Williams who held Edington and Ashton in Wiltshire from Romsey abbey are probably William Shield3, who restored the lands he held from the nuns 'along with his daughters', presumably on their entering the nunnery: Regesta, ii. no. 883. He held other manors in the county where his byname is recorded, and he is identified in a royal writ as the king's cook with reference to one of these, at Alton Priors: Regesta, i. no. 270. He is possibly the same William Shield as the tenant of Robert Malet and Roger Bigot in Suffolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 889) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 496.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF ANSCULF *]. The Williams who held land at Inglewood in Berkshire4 and Bradenstoke and Clyffe Pypard in Wiltshire5 are probably William son of Ansculf. He held in chief in Bradenstoke, and the entry for Inglewood appears to have been displaced from his Berkshire fief. The formulae 'Fulcard ... holds from William' is unusual on a collective fief, and unique on this one. The other two tenants at Inglewood - Alfred and Godebold - are William's tenants elsewhere on his fief, and William held Inkpen, of which Inglewood is a dependency. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 481) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 484, apart from Inglewood, where William is identified as the king.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF BOSELIN *]. William, who shared Seven Stoke in Worcestershire with Boselin6, is probably his son. William son of Boselin had two houses in Northampton7, and Boselin's son held land at Malling in Sussex8, where his father was a tenant of the Count of Mortain; he may also be the William who held four houses in Pevensey following the five held by his father9. William gave the half-hide he held in Alfriston to Lewes priory10, and is 'probably' the tenant of Hailsham and Bowley in the same Hundred of Pevensey11: Round, 'Early charters', pp. 7-78; Round and Salzmann, 'Domesday survey of Sussex', p. 380. Boselin was from Dives-sur-mer in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 37; Domesday Monachorum, pp. 37-38. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2134) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 485, apart from Seven Stoke, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 31895).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 BDF 42,1
2 NTH 4,1. 35,li;lj
3 WIL 15,1-2
4 BRK 65,18
5 WIL 68,23
6 WOR 8,26c
7 NTH B16
8 SUS 2,1c
9 SUS 10,1
10 SUS 10,58
11 SUS 10,68;83;85
WILLIAM [* SON OF NIGEL *]. William, who held Pyrton in Oxfordshire1 and Barnetby-le-Wold and its dependencies in Lincolnshire2 from Earl Hugh of Chester, is identified as William son of Nigel by their descent: Farrer, Honors, ii. 193-95, 204-205, 250-54. He is probably also the William who held land in Neston, Raby, Aston and Clifton from the Canons of Chester3 since he held in chief in the first three of those vills, and Clifton is surrounded by several of his manors: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 97, 99. It is likely, too, that he is the William who held land from Roger of Poitou in West Derby Hundred and in Warrington, across the Mersey estuary from Halton4, since his descendants held Widnes and surrounding townships as part of the barony of Halton: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Lancashire Domesday', p. 39. He may also be the William who held Drayton in Berkshire5 from Earl Hugh, as suggested by Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59. The manor is untraced before the thirteenth century, when land in the vill was held from the Honour of Chester by Alan of Farnham: Farrer, Honors, ii. 21-22. In 1086, William son of Nigel was the nearest of the earl's known tenants of that name. William possibly also held Bungay in Suffolk6, though Farrer's suggestion - William of Warenne - seems more likely since it would help to account for the loss of the manor to the Honour of Chester: Honors, ii. 233-35. The form of the entries suggests that the scribe may have been uncertain as to the identity of William at Alderley and Lach Dennis7, the final two manors on his Cheshire fief, though his heirs did hold Alderley: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 8. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 539) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 486-87, including Bungay but not Drayton, Warrington or the manors of the canons of Chester, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 870, 28614-5, 28618-19, 29164).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM SON OF REGINALD?. 'There is little doubt' that William son of Reginald, who held Steppingley in Bedfordshire from William Speke8, is the same man as William son of Rainward, Speke's tenant at Chawston, both manors descending to the same family: Farrer, 'The Honour of Old Warden', pp. 16-20. Which of the two forms is a scribal error is not apparent. William's manor of Chawston is recorded in Coel (no. 522) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 488; Steppingley is assigned to William son of Reginald.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF REGINALD *]. William, who held Foulden in Norfolk from William of Warenne9, is probably William son of Reginald, a Warenne tenant in Sussex and Suffolk, whose descendants had interests in Foulden: Farrer, Honors, iii. 327-31. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 523) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 488, with the addition of Steppingley in Bedfordshire10, here assigned to William son of Rainward.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF SKIALDVARTH *]. As pre-Conquest Williams are rare, the William who held 'Meering' in Nottinghamshire in 106611 is very likely William son of Skialdvarth, who held
1 OXF 15,2
2 LIN 13,17-20
3 CHS A13-14;17-18
4 CHS R1,43. R3,1
5 BRK 18,1
6 SUF 4,19
7 CHS 9,28-29
8 BDF 25,2
9 NFK 8,90
10 BDF 25,2
11 NTT 1,64
Sutton-on-Trent across the river at the same date1, as suggested by Stenton: VCH Nottinghamshire, i. 215. Sutton was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, whose tenant on the following manor of Carlton on Trent, a mile away, may well be the same William since - amazingly - Count Alan had no other tenant with this very common name, the only other William on his vast Honour being a tenant of Roger Bigot2. William may have held Carlton for two decades, no pre-Conquest lord being recorded on the manor. As the number of pre-Conquest individuals named William is probably fewer than half-a-dozen, it is not unlikely that Skialdvarth's son is also the lord of Widmerpool in south Nottinghamshire3. The name Skialdvarth is otherwise unknown. The tenant at Carlton is unidentified in Coel (no. 35064).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF TUROLD *]. The Williams who held Pangbourne, Sulham and Betterton in Berkshire4, Bradwell in Buckinghamshire5, and Chesterton, Henton, Adwell and Britwell Salome in Oxfordshire6 from Miles Crispin are probably William son of Turold, alias as William of Sulham, Miles' tenant at Beddington in Surrey7: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 206-207. He is identified in the list of fees of the Honour of Wallingford: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 301, 325-27. He was the son of Turold, nephew of the English magnate Wigot of Wallingford (q.v.). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 147) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 489-90, apart from Bradwell, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1415); the statement in the commentary that he was a tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury is presumably a confusion with his father, Turold.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* THE ARTIFICER *]. William, tenant of Robert of Bucy at Blatherwycke, Rushton, Moulton and Bradden in Northamptonshire8, is identified as William the artificer (Inganie) by the descent of those manors to the Engaine family, who held them by the time of the Northamptonshire Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 372, 381, 385, 387. William held a house in Northampton and small tenancies-in-chief in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, his brother Richard the artificer (q.v.) having several others in the Midland counties. The lands of the brothers are associated with a forest serjeanty of pre-Conquest origin: Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', p. 294. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3682) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 492, with the curious addition of a fief heading in Bedfordshire9, though the fief itself is assigned to William Peverel, as in these notes.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. William, tenant of the abbey of Abingdon at Bessels Leigh in Berkshire10, is named William the chamberlain of London in the abbey's chronicle: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 186-89, 383. He is unlikely to be the abbey's other tenant, William Mauduit, even though he too was a chamberlain, his office being attached to Winchester, where most of his lands lay. The William at Bessels Leigh is more probably the chamberlain who held three small fiefs and a number of individual manors situated for the most part on royal manors in or around London, in Middlesex, Surrey, Essex and Bedfordshire. The office of royal
1 NTT 2,4
2 SUF 3,57
3 NTT 30,47
4 BRK 33,1-2;5
5 BUK 23,31
6 OXF 35,18;20-21;23
7 SUR 29,1
8 NTH 30,10;13-14;17
9 BDF 42,1
10 BRK 7,20
chamberlain of London is attested elsewhere: Green, Henry I, p. 286; Hollister, Monarchy, magnates and institutions, pp. 198-201. The manors of the chamberlain named in Domesday Book are recorded in Coel (no. 180) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 468; the abbey's tenant is unidentified (no. 792).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* THE GOAT *]. William, who held Wraxall in Dorset from Roger Arundel1, is very probably William the goat, so-named in the Geld Roll for Eggardon Hundred where Wraxall lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 127. According to the same source, his tenant Ulf owed tax in Whitchurch Hundred, though William was not a tenant-in-chief in Dorset and no Ulf held land in that Hundred or indeed in the county in 1086: VCH Dorset, iii. 125-26. Roger of Arundel did, however, have a predecessor named Ulf at Poorton (where Guy was his tenant) in Whitchurch Hundred2, the manor which follows Wraxall in the Domesday text. Either the scribe has somehow garble the entries or - perhaps more likely - there had been changes in the tenurial status of the two manors between the date of the Geld Rolls and the Domesday Survey. William was a tenant-in-chief in Devon and Cornwall. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 188) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 469.
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* THE PRIEST *]. The Williams who held Headon and Owthorpe in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully3 may be William the priest, who witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 207. Roger had no other Williams on his Honour. William's manor of Owthorpe is recorded in Coel (no. 9332) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 495; the tenant of Headon is unidentified (no. 35200).
.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* THE USHER *]. The Williams who held Crooke Burnell and the two following manors among the king's servants in Devon4 are almost certainly William the usher, who held the preceding manor and - according to Exon. - the seven which followed, as well as a tenancy from the church of Tavistock at Raddon. He also held a small service-fief in Nottinghamshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 298) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 492.
.............................................................................................................................................
"WIMER" [* OF GRESSENHALL *]. The Wimers who held an unoccupied messuage in Norwich, six manors in Norfolk5 and another in Suffolk6 from William of Warenne, are probably Wimer of Gressinghall, his steward, an office in which he was succeeded by his son and grandson: Early Yorkshire charters, viii. 77, 79, 242-43; Farrer, Honors, iii. 395-400. Wimer occurs once more in Domesday Book, as a tenant of Walter of Douai in Dorset7. His manors in East Anglia are recorded in Coel (no. 901) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 497.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIMUND. Wimund is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-one times, distributed among six counties and the lands of eight tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire. The name is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than half-a-dozen
1 DOR 47,7
2 DOR 47,8
3 NTT 9,26-27;111
4 DEV 51,3-5
5 NFK 1,66. 8,6;62-64;69;95
6 SUF 26,10
7 DOR 39,2
men, possibly half that number. The name of the one pre-Conquest Wimund in Domesday Book is rendered Wigmund (q.v.) in this translation.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIMUND <OF NORTON>. As the name is rare and there is a slight, indirect association through the bishop of Bayeux, it is possible that the Wimund who held the fairly substantial manor of Norton Mandeville in Essex from Haimo the sheriff1 is Wimund of Tessel, a tenant in Bedfordshire and several other counties; but there are no links to confirm this. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is possibly the same man as Wigmund (q.v.), a predecessor and tenant of Ralph Baynard in Norfolk2. His manor of Norton is recorded in Coel (no. 8826) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 498.
.............................................................................................................................................
WIMUND [* OF TESSEL *]. Most Wimunds in Domesday Book may be one man, Wimund of Tessel, a tenant of Hugh of Beauchamp at Great Barford and Colmworth in Bedfordshire, who is probably also the Wimund who held Wyboston and Easton from him3; Wyboston is four miles from Great Barford, Easton ten from Colmworth. It is not unlikely that he is also the one other Wimund in the county, a tenant of Bishop Odo of Bayeux at Turvey4, thirteen miles from Barford, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. The descent of his manors is casts no light on his identity, even Colmworth and Barford being held by separate families in the following century: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 181, 186.
The bishop of Bayeux also had tenants named Wimund at Showell in Oxfordshire5 and Rasen in Lincolnshire6 who are probably the same man. As his name is uncommon, if not rare, and the manors of comparable status it is improbable the bishop had three tenants named Wimund. There is also circumstantial evidence pointing to the same conclusion. Another of the Lincolnshire Wimunds is a tenant of Count Alan of Brittany at Holton-le-Clay, Grainsby and Wold Newton7. This Wimund, later known as Wimund of Aby, is fairly well-documented, he and his descendants holding the Grainsby fee of the Honour of Richmond; Wimund himself still holding Grainsby in the Lindsey Survey (8/1): Early Yorkshire Charters, v. 267-69. He also held Aby8 in the Survey, of the fee Manasseh Arsic (15/8) who succeeded to the tenancies of Wadard of Cogges (q.v.), one of the bishop of Bayeux's honorial barons, providing a link between the tenants of the bishop and of Count Alan. The link is rather stronger than it may appear because although Wimund himself did not hold Aby in 1086 part at least of his manor of Rasen appears to have been absorbed into that held by Manasseh in the Lindsey Survey (7/20), suggesting some re-organisation of tenancies. Additionally, Count Alan's tenants at Wallington and Wormley in Hertfordshire9 are close neighbours - and the only other Wimunds in the Home Counties - of the bishop's tenant in Bedfordshire. For reasons given above, it is unlikely that Count Alan had two tenants named Wimund, though the Hertfordshire manors descended by a different route from that of the Grainsby fee: Early Yorkshire Charters, v. 267 note 10. The distribution of the tenants of bishop of Count lend some mutual support to their identification.
It is not unlikely that other Wimunds in Lincolnshire are the same man. This is probably the case with the tenant of Roger of Poitou at Swallow10, eight miles from Grainsby, since this
1 ESS 28,16
2 NFK 31,11
3 BDF 23,24;33
4 BDF 2,8
5 OXF 7,51
6 LIN 4,38
7 LIN 12,18;20;31
8 LIN 4,59
9 HRT 16,4;11
10 LIN 16,2
Wimund, like the Count's tenant, was still in possession in the Lindsey Survey (9/15), almost three decades later. It may also be the case with the tenant of Ivo Tallboys1, whose manors of Old Clee and 'Thrunscoe' are slightly closer to Grainsby than Swallow, while Wyham and North Ormsby2 are four and five miles respectively from the Count's tenant at Wold Newton. The Lindsey Survey is no assistance here, Wimund's tenancies being unrecorded, undetectable or in other hands, as may be the case at Old Clee and 'Thrunscoe' which is possibly the manor held by Hugh of Laval in the Survey (9/4) though the assessments do not match.
Four other Wimunds occur in Domesday Book, any or all of whom may be the Wimund under discussion though there are no specific links connecting them. The most likely is the tenant of Arnulf of Hesdin at Black Bourton in Oxfordshire3. His manor is substantial and comparable to several of those in Bedfordshire and Lincolnshire. At Bourton, the pre-Conquest lord is a Thorgot who may be the Thorgot who preceded Wimund at Holton in Lincolnshire since he is the only Thorgot in Oxfordshire and one of only three in Lincolnshire who cannot be identified with some confidence. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that both this Wimund and the bishop's tenant in the county are possibly Wimund of Leaveland, a man-at-arms of the archbishop of Canterbury recorded in a list from the 1090s of the archbishop's men, ancestor of the Keepers of the palace of Westminster: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 41,105; Clay, 'Keepership of the Old Palace', pp. 1-5. Although not impossible, the archbishop's man succeeded to Leaveland at a later date, and there are no links connecting him or his successors with Oxfordshire. Of the remaining Wimunds, the tenants of Abington abbey at Watchfield and Shellingford in Berkshire4 are ten and eight miles respectively from Black Bourton5, while the tenant of Haimo the sheriff at Ongar in Essex6 is fifteen miles from the Hertfordshire manors assigned to Wimund of Tessel. In the latter case, the manor is fairly substantial and since Haimo is in effect the sheriff of Odo of Bayeux there is an association, albeit indirect. Without more specific links, however, the Wimunds of Berkshire and Essex are recorded here as other men.
Wimund's Bedfordshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 742) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 498, all assigned to Wimund of Tessel; the Oxfordshire tenants are identified as another man (no. 6229), as are the tenants of Abington abbey and Haimo the sheriff; those of Count Alan and Roger of Poitou as Wimund of Aby (no. 1974). In Lincolnshire, the tenants of Ivo Tallboys and the bishop of Bayeux are recognised as one man (no. 8825).
.............................................................................................................................................
WIMUND <OF WATCHFIELD>. As the name is rare there is little doubt that the Wimunds who held Watchfield and Shellingford in Berkshire from the abbey of Abingdon7 are one man. It is possible that he is the same man as Wimund of Tessel, whose nearest manor is eight miles away; but there are no links to confirm this. The abbey's chronicle throws no light on the identity of their tenant: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 384. Wimund's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8891) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 498.
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR. Winemar is uncommon name which occurs on two fiefs and fourteen manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and eight of his tenants-in-chief. It occurs once in Essex and Norfolk, twice in Devon and ten times in Northamptonshire. One of the Devon
1 LIN 14,5-6;64-65;101
2 LIN 14,64
3 OXF 40,1
4 BRK 7,36;42
5 OXF 40,1
6 ESS 28,16
7 BRK 7,36;42
Winemars is a pre-Conquest lord. It is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than half-a-dozen men.
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR <OF COLCHESTER>. Winemar, who had a house in Colchester1, is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as the tenant-in-chief Winemar of Flanders, presumably because the name is rare, as there are no links with Winemar's identifiable manors, which form a compact block in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire.
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR [* OF FLANDERS *]. Winemar of Flanders, tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire, alias Winemar of 'Hanslip'2 from his one manor - Hanslope - in that county3 which was subsequently the head of his barony: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 50-51. He is probably the Winemar with a small fief in Northamptonshire4, though several of the manors were in the hands of William Maudit at the time of the Northamptonshire Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 374-75. Three of the six manors on this fief shared the same predecessor - Healfdene - from whom he acquired Hanslope, and his descendants had interests in another, Easton Neston5: Farrer, Honors, i. 36. The Northamptonshire Survey identifies him as the tenant of Walter of Flanders at Wootton6, of Countess Judith at Denton, Preston Deanery, Quinton and Wootton7, and of the bishop of Coutances at Hackelton and Preston Deanery8, Preston Deanery being the centre from which his descendants are often named: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 374-76; Farrer, Honors, i. 95-99; Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', pp. 290-91. He is probably also the tenant of Geoffrey Alselin at Rothersthorpe9 and of Gunfrid of Chocques at Knuston10; both manors were in other hands in the Northamptonshire Survey but were subsequently held by Winemar's descendants: Honors, i. 36, 95. He is also likely to be the Winemar with thirteen houses in Northampton11, one of them held from him by a Dodin of Cottesbrooke (q.v.), his tenant at Ashton, who held a second house from Countess Judith and a manor in Easton Maudit, one of the vills where Winemar held in chief. All the manors held by a Winemar in 1086 are assigned to Winemar of Flanders in Coel (no. 478), referenced in Domesday people, p. 498, which add Stoke in Devon, a house in Colchester, and Tuddenham in Norfolk to those included here.
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR <OF STOKE>. Winemar, who held a half-hide worth ten shillings at Stoke in Devon from William of Falaise12, is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as Winemar of Flanders. Another Fleming, Walter of Douai, was a major landholder in Devon, so an indirect link is possible; but the holding is small and more than 150 miles from the nearest of Winemar's manors, so the Winemar at Stoke is here treated as another man. It is possible he is the pre-Conquest Winemar at Woodbeare, though there are no links to confirm this.
1 ESS B3a
2 NTH 56,51;65
3 BUK 46,1
4 NTH 40,1-6
5 NTH 40,1;4-6
6 NTH 39,16
7 NTH 56,55;57c-57f
8 NTH 4,15-16
9 NTH 44,2
10 NTH 48,12
11 NTH B20;34
12 DEV 20,12
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR <OF TUDDENHAM>. Winemar, who held a half-carucate worth ten shillings from William of Warenne at Tuddenham in Norfolk1, is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as the tenant-in-chief Winemar of Flanders; but his holding is small, remote from Winemar's manors in Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, and without links to them. The manor is recorded in Coel (no. 478) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 498.
.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR <OF WOODBEARE>. Winemar, who held a respectable manor at Woodbeare in Devon2 acquired by William of Falaise, is the only pre-Conquest lord of this name, presumably an Englishman. He has no links with other Winemars.
............................................................................................................................................. "WITHRI" <OF HANWORTH>. Six of the seven Withris in Domesday Book are predecessors of Roger Bigot in Norfolk3 and probably therefore the same man, who may also be the seventh Withri, a man of Earl Harold at Woodbastwick4, roughly twenty miles south of the Bigot manors. Roger's predecessor had a substantial manor at Hanworth5 and was the lord of many free men in the other five vills, three of which had dependencies in Hanworth, all five being in a five-mile radius of that vill. Earl Harold's man at Woodbastwick was also a lord of free men. .............................................................................................................................................
WIUHOMARCH [* THE STEWARD *]. It is likely that all Wiuhomarchs in Domesday Book are one man, Wiuhomarch, the steward of Count Alan of Brittany who is so-named on four manors in Cambridgeshire6 in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 4, 7, 21). With the exception of three Cornish manors, his remaining tenancies at Aske, Harmby and Leyburn in Yorkshire7 and Hickling, Somerton and Ingham in Norfolk8 were all held from Count Alan. It is also possible - even probable - that he is also the tenant of the Count of Mortain on the three Cornish manors9. Count Robert was probably preceded in Cornwall by Count Brian of Brittany (q.v.), the brother of Count Alan, who may well have endowed his brother's steward (rather than a second Wiuhomarch). The Count of Mortain would have had no reason to replace him since he had other Breton tenants, and two of his daughters married in Breton families: Soulsby, 'Introduction to the Cornwall Domesday', p. 13. Wiuhomarch probably survived into the reign of Henry I, his steward's fee expanding considerably before his death. Some of his descendants succeeded him as stewards of the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 17-40, 353-54. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 223) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 466, with the addition of Bylaugh10, held by from Count Alan by Wigwin (Gingomus), an otherwise unknown name. Scribal corruption of a unique form is not unlikely, but Bylaugh does not occur as part of the steward's fee.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 NFK 66,68
2 DEV 25,13
3 NFK 9,87;142-144;148-149
4 NFK 20,19
5 NFK 9,87
6 CAM 14,68;71;79-80
7 YKS 6N57;100-101
8 NFK 4,26;38-39
9 CON 1,1. 5,24,13-14
10 NFK 4,30
WUDIA <OF FENTON>. The name Wudia occurs twice, once as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers on a modest shared manor at 'Fenton' in Derbyshire1, and once on a waste holding left in the hands of the king at Stanshope in Staffordshire2, nine miles away. It seems likely that the two Wudias are the same man.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT. Wulfbert is an uncommon name which occurs nineteen times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of eleven tenants-in-chief; three Wulfberts are pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT [* BROTHER OF ULF *]. Wulfbert, who held six bovates at Gosberton in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany3, may be the one other Wulfbert in the county, Wulfbert brother of Ulf, a lawman with full jurisdiction in the city of Lincoln in both 1066 and 10864. His brother Ulf is possibly the English magnate, Ulf Fenman (q.v.), who had full jurisdiction in both the city and county. Wulfbert the lawman is recorded in Coel (no. 6382) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 436; the tenant at Gosberton is unidentified (no. 33463).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF BUMPSTEAD>. The Wulfberts who held Steeple Bumpstead, Kenningtons and Hanningfield in Essex from William of Warenne5 are probably one man, the most substantial landowner of that name. No other Wulfberts held land in the county, or in East Anglia; and William had no tenants of this name elsewhere on his Honour. Wulfbert may, however, be William's tenant named Wibert on the respectable manor of Dunmow6. Wibert is a rare name which occurs nowhere else in Little Domesday, nor on the Warenne Honour, so a simple scribal error - Guibertus for Gulbertus - may be suspected here. Wulfbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2119) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 239, under the form Gulbert; Wibert is unidentified (no. 4811).
............................................................................................................................................. WULFBERT <OF COTESBACH>. Wulfbert, who held a modestly prosperous manor at Cotesbach in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil7, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 26317). .............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF HUTTON>. Wulfbert, who held the fairly substantial manor of Sand Hutton in Yorkshire from Hugh son of Baldric8, is the only survivor of that name in Yorkshire, without links with his namesakes. As the name is uncommon he may, however, be the same man as the predecessor of Osbern son of Arques, as suggested by Farrer: 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 178. That Wulfbert is recorded in the Yorkshire Claims9 as holding Appleton Roebuck 'and all the other lands with exemption'; but he is not recorded at Appleton itself10 or anywhere else on
1 DBY 6,56
2 STS 1,52
3 LIN 12,76
4 LIN C2-3
5 ESS 22,12;14-15
6 ESS 22,9
7 LEC 13,48
8 YKS 23N30
9 YKS CW36
10 YKS 25W2
Osbern's fief. Another claim1, however, states that Osbern's predecessor also held 'all Thorner', consisting of four manors and eight carucates 'situated within the bounds of Ilbert of Lacy's castle, according to the first measurement, and, according to the most recent measurement, it is situated outside'2. The four manors are recorded on Ilbert's fief3, one held by an Ulver, presumably a scribal error for Wulfbert, normally accepted as another name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 398-99, 418. Farrer also suggested that Hugh's tenant is the Wulfbert with four houses in Nottingham in 10864, a county where Hugh had a small fief and had been sheriff. If so, he is conceivably the one other urban Wulfbert, Wulfbert brother of Ulf in Lincolnshire; but there are no links to confirm an identification. The Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire Wulfberts are unidentified in Coel (nos. 34917, 38109).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF ISLINGTON>. Wulfbert, who held half a hide worth twelve shillings at Islington in Middlesex from Geoffrey de Mandeville5, has no links with his distant namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 8120).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF KEDLESTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Wulfberts who held the manors of Kedleston and Weston in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers6 and Ralph of Buron7 may be one man; the vills are adjacent and both manors were held, or shared, by a Wulfsi in 1066. Both Wulfberts are unidentified in Coel (nos. 32340, 32451).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF LEADBROOK>. Wulfbert, who shared half a hide worth ten shillings at Leadbrook in Cheshire acquired by Robert of Rhuddlan8, is the only Wulfbert in the county, with no links to those elsewhere, though he is possibly the Wulfbert at Wibaldeslei, on the other side of the Wirral peninsular in South Lancashire, another pre-Conquest landowner.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF WESTON>. Wulfbert, who held a hide worth £1 at Alconbury Weston in Huntingdonshire from Eustace, the sheriff of the county9, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32688).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFBERT <OF "WIBALDESLEI">. Wulfbert, who held two carucates worth sixty-four pence at Wibaldeslei in South Lancashire10 in 1066 acquired by Roger of Poitou, has no links with other Wulfberts, though he is possibly the Wulfbert on the other side of the Wirral peninsular, also a pre-Conquest landowner.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 YKS CW1
2 YKS CW36
3 YKS 9W12
4 NTT B11
5 MDX 9,3
6 DBY 6,80
7 DBY 11,1
8 CHS FD2,4
9 HUN 19,20
10 CHS R1,18
WULFEVA. Wulfeva is a fairly common name which occurs on one fief and more than sixty other manors, distributed among fourteen counties and the lands of the king and almost thirty of his tenants-in-chief. It is uncommon, however, in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than a dozen women. The distribution is skewed, the bulk of the manors lying south of a line drawn between the Bristol Channel and the Wash, rare north of that line and rare everywhere after the Conquest, survivors holding a small fief and three manors. In the south, there is a significant cluster - or clusters - in the five south-western counties of Devon, Dorset, Hampshire, Somerset and Wiltshire, and another in Suffolk, each cluster containing high status manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA [* "BETESLAU" *]. Most if not all of the valuable manors held by Wulfeva in the south-west were probably held by one woman, Wulfeva Beteslau. Her byname is supplied by the Winton Domesday (p. 52), where her houses in Winchester are recorded, and in Domesday Book at Clyffe Pypard in Wiltshire and Laverstoke in Hampshire. Domesday records that Wulfeva held Laverstoke from Winchester abbey 'up to her death', after which King William 'gave back this manor to the Church for the sake of his soul and that of his wife'. This makes it likely that she is the Wulfeva whose highly valuable manor of Mapledurham was given to Queen Matilda before reverting to the Crown and the Wulfeva whose manor of Monxton in Hampshire was retained by the Conqueror1. Round suggested that the remaining manors held by Wulfeva in the county were held by the same woman, presumably on the grounds that all were valuable and all but one clustered around Laverstoke and Monxton2: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', p. 429. He also suggested that the Wulfeva whose manors in Dorset comprised the fief acquired by Countess Ida of Boulogne was Beteslau3, and might have added that she was probably the Wulfeva succeeded by the Countess at Kingweston in Somerset and by her husband at Loxton4, both also valuable.
One of Wulfeva's more valuable Hampshire manors, at Sherborne5, was acquired by Hugh of Port, who also obtained a comparable manor from a Wulfeva in Berkshire6. If, as seems likely, this is Wulfeva is Wulfeva Beteslau, then she may also be the Wulfeva at Bagnor7, six miles away. Apart from proximity, it is noteworthy that many of Wulfeva's manors were used to endow royal officials: a sheriff (Hugh of Port), three or four chamberlains (Siric, Bernard, Humphrey, and perhaps William Mauduit), and a valet (Alsi), Bagnor going to Humphrey the chamberlain. Another official who may have benefited is Edward of Salisbury, who obtained a respectable manor at Shrewton in Wiltshire from a Wulfeva8. The two remaining manors of Wulfeva in the county, at Garsdon and Tytherton9, were possibly also hers. They were of similar status and no great distance from her manor of Clyffe Pypard.
It has also been suggested that the predecessor of the bishop of Coutances in Devon10 and Bedfordshire11 is Wulfeva Beteslau: Meyer, 'Women's estates', p. 117. Since comparatively few individuals bore the name the bishop's predecessor is probably one woman; but it is more likely that she is the bishop's tenant in Somerset12 rather than Wulfeva Beteslau. She cannot be both because
1 HAM 1,8;39
2 HAM 35,9. 69,14;28. NF9,13
3 DOR 58,1-3
4 SOM 17,4;7
5 HAM 23,4
6 BRK 52,1
7 BRK 53,1
8 WIL 24,7
9 WIL 8,10. 26,22
10 DEV 3,13-14;16;19;80-81;92
11 BDF 3,5
12 SOM 5,16
Beteslau was dead before 10861. Professor Meyer also suggests that the Wulfeva who held the valuable manor of Hamsey, plus Preston, in Sussex2, is Beteslau. Antecessorial practices did not apply in Sussex, of course, due to its division into Rapes each held by a single tenant-in-chief, so the identification is unverifiable though the status of the holding make it not unlikely. If so, Beteslau may have held the other two manors of Wulfeva in the county since it is recorded at Hamsey that parts of the manor now lay in the Rape of the Count of Mortain, who acquired both. At Horsted Keynes it is stated specifically that it 'lay in' Hamsey, and 'Warley' is said to be 'outside the Rape', that is in the Rape of another tenant-in-chief3. Less certainly, the one other Wulfeva in the south-east, whose manor of Perry Court in Kent was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, might be her; but the manor is modest are there are no specific links with the remainder of her estate.
Round argued that Wulfeva should be known as Wulfeva of Beslow, since Beteslau probably referred to Beslow (Beteslawe) in Shropshire4: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', p. 429. But as von Feilitzen observed, where her byname name is supplied she is Wulfeva Beteslau in all three cases, not Wulfeva de Beteslau: Winton Domesday, pp. 207-208. A list of Wulfeva's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 363-64, which does not include the Sussex manors or those in Wiltshire other than Clyffe Pypard. Dr Clarke ranks Wulfeva thirty-ninth in wealth among untitled lay persons; if the Sussex and Wiltshire manors are included, she would rise a dozen places in the rankings. Either way, only Wulfwynn of Creslow was wealthier among untitled women.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA <OF MORSTON>. Wulfeva, whose ten acres worth two shillings at Morston in Suffolk were acquired by Ranulf brother of Ilger5, has no links with other Wulfevas, though she may be the Wulfeva of Thorndon who held the remaining Suffolk manors, between twenty and thirty miles to the north of Morston.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA <OF NORTON>. The clustering of the name in the south-west suggests that most if not all the dozen Wulfevas not identified as Wulfeva Beteslau are a second Wulfeva, who held Norton in Somerset6 from the bishop of Coutances. Of the remaining eleven manors - all in Devon - seven were acquired by the bishop of Coutances7. The bishop also obtained Shelton in Bedfordshire from a Wulfeva8; and although the distances involved might suggest this is another Wulfeva, she is the only Wulfeva in that county which makes it less likely that she is a second predecessor of the bishop of that name.
The other four manors in Devon have no specific links with the bishop or Wulfeva of Norton. Three, however, are of comparable status to several of her manors; and of these Milton9 is a few miles from her manors at Buckland and Hartleigh, Clyst10 is an ecclesiastical holding of the type often acquired by local magnates, and Rawridge11 a substantial manor likely to have been held by such a magnate. Only the modest holding at Stoke12, some distance from all the other properties, appears more likely to have belonged to another Wulfeva. Professor Meyer suggests that the
1 HAM 6,12
2 SUS 11,69. 12,49
3 SUS 10,100;109
4 SHR 4,14,16
5 SUF 39,4
6 SOM 5,16
7 DEV 3,13-14;16;19;80-81;92
8 BDF 3,5
9 DEV 28,1
10 DEV 16,92
11 DEV 10,2
12 DEV 20,12
bishop's predecessor is Wulfeva Beteslau; but, if so, she could not have held Norton in 1086 since Wulfeva Beteslau was dead by then: 'Women's estates', p. 117. Of the alternatives, it seems more likely that the predecessor and tenant of the bishop of Coutances are one person, and Wulfeva Beteslau another; none of the manors of the former Wulfeva being as valuable as the ten most valuable of the Beteslau manors. Wulfeva of Norton is one of only two surviving Wulfevas; she is unidentified in Coel (no. 14421).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA <OF STOKE>. Wulfeva, whose modest manor at Stoke in Devon was acquired by William of Falaise1, has no links with other Wulfevas, though she is possibly the same woman as Wulfeva of Norton, whose nearest manor is some thirty miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA <OF THORNDON>. With two exceptions, all occurrences of the name Wulfeva among pre-Conquest landowners in eastern England in the counties between Essex and Yorkshire are concentrated in Suffolk, all but three of these on the fief of Robert Malet2, the bulk of them in 'Hartismere' Hundred. It is likely, therefore, that this Wulfeva is Robert's designated predecessor, albeit a local and minor one. She held the manors of Stoke, Rishangles, Thorndon and Braiseworth in demesne, and was the lord of free men in half-a dozen vills. Of the other three Suffolk holdings, she is probably the Wulfeva at Glemham3, who was under the patronage of Robert Malet's principle predecessor, Edric of Laxfield; and she is possibly also the Wulfeva on part of the manor of Kelsale4. Her share of the manor is reasonably substantial and there are some connections between Kelsale and Malet holdings5, as well as numerous more general links between the two fiefs, several of them involving Northmann the sheriff who held the principal manor of Kelsale. The final holding, at Morston6, is tiny, remote from the 'Hartismere' holdings, and less likely to be hers.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFEVA [* WIFE OF FIN *]. Wulfeva is a rare name in 1086, occurring only five times, twice as the wife of Fin the Dane (q.v.) in Essex. Two of the other three manors, in Cambridgeshire7, are almost certainly hers since they were held from Richard son of Gilbert, who acquired her husband's manors in Essex and Suffolk. Her manors were subsequently granted by William Rufus to Eudo the steward, who married one of Richard's daughters: Round, 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 349. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1291) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 437.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFGEAT [* BROTHER OF HUNNING *]. The unnamed brother who shared Moreton Corbet in Shropshire in 1066 and 1086 with Hunning is probably Wulfgeat, who preceded Hunning in the following manor of Preston8 and shared Pulverbatch with him in 10669. He may also be the Wulfgeat at Poynton10, the only other Wulfgeat to hold land in the county in 1086, and the Wulfgeat whose manors were acquired by Reginald the sheriff11 and Roger son of Corbet1, both of
1 DEV 20,12
2 SUF 6,209;212-216;218;222-225;227-230;232
3 SUF 3,102
4 SUF 7,3
5 SUF 6,69;73
6 SUF 39,4
7 CAM 19,2-3
8 SHR 4,19,9-10
9 SHR 4,26,4
10 SHR 4,27,29
11 SHR 4,3,2;6;25;36
whom also succeeded to manors held by his brother. His manor of Moreton is recorded in Coel with that of his brother; the tenant of Poynton is unidentified (no. 31113).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFGEAT <OF ALKMONTON>. The Wulfgeats whose six manors in Derbyshire were acquired by Henry of Ferrers are probably one man. Although all but one lay in the wapentakes of 'Appletree' and Litchurch, much of which Henry probably obtained as block grants of the wapentakes concerned, this is may not be relevant as there being no other Wulfgeats in the county: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 151-52, 164-65. Alkmonton is fairly substantial, adjacent to Hungry Bentley, four miles from Shirley2, while Tissington, Swarkestone and Etwall are shared with a Gamal3, Tissington and Bentley with an Ulfkil, and Tissington and Etwall with an Edric, perhaps indicating family relationships.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFGEAT <OF MADELEY>. It is likely that most- possibly all - Wulfgeats in Cheshire and Staffordshire are one man, the principle predecessor of Gilbert of Venables in Cheshire and a major predecessor of Robert of Stafford in Staffordshire. In that county, eleven of the sixteen Wulfgeats are Robert's predecessors4, only Earl Edwin contributing more in value to his fief. Wulfgeat is also Robert's tenant Maer, Madeley and Abbey Hulton, the first and third of which he retained for two decades5. Four of the remaining five Wulfgeats had manors in Totmonslow Hundred, where two of those of Robert's predecessor lay, three of these four perhaps retained by the king because they were waste6. The fifth, at Cheadle7, is four miles from the nearest of Wulfgeat's other manors.
In Cheshire, Wulfgeat preceded Gilbert of Venables on seven manors in Bucklow, Tunendune and Middlewich Hundreds8, these being worth more than those of all Gilbert's other predecessors combined. This Wulfgeat is 'almost certainly' the predecessor of Ranulf of Mainwaring at Cogshall and Northenden in the same Hundreds9 and 'perhaps' the tenant of Earl Hugh at Bartington10, the one surviving Wulfgeat in the county: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 324. If so, he may well have preceded the earl in the lost vill of Done11, which cannot be many miles from Bartington, itself a couple of miles from Cogshall. Of the two remaining manors, Willaston12 is seven miles from Betley13, the nearest of the Staffordshire manors, while Newbold14 is six miles from another, at Rushton15. This proximity, combined with the status of the Wulfgeats in the two counties and the likelihood that both were survivors, suggests they may be the same man. The twenty-ninth Wulfgeat in these counties, at Prenton in Wirral, may well be him also, though Prenton is somewhat apart from the other manors with which it has no specific links. William Malbank acquired the manor16. Wulfgeat's Staffordshire tenancies are
1 SHR 4,4,7
2 DBY 6,35-36;43
3 DBY 6,7;83;98
4 CHS 11,2-3;17;19-22;28;33;36;38
5 CHS 11,17;20-21
6 CHS 1,58-59;64. 17,19
7 CHS 17,10
8 CHS 17,3;6-7;9;11. 18,1-2
9 CHS 20,10. 27,1
10 CHS 26,4
11 CHS 1,11
12 CHS 8,18
13 STS 17,10
14 CHS 18,1
15 STS 1,64
16 CHS 7,4
recorded in Coel (no. 9263) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 438; the Cheshire tenant is unidentified (no. 28957).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFGEAT <OF RADCLIFFE>. Wulfgeat, tenant of William Peverel at Radcliffe-on-Trent in Nottinghamshire, may be his predecessor at Manton and also the thane Wulfgeat at Osberton, a few miles from Manton, who retained this manor for two decades1. No other Wulfgeat held land in the county in 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 35392, 35601).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFGEAT [* THE HUNTER *]. The Wulfgeats who held Wimborne St Giles and Bryanston in Dorset2, Langley in Hampshire3 and Milford in Wiltshire4 among the king's thanes of those counties in 1086 may be Wulfgeat the hunter, who held from the king on the Isle of Wight, at Chippenham in Wiltshire and possibly at Scetre in Dorset5 in 1066, and among the king's thanes at Ripley in Hampshire and Longford in Wiltshire in 1086. At Chippenham, he is described as King Edward's huntsman; and the entry for Ripley shows that he held land in both 1066 and 1086, while that for Langley suggests that Cola the hunter (q.v.) was his son, in which case he may be the unnamed father of Cola at Grimstead in Wiltshire6. The Wulfgeat at Wimborne St Giles is identified as the hunter in the Geld Roll for Cranborne Hundred where Wimborne lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 128. Wulfgeat's tenancies at Ripley, Longford and Wimborne are recorded in Coel (no. 399) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 437; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 3015, 6646, 17193). See also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 116, note 99.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFHEAH <OF PLUMTREE>. All Wulfheahs in Nottinghamshire are predecessors of Roger of Bully so may be one man, even though his holdings lay in the 'Bully' wapentakes of Rushcliffe and Oswaldbeck: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 148-49, 162-63. Plumtree and Normanton and their dependencies are adjacent7, though Fenton8 is at the other end of the county. But Wulfheah held no land in other wapentakes, and several other tenants-in-chief held land in the Rushcliffe vills without acquiring his land, so Bully may have been his designated successor.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFMER [* OF EATON SOCON *]. The royal thane Wulfmer of Eaton Socon is given his byname and often his designation as royal thane on the majority of his manors in Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. Most were acquired by Eudo the steward and Azelina wife of Ralph Tallboys, which suggests that he is the Wulfmer whose men in Stanford and Wyboston and substantial manor at Cockayne Hatley in Bedfordshire9 were acquired by Azelina and her (probable) son-in-law, Hugh of Beauchamp. He is probably also the royal thane Wulfgeat who held Thurleigh10, described as the predecessor all of whose lands were given to Eudo, which fits Wulfmer but no Wulfgeat. The description also suggests that he is the Wulfmer whose Essex
1 NTT 10,55;64. 30,1
2 DOR 56,16;34
3 HAM 69,52
4 WIL 67,79
5 DOR 1,27
6 WIL 67,42
7 NTT 9,82-87
8 NTT 9,112
9 BDF 21,10. 55,4;6
10 BDF 28,1
manors were held by Eudo in 10861, several of them valuable. Reginald Lennard doubted this on the grounds that Wulfmer is several times described as a free man in Essex, not a thane as in Bedfordshire: Rural England, p. 99. But Little Domesday often uses this description of men elsewhere described as thanes, or even as royal thanes or Guards; and the status of Wulfmer's manors supports the identification: the five most valuable manors held by a Wulfmer in Essex were held by Eudo's predecessor. A list of Wulfmer's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 364-66, which does not include Thurleigh or the valueless Stanford. He ranks Wulfmer thirty-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen; Thurleigh would raise him a couple of places.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFMER <OF FOSTON>. The Wulfmers whose manors at Shirley and Foston in Derbyshire were acquired by Henry of Ferrers2 are probably one man, though their manors lay in 'Appletree' wapentake, most of which was acquired by Ferrers as a block grant. This may be irrelevant, however, as there are no other Wulfmers in the county. The two manors are eight miles apart.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFMER [* THE PRIEST *]. Wulfmer, a free man of Edric of Laxfield who held Stratton in Suffolk in 10663, is named Wulfmer the priest in a charter from Bury St Edmunds referring to his manor: Feudal documents, pp. xc-xci, 151-52.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFMER [* THE REEVE *]. Wulfmer, who held a tiny fief in Suffolk incorporating land he had annexed4 is probably the king's reeve whose annexations are recorded elsewhere and who had charge of Bricett, another annexation, for the king5, his identity suggested both by his activities and by his relationship with Roger Bigot, the sheriff, who had the heriot from his father6 and was his guarantor in annexing a free man to the royal manor of Bramford7. The holdings of Wulfmer the reeve are recorded in Coel (no. 1289) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 437; the tenant-in-chief is identified as another man (no. 2095), Domesday people, p. 499.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFNOTH <OF RADFORD>. The Wulfnoths who held small properties in Radford and Old Lenton in Nottinghamshire from William Peverel8 are probably one man, despite the aberrant forms of his name in the Lenton entry which, as Stenton observed, 'we certainly dare not have assumed' to be the same man unless the scribe had distinctly said so ('Unlof ... isdem Ulnod'): Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Nottinghamshire' p. 230. The vills are neighbours and there are no other Wulfnoths in the county. Wulfnoth also held Lenton in 1066 but has no links with other survivors, though it is conceivable he is the one other such in any of the adjacent counties, at Aylestone in Leicestershire, some twenty miles to the south. The Nottinghamshire Wulfnoths are unidentified in Coel (nos. 35349, 35358).
.............................................................................................................................................
1 ESS 25,4;11;13;15;18-19;25
2 DBY 6,26;43
3 SUF 6,110
4 SUF 73,1
5 SUF 1,7. 74,4;7. 76,13-14
6 SUF 73,1
7 SUF 1,7
8 NTT 10,15;24
WULFRIC <OF ASLOCKTON>. Wulfric, who held a bovate in Aslockton in Nottinghamshire from Ilbert of Lacy1, is probably the Wulfric who held a bovate there from the king2. The entries may be duplicates, though since the name of the pre-Conquest lord is Leofing in one and Leofric in the other, this may be a divided holding rather than a scribal error. This Wulfric is the only surviving Wulfric in Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire, and the only predecessor of Ilbert of this name; he has no links with other Wulfrics, though they are numerous in Nottinghamshire and several held land within a five mile radius. Both Wulfrics are unidentified in Coel (nos. 35562, 35642).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFRIC <OF MARCHINGTON>. The Wulfrics who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Foston, Sudbury, Broughton, Hilton and Eaton Dovedale in Derbyshire3 may be one man. All five manors are in 'Appletree' wapentake, much of which Henry may have received as a block grant: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 151-52. This may not be relevant, however, as the manors form a fairly tight cluster, four lying within four miles of each other and the fifth six miles away. By contrast, the one other Wulfric in the county is almost forty miles away4. Two of Wulfric's manors are not insubstantial, which suggests that he may be the same man as Henry's one other predecessor of that name, at Marchington in Staffordshire5, who had a substantial manor - valuable by Staffordshire standards - just across the county boundary, three miles from Sudbury.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFRIC [* SON OF GODE *]. The unnamed son of Gode of Woolley (q.v.) who shared Welwyn in Hertfordshire with his mother in 10666 may be Wulfric, who shared a manor at Woolley in Huntingdonshire with her in 1066, and another in that vill in both 1066 and 10867. His tenancy is included with that of his mother in Coel (no. 6158).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFRIC [* THE HUNTER *]. The Wulfrics who held Morden and Thorn Hill in Dorset8 and Shalbourne and Britford in Wiltshire9 among the king's thanes in those counties are named Wulfric the hunter in the Geld Roll for the Hundreds in which these manors lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 130, 136; VCH Wiltshire, ii. 201-202, 213-24. Wulfric succeeded his father on the Dorset manors, as did Wulfric the hunter on other manors among the thanes of Dorset and Hampshire. It is likely, therefore, that the Wulfrics who succeeded fathers elsewhere among the thanes in Hampshire10 and Wiltshire11 are the same man, as perhaps are the Wulfrics at Godesmanescamp in Hampshire (HAM NF9,34) and at Swindon, Britford and 'Frustfield' in Wiltshire12, where their predecessors are unnamed. Finally, he may be the Wulfric on the royal manor of Hinton in Dorset13, adjacent to Thorn Hill. The manors of Wulfric (Uluric) in Wiltshire and at Morden and Thorn Hill in Dorset are recorded in Coel (no. 924) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 438, and those on
1 NTT 20,6
2 NTT 30,37
3 DBY 6,26;30-31;46;50
4 DBY 7,10
5 STS 10,4
6 HRT 34,4
7 HUN 19,21. 29,5
8 DOR 56,13;18
9 WIL 67,65;70
10 HAM 69,18
11 WIL 67,66-67;72
12 WIL 67,69-71
13 DOR 1,31
anonymous holdings in Hampshire1 and Dorset2 are identified as another Wulfric (Ulric) the hunter (no. 1975), Domesday people, p. 437; the remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 2489, 6603, 6728).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFRIC'S BROTHER'S WIFE [* WULFEVA *]. The wife of Wulfric's brother who held part of his manor of Morden in Dorset3 may be Wulfeva, who owed tax with Wulfric in Charborough Hundred, where Morden lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 136.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSI. Wulfsi is a common name which occurs over seventy times, distributed among nineteen counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and almost thirty of his tenants-in-chief, with large clusters in Nottinghamshire and Suffolk and smaller ones in Derbyshire and Essex. Survivors held fourteen manors distributed among nine counties and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSI <OF DRAYNES>. It is probable that Wulfsi, predecessor and tenant of the Count of Mortain at Draynes and Treviliud - said to be the same man in the text - is also the Wulfsi who held Penhole from him4. These three, all survivors, are the only Wulfsis in the south-western counties. Wulfsi's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 245) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 437.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSI [SON OF?] SWEIN. At Bilborough in Nottinghamshire5 the pre-Conquest lords who preceded William Peverel are named Ailric 7 Ulsi Suen, a scribal usage which may conceal Wulfsi son of Swein or Wulfsi and Swein. Either description would fit Wulfsi the noble, who held several of the previous manors from Peverel, or Swein the noble (q.v.), whose manors were acquired by Walter of Aincourt, though neither tenant-in-chief appears to have acquired the manors of the other's predecessor.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSTAN. Wulfstan is a fairly common name which occurs forty-four times, distributed among seventeen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and twenty-three of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Yorkshire. Survivors held two manors.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSTAN <OF DRAYTON>. The Wulfstans who preceded Roger of Bully at West Drayton and Harworth in Nottinghamshire6 and Marr in Yorkshire7 may be one man. The Nottinghamshire Wulfstans are the only two in the county; and Harworth is roughly midway between Drayton and Marr, about fourteen miles from either. Both Harworth and Marr were subinfeudated to the same tenant, Fulco of Lisors. Roger had no other predecessors named Wulfstan.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HAM 69,47
2 DOR 56,30
3 DOR 56,13
4 CON 5,24,1-2;7
5 NTT 10,39
6 NTT 9,31;55-56
7 YKS 10W27
WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>. The Wulfstans (Ultan, Ulstan) from whom William son of Ansculf acquired Orton, Himley and Pendeford in Staffordshire1 are probably one man, the only Wulfstan in the county; the vills are a few miles apart. William had no other predecessors of this name, and Wulfstan no links with other Wulfstans. It has been suggested, however, that Untan (q.v.), William's predecessor at Bradley2, may be a variant form of Wulfstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 402. If so, then he is probably the same man as Untain, a predecessor of Thorkil of Warwick.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSTAN <OF SWARKESTONE>. The Wulfstans from whom Henry of Ferrers acquired a small manor in Swarkestone and a waste holding at Twyford in Derbyshire3 are probably one man, the only Wulfstan in the county; the vills are three miles apart. Henry had no other predecessors of this name, and Wulfstan no links with other Wulfstans.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWARD. Wulfward is a very common name which occurs more than 120 times, distributed among twenty-five counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and almost sixty of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Sussex, Hampshire, Devon, Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire and Suffolk. Survivors held sixteen manors distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWARD <OF RINSEY>. The Wulfwards who held Rinsey in the royal manor of Winnianton and Treveador in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain4 are probably one man, the only Wulfward in the county; many of the Count's tenants also held part of Winnianton, which the Count controlled. Wulfward's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1693) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 499.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWARD [* OF WANGFORD *]. Wulfward, who held Wangford in Suffolk5 from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds in 1086, is probably Wulfward of Wangford, named in a number of royal charters and other documents of the following years: Feudal documents, pp. 65, 70-71, 108, 153, 156. According to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, he is also the Wulfward who held Flempton and Elveden from the abbey6: Feudal documents, p 17. Bury had no other tenants of this name - though one predecessor7 - and there were no more in the county. Wulfward's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 10286) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 439, apart from Elveden, assigned to the abbey's demesne; the commentary in Domesday people is corrected in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWARD [* WHITE THE NOBLE *]. Wulfward White is accorded his byname in ten of the twelve counties in which he held land, which helps to identify him elsewhere. In Gloucestershire8, Middlesex9, Oxfordshire1 and probably Wiltshire2, his predecessor was Arnulf of Hesdin, which
1 STS 12,7;12;20
2 STS 12,23
3 DBY 6,83;87
4 CON 1,1. 5,24,6
5 SUF 14,19
6 SUF 14,12;20
7 SUF 14,39
8 GLS 60,2
9 MDX 10,1-2
makes it likely that he is the Wulfward who preceded Arnulf at Newbury in Berkshire3 and Toddington in Bedfordshire4. Despite the problematic form of the name in this last entry - Wluuardus leuet - the high status of the holding and Arnulf's succession virtually guarantee that this is Wulfward White, as suggested long ago by Round, 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 363. Wulfward may also have been Arnulf's predecessor at Cholderton in Wiltshire5, though this Wulfward is said to hold the same land in 1066 and 1086 and Wulfward White is elsewhere treated as though he were dead before Domesday6. Round suggested he survived 'almost to the time of Domesday', which would account for the discrepancy: 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', p. 216. Another of Wulfward White's predecessors was Bishop Odo of Bayeux at Merston in Kent7; and since Wulfward also had jurisdictional privileges in the county, it is not unlikely that he is the only other Wulfward holding land there, at Waldershare8, also acquired by Bishop Odo.
Another of Wulfward White's distinguishing characteristics is that he and his wife Edeva were dependants of Queen Edith9, which enables him to be identified as the Wulfward who held land from her in the royal manor of Keynsham10 and at Addingrove and 'Shortley' in Buckinghamshire11. He was also a thane of King Edward12, so he may be the royal thane of that name at Stewkley and Shenley13, called Wulfward the noble at Stewkley. As a lord of men, he is certainly the Wulfward at Ickenham, where he is named in full on a second manor in that vill14, and probably also the Wulfward at Milton Keynes15, close to the manor at Shenley and adjacent to that of his son at Woughton16, assuming Wulfward son of Edeva to be his son.
Finally, in Dorset, where he was the predecessor of William of Falaise at Milton, the Wulfward who held Pentridge from Glastonbury abbey is named Wulfward White in the Geld Roll for Cranborne Hundred where Pentridge lay17: VCH Dorset, iii. 128. He may also be the Wulfgar White who leased twelve acres of meadow in the royal manor of Melcombe Horsey18. In Lincolnshire, where he had full jurisdictional and market rights19, he is probably the Wulfward who preceded Guy of Craon on the substantial manor of Butterwick20, this being the only manor held by a Wulfward in the county. Less certainly, he may be the Wulfward who preceded Matthew of Mortagne on his fiefs in Berkshire and Wiltshire21, counties where Wulfward had a substantial presence; the manors are of appropriate status. A list of Wulfward's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 366-68, which omits Pentridge, Keynsham and Shenley, and assigns the Buckinghamshire manors at Stewkley, Addingrove, Milton Keynes and 'Shortley' to Wulfward's son, Wulfward son of Edeva, also identified there as Wulfward the noble. Clarke ranks Wulfward with his wife and son seventeenth in wealth among the nobility, eighth among untitled laymen; the
1 OXF 40,3
2 WIL 3,1
3 BRK 50,1
4 BDF 20,1
5 WIL 25,15
6 HAM 10,1. WIL 3,1
7 KEN 5,114
8 KEN D25. 5,215
9 HAM 10,1. SOM 1,32-35
10 SOM 1,28
11 BUK 14,6. 56,2
12 MDX 8,5. 10,1-2
13 BUK 5,5. 42,1
14 MDX 7,8. 15,2
15 BUK 17,31
16 BUK 12,31
17 DOR 8,5
18 DOR 1,30
19 LIN T5
20 LIN 57,38-39
21 BRK 59,1. WIL 63,1
additional holdings would not affect this. The Statistics database records Wulfward's assessed land as 192 hides; Dr Williams estimates it as 'over' 150 hides: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 99-100. See also Stafford, Queen Emma & Queen Edith, p. 318.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN. Wulfwin is a very common name which occurs about 140 times, distributed among twenty-seven counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and almost sixty of his tenants-in-chief, with large clusters in Essex and Suffolk and smaller ones in Cambridgeshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire; the great majority of the most valuable manors lay in those counties. Survivors held ten manors distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN [* OF EASTWICK *]. It is probable that the Wulfwins of Eastwick and Hailey in Hertfordshire are Wulfwin of Eastwick, overlord at Stanstead Abbots1. Geoffrey of Bec acquired the lands of all three, which are in neighbouring vills, Wulfwin being described as a man of Earl Harold at Hailey and his thane at Eastwick. There are no other Wulfwins on Geoffrey's Honour. The cluster of Wulfwin manors is somewhat isolated from those of his namesakes; the nearest of them, a man of Esger the constable at Great Hormead2 and the one other Wulfwin in the county, is fifteen miles to the north.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN <OF GILLINGHAM>. Wulfwin, who held land worth six shillings at Gillingham among the royal thanes of Dorset in 10863, may have held the same property in 1066, no pre-Conquest landowner being recorded. He has no links with other Wulfwins, none within forty miles, the nearest survivor being almost seventy miles away, at Hanney in Berkshire. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 2982).
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN <OF PENHOLE>. Wulfwin, who held Penhole in Cornwall in 10664, who is named Wine in Exon., may be the Wine at Kilminorth5, about ten miles away. Wine 'seems to be a short form' of Wulfwin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 415. Wine is not recorded elsewhere, and there are no other Wulfwins in Cornwall.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN <OF SALTHROP>. Wulfwin, whose manor at Salthrop in Wiltshire was acquired by Humphrey de l'Isle6, has no links with other Wulfwins, and Humphrey no other predecessors or tenants of that name. Humphrey, however, had at least seventeen predecessors on the twenty-seven manors in his Honour, entirely located in Wiltshire, so may have acquired Salthrop as part of a block grant, in which case the tenurial factor may be irrelevant. Salthrop is the most valuable of the Wulfwin manors in the south-west, so it is possible that he is the same man as Wulfwin of Tolland, the most prosperous of his namesakes in the area.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 HRT 34,13;23-24
2 HRT 38,2
3 DOR 56,5
4 CON 5,24,7
5 CON 5,4,19
6 WIL 27,8
WULFWIN <OF SUTTON>. Wulfwin, who preceded William the usher on a half-hide at Sutton in south Devon1, has no links with other Wulfwins; but since William acquired the manor by exchange - it is not said from whom - tenurial factors are not relevant. The manor is, however, somewhat isolated from those of other Wulfwins.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN <OF TOLLAND>. As the name is uncommon in the south-west, the Wulfwins whose manors of Broford, Exford and Tolland in Somerset were acquired by Roger of Courseulles2 are probably one man, who may also be the Wulfwin at Cheddon Fitzpaine3 and at Bray in Devon4, predecessors of Roger Arundel and Alnoth of Bray respectively. Cheddon and Bray flank the Courseulles manors; each is of similar status, and both closer to one of them than they are to each other. He is perhaps less likely to be the one other Wulfwin in the two counties, at Sutton in Devon5, a small property in the south of the county. It is not unlikely that he is the Wulfwin whose land at Salthrop in Wiltshire was acquired by Humphrey de l'Isle, though there are no links to confirm this. None of these tenants-in-chief had other tenants or predecessors named Wulfwin.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN [* SON OF ALFWIN *]. Wulfwin, a royal thane and a regional magnate, is named as Alfwin's son in the Ramsey chronicle, which records a lease involving four of his manors (below). He affords a classic example of an English lord supplying title to a Norman baron. He is several times described as the predecessor of Aubrey de Vere6, or implied to be so; and with trivial exceptions all his manors were acquired by Aubrey, who held virtually nothing else as a tenant-in-chief. If Aubrey's illegal acts are discounted, all his manors in Cambridgeshire7, Essex8 and Suffolk (35,1-2;5-7. 68,5. 76,21) were previously held by Wulfwin, with two minor exceptions, one a royal grant9, the other where Wulfwin may be the unnamed overlord of the manorial lord10. Aubrey held two manors in Huntingdonshire as a tenant-in-chief, previously held by an Aelfric from the abbey of Ramsey11; but although this appears to be an exception, the Ramsey chronicle records that Wulfwin leased these manors from the abbey in return for the reversion of four of his own manors, Abington in Cambridgeshire, Ugley and Bumpstead in Essex, and Waldingfield in Suffolk: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 152-53. How these arrangements produced the outcome recorded in Domesday Book is unclear, but the involvement of Wulfwin is evident, and the claim in the Ramsey chronicle that the king gave Wulfwin's 'entire inheritance' to Aubrey scarcely exaggerated: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 142-43.
Conversely, the only manors of Wulfwin which were not acquired by Aubrey appear to be two small holdings in Babraham12 and Horseheath13 in Cambridgeshire, vills where Wulfwin had a second property. Dr Hart suggests that Wulfwin may be Wulfwin the hunter, who held a portion of Isleworth in Cambridgeshire; but while not impossible this seems unlikely in view of Wulfwin's magnate status and the devolution of his other manors: Early charters of eastern England, p. 36.
1 DEV 51,10
2 SOM 21,51;68;82
3 SOM 22,22
4 DEV 52,36
5 DEV 51,10
6 CAM 29,1;11. SUF 6,216;227. 35,2
7 CAM 29,1-11
8 ESS 35,1-2;4-13. B3t
9 ESS 35,14
10 ESS 35,3
11 HUN 22,1-2. D7
12 CAM 1,15
13 CAM 26,9
Wulfwin is a common name, particularly so in Essex and Suffolk, so it is not possible to be certain about the identity of other Wulfwins in the area. On the other hand, the name was clearly borne by many separate individuals since no less than a dozen are recorded in Colchester alone; and whereas nineteen of the manors acquired by Aubrey from Wulfwin are worth £5 or more, not a single other manor held by a Wulfwin in Essex, Cambridgeshire or Suffolk is worth as much. A list of Wulfwin's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 369, which does not include Babraham and Abington in Cambridgeshire or his Suffolk manors and men. Dr Clarke ranks him thirty-third in wealth among the nobility, twenty-second among untitled laymen; the addition of Abington and the Suffolk manors would raise him to twenty-third and twelfth positions respectively.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWYNN. Wulfwynn is an uncommon name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among eight counties in southern England, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners. Most manors were valuable, or very valuable, all but four devolving upon the same tenant-in-chief.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWYNN [* OF CRESLOW *]. The Wulfwynns whose manors in Buckinghamshire1, Dorset2, Hertfordshire3, Middlesex4, Somerset5 and Wiltshire6 were acquired by Edward of Salisbury, sheriff of Wiltshire, are probably Wulfwynn of Creslow, so-named in an anonymous Buckinghamshire vill which preceded her manor at Creslow. Her status as Edward's predecessor is emphasised by the fact that she provided his entire fief in Dorset, Middlesex and Buckinghamshire. It is 'more than likely' that she was Edward's mother: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 105. Her byname is evidently local, since she had more valuable manors in every other county, and another in Buckinghamshire itself.
Her forename occurs four more times in Domesday Book. The two small properties in Devon may have belonged to another woman; but the Wulfwynns at Helsthorpe in Buckinghamshire7 and Hinton Waldrist in Berkshire8 are probably Wulfwynn of Creslow. Helsthorpe was held by a man of Wulfwynn, and no other overlords of this name are recorded; and Hinton, a valuable manor, lay between her Wiltshire and Buckinghamshire properties. A list of her manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 370, which includes Hinton Waldrist but not Hinton Charterhouse in Somerset9. Dr Clarke ranks her thirty-fourth in wealth among the nobility, twenty-third among untitled laymen; the addition of Hinton would place her comfortably among the top thirty and twenty respectively; she was the wealthiest female landowner after the Queen Edith, Countess Gytha and Edeva the fair.
.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWYNN <OF MOLLAND>. If the manors assigned to Wulfwynn of Creslow are excluded, only two Wulfwynns are unaccounted for, both holding modest properties in Devon, at Molland and Brayley10. As they are of similar status, in the same area of north Devon, and roughly a dozen miles apart, they may have been held by one woman, despite devolving upon different tenants-in-chief.
1 BUK 24,1-3
2 DOR 31,1-2
3 HRT 32,1
4 MDX 20,1
5 SOM 40,1
6 WIL 24,24;27;41
7 BUK 43,4
8 BRK 65,1
9 SOM 40,1
10 DEV 3,61. 42,15
.............................................................................................................................................
WYNRIC [* OF PALENCES *]. 'It is highly probable' that Wynric (Wenric), who held the manors of Chilton in Berkshire1 and Sandford-on-Thames in Oxfordshire from Abingdon abbey2 is Gueres de Palences, who held manors in those vills and elsewhere from the abbey according to its chronicle: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', p. 381; Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, i. 322-23. The hidage of Sandford does not agree with Domesday, and Bayworth and Sunningwell, attributed to Gueres in the chronicle, had other tenants there; but this is no doubt due to the shuffling of tenancies which can often be detected between Domesday and their next appearance in the sources. There can be little doubt that Wynric (or Gueres) is one man, since he is the only tenant of this name in Domesday (though a Guerri is recorded in Middlesex and Suffolk). The name-forms are a difficulty, since Gueres is thought to represent the Old French name Werric (Guerri), Wynric an Old English name: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 251-52; von Feilitzen, Old English personal names, p. 429. Stenton postulated that Guerri evolved from Wynric, Gueres being an intermediate form. Whatever the etymological niceties, the rarity of the name and the tenurial links make the identification all but certain. Less certainly, the other two Wynrics in Domesday, pre-Conquest lords of Wincot in Gloucestershire3 and Sawbury Hill in Herefordshire4, are probably Englishmen, not to be identified with the Abingdon tenant; and the Guerris of Middlesex5 and Norfolk6 have no discernible links. Wynric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1583) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 462, under Wenric of Palences.
.............................................................................................................................................
YLVING. The name Ylving occurs three times, distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.
.............................................................................................................................................
YLVING <OF COTON>. Ylving, who held a waste virgate at Coton in Staffordshire in 10667 left untenanted by the king, has no links with other Ylvings, the nearest of whom shared a modest manor worth £1 at Middleton in Derbyshire, almost thirty miles to the north.
.............................................................................................................................................
YLVING <OF MIDDLETON>. Ylving, who shared a modest manor worth £1 at Middleton in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers8, has no links with other Ylvings, the nearest holding a waste virgate almost thirty miles to the south.
.............................................................................................................................................
YLVING <OF THURGARTON>. Ylving, lord of a free man at Thurgarton in Norfolk9, is apparently a lord without demesne land of his own. He has no links with other Ylvings, the nearest being almost 150 miles away.
.............................................................................................................................................
1 BRK 7,34
2 OXF 9,3;5
3 GLS 33,1
4 HEF 10,65
5 MDX 3,16
6 NFK 37,2-3
7 STS 1,42
8 DBY 6,77
9 NFK 9,152