Notes on the identifications in the translation and indexes

Landowners named only by their forenames, or referred to by aliases, are identified in the translated text, the Statistics database and the Names index where possible, in order to make the data more useful for the analysis of the landowning classes in 1066 and 1086 and the social upheaval among those classes which occurred in the interval. The purpose of the following notes is to explain the basis on which these identifications have been made, in order to allow users to make their own judgement as to what credence they merit, allowing them to adjust the statistics accordingly. The Statistics database contains only those landowners with land assessed or valued in 1066 or 1086. As aliases and scribal errors may impede full retrieval from the translation, this and the Statistics database should be used in conjunction with the Names index, which includes all names, with cross-references to aliases and probable scribal errors. In addition to other standard reference works, the PASE database has been consulted for early forms or problematic names: see the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England at http://www.pase.ac.uk/.
	Where no relevant sources exist, the criteria for making identifications are broadly statistical, or probabilistic, and range from 'virtually certain' to 'more likely than not'; more precise categories would be spurious in view of the many factors of varying weight which need to be taken into account. As documentation for the English landowning classes is almost entirely lacking, their social structure can only be reconstructed with the aid of such criteria, almost three-quarters of Anglo-Saxon lords being unidentified in Domesday Book, and very few of them named outside that record. Though better served, roughly a third of post-Conquest landowners are also unidentified. As the distribution of both groups is almost certainly skewed, with lower or middling landowners disproportionately represented, this produces an incomplete and distorted picture of both groups and hence of the impact of the Conquest. And since Domesday Book is the baseline from which social change over the next two centuries may be assessed, our view of those centuries is also affected, obscuring broad social trends and probably resulting in a considerable underestimate of the degree of social mobility among the landowning classes. It will never be possible to identify all Domesday landowners with a tolerable degree of probability; but the proportion of unidentified men can be significantly reduced. Although these notes are at the moment very incomplete, they identify the lords or more than 12,000 manors, approximately 50% of those not identified in the text. Whatever misidentifications are made in the process - hopefully reduced over time by the normal processes of scholarly debate - they are unlikely to be a significant proportion of this total. Corrections are welcome and can be mailed to domesdayids@googlemail.com.
Probabilities are for the most part based upon relationships: family, spatial, textual and above all tenurial - that is, relationships between lords and their tenants and 'men', or between English landowners and those who replaced them, or the survivors retained by the conquerors. Some cases are straightforward: as all nineteen Ribalds in Domesday Book were tenants of one tenant-in-chief, they were evidently one man, just as all nine manors held by a Barthi had clearly been held by a single Englishman.. Few cases are as clear-cut as this; but all rely upon probability as circumstantial evidence of identity. There are many problems in making such identifications, to which a large and growing literature is devoted. There are two which, though well-enough known, need some emphasis. First, many names recognised as separate or of separate origin by philologists are used interchangeably by the Domesday scribes (or the scribes are guilty of a rather large number of mistakes); the notes which follow contain many examples and others are likely to be undetected. Secondly, while bynames provide the most common means of distinguishing individuals with the same forename, they can be misleading since one person could have several bynames. Richard son of Gilbert is also Richard of Clare and Richard of Tonbridge; Edeva the fair is Edeva the rich and very probably Countess Edeva; Reinbald is variously described as priest, chaplain, chancellor and as Reinbald of Cirencester; Urso the sheriff is also Urso of Abetot and Urso of Worcester; Alnoth the noble is also Alnoth of Canterbury, Alnoth of Kent and Alnoth the Kentishman; and Burghard of Mendlesham is Burghard of Shenley. Such well-known cases may be the tip of an iceberg whose dimensions are probably larger than suspected. Unless documented by external sources, Domesday aliases can only rarely be proven; but in attempting to identify individuals, toponyms, patronymics and bynames from office or function cannot be regarded as mutually exclusive. Topographic bynames from English place-names should be regarded with particular suspicion as exclusive identifiers as there is a marked tendency in some Domesday texts to name landowners from localities with which the scribes at Hundred, county or circuit level were familiar, one man potentially collecting two or more such bynames. In the nature of things, it is difficult to prove such suspicions; but it is likely, for instance, that Alwy of Thetford is Alwy of Colchester, that Reinbert of Hastings is Reinbert of Sutton, that Jocelyn of Loddon is Jocelyn of Norwich, and that Godwin of Benfield is Godwin of Soulbury and perhaps also Godwin of Letchworth.
	References to the pioneering works of Dr Clarke's English nobility and to the Coel database of Dr Keats-Rohan are provided as they supply lists of the manors of each landowner for comparison with the Statistics database; differences may pinpoint the more dubious identifications. The Coel database, which includes a valuable collection of source material, lists all 1086 manorial lords identified by byname, tenure or descriptive tag; it is cited here by the People number allocated to identified individuals in Coel. These men are also included in Dr Keats-Rohan's Domesday people, with folio references to their manors, less helpful than Coel which identifies each manor and landowner by a unique reference and also contains some corrections to Domesday people. Tenants not identified by byname or description are also included in Coel and allocated a Name number; these men are usually omitted from Domesday people. Coel normally assigns the dependencies of a tenanted manor to the tenant-in-chief unless the tenant is specifically named in the entry for the dependency whereas the Statistics database assumes that the lord of a manor also held its dependencies unless otherwise indicated. Both Coel and Domesday people include information on the origins and families of the landowners, usually incorporated in these notes only if the landowner is not identified with his byname in Domesday Book itself. Dr Clarke's lists do not normally include dependencies or manors without valuations; where a value for 1066 is missing, he normally supplies that for 1086.
The sources from which identifications may be made - satellite texts, chronicles, writs, charters, inscriptions - are well-known and documented in the literature cited below; but the use of one source requires brief comment. For post-Conquest historians, manorial descents are an important means of identifying Domesday tenants. If, for instance, three Humphreys held Domesday manors found in the hands of one family at a later date, there is a presumption that the three Domesday Humphreys are one man. If these manors were later held by two or three families, however, it would be rash to presume there were two or three Domesday Humphreys. Uninterrupted descent is far from the norm. Contemporary chronicles, the earliest charters, and post-Domesday surveys reveal re-arrangements in the composition of fees which broke descent from the Domesday tenant within a generation. Research on replacement rates among landowners of a later period establishes that these were high, broadly speaking 25% in each generation; they are unlikely to have been lower in the turbulent twelfth century. Other factors affecting the descent of parts of an estate are equally if not more important: provision for daughters or younger sons, exchanges (a number noted in Domesday itself), sale, forfeiture, alienations, manorial fragmentation or consolidation, and other contingencies resulting in broken lines of descent, while the incompleteness of later documentation - the omission of mesne tenures, for instance - can result in a misleading appearance of fragmented descent. The bulk of this documentation dates from the mid-thirteenth century onwards, almost two centuries after Domesday when the chances of Domesday tenants having direct male descendants on all their manors are slight.

Editorial principles: It is hoped to hyperlink the notes which follow to the translation in due course, which requires that they are as self-contained as possible, hence the formulaic and repetitious nature of many of them. The Phillimore references will also be linked to the Domesday entries, allowing the translated text to be displayed by clicking the reference. In general, only references to unidentified landowners are cited in these notes, though some references to satellite and other names are included where appropriate; every name, however, is included in the Names index.
	To reduce repetition, statements of links between landowners - or their absence - are shorthand for any form of known connection or association: family relationships, tenure, manorial ties, descent, proximity, or the like. To the same end, common characteristics of a particular forename - numbers, tenurial and geographical distributions, etc - are described at the head of each group of names. As some Domesday names are liable to be confused with each other, and scribal errors are not uncommon, name-totals should be regarded as approximate. To avoid excessive repetition of recurrent words, manor, holding, entry, property, land, etc, are used as equivalents, with no technical meaning implied, though 'Honour' has its normal meaning and 'estate' refers to all the manors held by an individual.
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.

...............................................................................................................................................
ACARD. Acard is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among four counties and the lands of three tenants-in-chief.

...............................................................................................................................................
ACARD [* OF IVRY *]. The tenants of William son of Ansculf at Tyringham in Buckinghamshire and in the adjacent vills of Old Swinford and Pedmore in Worcestershire are very probably the same Acard. Tyringham and Pedmore were held in the thirteenth century by a Gifard from the successors of William son of Ansculf: Book of Fees, pp. 527, 884. As the name is rare, Acard may be Acard of Ivry, who held Aspley Guise in Bedfordshire from Hugh of Beauchamp, ten miles from Tyringham, the manors being of comparable status. Aspley was later held by Ralph of Valery, possibly a descendant of Acard: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 338-39. Acard of Ivry's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 664) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 123, those of William's tenant separately (no. 8491), with the suggestion that he is possibly Acard of Ivry.

.............................................................................................................................................
ACARD [* THE PRIEST *]. As the name is rare, the Acard who held two and a half hides at an unknown location in Binstead Hundred in Sussex from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury is probably Acard the priest, who held '2 virgates in prebend' in the manor of Walberton from the same tenant-in-chief, in the same Hundred. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2024) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 123.

.............................................................................................................................................
ACWULF <OF THELNETHAM>. The thane Acwulf who held a respectable manor at Thelnetham in Suffolk is probably the thane at Ixworth Thorpe in the same Hundred, eight miles away, and also the free man of that name on thirty-six acres at Burston in Norfolk, ten miles from Thelnetham, despite their manors devolving upon three tenants-in-chief, these being the only Acwulfs in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADAM. The name Adam occurs on one small fief in Essex and almost fifty times among the tenants in Domesday Book, distributed among seven counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief, but possibly borne by no more than one or two individuals. An Adam son of William (or possibly Adam son of Robert) is named in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 125, 182) as the tenant of a sixth tenant-in-chief, in Hertfordshire. The one other Adam with a recorded byname is Adam son Hubert, who is probably the unidentified Adam in most, possibly all cases.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADAM <OF LEASINGHAM>. The tenants of the bishop of Lincoln on the fairly substantial manors of 'Ringstone' and Leasingham in Lincolnshire are very probably the same Adam: Hugh of Ringstone held a fee in Leasingham from the bishop of Lincoln in the 1240s: Book of Fees, p. 1075. In view of the distribution of the name and the status of his manors, it is not unlikely that he is the magnate Adam son of Hubert, a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux, though not in Lincolnshire. There are no links to confirm this, but Bishop Odo and the bishop of Lincoln did share other tenants. 'Ringstone' is attributed to the bishop of Lincoln's tenant in Coel (no. 9377) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 124; the tenant of Leasingham is unidentified (no. 33289).

.............................................................................................................................................
ADAM [* SON OF HUBERT *]. With the possible exception of two manors in Lincolnshire, it is probable that all unidentified Adams in Domesday Book are Adam son of Hubert of Ryes, a favourite of the Conqueror, brother of Eudo the steward, and the wealthiest of the tenants of the bishop of Bayeux. Although not a tenant-in-chief himself, he was among the wealthiest two dozen landowners in the country, outstripping most tenants-in-chief, including such magnates as the earl of Chester: Palmer, 'Wealth of the secular aristocracy', p. 281.
	His byname is stated or implied by 'also' on fourteen manors in Kent, two in Surrey and one in Oxfordshire, all apart from a small amount of woodland held from the bishop of Bayeux, so he is probably the Adam who held eleven manors from the bishop in Kent, seven in Oxfordshire, eight in Hertfordshire and one in Northamptonshire. Of the two Adams who were not the bishop's tenants in those counties, one is identified as the son of Hubert by reference a manor he held from Bishop Odo; the other, at Dernedale, adjacent to Adam's manor of Fanscombe, was a tenant of the abbot of Canterbury, who accommodated other tenants of Bishop Odo with grants of land. Although Adam's Honour fragmented, the descent of a handful of these manors identifies him as Adam son of Hubert, though there can be little doubt that he held all of them: Farrer, Honors, iii. 182, 190-91, 197-99, 227, 287, 292-93. He is possibly also the Adam who held two manors from the bishop of Lincoln in Lincolnshire.
	Adam's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 602) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 123, apart from a subholding on his manor of Bowley, attributed to a tenant of the bishop of Ely at Hatfield in Hertfordshire named in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 125, 182), where he is variously described as Adam son of Robert William, Adam son of Robert son of William, and Adam son of William (Coel no. 925). The entry for Bowley is ambiguous, and Bishop Odo had a tenant in Kent named William son of Robert; but it seems unlikely that Odo had two tenants named Adam on a single manor when there was probably at most only one other tenant of that name in Domesday Book. If the identification is accepted, however, a case could be made for attributing all the Hertfordshire manors to this Adam, since they descended as a group and included another Adam son of William among their descendants: Farrer, Honors, iii. 293-95.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADELELM. Adelelm is a comparatively rare name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among nine counties on the lands of eight tenants-in-chief; Alelm at Waxholme in Yorkshire may be a scribal error for Adelelm. All but one these names are borne by landowners in 1086 so probably represent the Old German Adalhelm; the exception may derive from the Old English Aethelhelm (which is translated accordingly), though von Feilitzen suggests otherwise. Aelm in Cornwall may be an abbreviated form: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 184.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADELELM [* OF BURGATE *]. Adelelm, tenant of Aubrey de Vere on the very valuable manor of Burgate in Suffolk, is named Adelelm of Burgate in a royal charter of 1111 and in the Abingdon chronicle, where his donation to the church of Colne - a cell of the abbey - and arrangements for his burial there are recorded: Regesta, ii. no. 100; Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 88-89. Colne is one of Aubrey's manors in Essex. Adelelm is almost certainly Aubrey's tenant on a second holding in Burgate, and one in Gislingham stated to be held by the same man. He is probably also the Adelelm who held Horseham Hall and Helions Bumpstead in Essex from Aubrey, the latter another valuable manor. No other Adelelms held land in these two counties, and Aubrey had no tenants of this name elsewhere on his Honour. Adelelm's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 902) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 124, apart from Gislingham, assigned to the tenant-in-chief. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Adelelm may have been Aubrey's steward.

................................................................................................................................................................
ADELELM <OF HOBY>. Adelelm, who held Hoby in Leicestershire from Drogo of la Beuvrière, may be the Alelm who held Waxholme in Yorkshire from him. The form Alelm appears to be otherwise unknown. Adelelm has no links with his namesakes. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8723) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 124.

................................................................................................................................................................
ADELELM [* OF KINGSTON *]. Adelelm, who held Kingston Bagpuize in Berkshire from William son of Ansculf, is identified by this byname in the Abingdon chronicle, which names him as one of the two 'foremost lords' of Kingston whose misdeeds brought upon them an episcopal threat of the suspension of worship in Kingston if they failed to make amends: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 42-43, 176-79. He has no links with other Adelelms. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1570) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 124.

................................................................................................................................................................
ADELULF. Adelulf is a rare name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among three counties: once in Kent, twice in Cambridgeshire, the remainder in Essex, tenants of three tenants-in-chief, one in each county.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADELULF <OF CROXTON>. As the name is rare, the Adelulfs who held Litlington and Croxton in Cambridgeshire from Hardwin of Scales are very probably one man. He is unlikely to be Adelulf of Marck, Litlington being held 'at a revenue', an improbable tenure for an honorial baron. Like Adelulf of Marck, Adelulf of Croxton was probably a Fleming, a charter cited by Dr Keats-Rohan referring to land at Croxton held by an Elwoldus Flammang, grandfather of the wife of the tenant in 1166 and perhaps the Domesday tenant himself. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1753) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 125; see further Round, Studies in peerage and history, pp. 156-57.

................................................................................................................................................................
ADELULF [* OF MARCK *]. Adelulf, who held ten manors from Count Eustace of Boulogne in Essex, is Adelulf of Marck, named as his tenant at Dunmow and Steeple Bumpstead. He is the only Adelulf in Essex or East Anglia. All but two of his manors were later held by the Marck family, the exceptions - Tolleshunt and Goldhanger - having been alienated to the abbey of St Albans: Book of Fees, pp. 236-37, 1428-29. Adelulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 679) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 125.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADELULF <OF WYE>. Adelulf, who held two-thirds of a sulung which paid 12d in the manor of Wye in Kent from Battle abbey, has no links with other Adelulfs. He is identified in Coel (no. 183) as Aethelwold the chamberlain (q.v.) of the bishop of Bayeux, referenced in Domesday people, p. 125. The identification assumes a scribal error - Adelold for Adelulf - which is possible but unverifiable.

.............................................................................................................................................
ADELUND <OF NEWTON>. The Adelunds (Aelons, Adelund) who held Newton, Harleston, Felsham and Euston in Suffolk from the abbey of St Edmunds are certainly one man, said to be so in the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin which groups his manors together; he is the only Adelund in Domesday Book: Feudal documents, p. 21. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2050) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 125, under the form Adelo used in the Feudal Book, a name which occurs once more in Domesday Book, at Skellow in Yorkshire, but is unlikely to belong to the same man. Dr Keats-Rohan points out that the Kalendar of Abbot Sampson shows that Adelund's estate had divided by the 1180s.

.............................................................................................................................................
AEFIC. The name Aefic occurs six times, once in Wiltshire, twice in Huntingdonshire and three times in Derbyshire, predecessors of different tenants-in-chief - two in Huntingdonshire - in each county.

.............................................................................................................................................
AEFIC <OF ASHE>. As the name is rare, the Aefics who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Ashe, Trusley and Hollington in Derbyshire are very probably one man, his manors lying in neighbouring vills in the Hundred of 'Appletree', two of them held with an Ulfkil. He has no links with his namesakes outside the county.

................................................................................................................................................................
AEFIC <OF CATWORTH>. As the name is rare, the Aefics who held two manors in Catworth in Huntingdonshire are almost certainly one man, though a predecessor of two tenants-in-chief. He has no links with his namesakes outside the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
AEFIC <OF WISHFORD>. Aefic, whose manor of Wishford in Wiltshire was acquired by William Cornelian, has no links with his namesakes, all remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELBERT. The English name Aelbert is rare, as is the continental Albert if Albert of Lorraine and Albert Grelley are excluded. The forms are not always distinguishable; where they are, the translation renders English landowners Aelbert; continental, Albert. Aelbert occurs six times in Domesday Book and twice more in satellite texts, distributed among four counties, three fiefs and the town of Colchester.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELBERT <OF BURTHY>. As the name is rare, the Aelberts (Ailbriht, Ailbric) from whom Richard son of Turolf acquired the two modest holdings at Burthy and Lanescot in Cornwall is probably one man. He has no links with other Aelberts, none occurring within almost a hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELBERT <OF COLCHESTER>. Aelbert (Ailbriest), who held a house in Colchester, is the only urban Aelbert and the only survivor this name. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 5814).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELBERT <OF QUARME>. Aelbert (Ailbrict), whose modest manor at Quarme in Somerset was acquired by Godebold the bowman (q.v.), has no links with other Aelberts, none occurring within almost a hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELBERT [* THE STEWARD *]. As the name is rare, the Albert and Aelberts (Ailbertus) who held land in the neighbouring vills of Impington, Milton and Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire from the abbey of Ely in 1066 according to Domesday Book and the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 113-14) are very probably one man, the abbey's steward named at Milton. At Waterbeach, the scribe renders the name of the abbot of Ely's man in 1066 as Albert (Albertus), but it is improbable he is another man than the abbey's steward.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELEVA. Aeleva is an uncommon name which occurs eleven times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief. It is easily confused with Aelfeva: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 173-74, 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELEVA <OF KNOYLE>. The Aelevas of Berkshire and Wiltshire may be one woman. She held the very valuable manors of East Knoyle in Wiltshire and Basildon in Berkshire, both conferred by the Conqueror on his principal lieutenant, Earl William son of Osbern, and subsequently retained by the king himself. She is probably also the Aeleva on the valuable manor of Aston Upthorpe, which lies between Basildon and its urban holdings in Wallingford, a few miles from either; it was acquired by Reinbald the chancellor. The one other Aeleva in the two counties, who held part of the huge manor of Chalke from Wilton abbey, is likely to be a lady of influence in the region, who can only be Aeleva of Knoyle. No other Aelevas in Domesday Book held manors worth even a tenth of the two royal manors she held, nor did any Aelfevas in the two counties. Aelfevas held manors in Hampshire and Oxfordshire sufficiently valuable to form the whole fief in the latter case and the greater part in the former; but there are no links to connect Aeleva and Aelfeva. Aeleva of Knoyle's manors are worth £65. If included in Clarke, English nobility, she would rank fifty-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFEVA. Aelfeva is a fairly common name which occurs more than sixty times, distributed among twenty-five counties and the lands of the king and more than thirty of his tenants-in-chief. It is largely confined to England south of the Wash, and thinly spread, the majority of counties having a single name, no tenants-in-chief having significant numbers of tenants or predecessors. There are small clusters in Devon and East Anglia, and five survivors, one in Suffolk, two each in Devon and Middlesex. The name is easily confused with Aeleva: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 173-74, 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNTESS *] AELFEVA. Aelfeva, Morcar's mother, who held Warkton in Northamptonshire before the Conquest, is almost certainly Countess Aelfeva, wife of Earl Algar of Mercia and mother of earls Edwin and Morcar, despite the omission of her title and that of her son. She is elsewhere referred to either as Countess Aelfeva or as Earl Morcar's mother, with or without her forename. She had jurisdiction and market rights in Nottinghamshire and held land or property in Hertfordshire, Leicestershire and Suffolk, and 'used to hold' Shalford in Essex, and Coton-in-the-Elms in Derbyshire, both in the hands of her husband in Domesday: Bates, Regesta, no. 33, p. 194. It is also likely that she was the predecessor of William of Warenne on the valuable manors of Wilton and Rising and several others in Norfolk, though described simply as a free woman on one of them but not at all elsewhere. Her husband had been earl of East Anglia, and Warenne succeeded him on manors in Essex and Cambridgeshire. Aelfeva's manors, worth £17 in total, are the only manors held by an Aelfeva in East Anglia worth £1 or more which the Countess did not hold in 1066. A list of her manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 219, and by Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 290-91, 299, 310, 312-14. Dr Clarke does not include the Norfolk manors; Dr Baxter does, his total for the Countess (£84) being similar to that in the Statistics database; if Shalford and Coton are included, this would add another £14.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFEVA [* WIFE OF HWAETMANN *]. Aelfeva, who held a half-hide of the king's alms land at Greenford in Middlesex in 1086, is probably the wife of Hwaetmann of London named in the preceding entry, with another half-hide of alms land in 'Elthorne' Hundred, both acquired from men of Earl Leofwin. The three other survivors of this name held land in Devon or Suffolk; no Aelfeva held land in Middlesex. Aelfeva's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 450) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 126.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFGYTH. The name Aelfgyth occurs four times, once each in Somerset, Buckinghamshire, Essex and Suffolk, each on the lands of a different tenant-in-chief. The Aelfgyth in Essex is the one survivor, identified as an Englishwoman in the text. The name is easily confused with Aelgyth or Aethelgyth, but their distribution make it unlikely they are connected with the Aelfgyths.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFGYTH [* MOTHER OF GODWIN *]. Aelfgyth, whose two hides at Oakley in Buckinghamshire were acquired by Robert d'Oilly, is probably the mother of Godwin son of Aelfgyth (q.v.), a man of Wigot of Wallingford, predecessor and probably son-in-law of Robert d'Oilly: Williams, World before Domesday, pp. 120, 206 and note 151. In addition to her two hides, Aelfgyth, 'a girl', held half-a-hide of King Edward's household revenue - probably in Brill - 'which Godric the sheriff assigned to her for as long as he should be sheriff, so that she might teach his daughter gold embroidery'.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFGYTH <OF CLATWORTHY>. Aelfgyth, who held the respectable manor of Clatworthy in Somerset from Glastonbury abbey in 1066, has no links with her namesakes, all remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFGYTH <OF HARGRAVE>. Aelfgyth, who held the substantial manor of Hargrave in Suffolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds in 1066, has no links with her namesakes, all remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFGYTH <OF SUTTON>. Aelfgyth (Aluid), who held a modest manor at Hargrave in Essex from Swein of Essex, is the only surviving Aelfgyth; she has no links with her namesakes, all remote. Her manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1859) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 139.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* BLAEC *]. It is probable that Aelfric, archbishop Stigand's man, who held land at Shephall in Hertfordshire, is Aelfric Blaec since it is recorded at Datchworth, one of the four entries where he is accorded this byname, that he held it from Westminster abbey before the Conquest, 'but for other lands he was Archbishop Stigand's man'. Although his name is common, he was a modestly substantial landowner, so it is not unlikely that his 'other lands' included some if not all of the manors in Norfolk held by Aelfric, a free man of Stigand, holding from or under the archbishop. Most were respectable holdings, two comparable to those in Hertfordshire, each within a few miles of one of the more modest holdings, while on the remaining manor, at Mundham, he was important enough to be outlawed. Stigand had no men of this name elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* KEMP *]. Aelfric Kemp is recorded in Domesday Book or the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 37-39, 43-44) as preceding Eudo the steward in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, Robert Gernon in Cambridgeshire and Essex, Ralph Baynard in the same county, Roger of Rames in Essex and Suffolk, and the bishop of Bayeux and Richard son of Gilbert in the latter county. He is specifically named as the predecessor of Eudo on the fief of the bishop of Bayeux at Raydon in Suffolk; but Robert, Ralph and Roger also acquired valuable demesne manors from him. He may therefore be the unidentified Aelfric who preceded Gernon at Wivenhoe in Essex, and Baynard at Barn Hall and Lawford in the same county, all three respectable or substantial manors. It is possible, even probable, that he is Aelfric cilt, recorded as a predecessor of Robert Gernon at Matching in Essex and as an overlord in Pampisford, where Aelfric Kemp also had a man and held the adjacent manors of Babraham and Sawston; the noble Aelfric was otherwise poorly endowed. Similarly, he may be the royal thane Aelfric recorded on the valuable manor of Arrington in Cambridgeshire and at Parham in Suffolk. Whether Aelfric the noble in Cambridgeshire and Suffolk is the same Aelfric the noble recorded in Exon. as a predecessor of the bishop of Coutances at Portishead in Somerset, or the Aelfrics on several other substantial episcopal manors in the county, is impossible to verify, but seems unlikely in the absence of identifiable intervening properties, though Eudo did have a predecessor Aelfric at 'Losfield' in Berkshire and a royal thane Aelfric had two fairly substantial manors in Buckinghamshire.
	Eudo the steward was preceded at Radwinter and Arkesden in Essex by Aelfric Wand, who is almost certainly the Aelfric Wand who had the management of the huge royal manor of East Bergholt in Suffolk and who appears from an account of disputed revenues in one entry to be the same man as Aelfric the reeve on other royal manors in the county. Although the entry is ambiguous and name is common, two surviving Aelfrics on the one royal fief with the capacity to wield such responsibility is improbable. On similar grounds, the reeve Alric managing another group of manors on the same royal fief may also be Aelfric Wand: the scribes often confused the two names and there are no other royal reeves of either name in Domesday Book. Eudo, however, was represented among the jurors in Cambridgeshire at the Domesday Inquest by a reeve Aelfric who is surely his predecessor Aelfric Wand: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 83, 99). Eudo had no tenant named Aelfric in Cambridgeshire, and indeed there are no Aelfrics in the relevant Hundred of Longstowe. Neither can Aelfric Wand be identified as a landowner in 1086, though he no doubt extracted a profit from the management of the royal manors.
	Are Aelfric Kemp and Aelfric Wand also the same man? The forename is very common but the coincidences are striking: both are predecessors of Eudo the steward; both held valuable manors; both had a significant presence in Cambridgeshire, Essex and Suffolk; and neither held land in their own right in 1086, though in Kemp's case it cannot be demonstrated that he survived until then unless he is identified as Aelfric Wand/the reeve. On balance, the identification seems more likely than not. A list of Aelfric Kemp's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 227-28; see also Mortimer, 'The Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 247-48. Dr Clarke does not connect Kemp with Aelfric cilt or Aelfric Wand or the reeve but otherwise attributes to him the manors named above, apart from the addition of Southill in Bedfordshire, acquired by Eudo. Though possible, this is doubtful since the property is tiny and its owner named Alric and there is no compelling reason to posit an error in this case. Aelfric is ranked forty-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; the addition of Wand's manors would raise him two places, Arrington and Parham another three.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC <OF BRADBOURNE>. Although Aelfric is a common name, it is likely that all thirteen manors acquired by Henry of Ferrers from Aelfric in Derbyshire and Leicestershire were held by one man. Apart from a priest, only one more Aelfric held land in either county, at Caldwell in Derbyshire, and he may be the same Aelfric since Caldwell lies within a few miles of several of the other holdings and may have escaped the grasp of Henry of Ferrers only because the king granted it to Burton abbey. The Leicestershire holdings are just across the boundary from those in Derbyshire, Stretton being divided by the county boundary. Aelfric held land in Stretton in both counties, sharing the Leicestershire holding with a Leofnoth, probably the Leofnoth Sterre (q.v.) with whom he also shared land in Snelston. The skewed tenurial distribution of the Aelfrics in these counties cannot be explained by Dr Fleming's thesis on the block grant of Hundreds and wapentakes, because Aelfric's holdings are distributed across much of Derbyshire, the bulk of them lying outside Appletree wapentake, where Henry of Ferrers was dominant: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 149, 151-52, 163-65. If anything, the Fleming thesis tends to suggest that Henry acquired Aelfric's lands before redistribution by wapentakes began. Henry had no other predecessors - and no tenants - of this name elsewhere on his Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC <OF COLWICK>. With one possible exception, it is likely that the Aelfrics who held ten manors among the royal thanes of Nottinghamshire are one man. The ten form a close group in the neighbouring wapentakes of Broxtowe and Thurgarton. In six, Aelfric held the same manor for twenty years, and in two others the land he held in 1066 had no named holder in 1086, so may have been his then also. His ninth manor, at Nuthall, was acquired after 1066. Only one other Aelfric in circuit six held land in 1086, and none north of the Wash held the same manor at both dates. The tenth Aelfric, and the possible exception, held 'Sutton Passeys' in 1066, and possibly in 1086 also since no tenant is named. This entry is misplaced, Aelfric being a predecessor of William Peverel rather than a royal thane, and Aelfric may in any case be a scribal error for Aelric, perhaps Peverel's predecessor and tenant on several manors, Aelric of Greasley (q.v.). Finally, it is possible that Aelfric of Colwick is the Aelfric who held land in Radford and Bramcote before the Conquest. Both lie in Broxtowe wapentake, close to those of Aelfric of Colwick; but the name is common, and there are no specific links. All Aelfrics and Aelrics are unidentified in Coel (nos. 35610, 35616, 35636, 35638, 35655), apart from the tenant at Kirkby, who is omitted.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC <OF GRAVENHUNGER>. The four Aelfrics in Cheshire may be one man. Three - at Stapeley, Chorley and Baddiley - preceded William Malbank in the same Hundred, while the manor of the fourth Aelfric, a predecessor of Robert son of Hugh at Burwardsley, lies seven miles from Chorley. Aelfric may also be the Alric who preceded William Malbank at Worleston. He is the only Alric in the county, and the two names are demonstrably confused by the Domesday scribe on a number of occasions. Finally, he may be Malbank's predecessor at Gravenhunger in Shropshire, the one other Aelfric (or Alric) on his Honour: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 320. All five manors are of similar, modest status.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* OF KEYNSHAM *]. Aelfric, who held a hide on the royal manor of Keynsham in 1086, is named Aelfric of Keynsham in the Geld Roll for Keynsham Hundred: VCH Somerset, i. 527-28. His forename is so common he cannot be identified with other Aelfrics. There are eight other survivors among the tenants in Somerset alone, four with different bynames. Of these, Aelfric of Stowey, named in Exon. at Chew Magna, is seven miles from Keynsham. The Domesday Stoweys are more than forty miles away, though Aelfric may have come from another Stowey, near Bishop Sutton, also seven miles from Keynsham; but there are no links to connect these survivors. As bynames in the Geld Rolls are frequently localised, it is not impossible he is the same man as Aelfric Small of Hampshire, who held part of the royal manor of Martock and survived on manors in another counties; but there are no links to confirm this. Aelfric's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2086) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 145.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* OF MELKSHAM *]. The Aelfrics who held Monkton Farleigh and Whaddon among the royal thanes of Wiltshire in 1086 may be Aelfric of Melksham, the thane at Wilsford, the preceding entry, the scribe omitting - as he often did - an 'also'. Wilsford and Monkton had the same predecessor, and Whaddon is two miles downstream from Melksham (where no Aelfric is recorded). The following four entries were held by Aelfric Small, named perhaps to distinguish him from Aelfric of Melksham, though since bynames in the Geld Rolls are frequently localised, it is not impossible he is Aelfric Small; but there are no links to confirm this. Aelfric held Whaddon for twenty years, as did Aelfric Small outside the county. Aelfric's manor of Wilsford is recorded in Coel (no. 678) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 145; the other two tenants are unidentified (nos. 17129-30).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* OF THATCHAM *]. Aelfric, who 'bore witness' concerning a hide in the royal manor of Hendred in Berkshire, is Aelfric of Thatcham, named in the entry for the royal manor itself. Four Aelfrics held land in Berkshire in 1086, two at Windsor, and one each at Boxford and Swallowfield, none with links to Hendred and none nearby, the royal manor at Windsor being furthest removed, on the other side of the county. No Aelfric is recorded at Thatcham itself. Aelfric at Hendred is recorded in Coel (no. 741) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 146; the others are unidentified (nos. 662-63, 1025, 1054).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SMALL *]. Aelfric, the royal thane who held Cainhoe in Bedfordshire, is almost certainly the royal thane Aelfric Small in the adjacent vill of Silsoe and the Aelfric Small whose men held land in Streatley and Chells in Hertfordshire, all before the Conquest. It is improbable he is the same man as Aelfric Small of Hampshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SMALL *] OF HAMPSHIRE. Although the name is very common, it is likely that most if not all Aelfrics in Hampshire are Aelfric Small, named as such among the king's thanes in Hampshire and Wiltshire in 1086 and on the royal manor of Martock in Somerset, where he is further identified as Aelfric of Hampshire in Exon, a designation which suggests he is a significant landowner in that county. Aelfric is also given his byname at Througham in the New Forest, which he held 'jointly' in 1066, another part of the vill being held jointly by a man with the rare name of Wihtlac (q.v.), a relationship which identifies Aelfric holding jointly with Wihtlac at Oxelei in the New Forest and Yarmouth and Yafford on the Isle of Wight and also as Aelfric the doctor who shared meadow with Wihtlac at an anonymous location in the Forest. Four of Wihtlac's manors were acquired by Hugh of Port and his tenant Hugh of St Quentin, so Hugh of Port's predecessor at Bramley and Stratfield Turgis is likely to be Aelfric Small, a likelihood increased by the fact that Aelfric held Stratfield Turgis for two decades, Aelfric Small being the only Aelfric in the county known to survive on the same manors during that period. Aelfric Small may also have held the nearby manors of Hartley Westpall and Stratfield Saye, a mile or so either side of Stratfield Turgis, both held by one man. It is not unlikely that he is also the predecessor of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Preston Candover, the most valuable manor held by an Aelfric in the county. Earl Roger was probably his successor elsewhere (below), and Aelfric Small can be identified as the Aelfric holding the remaining manors in the county worth more than £2. His designation as Aelfric of Hampshire is thus easy to understand.
	Aelfric held several manors for two decades, so it is likely that Aelfrics who held Wigarestun and Pilley for the same period in the same Hundred as Througham are also Aelfric Small. The Aelfric who held Milford and 'also' other manors in the New Forest in 1086, one of them being held since 1066, is identified as Aelfric Small in a document concerning the foundation of Milford church: Blair, Church in Anglo-Saxon society, pp. 517-18. On one of these manors - Brockenhurst - he succeeded his unnamed father and uncle, which suggests he may be the Alric who succeeded an unnamed father and uncle on an anonymous holding in Redbridge Hundred: Williams, World before Domesday, pp. 101-104, 197.
	Aelfric acquired Milford by exchange. It was previously held by a Saewulf, who is perhaps the Saewulf who shared Battramsley with an Aelfric in 1086 and held Ashley, two miles from an Aelfric at Barton in 1066, Aelfric probably being Aelfric Small in both cases. Of the three remaining Aelfrics in the New Forest, the survivor on an anonymous holding in Boldre Hundred, where many of Aelfric Small's manors lay, is likely to be him also, as perhaps are the pre-Conquest lords of Hartford and Otterwood, both in Redbridge Hundred where Aelfric Small had two unnamed manors. The other five Aelfrics on the Isle of Wight are evidently one man, his manors devolving upon the two sons of Azur, each of whom had a manor in both Hampstead and Chilton, a fifth manor lying in Wolverton (HAM IoW7,19-20. IoW8,10-12). As Chilton and Wolverton are two or three miles from Aelfric Small's manor of Yafford, and Hamstead four miles from another of his manors at Yarmouth, it is likely he held these too. Any or all of the remaining five Aelfrics in the county may have been Aelfric Small but there are no links to confirm an identification. Finally, it is not impossible that he is the same man as the survivors Aelfric of Keynsham and Aelfric of Melksham, though this cannot be confirmed. If the remaining identifications are valid, then Aelfric Small was a substantial landowner, just failing to reach the £40 required for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility. Though his losses after 1066 were considerable, he was still a prosperous landowner twenty years later, with manors valued at almost £15, a reflection perhaps of his usefulness to his new masters, as with many king's thanes. His tenancies in Wiltshire, Somerset and the two Hampshire manors where his byname is supplied are recorded in Coel (no. 1274), the Aelfric who held Milford and the following manors being identified as another man (no. 1907); both are referenced in Domesday people, p. 146. A few very minor holdings are attributed to the king, the remaining Aelfrics being unidentified (nos. 6350, 6596-97, 6710, 6719-20, 6920, 6929).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SON OF BRICTRIC *]. Aelfric, who acquired Scepeworde in Somerset from a Brictric, is probably the Aelfric who succeeded his father on the valuable manor of West Lydford according to Exon.. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 15309-310).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SON OF BRUN *]. Although Aelfric is a very common name and several different Aelfrics can be identified on the Honour of the bishop of Bayeux, it is likely that those who preceded him at Stonham and Ulverston in Suffolk are Aelfric son of Brun, his predecessor at Creeting St Peter. That Aelfric was under the patronage of Wihtgar son of Aelfric (q.v.), as was Aelfric at Ulverston and probably also at Stonham, where the unnamed predecessor of Richard of Tonbridge who had the patronage of Aelfric is very probably Wihtgar, Richard's principle predecessor. At Stonham and Ulverston, Aelfric held alongside a Leofwin under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield: Williams, 'Meet the antecessores', pp. 280-81. His father was probably Brun the reeve (q.v.), and Leofwin son of Brun may have been his brother. Between them, these are the only Bruns by forename or patronymic in East Anglia, so the two names Brun and Brune in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 209, are equivalent, as perhaps elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SON OF EVERWACER? *]. Aelfric, who held a small subtenancy at Lamyatt on Glastonbury abbey's manor of Ditcheat in Somerset in 1086, may be Aelfric son of Everwacer, who held five virgates from Glastonbury at Brent according to Exon., the one other survivor of this name on the abbey's lands. A king's thane, Aelfric son of Brictric, however, survived at Lydford, between two and seven miles from Ditcheat and its dependencies; Brent is over twenty miles away. Lamyatt and Brent are attributed to Alfric son of Everwacer in Coel (no. 2005) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 146. Aelfric's father is probably Alwaker of Weare, the names Alwaker and Everwacer being almost certainly interchangeable in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* SON OF GODRAM *]. Aelfric is named as the brother of Aethelstan at Swaton in Lincolnshire, an entry which refers to Aelfric's jurisdiction over his brother in Haceby, a manor of Guy of Craon, who acquired the bulk of his fief in Lincolnshire from Aethelstan son of Godram (q.v.). Guy probably also obtained several other manors from Aethelstan's brother, since Aelfric is a name which occurs disproportionately on his fief, his manors intermixed with those of Aethelstan but also forming a tight group of their own. Kirton alone lies outside that group but is adjacent to Aethelstan's manors of Wyberton and Frampton. All the manors of the two brothers lie in Holland and Kesteven where no other Aelfrics or Aethelstans held land. Although his name is common, therefore, it is likely that all Aelfrics on Guy's fief are Godram's son. Between them, Aelfric and his brother provided almost two-thirds of Guy's Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC SON OF WULFGEAT. Alric? son of Wulfgeat, who held Easton Bavents and its dependencies in Suffolk under the patronage of Earl Harold, may be same man as Aelfric son of Wulfgeat, who held Seckford from the earl and Little Bealings - the same man - on his own account. The scribes confused these names elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* THE HUNTER *]. The Aelfrics who held land at 'Winterborne', Blackmanston, Combe and Bovington among the king's thanes in Dorset in both 1066 and 1086 are probably Aelfric the hunter, who owed tax in the relevant Hundreds: VCH Dorset, iii. 52-53, 134, 136-37, 142. He may also be the other survivor, the king's thane Aelfric at Crawford; but perhaps not the Aelfric at Loders, who is more likely to be the predecessor of the Count of Mortain. Outside the county, Aelfric the hunter held North Newnton in Wiltshire in 1066 from the abbey of Wilton, where he was succeeded by Richard Sturmy. Dr Williams suggests he may be the Aelfric from whom Sturmy acquired Cowesfield, Burbage and Harding in the county: VCH Dorset, iii. 53. Aelfric's manors at Blackmanston, Combe and Bovington, and one of the two in 'Winterborne', are recorded in Coel (no. 1766) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 146. The tenant at Crawford and one at 'Winterborne' are unidentified in Coel (nos. 2983, 2989), which includes the Aelfric at Loders as an identification 'suggested' by the Geld Roll.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* THE SHERIFF *]. The Huntingdonshire Claims prove that the Aelfrics from whom Aubrey de Vere acquired the two manors which constituted his fief in the county are one man. He was killed at the battle of Hastings, so is possibly Aelfric the sheriff, who does not appear to have survived the Conquest for long. He was succeeded in Huntingdon by his wife and sons, before they were displaced by Eustace the sheriff; and he resided on the royal manor of Keyston, paying the king's revenue from it 'and his sons after him, until Eustace received the sheriffdom'. He is presumably also the sheriff of Cambridgeshire, Aelfric son of Godric, who had been replaced by Picot by the early 1070s: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 29, 48. There are no other sheriffs of this name. He may also be the one other Aelfric in Huntingdonshire, whose manor in Orton Longueville was acquired by Eustace; Picot was not preceded by an Aelfric anywhere on his Honour. According to the Huntingdonshire Claims, Aelfric held Yelling and Hemingford from Ramsey abbey during his lifetime in return for a promise to return them at his death 'with Boxted', which identifies him as the Aelfric whose valuable manor of Boxted in Essex was acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne. The Count also had an Aelfric Bicga and a thane Aelfric among his predecessors in Essex, the latter holding a particularly valuable manor at Lawford; but the name is a very common one and another important Aelfric - Aelfric Kemp - held manors in the same Hundred as Lawford and the Count had a tenant Aelfric - evidently not the sheriff - on another valuable manor who is another candidate as the Aelfric at Lawford.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELFRIC [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. Most if not all Aelfrics in Warwickshire may be one man, the uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, whose holdings have been largely reconstructed by Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 283-86, 288, 291, 93-95. Some are identified by links with other family members, others by his tenurial status, as the Aelfric holding land in Staffordshire and Warwickshire in 1086. Although three of the manors are attributed to an Aelric, these are likely to be scribal errors, the clearest case being at Flecknoe itself, a vill in which three of Aelfric's relatives held land. The other Aelrics are both predecessor and tenant - like Aelfric at Bubbenhall - of Robert of Stafford at Ilmington and Bearley; one of Robert's charters is attested by an Aelfric, along with Thorkil of Warwick and other members of his family, but none by an Aelric: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178-82. Robert also had a predecessor named Aelric at Edstone, a mile from Bearley, perhaps the same man, though not identified as such by Dr Williams. Of Aelfric's remaining manors, Fenny Compton is a 'family' vill of Thorkil and his relatives, and the Aelfric of Marston may be identified by his association there with Robert d'Oilly, Thorkil's tenant in the vill and in half-a-dozen others. The Aelfrics at Bickenhill and an anonymous holding in Stonehill Hundred, both acquired by Thorkil and lying in Hundreds where Thorkil's uncle had other manors, may be him also. Two of the three remaining Aelfrics in the county are probably one man since their manors both lay in Wolford. One of them was acquired by the Count of Meulan, who also acquired Aelfric's manor in the 'family' vill of Fenny Compton (above), so this Aelfric, too, may be Thorkil's uncle, though Dr Williams does not identify him there. There are no links with the pre-Conquest lord of Haselor. Aelfric's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 9856) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 147, apart from Flecknoe itself, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28375).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELGEAT. The name Aelgeat (Ailiet, Ailet) occurs twice, once each in Northamptonshire and Derbyshire, both pre-Conquest landowners; it can be confused with the more common Aelfgyth or Alfgeat.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELGEAT <OF HEYFORD>. The predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux on a small, shared holding at Heyford in Northamptonshire has no links with his one namesake. Bishop Odo also acquired the properties of an Alfgeat (Aluiet) in Hampshire and Suffolk; but, even allowing for scribal error in the name-forms, it seems unlikely that these distant properties were held by the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELGEAT <OF OSMASTON>. Aelgeat (Ailiet), predecessor of Henry of Ferrers on the fairly substantial manor of Osmaston in Derbyshire, has no links with his one namesake. It is not unlikely, however, that he is the same man as the Alfgeat (Aluiet) from whom Henry acquired a comparable manor at Priors Frome in Herefordshire, one of two manors on his fief there and the only one where the pre-Conquest lord is named, leaving open the possibility that Henry acquired his fief by antecession. Priors Frome was held from the bishop of Hereford and Osmaston together with (Earl) Waltheof (q.v.), so Aelgeat/Alfgeat was not a negligible figure. It is conceivable that he is also one or more of the three Alfgeats in Staffordshire; but there are no links to support an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELGYTH. Aelgyth is an uncommon name, apparently confined to Essex and East Anglia where it is possibly borne by one woman. A variant form, Aethelgyth, occurs once but is unlikely to be related to the East Anglian landholder, as also Aelfgyths, easily confused with Aelgyth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELGYTH [* WIDOW OF THORSTEN *]. Aelgyth, whose manors in Essex were acquired by Ralph Baynard, is identified by the will of her husband, Thorsten son of Wine, which names all five: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 78-87, 189-99. Thorsten's will also bequeathed to her 'everything which I have in Norfolk'. The Norfolk manors are not specified but almost certainly include those acquired by Ralph Baynard. Ralph also acquired land in Kedington, Poslingford and Shimpling in Suffolk from an Aelgyth; and since Thorsten held land in Kedington, and Aelgyth's mother at Chadacre Park in Shimpling, this Aelgyth is probably Thorsten's widow, the status of the manors providing some confirmation.
	The Aelgyths named on four manors acquired by other tenants-in-chief may be the same woman. Count Eustace of Boulogne held Chipping Ongar, where Aelgyth's husband held land, albeit granted elsewhere in his will. Crimplesham, acquired by Reginald son of Ivo, was of comparable status and less than six miles from her manors in 'Clackclose' Hundred acquired by Ralph Baynard. In four of these vills - including Crimplesham - she held land alongside a Thorkil, whose manors were acquired by Reginald son of Ivo. Aelgyth and Thorkil, the subjects of an undated will in favour of Bury St Edmunds, may be the same pair, both factors implying a relationship between them which could explain the descent of Crimplesham to Reginald, via Thorkil: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 93, 205-206. Reginald also acquired Yaxham from an Aelgyth, probably the same woman.
	The one remaining Aelgyth in East Anglia was the predecessor of Gilbert son of Richere at Mildenhall in Norfolk. Mildenhall is usually assumed to be the Suffolk vill, some twenty-five miles to the south; but Domesday Book clearly states that it was in Norfolk, in 'Clackclose' Hundred, where the bulk of the lands of Thorsten's widow lay. Gilbert did not have a designated predecessor, acknowledged or not, his entire Honour consisting of two manors, the other acquired from Earl Godwin in Surrey. A list of Aelgyth's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 235-36, which does not include Crimplesham and Yaxham; see also Mortimer, 'The Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 248-51. Dr Clarke ranks her thirty-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Crimplesham and Yaxham would raise her three places.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELLIC. The name Aellic occurs three times, twice in Huntingdonshire (once deleted), once in Wiltshire, both pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELLIC <OF KEYSOE>. As the name is rare, the Aellic who held land at Keysoe from William of Warenne, and Hamerton - deleted - in Huntingdonshire is probably the same man who may have held Keysoe at both dates; he has no links with his namesake in Wiltshire. Keysoe is assigned to William's demesne in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELLIC <OF MERE>. Aellic, whose small holding at Mere in Wiltshire was acquired by Wulfric the hunter, has no links with his Huntingdonshire namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELMER [* MILK *]. Aelmer, who held the Baynard manor of Tolleshunt before the Conquest, is identified as Aelmer Milk in an entry for Colchester which records a house attached to Tolleshunt. Tolleshunt was acquired by an exchange, probably with Ranulf Peverel, named in the following Colchester entry as acquiring five houses attached to Terling from an Aelmer, identified in the Terling entry as a royal thane. Ranulf inherited two other properties from an Aelmer, including his principle manor of Hatfield Peverel, a manor befitting a royal thane, as was Thurrock acquired from an Aelmer by William Peverel along with Horndon, the whole of his fief in Essex.. Ranulf and William were almost certainly related, though the nature of their relationship is unknown.
	The royal thane Aelmer also held the valuable manor of Easter, acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne and granted to St Martin's, London. Count Eustace had another of Aelmer's holdings in the vill of Tolleshunt, and granted a third to the church of St Martin-le-Grand. These links suggest that the Aelmer from whom Engelric the priest, founder of St Martin-le-Grand, stole the manor of Elmdon may also be Aelmer Milk. There are difficulties with some name-forms. At Tolleshunt and Elmdon, it is Almer, probably scribal errors in view of Aelmer's second holding in Tolleshunt and substantial scale of the manor at Elmdon. Probably, though less certainly, the Aethelmer (Agelmarus) at Langford, another valuable manor acquired by Ralph Baynard, may be another scribal error. None of the four tenants-in-chief who acquired these manors had predecessors elsewhere named Aelmer or Aethelmer; and the only Almers between them being Almer of Bennington (q.v.) and a predecessor of William Peverel on a single holding in Nottinghamshire. A list of Aelmer's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 236-37, who ranks Aelmer fifty-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELRIC. Aelric is a fairly common name which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among sixteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief, with a cluster in Lincolnshire and a smaller one in Worcestershire. Five manors were held by survivors. The scribes sometimes confused the name with the more common Aelfric and Alric.

.............................................................................................................................................
AELRIC <OF GREASLEY>. William Peverel's tenants at Greasley and Brinsley in Nottinghamshire(NTT 10,30-31) are probably the same Aelric (Ailric); the vills are adjacent, and there is only one other survivor of this name in the county. It is likely, too, that he is William's predecessor at Bilborough, roughly five miles from the other two vills; Aelric held there alongside a Wulfsi, perhaps the Wulfsi he succeeded at Greasley. If the scribe's orthography can be trusted, he may be the Aelric who preceded William Peverel at Hargrave in Northamptonshire, the only other Aelric on the Peverel Honour; and it is not unlikely that he is the Aelfric at Sutton in Nottinghamshire, which he shared with a Brun and a Wulfsi, both of whom held alongside Aelric at Greasley and Brinsley. If not a scribal error, then this Aelfric could be Aelfric of Colwick (q.v.), who also held land at both dates in the county; but on balance, the coincidence of Peverel, Brun and Wulfsi make a scribal error the more likely explanation. Aelric is unidentified in Coel (nos. 35364-65).

.............................................................................................................................................
AELRIC [* SON OF MERGEAT *]. Robert of Vessey acquired his fief in Leicestershire from Aelric son of Mergeat and with one apparent exception the remainder of his Honour in Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire from an Aelric, described as his predecessor in the Claims for Lincolnshire. It is virtually certain, therefore, that these Aelrics are Aelric son of Mergeat, as - almost as certainly - was the one apparent exception, on his Warwickshire manor of Wolvey, obtained from Alric son of Mergeat, apparently a scribal error, though it is worth noting that Aelric is named Alric in a royal charter concerning his manor of Doddington (below): Bates, Regesta, no. 315, p. 929. The two names appear to be interchangeable here.
	Mergeat's son had full jurisdictional and market rights in Lincolnshire, where he was also the predecessor of the abbey of Westminster and of Baldwin of Flanders, identified in the Claims for the county. The Westminster connection makes it likely that he is the Aelric alleged to have granted Kelvedon in Essex to the abbey, a likelihood increased by the fact that he is the only man of this name in the county, or indeed in Little Domesday. According to the text, Aelric 'went away to a naval battle against King William and when he returned he fell ill; then he gave this manor to St Peter's but only one man from the County knows this'. The jury was sceptical, recording that 'they have had neither a writ nor a servant of the King on [his] behalf after the King came to this land'; but Kelvedon remained in the abbey's possession: Harvey, Westminster, pp. 342-43. A spurious Westminster charter names him Aelric (Ailhre) the chamberlain: Harmer, Writs, pp. 303-303, 341-42. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 328-29, which does not include Braybrooke in Northamptonshire. Dr Clarke ranks Aelric fifty-third in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Braybrooke would not affect this.

.............................................................................................................................................
AESCHERE <OF IPSWICH>. Aeschere, who had a church and an acre of land in Ipswich in 1086, is probably also the Aeschere who had a house and nineteen acres in Colchester, these being the only men of that name in Domesday Book, two substantial burgesses with so rare a name being improbable. Aeschere is unidentified in Coel (nos. 5850, 11493).

.............................................................................................................................................
AESCWULF <OF LANDICAN>. As the name occurs in Domesday Book only in Cheshire, the Aescwulf whose respectable manor at Landican in the Wirral peninsular was acquired by William Malbank is very probably the Aescwulf whose comparable manor at Dunham, near the base of the peninsular, was retained by the king.

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELGYTH <OF SOMERBY>. Aethelgyth, who held a very modest holding at Old Somerby in Lincolnshire acquired by Guy of Craon, is the only woman of that name in Domesday Book. Aethelgyth is unlikely to be connected to the woman, or women, who bore a variant name-form, Aelgyth (q.v.), with whose manors in Essex and East Anglia she has no associations: see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 183-84. Aethelgyth is easily confused with Aelfgyth; but the few occurrences of this form are distant, without tenurial or other associations, and unlikely to be related.

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELSTAN. The name Aethelstan occurs almost three dozen times but is rare outside Lincolnshire, occurring once each in Somerset and Cambridgeshire (a survivor), twice in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, and five times in Suffolk, the bulk of the Lincolnshire names being on one fief. It is likely that Aethelstan (Adestan) is interchangeable with Edstan and Estan (q.v.), and on occasions at least with Alstan (Alestan): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 152-53, 182, 188, 237.

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELSTAN [* SON OF GODRAM *]. The Aethelstans from whom Guy of Craon acquired the bulk of his Honour are probably Aethelstan son of Godram, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the county and is named as the predecessor of Guy of Craon in the Claims for Lincolnshire. The extent of his contribution to the Honour is disguised to a degree by scribal confusion of the names Aethelstan (Adestan) and Alstan (Alestan); but the Claims for Lincolnshire reveal that the Alestan of Drayton is the same man as the Adestan of Bicker, and that Aethelstan son of Godram and Alstan (Alestan) of Frampton are one man; at Frampton, his name is recorded as Adestan. It is likely that the confusion between the two forms is repeated elsewhere in the fief, all such cases occurring on folio 368a. An interesting feature of the claim is that it reveals that Aethelstan was alive and recognised as Guy's 'man' in 1086 but apparently held no land at that date, from Guy or anyone else: there are no Aethelstans or Alstans among the Lincolnshire tenants.
	The other party to the claim was Count Alan of Brittany, who was preceded on two of his manors by an Aethelstan, one of them a jurisdiction of Drayton, suggesting that the Count's predecessor may be Godram's son. Aethelstan also held Swaton, acquired by Kolsveinn of Lincoln, where the entry reveals that Aethelstan had two brothers, one of whom, Aelfric, had jurisdiction over him in Haceby. The only Aelfric at Haceby is on Guy's fief, incidentally indicating that part of Guy's Honour came from another member of Aethelstan's family. Between them, Aelfric and Aethelstan provided almost two-thirds of Guy's Honour. A list of Aethelstan's manors acquired by Guy is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 240-41. Dr Clarke ranks Aethelstan eighty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would not affect this.

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELWOLD. Aethelwold (Adelold) is an uncommon name, distributed among seven counties and the lands of nine tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Bedfordshire and Kent, those in Kent being survivors. The name is at times interchangeable with the more common Alwold (Aluuold).

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELWOLD [* OF ELTHAM *]. Alwold (Aluuoldus), whose valuable manor of Eltham in Sutton Lathe in Kent was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is almost certainly Aethelwold (Adelold) of Eltham, who had jurisdictional privileges in the Lathe before the Conquest. It is possible that he is the Aethelwold who subsequently became the bishop's chamberlain. One Aethelwold did survive for the twenty years after the Conquest, as a tenant of the Canons of Dover at Deal, but there are no more specific links to connect the magnate of 1066 with the bishop's chamberlain. The tenant at Deal is recorded in Coel (no. 9298) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 125.

.............................................................................................................................................
AETHELWOLD [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. Aethelwold the chamberlain is named as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux at Frinstead in Kent, and in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 101) as his tenant on three other manors, on two of which he was superseded by Robert the interpreter, as was Aethelwold - presumably therefore the chamberlain - on two more of Bishop Odo's manors. The bishop had two other Aethelwolds among his tenants, at Woodnesborough in Sandwich, five miles from the chamberlain's manor at Easole, and at Dean Court, where it appears - the entry is ambiguous - that Aethelwold was superseded on part (possibly all) of the manor, suggesting he is the Aethelwold superseded elsewhere on the bishop's fief. He is perhaps also the Aethelwold who held a yoke in the manor of Westgate from the archbishop, shared with other tenants of Odo: Domesday Monachorum, p. 82. Fowler suggested he is the Adelulf named as the chamberlain of the bishop of Bayeux in illegal possession of part of the manor of Totternhoe in Bedfordshire: Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 90. Adelold and Adelulf are different names; but the scribe made worst mistakes in dealing with Old English names, and the bishop presumably had only one chamberlain.
	As noted above, Aethelwold lost some of his manors shortly before the Domesday Inquest to Robert the interpreter; but since he held the valuable manor of Leeds and part of Frinsted and a yoke in Sandwich in 1086, this was probably the result of a re-shuffling of the bishop's manors following his imprisonment in 1082 rather than a demotion; Robert the interpreter held the manors at farm, not as tenant. Aethelwold's tenancies from Odo are recorded in Coel (no. 183) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 125, plus an Adelulf at Wye but not at Totternhoe; the tenant at Westgate is subsumed among the homines on the manor and at Dean Court is presumed to be superseded on the whole manor by 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
AGHMUND. Aghmund is an uncommon name which occurs more than two dozen times, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief, with a large cluster in Lincolnshire and a moderate one in Hampshire; the name is rare in the sense that it may have been borne by no more than half-a-dozen men. There are survivors in Hampshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
AGHMUND <OF ECKINGTON>. The four Aghmunds in Sussex are evidently one man, all his manors lying in the vill of Eckington. As the name is rare, it is possible he is the Aghmund in Hampshire; but the manors are not distinctively substantial, and there are no links to provide confirmation of identity.

.............................................................................................................................................
AGHMUND <OF NORTON>. Aghmund, whose substantial manor of Norton in Northamptonshire was acquired by the Count of Meulan, is conceivably the survivor on a ploughland 'with some men' worth five shillings at Grafton Underwood who may have held the same manor in 1066, no pre-Conquest lord being recorded. It is possible that he is Aghmund son of Walraven, who also survived in straightened circumstances for two decades, but there are no links to connect them.

.............................................................................................................................................
AGHMUND <OF WELLOW>. With one exception, all Aghmunds in Hampshire and Wiltshire may be the same man, who survived for twenty years at Chineham, East Wellow, Shoddesdon and Totton in Hampshire. Chineham was acquired by Hugh of Port, who also succeeded an Aghmund at 'Binstead'; Outwick, held by Waleran the hunter in 1086, had been part of Aghmund's manor of Wellow twenty years previously according to the Hundred jury. Waleran acquired the one Wiltshire manor held by Aghmund and removed part of his manor of Wellow into Wiltshire. Two of the three remaining Aghmunds, at Rollstone and Coxlease, are less than ten miles from Totton and each other, alongside Southampton Water. The Aghmund who does not fit this pattern held the lost vill of Hotlop in Broughton Hundred, where he is distinguished as the 'other' Aghmund. This Aghmund, whose manor cannot be many miles from East Wellow in the same Hundred, also survived for two decades and held his manor in freehold from King Edward in 1066 and directly from the Conqueror in 1086, as did Aghmund of Wellow on several of his manors. As the name is rare, these shared characteristics suggest a scribal blunder rather than a second individual, though it is difficult to imagine what kind of mistake would produce this result; as it is, the text is taken at face value in identifying another man.

.............................................................................................................................................
AGHMUND [* SON OF WALRAVEN *]. All Aghmunds in northern England may be one man, the lord of Redbourne in Lincolnshire, predecessor of Jocelyn son of Lambert on his Honour later known as the barony of Redbourne: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 74-75. Aghmund may be the father of Godric, who survived at Beelsby, and is certainly the brother of Sigketill and of two other brothers, one of whom is probably Aslak (q.v.), the other possibly Alnoth (q.v.). If so, the family provided about half of Jocelyn's Honour. Aghmund is also certainly the son of Walraven (q.v.) who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincoln to which his son succeeded, retaining them in 1086 although he lost all or most of his manors.
	Of the other Aghmunds in the county, Walraven's son is identified as Jocelyn's predecessor at 'Middle Carlton' in the Claims for the county, and at Canwick by the fact that his father held in the same vill; while Reasby was acquired by William of Percy, who succeeded to another of his manors in that vill as a tenant of Jocelyn, and Pickworth was acquired by the bishop of Durham whose tenant there is probably Jocelyn himself. He is probably the one other Aghmund in the county, a priest who survived for two decades at Riseholme, just outside Lincoln, where Walraven's son had full jurisdiction. It is likely, too, that he is the one Aghmund in Nottinghamshire, another survivor who retained his land for two decades, his manor of Clifton being a dozen miles from Riseholme. This Aghmund was a tenant of the bishop of Lincoln, who acquired one of his manors from Aghmund's father and from whom Aghmund's successor, Jocelyn son of Lambert (q.v.), held several more. Finally, the only other Aghmunds in northern England, who held the adjacent manors of Orgreave and Tinsley in Yorkshire are probably also Walraven's son. The manors were acquired by Roger of Bully, who also succeeded to the manor of another of Walraven's sons, Aslak, at Normanton-on-Trent in Nottinghamshire. As Roger's predecessors are the only men of that name in the two counties, the odds against them be unrelated are very high. There are two other Aghmund's north of the Thames, both in Northamptonshire, one a substantial pre-Conquest lord, the other surviving on a modest manor, on which grounds either or both of them are conceivably Walraven's son, but there are no specific links to connect them to him. The tenant at Clifton is unidentified in Coel (no. 35157).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* AGNES *] DAUGHTER OF ALFRED OF MARLBOROUGH. Alfred's anonymous daughter, who held Pencombe in Herefordshire from him, is probably Agnes, named as his daughter and the wife of Turstin of Wigmore on her manor at Cowarne. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2557) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 126, where the unnamed manor is at Pencombe.

.............................................................................................................................................
AILBERN <OF WRATTING>. Ailbern, whose manors of Erwarton and Wratting in Suffolk were acquired by Richard son of Gilbert, is probably the same man as the predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux at Burstall, in the same Hundred as Wratting, these three being the only Ailberns in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
AITARD. The name Aitard is stated or implied on eighteen holdings, distributed among four counties and the lands of the king and two of his tenants-in-chief, probably borne by three men, a priest in Nottinghamshire, a man-at-arms in Cheshire, and a tenant in East Anglia.

.............................................................................................................................................
AITARD <OF HALTON>. The man-at-arms who held one and a half hides in the manor of Halton in Cheshire from William son of Nigel has no links with other Aitards. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28840).

.............................................................................................................................................
AITARD [* OF VAUX *]. The Aitard who held eleven manors from Roger Bigot in East Anglia is almost certainly Aitard of Vaux, who claimed a number of free men on royal manors in Norfolk as part of the Holding of the bishop of Bayeux, on two of which he is accorded his byname and on two others identified as a man of Roger Bigot. Aitard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 309) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 126-27.

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF. Aiulf is an uncommon name in the sense that it was borne by few individuals. Apart from three Aiulfs in Worcestershire and a fief in Berkshire, all Aiulfs occur in the four south-western counties of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire, where the seven survivors are recorded.

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF [* FATHER OF EDMUND *]. Aiulf, whose manor at Grimstead in Wiltshire was acquired by his son Edmund, has no links with other pre-Conquest Aiulfs. Some of the properties of Aiulf the chamberlain are near Grimstead; but the indications are that the chamberlain was a Norman, holding land only after the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF <OF EXFORD>. As the name is uncommon, the Aiulf who held a half-virgate worth three shillings (if not waste) at Exford in Somerset before the Conquest may be the same man as Aiulf of Tremail; but there are no links to confirm this, and the properties are not close to each other.

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF <OF TREMAIL>. In view of the distribution of the name and the interest of St Petroc's in both manors, the Aiulfs who held Carwogie in 1086 and Tremail before the Conquest may be one man, in which case he is perhaps the Aiulf who held Lidemore in Devon at both dates, two survivors with an uncommon name in the area being unlikely. Given the localised distribution of pre-Conquest Aiulfs, he may also be the pre-Conquest lord of Treworyan, eight miles from Carwogie, and of Kimber, in the same Hundred as the lost vill of Lidemore, and of Hele, some eight miles from Kimber. It is less likely that he is the Aiulf of Exford in Somerset, in view of its distance from other manors and the modest scale of Exford itself. The Aiulfs at Carwogie and Lidemore are identified as Aiulf the chamberlain in Coel (no. 176), and referenced in Domesday people, p. 127; but since Aiulf chamberlain was undoubtedly a Norman, he is unlikely to have held Lidemore, and therefore probably not Carwogie either.

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF <OF WOLVERTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Aiulfs at Kidderminster, Wolverton and Broughton Hackett in Worcestershire may be one man; Wolverton is three miles from Broughton. All three have royal or official associations, and are held by the only Aiulfs outside the south-west not identified as the chamberlain. They may in fact be the chamberlain, though there are no links to confirm this and the manors are some distance from the bulk of his holdings, which are concentrated in Dorset and adjacent counties. The Worcestershire Aiulfs are unidentified in Coel (nos. 31682, 31701, 31891).

.............................................................................................................................................
AIULF [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. With the possible exception of the Aiulfs in Worcestershire, it is probable that all unidentified Aiulfs holding land in 1086 but not 1066 are Aiulf the chamberlain, also described as Aiulf the sheriff in Berkshire and Wiltshire, both descriptions being employed in Dorset, where he is sheriff in the List of Landholders and chamberlain in his fief heading. As sheriff of Dorset, he is probably the Aiulf described in Exon. as holding the royal manors of Puddletown and Frome, and probably also the Aiulf holding Farnham from Shaftesbury abbey in conjunction with the wife of Hugh son of Grip, since Aiulf and Hugh - his predecessor as sheriff - both held in chief in that vill. It is likely, too, that he held the thaneland in 'Cerne' from Milton abbey, as he and his predecessor acquired other such holdings from both Shaftesbury and Cerne abbeys. The Aiulf at Stinsford may also be the chamberlain since Stinsford was held from another royal official and lay four miles from Puddletown, where Aiulf administered the royal manor. In Wiltshire, he is almost certainly the tenant of Edward of Salisbury at Tollard Royal, where he held in chief. Finally, since Aiulf the chamberlain held three minor tenancies-in-chief in Berkshire, Dorset and Wiltshire, it is likely that he is the one other Aiulf with such a tenancy-in-chief, in Devon.
	Aiulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 176) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 127. They do not include the Wiltshire tenancy but add Carwogie in Cornwall and Lidemore in Devon, here assigned to an Englishman, Aiulf of Tremail. Aiulf was certainly a Norman, as was his brother, Humphrey (q.v.). He was successively sheriff of Dorset, Wiltshire and Somerset, and lived into the reign of Henry I, dying before 1121: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 37, 73, 85.

.............................................................................................................................................
AKI. The name Aki is stated or implied on about three dozen manors, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of the king and nineteen tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Suffolk, but is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few men; all Akis are pre-Conquest landowners. Ten of the manors are worth £5 or more. The scribe appears to confuse the name with Eskil on occasions.

.............................................................................................................................................
AKI [* SON OF SIWARD *]. Aki, predecessor of Robert the bursar in Lincolnshire, is almost certainly the son of Siward and brother of Wiglac who had 'who had full jurisdiction and market rights' over his father's land. Father and sons provided almost the entire fief of Robert the bursar in the county, Aki himself holding Thornton and Haltham, a few miles apart in Horncastle wapentake, in the South Riding of Lincolnshire. There are no other Akis in Lincolnshire or on the Honour of Robert the bursar. As his family appears to be confined to the South Riding of Lindsey in Lincolnshire, it is unlikely that Aki is the same man as his distant namesakes in Staffordshire, Warwickshire or Worcestershire, or that he is the magnate Aki the Dane. 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
AKI [* THE DANE *]. The Akis who preceded Robert Blunt at Lavington in Wiltshire, Laleham in Middlesex, Grafton in Northamptonshire, and on eight manors in Suffolk, are almost certainly one man. Lavington is very valuable (£15), and Laleham, where he is described as a royal Guard, substantial (£8). He is probably also the predecessor of Walter Giffard on three consecutive manors in Cambridgeshire, described as a royal thane on the valuable manor of Harlton; as Aki the Dane, a man of Earl Harold, at Barrington; and as a man of Earl Harold at Orwell: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 74-75, 79). The three Akis are the only men of this name in the county; and their manors are each within less than three miles from one of the others. It is not unusual for royal thanes or Guards to be men or thanes of the greater English magnates, so there is little reason to doubt that the Cambridgeshire Akis are one man.
	The four Akis in Hertfordshire are probably also Aki the Dane. His fourteen houses in Hertford were acquired by Hardwin of Scales, who obtained Bramfield, one of the three manors. All three are valuable, and Aki is described as a thane of Earl Harold at Westmill and Bramfield and of King Edward Flamstead. Westmill is the most valuable of all the manors held by an Aki (£20). In Suffolk, the remaining Akis are also likely to be the Dane: at Wyverstone, acquired by Robert Malet, he is described as Robert Blunt's predecessor, while at Westleton he was succeeded by Gilbert Blunt, Malet's tenant and possibly Robert Blunt's brother: Domesday people, p. 209. It is not unlikely that he is also the Aki whose very valuable manor of Easton in Essex was acquired by Matthew of Mortagne, or even the one other Aki in the county, at Notley. Aki, a royal thane, is also recorded on two manors in Bedfordshire; but it is likely that these are clerical errors for Eskil of Ware (q.v.).
	There are no links with other Akis but it is not unlikely that two of the most substantial remaining manors, at Harwell and Hendred - three miles apart - in Berkshire were his, too. Apart from their value, they are roughly mid-way on a straight line between his manors in Hertfordshire and Wiltshire. Aki may also have held Blunsdon in the latter county, where the tenant - Robert - may be Robert Blunt: Darlington, 'Domesday survey of Wiltshire', p. 106. Although there are no specific links to connect him, he may be the one other Aki in Northamptonshire, at Winwick, fifteen miles from the manor he held from Robert Blunt, and also the one other Aki in Wiltshire, on an anonymous holding there. If these identifications are valid, Aki's manors were worth almost £100, even without the Berkshire manors. If included in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank among the forty wealthiest untitled laymen without the Berkshire manors, among the top thirty with them.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALAN. If Count Alan is excluded, Alan is a rare name in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals. It is stated or implied on eighteen holdings, distributed among seven counties and the lands of six tenants-in-chief, probably the number of individuals concerned, all except one tenants after the Conquest; one of these, a cleric of Bishop Odo in Kent, had lost his land before 1086. The pre-Conquest lord of Wyken is possibly a scribal error for Alstan.

.............................................................................................................................................
COUNT A[LAN]. Count A can only refer to Count Alan of Brittany. The abbreviation is used several times on his fiefs in Norfolk and Nottinghamshire and once elsewhere, at Briningham in Norfolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALAN [* OF BURWELL *]. Alan, who held Burwell in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Alan of Burwell, a juror in 'Staploe' Hundred where Burwell lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 1, 97). As he is listed among the English jurors he is presumably a survivor. One other Alan is recorded before the Conquest, a predecessor of Peter of Valognes at Wyken in Suffolk, possibly the same man though the Suffolk Alan may be a scribal error for Alstan. Alan's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 4774) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 130.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALAN <OF WHILTON>. All Alans in Sussex, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire are tenants of the Count of Mortain apart from the tenant of Countess Judith at Hardwick in the latter county. As the name is rare, they are very probably the same man, though the manors whose descent has been traced were later held by different families: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 462; Farrer, Honors, i. 88-92. Alan is tentatively identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as Alan of Ducey, from Ducey in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Avranches), but is here named from the Northamptonshire manor from which the Welton family of Whilton took its name. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1671) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 130.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALAN [* THE STEWARD *]. Alan is named as the steward of Countess Judith at Eynesbury in Huntingdonshire. As the name is rare, he is probably her tenant at Diddington and Hardwick in Northamptonshire. Diddington and Hardwick descended together, to the Grimbaud family: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. 269; VCH Northamptonshire, iv. 175. Alan's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2468) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 130.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALBERT. The name Albert, or Aelbert, is fairly common, occurring in twenty-three counties, though ten of these are accounted for by Albert of Lorraine. If he is excluded, the name is thinly spread between Cornwall and Yorkshire and among the lands of thirteen tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Shropshire and East Anglia; five are pre-Conquest Aelberts.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALBERT [* GRELLEY *]. The tenants of Roger of Poitou in Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk can be identified as Albert Greslet, alias Albert crematus, named as his tenant in Cheshire and Suffolk respectively, by the descent of these lands to the Grelley family: VCH Lancashire, i. 281, 326-44. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that he is also the tenant of Reginald the sheriff and subtenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Shropshire, presumably on the grounds that the name is uncommon and Earl Roger is the father of Roger of Poitou. Two centuries later, these manors were in the hands of the Rossall family, named from one of Albert's manors; but in view of the late documentation and the early forfeiture of both the earldom of Shrewsbury and the lands of Roger of Poitou, this is inconclusive; the Grelley family certainly lost lands during that period: Tait, Medieval Manchester, pp. 126, 131. Albert appears to have lived for another three decades or more since he is presumably the Albert recorded at Hainton, in the Lindsey Survey (16/5), a vill in which he held from Roger of Poitou in 1086. Albert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 277) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 132-33.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALBERT [* OF LORRAINE *]. Albert the cleric, Albert the chaplain and Albert of Lorraine were identified by J.H. Round as the same man on the basis of a Westminster abbey charter which names Albert the cleric in Rutland as Albert of Lorraine: Commune of London, pp. 36-38; Bates, Regesta, no. 334, p. 973. Albert was a Lotharingian, chaplain to both Edward the Confessor and William I, holding land in both 1066 and 1086, in nine or ten counties. He is identified by one of his bynames as holding minor tenancies in chief in Kent, Surrey, Herefordshire, Bedfordshire and Rutland; and is almost certainly the Albert who held a comparable fief in Berkshire, a manor at Dedworth, since his successor there was Peter of Loreng (Lorraine), who succeeded to some of his Bedfordshire manors: Book of Fees, pp. 845, 852, 861, 885, 887. As Albert the cleric, he held part of the royal manor of Windsor, two miles from Dedworth, and almsland from the king in Warwickshire. He also held a church in Stamford, Lincolnshire. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he held Moredon in Wiltshire. The descent of the manor, later shared between two families, casts no light on the identity of the Domesday Albert: Book of Fees, p. 725. Albert's 1086 manors are recorded in Coel (no. 148) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 133.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE. Alchere is an uncommon name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among six counties and the lands of seven tenants-in-chief. It is thought to represent the Old English Ealhhere: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 242. Despite this, twelve Alcheres are post-Conquest landowners, several holding more substantial properties than the scraps usually held by English survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE <OF ASTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the tenants of Henry of Ferrers on four respectable manors in Derbyshire and a more modest one in Staffordshire are the same Alchere, his manors forming a tight group on either side of the boundary between the two counties. On similar grounds, he may be the Alchere who held the respectable manor of Rayne in Essex from Hugh de Montfort; Ferrers held land nearby, at Stebbing. Alchere's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3805) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE <OF BRIMBLECOMBE>. Although all three pre-Conquest Alcheres are Devonshire landowners, there are no links between the lord of the tiny property at Brimblecombe and his two namesakes, both some distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE <OF LE PIN>. The Alcheres who held Wytheford, Aston Eyre and Middleton Scriven in Shropshire from Reginald the sheriff, Albrighton from his predecessor Warin, and Harcourt from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, are identified as one man, predecessor of the Fitz Ayer family, by the descent of his manors: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, ix. 309-20; x. 107-108. As the name is uncommon, he may be Earl Roger's tenant on the substantial manor of Mundham in Sussex: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 91. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be the Aubrey who held Cootham from the earl, the one Aubrey in the county. Neither the earl or his tenants had a tenant of this name, easily confused with Alchere by a scribe, as happened with another of the earl's tenants, Fulco, represented both as fratre Alcherii and fratre Alberi: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 233-34. Alchere's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1843) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE <OF MULLACOTT>. Although all three pre-Conquest Alcheres were Devonshire landowners, there are no links between the lord of the modest property at Mullacott and his two namesakes, both some distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALCHERE <OF SPRYTOWN>. Although all three pre-Conquest Alcheres were Devonshire landowners, there are no links between the lord of the modest property at Sprytown and his two namesakes, both some distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH. The name Aldgyth occurs on one fief and sixteen holdings, distributed among twelve counties between Sussex to Yorkshire and Somerset to Suffolk, few of them substantial, and all but two acquired by different tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Shropshire. Where sex is unclear, Aldgyth may be represented by Algeat or Alfgeat, though these forms do not appear to be connected to the Aldgyths listed below: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 146, 183, 240-41. At times, the name is confused with Edith. There were six surviving Aldgyths.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH<OF CREETING>. Aldgyth, who held half an acre at Creeting valued at one pence among the vavassors of Suffolk, is unlikely to be the other Aldgyth in Suffolk with a small property worth one shilling at Tuddenham, almost thirty miles away. The text is ambiguous as to when she held her half-acre. The vavassors are not listed as individuals in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF ELMBRIDGE>. Aldgyth, who held the tiny, anonymous holding worth three shillings in Elmbridge Hundred in Surrey in 1086, has no links with her namesakes, though as a survivor she is conceivably the same woman as the tenant at Winterbourne in Sussex, roughly forty miles to the south. Her manor is recorded in Coel (no. 448) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF FOXCOTE>. There are no links between Aldgyth, whose land at Foxcote in Somerset was acquired by the bishop of Coutances, and her namesakes. Her manor is fairly substantial so it is possible she is Gruffydd's wife; but there no links and her nearest manor is over eighty miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF GAINFIELD>. Aldgyth, who held a small property worth one shilling in Gainfield Hundred in Berkshire from Osbern son of Richard, has no links with her namesakes. Her manor is recorded in Coel (no. 382) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 187.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF MARSTON>. Aldgyth, whose respectable manor at Marston Montgomery in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers, has no links with her namesakes. Professor Meyer identifies her as Aldgyth wife of Gruffydd, which is possible in view of the status of the holding in Mercian territory, but unverifiable: 'Women's estates', p. 120.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF MIDDLETON>. Aldgyth, named elsewhere as Edith, whose modest holding at Middleton in Yorkshire was illegally acquired by the Count of Mortain, has no apparent links with her namesakes; there are no other Ediths or Aldgyths in the county. Professor Meyer tentatively suggests she was the wife of Gruffydd: 'Women's estates', p. 120.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF NEWTON>. Aldgyth, who held a small property at Newton in Warwickshire from Thorkil of Warwick, is the only tenant of this name in the Midlands in 1086, without apparent links with her southern namesakes. It has been suggested that she is Aldgyth wife of Gruffydd, widow of King Harold, which is not entirely implausible since Newton is in Mercian territory and the Godiva who preceded Aldgyth was probably Countess Godiva (q.v.) - Lady Godiva - her grandmother: Meyer, 'Women's estates', p. 120. It seems unlikely, however, that Harold's widow would have remained in the country after 1066, and there is no other indication that she survived until 1086, and some later evidence to the contrary: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 127, 299-300. She is unidentified in Coel (no. 28388), though previously identified as the wife of Gruffydd: Keats-Rohan, 'Henry of Oxford', p. 300.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF TUDDENHAM>. Aldgyth, who held six acres valued at one shilling at Tuddenham in Suffolk acquired by Hervey of Bourges, is unlikely to be the other Aldgyth in Suffolk, with a minuscule property worth one pence at Creeting, almost thirty miles away.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF WELLS>. Apart from two tiny pre-Conquest holdings in Suffolk, the Aldgyth who held the substantial manor of Wells in Norfolk in chief is the only woman of this name in Little Domesday. She has no links with her namesakes in Great Domesday. It is possible that she is the sister of Ketil Alder (q.v.), the Aldgyth named in the will her mother, Wulfgyth, though not for this manor: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 84-87, 197-99. Her manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9226) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF WELSHAMPTON>. In view of the distribution of this name, it is probable that Aldgyths who held a cluster of five manors around Welshampton in Shropshire are one woman, though they were enfeoffed to four tenants of the earl of Shrewsbury. Professor Meyer identifies her as Aldgyth wife of Gruffydd, which is not implausible given that the cluster is in Mercian territory and the name uncommon there: 'Women's estates', p. 120. But in the absence of more specific links, or of high-status holdings, she is here treated as another woman.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH <OF WINTERBOURNE>. The tenant of William of Warenne on a modest holding at Winterbourne in Sussex has no links with her namesakes, though as a survivor she is conceivably the same Aldgyth as the tenant of a tiny holding in 'Elmbridge' Hundred in Surrey, roughly forty miles to the north. She is unidentified in Coel (no. 16357).

................................................................................................................................................................
ALDGYTH [* WIFE OF GRUFFYDD *]. Aldgyth, wife of King Gruffydd and daughter of Earl Algar of Mercia, is recorded as the pre-Conquest lord of the moderately prosperous manor of Binley in Warwickshire and can be identified as the Aldgyth who held the substantial manor of Elmbridge in Worcestershire by the succession of her son-in-law, Osbern son of Richard, to both manors. Osbern married her daughter, the legendary Nest. Aldgyth was widowed in 1063 and married King Harold Godwinson in 1066. She does not appear in Domesday Book as Queen Aldgyth, perhaps for the same reason that Harold is never King Harold. She probably bore a son, another Harold, and may have enjoyed a posthumous career as Queen 'Edith' in Auvergne: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 299-300. Professor Meyer suggests she is the same woman as Aldgyth of Welshampton and also as the tenant at Newton in Warwickshire in 1086: 'Women's estates', p. 120.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALDRED. Aldred is a fairly common name which occurs almost seventy times, distributed among the lands of the king and more than thirty of his tenants-in-chief and eighteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire, with clusters in Devon, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Shropshire, Somerset and Yorkshire. There are survivors in ten counties, most of whom may be identified as the brothers of Odo and Siward.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDRED [* BROTHER OF ODO *]. Aldred brother of Odo is named in the Winton Domesday (p. 42) and on three manors in the Hampshire folios, two of which he held or claimed in both 1066 and 1086, his third tenancy being his wife's dowry in 1066, which makes it likely he is the Aldred who held Kilmeston, previously held by his wife. His brother was Odo of Winchester (q.v.), which suggests he is the Aldred who shared a fief with him in Sussex, each also holding part of the manor of Micheldever. He is probably also the Aldred who held three consecutive manors in Devon, the previous four held by his brother under the alias of Odo son of Edric. In the third of his Devon manors, the name-form is Edred, otherwise unknown in Devon, perhaps a scribal error. This manor, like the other two, was held for the twenty years after 1066, an identifying characteristic of the majority of Aldred's manors, also apparent in Wiltshire, Somerset and perhaps Gloucestershire. Of the five consecutive manors held by Aldred among the royal thanes of Wiltshire, the first two were held between 1066 and 1086, as were both those among the thanes of Somerset, the last Wiltshire manor being identified as that of Aldred brother of Odo by the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 215-16. Odo had a manor on the same fief. Finally, Odo's brother may be the Aldred who held Monksilver in Somerset, as suggested by J.H. Round, and 'Wapley Rectory' in Gloucestershire, these being the only other manors in the south-western counties held by an Aldred between 1066 and 1086: Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', pp. 416-17; 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', pp. 427-28. If he held Wapley, he is probably the pre-Conquest lord of Harry Stoke, both manors being held by the only Aldreds in the county and both acquired by the bishop of Coutances. Aldred's 1086 manors are recorded in Coel (no. 457) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 134-35, apart from Monksilver and 'Wapley', whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 14880, 29469); see also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 115-16.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALDRED [* BROTHER OF SIWARD *]. Aldred, named by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 194-95) as the brother of Siward the fat (q.v.), son of Aethelgar and great-nephew of King Edward, is probably the Aldred who was either predecessor or tenant of the same tenants-in-chief as his brother in Shropshire: that is, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, Reginald the sheriff, Ralph of Mortimer and Roger of Lacy. Reginald acquired the valuable manor of Longnor from him; Ralph of Mortimer, 'Tumberland', and Roger of Lacy, Stokesay, the most valuable of all his manors. In its place, Roger granted him the modest, but still valuable manor of Aldon, where he succeeded his brother, Siward. Earl Roger allowed him to retain Smethcott and endowed him Acton Scott. Aldred's three tenancies are the only ones held by an Aldred between the Bristol Channel and the Humber. Smethcott is adjacent to Longnor, Aldon to Stokesay, and Acton midway between the two pairs. The one other Aldred in the county, the pre-Conquest lord of Stanwardine, some distance from the nearest of these manors, is perhaps another man. Aldred is unidentified in Coel (nos. 31096, 31118, 31191).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFHEAH. The name Alfheah occurs two dozen times, distributed among ten counties between Cornwall and Nottinghamshire and the lands of the king and thirteen of his tenants-in-chief; there are no survivors of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFHEAH <OF BARTON>. As the name is uncommon and the vills four miles apart, the Alfheahs who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Barton and Hollington in Derbyshire are very probably one man. He may be the same man as the Alfheahs in Nottinghamshire since the Alfheahs of these two counties are almost entirely isolated from their namesakes elsewhere and the manors may have been allocated on the basis on the wapentakes in which they lay, Henry's being in 'his' wapentake of 'Appletree': Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-65.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALFHEAH <OF NORMANTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Alfheahs who preceded William Peverel at Normanton in Derbyshire and Beeston and Basford in Nottinghamshire may be one man, who is perhaps also the Alfheah at Papplewick in the same wapentake, a vill in which Peverel held in chief. He is possibly the Alfheah on two other manors in the county and may be the Derbyshire Alfheah since the Alfheahs of these two counties are almost entirely isolated from their namesakes elsewhere and the manors may have been allocated on the basis on the wapentakes in which they lay, William's being in 'his' wapentake of Broxtowe: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-65.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALFHEAH <OF STANFORD>. Alfheah, who preceded Robert son of William at Stanford in Nottinghamshire, probably also held its dependency, Leake. It is possible he is the same Alfheah as the predecessors of William Peverel Nottinghamshire and Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire, though there are no links to confirm either identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* NEPHEW OF WIGOT *]. Alfred was a minor tenant-in-chief in Oxfordshire, where he is named as the nephew of the English magnate, Wigot of Wallingford (q.v.), whose estates were acquired by Miles Crispin and Robert d'Oilly, links which help to identify Alfred's manors at Eaton in Berkshire and Harpsden and Cuxham in Oxfordshire, held from Miles Crispin, and Harlington in Middlesex, from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, where Alfred succeeded his uncle, as at Cuxham. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held Sexintone in Oxfordshire and Inglewood in Berkshire. Although it cannot be verified, Sexintone is plausible since it is surrounded by manors of Robert d'Oilly; but Inglewood probably belonged to another man. It appears to be a misplaced holding of William son of Ansculf, in which case Alfred is more likely to be the Alfred who held Hartridge from William, his only such tenant in the dozen counties where he was a tenant-in-chief. The Alfred at Hartridge, moreover, held the same manor in 1066 and there are no indications that Wigot's nephew was a Domesday landowner at that date. Dr Williams points to the difficulty of distinguishing native and Breton Alfreds in identifying Wigot's nephew; but neither Crispin or Earl Roger appear to have had Breton tenants: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 100-102. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1575) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 143.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF CHANCÉ *]. Alfred is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan, from the evidence of the Lindsey Survey, which reveals that Alfred's tenancies from Guy of Craon were later held by either Walter son of Alfred or Alfred of Laughton, named from his vill of Laughton. According to the Survey, Alfred of Laughton also held land in Hibaldstow, Scawby and Castlethorpe, identifying the Domesday Alfred who held in those vills from Kolsveinn of Lincoln. An Alfred also had manors in Scawby from Osbern of Arques, Durand Malet and Odo the bowman, and in Redbourne from Kolsveinn, Osbern, and Odo, all therefore likely to be Guy's tenant. These links are reinforced by shared predecessors and family ties: Osbern and Odo were preceded by Grimbald, Odo and Guy by Esbiorn, while Alfred appears to have married the heiress of Odo, since the Lindsey Survey reveals that Odo was succeeded on several manors by an Anfrid and Alfred (Alfreit) de Canceio, from whom the family name of Chauncy derives: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 78-79. Alfred also held land from Guy at Mission in Nottinghamshire, a dependency of Laughton. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Alfred was a Breton, 'perhaps' from Chancé in Brittany (Ille-et-Vilaine: arrondissement Rennes). His manors (though not their dependencies) are recorded in Coel (no. 2480) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 140-41.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF GRANDCOURT *]. Alfred, who held Thurning in Huntingdonshire and Polebrook and Clopton in Northamptonshire from Eustace the sheriff, is identified in the estate book of the Hotot family, which records that Roger of Louvetot, baron of Southoe, granted these manors, which he himself held from the abbey of Peterborough, to Alfred of Grandcourt, 'his knight': Estate records of the Hotot family, p. 16. They descended to his heirs, though according to thirteenth-century tradition the family name changed to Clapton, 'from the difficulty the lower people found in pronouncing his Norman name': King, Peterborough abbey, p. 47. Eustace had no other tenants of this name. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2481) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 141.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF LINCOLN *]. The Alfreds who occur in many of the Lincolnshire Claims are probably the tenant-in-chief, Alfred of Lincoln, a major landholder in the county. He held land in the vills of Stewton, Huttoft, Goxhill, Coates and Uffington to which Claims refer. He had no land at either Keddington or Ulceby, the subject of other claims; but Keddington had a dependency in Cockerington, where Alfred of Lincoln's share in a mill was in dispute; and he held land in vills adjacent to Ulceby, when no other Alfred did so. The one other unidentified Alfred in the county, who had nine messuages in Stamford, is also likely to be him, as the most significant landowner of that name. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 332) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 141-42.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF MARLBOROUGH *]. The Alfreds who held Chelwood and Belluton in Somerset from Count Eustace of Boulogne are probably Alfred of Marlborough, who held two other tenancies on the Count's fief. Alfred's solitary manor held in chief in Somerset, at Chelwood, is three miles from Belluton, duplicated in the entry for the royal manor of Keynsham. Count Eustace had no other tenants of this name elsewhere. The three unidentified Alfreds in circuit five are probably also Alfred of Marlborough, a tenant-in-chief in Herefordshire, where he was established before the Conquest. Alfred at Didley in Herefordshire is identified by reference to the Marlborough castlery of Ewyas Harold. The other two are probably one man since both of his manors were acquired from a Frani, an uncommon name which occurs nowhere else in the county. One was a subtenancy of the royal manor of Bromsgrove, which was partially in Herefordshire, where Alfred of Marlborough had other holdings on the royal demesne. The substantial manor of Rous Lench was held from Urso the sheriff as a subtenancy, which cannot be traced. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 360) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 142.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF `SPAIN' *]. Alfred, who held two hides from Glastonbury abbey at Okeford Fitzpaine in Dorset, is named Alfred of 'Spain' in the Geld Roll for the county; although the hidage there is slightly larger, it cannot refer to anyone else: VCH Dorset, iii. 139-40. He is also the Alfred on the royal manor of Williton in Somerset, identified by reference to his manor of Monksilver. He was a tenant-in-chief in both counties, and also in Devon, Herefordshire and Wiltshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 296) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 141.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* OF THAME *]. Alfred, who held six hides 'with his associate' in the bishop of Lincoln's manor of Thame in Oxfordshire, is almost certainly Alfred of Thame, who held an unnamed manor from Giles son of Ansculf in Buckinghamshire. Neither Giles or the bishop had other tenants of this name. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 743) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 142.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED <OF WELFORD>. The Alfreds - Alfridus, the form is unique - who held Welford and its dependencies in Northamptonshire and Lilinge in Leicestershire from Geoffrey de la Guerche may be one man. He is the only Alfred in Leicestershire, and other Alfreds in Northamptonshire may identified as different men with reasonable confidence; Geoffrey had no other tenants of this name. Welford and its dependencies was held by the Wyville family in the Northamptonshire Survey and later; the descent of Leicestershire manor has not been traced: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 379-80; Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, p. 264. Alfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9357) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 135, where - following the normal practice of Coel - the dependencies of Welford are assigned to the tenant-in-chief. The Northamptonshire Survey and later records show, however, that they were held by Alfred's successors.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* THE BRETON *]. Alfred, who held Panson in Devon from Roald Dubbed, is identified as the tenant-in-chief Alfred the Breton in Exon.; and the Alfred at Chitterley - and 'also' Thornbury - in the same county must be Alfred the Breton, whose tax in Silverton Hundred was unpaid, though the assessments do not quite match, as is often the case: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxvi. This raises an interesting possibility. Both manors were held from the Count of Mortain, whose tenant Alfred the butler held a vast Honour stretching from Cornwall to Yorkshire, including nine manors in Devon. Nowhere is the Count's tenant named the Breton apart from this entry in the Geld Roll. Alfred acquired Chitterley from Hademar, a rare name which occurs only on the lands of the Count of Mortain, in one other case (of three) as the predecessor of Alfred the butler at 'Stockleigh' in Devon. Alfred at Chitterley and Thornbury may therefore be Alfred the butler, and the same man as the tenant-in-chief Alfred the Breton, unless there were two Alfred the Bretons in Devon. The manors of the tenant-in-chief and the Count's tenant descended to different Honours, though Panson and Thornbury did not, Panson being later held (as before the Conquest) by the abbey of Tavistock and Thornbury by Montacute priory of an unknown Honour: Book of Fees, pp. 781, 797. Alfred the Breton's manors - including Chitterley, Thornbury and Panson - are recorded in Coel (no. 154) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 139-40.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. Alfred the butler was probably the wealthiest of the honorial barons of the Count of Mortain, the element of doubt due to the fact that his byname is often omitted. It is not recorded at all in Domesday Book; but Exon. names him butler on seven manors in Devon one in Dorset and three in Somerset. It is likely that he is the Alfred on most, probably all, of the Count's manors in those counties, and also his tenant in Cornwall, his lands forming the barony of Chiselborough held by his heirs: Sanders, English baronies, p. 34. He is 'certainly' Alfred on the Count's Sussex fief: VCH Sussex, i. 380. His grandson, Richard son of William, held a total of forty fees in Sussex, Dorset, Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, five of the nine counties in which Alfred the butler had a significant presence: Red Book, i. 204, 220, 257, 262. In Northamptonshire, all eight manors of Alfred are stated to be held by one man (NTH, 18,67-75), the Northamptonshire Survey revealing that most were held by Alfred's heir, William, as well as a tenancy from William Peverel at Guilsborough: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 378-79. He is identified as the Count's tenant in Yorkshire by his grant of tithes to the abbey of St Albans: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 282-83. The descent of his manors in Buckinghamshire and Nottinghamshire has not been traced; but his heirs had interests in both counties, albeit slight in the latter case: Salzman, 'Alvred pincerna', pp. 163, 170-72; Farrer, Honors, i. 199-201. It is possible that he is the same man as the Count's tenant Alfred the Breton at Chitterley and Thornbury in Devon, named in the Geld Roll for Wonford Hundred where Thornbury lay; and, if so, the tenant-in-chief Alfred the Breton. The manors of the tenant-in-chief and the Count's tenant descended to different Honours, though Thornbury may not have done so, being later held by Montacute priory of an unknown Honour: Book of Fees, pp. 781, 797. The butler's manors - apart from Chitterley and Thornbury - are recorded in Coel (no. 233) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 143-45, where references for Cornwall and Northamptonshire are omitted.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRED [* THE STEWARD *]. Alfred, who held Swainswick in Somerset 1066 and 1086, is named Alfred of Wick (from the vill name) in the Geld Roll for Bath Hundred, where Swainswick lay; the assessments do not agree, but he is the only Alfred in the Hundred in 1086: VCH Somerset, i. 528. He is probably the Alfred who held the other part of Swainswick in 1066 and Twerton - four miles away - after the Conquest, both acquired by the bishop of Coutances. The bishop had another Alfred on his Honour, at Barlington in Devon; but the holding is small and over 100 miles away. At Twerton, he is named Alfred the steward in Exon, presumably steward of Queen Edith, from whom he held the manor. He is the only Alfred in the south-western counties to retain his manor between 1066 and 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 15306).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRITH. Apart from an Edwin Alfrith in Leicestershire, the name Alfrith occurs six times, Aelfrith five. Although accepted as separate names by von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 144, 183, they are employed as equivalents by the scribe. The two names are distributed among five counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief. The forms Aelfrith and Alfrith are distinguished in the translation but treated as equivalent in these notes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRITH <OF CROOM>. Alfrith, who shared a small property with an Uglubarth at Croom in Yorkshire before the Conquest, has no links with other Alfriths or Aelfriths.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRITH? <OF HANDSWORTH>. Aelfrith (Ailuerd), who shared a modest manor at Handsworth in Staffordshire acquired by William son of Ansculf, is unlikely to be related to his namesakes, whether Aelfrith or Alfrith, all remote and without tenurial or other links.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRITH <OF MORETON>. Alfrith, who held half a hide at Moreton in Gloucestershire from Westminster abbey in 1066 and 1086, has no links with other Alfriths or Aelfriths. He is the one survivor of either name.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALFRITH <OF PIDDLETRENTHIDE>. All the manors of Alfrith and Aelfrith in Dorset and Somerset were acquired by Roger Arundel which - since both forms are rare - almost certainly means they refer to one man. It is likely that he had a brother, or relative, Almer of Piddletrenthide (q.v.), also a predecessor of Roger Arundel in the same two counties. Between them, Alfrith and Almer contributed over half the value of Roger's Honour. Alfrith may be the royal official, Aeilferth minister, who witnessed a grant of Edward the Confessor in 1061: Round: 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 419. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 234-35, which does not include Timberscombe and Charlton. Alfrith and Almer are collectively ranked by Dr Clarke forty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Timberscombe and Charlton would raise them several places.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGAR [* "CIDA" *]. Algar, who held Kingston-on-Soar and Barton-in-Fabis among the king's thanes in Nottinghamshire, is named Algar Cida, brother of Ulfkil, in a grant of their lands to St Cuthbert's and the monks of Durham. He is probably the one other unidentified Algar in the county, at Costock, acquired by Roger of Bully, since he shared this manor with Godric son of Fredegis (q.v.) whose manor was part of the same grant to Durham: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. Roger had no other Algars on his Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] ALGAR. Although Algar is a common name, the scribe appears to have been careful to accord the earl his title. In the handful of cases where this is not so, his association with royal or comital manors, or his status as overlord, allow him to be identified with reasonable confidence. The Algar who held royal manor of Newton Solney in Derbyshire and eight messuage in the county town is almost certainly the earl, as is the fictitious Earl Edgar at Great Chesterford in Essex, confirmed by a reference to this manor in Cambridgeshire. Similarly, the Algar who held the royal manor of Badmonsfield in Suffolk is undoubtedly the earl, since he held its dependency in Denston.He probably also held the very valuable (£25) manor of Broadwell in Oxfordshire, possibly once a royal manor since it was in the hands of Princess Christina in 1086; and he is identified as the Algar at Willoughby in Nottinghamshire by its dependence on the royal manor of Broughton. The association of Algar's family with Burton abbey suggests that the Algar who held the abbey's manor of Coton-in-the-Elms in Derbyshire is the earl, this being confirmed by a royal writ: Bates, Regesta, no. 33, p. 194. Finally, as the only overlord of this name in Great Domesday, the Algar at Berkesden in Hertfordshire is probably the earl; others of his men held land in the nearby vills of Luffenhall, Wyddial and Wakeley. Despite the ubiquity of his name, it is unlikely that he is to be identified with many, if indeed any, other Algars, since only two held manors assessed at three hides or more in counties where he had a presence. In one of these, an Algar shared 3 1/2 hides with a Thorkil; while in the other, the royal manor of Winfarthing in Norfolk, Algar is described as '(Earl) Harold's free man', an improbable association for a Mercian earl.
	Earl Algar was the son of Earl Leofric and Countess Godiva, and father of earls Edwin and Morcar; he was earl of East Anglia (1051-1057) and of Mercia (1057-62). He was probably dead by 1063, see Harmer, Writs, pp. 546-47. His stormy political career is documented by Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 43-48. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 206-212, which does not include his demesne manors at Granby in Nottinghamshire, Smallands in Essex, and the (1086) valuation of Holbeach in Lincolnshire; and those of his men at Middleton in Essex and Tuddenham in Suffolk. Algar is ranked fourth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies other estimates of his manorial income, his own (£714) agreeing with that of Dr Clarke; the Statistics database total (£787) is significantly higher, the difference largely accounted for by the omissions noted and the value to be assigned to Great Baddow in Essex, valued at eight nights' provisions before the Conquest (estimated in the Statistics database as £10 per night for Essex and East Anglia ) and £17 in 1086, the value accepted by Dr Clarke.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGAR <OF TRENANCE>. Algar, who held a small fief from Count Robert of Mortain in Cornwall, is the only Algar in the county in 1086. His six manors are in south Cornwall, mostly along the coast, between Trenance and Pelynt. He might be the tenant of Dunstone, further along the coast, in Devon, who was one of only two Algars in Devon in 1086; but although two English survivors in the same area is suggestive, there are no other links to support an identification; the pre-Conquest Algars in Cornwall are all on the other side of the county, and without links. Algar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 237) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 136.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGEAT. Algeat is a rare name which occurs in four counties, on the lands of four tenants-in-chief, probably borne by that number of individuals in 1066. It may be confused with Alfgeat or Aldgyth where sex is uncertain: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 146.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGEAT <OF BULKINGTON>. Algeat, whose shared manor worth £1 at Bulkington in Warwickshire was acquired by the Count of Meulan, has no links with his namesakes. No Alfgeats or Aldgyths are recorded elsewhere on the Honour of the Count, and no Alfgeats in the county, though Aldgyth of Newton was a tenant in the same Hundred.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGEAT <OF "HATETE">. Algeat, whose shared manor worth thirty shillings at Hatete in Worcestershire was acquired by Urso of Abetot, has no links with his namesakes and is unlikely to be Alfgeat the monk, recorded on the same fief, the one Alfgeat in the county, but could possibly be Aldgyth wife of Gruffydd (q.v.) at Elmbridge. Urso had no Alfgeats or Aldgyths on his Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGEAT <OF SHAWBURY>. Algeat, whose shared manor worth twelve shillings at Shawbury in Shropshire was acquired by Gerard of Tournai, has no links with his namesakes. It is possible he is the one Alfgeat in the county, in the lost vill of 'Slackbury', which can be no great distance away, or even Aldgyth of Welshampton (q.v.); but there are no links to confirm either identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGEAT <OF WESTON>. Algeat, who held Hail Weston in Huntingdonshire acquired by Eustace the sheriff, has no links with his namesakes. The Huntingdonshire Claims reveal that he 'himself' held the manor from Earl Tosti and subsequently Earl Waltheof. No Alfgeats are recorded in the county or on the sheriff's manors elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGOT. Algot is a rare forename which occurs once each in four counties, on the lands of four tenants-in-chief, twice among pre-Conquest lords, twice for tenants in 1086 whose name-forms may be of continental derivation: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 146.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALGOT <OF ASTON>. Algot (Aelgotus), who held Aston-by-Stone in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford, is one of two surviving Algots - the other in Berkshire - but there are no links between the two. It has been suggested that Algot is a scribal error for Helgot, Robert's tenant on the following manor of Barlaston, five miles from Aston, though the descent of Barlaston suggests it was held by Helgot of Holdgate (q.v.). Aston and Barlaston are assigned to Algot/Helgot in Coel (no. 3613) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 247.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALGOT <OF BASFORD>. Algot (Algod), who shared the manor of Old Basford in Nottinghamshire acquired by William Peverel, has no links with his pre-Conquest namesake, Algot (Alcot) the monk, at Defford in Worcestershire.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALGOT <OF ROWBURY>. Algot (Algolt), who held a subtenancy in Rowbury Hundred in Berkshire from Gilbert of Ghent, has no links with his namesakes. His subtenancy is not included in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALI <OF BULCAMP>. As both Alis in Domesday are dependants of Manni, a predecessor of Roger Bigot in Suffolk, there can be little doubt they are one man. The name is possibly the same as Alli; but none of the handful of Allis - all in Great Domesday - have discernible connections with the man of Manni: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 146-47.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALLI. Alli is a rare name which occurs nine times, distributed among the lands of six tenants-in-chief and five counties, all but one of the names occurring in the neighbouring counties of Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire. There are no survivors. It is possibly the same name as Ali, which occurs only twice, in Suffolk: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 146-47.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALLI <OF "CELVERDESCOTE">. As the name is rare and the distribution localised, it is possible that the Alli at Celverdescote in Northamptonshire, whose manor was acquired by the Count of Mortain, is Alli of Lavendon; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALLI <OF LAVENDON>. The Allis in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire are probably one man, though his manors were acquired by four tenants-in-chief. His seven manors form a cluster along the border between the two counties. Three of the four Buckinghamshire manors are in Lavendon, one acquired by the bishop of Coutances, the others by Countess Judith, the bishop obtaining the fourth, in the adjacent vill of Clifton Reynes. The Countess also succeeded Alli at Felmersham in Bedfordshire, his other manors - at Carlton and Pavenham - lying between Felmersham and Lavendon. On five of his seven manors, Alli is described as a man, Guard or thane of King Edward. It is possible, even likely, that he is the Alli at Celverdescote in Northamptonshire, a manor of similar status to his others; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALLI <OF RODBASTON>. As the name is rare, the Alli whose manor of Rodbaston in Staffordshire was acquired by Richard the forester may be Alli of Lavendon; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* ALMER *] HOLDFAST. Holdfast, whose manor of Housham in Essex was acquired by William of Warenne, is probably Almer Holdfast, who held Matching, two miles away, in 1066. The byname does not occur elsewhere in Domesday.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER [* OF BENNINGTON *]. All Almers in Hertfordshire may be one man, Almer of Bennington, or Almer Bennington, named on a number of manors, his byname derived from the most important of them. Peter of Valognes acquired the seven demesne manors where his byname is supplied, and five others of his men, so he is probably the Almer succeeded by Peter at Hinxworth, Digswell and Libury, and probably also the Almer at Bourn in Cambridgeshire, Peter's one manor in the county, presumably acquired as the designated successor of Almer of Bennington. He may also be the Almer on the three remaining demesne manors in Hertfordshire. Alswick, adjacent to his manor of 'Echington', is the most valuable manor held by an Almer after Bennington itself, while two of his men held land in Libury, where the demesne manor held by Almer was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who also obtained the manor of one of his men. Less certainly, he may be the Almer on the remaining demesne manor, at Watton, adjacent to another of his valuable manors, Sacombe; at Watton, however, he is a man of Aelfric Blaec (q.v.), a substantial but lesser landowner than himself. It is possible that Aelfric of Bennington at Chells is a scribal error for Almer, the scribe repeating the name of his man: 'Aelfric, Aelfric of Bennington's man'; no Aelfric is recorded in Bennington but Almer did have a man Aelfric at Flexmore. Finally, as Geoffrey of Bec acquired the land of one of his men, he may be the Aelmer, Earl Leofwin's man, who was succeeded by Geoffrey at Windridge; Aelmer and Almer, if they are different names, are often confused. If these identifications are valid, Almer was a royal thane, and a thane of Esger the constable and of earls Gyrth and Leofwin Godwinson, with land valued at more than £40, qualifying him for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER [* OF BOURN *]. Almer, who held Bourn, Caldecote, Longstowe and Hatley St George in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is stated in the text to be one man, he and the Almers at East Hatley, Croydon and Kingston being named Almer of Bourn in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 56-57, 86, 89, 99), who is probably also to be identified with Almer the noble (cilt), the juror of Longstowe Hundred, where most of these manors lay. He may also be the Almer at West Wratting and its dependency who, like Almer of Bourn, was both a tenant of Count Alan and a survivor, the only other of this name in the county. Dr Williams suggests he is the Almer on another manor in Bourn, acquired by Peter of Valognes; but as this is the only manor in Peter's fief and he was the predecessor of Almer of Bennington, it is more likely that he acquired it from that Almer. It is not impossible that the two Almers are the same man, though Peter's solitary acquisition in Cambridgeshire and the fact that Almer of Bennington retained nothing and Almer of Bourn most of his manors, tells against this. Dr Williams also suggests he is Almer son of Kolsveinn, a juror in 'Arringford' Hundred (where two of his manors lay) alongside his father: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 88-89. If so - as seems likely - he appears to be unique in serving on two juries: Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 41. Almer's tenancies from Count Alan are recorded in Coel (no. 220) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 136.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* BISHOP *] ALMER [* OF ELMHAM *]. The identification of Bishop Almer of Elmham is complicated by the inconsistent forms used by the scribes of Little Domesday, usually Almer, but often - more than twenty times - Aelmer, and once Aethelmer. In most cases, however, the form Aelmer is accompanied by his title; and the few exceptions have other identifying characteristics: a large manor, or association with another bishop, Herfast. In Norfolk, Bishop Almer's title is often omitted and his name abbreviated; but there is little doubt that all references to A, Bishop A, or to Almer in the fief of Bishop William of Thetford are to his predecessor, Bishop Almer, since Bishop A. can refer to no other person, and plain A occurs nowhere else in the county among pre-Conquest holders. Although Almer is a common name, its distribution confirms that it refers to the bishop throughout this fief; for while it occurs several dozen times within the fief, there are only half-a-dozen pre-Conquest Almers elsewhere in the county. These, too, may be Bishop Almer, since four are men of his brother, Archbishop Stigand, who had no men of this name elsewhere; two are lords of men, which fits the bishop, as do the associations between Almer, Roger Bigot, and Bury St Edmunds in the final case. There is no Almer in Norfolk in 1066 who is clearly not the bishop.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* BISHOP *] ALMER'S SON. The son of Almer, a tenant of Count Alan of Brittany on a small manor at Mileham in Norfolk, is probably the son of Bishop Almer of Elmham, since the bishop's brother, Stigand, was his lord and held the royal manor in the vill. Almer married before he became bishop, his wife's dowry, the manor of Blofield, being subsumed in the bishopric. No other son of Almer is recorded in Domesday Book. The son's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2074) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 198.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER <OF PIDDLETRENTHIDE>. The Almers from whom Roger Arundel acquired the substantial manors of Piddletrenthide in Dorset and Whitelackington in Somerset are probably one man, the same man as the Aelmer from whom Roger obtained comparably valuable manors in Dorset and Somerset. The two names are often confused by the scribe. Almer is probably a relative - possibly the brother - of Alfrith of Piddletrenthide (q.v.). Both had their most valuable manors in Piddletrenthide, both held all their land as far as can be determined in the same two counties, and both were by a considerable margin the most significant predecessors of Roger Arundel, each contributing roughly sixty hides of assessed land, and between them over half the value of his Honour. A list of their manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 234-35, which does not include Alfrith's manors of Timberscombe and Charlton. Alfrith and Almer are collectively ranked by Dr Clarke forty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Timberscombe and Charlton would raise them several places.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER [* OF WOOTTON *]. Although Almer is a common name, it is likely that most Almers in Buckinghamshire, and many in Bedfordshire, are Almer of Wootton. He is accorded his byname once, as the tenant of Miles Crispin at Wavendon in Buckinghamshire, and is presumably the Almer who held the substantial manor of Wootton in Bedfordshire before the Conquest, and probably also the tenant and predecessor of Miles at Wingrave and his predecessor at Soulbury, in both of which he is described as a man of Brictric of Waddesdon (q.v.). Since he retained Wingrave for the twenty years after 1066, it is not unlikely that he is the Almer who also retained Swanbourne, six miles from Soulbury, as a tenant of the Count of Mortain and the Count's tenant at Amersham, Hardwick, Burston and Laughton. Amersham and Burston were acquired from Siward brother of Saewulf (q.v.); and Burston (in Aston Abbots) is just over two miles from Hardwick in one direction and from Wingrave in the other. Two miles south of Swanbourne, the valuable manor at Hoggeston may also have been his. The one other valuable manor in the two counties held by Almer, at Burnham in Buckinghamshire, may have been his, too. This Almer was a royal thane, as was the Almer at Bolnhurst in Bedfordshire, likely to be the same man since his endowment as a royal thane was otherwise meagre, worth twelve shillings. All the manors mentioned so far lie between Bolnhurst and Burnham, as indeed do all manors held by an Almer in the two counties. The links between the remaining Almers and Almer of Wootton, however, are insufficient for an identification.
	If all or most of these identifications are valid, Almer was a man of many lords: of the king; of Earl Harold at Swanbourne, Aelfric son of Goding at Loughton, Bondi the constable at Hoggeston, Earl Tosti at Wootton, and Brictric of Waddesdon, mentioned above; Earls Harold and Tosti are perhaps additional links between Almer of Wootton and the Buckinghamshire Almers. This number of lords is unusual, though not unique; more than one is not uncommon. Almer's 1086 manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1672) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 136, apart from Swanbourne, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1236).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER [* THE BEADLE *]. Almer, who held a virgate at Wool in Dorset in 1086, is probably Almer beadle, named in the Geld Roll for Winfrith Hundred, where Wool lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 143. He is the only survivor of this name in the county. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 3049).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMER [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. Although Almer (Almar) and Aelmer (Ailmar) are recognised as separate names and both are common, their distinctive distribution in Warwickshire suggests that they all refer to one man, an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick: Williams: 'A vice-comital family', pp. 283, 287-88, 293-95. The majority occur on the fief of Thorkil himself, while four others have the characteristic links with 'family' vills or family members demonstrated by Dr Williams, reinforced in the case of four of the five Aelmers by connections between Thorkil's fief and Robert of Stafford and Robert d'Oilly. The fifth Aelmer, not listed by Dr Williams, is probably also Thorkil's uncle, Almer, since he was a survivor, as were most Almer/Aelmers, and the Thorkil he inherited from is probably his nephew. Almer's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4761) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 136, apart from Longdon and Kineton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 28350, 28497).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMUND. Although considered distinct by von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 149, 185, the names Aelmund and Almund are probably variants. The names, stated or implied on more than fifty manors, have a distinctive distribution. Apart from four entries in Yorkshire, they are concentrated in the contiguous counties of Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire, the majority in Shropshire, all as tenants or predecessors of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and his tenants. Even Yorkshire has a Shrewsbury association, one Almund being a predecessor of Earl Roger's son, Roger of Poitou. It is just possible that all Almunds are one man.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALMUND [* FATHER OF ALWARD *]. Almund and his son are named as joint tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at 'Amaston', which Almund also held before the Conquest, as well as Wotherton, held by Alward from the earl in 1086 on the same fief. Almund was also the predecessor of the earl on five manors in Staffordshire, the only Almunds in the county, and three more in Warwickshire, though the name-form there is Aelmund in one case, probably scribal variants in view of the tenurial associations and the appearance of both forms in the vill of Wolston. The one other Almund (actually Aelmund) in that county, at 'Mackadown', lay between these manors and those in Shropshire.
	Three of the manors in Warwickshire and one in Staffordshire were subinfeudated to the earl's sheriff, Reginald of Balliol (q.v.), who also acquired nine manors in Shropshire from an Almund or Alward, as did another of the earl's tenants, Helgot of Holdgate; Almund and Alward are presumably the father and son. Two more of Earl Roger's tenants - Roger of Lacy and Picot of Sai - had a predecessor named Almund, though not an Alward; but as there may have been a second Almund at Clunton, their identity is less certain. At Clunton, 'Almund, Wulfric and Almund held it as 3 manors', the second Almund making the identification of Alward's father problematic. There may, however, be an alternative interpretation of the 'second' Almund: as there is no 'another' to clarify the meaning, it is possible the scribe repeated the name to account for the three manors whose details he was summarising, two of them being held by Almund in 1066; there are similar cases elsewhere in the text (cf. Buggi). The distribution of the name makes it more likely than not that most, perhaps all, of the Lacy and Sai predecessors are Alward's father.
	It is possible that he is also the Almund recorded on several holdings in Yorkshire since the last of these was acquired by Roger of Poitou, son of the earl of Shrewsbury, and the other two manors are in the same part of Craven. If not, it is an odd coincidence that every Almund in Domesday Book may be plausibly linked to the earl. Almund probably left his mark on the Domesday landscape since Almundestune in Herefordshire, held by Alward in 1066, is presumably named after him. Almund's one tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 6739) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 118.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH [* GRUTT *]. All seven Alnoths in Hertfordshire are probably one man, Alnoth Grutt, named as such at Lampeth and Clothall, two of the six manors acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, and as a man of archbishop Stigand on three of these. On the seventh manor, at Hormead, acquired by Prince Edgar, he is described as the archbishop's thane. Four of these manors are substantial, two of them - Clothall and Radwell- very substantial. Archbishop Stigand had another Alnoth among his men, who held the royal manor of Howe and its dependencies in Norfolk. As this manor is also substantial and the archbishop's man one of only two Alnoths in the county, it is likely he is Alnoth Grutt. It is possible that he is also the Alnoth at Heacham, a fairly substantial holding, but there are no links to confirm an identification.
	It is just possible that Grutt is the same man as Alnoth the noble, alias Alnoth of Kent, a predecessor of Bishop Odo of Bayeux. The tenurial link and the scale of several of their manors suggest this as a possibility; and although their predominant name-forms - Alnoth and Aethelnoth - are distinguished by von Feilitzen, they are not consistently so by the Domesday scribe: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 149-50, 185-86. Many individuals have more than one byname in Domesday Book, of course; but Grutt occurs only in Hertfordshire, whereas Alnoth the noble (cilt) is found in three circuits, and 'of Kent' (or 'the Kentishman') in two, both forms occurring in the same circuit as Hertfordshire, perhaps an attempt to distinguish two Alnoths originating in the breve of the tenant-in-chief. Archbishop Stigand is the overlord of the bishop of Bayeux's predecessor only in Hertfordshire. On balance, Grutt is more likely to be another man. Clarke, English nobility, pp. 237-38, does not include Grutt's manors among those he attributes to Alnoth the noble.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH [* OF BRAY *]. Alnoth, who held Bray in Devon, is almost certainly Alnoth of Bray, named in the Geld Roll for South Molton Hundred where Bray lay, though the assessment of Bray does not match that in Geld Roll: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xx-xxi. He is the only surviving Alnoth in the county. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1788) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 137.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Alnoth of London, who received Tooting in Surrey in pledge from Earl Waltheof and assigned it to Westminster abbey 'for his soul's sake', was evidently an important man, citizen of London, nephew (nepos) of Swein of Essex, witness (with Swein) to a royal charter, and donor of 'lands and houses' to the abbey, in which he became a monk: Bates, Regesta, nos. 82, 290, 313, 324, pp. 347, 871, 879, 926-27, 947, 953; Harmer, Writs, pp. 311-13. His status and the London connection suggest he may be the Alnoth whose valuable manors in Surrey were acquired by Richard of Tonbridge, two of which had sites and messuages in London and Southwark. He may also be the Alnoth on the valuable manor of Banstead in Surrey, to which a house in Southwark and a 'lord's messuage' in London were attached: Round, 'Domesday survey of Surrey', pp. 282-83. Banstead was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, who succeeded to the manors of Alnoth the noble, possibly therefore the Alnoth at Banstead; but apart from the London association and its proximity to the other Surrey manors, there may be a tenurial connection between Banstead and Alnoth of London, since the bishop's tenant at Banstead is possibly Richard of Tonbridge (q.v.): VCH Surrey, iii. 254.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH <OF TOLGULLOW>. The consecutive fiefs held by Alnoth, Ednoth and Alnoth from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall are not clearly delineated by the usual scribal conventions - large capitals and names lined in red - so it is possible that all three are, in fact, one man; it is not uncommon for the scribe to confuse Alnoth and Ednoth: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', p. 32. However, to confuse them twice in successive entries seems implausible, so the three are here identified as different men, the first of whom held the manors of Tolgullow, Trescowe, Dizzard and Trehudreth, the first two of which he also held in 1066. It is possible, therefore, that he is the pre-Conquest Alnoth who occurs on some or all of six other manors in the county. Their distribution lends some support to this, since the four manors held directly from the Count span almost the length of the county, the other six lying between them. Neither the Count or the tenants to whom he allocated these manors had an Alnoth as tenant or predecessor in the neighbouring county of Devon. Alnoth's tenancies at Tolgullow and Trescowe are recorded in Coel (no. 239) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 137; the other two are allocated to Alnoth of Woolston.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH <OF WOOLSTON>. It has been suggested that the Alnoth who held Woolston in Cornwall from Count Robert of Mortain is the same man as Alnoth of Tolgullow and Ednoth of Pengelly (q.v.), though the sequence of names - Alnoth, Ednoth, Alnoth - seems an unlikely scribal confusion. Woolston, Dizzard and Trehudreth are assigned to this Alnoth in Coel (no. 9390) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 137.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALNOTH [* THE NOBLE OF KENT *]. Alnoth the noble, a royal thane, was a major landholder in 1066, with jurisdictional privileges and many manors - several very large - in Kent (D17;22. C6. P20. 1,3. 5,4;28;41;44;56;72;95;100;102;134;175), and others in Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Buckinghamshire. He was important enough to be taken by the Conqueror to Normandy in 1067, described on that occasion as 'the noble Kentish governor (satrap)': Chronicle of John of Worcester, iii. 4-5. He is almost certainly the Alnoth of Canterbury whose man Wulfric held a small property at Walton Grounds in Northamptonshire, since he had full jurisdiction in the city and a Wulfric held from him in Kent. In Buckinghamshire, where he was succeeded at Westbury by Odo, he is very probably the bishop's predecessors Alnoth the Kentishman at Chetwode and the royal thane, Alnoth, at Tingewick; and in Oxfordshire he is likely to be the Alnoth at Stanton Harcourt, and Alnoth of Kent at Great Tew, very valuable manors held by Odo in 1086. He must also be the Kentishman whose man, Edstan, held Chicheley in Buckinghamshire, acquired by William son of Ansculf. Edstan, a rare name, occurs on the fief of Bishop Odo in Essex.
	In Sussex, where Odo held no land, Alnoth the noble's huge manor of Alciston was used to endow Battle abbey. Elsewhere in the county, its division into Rapes lessen the usefulness of tenurial factors for identifications; but it is not unlikely that the Alnoth who held the manors of Charleston, Alfriston and Wilmington - each within two or three miles of Alciston - as well as the more substantial manors of Wartling, Hailsham, Harpingden and Ovingdean, a little further afield, is Alnoth of Kent. All but two were acquired by the Count of Mortain, whose more distant manor at Shovelstrode 'lay outside the Rape', meaning it was a detached portion of one of the Count's manors laying in other Rape. Similarly, Harpingden, one of the two manors acquired by William of Warenne, had a detached portion in the Mortain Rape of Pevensey. Both fragments would have been part of manors acquired from an Anglo-Saxon predecessor, so possibly links to those of Alnoth of Kent. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 237-38, which does not include Chicheley, Walton or the Sussex manors other than those acquired by Battle abbey. Dr Clarke ranks him seventh in wealth among untitled laymen, fifteenth among the nobility; his total needs adjustment but neither this or the additional manors affects the rankings. Dr Williams describes Alnoth as 'one of the richest landholders in England' and estimates his assessed land at 216 hides, the Statistics database at 256: Williams, World before Domesday, pp. 54-55.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALRED [* OF YALDING *]. Aldred, whose very valuable manor of Yalding (£30) was acquired by Richard of Tonbridge, son of Count Gilbert, is probably the Alred at Barming - the two manors constituting Richard's fief in the county - and the Alred of Yalding who had full jurisdictional rights in the Lathes of Sutton and Aylesford. He may also be the Aethelred at Addington, another valuable manor, eight miles from Yalding, since Alred is variant form of Aethelred, the form (Agelred) occurring nowhere else in Domesday Book: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 150, 186. Aethelred of Addington was a predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux, as were the two other pre-Conquest Alreds in Kent. As the name occurs nowhere else in the country, it is not unlikely that these Alreds are also Alred of Yalding. Dr Williams cites later evidence that Alred survived the Conqueror and all his sons, perhaps as an (unrecorded) tenant or farmer on his lost manors: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 81-82.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALRIC [* OF BURGH *]. Alric, whose manor of Burgh in Suffolk was acquired by William of Warenne, is probably Alric of Burgh, overlord in that vill and in four others. He may also be the Alric whose manor of Bredfield and men in Boulge and Debach devolved upon Warenne, since Alric of Burgh had a free man in Bredfield and all these Warenne holdings were subinfeudated to Robert of Glanville (q.v.).

................................................................................................................................................................
ALRIC <OF LANWARNICK>. Alric, who held Lanwarnick and Draynes in Cornwall from Count Robert of Mortain, held the same manors twenty years previously. There are no other surviving Alrics in Cornwall, but the Count's tenant at Snorscomb in Northamptonshire had also retained his holding, and possibly two others, for two decades; but given their modest scale and the distance between the counties, it is perhaps unlikely that Alric of Snorscomb is the same man as the Cornish tenant. One or more of the nine other pre-Conquest Alrics in Cornwall may be Alric of Lanwarnick, the manors acquired by Osfrith and Reginald of Vautortes, clustering suggestively around Lanwarnick; but the name is common and there are no specific links between them. Alric's manors of Lanwarnick and Draynes are recorded in Coel (no. 241) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 138.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALRIC [* SON OF GODING *]. Alric son of Goding is named on seven of his demesne manors in Buckinghamshire, all acquired by Walter Giffard, who also obtained another six demesne manors from an Alric, probably the same man, described as a royal thane on two manors where his byname is recorded and on three others where it is not. The Alric who preceded Giffard on the valuable manor of Woburn in Bedfordshire is probably also Goding's son since here, too, he is described as a royal thane, and Woburn is the only manor of any substance held by an Alric in the county, as well as the most valuable of those acquired from Alric by Giffard. The Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 109) records an Alric Godingessune as a free man of the abbey of Ely at Melbourn in Cambridgeshire.
	Walter also obtained the land of four of Alric son of Goding's men; but the bulk of these devolved upon the Count of Mortain, Countess Judith and Miles Crispin in Buckinghamshire and Nigel of Aubigny in Bedfordshire, links which suggest other identifications. Miles Crispin and Countess Judith acquired the remaining demesne manors of an Alric in Buckinghamshire, at Upton, Saunderton and Emberton, the last pair fairly substantial so it is not unlikely they were held by Goding's son, though Alric is described respectively as Earl Harold's and Bishop Wulfwy's man on the last two manors. As overlord, Alric can probably be identified as Goding's son at Holcot in Bedfordshire and Weston Underwood and Hardmead in Buckinghamshire, where he is lord of other men where his byname is supplied; at Milton Keynes he was lord of an Oswy who held land in Hardmead, where the son of Goding was an overlord. As the only identifiable overlord in the county, Goding's son is probably the Alric whose men included four burgesses in Buckingham, and he is likely to be the Aelfric son of Goding whose men were acquired by the Count of Mortain and Countess Judith, who otherwise appears to have held no land in demesne; scribal confusion of Alric and Aelfric is not uncommon. Though less likely, he may be the man of Oswulf son of Frani (q.v.) on a virgate in Milton Keynes, a vill in which he had men of his own.
	Almer and Alwin, sons of Goding, are recorded in the same area, while Goding - presumably his father - occurs as an overlord at Bradwell, where his son had men. Their land was acquired by Miles Crispin who, as noted above, obtained the manors of some of Alric's men and (probably) two of his demesne manors. If these identifications are valid, Alric was another English magnate who survived on a fragment of his previous estate, since he continued to hold the smaller of the two manors acquired by Miles, at Upton. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 228-29, which does not include the demesne manors acquired by Countess Judith and Miles Crispin or one or more of the holdings in Weston Underwood, Moulsoe, Milton Keynes, Bow Brickhill, Bradwell, Hardmead and Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire, or Holcot and Shelton in Bedfordshire. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would place him in the top fifty.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALRIC [* WINTERMILK *]. The Alrics who held a virgate at Henlow and a quarter of a virgate at Stanford in Bedfordshire in 1066 and 1086 is probably Alric Wintermilk, King Edward's man, who survived for twenty years at Goldington, these three being the only Alrics in the county to retain their manors for those two decades. The tenant at Southill, a mile from Stanford, is probably also the same man, one of only two other surviving Alrics in the five counties of circuit three; and it is not unlikely he is also the Alric with a second manor in Southill. All Wintermilk's manors are very modest so it is improbable that he is the same man as the other survivor, Alric son of Goding. Alric's manors of Goldington and Stanford are recorded in Coel (no. 1642) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 138; the tenants at Southill and Henlow are unidentified (nos. 399, 537).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* ILLING *]. The Alsis who preceded Count Alan of Brittany at Kneeton, and Ralph of Limésy at Epperstone and Woodborough in Nottinghamshire, a small cluster somewhat detached from those of other Alsis, may be Alsi Illing, who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights and the king's customary dues' in the county. They are a meagre endowment for one with such rights, particularly as Epperstone is shared, and Alsi is said to have no Hall there. Other Alsis in the county, however, are identified as the son of Karski, a different man since both are in the list of those with jurisdictional rights. Ralph had no predecessors of this name elsewhere; but Count Alan acquired the manors of an Alsi in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Yorkshire. The name is common in Yorkshire; but the Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Alsis are probably one man, since all three were men of Edeva the fair and there are few Alsis in Cambridgeshire and no others in Hertfordshire. All three held respectable manors, so if held by Alsi Illing would provide an endowment more appropriate to his status. Dr Williams, however, suggests that the Alsi at Exning may be the cousin of Earl Ralph Wader, Exning possibly being the place where the revolt of the earls in 1075 was hatched: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 59, 61-62.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* NEPHEW OF EARL RALPH *]. Most if not all Alsis in East Anglia may be the nephew of Earl Ralph the constable, cousin of Earl Ralph Wader who lost his lands in the aftermath of his rebellion in 1075. He is certainly the Alsi nephew of Earl R. overlord of free men at Gislingham in Suffolk, named in full as an overlord at Old Newton. He is very probably also the lord of two free men on another holding in Old Newton, acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, and the Alsi who leased a manor in Gislingham from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds for the lifetime of himself and his wife, in return for which he bequeathed his manor of Euston to the abbey. Gislingham was in the hands of Gilbert the bowman in 1086, while the one holding in Euston - held by the abbey - does not mention Alsi. Dr Williams suggests he also held Cantley from his uncle and is the king's thane at Fersfield, and perhaps the Alsi whose holding in Field Dalling was acquired by Roger Bigot. Cantley and Fersfield were added to the royal demesne in Norfolk managed by Godric the steward, who had charge of many of the manors forfeited by Earl Ralph Wader and his adherents, while the entry at Dalling has 'God and Robert' interlined above Alsi's name, 'perhaps indicating later tenants of the land', God possibly being an abbreviation of Godwin, Alsi's father, and Robert being Robert of Verly, who succeeded to Godwin's manors of Burnham Thorpe and Field Dalling and also to an Alsi at Market Weston in Suffolk: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 61-62. If, as seems likely, this is a valid reconstruction, then Alsi may also be the overlord on a second manor in Fersfield and may have preceded Roger Bigot at Lopham and Blo Norton, both respectable manors within five miles of Fersfield and Market Weston. He is also likely to be the Alsi who held Freethorpe under Earl R, and probably the Alsi who held Carleton St Peter and Thelveton 'under King Edward', an uncommon construction which may indicate a relationship like that of royal thane. As the only Alsi with demesne land in Norfolk, he is likely to be the overlord at Clippesby and Southwood; there are no other Alsis in the county. Of the three in Suffolk, the two on minor holdings in the jurisdiction and patronage of the abbey of Ely are unlikely to be Earl Ralph's nephew. The third, at Elveden, is more problematic. He is a predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne, whose predecessor, Alsi Sqitrebil, was both a royal thane and endowed with valuable manors in Cambridgeshire and (probably) Essex, so is conceivably also Ralph's nephew. There are no more precise links to connect them, though it may be relevant that an Alsi and his wife gave land at Burwell in Cambridgeshire to Ramsey abbey, leased after Alsi's death to his kinsman, Godwin, subsequently seized by Earl Ralph Wader: Early charters of eastern England, pp. 241-42; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 62.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* OF BROMHAM *]. Alsi, Queen Edith's man, who held the valuable manors of Eaton Bray and Bromham in Bedfordshire before the Conquest, is very probably Alsi of Bromham, Queen Edith's man, who held Biddenham, and possibly also the brother of Alli of Lavendon (q.v.), at Pavenham, about five miles from both Bromham and Biddenham, the one other Alsi in Bedfordshire. More certainly, he is the Alsi with a small fief in Buckinghamshire, granted to him by Queen Edith after 1066 upon his marriage to a daughter of Wigot of Wallingford (q.v.), one of the queen's circle and a key man in the events of that year. Another of Wigot's daughters married Robert d'Oilly, their daughter marrying Miles Crispin, so Alsi was well-connected, which may explain his relative prosperity in 1086, though modest compared with his pre-Conquest estate. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1634) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 139, where he is identified as a son-in-law of Wulfward White, not by his byname.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSI <OF CASTLE CARY>. The Alsis who preceded Walter of Douai at Castle Cary, his most important manor in Somerset, and a dozen other manors in Somerset, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire, most of them substantial, are probably one man in most if not all these cases. His manors cluster around Castle Cary in Somerset and Mohuns Ottery in Devon, with single manors at Stourton Caundle in Dorset and Celdewelle in Wiltshire. Though some distance from the Somerset group, they were probably held by the same man since Alsi is not a common name in either county, occurring only once more in Dorset and twice for laymen in Wiltshire, so the antecessorial link through Walter of Douai is persuasive. In Devon, Alsi had an outlier across the Exe at Dunsford, three or four miles from the nearest of two adjacent holdings at Lowley and Doddiscombsleigh, held by an Alsi who may be the same man. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 240, which does not include Shapcombe and Combe Raleigh in Devon but repeats Mohuns Ottery, or the Dorset and Wiltshire manors. Dr Clarke ranks Alsi seventy-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional holdings would raise him approximately ten places.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* OF FARINGDON *]. Alsi, who held a subtenancy of four hides on the royal manor of Faringdon in Berkshire, is evidently Alsi of Faringdon, who held Barcote in the county and Windrush in Gloucestershire. He farmed the royal manors of Barrington in Gloucestershire, and Langford and Shipton in Oxfordshire, so may be the Alsi who held a second manor in the latter vill, together with Rycote, and the subtenant on another royal manor, Littleworth in Berkshire. He is perhaps also the one other Alsi in the three counties, at Longney in Gloucestershire which, like Littleworth, he held in both 1066 and 1086.
	Alsi may also have held Rycote in 1066 since no pre-Conquest lord is recorded there; but even so, his pre-Conquest estate is meagre compared to what he held in 1086. As his name is common, he may have held land elsewhere; but not in the three counties where his manors lay in 1086 since no other Alsis are recorded there, at either date. His manors have some curious features. Many were acquired from Earl Harold or his retainer, Tovi, which is unusual for a modest landowner; and apart from his tenancies and farms of royal manors, Barcote (held by Harold) was a gift from the Conqueror, who also gifted his son, Alwy (q.v.). Some unrecorded act benefiting the Conqueror at Harold's expense may be suspected. The life of St Wulfstan has a colourful tale of Alsi, who refused the bishop's command to cut down the nut-tree in the graveyard of his church at Longney, in whose shade he was accustomed to drink and dice with friends, angering the saint who cursed the tree, which withered away: Mason, St Wulfstan, pp. 165-67; Williams, World before Domesday, pp. 100-101, 197 and notes 122-35. Alsi's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 641) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 138, apart from Littleworth, assigned to another tenant (no. 146) and Rycote, who tenant is unidentified (no. 28087) though stated to be 'also' Alsi of Faringdon in the text.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* SON OF BRICTSI *]. Alsi, who held Bagwich among the king's thanes on the Isle of Wight, may be Alsi son of Brictsi, who held Thorley on the same fief and Mattingley, Minley and Wallop among the thanes on the mainland. He may also be the tenant of Winchester abbey at Calbourne, the one other Alsi on the island; the son of Brictsi was a tenant of St Peter's on the mainland, at Woodmancott. The descent of Bagwich and Calbourne has not been traced: VCH Hampshire, v. 172, 218-19. The manors of Alsi son of Brictsi are recorded in Coel (no. 569) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 138; the tenants of Calbourne and Bagwich are unidentified (nos. 6818, 6911).

................................................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* SON OF GODRAM *]. All Alsis in Lincolnshire may be one man, the Alsi who shared a manor at Swaton in Lincolnshire with his brothers Aelfric and Aethelstan in 1066, identified as the son of Godram by this relationship; Aethelstan can be identified as a son of Godram (q.v.), an important predecessor of Guy of Craon. Alsi himself held none of the manors acquired by Guy; but there are grounds for identifying him as the predecessor of the bishop of Lincoln, William of Percy and Kolsveinn of Lincoln. Alsi's manor at Swaton was acquired by Kolsveinn, who also obtained the respectable manors of Marston and 'Oseby' from an Alsi, the latter three miles from Swaton. A Lincolnshire Claim describes the manors of Alsi and Ulfgrim in Lindsey 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 the two men though the only holding the bishop acquired from Alsi was a jurisdiction in Stow. At Stow, the bishop's tenant was William of Percy, who acquired several valuable manors from an Alsi who must be the same man as the manors are all in Lindsey, as stated in the Claim. Percy also acquired a manor from Ulfgrim, as did Guy of Craon which, since Ulfgrim is a rare name, provides another link between the Alsis who preceded Percy and the bishop of Lincoln and who had family ties with the predecessors of Guy of Craon. The other two Alsis in the county may also be Godram's son. Newton and its dependencies, acquired by Odo the bowman, is intermixed with Kolsveinn's manor of 'Oseby', part of it lying in that vill, while Surfleet, acquired by Heppo the bowman, is eleven miles from Swaton; both are fairly substantial manors. None of the tenants-in-chief who acquired Alsi's manors have an Alsi among their tenants or predecessors elsewhere.

................................................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* SON OF KARSKI *]. Alsi, whose valuable manor of Worksop was acquired by Roger of Bully, is named in the shire customs of Nottinghamshire as the son of Karski, with 'full jurisdiction and market rights and the king's customary dues' over Worksop. Karski is a rare name which occurs only four times, twice each in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, all four probably being Alsi's father (q.v.). The two Nottinghamshire Karskis are predecessors of Roger of Bully, as are all but two of the Alsis in county, who may therefore be Karski's son. Further support for these identifications is provided by Dr Fleming's thesis on the allocation of the bulk of the manors in any wapentake to single tenants-in-chief. Alsi's manors are distributed among five wapentakes, only one of which - 'Bassetlaw' - was a 'Bully' wapentake. Worksop and two other manors are in 'Bassetlaw', and Tollerton in Bingham, where Roger had a large presence; but he had few manors in Newark, while Rushcliffe and Broxtowe were 'Peverel' wapentakes, suggesting that Roger acquired Alsi's manors there as his designated successor: Fleming, Kings and nobles, p. 140.
	Roger was also preceded on several manors in Yorkshire, all valuable by Yorkshire standards and all closer to Worksop than most of Alsi's Nottinghamshire manors so very probably held by him also. One of the Yorkshire Claims reveals that the one Alsi manor acquired by Geoffrey Alselin - also valuable - was claimed by Roger of Bully so was probably held by Karski's son. It is also likely he is the Alsi from whom Ilbert of Lacy acquired a dozen manors in 'Osgodcross' (where one of the Bully manors lay) and Staincross wapentakes, adjoining Strafforth wapentake where the remainder of Alsi's manors lay. Some of these Lacy manors are just a few miles from those acquired by Roger, most are closer to Workshop than his other Nottinghamshire manors, and almost all are substantial by Yorkshire standards. They were acquired by Ilbert because they fall within the bounds of his Honour of Pontefract, a block of five hundred square miles from which other lay tenants-in-chief were entirely excluded: Wightman, Lacy family, pp. 17-20, 22-23. Of the five remaining Alsis in Yorkshire, it is not unlikely Karski's son is the Alsi on four properties in and around York, twenty miles or more to the north; but there are no precise links to support an identification.
	Ilbert's predecessor was also his tenant on three of his manors, which almost certainly means that the Alsi who retained his manor of Darfield in Strafforth wapentake for two decades is Karski's son; Darfield lies between the other Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire manors. It is it likely that the other two surviving Alsis in northern England are the same man. One, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Yeaveley in Derbyshire, is probably also Henry's predecessor at Elton, the only Alsi in the county; Henry, like Roger of Bully, acquired one of his manors from Alsi's father. The tenant of Robert of Stafford at Ellastone in Staffordshire is the only Alsi in the county; his manor is six miles from Yeaveley. If these identifications are broadly correct, then Alsi qualifies for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility, where he would rank among the top sixty untitled laymen; although he lost most of his land, his manors in Derbyshire, Staffordshire and Yorkshire left him in a comfortable state compared to that of most of his English peers. Henry's tenant is recorded in Coel (no. 3860) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 135, without the patronymic; Robert's is unidentified (no. 31510), as are the four Yorkshire survivors (nos. 37371, 37378, 37519, 38293).

................................................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* SQITREBIL *]. The predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne on the very valuable manor of Newnham Hall in Essex is probably the royal thane who preceded the Count on the even more valuable manor of Ickleton in Cambridgeshire and perhaps also on the respectable manor of Elveden in Suffolk, held in 1066 by the one other Alsi on the Count's Honour. At Ickleton, he is named Alsi Sqitrebil in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis which also records one of his men at Linton (ed. Hamilton, pp. 34, 41), a manor held by Count Alan of Brittany in 1086. Count Alan acquired demesne manors in Cambridgeshire and elsewhere from an Alsi who is probably another man, Alsi Illing, though Dr Williams suggests that the Count's predecessor at Exning at least might be the nephew of Earl Ralph the constable: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 59, 61-62.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSI [* THE MASON *]. Alsi, who held Trelamar in Cornwall in 1066 and 1086, has been tentatively identified from later sources as the father of Bernard the scribe, and as a master-builder in the service of the canons of Launceston: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 122-23. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 242) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 139.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALSTAN [* OF BOSCOMBE *]. Alstan of Boscombe, or Alstan Boscombe, was the predecessor of William of Eu in Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Somerset and Wiltshire. There is little reason to doubt, therefore, that he is William's predecessor Alstan on another three manors in Bedfordshire and two in Hertfordshire, or the Alstan who preceded William in Hampshire, Berkshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire. He is probably also the Alstan whose lease of a hide from the abbey of Glastonbury at Bremhill in Wiltshire came into William's hands, as it did at Ditteridge, and probably also the Alstan at Slacham in Hampshire, where his holding was acquired by Ralph of Limésy, who preceded William of Eu on some of his manors in Dorset and Gloucestershire.
	In Somerset, he is identified in Exon. as the Alstan whose manor of Eckweek was acquired by the Count of Mortain, so he may be the Count's predecessor at Caundle in Dorset and at Barton St David in Somerset, held by Roger of Courseulles but in part by the Count. Both manors lay between those of Alstan held by William of Eu on the Dorset/Somerset border. The Count was also preceded by an Alstan on three manors in Cornwall; but these are modest and remote from those elsewhere. The bulk of Alstan's manors lay in the south-western counties; but he had substantial holdings in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire so may well be Alstan, the sheriff of the latter county before 1066, there being no other Alstans who are likely candidates: Green, English sheriffs, p. 25. A list of Alstan's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 229-31, which does not include Boxbury in Hertfordshire, and those at Slacham, Caundle, Eckweek and Barton discussed above. Dr Clarke ranks him fifth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional holdings would not affect this.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWAKER [* FATHER OF AELFRIC *]. All Alwakers and Everwacers in Domesday Book may be one man, their forenames almost certainly being equivalent though believed to be distinct: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 141-42, 249. As his name is rare, Everwacer, predecessor of Serlo of Burcy on the valuable manors of Uphill, Compton Market and two others in Somerset, is almost certainly the father of Aelfric son of Everwacer (q.v.), a tenant of Glastonbury abbey in the county 1086, and just as certainly the same man as Alwaker, predecessor of Walter of Douai on seven manors Somerset and another in Wiltshire. On Walter of Douai's manor of Huntspill, Alwaker is rendered as Everwacer in Exon.; and although von Feilitzen attributes this to 'confusion', the circumstantial evidence of the distribution and status of the manors acquired by the two tenants-in-chief indicates otherwise. Glastonbury had a tenant at Blackford named Alwaker as well as an Aelfric son of Everwacer at Lamyatt, and both names are rare, with a localised distribution; Walter of Douai's predecessor held Sparkford, four miles from Blackford. Other manors of Alwaker/Everwacer are interspersed with each other: Milton is two miles from Uphill, and West Harptree is adjacent to Compton Martin, the remainder all lying in the same area of north Somerset. Both tenants-in-chief acquired valuable manors, the most valuable of them - Weare - being surrounded by clusters of the remainder.
	Three other tenants-in-chief acquired a manor each from Alwaker/Everwacer. William of Falaise, Serlo's son-in-law, obtained Everwacer's manor of Woodspring, roughly midway between Alwaker at Milton and Everwacer at Uphill, a few miles from either. The other two manors are further afield; but Alwaker's manor of Ashe in Hampshire is another valuable property, so perhaps also held by Aelfric's father; if so, he was a dependant of Earl Harold. Less certainly, the respectable manor acquired from Everwacer by Baldwin the sheriff at Exwick in Devon, may have been his too, though there are no links other than the rarity of the name. Like many of his peers, Alwaker survived on a fraction of his previous estate, given refuge alongside his son on the Honour of Glastonbury abbey (above), where the abbot provided him with a fairly substantial manor. He was a wealthy landowner in 1086, among the half-dozen wealthiest laymen in Somerset. If included in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank nationally sixty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 14596).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* COLLING *]. The Alwards who held Potterne, Tilshead and Swallowcliffe in Wiltshire may be Alward Colling, who held Knook, the following entry, since the fief is in order of landowners rather Hundreds. He is certainly the Alward on the bishop of Salisbury's manor of Potterne, where the circumstances in which the three hides he held in the vill became detached from the episcopal manor are rehearsed, and possibly therefore the Alward on the following manor, both survivors, like those mentioned so far. In Dorset, he is named in Exon. as the Alward who held the royal manor of Langton before the Conquest, and the Geld Roll for Combsditch Hundred identifies him as the Alward at Thornicombe in that Hundred, which he held at both dates: VCH Dorset, iii. 135. At Langton, he was succeeded by the wife of Hugh son of Grip, so he may be the Alward whose six manors formed part of her fief in Dorset. It is possible he held other manor since his name is very common in the five south-western counties of circuit two, even among survivors, who occur on almost three dozen manors there, a baker's dozen even retaining the same manors for two decades. Alward's 1086 manors are recorded in Coel (no. 259) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 147, except for the two Alwards on the manors of the bishop of Salisbury, identified as a second Alward at Potterne (Coel no. 93), and an unidentified tenant at Cannings (Coel no. 16602).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* MART *]. Alward, who held Colscott among the king's thanes in Devon in 1066 and 1086, may be Alward Mart of the following entry, holding land worth five shillings at an unnamed location, granted him by the Queen. Alward Mart is recorded in Exon. as holding Dowland, Loosedon and Wolfin before the Conquest, so he survived for twenty years. His manors were acquired by Walter of Claville, whose brother Gotshelm succeeded an Alward at Nymet, four miles from Wolfin, all three manors lying in North Tawton Hundred. The brothers, whose fiefs are interrelated, both acquired manors from an Alward in Fremington Hundred, at Instow and Newton Tracey, five miles apart, their succession to Alwards who were near neighbours suggesting these, too, are Alward Mart. Gotshelm also obtained East Manley from an Alward, possibly the same man. It is possible he held other manor since his name is very common in the five south-western counties of circuit two, even among survivors, who occur on almost three dozen manors there, a baker's dozen even retaining the same manors for two decades. Alward's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 361) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 147.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD <OF CLYST>. The Alwards who held two manors from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall and three in Devon are probably one man, since he held all five for twenty years, the only such Alward in the two counties, apart from one manor held by the king's thane, Alward Mart. He may also be the Count's tenant at Treworder in Cornwall and Rockbeare and Northleigh in Devon since no other tenant-in-chief had a tenant of this name in either county, and the Count himself had none elsewhere. Some of the pre-Conquest Alwards may also be Alward of Clyst. In Devon, the Count had one predecessor named Alward, on a tiny holding at Little Torrington, where Exon. names him Alward Rufus, possibly an alias. Elsewhere, most of those who held land in the vicinity of Clyst and Northleigh have been identified as Alward son of Toki. In Cornwall, however, Alward of Clyst may be the Alward at Dannonchapel, adjacent to his holding at Tregardock, and at Alverton, a substantial manor retained by the Count, around Mounts Bay from Winnianton. The Count had a number of predecessors named Alward in other counties; but the name is very common, especially in the five south-western counties of circuit two, even among survivors, who occur on almost three dozen manors there, a baker's dozen even retaining the same manors for two decades. Alward's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1699) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 147, apart from Treworder, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2080).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD <OF DUNHAM>. All Alwards in Cheshire are probably one man. Those whose manors of Dunham Massey, Bowdon, Hale, Ashley, 'Alretunstall' and Sinderland in Cheshire were acquired by Haimo of Mascy almost certainly are, his manors forming a tight cluster around Dunham itself. It is not unlikely he is also the Alward at Shurlach and Worleston, the two remaining Alwards in the county, though there are no links to confirm this; the two manors lie to the east of Chester, where Alward of Dunham had a house. A cluster of Alwards in the neighbouring county of Staffordshire are conceivably the same man, though it is perhaps more likely they are the Alward who survived at Fenton, in the centre of the cluster; there is no indication that the Cheshire Alward survived, though many Englishmen in the county did so: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 319-25.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* OF FELBRIGG *]. Alward, whose holding at Winterton in Norfolk was valued in Felbrigg, is almost certainly the Alward who preceded Roger Bigot on several components of his manor of Felbrigg; as the name is rare in East Anglia, he is probably Roger's predecessor at Yoxford in Suffolk, where he is described as a royal reeve. It is likely, too, that he is Roger's predecessor, Aethelward, at Hinton and Darsham, the Aethelward at Darsham being also a royal reeve; here at least Aethelward is probably an equivalent name, though the two are thought to be distinct: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 155-57, 188-89. There are no other Aethelwards in East Anglia but five Alwards. Some of these may be Alward of Felbrigg, particularly the predecessors of Robert Malet and Ralph Pinel, these three tenants-in-chief having a number of claims against each other; but there are no specific links to confirm an identification. Malet's predecessor retained his manor for two decades, and there is a suggestion that Alward of Felbrigg did so too. At Sustead, he 'held 3 smallholders' and 'has 1/2 plough', and Winterton 'is [included] in the valuation of Alward of Felbrigg. He also holds this.' The texts are not, however, as straightforward as they appear, 'he' being more likely to refer to the tenant of the previous entry, Stanhard. Tenses in Little Domesday are often ambiguous, but there is no suggestion in the remaining entries that Alward/Aethelward was active in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD <OF NORMANTON>. Alward, whose small manor of little more than bovate worth a couple of shillings at Normanton in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, is the only Alward in the county or on the Honour of Roger of Bully. The name is rare in the north-east; and the only Alwards in adjacent counties - all in Yorkshire, some fifty miles away - have no links with him. Alward was a thane, with his own Hall, despite the tiny size of his manor.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* SON OF ALMUND *]. Alward is a common name, but family and tenurial links suggest that all Alwards in Shropshire are Alward son of Almund. He and his father are identified as joint tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at 'Amaston', and Alward 'also' held four other manors directly from the earl. He is probably therefore the Alward holding another six manors from Earl Roger, on one of which he succeeded Almund, and probably also the Alward who preceded the earl at Harcourt. His father was a predecessor of Reginald the sheriff and Helgot of Holdgate as well as the earl, so the son may be the Alward whose manors they acquired. He may also be the tenant of the Canons of St Chad and St Alkmund at Marton and Preston Montford, and the predecessor of the Corbet brothers at Rorrington and Marrington, all four lying within two or three miles of one of his manors discussed above. There are no other Alwards in the county.
	Alwards are numerous in the neighbouring county of Herefordshire, some of whom may be Almund's son since one of them held the lost vill of Almundestune, perhaps named after his father. The manor was acquired by Hugh the ass, whose predecessor at Stretton may therefore be Almund's son. There are other Alwards in the same area, but none of the links available in Shropshire to identify them: no Almunds in the county, only one surviving Alward, and no tenurial connection other than with Hugh the ass. The manors of 'Amaston', Rowton, Benthall and Wotherton are attributed to Alward son of Almund in Coel (no. 2576) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 149; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 30642, 30659, 30670, 31089, 31106-08).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* SON OF TOKI *]. Alward is a common name, particularly in Devon; but it is likely that most if not all such predecessors of William the goat and his brother Ralph of Pomeroy are one man, Alward son of Toki. The entry for Cruwys Morchard records that it was taken from Alward son of Toki 'after King William came to England' and was held by William the goat 'with Alward's land', implying that William's title depended upon Alward. Exon. emphasises this, stating that Morchard was held 'with the Honour of Alward', a term normally used for estates comprising a number of manors: Devonshire Domesday, ii. 708-11. William acquired another eight manors from Alward, on three of which Exon. supplies his patronymic, while on another the tenant was Ralph of Pomeroy who acquired another three manors from Alward as tenant-in-chief, including one where Alward's patronymic is supplied by Exon.. No Tokis are recorded in Devon.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* THE NOBLE*]. Alward the noble, a royal thane named on two Buckinghamshire manors, is probably the man or thane of earls Harold and Algar and of Archbishop Stigand, though as the name is very common and his manors distributed among seven or eight tenants-in-chief his estate is difficult to reconstruct, most of it however lying in Hertfordshire, where his overlords and successors are all represented. On the face of it, it is very improbable that a man or thane of Earl Harold and Archbishop Stigand should also have a Mercian earl as his overlord, albeit one who died before 1066; but the location and status of Alward's manors, the divided ownership of Anstey, and the links on the fief of the bishop of London discussed below seem unlikely to be a series of coincidences.
	Count Eustace of Boulogne acquired five of Alward's manors in Hertfordshire, on all which the overlord was Earl Harold, all but one being subinfeudated by the Count to the same tenant; four of the manors are substantial, Anstey in particular being the most valuable of all Alward's manors, the one retained by the Count in demesne. Hardwin of Scales acquired the remainder of the vill, along with Luffenhall and Wyddial, all held by Alward from Earl Algar. At Patmore, the earl was also Alward's overlord on the manor acquired by the bishop of London, who also obtained Widford and Meesden - both substantial - from Alward; at Meesden, the bishop's tenant was Payne, steward of Hardwin of Scales and his tenant at Anstey. Alward's overlord at Widford and Meesden was Archbishop Stigand, also his overlord at Libury, held by Bishop Odo of Bayeux in 1086, along with Alward's manor of Theobald Street. Both are modest; but since Bishop Odo succeeded Alward the noble at Drayton Parslow in Buckinghamshire, one of the two manors where his title is supplied, and on more substantial manors elsewhere (below), it is likely these two manors are also Alward's. Of the three remaining Alwards in the county in 1066, the lord of Boxbury is likely to be the noble Alward, his successor William of Eu probably acquiring substantial manors from him elsewhere; William's tenant at Boxbury, Peter of Valognes, had Alward as his tenant on another manor in Libury. The Alward at Hormead is more doubtful, his overlord Almer of Bennington being a local magnate.
	Finally, the one other pre-Conquest Alward in the county, on the respectable manor of Mardleybury, is probably Alward the noble, his successor Robert Gernon acquiring a more substantial manor from him at Rainham in Essex. At Mardleybury, Alward still held the manor in 1086, which almost certainly identifies him as the Alward of Mardleybury who held 'Rodhanger' for two decades and Watton in 1086, both among the royal thanes in the county. He is very probably also the survivor at Reed and Libury, both vills in which he had manors before the Conquest, held by the bishop of Bayeux and Count Eustace in 1086. No other Alwards held land in Hertfordshire or surrounding counties in 1086. Four of his five tenancies lay in Broadwater Hundred, where Alward of Mardleybury was a juror: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100).
	Outside Hertfordshire, Alward's successors in that county acquired manors from an Alward in six other counties. The Essex Alwards are probably Alward the noble because his four manors there are respectable or substantial and two them were acquired by tenants-in-chief who had no other Alwards on their Honours: the bishop of London at Tendring and Robert Gernon at Rainham, the latter one of Alward's most valuable manors. Bradwell and Thurrock were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, Thurrock being five miles from Rainham. In Somerset, Bishop Odo's one manor, at Templecombe, had been held in part by an Alward, though the manor was evidently acquired as successor to Earl Leofwin; the respectable manor of Lexworthy was held by the one other Alward on the Honour of Count Eustace. In Berkshire, William of Eu succeeded Alward on substantial manors at Denford and Denchworth which constituted two-thirds of his fief in the county, the other manor being held in 1066 by Alstan of Boscombe, Alward's overlord on the manor acquired by William at Boxbury in Hertfordshire. The Alwards of Denford and Denchworth are two of three unidentified Alwards in Berkshire, the other probably being the goldsmith named elsewhere on the same fief. Finally, all Alwards in Kent are predecessors of Bishop Odo, and one of the three in Surrey. Horton, Ruxley and Charlton, the three most valuable Kentish manors, are within a few miles of each other, Horton being five miles from Ruxley which is eight miles from Charlton; Otterden and Dean are some distance away but within five miles of each other (KEN, 5,76;167). Alward's overlord at Horton was Earl Harold, elsewhere King Edward. In Surrey, where he held the valuable manor of Bramley, he is possibly also the Alward on the other two manors in the county, Peper Harrow, another substantial manor held directly from the king, being six miles from Bramley, while the anonymous manor in Wallington Hundred held from Chertsey abbey, must lie on a more or less direct line between Bramley and Horton.
	The one tenant-in-chief not represented in Hertfordshire is Walter Giffard, who acquired Horwood in Buckinghamshire, the second manor on which Alward is given his byname; he is probably Walter's predecessor on the preceding and valuable manor of Swanbourne, and the overlord at Salden in the same Hundred. He is unlikely to be either of the other two Alwards in the county, both with minor holdings as dependants of overlords of modest status. Another royal thane named Alward held a valuable manor in Gloucestershire, and a thane of Earl Algar a more modest one in Worcestershire, but their associations suggest these are other men. If all or most of the identifications suggested above are valid, then Alward the noble was a wealthy landowner before the Conquest, as his byname implies, with an estate valued at about £100, which would rank him comfortably among the wealthiest forty untitled laymen if included in Clarke, English nobility. His 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 680) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 147, apart from Reed and Libury, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 7117, 7286).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWARD [* THE REEVE *]. Alward, who held a one and a half hides at Wool in Dorset in 1086, is probably Alward the reeve, since the tax he owed in the Geld Roll for county will fit no other Alward. He may also be the Alward who held a virgate in the same vill before the Conquest: VCH Dorset, iii. 143. He might be the Alward at Rushton, another survivor in the same Hundred,, or Alward Colling, who survived for twenty years; but the name is common and there are no links to confirm an identification. Alward's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1772) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 149; Alward at Rushton is unidentified (no. 3004).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* DEVIL *]. Alwin, who held Pertenhall in Huntingdonshire before the Conquest, is named Alwin Devil in the Claims for the county. Pertenhall was acquired by the bishop of Lincoln, who also inherited the four manors of Alwin Devil in Bedfordshire, though not his other manor in Huntingdonshire, at West Perry, acquired by Eustace the sheriff. On two of his Bedfordshire manors, Alwin is said to be King Edward's man, on another he is anachronistically described as a man of the bishop of Lincoln, presumably meaning the bishop of Dorchester, Bishop Wulfwy. Bishop Wulfwy had a brother, Alwin, who held Maulden in Bedfordshire and Westbury in Buckinghamshire, who may well be Alwin Devil, as perhaps is Bishop Wulfwy's man, Alwin, at Thurleigh in Bedfordshire. Finally, Alwin Devil may be the Alwin at Keysoe which, like the adjacent vill of Pertenhall, was part in Huntingdonshire, part in Bedfordshire. If so, he survived the Conquest, on a small fragment of his previous estate. Bishop Wulfwy had another dependant named Alwin, at Goldington in Bedfordshire, named Alwin Sack, possibly an alternative byname for Devil, though the entry is sandwiched between two attributed to Alwin Devil, perhaps in an effort to distinguished two Alwins, an impression supported by the fact that all four of Alwin Devil's manors (though no other of his Lincolnshire manors) were acquired by William of Cairon, Sack's by Ivo Tallboys. Bishop Wulfwy had another brother, Godric, possibly Godric the sheriff (q.v.), whose lands were also added to the endowment of the bishopric of Lincoln. Alwin is unidentified in Coel (no. 32739)

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN DOD[SON]. Alwin Dod, who held ten acres at Chells in Hertfordshire in 1086 from Peter of Valognes, may be the other survivor, Alwin Dodson, who held Wormley among the king's thanes. Alwin Dodson's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 775) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 148; the Chells subtenancy is omitted from both.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* GOTTON *]. Alwin, who held the valuable manor of Ayot St Lawrence in Hertfordshire, is identified as Alwin Gotton in a writ of the Conqueror: Bates, Regesta, no. 321, pp. 940-41; his man Siward held land there. Alwin is described as a royal thane at Ayot, and as Alwin Gotton, King Edward's man, at Hunsdon. He had other manors at 'Oxwick' and Stanstead Abbots in Hertfordshire and Quicksbury in Essex, immediately across the county boundary from Sawbridgeworth, where he had a Freeman. His name is variously Alwin Gotton or Alwin of Gotton in Domesday, the former probably the correct form since it occurs in all three of the Conqueror's writs: Bates, Regesta, nos. 297, 321, 324, pp. 891, 940-41, 947. It is possible, even likely, that he is the same man as Alwin Horne, also a royal thane, since between them they account for all the Alwins in the two Hertfordshire Hundreds of Broadwater and Braughing. Another royal thane held Aldbury and a thane of Earl Harold held Hertingfordbury, both valuable manors, which is a large number of royal or quasi-royal thanes of the same name in a small county; but the name is very common and there are no apparent links between them.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* OF MENDLESHAM *]. Alwin, one of eighteen free men at Cotton in Suffolk added to the manor of Mendlesham, may be the Alwin of Mendlesham named at Old Newton, though their status is dissimilar.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN <OF STANTON>. Alwin is one of the most common names in Domesday Book but comparatively uncommon in the north-west, occurring just twice in Derbyshire and not at all in Cheshire. In these circumstances, the Alwin from whom Henry of Ferrers acquired Stanton and one of the five manors in Etwall in Derbyshire may be the same man. The manors are roughly ten miles apart.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN SON OF EDWY [* THE NOBLE *]. Alwin, who was preceded by his father Edwy on an unidentified manor held from Roger of Lacy in Herefordshire, is almost certainly the Alwin son of Edwy the noble who held Butterley from Roger. Roger had no other tenants of this name, and there were no other such survivors in Herefordshire or neighbouring counties. Alwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4704) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 148.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* STICKHARE *]. Alwin, whose substantial manor of Heydon in Essex was acquired by Robert son of Roscelin, is probably Alwin Stickhare, King Edward's man, who preceded Robert at Stepney in Middlesex. Although Alwin is one of the most common names in Domesday, he may also be King Edward's man at Haggeston, two miles from Stepney, and the Alwin on a second manor in Heydon, both of comparable status to his other manors. Heydon was acquired by Hugh of Bernières, who had a manor in Stepney and a tenant in the vill, Alwin son of Brictmer, who held a mill from him. If this Alwin is Alwin Stickhare, then he survived the Conquest, though only as a mill-owner. None of these tenants-in-chief had tenants or predecessors named Alwin elsewhere, except on one small holding at Alfhildestuna in Suffolk, acquired by Robert Gernon. Alwin's mill is recorded in Coel (no. 566).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* THE REEVE *]. Alwin is a common name, and not uncommon even among survivors in 1086. There are ten such in Bedfordshire, one identified as Alwin the priest and three others as Alwin the reeve. There are grounds for thinking the remaining six are also the reeve. The survivors encircle Bedford, the southern half of the county containing none, though there are several pre-Conquest Alwins there. Four of the survivors occur in the section devoted to reeves, beadles and almsmen, three holding in the same vill, Sutton, and the fourth in the adjacent vill of Beeston; one, at Sutton, had survived since 1066. The others are tenants of Eudo the steward at Sutton and of Countess Judith at Sutton and Clifton. Sutton and Beeston are straddled by the vills of Tempsford, Edworth and Holme, where Alwin the reeve is identified; and Clifton is four to five miles from Edworth and Holme.
	Alwin the reeve may also be the Alwin who held half a carucate in 1066 at Sawtry in Huntingdonshire, where Countess Judith held the main manor in the vill and a former reeve, Alwin, is named as having 'formerly' held half a hide in a writ of William Rufus: Regesta, i. no. 322. Rufus ordered the sheriff to reinstate the abbey of Ramsey in the half-hide, which may cast some light on a mysterious statement in the Claims for Huntingdonshire 'that the land of Alwin the priest was the Abbot's; and that each was the priest's and the reeve's land [respectively]'. What 'each' refers to is obscure; but it may well include the reeve's land at Sawtry. No Alwin the priest is recorded in Huntingdonshire, nor any Alwin on the Honour of the abbey of Ramsey. However, one such priest occurs in the region, the other surviving Alwin in Bedfordshire. Like several of the others, his manor is recorded among the reeves, beadles and almsmen; and like Alwin at Sutton, he survived for two decades. These links are suggestive, despite the ubiquity of the name, though it is difficult to envisage the Conqueror endowing a reeve to perform 'mass every week on Mondays for the souls of the King and the Queen'. To put this distribution in perspective, no other Alwin the priest is recorded in circuits three or six at either date, and only one other reeve anywhere at all in Domesday, though a reeve of the abbot of Ely named Alwin occurs at Melbourn in Cambridgeshire in the Ely Inquisition: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 109). Alwin's manors on fief 57 are recorded in Coel (no. 1276) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 148, apart from Beeston, whose tenant and those on other fiefs are unidentified (nos. 229, 491, 506, 557). The wife - or widow - who succeeded Alwin at Sawtry is recorded in Coel (no. 10465).

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* THE SHERIFF OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE *]. Alwin the sheriff, named as the predecessor of William Goizenboded at Guiting and 'Duni' in Gloucestershire, may be the Alwin from whom William acquired six other manors in the county, almost all respectable, two worth more than £5 each. He may also be the Alwin who preceded Gilbert son of Turold at Aylworth, where William Goizenboded was his predecessor in the same vill. Alwin is named as sheriff on the royal manors of 'Barton' and Awre, assuming that Alwy the sheriff there is a scribal error, as seems likely. At 'Barton', he leased a hide in Upton to which Humphrey of Maidenhill succeeded, so he may be the Alwy whose manor at Sezincote was acquired by Humphrey; Urso the sheriff acquired a manor in the same vill from Alwin. Similarly at Awre, submanors which he 'placed ... out of the revenue' were held by Roger of Berkeley and William son of Baderon, both of whom succeeded an Alwin on their fiefs. Alwin may also be the Alwy whose holdings at Evington and Cirencester were acquired by William son of Baderon: Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 23.
	Alwin is also named as sheriff at Wolferlow in Herefordshire, where he was succeeded by Roger of Lacy, so he is possibly the Alwin who preceded Roger at Edgeworth, which would have been one of his more valuable manors. His name, of course, is a common one, so he may have held other manors in the county, though none of these were more valuable than those assigned to him here. It has been suggested that he may be the sheriff, Alwy, who had a modest manor at Bletchingdon among the king's officers in Oxfordshire: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 42, 69. There is no other indication that the sheriff of Gloucestershire survived until 1086; but this entry is ambiguous. Although Alwy 'holds' the manor, it is also recorded that Manasseh the cook (q.v.), who was probably dead by 1086, had bought it from him, so 'holds' may be a scribal error for 'held', no pre-Conquest lord being recorded in the entry. A list of Alwin/Alwy's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 233-34, which does not include Bletchingdon, the Lacy manors, or those of William son of Baderon attributed by the scribe to an Alwy. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional holdings would raise him a dozen or more places. Alwy's apparent tenancy at Bletchingdon is recorded in Coel (no. 4312) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 149.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWIN [* THE SHERIFF OF WARWICKSHIRE *]. Alwin the sheriff, father of Thorkil of Warwick (q.v.), is identified by title or as Thorkil's father on seven manors in Warwickshire. Dr Williams suggests he is the Alwin who held land in the 'family vills' of Thorkil and his relatives: Kemerton in Gloucestershire; and Fillongley, Lawford, Nuneaton, Lea Marston, Harbury and Flecknoe in Warwickshire: 'A vice-comital family', pp. 279-82, 285, 288, 291, 294. To these should perhaps be added Fenny Compton, acquired by Thorkil, shared with a brother, and located in a 'family vill'. He may also be Alwin the sheriff who held Offord d'Arcy in Huntingdonshire, whose sheriffdom is uncertain: Green, English sheriffs, p. 48.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWOLD. Alwold is a common name which occurs in twenty-six counties, on the lands of more than forty tenants-in-chief, with significant clusters in Devon and in Somerset, where many of the most valuable manors lie; all but a handful occur south of the Wash. Eleven survivors are scattered around ten counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWOLD [* OF STEVINGTON *]. Alwold of Stevington, whose man held land in Turvey in Bedfordshire, is very probably Alwold, a man or thane of King Edward, who provided the bulk of the fief of Count Eustace of Boulogne in Bedfordshire, and almost certainly also the royal thane Aethelwold who held the valuable manor of Stevington itself, also acquired by Eustace, though the names Alwold and Aethelwold 'would certainly be deemed distinct': Round, 'Domesday survey of Bedfordshire', p. 202. He is probably also the royal thane Alwold who preceded Countess Judith on another valuable manor, at Maulden, since two royal thanes of the same name in a small county is unlikely. Neither tenant-in-chief had other Alwolds on their Honours. An Alwold, Bishop Wulfwy's man had a modest manor in Hinwick, and an Alwold survived on a tiny holding in Rushden, both within a few miles of Alwold of Stevington's manors in the same Hundred of 'Willey'; but there are no links other than proximity to connect them. A list of Alwold/Aethelwold's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 232-33, which does not include Maulden. Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Maulden would raise him approximately ten places.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWOLD [* SON OF ERNGEAT *]. Although a common name, it is likely that most if not all Alwolds in Worcestershire are one man, Alwold son of Erngeat, a thane of Earl Edwin, who held part of the royal manor of Bromsgrove alongside his putative father and perhaps a brother, Frani, both also thanes of the earl. This makes it probable that he is the Alwold who held 'Thickenappletree' and Hampton Lovett which, according to Hemming, the bishop of Worcester demanded as the price for the admission of Erngeat's unnamed son - perhaps Alwold himself - to the monastery, Erngeat refusing: Hemingi cartularium, pp. 264-65; Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', p. 22. He may also be the Alwold whose valuable manor Elmley Lovett was acquired by Ralph of Tosny, Elmley, Hampton Lovett and 'Thickenappletree' lying within five miles of each other, a few miles south-west and west of Bromsgrove, providing 'a reasonable case' for the identification: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 252. It is likely, too, that he held 'Osmerley', acquired - like Bromsgrove - by Urso the sheriff, who may have succeeded Alwold's father at Hatete. Finally, it is not unlikely that he held Northfield, almost as valuable as Elmley, seven miles from Bromsgrove, even closer to 'Osmerley'. There are no other Alwolds in the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWOLD [* THE BALD *]. According to Exon., Turstin son of Rolf acquired South Cadbury in Somerset from Alwold the bald, evidently Turstin's designated predecessor since the scribe noted where land had been added to that of Alwold. More than 75% of Turstin's fief in Somerset was contributed by an Alwold; in Gloucestershire, one of his two most valuable manors; and another in Dorset from one of the two Alwolds in the county. He is probably also the Alwold who leased land from Cerne abbey at Cheriton in Somerset, where Turstin's predecessor had a manor in the vill. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp 231-32, which does not include South Cadbury. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; Cadbury would raise him a couple of places.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWY [* OF THETFORD *]. All Alwys in Norfolk may be Alwy of Thetford. His byname is recorded on the royal manor of Stockton in Norfolk, six times on the fief of Roger Bigot in the county, and once again on his fief in Suffolk. It may reasonably be suspected that Alwin of Thetford, who preceded Roger at Hudeston, is a scribal error for Alwy, an error repeated but corrected in a later entry. Although the name is common, Alwy may be identified elsewhere with some confidence due to the highly skewed distribution of the name: only one of the twenty-six unidentified Alwys in Norfolk - too many to list here - are unconnected with Roger Bigot, who is named as Alwy's predecessor in several entries. Further confirmation of his identity - should it be needed - is provided by his relationship with his son, Stanhard (q.v.); by his post-Conquest activities in the county recorded in eight entries, and by his frequent appearance as a lord of men. In view of his numerous holdings, he is probably the Alwy who bought the large and very valuable manor of Hemsby, previously held by Earl Algar. Archbishop Stigand 'took it away' and gave it to his brother, Almer, after which 'it was in the bishopric'. It is not clear when these events occurred; but if Alwy's purchase was before1066, he would qualify for inclusion in Dr Clarke's list of landowners with more than £40 of land. Further detail on the relationship of Alwy and Bigot is provided by an early twelfth-century memorandum from St Benet of Holme: Stenton, 'St Benet of Holme', pp. 225-33. Alwy appears to have had an official position of some kind, perhaps a reeve or deputy to Roger Bigot: Campbell, 'Some agents', p. 210; Williams, 'Meet the antecessores', 285-86. He may therefore be the same man as the reeve Alwy of Colchester, the only other Alwy in Norfolk, whose one appearance in Domesday Book is on the fief of St Benet of Holme, acting in an official capacity, a series of coincidences suggesting his identity with Alwy of Thetford; his son, Stanhard, had substantial holdings in the city. No Alwy is recorded in Colchester, though there are several Alwins, two with substantial holdings in the city.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWY [* SON OF ALSI OF FARINGDON *]. The unnamed son of Alsi of Faringdon at Wallingford in Berkshire is probably Alwy, who held Milton-under-Wychwood in Oxfordshire, identified from later records as Alwy son of Alsi of Faringdon: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', p. 388 note 3. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is also the Alwy at Worton, which is possible given that he is the only other surviving Alwy in the county if - as seems likely - Alwy the sheriff recorded at Bletchingdon involves scribal errors in name and date, that Alwy probably being Alwin the sheriff of Gloucestershire (q.v.), dead before 1086. Alwy's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4745) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 150.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWY [* SON OF BANNA *]. Alwy, who held Alfoxton, Stawley and Oakley in Somerset, is named the son of Banna in Exon., as at Martock and Shapwick, where he is not recorded in Domesday Book itself, though twice named Alwin in Exon. (SO 1,27. 35,24). All five holdings were acquired by Alfred 'of Spain', evidently his officially designated successor since it is recorded of Alfred's manors of Stowey and Leigh that they had been 'added' to the lands of Alwy, identified at Leigh in Exon. as Banna's son. Alfred's fiefs in Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire came from Alwy, as did eighteen manors in Somerset, including those named above where Exon. identifies him as Banna's son. He provided more than 75% of the value of Alfred's Honour, and was his only significant predecessor apart from a single manor acquired by Alfred from Earl Harold. If Alwy of Thetford is excluded, Somerset and Wiltshire are the counties in which Alwys occur most frequently, so it is not unlikely that Banna's son held other manors there. Alwy lost all his lands; but if, as seems possible, he is the Eluui Haussonna recorded in Exon., he survived in straightened circumstances on a single hide at Banwell, a manor of the bishop of Wells. With a single exception, his overlords are not recorded; but Professor Loud suggests he may have been a dependant of Earl Harold: 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday', p. 18. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 221-22, who ranks him fifty-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen. Banwell is recorded in Coel (no. 1995) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 188, under Eluui Haussona.

.............................................................................................................................................
ALWY [* SON OF SAEWULF *]. Alwy, who held Lockerley among the king's thanes of Hampshire in 1086, may be Alwy son of Saewulf at East Tytherley, two miles away; both were held by Alwy or his father in 1066 and 1086. Another thane, Alwy son of Turber, is not recorded before the Conquest. The sons of Saewulf and Turber are the only surviving Alwys in the county. Alwy at Tytherley is recorded in Coel (no. 507) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 155.149; Alwy at Lockerley is unidentified (no. 6611).

.............................................................................................................................................
AMALRIC [* OF DREUX *]. Amalric, who held Britwell in Oxfordshire from Miles Crispin, is probably Amalric of Dreux, who held land (albeit illegally) from Miles Crispin and Alfred of Marlborough at Chedglow in Wiltshire, and from the king at Manningford. The name is rare, the only other occurrences being tenants of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire. Amalric son of Ralph, possibly a grandson of this Amalric, was a Ferrers tenant in Berkshire in the second half of the twelfth century which, together with the rarity of the name, suggests that the Ferrers' tenants in Derbyshire may be Amalric of Dreux: VCH Berkshire, iii. 401. The descent of Britwell tends to confirm this: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 325-27. Amalric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4740) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 150, 489-90.

.............................................................................................................................................
AMBROSE <OF TILSWORTH>. The name Ambrose occurs seven times, all seven tenants of William Peverel so almost certainly one man. He held Tilsworth in Bedfordshire; Adstock in Buckinghamshire; Desborough, Kelmarsh, and Mollington in Northamptonshire, and Strelley and Bilborough in Nottinghamshire. When their descent can first be traced, they were in the hands of five families, three having possibly descended through his daughters, the others being unaccounted for: Farrer, Honors, i. 154-55, 158-59, 163-64, 178-79, 222-23. Ambrose's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1665) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 150.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANDREW. The name Andrew occurs five times in Domesday Book, in three widely separated counties, on the lands of three tenants-in-chief, so perhaps borne by three individuals.

................................................................................................................................................................
ANDREW <OF CHICHELEY>. Andrew, who held Chicheley in Buckinghamshire from William son of Ansculf, has no links with his namesakes. The descent of Chicheley is obscure: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 311-14. Andrew is unidentified in Coel (no. 1346).

................................................................................................................................................................
ANDREW <OF OTLEY>. Andrew, who held a substantial manor at Otley in Suffolk from Roger of Poitou, has no links with his namesakes. Otley was later held by a family of that name: Book of Fees, p. 915. Andrew is unidentified in Coel (no. 12533).

................................................................................................................................................................
ANDREW [* OF VITRÉ *]. As the name is rare, it is probable that the Count of Mortain's tenant at Polscoe and Carbihan in Cornwall is his tenant on the royal manor of Winnianton, at Boden; the tenants of this manor frequently held from the Count elsewhere in the county. He has no links with other Andrews. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1690) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 151, where he is identified as a son of the lord of Vitré in Brittany (Ille-et-Vilaine: arrondissement Rennes).

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSCULF. Ansculf is a rare forename which occurs on the Honour of William son of Ansculf, and twice in Norfolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSCULF [* OF PICQUIGNY *]. Ansculf, the sheriff named at Bradwell in Buckinghamshire and Wandsworth in Surrey, is Ansculf of Picquigny, father of William son of Ansculf, who succeeded him on those manors and at Ellesborough in Buckinghamshire, where his byname is recorded. He was from Picquigny in Picardy (Somme: arrondissement Amiens). As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSEGIS <OF NEWNHAM>. The name Ansegis occurs twice, both in Warwickshire, on manors some four miles apart, so the tenant of Geoffrey of la Guerche at Newnham Paddox is almost certainly the Ansegis who held Harborough from the king. Harborough was in the hands of a family of that name in the early twelfth century; the descent of Newnham is uncertain: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 100-101, 193. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8851) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 154.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSFRID [* OF CORMEILLES *]. The Ansfrids at Moccas and Tarrington in Herefordshire are probably Ansfrid of Cormeilles, a tenant-in-chief in the county and in the neighbouring county of Gloucestershire. He held the remainder of the vill of Tarrington in chief, and Moccas is eight miles from the nearest of his manors, at Clehonger. The name is rare in this part of the country, all other Ansfrids in Herefordshire and neighbouring counties being Ansfrid of Cormeilles. His manors, including Moccas and Tarrington, are recorded in Coel (no. 2685) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 155.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGER. Ansger is not an uncommon name but most Ansgers are identified in Domesday Book or the satellite texts, fewer than twenty lacking bynames. Of these, six occur in as many counties north of the Thames, each on the fief of a different tenant-in-chief; the remainder in Devon. All Ansgers are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGER [* THE BRETON *]. The Ansgers who held four manors in Dorset and six in Devon from the Count of Mortain are probably Ansger the Breton, named in Exon. as his tenant on four manors in Somerset and another four in Devon. He has been identified as the Ansger of Montacute who held a manor at Preston Plucknett in Somerset and a small fief in Devon. Preston is two miles from Odcombe, caput of the barony held by the descendants of Ansger the Breton (Sanders, English baronies, pp. 132-33), the bulk of whose manors lay between Preston and those of Ansger of Montacute in Devon, Preston being one mile from Houndstone and another from Lufton. There are shared names among the predecessors, though all - Aelfric, Alward, Godric -are common in the area; and Ansger's byname has obvious associations with 'the fee of Montacute', or with the castle of the Count of Mortain, three miles from Preston, so there are reasonable grounds for an identification, accepted by J.H. Round, though he might have had second thoughts had he known that Ansger of Montacute is named Ansger of Senarpont (de Ponte Senardi) in the Geld Roll for Devon: Devonshire Domesday, pp. xxii-iii; 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 412. If, as seems likely, Ponte Senardi is Senarpont in Picardy (Somme: arrondissement Amiens), a Breton byname is problematic. The manors of Ansger the Breton/of Montacute are recorded in Coel (no. 683) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 156.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ANSGERED" [* OF WATERVILLE *]. Ansgered, tenant of the abbey of Peterborough at Orton Waterville in Huntingdonshire, is identified as the ancestor of the Waterville family by the descent of his manors: King, Peterborough abbey, pp. 24, 56; Henry of Pytchley, pp. 54-55. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies him as the Ansgered who held part of the manor of Cropredy in Oxfordshire, perhaps as the only other Ansgered in Domesday. Twelfth century sources render it as Ansered, a form which appears once in Domesday but whose derivation is equally unclear: Hugh Candidus, p. 114; King, Peterborough abbey, p. 56. The descent of Ansgered's subtenancy at Cropredy has not been traced: VCH Oxfordshire, x. 162. Ansgered's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8838) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 154.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGOT. The name Ansgot occurs on one fief and more than thirty manors, distributed among fifteen counties between Hampshire and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, with a cluster in Kent and smaller ones in Surrey and Sussex. By convention, the translation renders pre-Conquest Ansgots as Asgot, post-Conquest as Ansgot. See von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 165-66.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGOT [* OF BURWELL *]. Ansgot, who held a small fief in Lincolnshire, is named Ansgot of Burwell in the Lindsey Survey, where he held the manors of his Domesday fief and a number of others, on two of which his wife was his tenant (16/21. 17/6. 18/3;15). The name does not occur in neighbouring counties apart from a single manor in Yorkshire, held by an Ansgot Rufus. His fief was subsequently confiscated and twice re-granted. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3365) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 157.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGOT [* OF ROCHESTER *]. Ansgot of Rochester, named as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux on two manors in Bedfordshire and seven in Kent, is identified in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 103) as the Ansgot who held another manor from the bishop in Kent, at 'Howbury'; he is very probably the Ansgot of Rots (below) named in the same source (p. 95) as holding the valuable manor of Farningham from the archbishop, and he is very likely the one other Ansgot in the county, on the royal manor of Aylesford, where he held 'as much of the land of this manor as is valued at £7 near Rochester'. It is likely, too, that he is the tenant of Bishop Odo on three manors in Surrey, and probably the Ansgot of Rots who held Preston Bissett in Buckinghamshire from the bishop. No other Ansgots are recorded in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire or Kent; of the two others in Surrey, he is unlikely to be Ansgot the interpreter but might be the Ansgot who held four hides in Woking from Bishop Osbern of Exeter, though there are no links to confirm this. As Ansgot of Rots, his place of origin would be Rots in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen), a few miles from Bayeux and Caen, centres of Odo's power-base in Normandy, further confirmation if it were needed of the identity of Ansgot of Rots and Ansgot of Rochester. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 724) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 157.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSGOT [* RUFUS *]. Ansgot, who held Hamphall Stubbs in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy, is almost certainly Ansgot Rufus, who donated thraves of corn in Hamphall and Stubbs to Ilbert's foundation of St Clement, Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87. Ilbert had no other tenants of this name, and there are none elsewhere in Yorkshire or in the neighbouring counties, apart from Ansgot of Burwell in Lincolnshire. Ansgot's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8802) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 157.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF FOURNEAUX *]. Ansketil, who held Barham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is identified as Ansketil of Fourneaux in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 33), and as the Count's tenant at Swannington and Harling in Norfolk and at Ainderby Steeple in Yorkshire by the descent of the Fourneaux fee, with land in those vills: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 179-82. The Count had no other tenants of this name, and there are no more unidentified Ansketils in Yorkshire. The one other Ansketil in Cambridgeshire is probably the juror, Ansketil of Hérouville, and it is unlikely that the Count's tenant is the reeve at Melton Constable in Norfolk, or the son of Ospak who failed to render account for his three-shilling subtenancy at North Barningham, the remaining Ansketils in that county. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1181) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 152-53.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF GRAYE *]. The Ansketils who held Rotherfield Greys and South Newington in Oxfordshire from the escheated fief of William son of Osbern may be Ansketil of Graye, who held five other manors on the same fief. It is also likely that he is the Ansketil who held Chastleton from the bishop of Bayeux, since many of the manors on the escheated fief were held by tenants of the bishop, notably Roger of Ivry and Robert d'Oilly (q.v.), who may be the Robert who held South Newington as a subtenancy from Ansketil. Chastleton, which belonged to Salford, is two miles from the Graye manor of Cornwell, Salford less than two miles. The one other Ansketil in the county, a tenant of Edward of Salisbury on the valuable manor of North Aston, has been identified as the same Ansketil, though this appears to be a mistake; he is more probably Ansketil the parker: VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 9. Ansketil of Graye may also be the tenant of the bishop of Bayeux at Thurrock in Essex, and perhaps of the bishop of London in Thurrock and the neighbouring vill of Orsett. Part of Thurrock is later named Grays Thurrock; and although the name cannot be directly associated with the bishop's tenant, whose descendants have not been traced, it would be a remarkable coincidence if they were unconnected: VCH Essex, viii. 40, 59. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2718) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 151.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF HEROUVILLE *]. Ansketil, who held land at Croydon in Cambridgeshire from Picot of Cambridge and is the one unidentified Ansketil in the county, is possibly Ansketil of Hérouville, the juror of Whittlesford Hundred: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). Picot had no other tenants of this name. Ansketil is probably from Hérouville-Saint-Clair in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen). His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6644) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 151.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF RIEUX *]. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Ansketils who held land at Bexhill, Footland and Wellhead in Sussex from the Count of Eu are 'perhaps' Ansketil of Rieux, who accounted in Sussex in the Pipe Roll of 1130 and whose family appears in the early charters of Tréport abbey, founded by the Count of Eu. The three manors are of similar status, lying a few miles on either side of Battle, so were probably held by one man, whoever his descendants. The Count of Eu had no other tenants of this name. The one other Ansketil in the county had a ploughteam from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Birdham, on the other side of the county, almost seventy miles away. Rieux (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), in Upper Normandy, is a dozen miles from Eu. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 683) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 152.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF ROTS *]. Ansketil, who held the entire fief of the archbishop of Canterbury in Hertfordshire apart from two acres, is very probably Ansketil of Rots, named as holding part of Watton in the same Hundred 'under the archbishop', as well as parts of the archiepiscopal manors of Maidstone and Gillingham in Kent according to the Domesday Monachorum (pp. 85-86). Ansketil was one of the major tenants of Bishop Odo of Bayeux in Kent, with ten manors, on all of which he is accorded his byname in Domesday Book or in the Domesday Monachorum (pp. 101, 105), and at Tatsfield in Surrey. He also held Ashenfield in Kent from Christ Church, Canterbury. He is probably the archdeacon who held the valuable manor of Deal from St Martin's of Dover, to which Bishop Odo added 100 acres filched from other prebends, archdeacon perhaps of Canterbury and/or Rochester, possibly also a canon of St Paul's: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, i. 47; ii. 12, 81. There are no other Ansketils on the Honours of the bishop or archbishop and no unidentified Ansketils in Kent or Surrey, the one in Hertfordshire, a tenant of Robert Gernon, being very probably another man. Rots is in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen), a few miles from Bayeux and Caen, centres of Bishop Odo's power-base in Normandy. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 108) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 154.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* OF ST MEDARD *]. Ansketil, who held land at Wittering in Northamptonshire and Osgodby in Lincolnshire from the abbey of Peterborough, is almost certainly Ansketil of St Médard, identified by the descent of these manors: King, 'Peterborough "Descriptio militum''', p. 97; Hugh Candidus, pp. 112, 162; Henry of Pytchley, pp. 22-27. The abbey had no other tenants of this name, and there were no others in Northamptonshire, though the name is not uncommon in Lincolnshire. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2999) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 154.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* ANSKETIL OF TADMARTON *]. The anonymous man-at-arms who held Tadmarton in Oxfordshire from Abingdon abbey is identified in its house chronicle as Ansketil of Tadmarton: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 198-201. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4335) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 152.

.............................................................................................................................................
ANSKETIL [* THE PARKER *]. The Ansketils who held Clayhill, Rime, Chilton and Blackmore and eight more consecutive manors from Roger of Courseulles in Somerset are probably in most if not all cases Ansketil the parker, the scribe having omitted 'also' from the consecutive entries; the parker held Newton, Honibere and Milton among the royal thanes in the county. No other tenant-in-chief had a tenant named Ansketil in the county, neither did Roger elsewhere on his Honour. Nine of the manors form a tight cluster in Cannington Hundred, where Ansketil parcarius owed tax on a hide: VCH Somerset, i. 533. He may also be the Ansketil who held the handsome manor of North Aston in Oxfordshire from Edward of Salisbury, later held by the Trivet family who held the parker's Somerset manor of Chilton Trivett: VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 9; VCH Somerset, vi. 80-81; Oggins, 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance', pp. 95, 113-14. Ansketil's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1209), apart from Rime and Chilton, assigned to another Ansketil (no. 8845); the Coel entry revises that in Domesday people, p. 153.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNBIORN. Arnbiorn is a rare name, stated or implied once each in Leicestershire and Derbyshire, fourteen times in Lincolnshire and thirteen in Yorkshire in each of which counties, however, it was probably borne by no more than one or two individuals.

................................................................................................................................................................
ARNBIORN <OF 'AVETHORPE'>. It is likely that all Arnbiorns in Lincolnshire are one man. All but three of his manors were acquired by Robert of Tosny, the three exceptions being linked to the Tosny manors in some way. Pointon was acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques (q.v.), who is probably the tenant of Robert of Tosny on five of his holdings from Arnbiorn and probably the subject of a claim by Robert in Casewick. Of the other two, Uffington, held by Alfred of Lincoln in 1086, is in the same vill as another of the Tosny manors; and Deeping, in the hands of Godfrey of Cambrai, is linked to the others by a claim involving vills held by all three tenants-in-chief. The Claim concerns four manors of Alfred of Lincoln, in Deeping and Uffington, Tallington (where Tosny acquired another of Arnbiorn's manors), and perhaps Casewick, where Gunfrid had a manor. The manors are said not to be Arnbiorn's; and since the parties are unnamed, it is unclear who was claiming what; but as all three tenants-in-chief had manors in those vills, Arnbiorn is probably the same man in each case. As the one Arnbiorn with land in the county, he is probably also the subject of the other two Claims, both apparently concerned with manors of Alfred of Lincoln, though Arnbiorn is not named in the relevant entries. Robert of Tosny also held land in one of these vills, Kirkby Underwood.

................................................................................................................................................................
ARNBIORN <OF CASTLETON>. Outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the name Arnbiorn is rare, the Arnbiorn who shared a modest property on which William Peverel raised his castle at Castleton in Derbyshire being the only Arnbiorn other than a priest in Leicestershire. He has no apparent connections with his Lincolnshire and Yorkshire namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNBIORN <OF FRIDAYTHORPE>. As the name is rare, the Arnbiorn who held the royal manor at Fridaythorpe worth five shillings may be Arnbiorn of Worsborough, though the isolation of his manor tells against this. There is no data for an identification other than the name of the vill since the entry does not specify when Arnbiorn held the manor or to what date the valuation refers, though it is likely to be 1066 in both cases, the manor being probably valueless and without a tenant in 1086, as were the majority of those on the royal fief in Yorkshire.

................................................................................................................................................................
ARNBIORN <OF WORSBOROUGH>. With the possible exception of Arnbiorn at Fridaythorpe, it is probable that all Arnbiorns in Yorkshire are one man. All but one of his twelve manors were acquired by Ilbert of Lacy, and all are contained within a group less than twenty miles from north to south, most having other links between them. On three, Arnbiorn survived for two decades; and on one of these and four others Gamal, Healfdene and Alric - usually two of them - held part of the manor in 1066 or 1086, perhaps a family group. Three of the remaining four are within two or miles of one of these manors; only Crofton is somewhat detached, nine miles from Thornhill, one of those held by Arnbiorn for twenty years. The one manor not acquired by Ilbert lies in the same vill of Darton as another he did obtain with the same assessment and valuation and is probably a duplicate, possibly a scribal error but perhaps, as Dr Wightman has suggested, the result of the grant to Ilbert occurring while Domesday was being compiled: Lacy family, p. 27.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM. Arngrim is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief, in six counties north of a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM <OF BIDFORD>. Arngrim, who shared a modest holding worth twelve pence at Bidford in Warwickshire acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, has no links with other Arngrims, none of them nearby.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM <OF ELSTON>. The tenants of Ilbert of Lacy at Sibthorpe, Shelton and Elston in Nottinghamshire are almost certainly the same Arngrim, as also the Arngrim on a second manor in Elston, held from the bishop of Lincoln; he was preceded on all four manors by an Englishmen with the rare name of Pilwin, who occurs nowhere else. The manors and their dependencies form a tight cluster within three miles of Shelton. Arngrim is one of two survivors of this name, the other a Yorkshire monk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11668); he does not appear to be included in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM <OF MINSHULL>. As the name is rare and the vills six miles apart, the Arngrims at Wharton and Minshull in Cheshire, acquired by Richard of Vernon and William Malbank, may be one man. If so, he is the only Arngrim in the county, with no links to those outside.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM <OF WOMERTON>. Arngrim, whose manor at Womerton in Shropshire was acquired by Robert son of Corbet, is likely to be the Arngrim at Upton and Laysters in Herefordshire. All three manors were shared with an Arnketil, and the two in Herefordshire manors the fief of Roger of Mussegros, his predecessor being the only Arngrims in the county. As the name is rare, Arngrim of Womerton may also be the Arngrim at Penwardine, the one other Arngrim in Shropshire, Penwardine lying between Womerton and the Herefordshire manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNGRIM [* THE MONK *]. Arngrim, who held land among the king's thanes of Yorkshire in 1066 and 1086 in the adjacent vills of Kirby Underdale and Painsthorpe, is identified as a monk of St Mary's York in documents contemporary with the Domesday Survey: Liebermann, 'Early English document', pp. 414-16; Pelteret, Catalogue, p. 122; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 160-61. As the name is rare, he may be the one other Arngrim in the county, at Huntingdon, on the outskirts of York. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4657) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253, under the form Hernegrin.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNI. Arni is a rare name which occurs nine times in Cheshire and once in Staffordshire, the sole surviving Arni. It is possible that Earne in Yorkshire is the same name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNI <OF HIMLEY>. Arni, who held Himley is Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf, is the only Arni in the county and the one surviving Arni in Domesday Book. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that he is the same man as the pre-Conquest lord of several manors in Cheshire, some sixty miles to the north-west.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNI <OF NESTON>. As the name is rare, all Arnis in Cheshire are probably one man. Seven of his nine manors were acquired by William son of Nigel and cluster in or around the Wirral peninsular, as does an eighth, at Bagillt, acquired by Robert of Rhuddlan; the ninth, a waste manor in the lost vill of Opetone, was retained by Earl Hugh. It is possible, but perhaps unlikely, that he is the one surviving Arni, in Staffordshire. Had he survived, it seems likely he would have remained a landowner in Cheshire, where many Englishman held land in 1086: Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 32. It is even less likely he is the Yorkshire Earne, possibly the same name, whose manor liesa hundred miles or so to the north.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNI <OF NEWSOME>. Earne, whose manor of Newsome Farm in Yorkshire was acquired by Erneis of Buron, is probably - though not certainly - one of the handful of Arnis in Domesday: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 163. It is unlikely he is related to any of his namesakes, more than a hundred miles away and without tenurial or other links. He may, however, be the Eadne at Newsham, a waste manor retained by the king, roughly fifty miles away. Eadne is an unknown name, perhaps a scribal error for Earne: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 233.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNKETIL. Arnketil is a common name with a skewed distribution. Of almost 120 occurrences, more than four-fifths are in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the other seventeen being distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, all pre-Conquest landowners, the few survivors occurring in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNKETIL <OF BADDESLEY>. As the name is rare in central England, the two Arnketils in Warwickshire, whose manors at Baginton and Baddesley were acquired by Thorkil of Warwick, may be the same man, though the manors are some distance apart. He has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNKETIL <OF WELHAM>. As the name is rare in central England, the Arnketils whose manors of Lubenham, Welham and Keythorpe in Leicestershire were acquired by the archbishop of York are very probably one man. The vills are close to each other, and no other Arnketils held land in the county. The manors appear to have been added to the endowment of the archbishopric, strengthening the impression they were acquired from one individual. He has no links with other Arnketils.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNKETIL [* SON OF ULF *]. Arnketil, whose manor at 'Haggenby' in Yorkshire was acquired by William of Percy, is named the son of Ulf in the Yorkshire Claims. He may be the same Arnketil who preceded Percy at Stutton, Leathley and Rainton. Leathley, like 'Haggenby', was subinfeudated to Everard of Leathley (q.v.), and Stutton, like 'Haggenby', was one of the vills where William Malet, Percy's predecessor on several manors, held land. Arnketil may also be Percy's tenant on the waste manor of Studley Roger. If so, then he is probably the Arnketil who survived for twenty years on four manors in 'Burghshire' wapentake, where Studley lay, all situated, like those acquired by William Percy, in the area of William Malet's 'lost fee': Newman, 'Yorkshire Domesday Clamores', pp. 265-67. The one other survivor of this name, at Marton in Cleveland (29N6-7), might be the same man; but the name is common in Yorkshire, and Marton forty miles or more from the Percy manors. The Yorkshire Arnketils are unidentified in Coel (nos. 337695, 38328, 38330, 38332-33, 38389).

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNOLD. The name Arnold is not particularly common, occurring in a third of Domesday counties, on the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief. Where the name occurs more than once in a county - as in Essex, Leicestershire and Sussex - all occurrences are on the fief of a single tenant-in-chief (Suffolk has two). One Arnold held land before the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNOLD [* OF BULLY *]. Ernulfus, who held the manor of Leake in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully, may be a scribal error for Ernoldus, probably Roger's brother, Arnold of Bully, who witnessed his foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth, i. pp. xv-xvi, xix, xxiv, 207, 209. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3716) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 192.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNOLD <OF SILEBY>. The six Arnolds in Leicestershire, all tenants of Hugh of Grandmesnil, are probably one man. Hugh's wife, Adeliza, also had a tenant at Houghton in Bedfordshire - the only Arnold in the county - who is likely to be the same Arnold. Houghton was a substantial manor, as were Sileby and Alton in Leicestershire. Arnold's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3468) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNOLD <OF WALTON>. Arnold, who held Walton in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford, is probably also his tenant at Morton in Worcestershire; Robert had no other tenants of this name, and there were no more in either county. Arnold's descendants at Walton can be reconstructed for the next three generations from two Staffordshire charters: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 199-204. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3469) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF. If Arnulf of Hesdin, Arnulf of Ardres, and Arnulf the wild are excluded, Arnulf is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among five counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by that number of individuals. The name may be confused with Ernwulf.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF [* OF ARDRES *]. The Arnulfs who held Duxford in Cambridgeshire and Stevington in Bedfordshire from Count Eustace of Boulogne are identified as Arnulf of Ardres, named as his tenant on several other manors in those counties, by their descent to his heirs, the Counts of Guisnes: Book of Fees, pp. 236, 240; Round, Feudal England, pp. 462-64. Count Eustace had no tenants of this name elsewhere, and there were no other unidentified Arnulfs in the two counties. Arnulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 412) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 192.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF <OF BURGH>. Arnulf, who held sixteen acres worth seven shillings at Burgh in Suffolk from Roger of Poitou, has no links with other Arnulfs. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests his name may be a scribal error for Arnold, and that he is the Arnold of the previous entry, and perhaps the father of Roger son of Arnold (q.v.), with another manor at Strettington in Sussex. A scribal error is plausible - if unverifiable - since the scribe almost certainly committed the same error in an earlier entry, in recording Roger son of Arnold as the son of Arnulf; the correct form is Arnold, as evidenced by the descent of his manors: Eye priory cartulary, ii. 77-78. However, as Burgh is not one of those manors and the holding tiny, a scribal error is an unnecessary hypothesis. If Arnulf held land elsewhere, it may be at Freston (below). Burgh, and the manors attributed to Arnold, are recorded in Coel (no. 944) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 158.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF <OF CHEARSLEY>. As his name is rare and his manor substantial, it is possible that the Arnulf who held Chearsley in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard is Arnulf of Hesdin, who held other tenancies in Buckinghamshire and manors in the neighbouring counties of Oxfordshire, Bedfordshire and Middlesex. Chearsley was not held by Arnulf's heirs at a later date, but neither were his other tenancies: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 484; iv. 19, 147. As there are no links to confirm an identification, however, Chearsley is here attributed to another Arnulf; its tenant is unidentified in Coel (no. 1268).

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF <OF FRESTON>. Arnulf, who had a ploughteam at Freston in Suffolk, has no links with other Arnulfs. As the name is rare, he might be the Arnulf at Burgh in the same part of south-east Suffolk, the two holdings lying on either side of the river Stour below Ipswich. Arnulf is unidentified in Coel (no. 13524).

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF <OF HATFIELD>. Arnulf, who shared part of the manor of Hatfield Peverel in Essex with two other subtenants of Ranulf Peverel, is the only Arnulf in the county; he has no links with other Arnulfs, none of them nearby. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 5216).

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF [* OF HESDIN *]. The Arnulfs who held Greenford in Middlesex from Geoffrey de Mandeville and Caverswall in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford may be Arnulf of Hesdin. In Staffordshire, Arnulf of Hesdin was Robert's tenant in the adjacent vill of Weston, and a fee in both vills was later held by Arnulf's heirs, the Fitz Alans: Book of Fees, p. 974; Sanders, English baronies, p. 124. The identity of the tenant at Greenford is less certain, its descent unclear; but since the name is uncommon, and Arnulf of Hesdin held the nearby manors of Ruislip and Kingsbury in chief, he may well be Geoffrey's tenant: VCH Middlesex, iii. 209-11. Arnulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 634) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 192-93, apart from Greenford, assigned to another Arnulf in Coel (no. 5760) but to Arnulf of Hesdin in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF <OF WILNECOTE>. As the name is rare, the tenants of the Count of Meulan, who shared Wilnecote and Seckington in Warwickshire with a tenant with the rare name of Ingenulf are probably the same Arnulf; he has no links with other Arnulfs. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4758) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 158.

.............................................................................................................................................
ARNULF [* THE WILD *]. The Arnulfs who held land or men in five vills in Suffolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds, and another at Bradenham recorded in the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, are almost certainly one man, who may be Arnulf the wild (silvaticus), witness to a charter of the 1090s concerning the abbey: Feudal documents, pp. lxxxxiv, 20, 152-53. In the Feudal Book all Arnulf's manors apart from Welnetham - which is omitted from the Book - are attributed to the same Arnulf: Feudal documents, p. 20. He has no links with the other two Arnulfs in East Anglia, and the abbey has no tenants of this name elsewhere. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 897) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 193, apart from Bradwell, assigned to the abbey's demesne, and Brettenham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 12918).

.............................................................................................................................................
ASCELIN. The name Ascelin occurs almost fifty times, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and nineteen of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Somerset; all but two Ascelins are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASCELIN <OF COLTON>. The Ascelins who held Colton and four other manors in Staffordshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are very probably one man: the manors are consecutive, the fief organised by tenants; and there are no other Ascelins in the county. He may also be the Ascelin who held a subtenancy in Shropshire from Roger of Lacy, the only Ascelin in that county; the earl and Roger shared several other tenants. Most of Ascelin's manors descended to the Mavesyn family: Book of Fees, pp. 542, 544, 969, 974. They are recorded in Coel (no. 2790) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 159.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASCELIN [* OF EGGINTON *]. The Ascelins who held Etwall and Egginton in Derbyshire from Geoffrey Alselin are very probably Ascelin of Egginton, who made a grant of half a carucate in Egginton to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory, with Geoffrey's permission: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. He is the only Ascelin in the county, and the vills are less than three miles apart; Geoffrey had no tenants of this name elsewhere, and Henry of Ferrers had none of his own. Ascelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3867) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 159.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASCELIN [* OF WATERVILLE *]. The tenant of Peterborough abbey at Achurch and Titchmarsh in Northamptonshire is named Ascelin de Waterville in the Northamptonshire Survey, and Ascelin de Walterville in the abbey's list of its men-at-arms: Domesday people, p. 99; King, 'Peterborough "Descriptio militum'', p. 98. He is the only Ascelin in the county, and the abbey had no tenants of this name elsewhere. The byname probably derives from the common personal name, Walter. Lewis Loyd suggested its origin for an Aincourt tenant to be Vatierville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), itself named from an unknown Walter; but the evidence is late and Vatierville is not necessarily applicable to this Ascelin: Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 111. Ascelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3697) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 159.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASGOT. Asgot is a fairly common name which occurs approximately fifty times, distributed among twenty counties between Devon and Nottinghamshire and the lands of the king and more than two dozen of his tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Gloucestershire and Suffolk. By convention, the translation renders the form Ansgotus as Asgot for pre-Conquest landowners, Ansgot for post-Conquest. See von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 165-66.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASGOT [* OF HAILES *]. The fiefs of William Leofric (q.v.) in Berkshire, Gloucestershire and Essex were acquired from an Asgot, who may also have held William's unnamed manor in Oxfordshire, where no pre-Conquest lord is recorded. William Leofric's one other manor, a hide at Coleshill in Wiltshire, was held before the Conquest by three thanes, perhaps Asgot and his relatives, Brictric of Newton (q.v.) and Edmund of Childrey (q.v.). They may also be the three free men who held the royal manor of Sparsholt in Berkshire before the Conquest, where Brictric had other manors in the vill. Apart from these shared manors, therefore, Asgot provided William's entire Honour, which identifies him beyond any reasonable doubt.
	Asgot may also be the man of Earl Harold at Taplow in Buckinghamshire and Kempsford in Gloucestershire, where Brictric was also the earl's man. An association with Harold would explain Asgot's manor in Essex, on the other side of the country, since the county was part of Harold's earldom: Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 25. Both manors are of comparable status to those of William Leofric, and no other Asgot held land in those five counties before the Conquest, apart from Asgot (Osgot) with two houses and an acre in Colchester, possibly the same man though he appears to be a survivor. Asgot is probably Asgot of Hailes, who witnessed a Worcestershire charter in the 1050s and whose principal manor was at Hailes: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon charters, no. 1408; Kemble, Codex, iv. 139. Dr Williams suggests that Asgot was the father of William Leofric (q.v.); but William is named the son of Richard in Berkshire, and it is certain that William Leofric and William son of Richard are the same man: Round, 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 320. A list of Asgot's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 249-51, which does not include a share in Sparsholt. Dr Clarke ranks Asgot, Brictric and Edmund collectively as fifteenth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors attributed to the three of them would place the family comfortably within the top ten.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASGOT <OF RATCLIFFE>. The Asgots who held Normanton and Ratcliffe-on-Soar and their dependencies among the king's thanes in Nottinghamshire in 1066 are probably one man. He is the only Asgot in Nottinghamshire and his manors are four miles apart. He may also be the Asgot on the royal manor of Shepshed in Leicestershire, just across the county border, the only Asgot in that county; there are none in the adjacent counties of Derbyshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire or Yorkshire. Asgot had been a prosperous thane since Ratcliffe was fairly valuable and Shepshed, with a large population, had probably been substantial, though found wasted.

................................................................................................................................................................
ASGOT <OF WELCOMBE>. The Ansgots who held Meddon, Varleys and Sedborough among the king's thanes in Devon in 1086 are probably one man since the names Asgot or Ansgot are rare in the south-western counties of circuit two, occurring only twice outside Devon. Ansgot retained Meddon for twenty years, so may be the Asgot (Osgot) who preceded the bishop of Coutances at Welcombe, three miles from Meddon, and perhaps the Osgot at Oak, ten miles from Varleys. The one other Asgot (Osgot) in Devon, at Spriddlescombe, is possibly the same man; but his manor is modest and on the other side of the county. The Osgot at Shalbourne in Wiltshire is also a king's thane, so could be the Devon tenant; but there are no specific links to confirm this. Asgot's tenancies in Devon are recorded in Coel (no. 8854) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 158; the tenant at Shalbourne is unidentified (no. 16565).

.............................................................................................................................................
ASKI. Aski is a rare name which occurs once in each of four counties, on the lands of four tenants-in-chief, probably borne by that number of individuals, one a survivor. Aski 'may alternatively stand for' Eskil, though the two names are distinguished in one entry: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 168.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASKI <OF EDGBASTON>. Aski (Aschi), who shared a manor worth £1 at Edgbaston in Warwickshire acquired by William son of Ansculf, has no links with other Askis or the one Eskil in the county.

................................................................................................................................................................
ASKI <OF SUDTELCH>. Aski (Asci), who held a manor worth five shillings at Sudtelch in Shropshire acquired by William Pandolf, has no links with his namesakes. An Eskil (Oschetel, Oschil) had three manors which were in the same area as Aski's lost vill; but the name forms are so distinct, they are here treated as a separate individuals.

................................................................................................................................................................
ASKI <OF THORNTON>. Aski (Ascha), who had a half-hide worth eight shillings at Thornton in Lancashire acquired by Roger of Poitou, has no links with his remote namesakes. No Eskils are recorded in the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASKI THE PRIEST. Aski (Ascius) the priest, who survived the Conquest at Moulton in Norfolk, has no links with distant namesakes. The one Eskil in the county was his man. An Eskil the priest held land in Suffolk, but the name-form is distinctive (Osketellus) and his status higher, having 'all the other lands' acquired by Ralph the constable. Moulton is attributed to Goti, a free man on the manor, who is unidentified in Coel (no. 11136).

.............................................................................................................................................
ASLAK. Aslac is an uncommon name, rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few men, perhaps only two, both pre-Conquest landowners; the name occurs thirteen times, distributed among four counties and the lands of ten tenants-in-chief. It has left its mark on the place-names of three of those four Domesday counties and no others), at Aslackby, Aslackton and Aslocton.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASLAK [* BROTHER OF AGHMUND *]. All Aslaks outside East Anglia may be one man, a brother of the Lincolnshire magnate Aghmund son of Walraven (q.v.). Aghmund is recorded as having four brother, two unnamed, one of whom is probably Aslak, most of whose manors have associations with Aghmund or his family. His manors of Willingham, Ingham and Coates in Lincolnshire were acquired by Jocelyn son of Lambert, half of whose Honour was supplied by Walraven's descendants. Kelby, acquired by the bishop of Durham who obtained Pickworth from Aghmund, is two miles from Aslak's manor of Aisby, held by Kolsveinn of Lincoln in 1086. The overlord at Thurlby can scarcely be other than Aghmund's brother, while 'Ringstone', acquired by Robert of Tosny, lies midway in a straight line between Thurlby and Aisby, ten or eleven miles from either. Robert held the manor of Aslackby in 1086, a place-name perhaps derived from the Domesday lord or another of his family, as perhaps is the wapentake name 'Aslacoe', in which two of Aslaks manors, several of those of Aghmund, and the bulk of the Honour of Jocelyn son of Lambert lay. Ashby cum Fenby and it dependencies, acquired by Guy of Craon, is within four miles of Beelsby, held by Aghmund in 1066 and by his son Godric twenty years later. Finally, the one other Aslak in Great Domesday held Normanton-on-Trent in Nottinghamshire, acquired by Roger of Bully who probably obtained Aghmund's only manors in Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASLAK <OF "RODENHALA">. All Aslaks in East Anglia may be one man, whose manor of Rodenhala in Suffolk was acquired by Hugh de Montfort. The four overlords in south-east Norfolk, some twenty miles away, are presumably the same man, no other Aslak having demesne in East Anglia. All four holdings were in the hands of Godric the steward in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
ASMOTH [* MOTHER OF BRICTMER *]. Asmoth, who held thirty acres at Wrabretuna in Suffolk acquired by Robert Malet, is almost certainly the mother of Brictmer named at Middleton. Although held by Earl Hugh of Chester in 1086, the tenant was Roger Bigot, who claimed Wrabretuna, while the patronage at Middleton had been shared by a predecessor of Robert Malet. These are the only occurrences of Asmoth in Domesday Book or in English sources: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 168.

.............................................................................................................................................
AUBREY [* DE VERE *]. Aubrey, who held two manors in Wadenhoe in Northamptonshire from the bishop of Coutances, is almost certainly Aubrey de Vere, who had been succeeded by his son in the Northamptonshire Survey: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 366. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 181) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 131-32.

................................................................................................................................................................
AUBREY [* DE VERE *]'S WIFE. The wife of Aubrey, who held 'Napsted' and Aldham in Essex from the bishop of Bayeux, is probably the wife of Aubrey de Vere, since de Vere is the only Aubrey in the county. She was guilty of an annexation in Maplestead and Pebmarsh, where her husband in named in full. Her name - Beatrice - and her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 754) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 440.

.............................................................................................................................................
AUGUSTINE <OF STRETTINGTON>. The two Augustines and three or four Austins who occur in Domesday Book may be one man, all five or six being associated with Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Augustine at Strettington in Sussex is the earl's tenant, and the Austins at Cardington, Meadowley and Broome in Shropshire his predecessors, or predecessors of his tenants. One of these, Helgot of Holdgate (q.v.), also acquired the manor of the one other Augustine, at Barlaston in Staffordshire. Oddly, 'another' Austin shared the manor of Cardington. He is possibly a family member; but in view of the highly skewed distribution of the name, another explanation seems more likely: that the scribe has recorded 'another' Austin because he is accounting for two manors rather than because he was aware of two individuals with that name. In circuit six, the same name appears more than once on several manors, and always makes up the number of manors, most strikingly in the case of Buggi, another rare name. Augustine's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 1197) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 159.

.............................................................................................................................................
AUTI. Auti is a fairly common name which occurs almost three dozen times times, distributed among thirteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief, with one large cluster in Lincolnshire but otherwise fairly thinly spread between Sussex and Derbyshire; there are five survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
AUTI <OF LULLINGTON>. Auti, who had a respectable manor at Lullington in Derbyshire in 1066, has no links with his namesakes, though he is possibly the Auti at Quatt in Warwickshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
AUTI <OF QUATT>. The tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Quatt in Warwickshire and 'Lydley Hayes' and Leebotwood in Shropshire are almost certainly the same Auti, he being the only Auti in Domesday Book to retain his manors for two decades. It is probable that he is the subtenant of the earl at Womerton, adjacent to 'Lydley Hayes' and Leebotwood, and also the tenant of Roger of Lacy at Stanton Lacy, these being two of only three other surviving Autis in the country. As he preceded the earl elsewhere, it is likely he is his predecessor Norbury in Staffordshire. There are no other Autis on the Honour of Shrewsbury, and none in the three counties; the one other survivor, who held a single ox in Lincolnshire, is unlikely to be the earl's tenant. All five survivors are unidentified in Coel (nos. 28249, 31092-93, 31187, 34890).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* AVENEL *] EARL WILLIAM'S COOK. Earl William's cook, who held half a hide at Netheridge near Gloucester, is named Avenel in a twelfth-century charter of the earldom of Hereford: Walker, 'Charters of the earldom of Hereford', p. 54. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 29271).

.............................................................................................................................................
AVELIN [* OF DINTON *]. All Avelins in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man. His three demesne manors and the two held by his men all lie in the adjacent Hundreds of Stone and Ixhill in Buckinghamshire, all five being acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux. Despite the limited area in which he held sway, Avelin was a substantial landowner, described as a royal thane on his demesne manors, one of which - Dinton - was one of the most valuable in the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
AZO. Azo is an uncommon name which occurs a dozen times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Shropshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
AZO [* BIGOT *]. Azo, subtenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Shropshire and his tenant in Sussex, is very probably Azo Bigot, identified by the grant of land in his manors of Abdon and Longnor to Earl Roger's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 41, 43. His five Shropshire manors were held from the earl's sheriff, Reginald of Balliol. Of these, Abdon, Berrington, Glazeley, and Longnor descended to the Le Strange family; and although Shefford was in the hands of another family when first documented in the thirteenth century, the tenurial links and the limited distribution of the name Azo make it highly likely that Azo Bigot held this also: Book of Fees, p. 973; Feudal Aids, iv. 218, 223. Similar considerations suggest that he is the Azo who held Marden and Offham in Sussex from Earl Roger, though they were in the hands of the Falaise family within a generation, possibly a new enfeoffment by Henry I: Farrer, Honors, iii. 41-46. There are no other Azos in Sussex or Shropshire or on the Honour of the earl of Shrewsbury. Azo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8237) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 159-60.

.............................................................................................................................................
AZUR [* FATHER OF SWEIN *]. The bulk of the Honour of Gunfrid of Chocques was acquired from a Swein or an Azur, probably the father and son whose relationship is indicated by Swein son of Azur's possession of twenty-one houses in Northampton, the greater part of Gunfrid's Honour lying in Northamptonshire. Swein contributed the larger share; but Azur held Boughton and Newton in the county and Casewick in Lincolnshire. Father and son may be the two thanes from whom Gunfrid acquired Flore, and among the four thanes at Wollaston¸ in the county; they may even be the two Freemen who preceded Gunfrid on his Bedfordshire fief, a single manor he is likely to have acquired by antecession. Dr Williams suggests the father may be the Azur who preceded Swein at Ailwood in Dorset and also the unnamed father succeeded by Swein on three other manors in that county: 'Domesday survey of Dorset', p. 52. The relationships are suggestive but the identifiable manors of that Swein and Azur are all in the Midlands and all acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques, while there are grounds for suspecting that the Dorset father and son are Swein of Essex (q.v.) and his father, Robert son of Wiuhomarch (q.v.).

.............................................................................................................................................
AZUR <OF SLINDON>. Azur of Slindon was one of the wealthiest thanes in southern England, his large estate centred in Sussex but spread as far afield as Gloucestershire. The bulk of his manors were held directly from King Edward, though his lords on several others were Earls Godwin and Harold. The division of Sussex into Rapes which cut across Anglo-Saxon tenurial arrangements make it impossible to be certain that every one of almost three dozen Sussex holdings - too numerous to list - belonged to the same Azur; but the fact that he held from both the King and the earls in the three Rapes where most of his manors lay; that he had large manors in all of them, and that the Sussex Azurs are disproportionately numerous, indicate the majority if not all of them were his.
	The key to his identification in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Surrey, and the link between these counties and his Sussex manors, is provided by a Gloucestershire entry for Woodchester which reveals that Azur sold the manor to the Godwinsons and that it was held illegally in 1086 by Edward of Salisbury, on whom Azur's estates in Wiltshire, and two in Surrey, devolved. With one exception, the remaining manors in Surrey, all substantial, were acquired by Richard of Tonbridge; they all lay between Edward of Salisbury's two manors, this and their value suggesting they belonged to same Azur. The remaining manor, valued at £6, was granted by Azur to Chertsey abbey for his soul's sake, the act of a wealthy man, and so unlikely to be his only holding. Finally, the three Hampshire manors acquired by Hugh of Port were freehold properties of substance, as was the Berkshire manor of Eddington, retained by King William. 
	It may be coincidental but all the tenants-in-chief who shared Azur's manors held official positions, as sheriffs or lords of liberties. This suggests the intriguing possibility that Azur may be King Edward's bursar named in a Berkshire entry, who has been identified as 'probably' King Edward's steward named in a writ of 1062, and his minister named in a charter of 1059: Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 206-207. Both steward and bursar are offices held by the greatest English magnates under the Confessor, so the identification with Azur of Slindon is plausible, if unverifiable. If accepted, then Azur survived the Conquest to hold - like may of his peers - a fragment of his once extensive estate, the Berkshire manor where he is named as bursar, held as a tenant of Robert d'Oilly, though the men of the Hundred testified that he should hold it from the king, who 'restored it to him at Windsor and gave him his writ for it'. Finally, it is just possible that Azur is the same man as Azur son of Thorth, whose manors are intermingled with his in Wiltshire; if so, he was among the dozen wealthiest lay magnates of Anglo-Saxon England. Dr Williams suggests he may have been a relative of Edward of Salisbury: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 105-106. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 255-57, which does not include the Berkshire manors. Dr Clarke ranks him sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the inclusion of the Berkshire manors would not affect this, but if he were Azur son of Thorth, the combined resources would rank fourth.

.............................................................................................................................................
AZUR [* SON OF SVALA *]. Azur son of Svala, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the counties of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, was evidently an important magnate in the north-east, yet his manors appear to be few and not particularly valuable. If every manor held by Azur in the two counties were attributed to him, he would still fall a long way short of the £40 traditionally expected of a magnate of regional significance. Including the surrounding counties of Leicestershire, Cheshire, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Rutland and Yorkshire in the likely scope of his landholding, makes little difference. A solution to this puzzle was suggested by Dr Clarke, based upon an entry in the Lincolnshire Claims, which records that Robert Malet ought to have land in Ingoldsby 'through Azur, his predecessor'. Azur is not named in the relevant entry, which is a jurisdiction of Barrowby, the chief manor of Godwin of Barrowby (q.v.). Since Malet acquired his entire fief in Lincolnshire from Godwin, and nothing from Azur, it would appear that Godwin had replaced - or been replaced by - Azur. Dr Clarke suggests that Godwin was Azur's father, Svala his mother: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 378.
	In Nottinghamshire, therefore, the Azur from whom Robert Malet acquired his modest fief is presumably the son of Svala; but the remainder of Azur's estate is impossible to reconstruct, and apparently not particularly significant since there is only one valuable manor held by either an Azur or a Godwin in the county, and only one other worth more than £2. It appears that Azur may have survived until 1086, since the only such tenant in the northern counties held land at Burton-le-Coggles in Lincolnshire, previously held by Godwin of Barrowby. Azur's meagre pre-Conquest holdings are listed together with those of Godwin by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 311-12; he is unidentified in Coel (no. 33680).

.............................................................................................................................................
AZUR [* SON OF THORTH *]. Azur son of Thorth is identified by his patronym on the royal manor of Biddlesden in Buckinghamshire, where he is described as a royal thane. The manor had previously been in the hands of Earl Aubrey of Coucy, who succeeded an Azur in Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and at Halse in Northamptonshire. Despite the name-form, he is the Azur filius Torodi who held the valuable manor of Combe St Nicholas from the bishop of Wells according to Exon., his identity there being confirmed by a diploma recording his sale of the manor to the bishop in 1072: Pelteret, Catalogue, p. 83. These manors are remarkable for their very high average value, approximately £18. Dr Clarke suggests that Azur may also have held Minster Lovell in Oxfordshire, where no pre-Conquest lord is recorded, Minster being the one other manor in the county held by Earl Aubrey, and valuable (£10). On similar grounds, he may have held some or all the Northamptonshire manors of Earl Aubrey in addition to Halse, the only manor for which the pre-Conquest lord is named. This seems likely, though it should be noted that all or part of Earl Aubrey's fiefs in Leicestershire and Warwickshire were held by Harding son of Alnoth (q.v.) before the Conquest.
	It is conceivable that Thorth's son is the same man as Azur of Slindon since their manors in Wiltshire are intermingled and both had very substantial manors in that county. There are, however, no tenurial or other associations to confirm this. A Thorth who gave land in Wiltshire to Wilton abbey 'with his two daughters' is possibly Azur's father. There appear to no links to others of this name, though one held land in Northamptonshire before the Conquest. A list of Azur's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 253, which does not include Combe St Nicholas. Depending on which, if any, of Earl Aubrey's Oxfordshire or Northamptonshire manors for which no 1066 landowners are named are attributed to him, Azur would rank somewhere between twentieth and thirtieth in wealth among the untitled laymen listed by Dr Clarke.

.............................................................................................................................................
AZUR [* SON OF TOTI *]. The lands of the royal thane Azur son of Toti and his men were distributed among no fewer than nine tenants-in-chief; but he is named at least once in relation to six of them, which allows his other manors they acquired to be identified. He is named in full in Buckinghamshire as the predecessor of Robert d'Oilly, Roger of Ivry, Hascoit Musard, Martin, Bishop Odo of Bayeux and Walter Giffard, so is likely to be the overlord Azur whose men preceded Bishop Odo at Beachendon and Roger of Ivry at Beachampton in the same county, and the Azur whose demesne manors devolved upon Hascoit Musard in Warwickshire and Robert d'Oilly in Northamptonshire. He may also be the Azur whose man on another holding in Beachendon was acquired by Miles Crispin; and he is probably the Azur from whom Walter son of Other obtained his fief, including two of his most valuable manors, in Middlesex. That Azur, like the predecessor of Hascoit Musard, was a royal Guard. Less certainly, he may be the Azur from whom the Count of Mortain acquired the lands of two men in Buckinghamshire, Azur being the only known overlord of his name in the county, or indeed in circuit three. Dr William's total of 62 hides for his lands does not include the Middlesex manors but assigns to him the substantial manor of Marsh Baldon in Oxfordshire, acquired by Miles Crispin: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note 66. This is possible, as there was a tenurial link with Crispin, albeit slight, tenants-in-chief often acquiring the lands of men - as Miles did at Beachendon - but not those of their lords; Marsh Baldon is five miles from Iffley, probably held by Azur son of Thorth, though that Azur had no tenurial links with any of those who acquired the lands of Azur son of Toti or his men. A list of the manors of Toti's son is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 253-54, which does not include the men acquired by Robert of Mortain or the manor of Marsh Baldon. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Baldon would raise him five places.

.............................................................................................................................................
BADA <OF NORTON>. The name Bada occurs only twice in Domesday Book, as a predecessor of Roger of Bully at Norton and of Dolgfinn at Tapton in Derbyshire. As the vills are just a few miles apart, it is very likely they were held by one man, though acquired by different tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDRIC. Baldric is an uncommon forename which occurs fourteen times, distributed among eight counties between Kent and Nottinghamshire and the lands of six tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Lincolnshire; four manors were held by a Baldric before 1066. The name is rare in the sense that it may have been borne by only four or five individuals.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDRIC <OF HAUGHTON>. The Baldrics preceding Henry of Ferrers in the neighbouring vills of Foston and Hatton in Derbyshire and Roger of Poitou at Haughton and its dependency in Nottinghamshire may be one man. Not too much weight can be placed on the tenurial links because Henry of Ferrers could have acquired the manors as part of his territorial block in 'Appletree' wapentake, rather than by antecession: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 151-52. As the name is all but unknown in Anglo-Saxon England, it is perhaps more likely his predecessor and Roger's are the same man though the vills are forty-five miles apart.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDRIC [* OF LINDSEY *]. The Baldrics who held Hemingby, Bucknall, Horsington, Farforth, Oxcombe and Fulletby in Lincolnshire from Earl Hugh of Chester are probably Baldric of Lindsey, who granted tithes in Farforth and Oxcombe to the abbey of St Evroul. As the name is uncommon, he is likely to be the earl's tenant at Cocle in Cheshire, where his wife Billeheld was a patron of St Werburgh's: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 5, 20-21, 41. He may be the Norman tenant of St Evroul, Baldric of Bocquencé, from Bocquencé in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan), a scion of the important family of the lords of Baudemont: Orderic Vitalis, ii. 80-85; iii. 238-39; Green, 'Lords of the Norman Vexin', pp. 50, 62. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that he is also the Baldric who held Doddington from the bishop of Bayeux, which is not unlikely since the earldom of Chester had reacquired some of Baldric's lands by the time of the Lindsey Survey (17/1) and had a later interest in the vill: Book of Fees, p. 186. Baldric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2996) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 160. Curiously, Bishop Odo had a man-at-arms named Baldric in Kent who, as the name is rare, may be the same man; he is unidentified in Coel (no. 7781).

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDRIC <OF SCAWBY>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Jocelyn son of Lambert at Scawby, Bag Enderby and Hagworthingham in Lincolnshire may be the same Baldric. By the time of the Lindsey Survey, the manors were in the hands of the tenant-in-chief, who is unlikely to have lost three tenants named Baldric in the interval (1/17. 17/9). Baldric's manor of Bag Enderby is four miles from Fulletby, held by Baldric of Lindsey; but there appear to be no links between the two men. Baldric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8728) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 161.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDRIC <OF STUDHAM>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Robert of Tosny at Studham in Bedfordshire, Barwythe in Hertfordshire, and Bottesford in Leicestershire may be the same Baldric, though the descent of the three manors would suggest otherwise: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 426, 428; Book of Fees, p. 518. As Robert's tenants are the only Baldrics in the three counties, however, it is improbable they are different men. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1821) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 161.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDWIN. The name Baldwin occurs several hundred times but was probably borne by only a handful of individuals. It is a continental not an English name, which enables two pre-Conquest landowners - Abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds and Baldwin son of Herlewin - to be identified with some confidence. Together with the tenants-in-chief Baldwin of Exeter and Baldwin of Flanders they account for the overwhelming majority of the Domesday Baldwins, the remaining handful, scattered around seven or eight counties, belonging to a few minor landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* ABBOT *] BALDWIN. Baldwin, 'godson' (filiolus) of King Edward, to whom the Confessor granted (with Westminster abbey) part of the royal manor of Kirtlington in Oxfordshire, was identified by John Morris as Abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds. Baldwin, a monk of St Denys and physician to the Confessor before his appointment to Bury St Edmunds, received grants from the king which were subsequently held by Westminster abbey: OXF B8 Taynton note.

.............................................................................................................................................
ABBOT B[ALDWIN]. Abbot B of St Edmunds can only be Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds from 1065 to 1097. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 31) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 161.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDWIN <OF BUCKLAND>. If Baldwin the sheriff is excluded, the name Baldwin occurs only three times in the five south-western counties of circuit two, so it is very likely that the Baldwins who held consecutive manors on the fief of Gotshelm of Claville in Devon are one man. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be a Fleming, possibly Baldwin de Warten beige who attested a charter of 1068. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8839) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 162.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDWIN [* OF FLANDERS *]. Baldwin, who held a modest fief in Lincolnshire claimed by Westminster abbey, is named Baldwin of Flanders in the List of Landholders for the county. He may be the tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière in Yorkshire and of Rainer of Brimeux in Lincolnshire. All three are Flemings or Picards and Rainer is linked to Drogo, being one of his tenants in both Holderness, where Baldwin's tenancies lay, and in Lincolnshire. There are no unidentified Baldwins north of the Wash other than the tenants of Drogo and Rainer, and the manors Baldwin held from Drogo were of comparable status to those he had as tenant-in-chief. As all three men lost their land at an early date - another link - their identity cannot be confirmed by descent: English, Lords of Holderness, p. 140; Regesta, i. no. 212. Baldwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3047) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 161-62.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. The identity of Baldwin and his father Herlewin are well-documented. Herlewin came England several decades before the Conquest, was in the service of the bishop of Worcester and rewarded by the grant of a holding in Lyppard which his son held in 1086, albeit as a subtenant of Hugh of Grandmesnil. Baldwin himself was steward to the next bishop: Lewis, 'French in England', p. 134; Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 25.
	Baldwin's patronymic is recorded only twice, once each in Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire; but the bulk of his estate can be reconstructed from his distinctive pre-Conquest name and the links which this establish. In 1066, he or his men held lands in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire, almost all of them in the hands of William son of Ansculf or Hugh of Grandmesnil in 1086, evidently his designated successors. Baldwin himself retained only two of his pre-Conquest demesne manors, both as tenant of William son of Ansculf, which enables him to be identified elsewhere as probably the tenant of William in Surrey, Buckinghamshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire, and of Hugh of Grandmesnil in Worcestershire. It is also possible that he is the Baldwin who held part of the royal manor of Fairford and a tenancy-in-chief which consisted of a single small manor in Ampney Crucis, six and eight miles respectively from his manor at Coln Rogers, the only unidentified Baldwins in Gloucestershire or adjacent counties. Since the name is rare, the Herlewin who held Peasemore, close to two of Baldwin's Berkshire manors, may be his father or perhaps a brother.
	Lists of Baldwin's pre-Conquest manors are given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 257-58, and Lewis, 'French in England', pp. 140-41; Dr Lewis does not include those of Baldwin's men. Dr Clarke ranks Baldwin twenty-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen. His 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 8163) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 161, apart from Fairford and Ampney, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 29372, 29888).

.............................................................................................................................................
BALDWIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. B, who according to Exon. acquired many royal manors in Devon, can only be Baldwin of Exeter, sheriff of the county. The Baldwins at Larkbeare in Devon and Hardington in Somerset are identified as Baldwin the sheriff by reference to his manors of Whimple and Hemington; and the Baldwin who held Dittisham in Devon from the bishop of Exeter is probably the sheriff since Exon. identifies him as the Baldwin on the following manor of Slapton, both a few miles from his manors of Englebourne and West Prawle in the same Hundred of Chillington. The two other unidentified Baldwins in the county are probably another man. Baldwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 400) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 162.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALKI. The name Balki occurs three times, twice in Suffolk, once in Gloucestershire, all three borne by pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALKI <OF HELMINGHAM>. Balki, whose manors of Cretingham and Helmingham were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is almost certainly one man. Both manors were held under the patronage of an Aethelstan, the holdings lying within four miles of each other, in neighbouring hundreds. As the name is very rare, Balki is possibly the Dane in Gloucestershire, though there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BALKI [* THE DANE *]. Balki, who held a modest manor at Aldsworth in Gloucestershire, is described in a later document from Cirencester abbey as Balki the Dane: Cartulary of Cirencester abbey, i. 22, possibly the same man as Balki of Helmingham in Suffolk, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BARTH [* FATHER OF GAMAL *]. All Barths in Domesday Book may be one man. He preceded Ilbert of Lacy at Burton Hall, Brayton, Thorpe Willoughby, Kellington, Eggborough and Roall Hall in Yorkshire and was Ilbert's tenant in the last three vills. He is identified as the father of Gamal by grants he and his descendants made to the monks of Selby in Burton, Thorpe and Eggborough: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 194, 284-87; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 76-78. As his name is rare, he is very probably also the Barth who preceded Ilbert at Campsall, Smeaton (where he retained land as a subtenant), Stapleton, Darrington, Knottingley, Beal and Rothwell and its dependencies, all but the last clustered in 'Osgodcross' wapentake; and as a survivor with a rare name, he is probably the thane who retained Hensall in 'Osgodcross' for two decades and had a second manor there before the Conquest. Probably, though certainly, he is the predecessor of William Percy at Whixley and its dependencies in Cowthorpe, twenty miles north of Thorpe. The one other Barth in the county, at Huggate in the East Riding, is conceivably the same man, though as the waste manor was retained by the king there are no tenurial clues to his identity. The only other Barth in Domesday Book held the respectable manor of Coleby in Lincolnshire before the Conquest, shared by a man with the very rare name of Wege (q.v.) whose one manor in Yorkshire was acquired by Ilbert of Lacy and is just four miles from the nearest of Barth's manors and a few more miles from several others. It seems likely that Barth and Wege are related in some way. If these identifications are correct, Barth qualifies for inclusion in Clarke, English nobility, where he would rank among the ninety wealthiest untitled laymen before the Conquest. His tenancies in 1086 are recorded in Coel (no. 4627) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
BARTHI <OF SLEAFORD>. All Barthis in Domesday Book are very probably one man, all his manors devolving upon the bishop of Lincoln. He was a significant landowner, with full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire. The bishop acquired Holyoaks in Leicestershire from him, his entire fief in Northamptonshire, and thirteen holdings in Lincolnshire. His estate was worth almost £60, which places him comfortably among the regional magnates of Anglo-Saxon England. If listed in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank about sixty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
BASWIN <OF CREETON>. All Baswins in Domesday Book are tenants of Robert of Stafford in Lincolnshire, so almost certainly one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2936) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEATRIX [* SISTER OF RALPH OF POMEROY AND WILLIAM THE GOAT *]. Beatrix, who held Chevithorne in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy, is evidently his sister named in Exon. on his manor at 'Stowey' in Somerset. Exon. also names her as the sister of William the goat. She is the only Beatrix named in Domesday Book or its satellites. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 926) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
BENEDICT <OF DAWLEY>. Apart from Abbot Benedict of Selby, the name Benedict occurs twice, both times on the lands of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, as his tenant at Moreton in Staffordshire and his subtenant, tenant of his sheriff Reginald of Balliol, at Dawley in Shropshire, almost certainly therefore the same man. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 30780, 31408).

.............................................................................................................................................
BENZELIN [* THE ARCHDEACON *]. Benzelin, who held the church of Yatton in Somerset from the bishop of Wells, is identified as Benzelin the archdeacon in Exon., probably the archdeacon without territorial title: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vii. 25. The editors of the Fasti and Dr Keats-Rohan identify the two other Benzelins in Domesday Book, a tenant of Arnulf of Hesdin at Standen in Wiltshire and a tenant-in-chief himself at Livingstone in Oxfordshire, as the same man presumably because the name is rare, as there appear to be no other links between them. Benzelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 927) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEORN. Beorn is a rare name which occurs four times, distributed among four counties and the lands of three tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEORN <OF BEALINGS>. Beorn, whose land worth eight shillings at Bealings in Suffolk was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is possibly the bishop's predecessor at Everdon in Northamptonshire, worth five shillings; but the holdings are tiny and separated by more than a hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEORN <OF BIRCHAM>. Beorn, whose modest manor at Great Bircham in Norfolk was acquired by William of Ecouis, has no links with other Beorns, the nearest of them seventy miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEORN <OF EVERDON>. Beorn, whose land worth five shillings at Everdon in Northamptonshire was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is possibly the bishop's predecessor at Bealings in Suffolk, worth eight shillings; but the holdings are tiny and are separated by more than a hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
BEORN <OF KNOWLE>. Beorn, whose manor at Church Knowle in Dorset was acquired by Walter of Claville, has no links with other Beorns, all distant.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERARD <OF COCKFIELD>. All Berards in Domesday may be one man. His eleven holdings are all in East Anglia, the seven in Suffolk being held from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds and so almost certainly by the same Berard, whose main holdings are in Cockfield and Whatfield; the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin groups these manors together as held by the same Berard: Feudal documents, pp. 20-21. Apart from the rarity of his name, there are no links in the Domesday text between the abbey's tenant and the four Berards in Norfolk, though it may be significant that there is a suggestion of illegality in their tenures. Hindringham was claimed by the men of Drogo of la Beuvrière; Somerton was acquired 'after Tosti went from England'; and Banham was acquired by Roger Bigot's predecessor 'only after King William came to England. Berard also held a second manor from Roger. In the later case, there is a post-Domesday link with the Suffolk manors, the Cockfield family later holding a fee from Roger Bigot: Farrer, Honors, iii. 359-68. In the circumstances, it is not unlikely that the other dubious tenures were held by the same Berard. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 928) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 163.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERENGAR. Berengar is a rare name in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, possibly only three. In Great Domesday, all Berengars may be identified with some confidence, as one of two tenants-in-chief of that name; those in Little Domesday may be one other man.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERENGAR [* GIFFARD *]. Berengar, who held the substantial manor of Sutton Mandeville in Wiltshire, the entire fief of Richard of Tonbridge in the county, is the only unidentified Berengar in the south-western counties. He is probably Berengar Giffard, who held a small fief of two manors, Fonthill Gifford and Barford, five miles away. The only other Berengar in the south-west is also Berengar Giffard, with another fief in Dorset. In the mid-thirteenth century Sutton Mandeville was held from the Clares by Geoffrey de Mandeville, who then held Fonthill Gifford in chief: Book of Fees, pp. 714-15, 724, 735. Berengar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 290) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 164-65.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERENGAR <OF TOPCROFT>. All Berengars in Little Domesday may be one man, a tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds at Brooke and Topcroft in Norfolk and Mickfield in Suffolk, whose three manors are assigned to the same Berengar in the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin: Feudal documents, p. 16. The one other Berengar in East Anglia, guilty of an annexation at Uggeshall, is there described as a man of St Edmund's. Of the two Berengar's in Essex one, responsible for annexation at Chipping Ongar, is presumably the same guilty party. He is there described as a man of Count Eustace, though the Count has no tenants of this name in Domesday Book. He did, however, hold the manor of Chipping Ongar, where Ralph Baynard held a small subtenancy from him, Ralph being the tenant-in-chief at Hanningfield, held from him by the remaining Berengar in Little Domesday. The links would appear inconsequential but for the rarity of the name Berengar. Berengar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 898) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 164, where Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is 'quite possibly' Berengarius de Sap, who gave tithes to Roger Bigot's foundation of Thetford priory: Monasticon, iv. 148-49, no. 2. If so, he was probably from Le Sap in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERENGAR [* OF TOSNY *]. All unidentified Berengars north of the Thames are concentrated on the fief of Robert of Tosny in Lincolnshire and are almost certainly his son, himself a tenant-in-chief in the county, as in Oxfordshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, where he was also his father's tenant. His Lincolnshire fief consisted of a single manor, at Allington, where his father had a manor. Berengar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2465) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 164.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD. Bernard is a fairly common name which occurs more than seventy times, distributed among twenty counties between Cornwall and Nottinghamshire and the lands of the king and thirty of his tenants-in-chief, one Bernard apparently a 1066 lord, though possibly an intermediate landowner.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD [* BEARD *]. Bernard, subtenant on parts of the royal manor of Leominster at Wharton, Newton, and Middleton on the Hill in Herefordshire, is probably Bernard Beard, who rendered 5 shillings to Leominster. He held Wharton and Newton from William of Ecouis, who held the other part of Newton as a tenant-in-chief, where his tenant Bernard is probably therefore Beard, as also on the following manor of Croft. The subtenancy at Middleton was held from Durand of Gloucester, who also had tenants named Bernard on five of his manors in the county, perhaps the same man, one of whose manors, at Laysters, is adjacent to Middleton. There are no other Bernards in the county. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may also be the tenant of Ansfrid of Cormeilles at Great Colesbourne and 'Duntisbourne' in Gloucestershire, though the grounds for this are not apparent. Bernard's manors are allocated to three men in Coel (nos. 3050, 4696, 8880), one for each of the three tenants-in-chief, with a note that all three may be the same man; they are separately referenced in Domesday people, pp. 165-66.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD [* NAPELESS *]. The Bernards who held five manors in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff may be Bernard Napeless, so-named on the third of them in Exon., Baldwin's tenants being five of only seven Bernards in the county. His manors may constitute the 2 1/2 fees which Robert son of Bernard held from the Honour of Okehampton in 1166: Red Book, i. 252; Reichel, 'Feudal baronage', p. 556. The manors were in the hands of several different families by the thirteenth century; but it is inconceivable that Baldwin had five Bernards among his tenants in 1086: Book of Fees, pp. 784-85; Feudal Aids, pp. 313-14, 328-29. Bernard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1729) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 165-66.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD <OF ARLESEY>. Bernard, who held Arlesey in Bedfordshire from William of Eu, may be his tenant at Cholderton and Codford in Wiltshire, manors of comparable status, all acquired from Alstan of Boscombe. He may also be one of the two men-at-arms who held Edworth in Bedfordshire from William since his descendants held there in the thirteenth century: VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 223. Fowler suggested that the Bernard at Astwick and Henlow, both adjacent to Arlesey, is the same man, Astwick and Henlow perhaps being absorbed into Arlesey at a later date. Bernard of Arlesey was the ancestor of the Burnard family: Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 90; VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 261-62, 281; Cartulary of Old Wardon, pp. 342-46. William of Eu's tenant at Arlesey and Edworth and in Hampshire is identified as this Burnard in Coel (no. 1589) and Domesday people, p. 172; the Bernard in Wiltshire as Bernard Pancevolt; and Bernard at Astwick and Henlow as a third man (no. 1871).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD <OF CARLTON>. Bernard, who held Carlton in Bedfordshire from Nigel of Aubigny, has no links with his namesakes. Nigel had no other tenant of this name, and there are no discernible connection with the other Bernard in the county, Bernard of Arlesey, or the two unidentified Bernards in neighbouring counties. By the mid-thirteenth century, Bernard's tenancy, identifiable by its mill, was in the hands of the Perot family: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 51. Bernard is unidentified in Coel (no. 327).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD [* PANCEVOLT *]. Bernard Pancevolt, a tenant-in-chief in his own right in Hampshire and Wiltshire, is identified in Exon. as a tenant of Turstin son of Rolf at South Cadbury and Dunkerton in Somerset. He is probably also the Bernard who held Gillingham and Nyland in Dorset and Hillesley in Gloucestershire from Turstin, since Eustace and Humphrey Pancevolt held fees from Turstin's successor, Henry de Novomercato, in 1166: Red Book, i. 296. Pancevolt may also be the Bernard who held land from the Crown and the bishop of Worcester in Gloucestershire, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. The royal and episcopal manors are adjacent, two lying in the vill of Stoke Orchard, and Bernard held land elsewhere on the royal demesne. Bernard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1187) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 165, apart from the bishop's tenant, identified as another man (no. 10479); the tenant of William of Eu in Wiltshire is also identified as Pancevolt, here as Bernard of Arlesey.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNARD [* SON OF UNSPAC *]. Bernard, who held Adley in Shropshire from Picot of Sai, may be Bernard son of Unspac, later lord of Kinlet, who witnessed a charter of the Conqueror from the late 1070s. He subsequently played a part in the Conquest of Brecknockshire, so it is not unlikely that he was enfeoffed in the border territory near Clun: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iv. 185, 241-45. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31018).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER. Berner is an uncommon name. Apart from a fief in Cornwall and the East Anglian manors of Bernard the bowman, the name occurs on fourteen manors distributed among six counties and five tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by three or four individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER [* NEPHEW OF ROBERT OF PERONNE *]. Berner nephew of R. of Péronne, who held land at Appleton in Berkshire of the fee of the bishop of Bayeux, is the nephew of Robert of Péronne, not himself a Domesday landowner. Berner was also a tenant of Abingdon abbey at Kennington, Sunningwell, Boxford and Garford in the same county where his identity and manors are recorded in the Abingdon chronicle, as is their descent to his son Hugh: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 26-29, 322-23, 379, 381-82, 386, 389, 393. He often witnessed the abbey's charters. Appleton was subsequently held by the Visdeloup family: Farrer, Honors, i. 54. Berner's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1350) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 167. He probably came from Péronne in Picardy (Somme: arrondissement Péronne).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER <OF GLOUCESTER>. As the name is uncommon, the Berner with a messuage valued at fourteen pence in Gloucester may be the Berner in Herefordshire and Shropshire, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER <OF HIGFORD>. The Berners who held Webton in Herefordshire and Plaish and Higford in Shropshire from Roger of Lacy are probably one man, and the same Berner as the tenant of William Pandolf in the adjacent vills of Ledwyche and Middleton, Middleton and Higford being later held by the Hugford family: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. 10-13. The Herefordshire manors were held by the Criketot family in the thirteenth century; but may have been acquired from a collateral branch of Berner's successors, since he shared one of them with a Gerald, probably the Gerald who held Cobhall from Roger, both manors descending to the Criketot family: Book of Fees, p. 811. There are no other Berners in either county, or in any adjacent county, apart from the tenant on a messuage in the city of Gloucester, who might be the same man. Berner's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4705) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 167, with the addition of the urban property in Gloucester.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER <OF HORNACOTT>. As the name is rare in the south-western counties, it is likely that the Berners who held Nancekuke and 'Perran' from the Canons of St Petroc and St Piran are the Count's tenant in Cornwall. The Count was responsible for many depredations at the expense of the Cornish churches, from which several of his tenants benefited, and in the case of 'Perran' Bernard is explicitly stated to be holding there from the Count of Mortain. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 231) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 167.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERNER <OF THORNBOROUGH>. The tenants of Mainou the Breton at Thornborough in Buckinghamshire and Maidenwell in Northamptonshire are probably the same Berner, since Mainou had only three other tenants on his small Honour. As his name is uncommon, Mainou's tenant may be the other Berner in either county, of Walter Giffard at Lamport in Buckinghamshire, five miles from Thornborough, though the manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 234, 238. Walter had no other Berners on his extensive Honour. Berner's tenancies from Mainou are recorded in Coel (no. 8915) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 167; Lamport is assigned to another Berner (no. 11902).

.............................................................................................................................................
BERTRAM. The name Bertram occurs four times, once each in Kent and Buckinghamshire, and twice in Somerset, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERTRAM [* OF VERDUN *]. As the name is rare, the Bertrams who held respectable manors in Huish and Fivehead in Somerset from Roger of Courseulles are probably one man, possibly Bertram of Verdun, a tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire, though he came from a different area of Normandy from Roger of Courseulles. Bertram's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 761) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 168.

.............................................................................................................................................
BERTRAM <OF WORTH>. Bertram, who held a modest manor in Worth Hundred in Kent from Hugh de Montfort, has no links to the Bertrams of Buckinghamshire and Somerset. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8840) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 168.

.............................................................................................................................................
"BESI" <OF CALVERTON>. Although more than one origin has been suggested for the forms Besi, Bisi, Bosi, Beso by von Feilitzen, tenurial and other relationships suggest that the first three may be variants of a single name: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 201, 207. Besi at Heyford in Oxfordshire was a predecessor of Miles Crispin, who was preceded by a Bosi at Eaton in Berkshire and a Bisi at Stantonbury in Buckinghamshire. Miles' predecessor in Buckinghamshire is described as a royal thane, as is the Bisi who preceded Hugh of Bolbec at Calverton in the same county. Another Buckinghamshire Bisi, who preceded William son of Ansculf at Linford, was an overlord of men and a close neighbour to the Bisi on the Crispin fief. As the name is rare, Besi, tenant of Countess Judith at Whitwell in Rutland, may be the same man. A Beso in Suffolk is perhaps not.

.............................................................................................................................................
"BESO" <OF GISLINGHAM>. The Besos with two small holdings in neighbouring vills in 'Hartismere' Hundred in Suffolk are very probably the same man. The name-forms are unique; and although considered a variant of Besi by von Feilitzen, are probably a different person, if not a different name, from Besi of Calverton: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 201).

.............................................................................................................................................
BIGOT [* OF LES LOGES *]. Bigot, who held a fief in Cheshire from Earl Hugh of Chester, is named Bigot of Les Loges in the great charter for St Werburgh's abbey: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, p. 41. He also held the manor of Halesworth in Suffolk from the earl, where his byname is recorded. There are no other men in Domesday with this forename. He may have been related to Roger Bigot (q.v.). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 671) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 168; see also Farrer, Honors, ii. 238-40.

.............................................................................................................................................
BLAECMANN <OF DARSHAM>. It is likely that all Blaecmanns in eastern England are one man. All his modest holdings lay in the two adjacent Hundreds of 'Colnes' and Carlford in south-east Suffolk, all but two of them being acquired by Robert Malet and Roger Bigot, both of whom shared other predecessors and both of whom succeeded Blaecsunu of Rendham (q.v.), possibly a relative of Blaecmann. Blaecmann and Blaecsunu were both men of Edric of Laxfield for some of their holdings. One of Blaecmann's other two holdings, at Helmingham, was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who also obtained the one other manor held by Blaecsunu. Blaecmann's remaining holding, held by Hervey of Bourges in 1086, lay in the vill of Bealings where both Robert Malet and the bishop held land. These tenurial and spatial links are persuasive evidence of identity in view of the complete absence of Blaecmanns elsewhere in eastern England. As is frequently the case in Little Domesday, it is unclear whether Blaecmann survived until 1086, though an entry for Grimston appears to suggest he did.

.............................................................................................................................................
BLAECSUNU <OF RENDHAM>. As the name is very rare, all Blaecsunus in Domesday Book are probably one man, the predecessor of Roger Bigot at Offton and Rendham in Suffolk and again at Burstall, where Roger was the tenant of the bishop of Bayeux. Blaecsunu is described as a man of Roger's predecessor Edric of Laxfield on two of these holdings, and held land in Parham 'under patronage' of an unnamed overlord who may be Edric, the only named overlord in the entry. Parham is five miles from Rendham. It is likely that Blaecsunu is related to Blaecmann of Darsham (q.v.) -also a man of Edric of Laxfield - most of whose manors were acquired by Roger Bigot and the bishop of Bayeux, and possible he is related to Brictric Blaec, who held land in Depden and Thorney, the latter nine miles from Offton.

............................................................................................................................................BLAECWIN. Blaecwin is a rare name which occurs only Cambridgeshire and Suffolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
BLAECWIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. Blaecwin, King Edward's man, whose manor at Madingley in Cambridgeshire devolved upon the bishop of Lincoln, is almost certainly Blaecwin the sheriff. The tenant at Madingley was Picot the sheriff, who acquired the five other manors of Blaecwin in Cambridgeshire, on four of which he is described as the sheriff, on one also as Edward's man; the fifth Blaecwin, who held from the king, is almost certainly the sheriff, too. The Cambridgeshire manors form a fairly close grouping in the adjacent Hundreds of 'Northstow' and Chesterton. As the name is rare, the three remaining Blaecwins, all in Suffolk, may be the sheriff, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BODIN. The name Bodin occurs only in Norfolk, Staffordshire and Yorkshire, and is rare in he sense that it was very probably borne by no more than three individuals, one of them a pre-Conquest landowner.

.............................................................................................................................................
BODIN [* BROTHER OF BARDULF *]. As the name occurs only four times outside Yorkshire, where all the manors of Bodin - more than two dozen - occur on the fief of Count Alan of Brittany (6N7;11;18;38-47;49-51;67;73;75-76;78;80;91;122;135), it is almost certain that these were held by one man, identified in later sources as the brother of Bardulf, probably half-brother of Count Alan and natural son of Count Eudo of Penthièvre, despite the fact that his manors were later held by two families: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 199-200. All but two of his manors were acquired from Thorfin of Ravensworth (q.v.), his designated predecessor. Bodin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2460) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 168-69.

.............................................................................................................................................
BODIN [* DE VERE *]. Bodin, predecessor of Walter Giffard at Cawston and Shotesham in Norfolk, is evidently Bodin de Vere, named on the Giffard manor of Lynford, identified by the rarity of his name and his tenure as an intermediate landowner. He was dead or departed by 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
BODIN <OF GAILEY>. Bodin, predecessor of Robert of Stafford on a very modest manor at Gailey in Staffordshire, is the only pre-Conquest lord of this name, unlikely to be related to his continental namesakes in Yorkshire or Norfolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
"BOIA". Boia is a rare name which occurs once in Cornwall and Devon and as the name of a juror in Hertfordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
"BOIA" [* THE PRIEST *]. As the name is rare, the Boia who held the royal manor of Down in Devon before the Conquest may be Boia the priest of Bodin, with a hide on the royal manor of Blisland in Cornwall in 1086. His tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 1353) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 169.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOLLA. Bolla is an uncommon name, confined to the adjacent counties of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Gloucestershire, twenty of the twenty-three names occurring in the inner group of Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire, a distribution which suggests that most if not all were borne by one man, although the lands were held by the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief in 1086 where not held by Bolla himself.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOLLA [* THE PRIEST *]. Bolla, who held Chickerell among the king's thanes in Dorset in 1086, is probably Bolla the priest, named in the previous entry for Mappowder in 1086. He also held two manors from Abbotsbury abbey and another two among the king's almsmen, according to Domesday or Exon., all four also held in 1086; there are no other Bollas in the county. One other Bolla held land in 1086, at Appleford in the Isle of Wight, possibly the same man though there are no links to confirm this. Bolla the priest had held Mappowder before the Conquest so might be the Bolla on several other manors in the south-west. His Dorset tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1354) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 169, apart from Appleford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 6931).

.............................................................................................................................................
BONDI. The name Bondi is almost entirely confined to England south of a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash and east of the River Parrett in Somerset, with concentrations in the south Midlands and East Anglia. Within those areas, the name is common, occurring in eighteen counties and on the lands of the king and more than thirty of his tenants-in-chief; but if the manors plausibly attributed to Bondi the constable are excluded, Bondis are common only in East Anglia, with a thin scattering among half-a-dozen other counties, including three survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
BONDI <OF RAYNHAM>. In view of the distribution of the name, it is likely that most Bondis in Norfolk are one man, the predecessor of Hugh de Montfort, whose fief accounts for the majority of the names and many of the substantial manors held by a Bondi. Apart from the fourteen manors Hugh acquired from Bondi, he is named as Hugh's predecessor at Gateley, and is probably the Bondi whose manor in another part of Raynham was acquired by Reginald son of Ivo. Dr Clarke suggests that he also held Great Walsingham, which is not unlikely given that it is a reasonably substantial manor, roughly half-way between Bondi's manors of Raynham and Beeston. If so, he may have held Erpingham and Edgefield, the only other manors of substance held by Bondi in Norfolk. This Bondi was a thane and free man of Earl Harold and, like the Bondi of Great Walsingham - also a thane - was succeeded by Humphrey, perhaps Humphrey brother of Ranulf son of Ilger (q.v.). Given the distribution of the name, it is not unlikely that other East Anglian Bondis are the same man, though none of the remaining manors are nearly as substantial as several of those of Bondi of Raynham and only one - Elmham in Suffolk - has as associations of any kind with his manors. A list of Bondi's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 268, which does not include Erpingham or Edgefield. Dr Clarke ranks Bondi seventy-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen. The addition of Erpingham and Edgefield would raise him half-a-dozen places.

.............................................................................................................................................
BONDI [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Bondi the constable, who is well-attested in contemporary charters of the Confessor and Conqueror, is named as such once each on the fiefs of William son of Ansculf and the Count of Mortain, and twice on that of Henry of Ferrers, though called Boding the constable in Henry's case. As these are the only Bodings in Domesday Book and the two manors constituted Henry's entire fief, both are almost certainly scribal errors for Bondi, identified as Henry's designated predecessor at 'Alverston' in Gloucestershire. Henry succeeded Bondi on high-status manors in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, and Essex. The text for Oxfordshire is ambiguous and may include the valuable manor of Badgemore, where no pre-Conquest landowner is named, and perhaps Chalford, where Bondi may have been the unnamed overlord of the two lords said to have held it in 1066. Bondi the constable is probably also the forester Bondi who held woodland in the royal manor of Bampton acquired by Henry of Ferrers.
	As the Count of Mortain and William son of Ansculf succeeded men of Bondi the constable, the Bondi who preceded them on the valuable manors of Sutton in Somerset and Barnack in Northamptonshire may be the constable. It is also possible, even probable, that he is the Bondi who held all or most of the valuable manors - some very valuable - of Sandlings in Kent; Oakley, Stratford and Warnborough in Hampshire; Fisherton in Wiltshire; and Compton and Broadwindsor in Dorset. The half-dozen manors in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Dorset alone are worth almost £100; as a royal forester (above), the constable would naturally be endowed in those counties. His status as a lord of men further suggests he is the Bondi at Colemore in Hampshire, and perhaps on the nearby holding at Empshott. Between them, these manors account for all those held by a Bondi south of the Thames apart from one small property at Knighton, on the Isle of Wight.
	Finally, he may be the Bondi who preceded Countess Judith on several of her manors in Northamptonshire. There can be little doubt that the Countess had only one predecessor named Bondi, five of his seven holdings being centred on Earls Barton, held with full jurisdiction, the whole complex worth £16. Its status befits the constable, and Earls Barton is less than three miles from the his manor of Ecton, acquired by Henry of Ferrers. Some further if slight support for this identification is supplied by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 344-45), according to whom Judith's husband, Earl Waltheof, granted the manor of Barnack to Crowland abbey, a gift later defeated by 'the malice of the Normans'. As noted above, Barnack was held by William son of Ansculf, who presumably succeeded Waltheof, the earl's other acquisitions from Bondi remaining in his wife Judith's hands. Since Judith succeeded to several of Bondi's manors, it has been suggested he was a man of Earl Waltheof (Scott, 'Earl Waltheof', pp. 163-64), which is possible but does not preclude his identification as the constable. Of the remaining Bondis, only one - at Ardleigh in Essex - held a fairly substantial manor but there are no links to connect him with the constable. Two of the three survivors held small manors in Northamptonshire acquired by the Flemish tenants-in-chief Winemar of Flanders and Gunfrid of Chocques, both near-neighbours of Countess Judith on the continent, Winemar probably being from Lens where Judith's father was Count, and Gunfrid from Chocques fifteen miles away; Winemar was also a tenant of the Countess. Since she acquired most of the constable's manors in Northamptonshire, it is not unlikely that the two survivors are the constable, surviving like many of his peers on a tiny fragment of his once extensive estate. He may even be the one other survivor, a tenant of the bishop of Durham at Wainfleet in Lincolnshire, a county in which the Countess had a large presence and where another Flemish tenant-in-chief - Gilbert of Ghent - held land in the same vill. The few other Bondis outside East Anglia are conceivably the same man but there are no links to confirm this.
	A list of Bondi's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 266-67, which does not include the Ferrers manor of Buttsbury in Essex, Sandlings in Kent, the Hampshire manors of Colemore, Empshott and Knighton, or those in Northamptonshire which devolved upon William son of Ansculf and Countess Judith. Bondi is ranked fourteenth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would place him comfortably in the top ten. The three survivors are unidentified in Coel (nos. 27330, 27414, 33111).

.............................................................................................................................................
BORDIN <OF THORPLAND>. All six Bordins in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man, all being tenants of Hermer of Ferrers on a number of small manors in Norfolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1960) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 169.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOSELIN [* OF DIVES *]. The name Boselin is rare, all occurrences probably referring to one man, named Boselin of Dives on the manor held by his wife at Oakington in Cambridgeshire. He may be identified elsewhere in relation to his son, William (q.v.), with whom he is probably the joint tenant at Stoke in Worcestershire. Boselin's (unnamed) son also held land at Malling in Sussex from the archbishop of Canterbury, Boselin himself being recorded as a knight of the archbishop in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 105). Boselin also had houses in Pevensey, and had held land at Chollington in Sussex and a house in London which are not recorded in Domesday: Regesta, i. no. 166. His family was established in Sussex and Northamptonshire: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 37-38. He was from Dives-sur-mer in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1199) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 169.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOSTEN <OF BARNHAM>. Bosten, whose manor of Barnham in Suffolk was acquired by William of Warenne, is the only Bosten in Domesday Book; his name is otherwise unknown in English sources: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 207.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOVI. Bovi is a rare name, stated or implied eight times, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOVI <OF ARLESCOTE>. As the name is rare, the Bovis whose manors of Bruntingthorpe in Leicestershire and Claverdon and Arlescote in Warwickshire were acquired by the Count of Meulan are probably one man who may also be the predecessor of the Count of Mortain at Whilton in Northamptonshire, roughly midway between Bruntingthorpe and Arlescote, and the one other Bovi in that county, at Rockingham, retained by the king, perhaps in order to build his castle there. The one other Bovi in the Midlands, at 'Morton' in Nottinghamshire, is possibly also him, though there are no specific links to connect him. The manor is of similar status to some his manors and at no greater distance from them than some are from each other; and it may have been acquired by William Peverel because it lay in Broxtowe wapentake, the bulk of which he held, probably as part of a block grant of the wapentake: Fleming, Kings and nobles, p. 162. It is conceivable that he is also the two remaining Bovi, both in Norfolk manors, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BOVI <OF RINGSTEAD>. Bovi, who held Ringstead and Hunstanton in Norfolk before the Conquest, is stated in the text to be one man. He was a fairly prosperous landholder, of comparable status to his namesake in Great Domesday, Bovi of Arlescote, so conceivably the same individual, though there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRETEL [* "DE SANCTO CLARO" *]. The name Bretel occurs on twenty six manors in Domesday Book, on twenty-five of them as a tenant of the Count of Mortain: in Dorset, Somerset and Devon, named Bretel of Saint-Clair (Sanctus Clarus) in the Geld Roll for 'Abdick' Hundred in Somerset, where his manor of Swell lay: VCH Somerset, i. 536-37. He is assumed to be a Norman, though no specific continental origin is known. The twenty-sixth Bretel also occurs on the fief of the Count of Mortain, as a pre-Conquest landholder at Trevillyn in Cornwall. This is either an highly improbable statistical freak, or Bretel is an Englishman from St Cleer in Cornwall, not a Norman from Saint-Clair in Normandy; it is all but inconceivable that every one of the twenty six Bretels in Domesday Book should occur on a single Domesday Honour and not be one man.
	The name Bretel may be of Cornish or continental origin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 208. The earliest form of the Cornish place-name is Sanctus Clarus, as in the Geld Roll: Ekwall, Dictionary of English place-names, p. 400. A Hubert and Richard of Saint-Clair also occur in Domesday Book, both presumed to have come from Saint-Clair-sur-l'Elle in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Saint-Lô); but, unlike Bretel, both have unmistakably Norman forenames and no pre-Conquest manors. St Cleer itself is not named before the early thirteenth century; but this does not preclude its existence in 1066, of course. St Cleer is a Brittonic saint, whose name is more likely to have established itself in Cornwall during the age of the Cornish saints and the fifth and sixth century migrations between Brittany and the Celtic fringe - migrations which included 'many hundreds of emigrant saints' - than in the twelfth century: Orme, Saints of Cornwall, pp 88-89; Morris, Age of Arthur, p. 363. If Bretel was indeed from St Cleer in Cornwall, then he was one of the most successful survivors of the Conquest, with demesne holdings valued at almost £50, fractionally less than those of Kolsveinn of Lincoln and more than twice that of Thorkil of Warwick, the two best-known survivors (unless Edward of Salisbury is English). Bretel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 788) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 170, where he is identified as a Norman.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN. Brian is a rare name which occurs on one fief and ten manors, distributed among eight counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by that number of individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNT *] BRIAN. The Brians at Onehouse and Brettenham in Suffolk are evidently Count Brian, who preceded the Count of Mortain on seven other manors and is further identified by his status as an intermediate landowner and designated predecessor of Count Robert. He was a brother of Count Alan of Brittany, alleged by his nephew, another Count Alan, to have been the predecessor of the Count of Mortain as earl of Cornwall: Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 47-48. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN <OF CAVERSFIELD>. As the name is rare, the Brians who held Caversfield in Buckinghamshire and Gatehampton in Oxfordshire from William of Warenne are probably one man, possibly the ancestor of the Gargate family: Farrer, Honors, iii. 410-13. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1674) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 170-71.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY>. As the name is rare, the Brians who held Rauceby in Lincolnshire; Rudge, Weston and Levedale in Staffordshire, and Ditchford in Warwickshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3607) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 171.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN [* OF SCALES *]. Brian, who held Babraham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Brian of Scales, a juror in Chilford Hundred, where Babraham lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 28). He is the only Brian in the county or on the Honour of Count Alan. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2063) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 441.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN <OF WIDEMOUTH>. As the name is rare, the Brian who - according to Exon. - held Trenhaile in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain is probably the Count's tenant on a small fief in the county. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1358) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 171, apart from Trenhaile, attributed to the Count's demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRIAN'S WIFE. The unnamed wife - widow - of Brian who held five hides in Stepney from the bishop of London is shown to be the mother of Ralph son of Brian and his brother William, both tenants of the bishop and of Ralph Peverel in Essex, by the descent of their lands: Taylor, 'Clerkenwell', pp. 17-28. Her manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1301) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 170.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA. The name Bricteva occurs nine times, distributed among six counties between Devon and Lincolnshire and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief; there are two survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF BALDON>. Bricteva, who held a substantial part of the manor of Dorchester 'at a revenue' from the bishop of Lincoln, is probably his tenant at Baldon, where her holding may be a duplicate of that in Dorchester: VCH Oxfordshire, vii. 1. An Englishwoman entrusted with farming a substantial episcopal manor is difficult to credit, so a scribal error is possible. If not an error, then Bricteva was an unusual woman, in which case an interesting possibility arises. The one other Bricteva holding land in 1086 had a small property at Corby Glen in Lincolnshire, where the bishop of Lincoln was a landowner. This Bricteva held the property in 1066, as did a Bricteva in Hackthorn and another in Gidding, all manors surrounded by those of the bishop of Lincoln. It is just possible, therefore, they were all held by one woman who made an impression on the bishop or his officials, though scribal error in the Oxfordshire entries seems more likely, in which case the apparent links may be illusory. Bricteva's Oxfordshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3608) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 171.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF CORBY>. Bricteva, who held a small manor among the king's thanes at Corby Glen in Lincolnshire, is one of two Brictevas to survive until 1086, unless she is the same woman as Bricteva of Baldon. She is unidentified in Coel (no. 34874).

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF GIDDING>. Bricteva, whose manor of Gidding in Huntingdonshire was acquired by William the artificer, has no links with her namesakes, though it is possible she is the same woman as Bricteva of Baldon.

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF HACKTHORN>. Bricteva, whose shared a manor at Hackthorn in Lincolnshire was acquired by Jocelyn son of Lambert, has no links with her namesakes, though it is just possible she is the same woman as Bricteva of Baldon.

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF HEANTON>. Bricteva, whose virgate at Heanton in Devon was acquired by Colwin the reeve, has no links with her namesakes, the nearest roughly fifty miles away, on an even smaller holding.

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF STANWAY>. Bricteva, who held eighteen acres paying 32 pennies which was added to the royal manor of Stanway in Essex, is possibly the Bricteva at Wickford, whose holding suffered a similar fate, perhaps at the hands of the same man, Swein the sheriff; but the holdings are small and almost thirty miles apart.

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF STRINGSTON>. Bricteva, whose half a virgate at Stringston in Somerset was acquired by Alfred of 'Spain', has no links with other Brictevas, the nearest some fifty miles away.

................................................................................................................................................................
BRICTEVA <OF WICKFORD>. The Bricteva who held seventy-five acres which were added to the manor of Wickford in Essex, acquired by Swein of Essex, is possibly the same woman as Bricteva at Stanway, whose holding suffered a similar fate, perhaps at the hands of the sheriff; but the holdings are small and almost thirty miles apart.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTFRITH. Brictfrith is a rare name which occurs four times, distributed among four counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all four names borne by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTFRITH <OF CARADON>. Brictfrith, who held land valued at ten shillings at Caradon in Cornwall acquired by the Count of Mortain, has no links with other Brictfriths.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTFRITH <OF FROME>. Brictfrith, who held a modestly substantial manor at Frome in Dorset acquired by William Bellett, has no links with his namesakes in the south-west, none within fifty miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTFRITH <OF KILLINGHOLME>. Brictfrith, who shared a modestly substantial manor at Killingholme in Lincolnshire acquired by Ivo Tallboys, has no links with his namesakes, none of them within two hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTFRITH [!1! UNCLE OF SAEWIN !1!]. Brictfrith, who was succeeded on his modest manor at Swimbridge in Devon by Saewin the priest, is identified in Exon. as Saewin's uncle. He has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of them some fifty miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTMER. Brictmer is a common name, stated or implied on more than 140 manors, distributed among eighteen counties between Cornwall and Lincolnshire and the lands of more than fifty tenants-in-chief. There are significant concentrations, geographically and tenurially, particularly in Cornwall, Devon and Suffolk, which account for almost two-thirds of the names, with lesser clusters in Somerset and Essex. There are four survivors, one each in Sussex, Wiltshire, Somerset and Herefordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTMER <OF RILLATON>. The disproportionate occurrence of Brictmers on the fief of Baldwin of Exeter in Devon suggests that most if not all of his eighteen predecessors are the same Brictmer, particularly as Brictmer contributed Baldwin's two most valuable manors, and four of the six most valuable; and, if one man, the largest single share of Baldwin's fief.
	A Brictmer was also the main predecessor of the Count of Mortain in Cornwall, supplying more of his manors and a larger income than any other individual, as well two of his six largest manors, including the largest, Rillaton, one of the two most valuable in Cornwall. It is tempting to suggest that he was also the pre-Conquest lord of Launceston, the next most valuable manor in the county. This is where the Count built is castle, and no pre-Conquest lord is named. It is five miles from Dunterton, acquired by Baldwin the sheriff from Brictmer. It is impossible to prove that all the Cornish Brictmer's are the same man, though it is likely that the majority were. Seven of his manors were allocated to the same subtenant; and it is noticeable that each of the others had one reasonably close to the three large manors of Brannel, Trematon and Rillaton. Finally, although there are no tenurial links to substantiate this, it seems likely that the predecessors of Count Robert and Baldwin are the same man, not two English magnates separated by a county border, along which several of their manors align.
	A list of Brictmer's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 259-60, who includes all those above apart from Pencarrow and suggests that other of the many Brictmers in the south-west may be Brictmer of Rillaton. He mentions no specific cases, but the predecessors of William of Poilley, Robert of Aumâle, Ansger, and Fulchere have manors close to one of those of Baldwin's predecessor. None, however, are particularly substantial. The one manor substantial manor held by Brictmer in the five south-western counties so far unaccounted for - at Haselbury in Somerset - was held by a royal thane who had retained it for twenty years. It is conceivable that he is Brictmer of Rillaton; but so many of the Count of Mortain's tenants are Englishmen, it is likely that the Count would have retained the services of his predecessor were he still alive in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTMER [* SON OF QUENEVA *]. Most Brictmers in Essex and Suffolk may be one man, despite his lands devolving upon sixteen tenants-in-chief. The clustering of the name in the two counties is striking, there being only a single Brictmer in the six adjacent counties and very few in the outer ring beyond those six, providing a veritable cordon sanitaire for Brictmers, suggesting that most within the cordon are the same man.
	An initial clue to Brictmer's identity, linking three of the tenants-in-chief, is provided by the entry for the manor of Ranulf brother of Ilger at Falkenham in Suffolk, which explains that Brictmer had several lands, one part being delivered to Engelric the priest, and others to Ranulf and Ralph Pinel, among whom a dispute had arisen. Brictmer is identified on Ranulf's fief as the son of Queneva. Engelric, the major predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne, preceded the Count on the very valuable manor of Fobbing in Essex, previously held by the royal thane Brictmer, evidently the Brictmer of the Falkenham entry. Fobbing, with its free men, is the most valuable manor held by any Brictmer in Domesday Book, its lord clearly a man of substance. The other three manors Eustace acquired from him are minor holdings. The two acquired by Ralph Pinel show the same pattern, Great Bromley in Essex being the second in value of Brictmer's manors in Essex or Suffolk, Layham in Suffolk a very modest property. Waldringfield in Suffolk, the most valuable of those acquired by Ranulf brother of Ilger, was worth only £1, the remainder a few shillings each.
	These manors stretched almost seventy miles between Fobbing in Essex and Falkenham in Suffolk, most of them close to the coastal estuaries and creeks. The majority of the Brictmers who preceded other tenants-in-chief are similarly situated, or are otherwise related to Queneva's son. The Essex manors held by Robert Gernon and Ranulf Peverel lie between Chelmsford and Colchester, close to the Blackwater estuary, in a direct line between Fobbing and the Pinel manor of Great Bromley. In Suffolk, Geoffrey de Mandeville acquired Raydon, two miles from the Pinel manor of Layham, and Roger Bigot had Morston, a vill in which Brictmer was also succeeded by Ranulf. Bigot's predecessor had Ely abbey as his overlord at Charsfield, as did Ranulf's at Hemley, and the bishop of Evreux's at Campsey Ash. Roger's manors of Benhall and Bruisyard, however, had the East Anglian magnate Edric of Laxfield (q.v.) as Brictmer's overlord, as did Robert Malet's at Debenham, 'Laneburc', Aspall and Kenton and Hervey of Bourges at Tuddenham and Glevering. The predecessors of Hervey and Robert Malet also had Earl Harold as their overlord at Braiseworth (where Brictmer is surnamed Bubba) and Martley, as did Ralph of Limésy at Framlingham. Brictmer's mother provides another link between her son and Roger Bigot.
	There are also geographical links. Hervey of Bourges held in Carlford Hundred, as did Ranulf and Roger of Rames. Hervey, Roger Bigot, Robert Malet, Ralph of Limésy and the bishop of Evreux all had manors from Brictmer in 'Loose' Hundred. There is a marked concentration alongside the river Debden and above Woodbridge, half-a-dozen tenants-in-chief acquiring manors from Brictmer in this area, including the single manor of Count Alan of Brittany at Ashfield. To complete the picture, Robert Malet acquired two other manors in 'Hartismere' Hundred, Roger of Rames one in 'Lothingland', and two other tenants-in-chief a single manor each: Roger of Poitou at Hemingstone, a tiny holding but in the same area as the bulk of the others, and Richard of Tonbridge at Horseham Hall, close to the Norfolk border, the most isolated of all. The single manor of Earl Hugh at Middleton is linked to Brictmer's other holdings, being held it from the earl by Roger Bigot, part of the manor also being claimed by Robert Malet.
	This entry for Middleton introduces a second Brictmer and a puzzle. The two Brictmers are lord and man: Brictmer son of Asmoth, with roughly eight acres, a man of Brictmer, Robert Malet's reeve. No Brictmer held land elsewhere in Domesday under another Brictmer. In view of the links discussed above, it is likely that the overlord in this entry is Queneva's son, his puzzling status as Bigot's reeve perhaps referring to a period after 1066 when he had lost is estates but was retained by Bigot in a service capacity, a common enough occurrence and one repeated elsewhere on the Bigot Honour; if so, Brictmer may be the beadle associated with Roger Bigot at 'Olden'. Here as elsewhere, Little Domesday is ambiguous in the matter of the dates, especially for the holdings of free men, and it is possible that Brictmer survived until 1086 as Bigot's reeve and as a free man, at Benhall, Falkenham, Kembroke, Hemingstone, Wetheringsett or Rickinghall. His man at Middleton may be the Brictmer in some of these cases as there appears to be no criteria for distinguishing him from his overlord; Middleton, however, may equally have been the only property of Asmoth's son; his mother's holding was modest. Either way, the affect on the value of the estate of Queneva's son would be minimal.
	As mentioned above, the six counties adjacent to Essex and Suffolk include only one Brictmer, at West Bedfont in Middlesex. He, too, may be Queneva's son, since his manor is substantial and his overlord Earl Harold, the overlord of manors acquired by Robert Malet, Ralph of Limésy and Hervey of Bourges in Suffolk. Earl Harold was also the overlord of Brictmers in Sussex and Herefordshire. In Sussex, Brictmer held Wantley from Azur of Slindon (q.v.), who in turn held it from Earl Harold, so he is likely to be the same man as the two remaining Brictmers in the county, at Cokeham and Ovingdean, both of whom had Azur as their lord. Brictmer retained Ovingdean for two decades, as a man of Azur of Slindon in 1066 and as a subtenant of William of Warenne twenty years later, the only Brictmer on the Warenne Honour. In Herefordshire, he held Castle Frome from Earl Harold, and is probably the Brictmer who held the following manor of Munsley, both acquired by Roger of Lacy, and perhaps also the Brictmer at Hopton Sollers, four miles away, both Munsley and Hopton being held free of lordship and three respectable manors. Unless there are two royal thanes named Brictmer, he is also the Brictmer at Hadzor in Worcestershire. There are other manors in Herefordshire and Worcestershire some of which may have been his, a not unlikely possibility in view of the fact that he accounts for all the Brictmers in Sussex, Middlesex, Gloucestershire (below), Essex and all but one or very few of the large number of Brictmers in Suffolk; but there are no links to support an identification in these five cases. There are no links, either, to identify the three Brictmers in Gloucestershire, two on the neighbouring manors of Ebrington and Charingworth, the third at Batsford, five miles to the south. All three are valuable- the most valuable manors held by an as-yet-unidentified Brictmer (£28 between them) - so were probably held by one man though devolving on three tenants-in-chief. If, as suggested, Queneva's son was a landholder in the west of England, their status suggests he may be that man.
	If these identifications are valid, Brictmer was a major landowner, with a manorial income of more than £100, which would rank him among the three dozen wealthiest untitled laymen in 1066 if included in Clarke, English nobility. The tenant at Ovingdean is unidentified in Coel (no. 16350).

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC. Brictric is a very common name which occurs roughly three hundred times, distributed among twenty-three counties and the lands of the king and more than seventy of his tenants-in-chief. The name is almost entirely confined to England south of the Wash, with concentrations in Buckinghamshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Somerset and Suffolk. Almost two dozen manors were held by survivors, the bulk of them shared between three men.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC [* BROTHER OF ALWY *]. Dr Williams suggests that the Brictric who preceded Edward of Salisbury on the fairly valuable manor of Lus Hill in Wiltshire may be the king's thane Brictric brother of Alwy who held Trowbridge and several other substantial manors in 1086, his estate later forming part of the Honour of Trowbridge held by Edward's descendants. She also suggests he and his brother Alwy may have been Edward's relatives: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 105. There are no other Brictrics on Edward's Honour; another king's thane, Brictric of Newton, held substantial manors and survived in the region for two decades, but family relationships would seem to preclude identifying him as the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC [* FATHER OF AELFRIC *]. Brictric, who was preceded on the manor Scepeworde in Somerset by Aelfric, is presumably the Brictric father of Aelfric at Lydford, the previous entry, named in Exon.. No other Brictric was preceded by an Aelfric (or Aelric or Alric) in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC <OF NEWTON>. Brictric, whose manors in Hampshire, Berkshire and Herefordshire constituted the fiefs of Turstin son of Rolf in those counties, is evidently Turstin's designated predecessor, and so probably the Brictric who preceded him at Kimble in Buckinghamshire, and Hasfield and Oakley in Gloucestershire, most of them high-status manors. Although often referred to simply as a free man, he is designated a royal thane at Kimble.
	Brictric is probably also one of the three thanes whose share in a hide at Coleshill in Wiltshire was acquired by Turstin, the other thanes being Asgot of Hailes (q.v.) and Edmund of Childrey (q.v.), perhaps his brothers, also wealthy landowners. They may be the three free men who held the valuable royal manor of Sparsholt in Berkshire, Brictric having a second manor in the vill acquired by Turstin, and possibly a third, another valuable manor, acquired from a Brictric by Hascoit Musard. Brictric's family connections suggest he is the Brictric among the king's thanes at Leckhampton in Gloucestershire, where Asgot of Hailes had a manor. If so, he was still alive in 1086 since he held Leckhampton at both dates, which makes it likely he is the king's thane Brictric who survived for twenty years at Woodchester and Wheatenhurst, the only such Brictric in the county, these three manors being only three in the county held by a Brictric for two decades and the only substantial manors held by a Brictric for that period anywhere in the country (there are four less manors, in Cornwall and Somerset). There are no other Brictrics on Turstin's Honour; another king's thane, Brictric brother of Alwy, held substantial manors and survived in the region for two decades, but family relationships would seem to preclude identifying him as the same man.
	A list of Brictric's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 249-51, which does not include Leckhampton, Woodchester and Wheatenhurst, or a share in Sparsholt. Dr Williams, who refers to Brictric as Brictric of Leckhampton, attributes all but Woodchester and Wheatenhurst to him: 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', pp. 24-25. Dr Clarke ranks Asgot, Brictric and Edmund collectively as fifteenth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors attributed to the three of them would place the family comfortably within the top ten.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC <OF WADDESDON>. Tenurial and distributional patterns suggest that all but one of the manors and men held by Brictric in the four adjacent counties of Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire were held by one man, the Brictric at Waddesdon, one of the three most valuable manors in Buckinghamshire. Although his lands devolved upon eight or nine tenants-in-chief, his estate may be largely reconstructed from his description as a man of Queen Edith, some of whose manors were acquired by the Count of Mortain in Hertfordshire; Robert d'Oilly, Miles Crispin and Hugh of Bolbec in Buckinghamshire; and Osbern son of Richard in Worcestershire. Apart from Robert d'Oilly, these tenants-in-chief - particularly Robert's son-in-law Miles Crispin - acquired the lands of many of Brictric's men - too numerous to list here - as did Odo of Bayeux, William son of Ansculf and Turstin Mantle. Further links between these three and Brictric of Waddesdon are indicated by their holdings in the vills of Beachendon, Chesham, Littlecote and Marston, where d'Oilly, Crispin and Bolbec succeeded Brictric of Waddesdon. William also acquired Brictric's men in Hollingdon and Swanbourne. Of the two remaining Brictrics in the county, the overlord at Helsthorpe may be Brictric of Waddesdon, Helsthorpe farm (in Wingrave) lying between his manors of Wingrave and Horton, a couple of miles from either; Kimble probably belonged to Brictric of Newton whose family relationships suggest he is another individual.
	In Bedfordshire, too, the three unidentified Brictrics are probably Brictric of Waddesdon, the demesne manor of Clapham, one of the most valuable in the county, devolving upon his principal successor, Miles Crispin. Of the other two, both held by his men, one at Thurleigh was acquired by Crispin, while Milton Ernest lay between Clapham and Thurleigh, three miles from either. In Oxfordshire, the holdings of the only Brictrics in the county were acquired by Miles Crispin. Finally, 'a widow of Brictric's held this land' at Drayton Beauchamp, two and three miles respectively from his manors at Tring and Marsworth, so very likely his widow given his dominance in the area. If so, Brictric may have been dead by 1066, though 'held' may, as it occasionally did, refer to an intermediate date rather than the customary 'before 1066' or his wife's widowhood may simply be hindsight. No Brictrics survived until 1086 in the counties where he held land twenty years previously. If these identifications are broadly correct, Brictric was the wealthiest landowner in Buckinghamshire before the Conquest - ahead of the king, the queen and the earls - and the wealthiest untitled layman in the four counties as a group. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 262-64, which does not include Stewkely or his men at Whaddon, Chesham and Helsthorpe. Dr Clarke ranks him thirty-fifth in wealth untitled laymen; the addition of Stewkely would raise him one place.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC [* SON OF ALGAR *]. The estates of Brictric son of Algar have been reconstructed by Dr Williams: 'West-country magnate', pp. 41-68. In Gloucestershire, where his byname is given, he was succeeded on the bulk of his lands by Queen Matilda, a link which identifies him as the Brictric whose lands were acquired by the queen in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire. His association with the queen also identifies him as the Brictric at Tarrant in Dorset and Umberleigh in Devon, both held in 1086 by the queen's foundation of La Trinité of Caen; and at Northam, held by St Stephens, Caen. Brictric is named in Exon. as the son of Algar on the fief of Walter of Claville at Leigh in Devon which, together with the association of the queen with his brother Gotshelm of Claville on several royal manors in the county, suggest that other Brictrics on their fiefs may be Algar's son. The interrelationships of the Clavilles with Ansger of Montacute and Odo son of Gamalin make it likely that their predecessor, Brictric, was also the son of Algar; and a possible link between Odo and Poltimore suggests that he may be the Brictric who held a substantial manor in that vill, a few miles from a cluster of Odo's holdings. Land recorded as 'added' to Brictric's manors on the fiefs of the Clavilles and Ansger suggests that 'most of their manors had probably belonged to him': Williams, 'West-country magnate', p. 49, presumably as an unnamed overlord. Other lands 'added' to Brictric's are also recorded on the fief of Humphrey the chamberlain in Somerset. Finally, Dr Williams demonstrates that the past history of Boveridge and Dewlish in Dorset identifies their pre-Conquest lord as Brictric son of Algar, while the Brictric who held the royal manors of Bushley, Hanley and Forthampton in Herefordshire can be identified by the reference to those manors in the folios of other counties, where his byname is recorded.
	Lists of Brictric's manors are given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 260-62, and Williams, 'West-country magnate', pp. 63-68. Dr Williams does not include Knighton in Hampshire, listed by Dr Clarke, who does not include the following manors listed by Williams and included here: Dewlish and Afflington in Dorset; Down St Mary in Devon; the Devonshire holdings acquired by the Clavilles, Ansger of Montacute and Odo son of Gamalin; and Acton and Wickwar in Gloucestershire; neither Clarke or Williams include Poltimore. Clarke ranks Brictric as the wealthiest untitled layman, only six earls or their wives exceeding his manorial income; the additional manors would raise him above an earl and a Countess.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTRIC [* THE CORNISHMAN *]. Brictric, who held a small fief in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain, is probably Brictric the Cornishman (Walensis), identified by J.H. Round from charters dealing with the land transactions of Brictric's nephew, Bernard the scribe: Round, 'Bernard', pp. 418-20. He is very probably also the one other tenant of this name in the county, the Brictric who held parts of the royal manor of Winnianton, his holding there at Bojorrow (Bodeworwei) possibly being the Botwei acquired by Bernard: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 122-23. Brictric had held two of the manors on his fief in 1066, so he may be the Brictric who according to Exon. held Coswarth, taken from St Petroc's by the Count of Mortain and held by his (unnamed) men. The Count's tenants were often endowed by him with parts of the royal manor and of the churches. Count Robert had four other Brictrics on his Honour, in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Suffolk, none of them survivors and all very unlikely to be the Cornishman. Brictric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 244) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 170.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTSI. Brictsi is a moderately common name which occurs twenty-nine times, distributed among fourteen counties and the lands of the king and seventeen of his tenants-in-chief, all but five occurring south of the Thames where all the valuable manors lay; one Brictsi survived.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTSI <OF TRESPARRETT>. It is probable that the predecessor of Iovin the craftsman on a group of three holdings in the neighbourhood of St Gennys is the same Brictsi. He may be the one other Bricsti in Cornwall, the tenant near the Lizard, though the modest scale of their properties and the distance separating them suggests otherwise. The latter consideration applies with greater force to the one other Brictsi on the Count's Honour, at Itford in Sussex.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTSI <OF TORWORTH>. Brictsi, who shared a modest holding at Torworth in Nottinghamshire acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with other Brictsis, all remote. Roger had no other Brictsis on his Honour, and there were no more north of the Trent.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTSI <OF TREMBRAZE>. Brictsi, who held part of the royal manor of Winnianton at Trembraze in Cornwall in 1086, may be the pre-Conquest lord of several manors in the county, Brictsi of St Gennys, though the very modest scale of their properties and the distance separating them suggests otherwise. Brictsi is unidentified in Coel (no. 2067).

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTSI [* THE NOBLE *]. In view of the distribution of the name and the status of his manors, it is likely that most if not all Brictsis in Kent, Sussex and Surrey are Brictsi the noble, so-named as having full jurisdiction in western Kent and on his manors of Lullingstone, Plumstead and Seal in the county, and at Stoke d'Abernon in Surrey. The Kentish manors devolved on Odo of Bayeux, who held the remaining manors of a Brictsi in Kent, at Greenwich and Horton. He also acquired from Brictsi Hatcham in Surrey, a mile from Greenwich and five from Plumstead; Hatcham and Greenwich were subinfeudated to the bishop of Lisieux. The other manors of Brictsi in Surrey were held by Walter son of Other in 1086, at Compton and Horsley; both are substantial, Horsley being seven miles from Stoke d'Abernon.
	In Sussex the allocation of each of the Rapes to a single tenant-in-chief obliterated much of the Anglo-Saxon tenurial pattern on which identifications are often based; but the Brictsi who held the valuable manors of Stoke and Thakeham is more likely to be Brictsi the noble than a second magnate of this name. He possibly held the one remaining manor in the county, at Itford, acquired by the Count of Mortain. Of the three tenants-in-chief involved, only the Count and other Brictsis on his Honour, on very modest holdings in Cornwall and most unlikely to be the noble Brictsi. Elsewhere, the most valuable manors devolved upon a number of different tenants-in-chief. Those valued at £8 or more were acquired by Aelfric Small in Hampshire, Arnulf of Hesdin in Wiltshire, William of Falaise in Somerset, and Aiulf the chamberlain in Dorset, none of whom had other Brictsis on their lands so it is unlikely that these are three separate Brictsis. The very substantial status of the Wiltshire and Somerset manors in particular suggest they may have been held by Brictsi the noble, but there are no tenurial or other links to underpin an identification. A list of Brictsi's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 265-66, which attributes all the manors of Brictsi in Kent, Surrey and Sussex to Brictsi the noble, but no others; see also Williams, 'Lost worlds', pp. 57-58. Dr Clarke ranks Brictsi thirty-third in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTWARD. The name Brictward occurs a dozen times, distributed among the four adjacent counties of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire and Berkshire and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief. Four manors were held by survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTWARD [* THE PRIEST *]. Brictward, who held Writhlington among the king's thanes of Somerset, is probably Brictward the priest named in the Geld Roll for the county, the one such tenant there: VCH Somerset, i. 537. Brictward the priest is recorded among the king's almsmen of Dorchester and Bere in Dorset and on the royal manor of Bedwyn in Wiltshire. As the only other Brictward in Domesday in 1086, he very likely the Brictward holding five hides from the bishop of Salisbury at Bishops Canning. If these identifications are correct, Brictward was a fairly prosperous royal clerk, with land worth more than £12. There is no indication in these entries that he held land in 1066, though Professor Barlow identifies him as the royal priest at Dorchester and Bere before the Conquest: English church, 1000-1066, p. 158. As no pre-Conquest lord is recorded there and Brictward's Wiltshire church had been held by his father, however, this must be regarded as uncertain. It is possible he is the pre-Conquest lord of the substantial manor of Merriott (or of Foddington) in Somerset, which lie very roughly between his manors of Writhlington and Dorchester and Bere; but neither lord survived on these manors, neither of which have recorded churches or other apparent links with the priest. The priests of Dorset and Wiltshire are recorded as different individuals in Coel (nos. 1360, 1191) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 171; the Brictwards of Bishops Cannings and Writhlington are unidentified (nos. 15311, 16601).

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTWIN. The name Brictwin occurs almost three dozen times, distributed among thirteen counties south of the Wash and the lands of seventeen tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Dorset and Somerset. Thirteen manors were held by survivors, possibly all by one man.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRICTWIN [* THE REEVE *]. Most if not all Brictwins in Dorset are probably Brictwin the reeve. Domesday records that Brictwin held seven consecutive manors among the king's thanes in Dorset, named as the reeve on these and four other manors in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Dorset, iii. 124, 126-27, 143-44, 146-47. The tenant of the abbey of Cerne at Cerne Abbas and Woodsford is probably also the reeve, since he survived for two decades, as did the reeve but no other Brictwin in Domesday Book. Like the reeve, he defaulted on his tax payments: VCH Dorset, iii. 131. Woodsford, which Brictwin 'held at a revenue' according to Exon., is flanked by several of the reeve's manors. Probably, though less certainly, the tenant of the bishop of Salisbury at Beaminster is the reeve, as the only other Brictwin in Domesday Book to hold land in 1086. It is possible that the three remaining Brictwins in the county are the reeve, all their holdings being in the same general area of south-western Dorset; however, they are pre-Conquest landowners without specific links to the reeve, so are not so-identified here. Brictwin was a sufficiently important local figure to be individually named as an addressee in a royal writ to Bishop Herman, Swein and the king's thanes in Dorset: Regesta, i. no. 108. His tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 783) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 170, apart from the tenant of Cerne, identified as another man (no. 777), and Brictwin at Beaminster, who is unidentified (no. 2531).

.............................................................................................................................................
BROTHIR. Brothir is a rare name which occurs seven times, distributed among the four counties of Devon, Cornwall, Suffolk and Staffordshire and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief; no Brothir survived the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
BROTHIR <OF BLAXHALL>. As the name is rare, the Brothir who held twelve acres worth two shillings at Blaxhall in Suffolk, acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, may be the Brothir at Browston, some thirty-five miles to the north, but there are no links between them.

.............................................................................................................................................
BROTHIR <OF BROWSTON>. As the name is rare, the Brothir who held sixty acres worth five shillings on the royal manor of Browston in Suffolk before the Conquest may be the Brothir at Blaxhall, some thirty-five miles to the south; but there are no links between them.

.............................................................................................................................................
BROTHIR <OF HENFORD>. As the name is rare, the two Brothirs south of the Thames, at Henford in Devon and Marhamchurch in Cornwall, thirteen miles apart, may be one man, though their manors devolved upon different tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
BROTHIR <OF OAKEN>. As the name is rare, the only three Brothirs north of the Wash, whose manors of Swynnerton, Patshull and Oaken in Staffordshire were acquired by the same tenant-in-chief, Robert of Stafford, are very probably one man. His manors are more substantial than those of his southern namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRUN. Brun, or Brune, is an uncommon name which is stated or implied twenty-eight times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and thirteen of his tenants-in-chief, with a cluster in Suffolk, and smaller ones in Cheshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire; two Bruns survived the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRUN <OF BRINSLEY>. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the Bruns whose manors at Strelley, Brinsley and 'Sutton' in Nottinghamshire devolved upon William Peverel are one man. They are the only Bruns in the county, and Peverel had no other Bruns elsewhere on his Honour; the vills are within a few miles of each other.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRUN <OF SIDDINGTON>. All Bruns in Cheshire are probably one man, though his manors devolved upon four tenants-in-chief. His five manors lay in Hamestan Hundred, where Bigot of Les Loges acquired Norbury and Siddington. Between these two manors lay Chelford, Alderley and Bramhall, held respectively by Earl Hugh, William son of Nigel and Haimo of Mascy in 1086. It is possible that the Cheshire Brun also held 'Ludworth' in Derbyshire, a few miles north-east of Norbury and isolated from the other Derbyshire manors held by a Brun; but there are no links to confirm an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
BRUN [* THE REEVE *]. All Bruns in East Anglia may be one man, Brun the reeve. His manors of Stonham, Baylham and Langedana in Bosmere Hundred in Suffolk were acquired by Roger Bigot, where he is named the reeve of Ipswich under the patronage of the queen on the first of them and as Roger's predecessor on the last two, so he is almost certainly Brun, Bigot's reeve, on the royal manor of Southmere in Norfolk, and probably the Brun on another royal manor, Bramford, also in Bosmere Hundred, four miles from Baylham. Aelfric son of Brun (q.v.), very probably his son, held three manors from the bishop of Bayeux, so it is not unlikely that the reeve is the free man Brun from whom the bishop acquired part of Brantham. Similarly, Leofwin son of Brun, perhaps another son, was a man of Edric of Laxfield, as was Brun at Grundisburgh. The one other Brun in East Anglia preceded Roger of Poitou at Hasketon, two miles from Grundisburgh. Between them, father and sons are the only Bruns by forename or patronymic in East Anglia.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGHARD [* OF MENDLESHAM *]. All Burghards in Domesday may be one man, the Burghard of Mendlesham named just once in the text on a manor of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds as the lord of two men at Wickham Skeith in Suffolk. The bulk of his manors lie in that county. The king retained Mendlesham and its dependencies himself - where Burghard is evidently Burghard of Mendlesham - and probably also a house in Norwich and a holding in Cotton, a vill in which one of the dependencies of Mendlesham lay. Burghard held a second manor from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds, claimed as a dependency of Mendlesham. The bulk of his remaining demesne holdings were acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester. At Buckingham, where his burgess was acquired by Earl Hugh, he is named Burghard of Shenley; and on the earl's fief in the county, he is described as a royal thane and Guard. Alternative bynames are not uncommon in Domesday Book, the scribes often naming from selecting a bynames from a locality with which they were familiar. It is improbable that Earl Hugh had two predecessors named Burghard when the name had such a limited tenurial and geographical distribution.
	The lands of Burghard's men were distributed more widely. Some went to the king and to Earl Hugh, the remainder being dispersed among several other tenants-in-chief, as was often the case. As there is no clear instance of a second Burghard holding a demesne manor, the overlord of all these men is probably Burghard of Mendlesham, a probability supported by a variety of links. Most were acquired by Hugh de Montfort. Their manors included Cotton and Wyverstone, vills in which Burghard had holdings dependant upon Mendlesham; Carlton Colville, Kessingland and Hatheburgfelda, where he preceded Earl Hugh; and Weston and Willingham, where he preceded Roger Bigot. Roger Bigot also succeeded Burghard as a tenant of Earl Hugh at Fundenhall in Norfolk and the bishop of Bayeux at Stonham, where Burghard had another holding dependant upon Mendlesham. Two other tenants-in-chief had similar links: Robert Malet - or rather, his mother - acquired a half free man of Burghard's in Thornton Magna, where Burghard had yet another holding dependant upon Mendlesham; and the bishop of Bayeux acquired the land of another of Burghard's men, at Helmingham.
	Less certainly, Burghard of Mendlesham may be the one remaining Burghard in Domesday Book, with a respectable manor in Witham, acquired by Robert Gernon. Burghard's father (below) held land at Smallands, a couple of miles away, and many other manors in the county. Burghard (d. 1061) is identified as a son of Earl Algar (q.v.) by Dr Baxter, who also suggests he probably held all the manors and men of the Domesday Burghard: 'Death of Burghard', pp. 275-77, 322-23. Since East Anglia was once part of Algar's earldom, the identification helps to explain the distribution of the name Burghard and lends further weight to its attribution to one man. 
Burghard's estate was worth very slightly over £51, which would place him comfortably among the hundred wealthiest magnates of Anglo-Saxon England, ranking seventy-first if included in Clarke, English nobility; Dr Baxter's figure is £50.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED. Burgred is a fairly common name which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and thirteen of his tenants-in-chief; but it is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than half-a-dozen men. The distribution is skewed, all pre-Conquest names falling into one of two groups of adjacent counties: Cornwall and Devon, and Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, where the bulk of the manors and all the most valuable of them occur. Three were held by survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED [* FATHER OF EDWIN *]. Tenurial and distributional characteristics suggest that all Burgreds in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire are the royal thane Burgred, the designated predecessor of the bishop of Coutances, who acquired all Burgred's demesne manors and most of his men in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire, these manors clustering around the junction of the three counties. As no other Burgred had a demesne manor in those counties, he is probably the overlord of men whose manors were acquired by other tenants-in-chief. At Piddington, the bishop of Coutances claimed the holding; and at Weston Underwood, Burgred had other men in the same vill, providing some confirmation. There are no other Burgreds in the three counties, and none elsewhere on the Honour of the bishop of Coutances. Burgred and his son Edwin (q.v.) were between them the most important predecessors of the bishop of Coutances in terms of his assessed land. Burgred had one or two other sons - Ulf and Wulfsi may be scribal variations on one name - who held land in the same area. A list of Burgred's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 268-70, which does not include Burgred's manor of Barton in Northamptonshire or those of his men at Bolnhurst, Weston and Dadford. He ranks Burgred and his sons thirty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors and necessary adjustments to his figures would raise the family two places. Dr Williams suggests that Burgred was a kinsman of Countess Gytha of Hereford: 'The king's nephew', pp. 336-38.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED <OF AUNK>. The six Burgreds in Devon are probably one man, though his manors devolved upon four tenants-in-chief. One man almost certainly held Aunk, Tale and Tedburn, the first two being acquired by Ralph or Pomeroy and Tedburn by his brother, William the goat; the brothers shared other predecessors and tenants. Aunk is less than a mile from Clyst Hydon, the first of Burgred's two manors acquired by Baldwin the sheriff, the second - Offwell - being seven miles from the sixth manor, at Gatcombe, acquired by the king's servant Ansger. There are no other Burgreds in the south-western counties, and no more on the Honours of the tenants-in-chief concerned.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED <OF COVEN>. The Burgreds who held consecutive manors at Coven and Coppenhall in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are very probably one man, the only Burgred in the county and one of two surviving Burgreds, the other a priest in Huntingdonshire. Geoffrey of Coppenhall held two-thirds of a fee from the Honour of Stafford in 1166, with Alan of Coven as his subtenant: Red Book, i. 267. Burgred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3619) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 171.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED <OF TREGOLE>. As the name is rare, the Burgreds whose manors of Tregole and Trewint in Cornwall were acquired by the Count of Mortain are likely to be one man; both manors are in Stratton Hundred.

.............................................................................................................................................
BURGRED [* THE PRIEST *]. Burgred, who held a church with Thorkil in Huntingdon for two decades, is identified as a priest in the entry for Botuluesbrige, where the church is named as St Mary's. He is the only Burgred to survive for that period, though a Staffordshire Burgred held two manors in 1086. The name Burgred does not occur elsewhere in the county. His church is recorded in Coel (no. 6789) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 169.

.............................................................................................................................................
"BUTER" <OF PICKWELL>. Buter, who held the substantial manor of Pickwell and its dependencies in Leicestershire from Geoffrey of la Guerche, is evidently the Buterius who witnessed Geoffrey's foundation charter for Monks Kirby priory in 1077: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1. His name does not occur elsewhere in Domesday Book. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8325) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 172, but not its dependencies, which are assigned to the tenant-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
CADIO. Cadio is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among four counties and as tenants on the lands of three tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
CADIO <OF ASTON>. As the name is rare, the Cadios who held Ilbury in Oxfordshire and Aston and Stoke in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are very probably one man. It is improbable that he is the same man as his namesake on a near-peasant holding in Lincolnshire or on a modest manor in Devon, some 250 miles away. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2975) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 172.

.............................................................................................................................................
CADIO <OF BROUGHTON>. Cadio, who held six bovates ploughed by as many oxen at Broughton in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany, has no links with other Cadios. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3004) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 172, where it is suggested he might be the Gladiou with a small holding from William of Warenne in Essex. The very modest dimensions of the Lincolnshire holding appear to make this unlikely, even if the names were identical.

.............................................................................................................................................
CADIO <OF DUNSLAND>. Cadio, who held Dunsland in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff, has no links with his namesakes, over two hundred miles away. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 929) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 172.

.............................................................................................................................................
CEOLRED. The name Ceolred occurs four times, twice in Somerset and twice in Warwickshire; none survived the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
CEOLRED <OF FODDINGTON>. As the name is rare, the Ceolreds whose manors of Bradon and Foddington were acquired by the Count of Mortain are probably one man. He has no links with his Midlands namesake.

.............................................................................................................................................
CEOLRED <OF SHUTTINGTON>. As the name is rare, the Ceolreds whose manors of Shuttington and Baddesley devolved respectively upon the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick are probably one man. The two fiefs shared a number of predecessors and tenants, and the two vills are six miles apart. Ceolred has no links with the distant and equally modest properties in Somerset.

.............................................................................................................................................
CEOLRIC <OF BRADON>. With the possible exception of a free man in Suffolk, all Ceolrics in Domesday Book occur in Somerset and so are very likely to be one man despite his lands devolving upon four tenants-in-chief in 1086. All five manors are of roughly comparable status and lie in the two Hundreds of 'Abdick' and Williton. Two of the manors were held from Muchelney abbey, one in each Hundred, one being held in 1066 the other twenty years later, thereby linking the Hundreds and the pre-Conquest lords elsewhere with the one other survivor, who held Bradon among the king's thanes according to Exon.. The tenant at Drayton is unidentified in Coel (no. 14682), while Bradon is assigned to the tenant-in-chief, Harding.

.............................................................................................................................................
CEOLRIC <OF LETHERINGHAM>. Gelric, named as a free man at Letheringham in Suffolk in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 151), may be a scribal error for Ceolric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 214. He is the only Ceolric in eastern England, very unlikely to be the same man as his one namesake, in Somerset.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* PRINCESS *] CHRISTINA. The tenant-in-chief Christina, whose two fiefs included the very valuable manor of Broadwell (£31) in Oxfordshire and valuable manors at Ulverley and Itchington in Warwickshire, acquired from Earl Algar and his son Edwin, is very probably Princess Christina, sister of Prince Edgar and of St Margaret, queen of Scotland. Itchington had been the most valuable of all, for 'when the King gave it to Christina it paid £36'. She became a nun at Romsey at about the time of the Domesday Survey: Chronicle of John of Worcester, iii. 44-45. Her name does not occur elsewhere in Domesday Book. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3492) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 176-77.

.............................................................................................................................................
CLARENBALD. Clarenbald is a rare name which occurs four times, distributed among four counties, as many tenants-in-chief, and three different dates.

.............................................................................................................................................
CLARENBALD <OF BOTTESFORD>. Clarenbald, who held Bottesford in Leicestershire from Robert of Tosny, has no links with his namesakes in Essex and Suffolk, or with Clarenbald of Le Marais, who appears to have died or left the country by the date of the Domesday Survey. Clarenbald's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9363) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 173.

.............................................................................................................................................
CLARENBALD <OF HAVERHILL>. Clarenbald, who preceded Tihel of Helléan on a modest holding at Haverhill in Suffolk, is the one pre-Conquest lord of this name; he has no links with his post-Conquest namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
CLARENBALD <OF RIVENHALL>. Clarenbald, who held Rivenhall in Essex from Swein of Essex, has no links with his continental namesakes, the nearest some 150 miles away. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1848) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 173.

.............................................................................................................................................
CLARON [* FATHER OF ARNOLD *]. The name Claron occurs twice, each time as a tenant of Roger of Bully, at Markham and Elkesley - four miles apart - in Nottinghamshire, so almost certainly held by one man, the Claron who witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory and whose son Arnold subsequently witnessed a grant to Workshop priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209; Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Nottinghamshire', pp. 225-26. It has been suggested that his name may be a variant of Clarenbald (Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 54-55); but, if so, there are no links between him and the four Clarenbalds recorded in Domesday Book. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3715) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 173-74, where it is suggested he is 'possibly' Clarenbald of Lisores, from Lisores in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux).

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT. Apart from references to King Cnut and two forenames names in Suffolk, all Cnuts occur in the four adjacent counties of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and are particularly numerous in Yorkshire. A Reginald and Walter Cnut occur south of the Wash. No Cnuts survived the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT <OF METHLEY>. Cnut, predecessor of Ilbert of Lacy at Methley in the West Riding of Yorkshire might be Cnut son of Karli; but since Methley lies within the Honour of Pontefract, his identity cannot be tested against normal tenurial relationships. Ilbert had many Gamals on his Honour; but most were survivors and so cannot be Karli's son, who was assassinated in 1073: Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 189-90. None of Karli's other sons appear within the Honour, so if Methley was held by Cnut son of Karli then his manor was an outlier at some distance from other family properties.

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT <OF MISSON>. Cnut, who held land worth eight shillings at Misson in Nottinghamshire acquired by Ernwin the priest, has no links with other Cnuts.

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT <OF SANDIACRE>. Cnut, who shared Sandiacre in Derbyshire with two other landowners before the Conquest, has no with links with other Cnuts, the nearest some fifty miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT <OF TUDDENHAM>. Cnut, who held the substantial manor of Tuddenham in Suffolk in 1066, is almost certainly the overlord Cnut in the following entry, these being the only Cnuts in southern England. He has no apparent links with his namesakes in Derbyshire and further north. His holdings were acquired by Eudo the steward.

.............................................................................................................................................
CNUT [* SON OF KARLI *]. Most Cnuts in northern England are probably one of the sons of Karli whose blood-feud with the earls of Northumbria culminated in the massacre of the family at Settrington in the winter of 1073-1074 on the orders of Earl Waltheof. He is almost certainly the Cnut whose manor of Rise in Yorkshire was acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière, Rise being the family's ancestral home: Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 122-24, 175-76. Drogo probably also acquired Catfoss from him, Rise and Catfoss both passing through the hands of William Malet and both lying in Holderness where Cnut's grandfather was a 'Hold', after which Holderness is named: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 30-31. As Malet was dead by 1069, the manors were lost by Cnut at an early date, before the massacre which he alone of those present survived, 'spared because of his innate goodness'; no Cnuts are recorded as holding land in 1086.
	Cnut probably also held Thorpe Bassett, shared with Gamal (q.v.) - one of his brothers - and later granted to the abbey of St Albans by Berengar of Tosny (q.v.), who acquired the bulk of the manors of Karli's eldest son, Thorbrand (q.v.) and some other family holdings: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 160. It is also likely that he is the Cnut at Swinton, Low Hutton, Wiganthorpe and Cranswick, his brothers holding other manors in those vills, and also at Brandsby, acquired by Hugh son of Baldric who succeeded Thorbrand at Cawton, six miles away. Four of these five manors lay in the north-western wapentakes of 'Bulford' and Maneshou so it is not unlikely (given that his name is uncommon) that he is the Cnut whose manors of Habton, Ryton, Amotherby, Appleton, Hindley and Raskelf were waste and untenanted in 1086, left in the king's hands and so without the lordship detail which would aid identification. He may also be the one other Cnut in this area, whose manor in the lost vill of Berghebi in the small wapentake of 'Yarlestre' - between 'Bulford' and Maneshou - was acquired by William of Percy who obtained several other manors from Karli's family. Percy was established in Yorkshire by 1069 and profited at the expense of the principal leaders of the northern rebellions of 1068-1069, among whom the 'four sons of Karli' were prominent according to Orderic Vitalis (ii. 222-23).
	Karli's son may also be the Cnut who held the remaining manors in the East Riding. East Cottingwith was acquired by the Count of Mortain who also had Cnut's manor of Cranswick (above) from Cnut, the only Cnuts on his Honour. It is likely, too, that it is Karli's son who had 'full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues' in York, appropriate to his family's status and on the way between his manors in the East and North Ridings. Probably, though less certainly, he is also the Cnut who preceded Gilbert Tison at Kirk Ella, Anlaby and Chrachetorp. The manors are likely to have been held by one man since they form a tight group in Hessle wapentake, at no great distance from Rise and the family base in Holderness. More specifically, there are grounds for believing that Gilbert acquired land from Cnut's brother Gamal (q.v.) in Craven, and just possibly all his manors in Craven from Karli's family. The one other Cnut in the East Riding held Boynton in Hunthow wapentake, a wapentake in which many manors were held Gamal and Karli. Finally, Cnut may be the predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany at Scruton, Aysgarth and Clifton-on-Ure, the three remaining manors in the north-west of the North Riding. Count Alan appears to have obtained several manors from other family members, Gamal and Karli.
	Count Alan also succeeded a Cnut at Spridlington in Lincolnshire, one of three Cnuts in the county, all of whom are very probably Karli's son. All three manors lay close to each other in 'Aslacoe' wapentake, the other two - Cammeringham and Hackthorn - being acquired by Kolsveinn of Lincoln who also succeeded to Ingham, less than a mile from Cammeringham, the one manor in 'Aslacoe' held by Sumarlithi, another of Karli's sons, his name sufficiently rare as to make his identification all-but-certain.
	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 Cnut and his family was in excess of £100 in 1066, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA. Cola is a fairly common name which occurs more than forty times, distributed among the lands of twenty-three tenants-in-chief and fifteen counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire, most of them south of a line from the Severn to the Wash. Ten manors were held by survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA [* NEPHEW OF KOLSVEINN *]. Cola, who held a manor at Barlings in Lincolnshire in 1066, the only Cola in the county, is identified as a nephew of Kolsveinn of Lincoln (q.v.) in an entry for the city of Lincoln.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA <OF HELE>. The name Cola occurs five times in Cornwall, three in Devon, but nowhere else within a hundred miles. It is likely that the five Cornish manors belonged to one man in 1066, who survived as a tenant of the Count of Mortain at Hele, adjacent to Week St Mary, one of the other four manors, all of which had devolved upon Richard son of Turolf. The three Devonshire holdings were acquired by three tenants-in-chief and may have been held by different individuals, though that at Henscott in north Devon is fairly close to Week and Hele. Cola's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 246) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 174-75, where it is suggested he may be Cola Rigenson, a burgess of Launceston priory recorded in its cartulary.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA <OF HONLEY>. Cola, whose shared holding at Honley in Yorkshire was acquired by Ilbert of Lacy, is the only Cola in Yorkshire, with no links with his namesakes in Derbyshire and Lincolnshire. Ilbert has no other Colas on his Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA <OF WINSTER>. As the name is uncommon in the north, the Colas who held Winster and Yeldersley from Henry of Ferrers, and preceded him at 'Soham', are probably one man, who is perhaps also the Colle of Kniveton, Youlgrave and Harthill. The name-form Colle is unique to these three entries; and although recorded as a separate name - Kolli - by von Feilitzen, it is likely here to be a scribal variant of Cola (Cola, Cole): Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 307. Like Cola, the name is borne both by a pre-Conquest lord and a post-Conquest tenant, two of the three manors also occurring on the lands of Henry of Ferrers; the third, at Harthill, being adjacent to the manor of Youlgrave he acquired from Colle. The Mountjoy (Munchoye) family later had an interest in Winster, Youlgrave and Yeldersley, in part at least acquired from a Robert son of Col, whom Statham suggests was the son of the Domesday Cola: Book of Fees, p. 993; Derbyshire charters, nos. 2620, 2716; Statham, 'Notes on Domesday tenants', pp. 178-80. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is the Cola who held land among the royal thanes of Berkshire in 1086, perhaps on the basis that Ferrers was a significant landowner in that county, with land in several vills clustering around Cola's manors in Ginge and Hendred. This is not implausible; but if Statham is correct in his identification, the Derbyshire Cola had direct descendants and the Berkshire Cola did not. On balance, it is more likely that the Berkshire Cola is Cola the hunter. The Derbyshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1663) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 174.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLA [* THE HUNTER SON OF WULFGEAT *]. The Colas among the king's thanes of Berkshire and Wiltshire 1086 may be Cola the hunter, named among the thanes of Hampshire, since he is the only Cola in the three counties who held land in 1086, there being only four other such elsewhere in England, their properties tiny or remote and without links to the hunter. He may also be the Cola who claimed a mill at Ardington, in Wantage Hundred, where the thane's holdings lay. On one of the two Hampshire manors, his father is named as Wulfgeat, probably Wulfgeat the hunter (q.v.), with comparable holdings in Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire.
	All the manors in Berkshire, Hampshire and Wiltshire were held by different families when their descent is first apparent; but it is unlikely that this is a reliable clue to the identity of the Domesday tenants. The most substantial manor, at Hendred in Berkshire, was in the hands of the Marmion family from an early date, possibly as early as 1097, certainly by the 1120s (Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 48-49; Regesta, ii. no. 1575), while Ginge was held by two other, apparently unrelated, Normans by the early twelfth century: VCH Berkshire, iv. 304. It is unlikely, however, that Hendred and Ginge were held by different men in 1086 since these are the only two Colas in the county, and both were survivors among the royal thanes, holding in vills barely two miles apart. It is more likely that they were subject to escheat, forfeiture or descent through heiresses, in any of which cases the descent of the Hampshire and Wiltshire manors to other families is inconclusive: VCH Hampshire, iv. 563. See also Golding, 'Introduction to the Hampshire Domesday', p. 25; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 115-16. The Hampshire manors are attributed to Cola the hunter in Coel (no. 398) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 174; those in Berkshire to another man (no. 1663); the Wiltshire tenant is unidentified (no. 17155).

.............................................................................................................................................
COLBERT. Colbert is a rare name which occurs only in the three widely separated counties of Devon, Cheshire and Lincolnshire, though Colbern, named Colbert in the list of landholders, held a fief in Norfolk. The names Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbiorn/Ketilbert, Osbern/Osbert and Thorbert/Thorbiorn also appear to be interchangeable, though recognised as separate names.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLBERT <OF UPTON>. The four Colberts in Cheshire are probably one man. His manors of Wervin, Upton and Noctorum in the Wirral peninsular devolved upon William Malbank, Wervin lying approximately midway between Upton and the adjacent vill of Noctorum and the fourth manor at Burwardsley, acquired by Robert son of Hugh. Colbert retained Upton as Malbank's tenant. It is improbable that he is the same man as the Lincolnshire or Devonshire Colberts. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28781).

.............................................................................................................................................
COLEMAN. The name Coleman occurs twenty-one times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief. The name is almost entirely confined to southern England, with one small cluster in East Anglia; one Coleman survived.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLEMAN <OF SUTTON>. The one Coleman in northern England, with a tiny holding at Sutton in Nottinghamshire, has no links with his namesakes. It is unclear as to whether he survived on his holding.

.............................................................................................................................................
"COLNE" [* FATHER OF EDRIC *]. Colne, who held Longstone in Derbyshire before the Conquest, is probably the father of Edric, who had a church in Derby in 1066. The name-forms (Coln) are unique in Domesday, though they may equate to the Colne who held Parwich after the Conquest, another unique form. The rarity of the forms might suggest they belonged to one individual; but since the Coln of Derby had been succeeded by his son, this less likely. Etymologists are uncertain of the derivation of Coln/Colne, von Feilitzen suggesting that it is possibly an error for Colle (Kolli): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 218. Since this form, too, is unique to Derbyshire, the suggestion is persuasive. However, the arguments for identifying the Derbyshire Colles as Cola of Winster do not apply to Coln/Colne, who are treated here as separate individuals. Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 174, 185, suggests he may be Colne of Parwich.

.............................................................................................................................................
"COLNE" <OF PARWICH>. The name-forms Coln/Colne occur three times, all in Derbyshire, so possibly borne by one man. However, Colne son of Edric had been succeeded by his son in one entry and so is unlikely to be the Colne who held the once substantial manor Parwich from the king in 1086. It has been suggested that he may be the Colle - another form unique to Derbyshire - here identified as Cola of Winster. Colne's manor of Parwich is recorded in Coel (no. 8729) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 174.

.............................................................................................................................................
COLWIN [* THE REEVE *]. It is very likely that all Colwins in Domesday Book are Colwin the reeve, named in the Geld Roll for Hartland Hundred in Devon as owing tax on half a virgate, his holding at Alminstone in that Hundred: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xiv. As a survivor and royal official, he is probably the Colwin stated in the text to hold eight consecutive manors among the king's thanes in the county, characteristics which also identify him as the Colwin whose remaining manors are associated with Baldwin the sheriff, with whom he administered the estate of the late Queen Edith in Exeter, and farmed the royal manor of Lifton, probably under Baldwin. He was Baldwin's tenant at 'Guscott' and Woolleigh, and preceded him at Stockleigh. This is the one Colwin who did not retain a manor he held in 1066; but since the reeve did, there is little reasons too doubt this Colwin is also the reeve. There are no other Colwins in Domesday Book. Like other officials whose administrative know-how was useful, Colwin prospered from the Conquest in a modest way. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 804) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 175.

.............................................................................................................................................
CORBIN [* OF AGNEAUX *]. The name Corbin occurs twice in Domesday Book, both times as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux, on substantial manors at Peckham in Kent and Atherstone in Warwickshire, both evidently the same man. Dr Keats-Rohan discusses the charter evidence for his origins, from Agneaux in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Sainte-Lô), where his family was associated with the bishop of Bayeux. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1931) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 176.

.............................................................................................................................................
CROC [* THE HUNTER *]. The forename Croc is confined to Hampshire and Wiltshire and to landholders in 1086. Croc the hunter held a small fief in Hampshire, as did Reginald son of Croc, perhaps his son. The other Crocs, tenants of four manors in Wiltshire, are probably the same man. One of the four, at North Tidworth, is less than a mile away, across the county boundary from South Tidworth, held by the Hampshire Croc; another, at Collingbourne Kingston, five miles away. Bradenstock is in the north of the county, some twenty-five miles distant; but as Croc was the witness or addressee of several royal writs concerning land in Berkshire, his reach was not confined to the area around the Tidworths: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 36-37, 122-23, 138-39. Both Tidworth and Bradenstoke were held as a royal servant. Croc has left his name of the landscape, at Crux Easton, one of his Hampshire manors. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 396) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 177.

.............................................................................................................................................
CULLING THE BURGESS. It is probable that the Culling who had two houses and seven acres in Colchester is the same burgess as the even more prosperous Culling with a church and twenty-six acres in Ipswich, they being the only two Cullings in Domesday Book. The name may be the same as the equally rare Kollung, but it is unlikely that either of the minor rural landowners in Shropshire and Derbyshire bearing this name are the same man as the burgess.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNERIC. Cyneric is a rare name, which occurs once in Northamptonshire and six times in Suffolk, on the lands of four tenants-in-chief there; all seven names borne by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNERIC <OF BRADDEN>. It seems unlikely that the predecessor of Robert of Bucy at on the fairly substantial manor of Bradden in Northamptonshire is the same Cyneric as his Suffolk namesake on several modest holdings in Suffolk, roughly a hundred miles away, the only other Cyneric in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNERIC <OF DARMSDEN>. The six Cynerics in Suffolk may be one man, though his holdings were acquired by four tenants-in-chief. Those at Middleton, Occold and Bedingfield probably are, being dependants of Edric of Laxfield, predecessor of Robert Malet. At Middleton, Roger Bigot stepped into Cyneric's shoes as a tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester there, while acquiring Cyneric's holding in Grimston as tenant-in-chief, and part of his manor of Darmsden illegally. The remaining holding at Battisford, held by Eudo son of Spirewic in 1086, is four miles from Darmsden. With the possible exception of this last property, it is likely that the dispersion of Cyneric's holdings is a consequence of the revolt associated with Earl Ralph Wader in 1075. The ensuing forfeitures are mentioned in two of the entries, and the tenants-in-chief involved were all in dispute about other manors forfeited by Earl Ralph and his followers.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNESI <OF HUISH>. As the name is rare, the Cynesi whose modest holding at 'Huish' in Somerset was acquired by Walter of Douai might be his one namesake, in Cornwall; but there is no link to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNESI <OF WILLSWORTHY>. As the name is rare, the Cynesi whose modest holding at Willsworthy in Cornwall was acquired by the Count of Mortain might be the one other Cynesi, in Somerset; but there is no link to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNESTAN <OF BROADWOODWIDGER>. The name Cynestan occurs four times in Domesday Book, twice as predecessor of Reginald of Vautortes on consecutive manors at Appledore and Bicton in Cornwall, and twice as a predecessor of Iudhael of Totnes at Broadwoodwidger and Downicary in Devon. In each case, the manors are within a mile or two of each other, so probably held by one man. Whether it was the same man in both counties is less certain; but as the name is very rare, and the manors - some twenty miles apart - not insubstantial, it is perhaps more likely than not that one man held in both counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYNWY [* CHELLE *]. As his name is rare and all his manors substantial, the Cynwy (Chenui) whose manors of Ashton Gifford in Wiltshire and 'Ash' in Oxfordshire were acquired by Humphrey de l'Isle and Henry of Ferrers is likely to be the royal thane, Cynwy Chelle, whose manors of Arlington and Saintbury in Gloucestershire were held by the king and Hascoit Musard in 1086. There are no other Cynwys in Domesday Book though the name might be confused with the even rarer Cynewin (Chenuin), one of whom - there are two - held the valuable manor of Chitterne before the Conquest. As Chitterne is adjacent to Ashton, both manors substantial, and both names rare, it is not unlikely that Cynewin is a scribal error for Cynwy. If included in Clarke, English nobility, Cynwy would rank among the sixty wealthiest untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYPPING. Cypping is an uncommon name with a skewed distribution. It occurs thirty-two times, distributed among the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief, and among six counties in southern England and one north of the Thames, with a large cluster in and around Hampshire, where a large proportion of the valuable manors are situated, and a smaller one in Devon and Somerset.

.............................................................................................................................................
CYPPING [* OF WORTHY *]. Cypping, a major landowner in Hampshire, leased Headbourne Worthy from the bishopric of Winchester(HAM 29,3), which became the centre of much of his estate; he is named as Cypping of Worthy in the Winton Domesday (pp. 54-55), where he is additionally identified as the bishop's tenant by the succession of Ralph of Mortimer (below). He was important enough for the Conqueror to retain several of his manors, including some of the most valuable; but most of them were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer, who also succeeded Cypping on his one manor in Berkshire.
	As the name is uncommon and Cypping held a significant part of his land from the bishop of Winchester, he may be the Cypping who survived on a subholding of the bishop's huge manor of Chilcomb, which he also held in 1066, possibly on that part of the manor acquired by Ralph of Mortimer. The king also gave him a respectable manor at Preston Candover, albeit not as handsome as the manor he had held in the same vill before the Conquest, though his situation was relatively comfortable compared to most of his English peers. Although the holding is small and remote, it is also likely that he is the Cypping at Hazelbury in Wiltshire who, like Cypping of Worthy, held land in both 1066 and 1086 and was the only other Cypping to survive the Conquest. Dr Hooper suggests that a grave slab naming Alward son of Cypping found under the church of Stratfield Mortimer - where Cypping held land - possibly commemorates his father: Hooper, 'Introduction to the Berkshire Domesday', p. 19. An Alwin son of Cypping held a manor in Berkshire in 1086. A list of Cypping' manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 271-72, with an incorrect valuation for Stratfield. It does not, of course, include the 1086 manors, whose tenants are unidentified in Coel (nos. 6136, 6588, 6590, 17154). Cypping is ranked twenty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke.

.............................................................................................................................................
DAVID. David is a rare name. Apart from three small fiefs, the name occurs four times, once each in Cheshire and Essex, twice in Dorset.

.............................................................................................................................................
DAVID [* OF ARGENTAN *]. It is possible that all Davids in Domesday Book are one man. The David who held a small fief in Northamptonshire may be David of Argentan, who held similar fiefs in the neighbouring counties of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the other Davids in Domesday Book - in Cheshire, Dorset and Essex - are also David of Argentan, ancestor of Argentan family which bore the cup at the Coronation service. Three of these Davids were tenants of different tenants-in-chief, and none of their manors were later held by the Argentan family. But neither were those held by David of Argentan, which appear to have been lost at a fairly early date: VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 159; VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 17, 37; ix. 109; VCH Northamptonshire, i. 372. The manor to which the coronation serjeanty was attached - Great Wymondley in Hertfordshire - was a royal manor in 1086: VCH Hertfordshire, iii. 183. The usual indicators of identity are therefore not available; but there are nevertheless some slight indications that the Domesday Davids may be one man. The three fiefs are serjeanty-type fiefs, as is one of the Dorset manors. The fifth lord of Wymondley, Giles, held land in Essex from the descendants of Count Eustace of Boulogne, of whom the Domesday David was a tenant, albeit on a different manor: Book of Fees, p. 485. Other members of the family later held land in Northamptonshire, the south-west, and the north of England: Book of Fees, pp. 332, 425, 431; Charters of the Redvers family, pp. 60-61. The links are tenuous; but they could hardly be otherwise since the family suffered one forfeiture, if not more: Regesta, iii. no. 23; VCH Hertfordshire, iii. 183. David's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 413) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 177; see also Round, King's sergeants, pp. 264-67.

.............................................................................................................................................
DEDOL <OF TIVERTON>. The Dedols who held Budworth, Bunbury, Tiverton and Cogshall in Cheshire before the Conquest are almost certainly one man, the only Dedol in Domesday Book. The first three manors are within a few miles of each other in Rushton Hundred, Cogshall lying nine miles north of Budworth; all four are of similarly modest status.

.............................................................................................................................................
DENE. Dene is a rare name which occurs seven times in Lincolnshire and once each in Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and Nottinghamshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
DENE <OF MARNHAM>. Dene, whose modest holding at Marnham in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
DEORMANN. Deormann is a rare name which occurs on one fief and eight manors distributed among four counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
DEORMANN [* OF LONDON *]. Deormann, who had a house in Colchester, is probably the tenant of the archbishop of Canterbury at Keston in Kent, subsequently recorded as a knight of the archbishop: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 62-63, 105. He was a tenant-in-chief at Islington in Middlesex, where he is accorded his byname. He is identified as the Deormann on five manors among the king's thanes in Hertfordshire by the descent of two of his manors - Watton and Walkern - to his brother Leofstan, and ultimately to Leofstan's grandson, Henry, the first mayor of London: VCH Hertfordshire, iii. 152, 159. Less certainly, in view of his urban associations he may be the one other Deormann of 1086, with two messuages in Oxford. Only one more Deormann is recorded in Domesday Book, the pre-Conquest lord of the substantial manor of Moreton in Oxfordshire, conceivably the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. He may have been a royal moneyer, from a family of royal moneyers who played a not insignificant role in national history: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 205-206; Oxford DNB, xv. 865-66. Deormann's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8929), which revises the entry in Domesday people, p. 177.

.............................................................................................................................................
DEORMANN <OF MORETON>. Deormann, who held the substantial manor of Moreton in Warwickshire, is the only pre-Conquest lord bearing this English name. He is conceivably the same man as Deormann of London, though there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
DODA. Doda is a fairly common name which occurs roughly forty times, distributed among fourteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief. The bulk of the names are in the south-western counties, where seven of the eight manors held by survivors lie.

.............................................................................................................................................
DODA [* OF CURRY *]. Doda, who held Dodington among the king's thanes of Somerset in 1086, is named Dodo de Cori in the Geld Roll for Williton Hundred, where Dodington lay: VCH Somerset, i. 532. He is presumably named from one of the Currys, where no Dodas are recorded. A priest, however, held land among the king's clerks in the county at Curry Rivel in 1086, which raises the possibility that Doda de Cori is Doda the monk in Dorset, another survivor. Doda de Cori is the only surviving Doda in the county; he is unidentified in Coel (no. 15300).

.............................................................................................................................................
DODA <OF GURLYN>. The Dodas who held Carsella and part of the royal manor of Winnianton at Trelan in Cornwall in 1086 are probably one man; few Dodas survived the Conquest, and several other of the Count's tenants combined parts of Winnianton with manors elsewhere in the county. Doda retained Carsella for two decades, so is possibly the pre-Conquest Dodas elsewhere in the county, at Gurlyn, Avalde and Brea. Gurlyn and Brea are in the far south-west, on the fringes of the sprawling manor of Winnianton, while Avalde was acquired by the tenant who held Brea. J.H. Round suggested that the tenant at Carsella is the Doda whose lands were granted by Henry I to Bernard the scribe, Dr Williams that he is the Doda at Avalde and Brea; both may be correct: Round, 'Bernard, the King's scribe', pp. 418-20; English and the Norman Conquest, p. 123 note 139. Doda's 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 248) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 178.

.............................................................................................................................................
DODA [* THE MONK *]. Although his manors devolved upon six tenants-in-chief, most if not all Dodas in Dorset may be Doda the monk, who held Woolcombe in 1066 and so may be the Doda who held land in the same vill in 1086. The two manors in Edmondsham are also likely to have been held by one man, probably the Doda granted land in alms by Queen Matilda, since it was she who acquired one of the Edmondsham manors. If so, this Doda survived for twenty years, as did the monk. Less certainly, the remaining Dodas are possibly the monk. Two held land in the adjacent vills of Nyland and Kington, one among the king's thanes; and the third held Milbourne, which is approximately midway between these vills and Woolcombe. It is possible that the monk is Doda de Cori, a survivor in Somerset, though the link is too slight to warrant an identification. Doda's Dorset tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1770) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 178; see also VCH Dorset, iii. 53 for a discussion of his identity.

.............................................................................................................................................
"DODIN". The name Dodin is rare, occurring on in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, probably borne by one tenant in each county. 'It might be derived from a native Doding ... but is perhaps rather from' a Norman French diminutive form: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 61-62; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 255.

.............................................................................................................................................
"DODIN" <OF COTTESBROOKE>. All Dodins in Northamptonshire may be one man, though he held from four tenants-in-chief. He held half a hide in Cottesbrooke among the king's thanes, two houses in Northampton, and six tenancies. The two houses in Northampton were held from Countess Judith and Winemar of Flanders (q.v.), from whom he held Ashton and Easton Maudit respectively. The three manors held from Walter of Flanders included a second manor in Cottesbrooke, his most valuable property; all three are stated in the text to be held by one man. His last manor, at Roade, held from Gunfrid of Chocques, is just over a mile from Ashton. All four tenants-in-chief are Flemings, with other links between them. In the Northamptonshire Survey, the manors in Cottesbrooke appear to have merged, both held by a Robert Botevileyn, though part of Cottesbrooke was held with Pipewell in the 1120s, Pipewell descending to the Botevileyn family: Farrer, Honors, i. 80-82. The remaining manors were in different hands, probably indicating fragmentation rather than several Domesday Dodins. The one other tenant of this name held from a Breton tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire. Dodin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3684) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 178.

.............................................................................................................................................
"DODIN" <OF RIPPINGALE>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Alfred of Lincoln on consecutive manors in Bourne and Rippingale in Lincolnshire are almost certainly the same Dodin. There are no links between the tenant of this Breton tenant-in-chief and the one other Dodin, a tenant of several Flemish tenants-in-chief in Northamptonshire. Dodin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3359) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 178.

.............................................................................................................................................
DOLGFINN. The name Dolgfinn is rare, occurring on two manors in Derbyshire and five in Yorkshire, all but one held from the king, with survivors in both counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
DOLGFINN <OF TAPTON>. As the name is rare, the Dolgfinn who held Tapton among the king's thanes in Derbyshire in 1086 is probably the Dolgfinn who claimed land in Calow, four miles away, and the Dolgfinn who held another manor among the thanes in 1066, in Old Tupton, five miles to the south. He may also have held Old Tupton in 1086 since the holding was waste, no tenant being recorded there. It is possible that the Yorkshire Dolgfinns are the same man, two holding before the Conquest and three in 1086; but there are no links to establish identity and the manors are modest. The Derbyshire tenant is unidentified in Coel (nos. 32499, 32502).

.............................................................................................................................................
DOT. Dot is a rare name in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals. It occurs once in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Shropshire; twice in Essex and Suffolk, but eighteen times in Cheshire, where most if not all Dots may be one man. There are no survivors of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
DOT <OF HUYTON>. As the name is rare elsewhere in England, the eighteen Dots in the Cheshire folios may be one man, though his manors devolved upon nine tenants-in-chief. Roger of Poitou acquired Huyton in South Lancashire, fifteen or so miles from a cluster of manors in Tunendune and Bucklow Hundreds acquired respectively by William son of Nigel, Bigot of Les Loges, Gilbert the hunter (17,7-8;10. 18,5) and Osbern son of Tezzo. A similar distance to the south of this grouping, Dot's manors in the adjacent Hundreds of 'Duddeston' and Warmundestrou were acquired by Earl Hugh, Robert son of Hugh, Richard the butler and William Malbank. It is not unlikely that Dot held the one other manor in northern and western England, at Rowton in Shropshire, fifteen miles south of this latter group: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 320-21.

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO. Drogo is a common name which occurs more than eighty times and is implied many times more, distributed among twenty-one counties and the lands of the king and eighteen of his tenants-in-chief. It is nevertheless a rare name in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than ten men.

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO [* OF LA BEUVRIÈRE *]. All Drogos in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Yorkshire may be Drogo of la Beuvrière, a tenant-in-chief in those and other counties. He had a small fief in Suffolk and may be the one other Drogo in the county, tenant of the bishop of London at Oakley. In Norfolk, he is named in several claims, two of them involving Humphrey of St Omer who is elsewhere associated with five such claims where Drogo is named in full, though disguised by the scribe as Drodo of la Beuvrière in one case. He is probably the Drogo at Hindringham, where he held in chief; and he may also be 'Drogo, Robert Malet's man', being involved elsewhere with Malet. Similarly, and more certainly, he is 'a certain Drogo', a man of Geoffrey Alselin at Ruskington in Lincolnshire, where he held in chief in the same vill. Elsewhere in the county, he is probably the Drogo at Witham, where he held in chief and the archbishop of York's woodland is said to be in his warnode, such woodland also identifying him at Thistleton. Three of Drogo's claims involve vills in which he held in chief; and though three others do not, one of them, at Bourne, involves land held by Earl Morcar, on whose lands Drogo of la Beuvrière is elsewhere stated to have claims. As for the other two, there are no other Drogos holding land in the county, so these may refer to the tenant-in-chief rather than a landless and otherwise unrecorded Drogo. In Yorkshire, Drogo of la Beuvrière held in chief in three vills where an unidentified Drogo held land or was subject of a claim. Drogo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 422) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 179-80, apart from Oakley, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 13130).

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO [* OF LES ANDELYS *]. Drogo of Les Andelys is named in the Abingdon chronicle as a subtenant of Robert d'Oilly and tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at South Weston in Oxfordshire who granted a hide to the abbey when he became ill and retired to the monastery: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 98-105. He is not named in the Domesday entry; but the tenurial associations suggest he may be Robert's subtenant at Ardley and his tenant at Shirburn and Hardwick, confirmed by his possession of houses in Wallingford attached to South Weston and Shirburn. He is probably also Earl Hugh's subtenant at Buscot in Berkshire, which he held from another Robert, identified as Robert son of Hugh, one of the earl's major tenants: Farrer, Honors, ii. 22-25. This in turn suggests that he is the tenant of Robert on five manors in Cheshire. With one exception, these are the only Drogos recorded in Berkshire, Oxfordshire or Cheshire. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies the remaining Drogo, who held Charlton in Berkshire from Ralph of Tosny, as the same man, which is plausible given that Charlton is midway between Buscot and Wallingford and of similar status to Charlton and his manors in Oxfordshire; but it is more likely that this Drogo is Drogo son of Poyntz. Drogo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 145) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 179. He was from Les Andelys in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Les Andelys).

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO [* OF MONTACUTE *]. The Drogos who held Nyland and Toller in Dorset, seven manors in Devon, and twelve in Somerset from the Count of Mortain according to Domesday Book or Exon. are probably the Drogo of Montacute, who held Knowle Park in Somerset from the king, where his byname is recorded. He is identified as Drogo of Montacute at Nyland by his grant to Shaftesbury abbey of two hides there 'with his daughter': Regesta, iii. no. 818; Shepton Montague presumably derives its surname from his family, and 'Womberford' and Feniton were later held by William of Montacute: Red Book, i. 228-29; Book of Fees, p. 782. In 1166, one of the knights of his descendant, another Drogo, was Thomas de Tolra, presumably named from Toller Whelme, another of his Mortain tenancies: Williams, 'Domesday survey of Dorset', p. 60. The descent of the remaining manors has not been traced; but most if not all may be assigned to Drogo of Montacute with reasonable confidence on tenurial grounds: every other Drogo in the south-western counties can be identified as one of two other individuals; the Count of Mortain is unlikely to have had several such in thee counties when he had no others elsewhere on his Honour. Drogo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 684) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 180.

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO <OF STOKE>. The Drogos who held Stoke Goldington in Buckinghamshire, Esnotrewic in Derbyshire, Horndon in Essex, and Ravensthorpe, Teeton and Coton and its dependencies in Northamptonshire from William Peverel are probably one man, the only Drogo in those counties apart from Drogo of Beuvrière on a manor in Northamptonshire. The descent of the manors tends to confirm his identity: Farrer, Honors, i. 188-92, 217-18. They are recorded in Coel (no. 1666) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 181, apart from Teeton and Coton and their dependencies, assigned to William Peverel's demesne, and Horndon, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1666).

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO <OF WHITLEY>. The Drogos who held Whitley in Warwickshire and Levedale in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man, and the same man as the tenant of William son of Ansculf in the same two counties. The distribution of their manors is consistent with this, those of William's tenant lying between those of Robert, at Perry, Barr and Handsworth in Staffordshire - said to be held by one man - and Edgbaston in Warwickshire, three miles to the south, later held with Perry by the Birmingham family: VCH Warwickshire, vii. 67. These are the only Drogos in either county, and neither tenant-in-chief had others among their tenants elsewhere on their Honours. Drogo's tenancies from Robert and William are recorded in Coel as held by two individuals (nos. 8769, 2984 respectively), both referenced in Domesday people, p. 181.

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO [* SON OF MAUGER *]. The Drogos who held Exton, Wilmersham and Culborne in Somerset, and six houses in Exeter from the bishop of Coutances are probably the Drogo stated to hold seventy-three manors from the bishop in Devon, named Drogo son of Mauger on several of these in Exon.. He may also be the Drogo on the substantial manor of Timberscombe, circled by three of his manors, though there are no links to confirm this. He may be the son of Mauger of Carteret (q.v.) and brother of Humphrey, important tenants in the south-western counties, from Carteret in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Valognes). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 785) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 180, apart from Timberscombe, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 14960).

.............................................................................................................................................
DROGO [* SON OF POYNTZ *]. The Drogos who held Charlton in Berkshire, Sarnesfield and Clifford Castle in Herefordshire, and Lower Swell in Gloucestershire from Ralph of Tosny are probably Drogo son of Poyntz, a tenant-in-chief in Herefordshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire, whose family succeeded to the Tosny lands: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 35-36; VCH Herefordshire, i. 278. He is probably also the Drogo who held Aston Blank in Gloucestershire from the bishop of Worcester, held by his descendants, the Cliffords: Book of Fees, p. 38. It is likely, too, that he is tenant of the bishop of Hereford at 'Middlewood' in Herefordshire and of Richard son of Osbern at Staunton-on-Arrow in the same county, they being the only other Drogos in any of the Welsh border counties. 'Middlewood' lies in Clifford, where Drogo son of Poyntz was a Tosny tenant, and Osbern's son was later Drogo's tenant at Rochford, so an exchange or other arrangement between the two tenants-in-chief may have occurred: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 63, 65, 119. Drogo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 525) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 180-81, apart from Charlton, assigned to Drogo of Les Andelys.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNN. Dunn is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-nine times, distributed among the six adjacent counties of Devon, Somerset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Berkshire, and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNN <OF BRIMPSFIELD>. The Dunns who preceded Osbern Giffard in Berkshire, Wiltshire, Somerset and Gloucestershire are evidently Osbern's designated predecessor, implicitly recognised as such on his manor at 'Oldbury' in Gloucestershire, 'which did not belong to the man Dunn's land'; Dunn preceded Osbern on the remainder of the fief. He contributed more than half of Osbern's Honour, four times as much as any other predecessor. His status as Osbern's predecessor enables him to be identified despite the variant forms of his name (Don, Dons, Dun, Duns, Domnus) whose derivation is uncertain: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 227-28. In addition to the lands acquired by Osbern Giffard, it is likely that the Dunns (Duns, Donnus, Domnus) who held Bitton in Gloucestershire and Buckland Dinham in Somerset in both 1066 and 1086, and 'Barley' in Wiltshire in 1066 are the same man, Buckland being adjacent to his manor of Elm, and Bitton and Barley encircled by his manors; both Buckland and Elm are substantial, of comparable status to several other of his manors.
	Given the distribution of the name, it is not unlikely that other Dunns in Somerset and Devon are Dunn of Brimpsfield, the most likely candidates being those who survived on the same manor for two decades, or survived at all, particularly in the first case, where the manor is the most substantial held by an unidentified Dunn. If this Dunn is Dunn of Brimpsfield, then the remaining Somerset manors lying between this manor and those of Osbern Giffard in eastern Somerset may also be his; but there are no tenurial or other associations to confirm an identification in Devon (where Osbern Giffard held no land) or elsewhere. A list of Dunn's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 273, which is confined to those acquired by Osbern Giffard and does not include his Berkshire manor. Dr Clarke ranks Dunn eighty-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additions suggested above would raise him about two dozen places without those in Devon and western Somerset (which would raise him almost another twenty places if included). The 1086 tenants are recorded in Coel and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 178-79, as two individuals, one (Dons) at Bitton in Gloucestershire (no. 8306), the other (Domnus) at Buckland Dinham and on the four Devonshire manors (no. 1763).

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNSTAN. Dunstan is an uncommon name which occurs seventeen times, all but one in the north of England and all but three of those in Yorkshire, distributed among four counties and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief. There was one survivor.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNSTAN <OF DONYATT>. Dunstan, whose shared manor of Donyatt in Somerset was acquired by the Count of Mortain, is the only Dunstan south of the Trent. He has no links with other Dunstans.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNSTAN <OF ETWALL>. As the name is rare outside Yorkshire, the Dunstans at Etwall and Hallam in Derbyshire and Gedling in Nottinghamshire may be the same man. Hallam is roughly halfway between the other two vills, about fourteen miles from either. The Nottinghamshire manor may have been acquired by Roger of Bully as part of a block grant of Thurgarton wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-64.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNSTAN <OF SWILLINGTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Dunstans who preceded Ilbert of Lacy on eight manors in 'Skyrack' and Morley wapentakes may be one man, possibly Ilbert's tenant at Golcar, surviving as was often the case on a fragment of a once extensive estate. Most of his manors were of similar status, and substantial in terms of their assessment. Apart from William of Percy's predecessor, Dunstan of Tadcaster, the only other Dunstan in the county was the pre-Conquest lord of Holme, nine miles to the south of Golcar. Like Golcar, this, too, may have been held in 1086 since no tenant is recorded; it is likely it belonged to the same Dunstan.

.............................................................................................................................................
DUNSTAN <OF TADCASTER>. Dunstan, whose land at Tadcaster in Yorkshire was acquired by William of Percy, is probably the burgess whose messuage in York he held in 1086. The statement by a wapentake jury that Dunstan 'did not have Thorkil's land in Tadcaster' was probably aimed at Percy, whose holding at Tadcaster combined the manors held by these two pre-Conquest landowners. The urban context suggests this Dunstan is not Ilbert of Lacy's predecessor, Dunstan of Swillington, though their holdings are sufficiently close to make their identity possible; some Domesday burgesses had rural manors, a few several of them.

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND [* MALET *]. It is probable that Durand, who held Sutton-by-Guildford in Surrey as a tenant of Robert Malet, is Durand Malet, apparently a close relative though the nature of their relationship has not been established, the most recent view being that Durand may be a son of William Malet (q.v.) and brother of Robert: Oxford DNB, xxxvi. 312-13. Sutton constituted Robert's entire fief in the county, acquired by an illegal act by Durand, implying that Robert's possession was unwarranted. It is also possible that Durand is Robert's tenant at Cransford in Suffolk, as suggested by Dr Hart, who has made a case for the pre-Conquest Durands in Nottinghamshire and East Anglia, and other post-Conquest tenants in East Anglia and Cambridgeshire, being Durand Malet: 'William Malet and his family', pp. 135-37, 144-46. The rarity of the name before the Conquest, the possibility that Robert Malet's tenant at Cransford was Durand Malet, and the proximity of several of Durand's manors to those of Robert Malet, are suggestive; but as there is no instance where Durand's byname is used, and no case where he held the same manor in both 1066 and 1086, Dr Lewis's suggestion that the pre-Conquest Durands are another man, Durand of Offton, seems more likely: 'French in England', p. 141. Two of the three Suffolk tenants of 1086 - possibly all three - are probably Durand the cleric, including the Durand at Cransford. Durand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2560) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 182.

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND [* OF GLOUCESTER *]. The Durands who held tenancies from ecclesiastical tenants-in-chief in Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Wiltshire and Worcestershire may be Durand of Pîtres, alias Durand of Gloucester, sheriff of that county and a tenant-in-chief in the first three of those counties. Dr Walker (''Honours' of the earls of Hereford', p. 177) has identified him as the Durand who held ten hides from the bishop of Winchester in Alresford, and his tenancy at Overton in Wiltshire descended to his heirs, along with tenancies from the abbey of Cormeilles and probably those from the bishops of Hereford and Worcester: VCH Gloucestershire, viii. 72; x, 47; xi. 188-89; Book of Fees, p. 39. As its tenant elsewhere, he may be the Durand who held the handsome manor of Wield from Winchester; and since he held another substantial manor from the bishopric of Worcester, he may be the Durand who held Norton in Worcestershire from the Church, particularly as that tenant is the only Durand in the county.
	Of the remaining tenancies, Durand at Chedglow in Wiltshire is shown to be the sheriff by a duplicate, while another at Portchester in Hampshire may be him given the strategic location of Portchester, though this cannot be verified by manorial descent, the manor remaining in the hands of the family of the Domesday tenant-in-chief: VCH Hampshire, iii. 151-52. Durand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 648) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 181-82, apart from Norton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 31731).

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND <OF NORMANTON>. Durand, whose manor of Normanton in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, is one of the few pre-Conquest landowners of this name. Although he had his own Hall, his small holding of little more than a bovate appears to be his only property. The one other Durand in circuit six is the tenant-in-chief, Durand Malet, with a fief in Lincolnshire and a single manor at Owthorpe in Nottinghamshire. It is conceivable that he is the pre-Conquest lord of Normanton as suggested by Dr Hart, since his close relative, William Malet, probably held land in Lincolnshire before the Conquest; but the most recent view is that Durand was a later generation Malet: 'William Malet and his family', pp. 146; Oxford DNB, xxxvi. 312-13.

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND [* OF OFFTON *]. As eleven of the thirteen pre-Conquest Durands occur in the same area of south-east Suffolk on holdings of similar status, they are very probably one man, named Durand of Offton on Hervey of Bourges' manor of Bredfield. Hervey also succeeded Durand or his free men on three more manors. No Durand is recorded at Offton, but Siward acquired a manor from him at Battisford, four miles away. Of his remaining holdings, four were acquired by Roger Bigot, on all of which Northmann was his overlord (7,84;111;118;121), while at Helmingham, held by the bishop of Bayeux in 1086, his overlord was Edric of Laxfield, as on two of Hervey's acquisitions. On the final holding, Ranulf brother of Ilger's manor in the lost vill of Aluredestuna, Durand is described as a predecessor of Robert Malet, who had no Durands among his recorded predecessors in the county; but the bishop, Bigot and Malet shared other predecessors in East Anglia. Dr Hart suggested that the pre-Conquest landowner is Durand Malet; but it is more likely that Durand of Offton is a different man, as suggested by Dr Lewis: Hart, 'William Malet and his family', pp. 144-46; Lewis, 'French in England', p. 141 (some references are omitted).

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND <OF STORRINGTON>. It is probable that the pre-Conquest lord of Sway in the New Forest, a manor acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is also the earl's tenant on three more manors in the Forest, the only Durands in the area. If so, the earl had improved his lot so he may be one other Durand on the Honour of Shrewsbury, holding the fairly valuable manor of Storrington in Sussex, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. It is tempting to suggest that he might be Durand the barber at Titchfield, across Southampton Water from the New Forest manors, en route to Sussex; but there are no links to confirm this. Durand is the only barber named in Domesday Book but is perhaps the king's rather than the earl's hairdresser. Durand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8770) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 182, apart from Baddesley, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 6659), and with the addition of Netheravon in Wiltshire, held from Nigel the doctor, a tenant of the earl in Shropshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
DURAND [* THE CLERIC *]. Durand, tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds at Stowlangtoft in Suffolk, may be Durand the cleric, who held Kenton from the abbey according to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin: Feudal documents, p. 11. He is possibly also the one other Durand in the county in 1086, at Cransford, though Dr Hart suggests that this and other East Anglian Durands are Durand Malet: 'William Malet and his family', pp. 144-146. Durand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3818) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 181.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDELO <OF RAUCEBY>. Edelo, tenant of Robert of Stafford on the substantial manor of Rauceby in Lincolnshire, is probably Robert's tenant Ehelo at Metheringham, twelve miles away, and also his tenant Aslen at Swynnerton in Staffordshire. These are only occurrences of those names in Domesday Book, and Swynnerton and Rauceby were later held by the Swynnerton family: Slade, 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', p. 31. Robert son of Ehelen witnessed a Staffordshire charter in the 1120s and, as Eyton observed, the father's name is spelt 'with extraordinary variety', appearing in later records as Eslenem and Aelem as well as Ehelem: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 195-98. Edelo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3021) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA. Edeva appears to be a common name, distributed among eighteen counties and the lands of the king and twenty of his tenants-in-chief. Its distribution is skewed. Apart from a sprinkling south of the Thames and a single occurrence in Worcestershire, the names are concentrated in two large clusters, one in the adjacent counties of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the other in those between Buckinghamshire and Suffolk. Eight manors were held by survivors. The scribe occasionally confused the name with Edith, and vice-versa.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA <OF CHADDESLEY>. Edeva, who held the substantial manor of Chaddesley in Worcestershire before and after the Conquest, is the only Edeva to retain her manor between those dates. Dr Williams suggests that she may be the Edith with two manors in Bickmarsh one of them substantial - who was perhaps related to the earls of Mercia, previous lords of Bickmarsh and Chaddesley: Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', pp. 21, 30-31; Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 140, 171-73. Edith and Edeva are confused elsewhere by Domesday scribes; and, like Edeva, Edith held both manors herself in 1066, and from the king in 1086. Apart from the queen and a nun, Edeva and Edith are the only women of either name in the three counties of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. As her name is entered as Edith in both Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, that may be the correct form. If so, she is possibly the Edith who survived for two decades on an anonymous holding in Berkshire, the only Edith to do so, though the holding is a mere virgate and there are no links with the Mercian manors. The tenants in Berkshire and at Chaddesley are recorded as different women in Coel (nos. 383, 9854), both referenced in Domesday people, p. 183; the Ediths at Bickmarsh are unidentified (nos. 28582, 29896).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA [* THE FAIR *]. Edeva the fair, alias Edeva the rich and - very probably - Countess Edeva, is given her byname on many manors in the counties of Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, and Suffolk, in all of which she was succeeded on most of her manors by Count Alan of Brittany, which plausibly identifies her as the Edeva on more than sixty others - too numerous to list - acquired by the Count in those counties; there is no instance where a second Edeva might reasonably be suspected of being his predecessor. As she is the only Edeva identified as a lord of men in those counties, she is probably the overlord at Stone in Buckinghamshire; Caldecote, Drayton, Lolworth and Fulbourn in Cambridgeshire; and Finborough, Hunston, Burgh and Gusford in Suffolk. In all but the first of these, she was succeeded by tenants-in-chief who acquired other manors where her byname is supplied; and in three of them, she had other manors in the same vill. Stone was held by the bishop of Bayeux, who also acquired Reed in Hertfordshire from an Edeva who was overlord of two other men in that vill whose manors devolved upon Count Alan so there is little doubt as to the identity of the Edeva in those vills, though she is described as a 'girl' and a man of Archbishop Stigand on her demesne manor in Reed. The Countess Edeva of Burgh can scarcely be anyone other than Edeva the fair, Queen Edith - the only plausible alternative - presupposing scribal errors in name and - less credibly - title.
	Edeva is normally identified by one of her bynames on the demesne holdings not acquired by Count Alan; but she is almost certainly the 'Edith' at Norton - where the dependencies give the correct form of her name and her byname - and the Edeva on the handsome manor of Sampford in Essex, retained by the king with a number of her other manors. The Edeva at Thurlow in Suffolk is shown to be Edeva the fair by her tenure of the central manor and the intermediate tenure of Ralph Wader; and the tiny holding at Hallingbury in Essex may also be hers since the bishop of London acquired other manors from her.
	Finally, she may be the Edeva whose manors in Kent and Sussex and Somerset were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and the king respectively. The royal manor of Crewkerne in Somerset is one of the two most valuable held by an Edeva, and Harold and his son Godwin - probably her husband and son (below) - held eight others in the county, Crewkerne being the most valuable of them all, one of a consecutive block of royal manors in Somerset held by Harold and his family, so Edeva was presumably one of them, and not the least important: Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 398. Similarly, Hadlow in Kent is the third most valuable manor held by an Edeva who, as noted above, was succeeded by Bishop Odo elsewhere; she is probably the Edeva he succeeded at Tudeley, the one other Edeva in Kent, both manors being subinfeudated to Richard of Tonbridge. The manors acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Sussex were all valuable, the first two among the ten most valuable of her manors; two were held from the king, one from Earl Godwin. Sussex, of course, was the Godwinson heartland, and the absence of a tenurial link is irrelevant since the county was distributed by Rapes, and Count Alan was not one of the tenants-in-chief to hold one of them. The three other Edevas who held land in Sussex, all succeeded by William of Warenne, are possibly also Edeva the fair, though the manors are not of the status of those of Earl Roger so are not here attributed to her.
	The Edeva whose manors in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer has also been identified as Edeva the fair (Boyle, 'Edeva', pp. 13-20); but that Edeva is more likely to be Edeva wife of Topi. A list of Edeva's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 273-79, which does not include those in Kent, Sussex and Somerset; or those at Reed in Hertfordshire; Whittlesford in Cambridgeshire, and Hallingbury in Essex; or those of some of her men in Cambridgeshire recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 77-80), or in Buckinghamshire and Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks Edeva fourth in wealth among untitled laymen, eleventh among the nobility; the additional manors would raise her to second and eighth places respectively.
	Edeva has often been identified as Edith Swan-neck, married for some twenty years (though not in the eyes of the Church) to Earl Harold Godwinson, and mother of at least six of his children. Conclusive proof of this identification has never been found; but her beauty, her wealth, and its concentration in the area where Harold began his public career and was earl for almost a decade, make the identification probable, more so if her identification as the Edeva in Sussex and Somerset is valid. Her posthumous career tends further to confirm this. Her successor, Count Alan of Brittany, later abducted Harold's daughter Gunnhild from the nunnery at Wilton, probably - it has been argued - to secure title to his estates as heiress to Harold and Edeva, which presupposes the identity of Edith Swan-neck and Edeva the fair: Searle, 'Women', pp. 167-69.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA [* WIFE OF EDWARD SON OF SWEIN *]. Edeva, who succeeded Edward son of Swein at 'Lisson' in Middlesex, is probably his wife, named as such on a small holding in Essex where she also succeeded him. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1389) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 183-84.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA [* WIFE OF TOPI *]. The Edevas who held Kettleby and Messingham in Lincolnshire are identified as the mother of Ulf son of Topi (q.v.) in his will: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97. Both manors were acquired by Erneis of Buron, which makes it likely that the Edeva who preceded him at Melton, Brocklesby, Habrough and Grayingham is also Topi's wife. In Brocklesby, Grayingham, Kettleby and Messingham part of the vill was also held by Ulf or one of his sons or relatives, Alnoth (q.v.) or Healfdene (q.v.).
	Edeva's manors are encircled by the fief of Ralph of Mortimer, three of whose manors were acquired from an Edeva. The most substantial of these manors, at Thornton Curtis, was six miles from that of Topi's wife at Melton Ross. Kirmington, where her husband and son held land, even closer. Ralph's Edeva held messuages in Stow, as did Ulf, who also made a bequest to the abbey; and both Ralph and Ulf's successor, Gilbert of Ghent, were exempt from forfeitures on these holdings 'because of their predecessors'. It seems likely that the predecessors were the son and wife of Topi. If this identification is valid, then the Yorkshire Edevas are also the wife of Topi, since all their manors were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer, forming almost his entire fief in the county.
	It is possible that the three other Edevas in Lincolnshire are the same woman. Austhorpe was acquired by Kolsveinn of Lincoln, who had an interest in several other vills - Riseholme, Holme, Fillingham, Claxby - where the Topi family held land; and Robert of Tosny, who acquired the one remaining manor, shared the priviledged status of Ralph of Mortimer and Gilbert of Ghent in 'Well' wapentake even though he held no land there, which suggests he was privileged because his predecessor was Topi's wife.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDEVA [* WIFE OF WULFWARD WHITE *]. Edeva, whose four substantial Buckinghamshire manors devolved upon the bishop of Coutances, is almost certainly one woman, named on the first of the four as the wife of Wulfward, who is equally certainly the English magnate Wulfward White. Like her husband, Edeva held some of her manors from Queen Edith, which very probably identifies her as the Edeva whose two valuable manors in the county were acquired by Walter Giffard, the first of them held from the queen. At Winchendon, the scribe has confused Edith and Edeva by a misplaced de inserted above the line, producing the formulae 'Edith held this manor from Queen Edeva'. Edeva is also the unnamed wife of Wulfward, identified as Wulfward White in Exon., on the royal manor of Keynsham in Somerset held by Queen Edith in 1066. She survived her husband and son, another Wulfward, retaining the manor of Little Linford as a tenant of the bishop of Coutances. Her pre-Conquest manors are listed with those of her husband and son by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 366-68, who does not include Keynsham. Dr Clarke ranks the family as seventeenth in wealth among the nobility, eighth among untitled laymen; the addition of Keynsham would not affect this. Her one tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 1635) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDGAR. Edgar is a rare name which occurs on one fief and seven manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and three of his tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDGAR <OF HOUGHTON>. The three Edgars in East Anglia may be one man. Those at Houghton and Cavendish in Suffolk were predecessors of Ralph of Limésy; and although Mundham in Norfolk is some distance away, that Edgar was a lord of men, apparently without demesne, as was the Suffolk Edgar.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* PRINCE *] EDGAR. Edgar, whose two substantial manors in Huntingdonshire constituted the fief of Earl Hugh of Chester in the county, may be Prince Edgar, or Edgar the aetheling as he is more commonly known, as suggested by Dr Lewis: 'Honour of Chester', pp. 45, 47 and note 39. He held a small fief in Hertfordshire, where he is accorded his title. Apart from Edgar the priest of Wiltshire, he is the only post-Conquest landholder of this name, and the only one with significant resources. His career would explain the losses and gains, its most mysterious aspect being his meagre pre-Conquest endowment as heir to the Crown. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3818) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 184.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDGAR [* THE PRIEST *]. Edgar, who inherited the church of Poulshot in Wiltshire from his father, is probably Edgar the priest at Deverill, the one other Edgar in the south-western counties. Deverill is recorded in Coel (no. 1390) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 184; the tenant at Poulshot is unidentified (no. 16526).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDITH. The name Edith occurs frequently but most Ediths are the queen, daughter of Earl Godwin, wife of Edward the Confessor and brother King Harold and his brothers. Roughly two dozen unidentified Ediths are recorded, some of whom are probably also the queen. All the names are in southern England, the most northerly, at Rowton in Shropshire, is that of one of the three surviving Ediths. The scribe occasionally confused her name with Edeva, and vice-versa.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* QUEEN *] EDITH. Edward the Confessor's queen is usually accorded her title but may be the simple Edith succeeded by Ralph of Mortimer on a number manors in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Leicestershire. Queen Edith is named as Ralph's predecessor five times on the royal fief in Herefordshire, and once on his own fief, so she may be the Edith from whom Ralph acquired his valuable manors of Shobdon and Orleton on the same fief. She may also be the Edith who preceded him on several valuable manors in Shropshire, and she is perhaps the Edith at Pulley, where Mortimer succeeded Edith on another manor in the vill. It is also likely that she is the Edith who preceded Ralph at Osbaston and 'Weston' in Leicestershire, though the form of the entry appears to militate against this: 'Edric and Edith held these two lands freely' is disrespectful or uninformed. However, the association of Ralph and the queen elsewhere, and the occasional omission of her title, is evident; and these two manors constitute Ralph's fief in the county, suggesting it was acquired by antecession, either as the queen's predecessor or that of Edric the wild (q.v.), if this Edric be that man. The 1086 manor might be a conflation of two pre-Conquest holdings - a common occurrences - or the scribe may have confused the lord, the queen, and her man in a single statement, as occurred on a number of fiefs in circuit four. The only other Ediths in Leicestershire are the queen; there are no other Edrics.
	The Edeva who held Kingston Deverill in Wiltshire may also be the queen. The manor was acquired by the Canons of Lisieux, and later held in alms from the Crown, so may once have been royal; the names Edith and Edeva are confused elsewhere by the scribes: Book of Fees, p. 743. Edith is also often referred to simply as 'the queen', the context normally identifying her in such cases. Edith's manors - including ambiguous cases - are listed by Stafford, Queen Emma & Queen Edith, pp. 280-305, whose list differs from the Statistics database in some respects, particularly in Kent, Sussex, Middlesex, Shropshire and Leicestershire. Estimates of the queen's manorial wealth vary wildly; they are itemised by Dr Baxter, whose own estimate is closest to that in the Statistics database (£1464): Earls of Mercia, pp. 128-29, 134-35, 318-19.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDITH [* THE NUN *]. Edith, who held a hide from the Church of Worcester at Greenhill in the county before 1066, may be Edith the nun, who held from the monks at Knightwick at the same date, the only other Edith in the county apart from the queen. Edith returned her land at Knightwick to the monks as their community grew, a fact to which she testified in 1086, being still alive, so she is perhaps also the nun Edith with twelve acres of alms land at an unknown location in Somerset in 1086. This manor is recorded in Coel (no. 374) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 183.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMER. Edmer is a common name in the south-western counties, particularly in Devon, occurring rarely in the north Midlands or northern counties. A significant proportion of the names are associated with the Count of Mortain, one of whose predecessors was the English magnate Edmer Ator. Survivors held four manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMER [* ATOR *]. Edmer Ator is named in Domesday Book as a royal thane and a thane of Earl Harold. Although unnamed in contemporary sources, he must have played a key role in the events of 1066 since it was at Berkhamsted, the most valuable of his manors, that the final surrender of the English leaders and the effective termination of the Conqueror's 1066 campaign took place. The Count of Mortain subsequently made Berkhamsted the seat of his Honour.
	Edmer Ator is named as the predecessor whose '17 lands' in Devon were 'handed over' to the Count of Mortain, and his byname is recorded in Domesday or Exon. on Mortain manors in Buckinghamshire, Devon, Hertfordshire, Middlesex and Somerset, so he is probably the Edmer who preceded the Count in eight counties, in most if not all cases. In Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Dorset and Middlesex all Edmers are predecessors of the Count; and in Hertfordshire only the manor of one of his men was acquired by another tenant-in-chief, his byname being supplied in that case. Of the remaining three counties, all Edmers in Northamptonshire are probably Edmer Ator, all but one being preceded by the Count, the exception at Hartwell holding a manor of appropriate status less than five miles from Alderton, acquired by the Count. In Somerset, the three unidentified Edmers may be one man but are unlikely to be Edmer Ator as two of them were tenants in 1086; there is no other indication that Edmer Ator was alive at that date, though many Englishmen survived on the Honour of the Count of Mortain in the south-west. Finally, in Devon, where the Count of Mortain had one of his largest fiefs and Edmer Ator the bulk of his Honour, unidentified Edmers outnumber those of all other counties combined, so it is probable that many, perhaps the majority, were Edmer Ator. Those whose holdings were acquired by the Count of Mortain almost certainly were (three are so-named in Exon.); but there are few links which would help to identify others. Three other tenants-in-chief acquired land previously held by Edmer Ator or his men according to Exon., but none were preceded by an Edmer in Devon or elsewhere.
	A list of Edmer's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 280-81, which does not include three Somerset holdings attributed to Edmer Ator in Exon., the Cornish holdings, Bolberry in Devon, or Hartwell in Northamptonshire. Dr Clarke ranks him twentieth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him four places.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMUND. The name Edmund occurs on two fiefs and almost forty manors, distributed among sixteen counties between Wiltshire and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and eleven of his tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Hampshire and Yorkshire. Survivors held sixteen manors, all acquired since 1066.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMUND <OF CHILDREY>. The Edmunds whose manors of Enborne and Childrey in Berkshire and Stratton in Gloucestershire were acquired by Roger of Lacy are almost certainly the Edmund who held the valuable manor of Coleshill in Berkshire, granted to Winchester abbey by Roger's father, Walter of Lacy. He is probably also one of the three thanes whose share in a hide in the same vill was acquired by Roger, the other thanes being Asgot of Hailes (q.v.) and Brictric of Newton (q.v.), who may be his brothers, also wealthy landowners. The three men may be the three free men who held the valuable royal manor of Sparsholt in Berkshire, adjacent to Childrey and where Brictric had another manor, possibly two: Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', pp. 24-25. Edmund may also be the predecessor of Roger of Lacy at Hopton and Stoke in Shropshire. Although his family do not otherwise appear to have held land in the county, Stoke is a valuable manor and Edmund the only pre-Conquest landowner of this name in Shropshire. Finally, it is not unlikely that he is the royal thane Edmund at Wraysbury in Buckinghamshire, though there are no familial or tenurial links in this case. Both Brictric and Asgot held land in the county, and Brictric at least was a royal thane. More significantly, Wraysbury is by a considerable margin the most valuable manor held by an Edmund before the Conquest, the next four - also considerably more valuable than any others - being held by Edmund of Childrey. Robert Gernon, who acquired Wraysbury as his fief and only manor in the county, had no other Edmunds among his predecessors or tenants. A list of Edmund's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 249-51, which does not include a share in Sparsholt, the Shropshire manors, or Wraysbury. Dr Clarke ranks Asgot, Brictric and Edmund collectively as fifteenth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors attributed to the three of them would place the family comfortably within the top ten.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMUND [* SON OF AIULF *]. The Edmunds who held four successive manors among the king's thanes of Wiltshire may be Edmund son of Aiulf, named in the fourth of them and as the 'son of Aiulf' in a fifth, the following manor, since all five thanes were survivors, clustered within a few miles of each other. The remaining Edmunds in the south-western counties in either 1066 or 1086 may be identified with some confidence as Edmund son of Payne. The manors of Aiulf's son are recorded in Coel (no. 551) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 184.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDMUND [* SON OF PAYNE *]. The three Edmunds among the king's thanes in Hampshire may be Edmund son of Payne, who held another manor in that fief, at Durley. He succeeded his (unnamed) father on one manor, and was preceded on another by a Saewin who succeeded Payne - presumably Edmund's father - in the same Hundred in the New Forest, where the third manor was also located. There are no other Edmunds in the county. Edmund son of Payne also held three manors among the royal thanes in Somerset, and was a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk, where he succeeded his father. There are no other Edmunds in the three counties. Edmund's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 527) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 184.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDNOTH. The name Ednoth is fairly common among pre-Conquest landowners but confined to eleven counties in southern England south of a line from Gloucester to Ipswich. After the Conquest the name is rare, occurring once in Cornwall and Somerset and twice in Sussex. The name is occasionally confused by the scribe with Alnoth: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', p. 32.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDNOTH <OF EXFORD>. The tenant on the tiny holding worth 30 pence at Exford in Somerset acquired by Roger of Courseulles, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 14904).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDNOTH <OF PENGELLY>. The tenant of the Count of Mortain at Pengelly and the pre-Conquest lord of Rosebenault, some ten miles away; may be the same Ednoth. They are the only two Ednoths in Cornwall, and the Count of Mortain had no other tenants or predecessors of this name on his Honour. The one other Ednoth who might plausibly be linked with him held Germansweek in Devon before the Conquest, acquired by Baldwin the sheriff. Three other manors held by a survivor have no links with this Ednoth. It has been suggested that he may be the same man as Alnoth of Tolgullow (q.v.). His tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 240) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 185.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDNOTH <OF PLAYDEN>. As the name is rare in 1086, it is probable that the tenants of the Count of Eu at Playden and Hurst in Sussex are the same man, and likely also that he is the Count's predecessor at Iden, adjacent to Playden, the one other Ednoth in the county. He has no links with other Ednoths. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 15904, 15993).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDNOTH [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Ednoth the constable is documented in contemporary sources as holding office under the Confessor, Harold, and the Conqueror; he was killed in Somerset in1067, attempting to repel an invasion by Harold's sons. He was among the twenty wealthiest English landholders. In Domesday Book, he is named Ednoth the constable (Ednod Stalre) at Shippon in Berkshire and Ednoth the steward (Ednod dapifer) at Cadenham in Wiltshire, both manors being acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester, who succeeded him on five of his six manors in Wiltshire. He is probably therefore be the Ednoth who preceded the earl in Berkshire, Dorset, and Somerset, with two insignificant exceptions the only Ednoths in those counties. In Somerset, three of the four manors which constituted the earl's fief were held by Ednoth, so he may have held the fourth, at Sampford, where no pre-Conquest lord is recorded.
	Earl Hugh acquired the remainder of his fief in Dorset, and manors in Devon and Gloucestershire, from an Alnoth, who may be Ednoth the constable. Scholarly opinion is divided on this issue; but the balance of evidence tends to support the identification. Apart from a shared predecessor and the comparable status of many of the manors of Alnoth and Ednoth, these names are confused elsewhere by the Domesday scribe: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', p. 32. Moreover, Ednoth the constable had a son Harding (William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum, i. 470-71), named in contemporary documents (Pelteret, Catalogue, pp. 1050106, 110-11, 119), while Harding son of Alnoth is recorded at Lopen in Somerset and on another manor in the county in the Geld Roll: VCH Somerset, i. 536. As Dr Williams observes, 'it does not seem necessary to postulate two men, both called Harding and both with fathers called Ednoth, in roughly the same area at the same time'. Although Alnoth the constable is not recorded in contemporary charters, an Alnoth the constable is named in Exon. as holding Knowle in Somerset before the Conquest. This manor was acquired by Osbern Giffard, who also obtained Ugford in Wiltshire from an Ednoth, a manor adjacent to Ednoth the constable's manor of Burcombe. Domesday records that Ednoth recovered Ugford from Earl Godwin of Wessex, so he was evidently a powerful or influential man. It seems improbable that a second tenant-in-chief acquired manors from both an Ednoth and an Alnoth the constable in the same area as Earl Hugh's predecessor (or predecessors), unless Alnoth and Ednoth were the same man in both cases. See further Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. 755-59; Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', pp. 67-68; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 119-22.
	Among the other Ednoths recorded in the south-west, it is likely that the Ednoth who held a significant part of the manor of Whitchurch from the bishopric of Winchester and the substantial and privileged royal manor of Ampney in Gloucestershire is the constable. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 281-82, which includes Whitchurch (or Freefolk) and Ampney, but not the Dorset manors of Knowle and Ugford. Dr Clarke ranks the combined wealth of him with his son twenty-seventh among the nobility, sixteenth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise them two and one places respectively.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* GRIM *]. Edric Grim is named as a predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany on the very valuable Kettleburgh among many others, so the Edric from whom the Count acquired free men in Woodbridge, included in the valuation of Kettleburgh, is evidently Edric Grim. Edric is also named as the predecessor of three other tenants-in-chief, one of whom, Hugh de Montfort, acquired free men on three manors in Suffolk from an Edric who may be the Edric Grim who held the preceding manor. Edric Grim is several times named as a man of Edric of Laxfield, suggesting he may be the Edric who held the demesne manors of Cretingham, Debenham, Fordley, Chediston, Cransford, Brutge and Campsey as Laxfield's dependent. Debenham and Fordley were acquired by Robert Malet, Edric of Laxfield's successor, together with Darsham and South Cove, where Edrics were, respectively, overlord and tenant. The predecessor at South Cove was Edric of Laxfield and Edric is Malet's only tenant of this name, so he is probably Edric Grim. Further confirmation of his identity here and Fordley is provided by the interesting account at Fordley of the circumstances in which he became a man of King Edward when Edric of Laxfield was outlawed, but was allowed to return to his allegiance later, Edric of Laxfield presumably having been pardoned. The Hundred jury was sceptical, and 'did not see that he returned to Edric'; but he affirmed that he had; offered to undergo a trial to prove so for himself and 'also the free men whom he holds under him in patronage', in respect of whom 'he recalls Robert [Malet] as guarantor'.
	If this identification is valid, Edric Grim was treated more 'harshly and wretchedly' than most survivors, his manorial income declining from almost £50 to three shillings, unless he is also one of the other two Edric's holding land in the county in 1086, at Bungay and Flowton. Bungay, about fourteen miles from South Cove, is the more likely but there are no links to warrant a connection. Edric's income before the Conquest ranks him as a magnate of regional importance, with land valued at almost £50; he would rank seventy-eighth among untitled laymen if included in Clarke, English nobility. The tenant at South Cove is unidentified in Coel (no. 11931).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* OF BAYSTON *]. Edric, who leased Bayston in Shropshire from the bishop of Hereford before the Conquest, may be one of the two Edrics who witnessed one of the bishop's charters, more probably his steward than Edric of Wenlock since the implication of the claim concerning the tenure of Bayston recorded in Domesday is that Edric died before 1086, when Edric of Wenlock, alias Edric the wild, was still alive: Mason, 'Edric of Bayston', pp. 112-18; Galbraith, 'Episcopal land-grant', pp. 364, 371-72; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 93.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* OF EASTHORPE *]. Edric, from whom Count Eustace of Boulogne acquired Easthorpe in Essex, is probably Edric of Easthorpe, whose manor at 'Derleigh' devolved upon Ranulf brother of Ilger. He may also be the Edric who preceded the Count on the two previous manors on his fief. All three were substantial; two were subinfeudated to the same tenant; and Count Eustace had no other predecessors or tenants named Edric on his Honour. Ranulf had two, both identified as Edric of Laxfield, conceivably the same man, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* OF ELHAM *]. Edric of Elham is named as predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux at Ewell and Tickenhurst in Kent, and is almost certainly the Edric who preceded him on the very valuable manor of Elham itself. There is little reason to doubt that he is the Edric who preceded the bishop on other manors in the county since these, too, were valuable and the few other Edrics in the county have associations with the bishop and are probably the same man. Edric's Canterbury manor of Garrington was previously held by the bishop of Bayeux, and those Hugh de Montfort acquired from Edric at Newington and Ewell were part of manors he held as a tenant of the bishop. Dr Williams suggests he 'perhaps' held Solton, which follows Ewell and West Cliffe and where no pre-Conquest lord is named: World before Domesday, pp. 49, 172-73 and notes 28-30. The manor was valued at £15 in 1066; but the valuation is so disproportionate to the manor's resources that a scribal error for 15 shillings seems likely. The identity of the one remaining Edric, on a modest property at 'Stokenbury', is less certain; but even here there is an indirect association with Odo: Domesday Monachorum, p. 94. Edric may also have held the valuable manor of Dorking in Surrey, where the bishop of Bayeux had an interest; this Edric is one of two in the county, the only one of substance. Dorking was 'held' by Queen Edith, so Edric was her man or may have preceded or succeeded her, in which latter case he survived the Conquest by a decade; but the text of the entry is ambiguous. There are similar high-status manors held by Edrics in Berkshire and Hampshire, but no tenurial associations to connect them to Edric of Elham. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 304-305, which does not include 'Stokenbury', Dorking or Solton. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Dorking would place him comfortably among the top forty.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC <OF KILLAMARSH>. Edric, who shared a modest holding at Killamarsh in Derbyshire with two or three other lords before the Conquest, has no links with other Edrics; he is the most northerly of the Edrics and somewhat isolated, his closest namesake being Roger of Bully's predecessor on a similarly modest holding at Weston, twenty-five miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* OF LAXFIELD *]. Edric was the greatest landowner in East Anglia before the Conquest, and one of the greatest in England after the earls. He is named in full on the majority of his manors; but where he is not, many have identifying characteristics, though his name is so common it is unlikely all can be identified. With the possible exception of a minor Wiltshire holding, all his pre-Conquest lands were in East Anglia, almost all in eastern Suffolk. He was the designated predecessor of Robert Malet on several hundred occasions where he can be identified with some confidence, his name occurring so often that the scribes frequently abbreviated it to a simple E. Robert's five other named antecessores total scarcely a dozen mentions between them, so it is likely that virtually all the references to Edric on the Malet fief, or to an unnamed predecessor of Robert Malet elsewhere, are to Edric of Laxfield.
	Earl Ralph Wader provides another link. He was granted many of Edric's manors and free men, which after his own forfeiture were redistributed to Roger Bigot, Bishop Odo of Bayeux, Count Alan of Brittany and others, resulting in a number of disputes which help to identify Edric. All three tenants-in-chief acquired other manors of Edric's dependants where Earl Ralph is not mentioned, though he may have been the intermediate landowner in some at least of these cases. Edric may also be identified by association with such known dependents as Edric Grim, Stanwin, Ulfkil and others. The status of some manors, links between them and their dependencies, and manors acquired by other tenants-in-chief in vills where Edric is identified, provide other identifying characteristics, as do the many vills where an unidentified Edric held land acquired by two or more of Edric's successors, as at Dilham, Glemham and Stalham in Norfolk, and Benhall, Blaxhall and 'Thorpe' in Suffolk. Holdings which went to other tenants-in-chief may sometimes be identified as Edric's by the same means. These characteristics enable Edric to be identified on roughly two hundred manors, too many to list here. Of the thirty-eight demesne manors, six were retained by the king; twenty-five acquired by Robert Malet, including Laxfield itself; and the other seven by five tenants-in-chief. The name Edric is so common that it is likely he held more manors than those identified here; it is unlikely, however, that these are significant since of some three dozen unidentified Edric in East Anglia, only the lord of Frettenham in Norfolk held a manor worth more than £1.50, and only three were overlords.
	Edric was outlawed by Edward the Confessor, apparently early in the reign, but restored with Harold's agreement, or perhaps by Harold himself. He is normally assumed to have died shortly after the Conquest (Domesday Book, ed. Hallam and Bates, pp. 114, 210, note 53), and had certainly lost many of his estates before the death of William Malet in 1069 and the forfeiture of Ralph Wader in 1076; but, improbable as it may seem, charter evidence from Bury St Edmunds, though circumstantial, suggests that he survived on a very modest thaneland in Wiltshire under the alias of Edric the blind: Feudal documents, pp. xc-xciii, 151-52. According to one Suffolk entry, he was also named Edric son of Ingold, Ingold being a name not otherwise recorded in Domesday.
	A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 283-302. As is Dr Clarke's practice, it does not include dependencies or many free holdings without pre-Conquest valuations; but it does interpret references to Malet's (unnamed) predecessor as referring to Edric, as here. Additionally, Dr Clarke assumes that land with Malet associations said to be 'under patronage' implies that Edric was Malet's predecessor, even though no predecessor is mentioned, which adds several dozen holdings to Edric's total. Given the ambiguity of the text of Little Domesday, some of these references may refer to post-Conquest conditions (e.g., SUF 45,2-3) so this practice has not been followed here. Ambiguities, and alternative construction put on some formulae, inevitably mean that there are differences between Dr Clarke's list and the Statistics database, especially in relation to the free holdings of Edric's dependents. Among the more significant divergences are demesne holdings at Pewsey and Hartham in Wiltshire, and Bacton and Walcot in Norfolk; and those of his men at Cretingham, Redlingfield, Rendlesham, Livermere, and Aspall in Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks Edric twelfth in wealth among untitled laymen, twenty second among the nobility; the additional manors would raise him one place in each case. Edric's Wiltshire tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 195) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 185.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC <OF TISSINGTON>. The Edrics from whom Henry of Ferrers acquired five manors in Derbyshire are probably one man. The name is not common in the northern counties, occurring only twice more in Derbyshire, once in Nottinghamshire, and not all in Yorkshire. At both Tissington and Etwall Edric is associated with a Gamal and a Wulfgeat, the remaining three manors clustering around Etwall. There are no other Edrics among Henry's predecessors or tenants.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC <OF WESTON>. Edric, whose modest shared holding at Weston in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with other Edrics. His manor is somewhat isolated from those of his namesakes, the closest being a thane on a similarly modest holding at Killamarsh, twenty-five miles away. Roger had no other predecessors or tenants of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* THE REEVE *]. The Edrics who held seven manors among the king's thanes of Dorset in 1086, said to be the same man on six of them, is probably Edric the reeve, who owed tax on a hide in Hasler Hundred where two of the manors lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 142. There are no other survivors of this name in the county. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1765) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 185.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* THE SHERIFF *]. Edric, who preceded Arnulf of Hesdin on his fief in Somerset and on manors in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire, is presumably Arnulf's designated predecessor. He is probably also the Edric at Linkenholt in Hampshire, granted by Arnulf to St Peter's of Gloucester. Several of these manors are valuable, Edric being one of the most substantial of Arnulf's predecessors. He may be Edric the sheriff, named on one entry in Wiltshire, who is otherwise without known demesne land in the county. Edric preceded Edward of Salisbury as sheriff, both men holding land in Etchilhampton, where no Anglo-Saxon lord is named on Edward's manor - the largest in the vill - which was conceivably held by Edric before him. As sheriff, Edric may also be the tenant in 1066 of thaneland on the royal manor of Chippenham, where he leased land from the 'lordship revenue' to Ceolwin. His name is so common that he may have held manors elsewhere, though there are no unidentified Edrics in the vills or Hundreds in which he can be identified. He was dead by 1086, survived by his wife, who was allowed to retain Etchilhampton and Calstone in Wiltshire as a tenant of Arnulf, with a house in Malmesbury, a generous provision by normal standards. She may be the Estrild recorded in the Wiltshire Geld Roll for 'Studfold' Hundred, where Etchilhampton lay: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 197. The only Estrild recorded in Domesday Book itself is a nun in Middlesex. A list of Edric's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 305, who does not identify him as the sheriff or include the Chippenham holdings; Dr Clarke ranks him sixtieth in wealth among untitled laymen. His widow's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1302) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 441.

................................................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* THE STEERSMAN *]. Edric, steersman of King Edward's ship, is named as holding land before the Conquest at Bradeston and Burlingham in Norfolk acquired by the bishop of Thetford. It is likely he is the Edric whose manor at Blakeney was held by the bishop and subinfeudated to the tenant of Burlingham, William of Noyers.
	The fourteenth century chronicle of the abbey of St Benet of Holme records that Edric the steersman was one of the principal benefactors of the abbey, donating manors in the vills of Honing, Calthorpe, Erpingham, Antingham and Waxham in north-east Norfolk: Chronicle of John of Oxenede, p. 267. Of these, an Edric is recorded in Domesday at Honing and Waxham. The Honing entry suggests that the arrangement between Edric and the abbey was more complex than the chronicle records, Edric enjoying a substantial manor from the abbey in return for the reversion of his share of the vill; the entries for Waxham also show Edric profiting at the expense of the abbey in the post-Conquest period, the Waxham holdings devolving upon Count Alan of Brittany, not the abbey. Count Alan acquired manors in Ingham, Stalham, Happisburgh, Palling and Catfield from Edric, who is probably the same man since the entry for Happisburgh provides a further link with the abbey of St Benet and implies that the Count's tenant was a man of Edric of Laxfield before the Conquest, linking the three entries. All these vills lay in the same Hundred as Waxham, two of them adjacent to that vill.
	Though circumstantial, the case for identification appears fairly strong but there is a problem: the Domesday entries which name Edric as the steersman also recount that he was outlawed after the Conquest and fled to Denmark, whereas Count Alan's man was active after the forfeiture of Earl Ralph Wader (1076) and apparently still alive in 1086, with a modest holding in Happisburgh. Some rebels did, of course, make their peace with the Conqueror, one of them being the abbot of St Benet, with whom Edric fled to Denmark: Williams, 'Land and power', pp. 179-80. An entry for Saxlingham suggests a possible mechanism for Edric's return to favour, recording that Edric pledged an estate to St Benet of Holme after the Conquest in order to raise the substantial sum of £13 'so that he might however redeem himself from capture by Waleran', Waleran presumably acting in an official capacity. The same entry reveals that Edric held land from the abbey on lease before the Conquest, confirming that this Edric is probably the abbey's 'benefactor', as also at Paston and Swafield, less than three miles from one of the vills said by the abbey's chronicler to have been donated by Edric the steersman, and a few miles more from several others. He is probably also the overlord of a number of free men centred in Thorpe Market. Thorpe and its dependencies form a close grouping in one corner of the Hundred of North Erpingham, Thorpe itself lying three miles from Antingham, one of the vills named by the Holme chronicler as a donation of Edric the steersman. Edric may himself have held the central manor at Thorpe, attributed in Domesday to an anonymous free man. Another manor in this group, Aylmerton, was held from Edric by Wigulf of Coddenham (q.v.), also his man at Crowfield in Suffolk, acquired by Roger of Rames, who had one other Edric among his predecessors, at Rayne in Essex. There are comparatively few unidentified Edrics in Essex so he, too, may be the steersman. Edric's subtenancy is not included in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDRIC [* THE WILD *]. Edric the wild is accorded his byname - silvaticus or salvage - once in Herefordshire and six times in Shropshire. He can also be identified with reasonable confidence in vills where the Savage family - presumably his descendants - have left their mark at some time or another on village surnames: Amport in Hampshire, and Eudon and Walton in Shropshire; Overton also descended to the Savage family. Edric's manors in these vills were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer, who also held the one Herefordshire manor of Edric the wild, who may therefore be the Edric whose manors Ralph acquired elsewhere. This is probably the case in Herefordshire, where five of the eight manors of an Edric became Ralph's. Of the other three, two were held in 1086 and there are grounds for believing that Edric the wild still held land at this date (below). In Shropshire, Mortimer acquired another three of Edric's manors, and also Stretton in Warwickshire and Osbaston and 'Weston' in Leicestershire which, as they are his entire fiefs in those counties, probably devolved upon him as Edric's designated successor. In Leicestershire, Edric - the only Edric in the county - is paired with Edith, perhaps Queen Edith (q.v.), from whom Ralph obtained many of his manors in Herefordshire and Shropshire. Finally, in Hampshire, where Edric preceded Ralph at Amport, he may also be the Edric on a second manor in that vill since Ralph's five hides is said to belong to this second manor, the two constituting the whole of the vill which had evidently been undivided before the Conquest, and so held by one man. The second and larger manor was held in 1086 by Hugh of Port who was also preceded by an Edric on four other manors in the county, one - East Cholderton - a mile from Amport, another - Over Wallop - less than five miles away. Hugh's predecessor at Amport is probably Edric the wild, and possibly also on the nearby manors and elsewhere in the county. Hugh also acquired two of the manors of the Kentish magnate Edric of Elham; but it is improbable he is the same man as Edric the wild, having none of his other associations.
	Of the other tenants-in-chief with manors previously held by Edric the wild, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury obtained from an Edric those in the adjacent vills of Siefton and Culmington, both are fairly substantial so likely to have been Edric the wild's; he also acquired Acton Scott. Edric the wild was the predecessor of Robert of Corbet at Middleton and may well be the Edric who preceded his brother Roger on five manors, two of them substantial. Ranulf Peverel, who obtained Weston from Edric Salvage, also had the more valuable Cressage from an unidentified Edric, Hugh son of Thorgisl had a similar pairing.
	The manors thus attributed to Edric the wild include eight of the ten most valuable in Shropshire. The two most valuable, at Clun and Hopesay, are likely to have been his, too, strategic considerations pointing to the same conclusion. They were acquired by Picot of Sai, who also had three further manors from an Edric. Reginald of Balliol, the sheriff, was another tenant-in-chief who acquired several manors from an Edric, identified by Dr Clarke as Edric the wild. None were valuable, all but one being wasted; but their distribution is suggestive: Middleton Scriven is two miles from the Mortimer vill of Eudon George, once Eudon Savage, and Kenley four from the Peverel manor at Cressage. Much the same is true of the other manors attributed by Dr Clarke to Edric the wild, all but Shawbury being within four miles of another of his manors: Pitchford, Oxenbold, Harley, Alcaston, Cantlop and Ackhill.
	Edric the wild was reconciled with the Conqueror in 1070 and campaigned with him in Scotland in 1072. The date of his death is unknown, but Dr Williams suggests he was alive in 1086 and may be identified as the Edric son of Aelfric (or Edric of Wenlock) who witnessed two charters of the bishop of Hereford and held land from Wenlock priory in 1086, in which case the only other surviving Edrics in the area, at 'Cuple' and Laysters in Herefordshire, may also be him (above): English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 92-93; Reynolds, 'Eadric silvaticus', pp. 102-105. It has also been suggested that he is the Edric at Hindlip, steersman of the bishop of Worcester, though this is 'more speculative' than his identification as Edric of Wenlock: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 93. A list of Edric's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 303-304, which does not include the Hampshire, Warwickshire or Leicestershire manors, or Elton, Birley and Laysters in Herefordshire, but adds Bayston, more probably held by another Edric, Edric of Bayston. Edric is ranked by Dr Clarke thirty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional holdings, minus Bayston, would raise him almost a dozen places. Edric son of Aelfric is recorded as another man in Coel (no. 6331), referenced in Domesday people, p. 185; the Edrics at 'Cuple' and Laysters' are unidentified (nos. 30383, 30576).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWARD <OF GRAPPENHALL>. All Edwards in Cheshire are 'certainly' one man: Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 321-22. All but one of his eight manors lie in a cluster in the adjacent Hundreds of Tunendune and Bucklow, three of them - Lymm, Dutton and Grappenhall - held from Osbern son of Tezzo, whom he preceded on the same manors. The other four were acquired by William son of Nigel, who also succeeded Edward at Clutton, thirty miles or so south of the cluster. Each of the tenants-in-chief acquired manors in both Hundreds. All eight manors are of similarly modest status. Edward is unidentified in Coel (nos. 28945, 28948, 28950).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWARD [* OF SALISBURY *]. The Edwards who farmed the royal manor of Woodchester in Gloucestershire and held manors from Glastonbury abbey and Earl Hugh in Wiltshire are probably the sheriff of that county, Edward of Salisbury. At Woodchester, his identity is indicated by the reference to his holding the land 'in the revenue of Wiltshire', and his tenancy of the Wiltshire manors is suggested by fees there by his descendants, three of which lay in vills in which he held land as tenant-in-chief: Book of Fees, pp. 710, 720, 723; VCH Wiltshire, xii. 128-29. He is also the Edward who held two hides from Malmesbury abbey at Bremhill, which is a partial duplicate of a manor on his own fief, identified by his tenant Gilbert in both entries; and it is probable that he is the Edward who held a second subtenancy of four hides in this Malmesbury manor alongside a Theodric, Theodric being one of his tenants and the only Theodric in the county or on either Honour. There are more unidentified Edwards in Wiltshire than in any other county, which probably means that several other tenancies were held by the sheriff, those of the churches being the most likely candidates, particularly land held in Salisbury from the bishopric and at Ashton from the abbey of Amesbury, though in the absence of specific links they are not here assigned to the sheriff. Although he is not recorded as holding land before the Conquest, Edward may have been an Englishman, his mother possibly being Wulfwynn of Creslow (q.v.), in which case he was the most prosperous of the survivors by a very considerable margin: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 105-107. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 734) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 186-87, apart from Mildenhall, Bremhill and Hartham, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 16640, 16688, 16791), but with the addition of part of the manor of Urchfont.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWARD [* THE NOBLE *]. Edward cilt is named as a predecessor of the Count of Mortain on two manors in Buckinghamshire and of Walter Giffard on four, so he is presumably the Edward Walter succeeded at Woolstone. Edward cilt also preceded Countess Judith on a substantial holding in and around Stamford and on the manor of Witham in Lincolnshire, so he may be the Edward from whom she obtained three respectable manors in Northamptonshire, and - less certainly - a tiny holding at Sutton in Bedfordshire, where Edward is described as a man of the abbot of St Albans.
	The few other Edwards in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire or Lincolnshire may also be Edward cilt. The substantial manor of Broughton, acquired by William of Warenne, is eleven miles from the noble Edward's principal manor at Wing, and even closer to another of his manors, at Crafton. If he held Broughton, he probably held Caversfield, since they formed the entire fief of William of Warenne. In Lincolnshire, the unidentified Edward at Bytham was encircled by Judith's holdings; and the Edward who exchanged the substantial manor of Thoresby with the bishop of Bayeux can only have been someone of the status of Edward the noble. If he were that man, then he may also have held the nearby manor at Binbrook. In Northamptonshire, the one unidentified Edward held Empingham, three miles from Judith's manor of Tickencote.
	Edward was a man of several lords: at Caversfield, a man of Earl Tosti, elsewhere a royal thane, or a man of Earl Harold. He may have survived until 1086 since he is recorded as holding the third part of a church in Witham. No other Edward held land in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire or Lincolnshire or on the fiefs of the tenants-in-chief who acquired the manors of Edward cilt in 1086 so, if not a scribal error, Edward the noble survived in extremely straightened circumstances. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 306, which does not include Caversfield or Empingham and accidentally assigns the Buckinghamshire holdings to Hertfordshire and records the church at Witham as a pre-Conquest holding. He ranks Edward forty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him a couple of places. Edward's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 4507) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 186.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] EDWIN. The estates and career of Earl Edwin, son of Earl Algar of Mercia and brother of Earl Morcar. are documented in Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 48-57. Although his name is a common one, the scribe appears to have been careful to identify him by his title. In the very few cases where this appears not to be the case, his circumstances allow him to be identified with reasonable confidence. In Yorkshire, the full jurisdictional rights held by Edwin and Morcar evidently belonged to the brother earls, and the Edwin at Cowling may be the earl, since Count Alan of Brittany also acquired the bulk of his manors in the county, in which only one other Edwin can be identified as holding land. At Mission in Nottinghamshire, the post-Conquest lord is named as Tosti in one case and is omitted in another; but Mission was a jurisdiction of the royal manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey in Lincolnshire, which Earl Edwin held in 1066, evidently in succession to the outlawed Earl Tosti. Another scribal error may have occurred at Wychbold in Worcestershire, attributed by the scribe to Earl Godwin but by Hemming to Edwin, brother of Earl Leofric, so perhaps Earl Edwin was intended: Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', p. 22. Similarly, at Burton Bradstock in Dorset, the Earl Edwin recorded there is probably a scribal error for Earl Godwin (q.v.).
	Despite the ubiquity of his name, it is unlikely that there are many, if indeed any, other unidentified Edwins who were the earl, since few held manors of any consequence. In Cheshire, where he was the dominant landowner, more than a dozen manors were held by unidentified Edwins; but only one was worth more than ten shillings, a sum exceeded by almost all those assigned to the earl, who held more than a third of the manorial value and a sixth of the hidage of the county: Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 322; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', pp. 13-15. Outside the county, only the handsome manor of Stoke in Oxfordshire may have been his. Oxfordshire was a Mercian county; but the manor has no apparent royal or comital associations, and Edwin might here be Edwin the sheriff, or the Edwin whose lands were acquired by Walter son of Poyntz. Dr Williams gives Edwin a total of 600 hides/carucates excluding dependencies - the Statistics database 1019 with dependencies - and suggests that Edwin probably also held the Staffordshire manors - 115 hides - entered under the name of his dead father, Earl Algar: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 51-52. A list of Edwin's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 212-15, which does not include Bedworth in Warwickshire or Mission and Cowling. Edwin is ranked sixth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the addition of Algar's Staffordshire manors would raise him to third place. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies a considerably higher estimate of his manorial income; the Statistics database total (£721) lies between the two, closer to that of Dr Baxter.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWIN [* OF BUTTERLEIGH *]. Edwin, who held Butterleigh in Devon in 1066 and 1086, is evidently Edwin of Butterleigh, who held the following manor of Clyst William in 1086, for which he owed tax in Silverton Hundred, where Clyst lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxvii. He is the only surviving Edwin in the county, all other surviving Edwins in the south-western counties being identifiable as another man. Since he held Butterleigh before the Conquest, he may be one of several other pre-Conquest Edwins, the most likely being the Edwin in the adjacent vill of Ponsford; but the name is common and there are no links to connect them. Edwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 809) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 186.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWIN <OF POULTON>. All fourteen Edwards in the Cheshire folios may be one man: Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 322. He preceded Robert son of Hugh on a tight cluster of seven manors in 'Duddeston' Hundred, on the first six of which he was also Robert's tenant. In the same Hundred, he preceded Richard the butler at Poulton, Gilbert the hunter at Eccleston, and Osbern son of Tezzo at Golborne; Gilbert also acquired Hope from him. As the only other Edwin in northern England to retain his manor for two decades, he is probably the Edwin who held Coleshill from Robert of Rhuddlan, in which case he is likely to be the Edwin who preceded Haimo of Mascy at Aston and Llys Edwin, both - like Coleshill - in Ati's Cross Hundred. All fourteen manors lie between Coleshill in the north-east and Hampton and Cholmondeley to the south-west, those three manors being held by Edwin for two decades. Edwin is unidentified in Coel (nos. 28711, 28713-14, 28716, 28718-19, 28989).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWIN [* SON OF BURGRED *]. Edwin son of Burgred is named as a predecessor of the bishop of Coutances on two manors in Buckinghamshire and another two in Northamptonshire. Every manor held by a Burgred in those counties, and most of those held by his men, were acquired by the bishop of Coutances, so Edwin's father (q.v.) was almost certainly that man, and the Edwins who preceded the bishop are probably his son; Burgred's unnamed son at Croughton may also be Edwin, his other sons being recorded only in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. All Edwin's manors are close to each other or to those of his father. He is probably also the bishop's predecessor on the substantial manor of Kensington in Middlesex, as is the Edwin from whom Ranulf son of Ilger acquired 'Tollingon', some six miles away, since that Edwin was a man of the king and, like his father, Edwin was a royal thane and a lord of men. Less certainly, the Edwin who preceded the bishop on a fairly substantial manor at Exton in Somerset may be him, but perhaps not the Edwin from whom the bishop acquired the small holding at Kimworthy in Devon. Edwin probably survived as a tenant of the bishop, on the two modest manors of Stanion and Lowick in Northamptonshire, the first of which he also held in 1066; they are a few miles north of what may have been the centre of his father's Honour, at Raunds.
	Between them, Edwin and his father contributed the largest share of the bishop's fief; Ulf and Wulfsi, sons of Burgred, are also recorded. Dr Williams, who suggests that Burgred and his family were related to Countess Gytha of Hereford, provides a list of the family holdings: 'The king's nephew', pp. 336-38. It does not include those in Middlesex and Somerset, though the Middlesex manors are added in a later work, together with North Stoke, a valuable manor acquired by Miles Crispin, who had no other Edwins among his predecessors: World before Domesday, p. 157 note 57. In the absence of tenurial or geographical links, however, the identity of the Edwin at Stoke is problematic: there are three plausible candidates in addition to Burgred's son, so Edwin is currently unidentified in the Statistics database. Another list is provided by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 270-71, which does not include Stoke, 'Tollington' or Wellingborough. Dr Clarke ranks Burgred and his sons thirty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors and necessary adjustments to his figures would raise the family two places. The tenants at Stanion and Lowick are unidentified in Coel (nos. 26879-80).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWIN [* THE HUNTER *]. Most if not all unidentified Edwins in Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire may be Edwin the hunter, who survived for twenty years at Edmundsthorp, among the king's thanes of Hampshire, though the manors were later held by different families. The Edwins at Blandford, Lazerton and Shilvinghampton in Dorset are identified in the Geld Rolls for the county as Edwin the hunter, who may be the Edwin at Gillingham, another survivor among the king's thanes, the only other Edwin in Dorset (assuming Earl Edwin (q.v.) at Burton Bradstock is a scribal error): VCH Dorset, iii. 126-27, 134-35, 138, 140.
	Of the three unidentified Edwins in Hampshire, two held land in 1066 in the adjacent vills of Nately and 'Bartley', neighbours of the royal manor of Odiham where Richard of Sifrewast, of Shilvinghampton in Dorset, later held land: Book of Fees, pp. 92, 1367. The third Edwin, at Oakhanger, another of the king's thanes, was preceded by an Alwy, as was Edwin the hunter on two of his Dorset manors. Finally, the king's thane at Chedglow in Wiltshire who, like Edwin of Edmundsthorp, survived on the same manor for twenty years, may be the hunter. Of the other four Edwins in the county, three have tenurial associations. Two members of the Sifrewast family later held land in Wiltshire from the earl of Salisbury, descendant of Edward of Salisbury, who acquired Edwin's manor at Lacock, while another held Great Somerford, acquired from Edwin by Humphrey de l'Isle, along with Clyffe Pypard and Bathampton: Book of Fees, pp. 710, 716, 718, 720-22, 730, 732, 1117. All four manors are substantial, comparable to those in Dorset. The one remaining Edwin in the three counties, at Netheravon in 1066, is conceivably the hunter, though there are no links to confirm this. As all but one of the Edwins in the three counties have associations with each other, albeit slight or indirect in some cases, these are likely to be more than coincidental. Dorset, Hampshire and Wiltshire were the counties par excellence for hunting serjeanties, with more between them than the remaining counties combined; and it was not uncommon for huntsmen to hold land in two or even three of these counties, as did Aelfric, Cola, Croc, Godric, Waleran, Wulfgeat and Wulfric. Edwin's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1769) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 186, apart from Oakhanger, Chedglow and Gillingham, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 6584, 17164, 2980).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. All but one of the Edwins recorded in Warwickshire may be Edwin, sheriff of Warwickshire, named as a predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux at Beausale and of Thorkil of Warwick, his kinsman, at Marston Green. All other Edwins occur on Thorkil's fief, nine of them stated to be the same man, two like the Edwin at Flecknoe, being in vills dominated by members of Thorkil's family, while Radford was sold by Thorkil's brother to the tenant of 1086. Edwin's manors are identified and listed by Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 284-85, 293-94, to which should perhaps be added Napton, probably acquired by Robert d'Oilly (q.v.) who held, leased or purchased several other manors from Thorkil's family. The only Edwin unlikely to be the sheriff is the one post-Conquest landowner, at Whitacre, since Edwin was probably dead by then, having lost his pre-Conquest manors, though it is curious that the Edwin at Whitacre also occurs on Thorkil's fief. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28356).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF. Edwulf is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, spread thinly between Devon and Yorkshire, with a small cluster in Devon. Most Edwulfs are pre-Conquest lords, with five survivors scattered between Devon and Staffordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF ACKWORTH>. As the name is uncommon, the Edwulfs whose modest manors of Ackworth and Denby in the West Riding of Yorkshire were acquired by Ilbert of Lacy are probably one man. The Edworth at Hutton Cranswick, some fifty miles away on the far side of the county, is possibly him also.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF ADDINGTON>. Edwulf, who held a half-hide hide worth ten shillings at Addington in Buckinghamshire from Miles Crispin, has no links with other Edwulfs, none of whom are within forty miles. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 1414).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF CRANSWICK>. Edwulf, whose modest manor of Hutton Cranswick in the East Riding of Yorkshire was acquired by Count Robert of Mortain, has no links with other Edwulfs, the nearest being Edwulf at Ackworth in the West Riding, possibly the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF HOPE>. Edwulf, whose modest manor at Hope in Herefordshire was acquired by William son of Baderon, has no links with other Edwulfs, none of whom are within fifty miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF MOTTISFONT>. Edwulf, who inherited his father's messuage in Mottisfont among the king's thanes in Hampshire, has no links with other Edwulf's. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 6612).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF RUGBY>. Edwulf, who held a modest manor in Rugby from Thorkil of Warwick, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom are within forty miles. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28368).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWULF <OF THURVASTON>. As the name is rare in the region, the Edwulf whose modestly prosperous manor at Thurvaston in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers may be the Edwulf who held Okeover in Staffordshire, ten miles away, from Burton abbey 'for rent'. Thurvaston is circled by the manors of Burton abbey in Derbyshire, the abbey perhaps rescuing its neighbour from penury at little cost to itself. Edwulf is unidentified in Coel (no. 31370).

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWY <OF MARKHAM>. Although the name Edwy is common, it is largely confined to the south and south-west, the predecessors of Roger of Bully at Markham and Boughton in Nottinghamshire being the only Edwys in circuit six or the adjacent counties of Cheshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire. Markham and Boughton are six miles apart, so were probably held by the same Edwy. Roger had no other predecessors or tenants of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
EDWY [* THE NOBLE *]. It is likely that most if not all Edwys in Herefordshire are Edwy the noble, named as a predecessor of the canons of Hereford at Priors Frome and of Roger of Lacy on eleven manors. All but one of the eight unidentified Edwys are predecessors of Roger, one of whom was succeeded by his son, Alwin, and three others by tenants who were subinfeudated with manors where Edwy the noble is identified. Roger of Lacy also acquired Wormington in Gloucestershire from an Edwy. The one other Edwy in Herefordshire, at Harewood, may also be Edwy the noble. Harewood, in the frontier zone of Golden Valley, was acquired by Gilbert son of Turold, probably the sheriff of the county who farmed Clifford Castle for Ralph of Tosny, the key defence in the area: Lewis, 'Norman settlement of Herefordshire', p. 207. Roger of Lacy held land in the castlery, and the Gilbert whom he subinfeudated with Bacton, his principal manor in Golden Valley, may be the sheriff. If so, then it is likely that the Edwys who preceded Ralph of Tosny and Gilbert son of Turold on three manors in Worcestershire - the only Edwys in the county - are also Edwy the noble; neither Roger, Ralph or Gilbert had predecessors or tenants of this name elsewhere. It is not improbable that he is the Edwy on six other manors in adjacent counties since there are no other Edwys in the western half of England north of the Thames apart from a householder in Wallingford, and none of the tenants-in-chief involved had tenants or predecessors of this name elsewhere in the country; but there are no more precise links to confirm identifications.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF. Elaf is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-two times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of eleven tenants-in-chief, thinly spread across the map, with small clusters in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire; there are no surviving Elafs.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF <OF CANDOVER>. Elaf, who had a plough and three slaves on the episcopal manor of Candover in Hampshire in 1066, has no links with other Elafs, all remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF <OF DRIFFIELD>. As the name is uncommon, the Elafs who preceded Reinbald of Cirencester in the adjacent vills of Driffield and Preston in Gloucestershire are probably one man, likely also to be the Elaf at North Cerney, six miles to the north, all three manors being substantial. At Driffield, Elaf held from Earl Tosti, so he may be the royal thane at Bengeo in Hertfordshire, the one other Elaf with a substantial manor in Domesday Book. Although there are no specific links, it is not unlikely that he is the Elaf at Winwick in Huntingdonshire, who also held from the king, and possible that he is the one other Elaf between the Thames and the Wash, at Kington in Worcestershire; but his shared manor is unremarkable and there are no tenurial links to warrant an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF <OF KINGTON>. Elaf, whose shared a manor at Kington in Worcestershire was acquired by Roger of Lacy, has no links with other Elafs.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF <OF NEWTON>. Elaf, whose ten-shilling holding at Newton in Somerset was acquired by Roger of Courseulles, has no links with other Elafs.

.............................................................................................................................................
ELAF <OF SPECCOTT>. Elaf, whose small holding worth seven shillings and six pence at Speccott in Devon was acquired by Theobald son of Berner, has no links with other Elafs.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ELFAIN" <OF WADDINGHAM>. Elfain, who held the modest manor of Waddingham and its dependency among the king's thanes of Lincolnshire in 1086, is the only man of this name in Domesday Book. It is possible but unlikely that he is the same man as Elfin - a related form - the rather more substantial tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire, almost a hundred miles away. Elfain is unidentified in Coel (no. 34892).

.............................................................................................................................................
"ELFIN" [* OF BRAILSFORD *]. The five Elfins in Domesday Book, all tenants of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire whose manors clustered near Brailsford, are almost certainly Elfin of Brailsford, who gave land or tithes to Tutbury priory in three of his manors: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 64-66. It is possible, though unlikely, that he is the Elfain of Lincolnshire, almost a hundred miles to the east. Elfin's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3858) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 187; the Elfains are unidentified (nos. 34892-93).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EMMA *] ROGER OF LACY'S MOTHER. The mother of Roger of Lacy, wife of Walter, who held Siddington 'as her dowry', Slaughter in Gloucestershire from (or with) her son, and who gave Duntisbourne Abbots to St Peter's of Gloucester 'for her husband's soul', is not named in Domesday Book, but her forename - Emma or Emmeline (Ermeline) - is given in a spurious royal charter confirming the lands of St Peter's of Gloucester and in the records of the abbey: Regesta, iii. no. 345; Historia ... Gloucestriae, i. 15, 122, 224, 227, 258, 351. Her husband died in 1085 but is entered in Coel (no. 2487) for one manor he had received from Earl William son of Osbern; see also Domesday people, p. 452. Walter occurs fairly frequently in Domesday, but always as an intermediate landowner whose manors are in other hands in 1086; he does not therefore appear in the Statistics database. Emma's manors are recorded in Coel with those of her son.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EMMA *] WIFE OF BALDWIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. Baldwin's wife, who held Wimple in Devon, is named Emma on her manor at Bridford in Exon., both held from her husband, the sheriff of the county. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1300) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 440.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EMMA *] WIFE OF HERVEY [* OF HELLÉAN *]. The wife of Hervey, who held a small fief at Ashton and Hackworthy in Devon and a manor at Neadon as tenant of Baldwin the sheriff, is almost certainly the widow Emma who, in the Geld Roll for the county, owed tax in Exminster Hundred, where Ashton lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxvi-xxxvii. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 658) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 441.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EMMA *] WIFE OF WILLIAM OF PERCY. Hambledon in Hampshire, the single manor held by William of Percy (q.v.) outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, was acquired by William with his wife. Though said to be held in chief, Round demonstrated that his wife was Emma of Port and that William is more correctly described as a tenant of Hugh of Port, as were his descendants of those of Hugh: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', p. 438. William's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 707) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 478-79.

.............................................................................................................................................
ENGELRIC [* THE PRIEST *]. With one possible exception, all Engelrics in Domesday Book are probably Engelric the priest, a king's baron, named in the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin: Feudal documents, pp. 8, 22. Engelric founded and lavishly endowed the church of St Martin-le-Grand in London, though the bulk of his endowment is attributed to Count Eustace of Boulogne in Domesday Book.
	He is named as the Count's predecessor, references to his Holding and his frequent status as an intermediate landowner on the Count's Honour further confirming his identity, so he is probably the Engelric who preceded Eustace in Hertfordshire and on many of his manors in Essex - too numerous to list - and in Suffolk, and the Engelric whose depredations benefited the Count elsewhere. As a king's baron, he is almost certainly the Engelric who granted land in pledge to the Bury St Edmund's 'when the English bought back their lands', and the Engelric to whom land 'was delivered on the king's behalf'. His association with St Martin's identifies him as the Engelric at Benfleet in Essex. The one other Engelric whose land was not acquired by the Count is that of the lord of the handsome manor of Newnham Murren in Oxfordshire, predecessor of Mainou the Breton. It is difficult to believe that this was his only manor of this landowner; if not, he was perforce Engelric the priest. There are no tenurial or other links to confirm this, but the identification seems more likely than not.
	A list of Engelric's pre-Conquest manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 307-308, which does not include Iltney but does include Newnham Murren. Dr Clarke ranks him sixty-third in wealth among untitled landowners, one of the wealthiest clerks in the kingdom. His post-Conquest acquisitions added substantially to this. He has been identified as the Engelbricus, canon of St Paul's, who held a manor in Stepney in 1066 and 1086; scribal confusion of Engelbricus and Engelricus is certainly possible, but Engelric had lost his extensive lands well before 1086, and there appears to be no indication that he was alive at that date. The mistake is pointed out in the entry for the canon of St Paul's in Coel (no. 1911), referenced in Domesday people, p. 188.

.............................................................................................................................................
ENISANT [* MUSARD *]. With a single exception, all Enisants in Domesday Book are tenants of Count Alan of Brittany and so almost certainly one man, named Enisant Musard on his manor of Toketorp in Norfolk and at Cheveley in Cambridgeshire in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 11). His remaining manors, all in Yorkshire, were almost all part of the constable's fee of the Honour of Richmond at a later date, one of them - Croft - being the subject of a grant there to St Mary's of York in which his byname in given, confirming his identity as the Cambridge and Norfolk Enisant should confirmation be needed: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 81-85. It is likely that Enisant himself was constable of Richmond, though this cannot be documented. His byname means lazy or stupid. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 377) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 188-89, where is suggested he may be Enisant of Plévin, a relation by marriage of the comital family.

.............................................................................................................................................
ENISANT <OF BELCHAMP>. As the name is rare, Enisant, Aubrey de Vere's subtenant at Belchamp Walter in Essex, is possibly the same man as Enisant Musard, his one namesake in Domesday Book; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 5273).

.............................................................................................................................................
ERCHENBALD. Erchenbald is a rare name which occurs on one fief and six manors in Devon and Cornwall, and once each in Oxfordshire and Suffolk, perhaps representing no more three post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERCHENBALD <OF BAINTON>. Erchenbald, tenant of Giles brother of Ansculf on a modest manor at Bainton in Oxfordshire, has no links with his namesakes in Cornwall, Devon and Suffolk, all remote. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28001).

.............................................................................................................................................
ERCHENBALD <OF SUTTON>. Erchenbald, tenant of Hervey of Bourges on a modest manor at Sutton in Suffolk, has no links with his namesakes in Cornwall, Devon and Oxfordshire, all remote. His single manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8837) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 158, under the form Arcenbald.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERCHENBALD [* THE FLEMING *]. As the name is rare, the Erchenbald who held a small fief from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall is probably the Erchenbald who held six manors from him in Devon, and a small portion of Roald Dubbed's manor of Weare under him according to Exon.. His byname is not strictly contemporary; but his descendant in 1166, another Erchenbald, is Erchenbald the Fleming whose manor of Bratton Fleming is named after him or one of his descendants: Red Book, i. 259. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 234) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 189.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERIK [* BROTHER OF TOSTI *]. All Eriks - Edric in one case of scribal confusion, corrected in the Lincolnshire Claims - in Domesday Book may be one man, although his manors were acquired by five tenants-in-chief. In Lincolnshire, Laceby and its dependencies, held before the Conquest by Swein, Erik and Tosti, is linked to another group held by Erik centred on Tealby by the intermediate tenure of Rainer the deacon, the Tealby group in turn related to another of Erik's manors by soke in Willingham; Keelby, the last of the Lincolnshire manors, is five miles from Laceby. Thistleton in Rutland is some distance from the Lincolnshire manors, and Catworth and Sawtry in Huntingdonshire more so; but an entry for Sawtry in the Claims for Huntingdonshire suggests a link between them, stating that Tosti at Sawtry was the brother of Erik, a claim supported by the Ramsey chronicle: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, p. 175; Early charters of eastern England, p. 235. As noted above, the main group of Erik's holdings in Lincolnshire were held alongside a Tosti. In view of the comparative rarity of both names, Erik and Tosti may be the Huntingdonshire brothers; Thistleton is roughly midway between their Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire manors. If these identifications are valid, Erik lost all the manors he held in 1066; but, like many of his class, survived on a modest manor among the king's thanes, at Catworth. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32740), which names the pre-Conquest lord as tenant.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERMENALD <OF ANTONY>. All Ermenhalds in Domesday Book are almost certainly the same man. He held six manors from Tavistock abbey in Cornwall, all said to be held by one man, and he was also the abbey's tenant at Tavistock in Devon. His lands descended to the Daunay family: Finberg, Tavistock abbey, pp. 9-14. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 227) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERMENFRID. Ermenfrid is a rare name which occurs only in Warwickshire and Yorkshire. A William son of Ermenfrid is recorded in Kent: Domesday Monachorum, p. 90.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERMENFRID <OF POPPLETON>. As the name is rare, the Ermenfrids who held Poppleton and Scagglethorpe in Yorkshire from Osbern of Arques are almost certainly the same man. His tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4691) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERMENFRID [* OF WARWICK *]. As the name is rare, the Ermenfrids who held five manors in Warwickshire from Thorkil of Warwick are almost certainly one man and probably Hermenfredus de Warwic, who witnessed a charter for the foundation of Monks Kirby priory in 1077: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1. It is very likely he is also the tenant of both Coventry abbey and Richard the forester in Radway, a vill encircled by Ermenfrid's other manors. In the thirteenth century, the Simily family held land in Radford and in two of the vills Ermenfrid held from Thorkil, Calcutt and Ashow: Book of Fees, pp. 507, 955, 959. Ermenfrid's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4759) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERMENALD <OF ANTONY>. All Ermenhalds in Domesday Book are almost certainly the same man. He held six manors from Tavistock abbey in Cornwall, all said to be held by one man, and he was also the abbey's tenant at Tavistock in Devon. His lands descended to the Daunay family: Finberg, Tavistock abbey, pp. 9-14. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 227) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNEIS. If the manors of the tenant-in-chief Erneis of Buron are discounted, Erneis is a rare name which occurs seven times, distributed among three counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief, all but one of them borne by a tenant in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNEIS [* OF BURON *]. All men named Erneis in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire are probably Erneis of Buron, tenant-in-chief in those counties. He is identified as the tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at Riby and of Count Alan of Brittany at Masham by their descent to his successors, Geoffrey son of Pain and later the Trussebut family: Early Yorkshire charters, x. 23-27. He may also be the Erneis whose manor of Calton was absorbed into the castlery of Roger of Poitou, Roger losing some lands in Lincolnshire to Geoffrey son of Pain. Similarly, the Erneis whose manor of Nettleton was held by Grelley family in the Lindsey Survey is probably Buron since the Grelleys also had Flaxby, held by Erneis of Buron in Domesday Book. There were other such adjustments to the manors of the Trussebut fee in the course of its transmission to different families: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', pp. 180-81. Erneis' manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2451) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNEIS <OF DOWNHEAD>. As the name is rare, the four tenants in Somerset may be the same Erneis, though he held from three tenants-in-chief. The bishop of Wells is unlikely to have had different tenants of this name at Wells and Evercreech; and Downhead and Bruton are each roughly five miles from Evercreech, all four being of comparable status. It seems likely they were held by one man whose namesakes in Cornwall and Leicestershire are more than a hundred miles away. Erneis' tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 8774) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNEIS <OF GLENFIELD>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the tenants of Hugh of Grandmesnil at Glenfield and Stoughton - seven miles apart - in Leicestershire are the same Erneis. His namesakes in Cornwall and Somerset are more than a hundred miles away. His tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 8775) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNEIS <OF PENHALLYM>. Erneis, who held a modest holding at Penhallym in Cornwall is the one pre-Conquest lord of this name, without links with others of this name, none of them within a hundred miles of his manor. No Old English forms are known, though it seems likely he is a native landowner: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 248.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT. Erngeat is an uncommon name which occurs fifteen times, distributed among five counties and the lands of king and eight of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest lords, most of them having modest holdings; there are small clusters in Cheshire and Shropshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF BRATTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Erngeats who preceded William Pandolf at Bratton, Horton and Lawley in Shropshire are probably one man. The vills are close to each other and remote from others held by an Erngeat, though it is conceivable he is the Erngeat at either Pedwardine or Somersal, roughly forty miles or so to the south and north-east respectively.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF NESS>. As the name is uncommon, the Erngeats whose three whose manors of Willington, Ness, and Ledsham in Cheshire devolved upon Walter of Vernon are probably one man, who may also be the predecessor of Hugh Delamere at Caldy, a few miles from Ness and Ledsham. Less certainly, he may be the one other Erngeat in Cheshire, at Peover, some twenty miles from Willington, a holding of comparable status acquired by Ranulf of Mainwaring.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF PEDWARDINE>. Erngeat, who held land worth ten shillings in Pedwardine in Shropshire acquired by Ralph of Mortimer, has no with links with his namesakes, though he is conceivably the Erngeat at Ness, some forty miles to the north.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF RAYDON>. Erngeat, who shared a holding with half a plough team worth ten shillings at Raydon in Suffolk acquired by Ralph Pinel, has no links with other Erngeats.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF SOMERSAL>. Erngeat, who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Somersal in Derbyshire, is the most prosperous of the Erngeats, though modestly so. It is conceivable that he is the Erngeat at Bratton, forty miles or so to the south-west, but there are no specific links to connect them.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT <OF "TURSTANESTUNA">. Erngeat, who shared a holding with a plough team worth three shillings with two other free men at 'Turstanestuna' in Suffolk, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNGEAT [* SON OF GRIM *]. Erngeat, a thane of Earl Edwin who held part of the royal manor of Bromsgrove in Worcestershire, is very probably Erngeat son of Grim, named by Hemming as withholding Hampton Lovett and 'Thickenappletree' from the Church of Worcester, since both manors were held in 1066 by Alwold (q.v.), also a thane of Earl Edwin, who held another part of Bromsgrove and is probably the son of Erngeat whose admission to the monastery of Worcester was refused by Bishop Wulfstan unless 'Thickenappletree' were donated to the Church: Hemingi cartularium, pp. 264-65; Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 173-4, 251-2, 295 note 95. As his name is uncommon, he may be the one other Erngeat in the county, a predecessor of Urso the sheriff at Hatete in 'Cresslow' Hundred. Although the exact locations of the two holdings are unknown, they are in neighbouring hundreds and may be just a few miles apart; like Hatete, 'Thickenappletree' was in the hands of Urso in 1086. Dr Williams suggests that Erngeat had a second son, Frani (q.v.): 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', p. 22.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNSI [* SON OF ALDGYTH *]. Ernsi is a rare name and all Ernsis in Domesday Book are probably one man, Ernsi son of Aldgyth, alias Ernsi son of Ocea, though his manors were acquired by six tenants-in-chief. Neither byname occurs in Domesday Book itself. Ernsi held a dozen manors concentrated in the adjacent counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, many of them substantial. Apart from their distribution and status, they are linked by a web of relationships. Painswick, acquired by Roger of Lacy, is circled by the manors of Hascoit Musard and of Drogo son of Poyntz at Frampton, part of which Roger of Lacy held illegally. Drogo also held another Ernsi manor, Swell, adjacent to one of the Musard manors at Eyford, as a tenant of Ralph of Tosny. Another Ernsi holding in Swell was acquired by William of Eu. Both Roger of Lacy and Drogo son of Poyntz obtained manors previously held by Ernsi in Herefordshire, and Ralph of Tosny one in Worcestershire. None of these tenants-in-chief is likely to have had two predecessors with this uncommon name. Finally, the remaining manor, acquired by Ralph of Mortimer, was - like that held by Drogo - part of the great manor of Leominster.
	Ernsi is identified by a story told in the Evesham chronicle concerning 'a certain noble lady', Aldgyth, who stole relics from the Church, repented after being struck blind, promising to bequeath land at Swell in recompense; but her son, Arnisius - evidently the Ernsi of Domesday Book - 'living extravagantly and imprudently like the foolish man he was', lost everything, leaving the abbot to deal with the unnamed magnate or magnates who acquired his lands: Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 73-75, 171-73; Early charters of the west Midlands, pp. 71-76. Ernsi is further identified in a royal charter concerning Swell, where he is named Ernsi son of Oce, his father evidently being Ocea the Dane whose manor of Astley in Worcestershire was unjustly seized by Ralph of Tosny according to Hemming, though Domesday Book attributes it to his son Ernsi (above): Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 24. A list of Ernsi's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 307, which does not include those in Herefordshire. He ranks Ernsi fiftieth in wealth among untitled laymen; the Herefordshire manors would raise him a couple of places.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNUCION <OF GREATHAM>. Ernucion is a rare name which occurs four times, three times as a tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, at Kinnerley in Shropshire and Greatham and Tortington in Sussex. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be the fourth Ernucion, a subtenant of St Albans abbey at West Hendred in Berkshire, which is plausible given the broadly comparable status of the manor and its situation between Shropshire and Sussex: VCH Berkshire, iv. 303. She also suggests that Earl Roger's tenant may be Ernucion Balbet, who granted land to the abbey of Sées. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 945) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 191. A John son of Ernucion held land in Essex.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWIN. The name Ernwin is fairly common but its distribution is skewed. It occurs in ten counties, seven of them accounting for a dozen names, the remainder - some four-fifths of the total - distributed around the adjacent counties of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. The name is sometimes confused by the scribe with Ernwy.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWIN [* THE PRIEST *]. Most if not all the Ernwins in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire may be Ernwin the priest, whose byname is recorded there more than two dozen times. In all three counties, he is recorded at both dates though rarely retaining the same manor, Kilham (29E12) being the one exception. The hiatus may be because he was outlawed, or 'taken', at some point. Outside those counties, he also held land in Bedfordshire. His status as a survivor is one of his significant identifying characteristics. He is named in full as holding land in 1086 in all four counties; no other Ernwin can be identified as a survivor in those or any other counties.
	The Yorkshire Ernwins present the fewest problems as the priest is named in most cases, or may be identified from the Yorkshire Claims, as at Aughton, where he preceded the Count of Mortain, though named Ernwy in the entries concerned. The Claims also identify him as the Ernwin at Poppleton and Scagglethorpe (25W13;16), acquired by Osbern of Arques, where he 'ought to have' the land of Ernwin Cat's Nose held by Osbern and previously William Malet; the two Ernwins are possibly the same man, though Farrer suggested they are probably father and son: 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 168. The Ernwins at Steeton and Brackenholme in the Yorkshire Summary are probably the priest as there are no other Ernwins among the tenants-in-chief in Yorkshire. He is likely to be the priest in York whose property was acquired by the bishop of Durham, who also claimed plots from him at Grantham in Lincolnshire; and he may be priest at Hambleton in 1066, which lay between the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire properties, eight miles from the nearest of these, at Cambleforth. Snydale, acquired by the same tenant-in-chief, may have been his on similar grounds, reinforced by the tenurial link between them. The one remaining Ernwin in the county, at Newsome in the East Riding, may also be the priest, as at Barrow-on-Humber in Lincolnshire YKS 14E15), both acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière (below).
	In Nottinghamshire, Ernwin the priest was a tenant of Roger of Bully at Flintham; and held Elkesley among the king's thanes in 1086 and Normanton and Gonalston on the same fief in 1066. He may be most or all of the other Ernwins among the royal thanes. It is improbable there were several such survivors in the county; and of the six, only Mission and Willoughby on the Wolds are not neighbours of the priest or of each other. Mission was the third of three consecutive entries for Ernwin in the same Hundred, where the first is named Ernwin the priest. Roger of Poitou's tenant Ernwy at Willoughby may be a scribal error for Ernwin, since Ernwin the priest was a tenant of Roger in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, and an Ernwin had another manor in Willoughby.
	In Lincolnshire, Ernwin the priest held substantial properties in Lincoln, and others in Grantham and Stamford, and among the royal thanes in both 1066 and 1086; he is probably the Ernwin who held at Ingham, adjacent to his pre-Conquest manor at Fillingham. As in Yorkshire, he is probably the Ernwin who preceded Roger of Poitou, or was his tenant, on nine manors, seven of which lay in wapentakes where the priest held land, one in the same vill, another the subject of a claim. He may also be the Ernwin who preceded the bishop of Bayeux at Audelby and its dependencies, his interests and those of the bishop being entangled elsewhere; and he is more likely than not the Ernwin who preceded Count Alan in 'Calcewath' wapentake, being the Count's predecessor on other manors on the fief. Finally, these holdings of the Count are a few miles from South Ormsby, acquired from Ernwin by the archbishop of York, while the remaining properties held by Ernwin in the county in 1066 are all close to the priest's manors. Among them, Barrow on Humber - acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière who also inherited the manor of an Ernwin at Newsome across the Humber - would have facilitated communications between the priest's manors in the East Riding and Lindsey. It is thus possible that all Ernwins in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are the priest. Although some of the links are tenuous, they merit some weight in view of the fact that the adjacent counties of Derby, Leicester, Rutland, Northampton, Cambridge and Norfolk can muster only one more Ernwin between them. Ernwin the priest's tenancies at Riby and Elsham are recorded in Coel (no. 946) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 192; the remaining Ernwins are unidentified (nos. 34887, 35634, 35647-48, 35656-57, 35659, 37357).

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF. Ernwulf is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among the lands of as many tenants-in-chief and half-a-dozen counties; three names are post-Conquest, five pre-Conquest. The name may be confused with Arnulf.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF ALDINGHAM>. Ernwulf, who held six carucates at Aldingham in North Lancashire before the Conquest, has no links with his namesakes, all of whom are remote, the nearest pre-Conquest lord being two hundred miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF BIDFORD>. Ernwulf, who preceded Robert d'Oilly on a modest holding at Bidford in Warwickshire, appears to have no links with other Ernwulfs. As the name is rare, it is possible he is the Ernwulf at Longdon in 1066, twenty miles away; but it is not certain that the two names - Ernulfus in Bidford, Arnul in Longdon - are the same: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 244. His nearest other namesake of 1066 is some 150 miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF "BREDESTORP">. Ernwulf, who shared a respectable tenancy from Drogo of la Beuvrière in the lost vill of Bredestorp in south Lincolnshire, appears to have no links with other Ernwulfs, though as the name is rare he may be the one other northern survivor, on a somewhat more substantial shared tenancy at Featherstone in Yorkshire, roughly seventy miles away. An Ernulf had a tiny holding at Leake in Nottinghamshire, probably closer to the lost vill; but he has been plausibly identified as Arnulf of Bully (q.v.). Ernwulf of Bredestorp is unidentified in Coel (no. 34261).

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF CANDOVER>. Ernwulf, who held a virgate of land with half a plough team - almost a peasant holding - as a subtenant of Cypping of Worthy at Preston Candover in Hampshire, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom held land in southern England. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 6589).

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF FEATHERSTONE>. Ernwulf, who shared a tenancy from Ilbert of Lacy in the substantial manor of Featherstone in Yorkshire, appears to have no links with his namesakes though, as the name is rare, he is possibly the Ernwulf at Bredestorp, the one other northern survivor, on a rather less substantial shared tenancy roughly seventy miles away. He is probably the Ernwulf who gave thraves in Preston and 'Rouedona' to the Lacy foundation of St Clement's of Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9372) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 193.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF LATTON>. Ernwulf, who preceded Count Eustace of Boulogne on a fairly substantial manor at Latton in Essex, has no links with any of his namesakes, with none of whom he had tenurial or other associations. His closest neighbour is Ernwulf of Parham in Suffolk, with half a plough team valued at seven shillings, a near-peasant holding.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF LONGDON>. Ernwulf, who preceded Thorkil at Longdon in Warwickshire, has no links with his namesakes. His closest neighbour, at Bidford, twenty miles away may not have the same name: Ernulfus in Bidford, Arnul in Longdon: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 244.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWULF <OF PARHAM>. Ernwulf, who preceded Robert Malet on a tiny holding of half a plough team worth seven shillings - virtually a peasant holding - at Parham in Suffolk, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of whom held Latton in Essex in 1066, a fairly substantial manor.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWY. Ernwy is a fairly common name which occurs more than forty times, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of the king and almost thirty of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Herefordshire and Shropshire. It is sometimes confused by the scribe with Ernwin.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWY <OF PONTESBURY>. The Ernwys who held Pontesbury and Onslow from the Corbet brothers had retained their manors for two decades so are very probably the same man, who is perhaps also Ernwin, a Corbet tenant at Farley, which he had held since 1066. The scribe confused these two names elsewhere, and Farley is adjacent to Pontesbury, of which it later became part: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 89-90. Only one other Ernwy (or Ernwin) in Domesday Book retained the same manor for two decade, so a scribal error is not unlikely. The Ernwys who preceded the Corbets in the adjacent vills of Westbury and Oaks are probably also the same man, as is perhaps the Ernwy at Wrentnall, half a mile from Oaks and three from Pontesbury. Given the comparative isolation of the Shropshire Ernwys from those in neighbouring counties, he may also be the predecessor of Picot of Sai at Brompton and of Reginald the sheriff at Easthope, the two remaining Ernwys in the county, ten and fifteen miles respectively from Oaks. Whether or not he held all these pre-Conquest holdings, Ernwy was more fortunate than the majority of English survivors, retaining his most valuable manor and a couple of others. They are recorded in Coel (no. 6665) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 191-92.

.............................................................................................................................................
ERNWY <OF STANTON>. Although the name is fairly common, it is likely that the Ernwys who held 'Clowne', Stanton and Ingleby among the king's thanes of Derbyshire, and Ordsall among those in Nottinghamshire, are the same man since the lords and their manors are of similar status and English survivors of this name are rare, the only other being a Shropshire landowner, Ernwy of Pontesbury; Ordsall is nearer to Clowne than Clowne to the other Derbyshire manors. On similar grounds, Ernwy may be the Ernwin who claimed land at Risley, between Stanton and Clowne; the scribe confused the names more than once. Ernwy of Stanton had retained Clowne for twenty years, so he is not unlikely to be the Ernwy at Osleston in 1066 but perhaps less likely to be his other namesake in Derbyshire, who shared a waste holding at Hucklow over forty miles to the north with two other landowners. Ernwy and Ernwin are unidentified in Coel (nos. 32503, 32515, 32484, 35661).

.............................................................................................................................................
ESBIORN. The name Esbiorn is stated or implied almost fifty times, thinly distributed among a dozen counties between Kent and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and twenty-one of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Kent and Lincolnshire. One Esbiorn survived among the king's thanes in Wiltshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESBIORN [* BICGA *]. The English magnate Esbiorn Bicga, who had jurisdictional privileges over his land and full jurisdiction in the city of Canterbury where he held eleven messuages, is presumably Esbiorn of Chelsfield, who had full jurisdiction in eastern Kent. Chelsfield itself was held by Toki before the Conquest; but Esbiorn Bicga did hold Keston, less than six miles away, and Dr Williams suggests it is likely he also held the preceding and very valuable manor of Cudham, where no pre-Conquest lord is named, Keston and Cudham both being subinfeudated to Gilbert Maminot, his only manors in Kent: World before Domesday, p. 48. These manors were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, who obtained four others from Esbiorn Bicga. He also acquired Ditton from an Esbiorn, probably Esbiorn Bicga since Ditton is a substantial manor three miles from the valuable Bicga manor of Birling.
	Esbiorn Bicga also held Garrington, which the bishop of Bayeux gave to St Augustine's abbey 'in exchange for his park', and Postling, acquired by Hugh de Montfort. This was apparently granted to Hugh because it lay within his 'territory', Bishop Odo retaining the three pig pastures which lay outside. Almost all these manors were substantial, so it is not unlikely that Compton in Surrey, the one comparable Esbiorn manor south of the Thames or, indeed, south of Leicestershire, was held by Esbiorn Bicga. He may also be the Bicga whose manor of Fetcham in Surrey was acquired by Bishop Odo; the scribe did occasionally use a byname in place of a forename, and this is the only occurrence of Bicga as a forename in Domesday Book. Finally, Bicga is probably the Esbiorn at Atherstone in Warwickshire, despite its isolation, since this, too, devolved upon the bishop of Bayeux, who subinfeudated it to Corbin of Agneaux (q.v.), a tenant of his at West Peckham, seven miles from Birling.
	The record of Esbiorn's jurisdictional privileges appear to suggest that he was alive in 1086, though this seems unlikely; if he did survive, he had lost all the land he held before the Conquest. It is conceivable that he is the Esbiorn who held a virgate valued at fifteen pence, at 'Frustfield' in Wiltshire, the one surviving landowner of this name in the country; but this seems too cruel a joke by the conquerors; in the absence of links with other Esbiorns, he is here treated as another man. Esbiorn Bicga was the son of Alric Bicga and perhaps a relative of Alfred Bicga, who held Wickhambreux before the Conquest: Robertson, Charters, pp. 188-89, 436-38; Williams, 'Lost worlds', p. 61. A list of Esbiorn's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 242-43, which does not include Compton, Fetcham, Atherstone or Cudham. Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen; the other four manors would place him comfortably in the top fifty. He is listed as a post-Conquest landowner in Coel (no. 143), referenced in Domesday people, p. 193, on the basis of his jurisdictional privileges, which appear to be current in 1086, though it is likely this is a scribal idiosyncrasy since Esbiorn appears to be dead, or at least disinherited, by then; the Wiltshire Esbiorn is an unidentified Sbernus in Coel (no. 17207).

.............................................................................................................................................
ESBIORN <OF CALOW>. Esbiorn, who shared a carucate at Calow among the king's thanes in Derbyshire before the Conquest, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of them on a waste holding some thirty-five miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESBIORN <OF OADBY>. As the name is uncommon, the Esbiorn who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Swepstone in Leicestershire may be the predecessor of Countess Judith, who 'held the whole of this land' with Earl Waltheof, apparently referring seven manors, on six of which no pre-Conquest lords are named. One of these manors, Heather is a mile from Swepstone. Apart from a single manor held by Esbiorn Bicga, there are no other Esbiorns in circuit four.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER. Esger is a common name which occurs about 150 times; but if those identified as Esger the constable are excluded, three of the four remaining names are in East Anglia, the fourth in Yorkshire; in that sense, the name is rare. One Esger survived as a subtenant in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER <OF COTTON>. As the name is rare, the Esger with a modest thirty-acre holding at Cotton in Suffolk acquired by Robert Malet may be related to either of his East Anglian namesakes, the nearest of whom is roughly thirty miles away, at Surlingham; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER <OF OGLETHORPE>. One of the unnamed thanes at Oglethorpe in Yorkshire is identified as Esger in the Claims for the county; he has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER <OF RUSTON>. As the name is rare, the Esgers whose manors of Skeyton and East Ruston were acquired by Ralph Baynard and subinfeudated to Geoffrey Baynard are probably one man; the two vills are seven miles apart. Esger's overlord at Ruston is Esger the constable. The nearest of his two East Anglian namesakes has a small holding of eight acres at Surlingham, roughly twenty-five miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER <OF SURLINGHAM>. Although the name is rare, the Esger with a tiny holding of eight acres at Surlingham in Norfolk acquired by Roger Bigot may be related to either of his East Anglian namesakes, roughly twenty-five miles away in one directions and thirty miles in another; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Esger the constable, grandson of Tovi the proud, his predecessor as constable and on many of his manors, is well-attested in contemporary sources. He was one of the wealthiest English magnates, and played a significant role in the events of 1066. It is likely that all unidentified Esgers outside East Anglia and Yorkshire are the constable.
	His byname is supplied in eight counties, in five of which he preceded Geoffrey de Mandeville, his officially designated predecessor in several entries, so he is probably the Esger whose men or manors were acquired by Geoffrey in Surrey, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Essex and Suffolk. In Cambridgeshire, the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 26, 73) identifies him on two further manors. With a single exception, these are the only unidentified Esgers in those counties; the exception, at Beauchamps in Hertfordshire, being almost certainly the constable since the manor is one of seven acquired from an Esger by Count Eustace of Boulogne, on six of which Esger's title is recorded. In Oxfordshire, it is likely that Esger preceded Geoffrey on his entire fief, the pre-Conquest lord of the first two manors being unnamed; one of these, Kingham, seven miles south of Esger's Warwickshire manor of Long Compton and the most valuable of the three, was of comparable status to a dozen of the wealthiest Geoffrey obtained from the constable.
	Esger the constable may be the same man as Esger the cramped, whose manors in the south-western counties were acquired by Walter of Douai: Williams, World before Domesday, pp. 28-32, 35, 164-65 note 61. Esger is given his distinctive byname (contractus) in Exon., the Carmen de Hastingae proelio (pp. 40-41) using the same epithet to describe Esger the constable in 1066. Although the constable held nothing in the south-west under that byname, his grandfather Tovi the proud was a significant landowner in the area according to a late but credible source, the Waltham chronicle (pp. 3-4, 12-13, 18-19, 24-25, 34-35), the house-chronicle of Tovi's family, which credited him with the foundation of the abbey. Under his byname 'cramped', Esger held the royal manors of Ermington and Blackawton in Devon, which Domesday reveals to have been exchanged for Bampton, held by Walter of Douai in 1086. Walter acquired the remaining manors of Esger in Devon and the single manor held by Esger in Somerset, all substantial properties. The one remaining Esger in the south-western counties, at Calstock in Cornwall, may also be the constable since this too was valuable, among the most substantial in the county.
	There is one puzzle concerning Esger's status as predecessor of Geoffrey de Mandeville. At Sawbridgeworth in Hertfordshire, his most valuable manor, an Esger is named as a subtenant in 1086. As Esgers who are not the constable are otherwise unknown outside Yorkshire and East Anglia, a second Esger on Geoffrey's fief and the constable's manor seems highly improbable, though 'Esger's woman' - presumed to be the constable's widow - is recorded in the county. The date of the constable's death appears to be unknown; he may, of course, have died during the Survey, which could reconcile these apparent discrepancies. If he was indeed Geoffrey's tenant at Sawbridgeworth on the eve of Domesday, then his was a calamitous decline in fortune, leaving him with less than 1% of his pre-Conquest estate; it was also a cruel joke to allow him only a fragment of his most valuable single manor. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 243-49, which does not include Hinton in Northamptonshire, the south-western manors of Esger the cramped, or the holdings of his men at Croydon, Fulbourn and Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, the latter pair recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, and at Arkesden in Essex and Belstead in Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks Esger second in wealth among untitled laymen, ninth among the nobility; the addition of the manors of Esger the cramped would raise him one place among the nobility. The tenant at Sawbridgeworth is unidentified in Coel (no. 7233).

.............................................................................................................................................
ESKIL <OF NUTHALL>. The Eskils who held Nuthall, Elkesley and 'North Morton' among the king's thanes of Nottinghamshire in 1066 may be one man. This is probably the case with Elkesley and 'Morton', which are close to each other and were both acquired by Ernwin the priest (q.v.). Nuthall is some forty miles to the south; but the status and scale of the three manors is similar and there are no other Eskils in the county, or in neighbouring Derbyshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESKIL [* OF SEACOURT *]. Eskil, who held the substantial manors of Seacourt, Bayworth, Marcham and Fawler (alias Sparsholt) in Berkshire from Abingdon abbey, is named Eskil of Seacourt in the Abingdon chronicle, where these manors are attributed to him: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 52-55, 322-23. He incurred the wrath of William Rufus and died in prison, Rufus confiscating Fawler and threatening to seize his other manors until pacified by the abbot with a large bribe. Eskil's widow became one of Henry I's many mistresses, recovering Bayworth for herself and Seacourt and Marcham for her son, William: ibid, ii. 52-55, 182-87. Eskil is one of a handful of tenants of this name, the nearest at Eastwell in Leicestershire. Two other Eskils in Berkshire are pre-Conquest landowners, apparently unrelated. Eskil's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1578) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 152.

.............................................................................................................................................
ESKIL [* OF WARE *]. Al Eskils in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire are probably one man, the royal thane Eskil of Ware. He is so-named on seven manors in Hertfordshire, where he or his men were succeeded by the bishop of London, Ralph of Tosny, Peter of Valognes, Hardwin of Scales, and Hugh of Grandmesnil at Ware itself, by far his most valuable manor and the only demesne manor among the seven. None of these tenants-in-chief were preceded by an Eskil elsewhere.
	Hugh of Grandmesnil acquired Ware by exchange with Ralph Tallboys, the predecessor of Hugh of Beauchamp (q.v.), who probably married his daughter and heiress, Azelina. Between them, Azelina and Hugh acquired all the manors of an Eskil in Bedfordshire, and all but two of those of his men. One of these two, at Easton, was claimed by Hugh as a dependency of his manor of Colmworth, while the other, at Holme, lay in a vill where Eskil was lord of another man. In addition, Hugh probably acquired Haynes and Colmworth from Eskil. Both are attributed by the scribe to an Aki; but as two of the dependencies of Colmworth name Eskil as the lord, it is likely that Aki is a scribal error, perhaps at Haynes, too, as suggested by J.H. Round: 'Domesday survey of Bedfordshire', p. 200 note. Like Eskil, this Aki was a royal thane.
	Both unidentified Eskils in Hertfordshire are probably Eskil of Ware, who had several other manors - including Ware - in the county. Like him, the Eskil at Knebworth is a royal thane, and Knebworth a substantial manor. The Freemen at Stanstead Abbots, three miles from Ware, are likely to be his also, there being no other Eskils with demesne land in the county. Eskil's manors and men form a distinctive cluster, some distance from similar clusters in Berkshire and Northamptonshire, with which they have no apparent links. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 251-52, which does not include the lands of his men at Holme and Easton in Bedfordshire; or his demesne holdings in Haynes, Bletsoe, Colmworth, Cople, Battlesden or Hockliffe in Bedfordshire, or Knebworth in Hertfordshire. Dr Clarke suggests that the unnamed overlords from whom Hugh acquired many of his numerous Freemen in Bedfordshire may be Eskil. While possible, and likely in some cases, Hugh may well have used his powers as sheriff of the county to absorb them, whoever their lords, as sheriffs often did. Dr Clarke ranks Eskil thirty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would place him in the top two dozen.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN". The name Estan occurs fifteen times, thinly distributed among eleven counties between Kent and Yorkshire and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners. It is probably the same name as Edstan, a form which occurs five times, once on the Honour of William son of Ansculf, who numbered an Estan among his predecessors in the same county. It is perhaps also the same name as the more familiar Aethelstan (Adstan, Adestan), which occurs on several Honours that acquired lands from an Estan. Bishop Estan at Priors Frome in Herefordshire is Bishop Aethelstan of Hereford (circa 1016-1056). On occasions, Estan appears to be equivalent to the much more common Alstan (Alestan, Alstan): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 152-53, 182, 188, 237.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF BONCHURCH>. It is conceivable that Estan, whose modest holding at Bonchurch on the Isle of Wight was acquired by William son of Azur, is Estan of Hannington, the one other Estan (or Aethelstan or Edstan) in Hampshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF FARNINGHAM>. The Estans whose manors of Farningham in Kent and Glentworth in Lincolnshire were acquired by the bishop of Bayeux are probably one man. Both manors are fairly substantial, and both were subinfeudated to Wadard of Cogges (q.v.). Estan probably held the jurisdiction in Glentham attached to Glentworth, though the form of his name there - Adestan - is normally rendered Aethelstan; the two names, however, may be interchangeable, as they appear to be here. Estan is probably also Eustan - a unique form - the bishop's predecessor at Maplescombe, two miles from Farningham. He may also be the overlord at Brickhill in Buckinghamshire, acquired by Bishop Odo. The holding is said to be dependant on Estan's manor of Brickhill, that is Great Brickhill, a valuable manor recorded as held by Earl Tosti; Estan was either the earl's unnamed 'man' there or was granted the manor after Tosti's fall. Either way, Estan had a local presence, so he may be the other Estan in Buckinghamshire, the predecessor of William son of Ansculf at Tyringham, thirteen miles from Brickhill. Roughly midway between the two vills lay Woughton on the Green, where Leofwin son of Estan was an overlord, the Estan of Brickhill and Tyringham perhaps being his father. Woughton was acquired by Odo's half-brother, the Count of Mortain, who was preceded by the one other Estan in the Midlands, at Weedon in Northamptonshire.
	Another link tends to confirm the identity of the predecessors of Bishop Odo and William son of Ansculf. William acquired Chicheley from an Edestanus, a rare name likely to be a variant of Estan; his overlord at Chicheley is the magnate Alnoth the Kentishman, most of whose lands were acquired Bishop Odo. Less certainly, it is possible that the two other Edstans in Domesday Book are the same man, though there are no specific links to confirm this. One had half a messuage in Lincoln, acquired by the abbey of Ely which had no other interest in the county but was an important landowner in Norfolk, where Edstan's other holding lay: two churches and a large amount of land in Norwich. Count Alan of Brittany also acquired a substantial manor in the county, at Saxthorpe, from a man of Earl Harold who is named Estan in its dependency and Adstan at Saxthorpe itself, another example of the equivalence of Estan and Aethelstan. Bishop Odo, too, had another Adstan among his predecessors in the region, on the valuable manor of Thorrington in Essex. In these cases at least it appears that Estan, Edstan and Adstan are the same name, borne by one man; there no others in Buckinghamshire, Essex or Norfolk. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the Count's tenant, Adestanus, at Soham in Cambridgeshire, the only Estan, Edstan or Adstan in the county in Domesday Book and the only survivor of any of these name-forms in the country. If so, Estan/Edstan/Aethelstan survived on a fragment of his once extensive estate. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 1811). In the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 7), Adestanus appears as Alstanus, while a juror in Radfield Hundred - conceivably the same man - is variously recorded in the satellite texts as Adestan, Aethelstan and Alestanus (ibid., pp. 17-18, 98).

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF HANNINGTON>. It is conceivable that the Estan who had a small holding at Hannington among the king's servants in north Hampshire is Estan of Bonchurch, on the Isle of Wight, the one other Estan (or Aethelstan or Edstan) in Hampshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF LOXLEY>. Estan, whose respectable manor of Loxley in Warwickshire was acquired by the Count of Meulan, has no links with his namesakes. There are no other Estans, Edstans or Aethelstans in the county or on the Count's Honour. Estan of Farningham, is the one landowner of these name-forms in any of the adjacent counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF OTTERHAMPTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Estans who held Tuxwell, Otterhampton and Radlet in Somerset are probably one man. Two of the manors were acquired by Alfred 'of Spain', the third lying in a neighbouring vill. It is not unlikely he is also the Aethelstan at Lexworthy, four miles from Tuxwell, these names being treated as equivalents on other Honours and in other sources. There are no other Estans, Edstans or Aethelstans Somerset or adjacent counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
"ESTAN" <OF WYSALL>. The Estans whose manors at Wysall in Nottinghamshire and Wickersley in Yorkshire devolved upon Roger of Bully may be the same man, despite the distance separating them - almost fifty miles - Roger being unlikely to have two predecessors with this uncommon name. It is also likely, even probable, that Estan is the same man as Aethelstan, predecessor of Roger at Walkeringham in Nottinghamshire. The two names are treated as equivalents on some other Honours, and the three Nottinghamshire manors are subinfeudated to one tenant, Roger of Louvetot. Roger's predecessor is perhaps the one other Aethelstan in Nottinghamshire, the predecessor of Gilbert Tison in the lost vill of Alwoldestorp. Gilbert also succeeded an Aethelstan at Swinton - six miles from Roger's manor of Wickersley - and Beamsley in Yorkshire, very likely this man too, there being no other Aethelstans in the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO. Although Eudo is a fairly common name, it is rare in the sense that it was borne by few individuals, the great majority of Eudos being named in the text as one four landowners, two of them tenants-in-chief, another dead before 1086, and a fourth identifiable with reasonable confidence with the aid of a satellite text, leaving only three others to be identified. No Eudo held land before the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO <OF BARNSLEY>. Eudo, who held seven virgates from the Church of Worcester at Barnsley in Worcestershire, is the only Eudo in the west of England. It seems unlikely he is the same man as any of his namesakes, with none of whom he has any associations. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 29437).

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO <OF FOLKESTONE>. Eudo, who held a half-sulung as a subtenant of the huge manor of Folkestone, is the only unidentified Eudo south of the Thames. It is conceivable that he is Eudo the steward, who held manors in Berkshire and Hampshire, or Eudo son of Spirewic, who may have held a manor in Lincolnshire from Odo of Bayeux, the tenant-in-chief at Folkestone; but his manor is modest and the associations very slight. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 7779).

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO [* OF MUMBY *]. Eudo, who held Mumby and its dependencies in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is named Eudo of Mumby in the Lindsey Survey (12/7. 15/6). As his name is rare, he is very probably the Count's tenant elsewhere on his fief, though one of the manors is held by a Wigot in the Survey, and another appears to be in demesne (17/4. 18,1). Eudo had, however, acquired land in Thorpe St Peter, and his descendants had other land in the county, so some shuffling of his tenancies occurred: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 269-61. It is improbable that the Count had two Eudos among his tenants when the only others in the county - or, indeed, in northern England - may be identified as one other man, Eudo son of Spirewic; the Count had none elsewhere on his Honour. Eudo's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3005) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 195, together with East Keal, where Eudo is more probably the son of Spirewic.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO <OF QUAINTON>. Eudo, tenant of Hascoit Musard on the fairly substantial manor of Quainton in Buckinghamshire, Hascoit's entire fief in the county, has no links with his namesakes. The manor was held by the Neyrnut family in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 95. Eudo's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1654) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 195.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO [* SON OF CLAMAHOC *]. Eudo son of Clamahoc, or Eudo Clamahoc, is named on five manors in Norfolk, one of which - Fransham - he is said to have held 'as long as he lived'. On all five he was succeeded by Ralph of Beaufour, which almost certainly identifies him as the intermediate landowner on six other manors on Ralph's fief. Only one other Eudo is recorded as an intermediate landowner in Domesday Book, also in Norfolk, where he is described as a man of Earl Ralph Wader, probably the same man as Ralph's predecessor, who appears to be a Breton from the same region of Brittany as other followers of Ralph Wader, and so possibly implicated in his rebellion: Marten, 'Rebellion of 1075', pp. 176, 178. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO [* SON OF SPIREWIC *]. Eudo, who claimed land at Tattershall Thorpe in Lincolnshire from the bishop of Durham, is identified as the son of Spirewic on his demesne manors in the vill, where it is explained that he held two-thirds of the vill, the bishop the other third. The shares originated in the division of the vill - described elsewhere in the Claims - between three brothers, one of whom, Sighvatr, was the predecessor of Eudo at East Keal, which indicates Spirewic's son is the unidentified Eudo who claimed part of the bishop of Durham's manor there. As the name is rare, it is likely that Eudo is also tenant of the bishop of Bayeux on another manor in Tattershall Thorpe. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 502) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 195, apart from the entry for East Keal, assigned to Eudo of Mumby.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUDO [* THE STEWARD *]. The Eudos who had houses and a garden in Hertford, claimed land at Thurleigh in Bedfordshire, and held a disputed tenancy from the abbey of Ely at Rettendon in Essex, are probably Eudo the steward, a tenant-in-chief in those counties and in seven others. In Hertford, the houses and garden were held from him by Humphrey of Anneville (q.v.), his tenant in the county; and at Rettendon Eudo is shown to be the steward by a fuller description of the manor, including the interest of Ely abbey, on his own fief. His men at Thurleigh claimed the manor 'through their lord's predecessor' - Wulfgeat, a royal thane - 'all of whose lands King William bestowed upon him'. No Eudo had a predecessor named Wulfgeat; but Eudo the steward acquired all the lands of Wulfmer of Eaton (q.v.), so Wulfgeat is probably a scribal error for Wulfmer. On Eudo's Honour, see Farrer, Honors, iii. 164-295; Lennard, Rural England, pp.99-104. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 279) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 194, with the addition of a tenancy at Micheldever in Hampshire, here attributed to Odo of Winchester.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUSTACE. Although the name Eustace occurs several hundred times, it is rare in the sense that it was borne by only a handful of individuals. Most Eustaces are named in the text as Count Eustace of Boulogne, Eustace the cleric, or Eustace the sheriff, alias Eustace of Huntingdon. With one exception, the remainder are probably the Count or the sheriff.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNT *] EUSTACE [* OF BOULOGNE *]. Count E, named on several royal manors and one belonging to of St Ouen in Essex, can only be Count Eustace of Boulogne; on four of them he is named in relation to his predecessor, Engelric the priest (q.v.). He is very probably also the Eustace whose unnamed predecessor was the lord of free men in Finborough, Finborough being a manor Count Eustace acquired from Engelric the priest. The Count's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 261) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 196-97.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUSTACE [* OF TORCY *]. Eustace, who held a hide from William of Warenne in Falmer Hundred in Sussex, has been tentatively identified as Eustace of Torcy, from Torcy in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), a benefactor of Lewes priory, which held land in Falmer Hundred. As unidentified Eustaces are rare, he may be Eustace the cleric, identified as a canon of St Mary's of Hastings, who held from another tenant-in-chief at Ratton, but there are no links to confirm this; neither descent has been traced. Their tenancies are recorded in Coel, assigned to different individuals (nos. 209, 948), referenced in Domesday people, pp. 196, 197.

.............................................................................................................................................
EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. Apart from the fief of Count Eustace, it is probable that all Eustaces in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire are Eustace the sheriff, alias Eustace of Huntingdon; these are the only counties where unidentified men of this name occur in any numbers. In Huntingdon, Eustace is named in several vills where the sheriff held in chief; where he appears to be exploiting the powers of his office; or where alleged seizures or disputed titles are involved, a common pattern of behaviour by sheriffs within their sheriffdoms, Eustace being 'a shocking oppressor, robbing ... abbeys, churches, and private persons': Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', p. 292. At Molesworth, he was a tenant of Countess Judith, a manor acquired from Northmann, from whom the sheriff obtained two of his Northamptonshire manors, so he may be the Eustace who held Rushton from the Countess. In Northamptonshire, five of the six Eustaces had manors in vills in which the sheriff held in chief, the sixth, a claimant at Knuston, being probably the sheriff in default of another Eustace with land in the county. On three of the manors held from Peterborough abbey - Polebrook, Clopton and Catworth - the identity of Eustace is confirmed by their descent: King, Peterborough abbey, p. 47. The sheriff's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 660) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 197.

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERARD. The name Everard occurs approximately sixteen times - there some uncertain cases - in Domesday Book, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, one name occurring in 1066.

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERARD [* OF LEATHLEY *]. All Everards in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire in 1086 are probably one man, tenant or man of William of Percy on all these manors and ancestor of the family which took its name from his manor of Leathley in Yorkshire (13W26). The Lincolnshire and Yorkshire manors descended to different families, though not all the links in the chain of descent can be reconstructed: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 137-39, 203-205. Despite this, it is improbable that Percy had two tenants named Everard when all other tenants-in-chief north of the Wash could not muster one between them. Everard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3352) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 182-83.

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERARD <OF ST IVES>. Everard, who held a subtenancy from the abbey of Ramsey in St Ives in Huntingdonshire, later in the hands of the Mowin family, has no links with other Everards: VCH Huntingdonshire ii, 181-82. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32584).

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERARD <OF SPRIDLINGTON>. The Everard at Spridlington is the only pre-Conquest Everard in Domesday Book. The native origin of the tenant-in-chief, Kolsveinn of Lincoln, and the fact that Everard's two brothers shared the manor with him, suggests that Everard is a native landowner though there is some doubt as to the Old English derivation of his name: Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 63-64. Spridlington is only ten miles from one of the holdings of Everard of Leathley, tenant of William of Percy, and lies between this and the remainder of the Leathley manors in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. In the Lindsey Survey, Spridlington and the Percy manor of Holtham are recorded as demesnes of the tenants-in-chief. In view of this and the comparative rarity of the name, this is either a curious coincidence or the two Everards are the same individual, probably an English survivor. There are problems with either conclusion, so Everard of Spridlington is here treated as a separate individual.

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERARD [!4! SON OF BRIAN !4!]. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 9-10) identifies the Everard at Ashley and Saxon Street in Cambridgeshire as the son of Brian and a juror in Cheveley Hundred. Both manors were held from Aubrey de Vere and later descended to the Lavenham and Beauchamp families, who appear to have had no connection with any of Everard's namesakes: VCH Cambridgeshire, x. 33-34, 86-90. Brian is Brian of Scales, a relative of Hardwin of Scales, probably from Saint-Germain-en-Coglès in Brittany (Ille-et-Vilaine: arrondissement Fougères). Everard's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 947) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 195-96.

.............................................................................................................................................
EVERWIN <OF TEW>. Everwin, tenant of Robert of Stafford at Duns Tew in Oxfordshire, is almost certainly the Everwin who held the largest holding in that vill from Robert d'Oilly; there is only one other Everwin in Domesday Book, a burgess in Norwich. Everwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11767) but not apparently in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
FALC <OF BRADFIELD>. Falc, who held a half-carucate from the abbey of St Edmunds at Bradfield in Suffolk is almost certainly the Falc who survived for two decades on eight acres held from the abbey of Ely in Rattlesden, where he is described as a man of St Edmund's. As is often the case, Little Domesday is unclear as to the date of Falc's holding at Bradfield but the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin confirms his tenancy in 1086; the Rattlesden holding is not recorded there: Feudal documents, pp. 19-20, 34. He is the only Falc in Domesday Book. The tenant at Bradfield is unidentified in Coel (no. 12810), and the holding at Rattlesden assigned to the abbey's demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
FATHERLING [* FATHER OF ROALD *]. The name Fatherling occurs five times in Domesday, all five in Hampshire, in a cluster north of Winchester. Four are tenants of Hugh of Port, probably to be identified with the father of Roald named in the Winton Domesday (pp. 39, 103, 170), who may be the Roald (q.v.) - another rare name - who held Lomer, south-east of the city, from St Peter's of Winchester. The fifth Fatherling, a tenant of William Bellett at Woodcott, is probably also Roald's father. Woodcott is two miles - one across the fields - from his manor of Litchfield, and he acquired it from William 'with his daughter'. Fatherling's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 935) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 197-98.

.............................................................................................................................................
FATHIR <OF BANHAM>. The five Fathirs in Domesday Book may be one man, the royal thane whose substantial manor of Great Bircham in Norfolk was acquired by Ralph of Beaufour, who succeeded Fathir on a comparable manor at Lexham, thirteen miles south of Bircham. Another tenant-in-chief, William of Ecouis, acquired the two comparable manors of Wilby and Banham, between twenty-five and thirty-five miles north of Bircham. Distribution, manorial status, and the rarity of the name make it improbable that two Fathirs are involved. Possibly, though less certainly, he held the seven acres at Cotton in Suffolk acquired by Richard son of Gilbert, seventeen miles south of Wilby.

.............................................................................................................................................
FIN. The forename Fin occurs twenty times, distributed among three counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief, all in 1066; nineteen, possibly all twenty, are probably the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
FIN <OF BARNETBY>. As the name is rare, the Fin whose modest manor in Barnetby-le-Wold in Lincolnshire was acquired by Erneis of Buron might be Fin the Dane, the one other landowner of this name in Domesday Book; but there are no links to confirm an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
FIN [* THE DANE *]. The Fins on twelve of the manors of Richard son of Count Gilbert in Suffolk are almost certainly Fin the Dane, so-named on two of Richard's manors in Essex. On the Suffolk fief, Fin is twice described as Richard's predecessor, and Fin's Honour, or Holding, is mentioned on several other manors. His wife, Wulfeva (q.v.), held two manors from Richard in Cambridgeshire, and Fin himself was a minor landowner in Buckinghamshire before the Conquest. The other two Fins in Suffolk are probably also the Dane, one, at Hemingstone, described as Richard's predecessor; the other, sitting in judgement with Ralph Tallboys, can scarcely be other than a substantial landowner. The one other Fin in Domesday, at Barnetby-le-Wold in Lincolnshire, may be the same man, but there are no links to warrant an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
FORNE. Forne is a rare name which occurs once in Gloucestershire and fourteen times in Yorkshire, possibly borne by two men.

.............................................................................................................................................
FORNE <OF LONGHOPE>. The thane Forne, who shared the substantial manor of Longhope in Gloucestershire acquired by William son of Baderon, is unlikely to be the same man as his Yorkshire namesake whose manors are more than 150 miles away and without apparent links.

.............................................................................................................................................
FORNE [* SON OF SIGULF *]. Forne, who held Nunburnholme among the king's thanes in Yorkshire, is identified as the son of Sigulf in charters of Henry I: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 505-509. He is the only survivor of this name, and no Sigulfs are recorded in Domesday Book. As his name is rare, it is possible that all or most of the remaining Fornes in Yorkshire before the Conquest are Sigulf's son. Cleaving Grange, without a tenant in 1086, is two miles from Nunburnholme; and the cluster of manors around Skirpenbeck acquired by Odo the bowman - probably therefore held by one man - is roughly ten miles away. They include messuages in York; and Scoreby Manor, acquired from Forne by William of Percy, lies between York and Skirpenbeck and York and Nunburnholme. The other three manors - Anlaby, Kirkby Wharfe and Sproatley - are in the same general area; Kirkby, the one vill outside the East Riding, is fourteen miles from York. The concentration of all but one of the Domesday Fornes in this limited area - the Gloucestershire Forne is probably another man - suggests that most are one man, if not Sigulf's son. The objection to him is that that Forne - who prospered under Henry I, his daughter Edith becoming one of the king's mistresses and subsequently wife of Robert II d'Oilly - is known to have died in the financial year 1130, which would make him very old if he were a landowner in 1066: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 505-509. There are, however, other Domesday landowners who appear to have lived that long, Frawin of Cornwall, Harding son of Alnoth and Roger of Beaumont among them. Forne may have left his mark on the landscape, at the lost vills of Fornetorp, in the North and East Ridings, the last of which must be close to his manor at Swaythorpe. Forne's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 4687) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 199.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANI. Frani is a not uncommon name which occurs twenty-eight times, distributed among ten counties between Sussex and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire. Survivors held two manors in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANI <OF ASHLEY>. Frani, whose modest manor at Ashley in Northamptonshire was acquired by Robert of Tosny, may be the father of the English magnate, Oswulf son of Frani (q.v.), a significant predecessor of Robert of Tosny; two of Oswulf's manors acquired by Robert - Stoke Albany and Brampton Ash - are two miles from Ashley. As Frani is not a common name, it is not unlikely he is one of only two survivors of this name, a tenant of Robert of Bucy at Slawston, three miles from Ashley, just across the border in Leicestershire. He may also be the one other Frani in either county, at Horton in Northamptonshire, acquired by the bishop of Coutances; Oswulf had manors in Bedfordshire, a few miles to the east. Interestingly, a Frani of Rockingham granted land at East Langton to Peterborough abbey towards the end of the tenth century: Early charters of eastern England, p. 244. Ashley lies midway between East Langton and Rockingham, roughly five miles from either, so Frani may be an ancestor of the Domesday lord; Rockingham, where the Conqueror was to build a castle, suggests a once-important lordship.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANI [* SON OF ERNGEAT *]. As Frani is not a common name, the two Franis in Worcestershire may be the same man, the name occurring only once more in the five surrounding counties. Frani held part of the royal manor of Bromsgrove as a thane of Earl Edwin and Rous Lench from the bishopric of Worcester, characteristics which suggest he is a son of Erngeat son of Grim (q.v.), another a thane of Earl Edwin holding part of Bromsgrove, accused by Hemming of withholding two manors from the Church of Worcester which were in the hands Alwold (q.v.), a third thane of Earl Edwin at Bromsgrove and probably another son of Erngeat: Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday, p. 22; Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 251-52.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANK. Frank is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among five counties and the lands of three tenants-in-chief, all landowners in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANK [* OF FALCONBERG *]. As the name is rare, the Franks who held four manors in Yorkshire and two in East Anglia from Drogo of la Beuvrière are very probably Frank of Falconberg, Drogo's tenant at Rise, named in the chronicle of Meaux abbey: Chronicon monasterii de Melsa, i. 78-79. He was probably from Fauquembergues in Nord (Pas-de-Calais: arrondissement Saint-Omer). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 938) and referenced in Domesday people, 199, with the addition of Thurborough in Devon.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANK <OF LYDBURY>. Frank, who shared part of the episcopal manor of Lydbury in Shropshire and its church with William the cleric, has no links with other Franks. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 30601).

.............................................................................................................................................
FRANK <OF THUBOROUGH>. Dr Keats Rohan identifies the tenant of Robert of Aumale at Thurborough in Devon, as Frank of Falconberg, tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière in Yorkshire and East Anglia. The grounds for doing so are not apparent. Drogo was succeeded by Count Stephen of Aumale; but the Aumale families of Devon and Yorkshire are unrelated and the Aumale lords of Holderness post-date Domesday. Frank's manor of Thurborough is recorded with those of Frank of Falconberg in Coel (no. 938) and referenced in Domesday people, 199.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRAWIN. Frawin is a rare name which occurs six times in Domesday Book and once in Exon., distributed among five counties between Sussex and Devon; a Frawin of Kirtling is named as a juror in Cambridgeshire, and Frawins survived on two manors in the south-west.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRAWIN [* OF CORNWALL *]. As the name is rare, the Frawin who held Tregony in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain is probably the Frawin who, according to Exon., preceded the Count on part of the manor of Hele in Devon: Devonshire Domesday, i. 340-43. He may also be the Frawin at Alton in Wiltshire, the one other survivor, and, less certainly, the Frawin at Bridgerule, Ingsdon and Leonard in 1066, which lie between the Cornish and Wiltshire manors. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Frawin of Cornwall, named in the Pipe Roll of 1130 as paying £50 for an old debt and 300 gold marks to recover his land. If so, he lived to a ripe old age if he held land before the Conquest. Other Domesday landowners, however, have claims to such longevity, Forne son of Sigulf, Harding son of Alnoth and Roger of Beaumont among them. The huge fine raises the possibility that he may be the one other landowner of this name, at Barlavington in Sussex, the most valuable of the manors held by a Frawin. The tenancies in Cornwall and Wiltshire are recorded separately in Coel (nos. 1676, 1746) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 199, with the comment that they may belong to the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
FREDEGIS. Fredegis is a fairly rare name which occurs fourteen times, distributed among four counties and the lands of six tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. Four manors were held by survivors

.............................................................................................................................................
FREDEGIS [* FATHER OF GODRIC *]. Fredegis, whose manor of Costock in Nottinghamshire was acquired by William Peverel, is identified as the father of Godric in a royal grant to the monks of Durham: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. As his name is rare, he is probably the Fredegis who preceded Peverel at Rempstone and Radcliffe-on-Trent in the county and at Empingham in Northamptonshire and was William's tenant at Radcliffe and Tithby. The Fredegis at 'Warby', a few miles from Radcliffe, and at Sibthorpe, ten miles to the north, may be the same man for similar reasons. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is also the one other survivor of this name in Domesday Book, at 'Houghton' (in Grantham) in Lincolnshire, some twenty miles to the east. He is possibly the same man as Fredegis of Preston though there are no links to confirm this. His tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3719) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 199.

.............................................................................................................................................
FREDEGIS <OF PRESTON>. As the name is rare, the Fredegis whose five manors in Northamptonshire were acquired by the Count of Mortain are very probably one man. It is possible that he is the same man as the father of Godric, who held the one other manor in the county and several elsewhere; but as the manors of that Fredegis are without apparent links, some distance to the north, and include manors held in both 1066 and 1086, Fredegis of Preston is here treated as another man. He is unlikely to be the one other Fredegis in Domesday, at Scarning in Norfolk, over a hundred miles to the east.

.............................................................................................................................................
FREDEGIS [* OF SCARNING *]. Fredegis, who preceded William of Warenne on a modest manor at Scarning in Norfolk, has no links with his namesakes, whose manors lie a hundred miles or more to the west and north-west.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRIDEBERT. Although identified as separate names by von Feilitzen, Fridebert and Fridebern appear to be interchangeable in Domesday Book, as with Colbern/Colbert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Osbern/Osbert, Thorbert/Thorbiorn: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 253-54. The names occur once in Buckinghamshire (Fridebert), twice in Cambridgeshire (Fridebert), five times in Essex (both forms) and twice in Suffolk (Fridebern), distributed among the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief. Fride, perhaps one or other of these forms, is the only possible survivor.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRIDEB[* ... *] THE PRIEST. Fride may be expanded as Fridebert or Fridebern both of which occur several times in the eastern counties, though the priest holding half an acre in alms at Coddenham in Suffolk is, if a survivor - the text is ambiguous - the only one, unlikely to be the same man as any of the pre-Conquest landowners. The manor is assigned to 'Miscellaneous' in Coel (no. 2094).

.............................................................................................................................................
FRIDEBERT <OF OCKENDON>. All Frideberts and Frideberns in Domesday Book may be one man, a royal thane and a man of Earl Leofwin. His substantial manors of Hanechedene in Buckinghamshire and Hanningfield in Essex were acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, their status and the tenurial link all but guaranteeing Fridebert's identity, despite the distance - roughly seventy miles - separating them. Six miles west of Hanningfield, the king retained Fridebert's manor at Margaretting, while eight miles in the other direction Geoffrey de Mandeville acquired two substantial manors in Stow Maries from a Fridebern, almost certainly the Fridebert from whom he acquired the most valuable of Fridebert/Fridebern's manors, at Ockendon. Fridebern is also Geoffrey's predecessor at Stutton in Suffolk, where he is described as a royal thane. The one other Fridebern in the county, a predecessor of Richard son of Gilbert, held the most modest of the manors, at Haverhill, two-thirds of the distance to Harston in Cambridgeshire, held by Fridebert. Although these last two manors are considerably more modest than the others and have no tenurial links with them, they are in the same area, lying between those in Buckinghamshire and Essex; Harston is an ecclesiastical holding of the kind often held by magnates both before and after the Conquest. It seems unnecessary to posit another individual or individuals named Fridebert and Fridebern.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRODO. The name Frodo occurs only in the three counties of Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk where all the landowners of 1086 can be identified as one man, the single pre-Conquest lord probably being another.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRODO [* BROTHER OF ABBOT BALDWIN *]. All but one of the Frodos in Domesday Book are probably the same man, named as the brother of Abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds in the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin: Feudal documents, pp. 4, 108. Frodo, the abbot's brother, held fiefs in Essex and Suffolk; and Frodo was a tenant of the abbey on five manors in Norfolk and nine in Suffolk, on several of which he is named as the abbot's brother in the Feudal Book: Feudal documents, pp. 4-6, 10, 22-23, 33, 36-37. Of the three other tenants, that of Richard son of Count Gilbert at Depden is identified as the abbot's brother in the text, and that of the abbey of Ely at Chedburgh in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 181). The Frodo holding two Freemen in the royal manor of Thorney, and claiming another at Onehouse, may be him, too, as the only Frodo who was a lord of men. The one other Frodo in Domesday Book, a free man who shared a ploughteam with others at Ringshall in 1066, may be another man. Frodo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 467) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 200.

.............................................................................................................................................
FRODO <OF RINGSHALL>. The free man who shared fifty acres and a ploughteam with three other free men at Ringshall in Suffolk in 1066 is unlikely to be the one other Frodo in Domesday Book, the magnate and brother of Abbot Baldwin of Bury St Edmunds, none of whose manors suggest he held land before the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
FROGER [* THE SHERIFF *]. Froger, who 'put it'- - Pangbourne in Berkshire - 'in the King's revenue without plea and law' after the Conquest, is evidently Froger the sheriff, named on the royal manor of Sparsholt as behaving there in a similarly high-handed manner after 1066. There are no other Frogers in Domesday Book; but he is named in the Abingdon chronicle as the leading participant in the devastation of villages in Berkshire until 'royal justice took away from him the tyrannical right by which he was raised up', condemning him to 'universal contempt by his neediness and stupidity' for the remainder of his life: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, i. 226-29; ii. 171-73.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCARD. Fulcard is a rare name which may occur five times - three are doubtful - distributed among three widely separated counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCARD <OF LANHERNE>. Fulcard, who held Lanherne in Cornwall from the bishop of Exeter, has no links with his namesakes in Berkshire and Suffolk, the nearest of whom is almost two hundred miles away. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 2115).

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCARD <OF MELLIS>. As the name is rare, the Fulcards who held a few acres on two adjacent manors at Mellis and Thrandeston in Suffolk are probably the same man, though his land was acquired by two tenants-in-chief. He is very unlikely to be related to his distant namesakes in Cornwall and Berkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCARD <OF SPARSHOLT>. As his name is rare, the Fulcard (Polcehard) who held the respectable manor of Sparsholt in Berkshire from Henry of Ferrers may be the Polcehard who held Inglewood in the same county from William son of Ansculf. The name-form Polcehard is unique in Domesday Book. It may be a scribal error for Fulcard, misreading an initial F as Þ, though neither Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, p. 98, or von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 256, list this form. But it is curious in that case that the same error is committed twice, in different parts of the manuscript which would not have been close to each other in sources organised either geographically or tenurially. As it can be found in early twelfth century sources, it is more likely to be a name of unidentified origin: Green, Government of England, p. 266. Either way, the name-form strengthens the probability that both refer to the same individual. The descent of the manors casts no light on the identity of the Domesday tenants: VCH Berkshire, iv. 211-12, 315. Fulcard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 986) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326, under Polcehard.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCHER. Fulcher is a fairly common name which occurs on one fief and twenty-six other manors, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in East Anglia and Bedfordshire/Northamptonshire; all Fulchers are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCHER [* "DE MAYNERIS" *]. All but one of the Fulchers recorded in East Anglia are tenants of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds which suggests they are all one man; but the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, which is organised by tenants, lists the manors in two groups, the second and larger group assigned to a Fulcher who has no byname. His manors lie to the east of those of the Fulcher the Breton, though no great distance away. He had three manor in Norfolk clustered around Diss, and half-a-dozen in Suffolk which lie to the west of Diss; to these the Feudal Book adds Bardwell, held in demesne according to Domesday Book: Feudal documents, pp. 17-18. Of the two, he seems more likely to be the abbot's man in Norwich Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that this Fulcher may be Fulcher de Mayneris, who witnessed a grant to the abbey in the 1090s: Feudal documents, p. 153. Mayneris is 'perhaps' Mesnières-en-Bray in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), in which case Fulcher is not the same man as the Breton: Domesday people, p. 200. He is, however, possibly the one other East Anglian Fulcher, a tenant of William of Warenne at Blo Norton in Norfolk, a vill surrounded by several of the manors of the abbey's tenant: Thelnetham is a mile away, Hopton two, Knettishall three, and Hepworth five. William of Warenne had no other Fulchers on his Honour and the abbey did have an interest in the vill of Blo Norton, so the identification of Warenne's tenant as the same man as the abbey's is not implausible. It does, however, make it even more statistically freakish that that abbey had two tenants of this name; a scribal blunder seems possible. The manors of Fulcher de Mayneris are recorded in Coel (no. 1003) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 200; the Warenne tenant is unidentified (no. 9165).

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCHER [* OF PARIS *]. The Fulchers who held two manors in Holme in Bedfordshire from Nigel of Aubigny and Countess Judith are probably Fulcher of Paris, who had manors from the same tenants-in-chief and from Walter Giffard in the adjacent vill of Stratton. Countess Judith also had a tenant named Fulcher at Walgrave in the neighbouring county of Northamptonshire. He can be identified with some confidence as the same man as the six other Fulchers in the county by the descent of their manors to the Malsour (Malesoures) family, most recorded in the Northamptonshire Survey, where Fulcher Malsour is named as the tenant on one of them, Thorpe Malsor: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 380-82, 385; Farrer, Honors, i. 78-80, 119; ii. 341, 383. In Domesday, Fulcher Malsor also held part of the manor of Oakham in Rutland from the king. As these are all the recorded Fulchers in the Midlands and Fulcher of Paris and Fulcher Malsor held manors in both counties from Countess Judith, it is likely they are the same man, though the Bedfordshire manors did not descend to the Malsour family: Farrer, Honors, ii. 383. But neither, apparently, did Oakham, and Fulcher's Northamptonshire estate fragmented during his lifetime: VCH Rutland, ii. 17. Fulcher's manors are attributed to two men - Fulcher of Paris and Fulcher Malsor - in Coel (nos. 1002, 1005), referenced in Domesday people, p. 201.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCHER [* THE BOWMAN *]. Fulcher, who held a small fief in Devon, is evidently Fulcher the bowman, so named in Exon. on the last manor on his fief. He is the only tenant-in-chief of this name and the only Fulcher south of the Thames. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 802) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 200.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCHER [* THE BRETON *]. All but one of the Fulchers recorded in East Anglia are tenants of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds which suggests they are all one man. According to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, however, the tenants at Great Snarehill in Norfolk and Great Livermere in Suffolk are Fulcher the Breton, the remaining manors in the two counties being held by another Fulcher: Feudal documents, pp. 17-18, 21. As the Feudal Book is organised by tenants, this would seem to be conclusive, and there is some slight evidence that the abbey had a Fulcher who was not a Breton among its men. It is nevertheless extremely odd that the abbey had two tenants of this name when the remaining tenants-in-chief in East Anglia could - at best - muster only one other Fulcher between them; a scribal blunder of some kind seems possible. Fulcher's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1004) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 200.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO. If Fulco of Lisors is discounted, Fulco is not a particularly common name, occurring in a dozen counties as tenants of fifteen tenants-in-chief. Folki (Fulchi) and Fulcwy (Fulcoius) may be variants of this name, in which case the distribution would include three more counties and tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO [* OF BAINVILLE *]. Fulco, who held Bickley in Cheshire from Robert son of Hugh, is almost certainly Fulco of Bainville, who witnessed Robert 's gifts to St Werburgh's of Chester: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, p. 41. He is probably also the Fulcwy (Fulcui) who held Upton in Huntingdonshire from Earl Hugh of Chester since a Richard de Benevill held a fee there of the Honour of Chester in the thirteenth century: Farrer, Honors, ii. 26-27. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be named from Banville in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Bayeux). His manor of Bickley is recorded in Coel (no. 3833) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 201; the tenant at Upton is unidentified (no. 32637).

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO <OF CLAYBROOKE>. The Fulcos who held Weston-in-Arden, Wibtoft with Willey, and Oversley in Warwickshire, and Claybrooke in Leicestershire, from the Count of Meulan, may be one man. Wibtoft is two miles from Willey, one from Claybrooke, just across the county boundary; Wibtoft was later held together with Weston-in-Arden, by an Arnold du Bois: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 258. Fulco's Warwickshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4753) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 202; the tenant at Claybrooke is unidentified (no. 26701).

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO [* OF LE PIN *]. The Fulcos who held manors in Leintwardine, Clungunford, Bedstone and Selley in Shropshire from Picot of Sai are probably one man, who may also be the Fulco who held another manor in Clungunford from Reginald the sheriff; these are the only Fulcos in the county, the manors forming a close group in Leintwardine Hundred, two of the three being about three miles from Clungunford. Fulco may be the Fulco de Pino (Le Pin) who, according to Orderic Vitalis (iii. 138-43), was one of the men of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury who witnessed a charter for the abbey of St Evroul, where Orderic was a monk. It is possible that Fulco is the same man as Fulcwy of Withington (q.v.), though his manors form a separate group at the other end of the county. Fulco's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9111) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 202, apart from Leintwardine, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 31011); the commentary on the name-forms Fulco and Fulcwy does not match the identifications in the database.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO [* OF LISORS *]. The Fulcos who held two manors in Derbyshire and a dozen are Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully are almost certainly Fulco of Lisors, named on the first of the two Derbyshire manors. He witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory, his lands descending to the constables of Chester: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 207-209; Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Nottinghamshire', p. 225. There are no other Fulcos in Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire. In Yorkshire, too, he is probably the Fulco who held four manors from Roger, on the first of which he held land in the jurisdiction of Hexthorpe, where Fulco of Lisores is named in the Claims as having land in the same jurisdiction. The same claim records land he held in Loversall and Edenthorpe, though he is not named in the entries concerned. Roger had no other tenants on his Yorkshire fief, and no other Fulcos on his Honour. Fulco's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2990) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 201.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO <OF PORTLEMOUTH>. The Fulcos who preceded Iudhael of Totnes at Portlemouth, Ilton, Alston and Sorley in south Devon are very probably one man. The manors cluster in the southern half of Diptford Hundred, the first three in adjacent vills, Sorley lying a few miles to the north. The predecessor of Alfred the Breton in the lost vill of Ferding is likely to be the same man. His manor is in the same general area of south-west Devon and of similar status to the other four, and there are no other Fulcos in Devon or, indeed, in the ten counties of circuits one and two, nor any Fulcwys in south-western counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCO [* SON OF RAINFRID *]. Fulco, tenant of William of Percy at Little Grimsby, Elkington and Fotherby in Lincolnshire and Pallathorpe and Snainton in Yorkshire, is identified as Fulco son of Rainfrid by the descent of his manors, which also included Catterton, Toulston and Newton Kyme in Yorkshire, held from Osbern of Arques: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 89-104. He was certainly steward of the Percy Honour under William's son, and probably also under William himself. His father, a knight of the Conqueror, was an important figure in the monastic revival in the north of England: Knowles, Monastic order, pp. 166-68. It seems unlikely he is either of the two Rainfrids recorded in Domesday Book. Fulco's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3351) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 201.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCRAN <OF BUTCOMBE>. The Fulcrans who held six manors in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances are almost certainly one man, the name occurring nowhere else in Domesday Book. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1684) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 202.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCWY. Fulcwy (Fulcoius) is a rare name which occurs a dozen times in Domesday or Exon., distributed among six counties, the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, and both dates. It is probably a variant form of Fulco (q.v.) and Folki (Fulchi): Lewis, 'French in England', p. 131.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCWY <OF WITHINGTON>. Fulcwy, who held Withington and 'also' Wytheford in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, may be Fulcwy (Fulcoius) the sheriff, who witnessed a confirmation of the foundation charter of Shrewsbury abbey in 1121: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 36; Mason, 'Officers and clerks', p. 247; Green, English sheriffs, p. 72. If they are in fact different names, Fulcwy and Fulco are sometimes confused by the scribe; but this Fulcwy does not appear to be the same man as Fulco of Le Pin, who held several manors as a subtenant of the earl in the south of the county. The scribe is consistent in using Fulco for the one and Fulcwy for the other, and the manors form distinct groups, some thirty miles apart. Fulcwy's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3015) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 203, partially conflated with those assigned here to Fulco of Le Pin.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCWY <OF WOOLBEDING>. It is likely that all Fulcwys and Folkis south of the Thames are one man, though the names are believed to be of different origin and are distributed among three counties, four tenants-in-chief, and pre- and post-Conquest manors. Earl Roger of Shrewsbury acquired the substantial manor of Racton from a Fulcwy, who held subtenancies in Selham and Marden from his tenant, Robert son of Theobald. Selham is less than five miles from the substantial manor of Woolbeding, acquired from Fulcwy by Odo of Winchester, who succeeded a Fulchi on the valuable manor of Norton in Hampshire. Fulcwy's pre-Conquest manor of Clandon in Surrey is also a respectable property. Whalesbeech in Sussex, held by the one other Fulchi, though some distance from Fulcwy's manors in Chichester Rape, lay in Lavant, five miles from Racton, separated from Earl Roger's manors by the division of Sussex into Rapes. In view of an otherwise blank map of Fulcwys and Folkis south of the Thames, these links, though slight in some cases, suggest that the two names are interchangeable is these case, and the pre- and post-Conquest landowners the same man. If these identifications are valid, Fulcwy of Woolbeding survived in relatively comfortable circumstances compared to most of his peers. The tenant at Selham is unidentified in Coel (no. 16167), and the subtenant at Marden is not included there.

.............................................................................................................................................
FULCWY [* WARUHEL *]. The Fulcwys who held manors in Whitwell and the adjacent vills of Croydon and Arrington in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany are probably Fulco Waruhel, the juror of 'Wetherley' Hundred, where Whitwell and Arrington lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 68, 83). Here as elsewhere, Fulcwy and Fulco appear to be interchangeable, as is clearly the case at Arrington itself, where the scribe of the Inquisitio writes Fulco, the Domesday scribe Fulcwy. There are no other Fulcos or Fulcwys in the county. The descent of Fulcwy's manors is unenlightening: VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 142, 268; viii. 32. They are recorded in Coel (no. 2076) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 203, without reference to the juror.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL. Gamal is a common name, but only in the north of England. In occurs in eight counties between Leicestershire and Yorkshire, all north of the Wash apart from one name in Leicestershire, with a particularly heavy concentration in Yorkshire, a significant one in Lincolnshire, and lesser groupings in Cheshire and Derbyshire. The king and more than two dozen of his tenants-in-chief had Gamals among their predecessors, five as tenants, Gamals also surviving among the king's thanes in Staffordshire and Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL <OF SHOTTLE>. All Gamals in Derbyshire and Leicestershire are probably one man, all being predecessors of Henry of Ferrers. The eight Derbyshire vills are connected in various ways. Most are close to one or more of the others: Bearwardcote is two miles from Etwall, as is Mercaston from Mugginton; Swarkestone is three miles from Twyford, and Shottle six from Mugginton. Only Tissington is somewhat detached, fifteen miles from Shottle. But Tissington is linked in another way. Two of the pre-Conquest lords who shared the manor there also shared those at Swarkestone and Etwall with Gamal. Bearwardcote is linked in a similar manner. Henry had no other predecessors or tenants of this name on his Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL [* SON OF BARTH *]. Three of the very numerous Yorkshire Gamals survived for two decades on the same manor, tenants of Ilbert of Lacy at Smeaton and of Erneis of Buron at Arkendale, and a king's thane on four manors in the East Riding. Erneis had no other tenants (or predecessors) of this name, all other surviving Gamals in Yorkshire being tenants of Ilbert or king's thanes. It seems likely that all are these Gamals are one man, Ilbert's acquisitions being explained by the location of the manors within his Honour of Pontefract. His tenant can be identified from later records as Gamal son of Barth, Barth (q.v.) being another of Ilbert's tenants and predecessors: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 284-87. As Gamal retained land in Smeaton for two decades, it is not unlikely that he is also - like his father - Ilbert's predecessor elsewhere; at Thornhill, where he was succeeded by an Arnbiorn who preceded him elsewhere, this is probably the case; but since Ilbert retained most of the other manors in demesne, there are no other such clues. Gamal's tenancies from Ilbert and at Walkington are assigned to one man in Coel (no. 8418), the remainder to a Game (no. 8724), both referenced in Domesday people, p. 203. Game is regarded as an alternative form of Gamal: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 257-58

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *]. Gamal, who held Balterley and 'also' Audley and Talke among the king's thanes in Staffordshire in 1086, may be the king's thane who held Cheadle and 'also' Mottram in Cheshire; he may also be the one other such tenant in the two counties, who held land in Salford from Roger of Poitou, probably the thane who 'had his own exempt customary dues' in Salford Hundred before the Conquest. If so, he is possibly the pre-Conquest landowner at Saredon, among the king's thanes of Staffordshire, and at Poulton in Cheshire, the two remaining Gamals in those counties, though both are distant from the tenancies of 1086. He may be the Gamal son of Gruffydd whose man is named in the Pipe Roll of 1130: Quidam homo Gamelli filii Griffini, perhaps the Gamal of a previous entry, slain by Liulfus de Aldredeslega: Staffordshire Pipe Rolls, p. 3. The identity of the Cheshire and Staffordshire Gamals, and their identification as the son of Gruffydd, were both rejected by J.H. Round, on the grounds that the Cheshire and Staffordshire manors descended separately, and the association of the Gamal of the Pipe Roll with the Gamal who held Audley (Aldidelege) was insecure: Peerage and Pedigree, pp. 25-26. But the Staffordshire manors were subject to confiscation and re-grant since they were held by Liulf's descendants, not Gamal's: Complete peerage, i. 336-37. Later scholars have tended to accept the identification: Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 315, 322; Slade, 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', pp. 25, 36. Gamal's Staffordshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8417) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 203; the Cheshire tenants are unidentified (nos. 28983, 29188).

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL [* SON OF KARLI *]. The Gamals whose many manors in Yorkshire were acquired by Berengar of Tosny are very probably one of the sons of Karli whose feud with the earls of Northumbria disturbed the northern counties for several generations. Berengar's entire fief in Yorkshire was acquired from Gamal and Thorbrand (q.v.); Thorbrand can be confidently identified as one of the unnamed sons; Gamal was presumably another. Four of Gamal's manors were held from Berengar by the Canons of York in 1086, so the Gamal who gave four carucates in East Newton to the Canons before the Conquest may be Karli's son. He is probably also the Gamal whose waste manors at Broughton, Swinton and Holme House were without tenants in 1086, in the hands of the king, since his other manors in two of those vills were acquired by Berengar. He may also be the Gamal on waste manors in Dic, Maneshou and 'Bulford' wapentakes in the North Riding and Craven held by the king in 1086, all other Gamals in those wapentakes being predecessors of Berengar or otherwise identified as Karli's sons and all other landowners there bearing the names of his brothers being also identifiable as sons of Karli. He is almost certainly the Gamal at Barnoldswick, whose twelve carucates became part of the castlery of Roger of Poitou but was previously held by Berengar, so he may be the Gamal whose three other manors in Craven were acquired by Roger. It is also likely he is the Gamal at Thorpe Bassett, which was shared with Cnut (q.v.) - probably his brother - and later granted to the abbey of St Albans by Berengar: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 160.
	It is likely, too, that he is the Gamal who preceded William of Percy at Askwith (where Gamal preceded Berengar on another manor), Glusburn with Cheldis and 'Inglethwaite' (13W25;45. 13N15). William had claims on part of the estate of Karli's sons, since he acquired Seamer and East Ayton from them, and later held their manor of Weston and land in Craven which Berengar held in 1086. Farrer suggested that this Gamal is Gamal son of Osmund, Percy's predecessor at Hazelwood Castle; but the links with Berengar and members of Karli's family, as well as the location of the manors, point to Karli's son rather than Osmund's: 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', pp. 160-61. Another link points to the same conclusion. The second manor (if not a duplicate) in Glusburn with Cheldis was also held by a Gamal, this one from Gilbert Tison who acquired three manors from a Cnut (q.v.) who is very likely another of Gamal's brothers. The predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Chenecol and Preston in Holderness is probably also Karli's son. Drogo acquired Rise - the family's ancestral home - and Catfoss in Holderness from a Cnut who is almost certainly Gamal's brother, and also Redmere in Holderness from a Karli (q.v.), who may be another.
	The king and three of his tenants-in-chief who acquired manors from the Yorkshire Cnuts, Karlis or Thorbrands also acquired several manors from a Gamal which are located in the same wapentakes. The king retained the waste manor of Reighton in Hunthow wapentake, where both Cnut and Karli held a number of manors, and where the Count of Mortain and Count Alan of Brittany acquired more than a score of manors from a Gamal between them. Count Robert also obtained manors from Cnut and Karli and manors from Gamal in vills - Bainton and Hutton Cranswick - where other tenants-in-chief did so as well. Count Alan was also preceded by Cnut on several manors and by a Karli in Lincolnshire who is possibly Gamal's brother. Hugh son of Baldric is a more difficult case. It is very likely that Gamal was Hugh's predecessor on many of his manors since Hugh acquired a large number of manors from Gamal in areas dominated by his family, four of them - Bainton, Fraisthorpe, Hutton and Buckton Holms - in vills where Gamal himself or one of his brothers had another manor, and another four subinfeudated to Gerard, who was also endowed by Hugh with manors of Thorbrand and (probably) Sumarlithi (q.v.), another of Karli's sons. But Hugh had another Gamal among his predecessors, Gamal son of Osbert (or Osbern), a man important enough to be addressed by a royal writ so presumably a significant landowner. He is known to have held the large manor of Cottingham acquired by Hugh and may well have held others of his. On the whole, the manors more likely to have held by Karli's son are well to the north of Cottingham, with Etton perhaps the most doubtful and Kelfield somewhat less so. The name Gamal is so common in Yorkshire that other Gamals may be Karli's son; the only Gamals apart from Osbert's son who can be excluded with some confidence are those surviving on sixteen manors in the county, since all the sons and grandsons of Karli apart from Cnut and Sumarlithi are said to have been slaughtered at Settrington in 1073 on the orders of Earl Waltheof: Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 187-89.
	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 Gamal and his family was in excess of £100 in 1066, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL [* SON OF OSBERT *]. Gamal, who held the large manor of Cottingham in Yorkshire acquired by Hugh son of Baldric is identified elsewhere in the text as Gamal son of Osbert, who had 'full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues' in that vill, of which he was sole lord. He is very probably the Gamal son of Osbern addressed alongside Earl Morcar by a royal writ concerning the lands of St John's of Beverley: Bates, Regesta, no. 32, p. 193. As he was evidently a major landowner, he may be the Gamal who preceded Hugh elsewhere, though since Hugh had another Gamal among his predecessors, the manors of the sons of Osbert and Karli cannot be identified with certainty. It seems likely, though, that he preceded Hugh on two of the three manors on his fief which follow Cottingham and lie in the same neighbourhood: Little Weighton with North Cave, Hunsley and perhaps Skipwith; and he possibly also held the very large manor of South Cave, acquired by Robert Malet. Robert also acquired two modest manors in the North and West Ridings from a Gamal though there are no other indications that Osbert's son held land this far afield.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMAL [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Gamal, whose manor in the lost vill of Saxhalla was acquired by William of Percy, is very probably Gamal son of Osmund, who held the preceding manor of Hazelwood Castle. The two are linked in the Yorkshire Claims, where Osmund's son is named as the pre-Conquest lord of Hazelwood, though Saxhalla is there assigned to a Ketil. Both manors lie in Barkston wapentake and both were subinfeudated to the same tenant. Less certainly, the same Gamal may be Percy's predecessor at Ilkley, which immediately follows Saxhalla in the text and lies in the adjacent wapentake of 'Skyrack'. Percy, however, had a second Gamal among his predecessors who held land in 'Yarlestre' and 'Burghshire' wapentakes, both bordering on 'Skyrack'; and as he held only the single manor of Ilkley in that wapentake, its position in the text is not decisive.

.............................................................................................................................................
GAMALBARN <OF KIRKBY>. All Gamalbarns in Domesday Book may the one man. All his manors lie in the West Riding of Yorkshire in 1066, all but two of the thirty-three divided between William of Percy and Gilbert Tison apart from those waste manors retained by the king. The king and both tenants-in-chief, moreover, had manors in several of the same vills: Tison and Percy in 'Great Braham', Plompton Hall and Rudfarlington, and the king and Tison in Addingham, Eastburn, Grassington, Oakworth and Threshfield. The two manors acquired by Roger of Poitou lay a little further west of the others but no more than teen miles from Grassington. More than half of Gamalbarn's are recorded as waste or without value in 1066 but the assessment of his lands - over eighty carucates - would place him among the three dozen greatest lords in Yorkshire. It has been suggested that he is probably the Gamalbarn who was one of the three leaders of the Northumbrian revolt of 1065 according to John of Worcester (Chronicle, ii. 596-99), in which case much - perhaps most - of his land lay outside the scope of the Domesday Survey: Fellow Jensen, Scandinavian personal names, p. 95; Fletcher, Bloodfeud, p. 160.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* BAYNARD *]. The Geoffreys on the Honour of Ralph Baynard are probably his brother and successor. Dr Mortimer has demonstrated from charter evidence that this was the case at East Ruston and Hudeston in Norfolk; and it is probable that the scribe has simply omitted Geoffrey's surname in the intervening entries between Rushton and Kerdiston and Skeyton, where Geoffrey is given his byname. Dr Mortimer also suggests that most if not all the remaining Geoffreys on the Ralph's Honour, in Norfolk and Essex, are his brother, the subsequent descent of Geoffrey's manors being different from that of the principle Baynard fee: 'Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 244-47. The distribution of the name supports this: there are as many unidentified Geoffreys on the fief of Ralph Baynard as on the other sixty-two fiefs in Norfolk combined. Geoffrey is usually accepted as the son of Ralph Baynard; but charter evidence cited by Dr Mortimer, and the descent of Geoffrey's manors, suggest he was more probably Ralph's brother: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 129-130; Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 224-25. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 124) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 224-25, apart from the second manor in Langford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 5208).

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* DE MANDEVILLE *]. G. de Mandeville, who occurs in Essex and Suffolk, can only be Geoffrey de Mandeville, tenant-in-chief in those and other counties. He is probably also the Geoffrey who held part of the manor of Ayot St Lawrence in Hertfordshire from Westminster abbey since he had two other tenancies from the abbey in the county. Westminster had no other Geoffreys among its tenants, in Hertfordshire or in any other county. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 672) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 226-27.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* GEOFFREY *] MARTEL. The Martels who held Hallingbury, Bigods, Dunmow and two manors in Roding in Essex from Geoffrey de Mandeville are probably Geoffrey Martel, his tenant at Abbess Roding. As the name is rare, the one other Martel in Domesday, a tenant of Robert d'Oilly at Polehanger in Hertfordshire, may be the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. Geoffrey is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as the brother of Hugh son of Grip, sheriff of Dorset. Neither Geoffrey de Mandeville or Robert d'Oilly had unidentified Geoffreys on their Honours. Martel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 356) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 230.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* OF AALST *]. The lands held by Geoffrey from Drogo of Beuvrière at Thimbleby and Langton in Lincolnshire were held from his successor by William of Aalst (Alost) in the Lindsey Survey (19/7). It seems likely that William was Geoffrey's descendant, not merely his successor, since Drogo is more likely than his successors to have enfeoffed a Fleming. It is also likely that Geoffrey of Aalst is the Geoffrey who held the preceding and following manors - the only other Geoffreys on Drogo's Honour - at Stainton-le-Vale and North Ormsby. Stainton had another tenant and Ormsby was held in demesne in the Lindsey Survey (7/1. 10,3), perhaps a consequence of Drogo's forfeiture, which affected his tenants, some of whom disappear from the region: English, Lords of Holderness, pp. 140-41. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9047) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 233, together with those here attributed to Geoffrey of Armentières.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* OF ARMENTIERES *]. The Geoffreys who held Burley in Rutland and Kislingbury in Northamptonshire from Gilbert of Ghent may be Geoffrey of Armentières. The Armentières family held these lands in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and a Robert of Armentières (q.v.) was a tenant of Gilbert in Berkshire and Oxfordshire in 1086: VCH Rutland, ii. 113-14. Gilbert's one other tenant named Geoffrey, at Cranwell in Lincolnshire, the largest and most valuable of his tenancies, may be the same man; it would help to explain the size of the fee - ten knights - held by his descendant, David, though the heirs of Robert of Armentières might be responsible for all or part of this: Red Book, i. 383. Dr Keats-Rohan attributes these manors to Geoffrey of Aalst.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY <OF BALDON>. The Geoffreys who held Claydon in Buckinghamshire, Cherington in Gloucestershire, and Marsh Baldon and Watcombe in Oxfordshire from Miles Crispin are probably one man since these manors were later held by the de la Mare family: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 28; VCH Oxfordshire, v. 33; VCH Gloucestershire, xi. 168. Miles had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4739) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 232, apart from the tenant at Cherington, who is unidentified (no. 29816).

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY <OF COLTON>. The Geoffreys who held Colton in Staffordshire and Denton, Carlby, Braceborough, Bourne and Thurlby in Lincolnshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man. Dr Keats-Rohan states that he was succeeded by a son, William de Wastineis. Land in five of the six vills was held by William of Wasteneis from the Stafford Honour in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974, 1026, 1051, 1092. The exception, Denton, was held by the Baswin family; but as some of their lands were held by a Baswin in 1086, it appears that the family had acquired Denton in the interval: Staffordshire Pipe Rolls, pp. 175-76. Robert had no other Geoffreys on his Honour. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3615) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 232.

.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP G[EOFFREY] [* OF COUTANCES *]. Bishop G on the royal manor of 'Barton Regis' in Gloucestershire can only be Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances, tenant-in-chief in Gloucestershire and many other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 837) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 228-29.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* OF RIA *]. The Geoffreys who held land from Roger of Poitou in West Derby and Salford in South Lancashire may be Geoffrey of Ria, named in a grant made by Roger to the abbey of Sées: Thompson, 'Monasteries and settlement', pp. 211, 223. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9362) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 227, with the addition of Ashley in Staffordshire, here assigned to Geoffrey the sheriff.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* OF `RUNEVILLE' *]. Geoffrey, who held Stanstead Abbots from Geoffrey of Bec, is probably the Geoffrey 'of Runeville' who held 'Blackmore', the previous manor. They are the only tenants on Geoffrey of Bec's small Honour, so it is improbable they were different men. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 876) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 231.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY <OF SEDGLEY>. Geoffrey, who held Sedgley in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf, has no links with his two namesakes in the county, and William son of Ansculf has no other Geoffreys on his Honour. The descent of the Sedgley has not been traced: VCH Staffordshire, xx. 23. Geoffrey is unidentified in Coel (no. 31549).

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY <OF SWAFFHAM>. The Geoffreys who held Swaffham, Burwell and Isleham in Cambridgeshire and Hackforth, Aysgarth, West Burton and Garriston in Yorkshire from Count Alan of Brittany are almost certainly one man, these lands later forming the Burgh fee on the Honour of Richmond, charged with providing four knights for castle-guard, two from each of the two counties. The name of the fee probably derives from Burrough Green in Cambridgeshire, acquired by the family from Count Alan's demesne lands after the Domesday Survey: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 164-67. Farrer suggested that Geoffrey might also be the Count's tenant in Norfolk, though he acknowledged that the Burgh fee reveals no subsequent interest in those manors. He did not mention the one other Geoffrey on the Count's Honour, Geoffrey of Tournai, whose manor of Steyning in Lincolnshire would have been a useful staging post between Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire. As with Norfolk, however, there are no links to connect the two. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1608) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 225-26, under the name Geoffrey de Burgh.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* OF *] TOURNAI. Geoffrey Tournai, who held Steyning in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is presumably Geoffrey of Tournai, perhaps from Tournai-sur-Dive in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan). It is possible, though unverifiable, that Geoffrey is the same man as Geoffrey of Swaffham, the Count's tenant in Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire. Geoffrey's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2896) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 231.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* RIDEL *]. Geoffrey, who held Duckmanton in Derbyshire from Ralph son of Hubert, is probably Geoffrey Ridel, perhaps the royal justice under Henry I who was drowned in the White ship disaster. Ridel is named incidentally in Norfolk as having returned from Apulia with the brother of Roger Bigot, and Duckmanton was later held by another Geoffrey Ridel: Thurgarton cartulary, pp. clxxxii-iii. Ralph had another tenant named Geoffrey, at Teversal in Nottinghamshire, nine miles to the south, perhaps the same man; Geoffrey Ridel held fees in Nottinghamshire from the barony in 1166, though these may, of course, have been acquired by other means: Red Book, i. 345; Green, Government of England, p. 232. Geoffrey's manor at Duckmanton is recorded in Coel (no. 1040) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 230-31; the tenant at Teversal is unidentified (no. 35478).

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* SON OF HAIMO *]. Geoffrey, who held Rigneseta in Suffolk from Richard son of Count Gilbert, may be Geoffrey son of Haimo, who held Chilbourne from him, his only other tenant of this name on his Honour; the two manors are of similar status. Geoffrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 601) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 229.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* THE MARSHAL *]. Geoffrey, who held Draycot Cerne among the king's sergeants of Wiltshire in 1086, is named Geoffrey the marshal in the Geld Roll for the county. He is presumably the same Geoffrey the marshal who had a messuage in Malmesbury and three manors in Hampshire: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 212. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 353) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 230.

.............................................................................................................................................
GEOFFREY [* THE SHERIFF *]. Geoffrey, who held Hadley in Shropshire from Reginald the sheriff, tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is identified as Geoffrey the sheriff by his grant of land in that vill and in Garston, with the churches of Kirkham and Walton, to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33-34. He was sheriff of Lancashire, where he granted an orchard, houses, tithes and land to Lancaster priory, founded by Earl Roger's son, Roger of Poitou: Green, English sheriffs, p. 52; Thompson, 'Monasteries and settlement', pp. 206, 208-19, 222. Roger later confirmed Geoffrey's grants to Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary, ii. no. 371, p. 337. Geoffrey may also be Roger's tenant at Osgodby in Lincolnshire, and the Geoffrey who held Ashley in Staffordshire from Earl Roger; the church of Walton is in the same Hundred. He is possibly the Geoffrey who held Worthen and Stepple in Shropshire from the earl's tenants, though there are no specific links to confirm this. Earl Roger had five tenants named Geoffrey in Sussex, most with substantial manors, but there are no apparent links with the sheriff of Lancashire: Farrer, Honors, iii. 55, 70. Geoffrey's manors of Hadley and Stepple, and his Lincolnshire manor, are recorded in Coel (no. 5189) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 232; Ashley is assigned to Geoffrey of Ria, and Worthen to an unidentified tenant (no. 30851); the Sussex tenants are unidentified (nos. 16146, 16168, 16205, 16250, 16320).

.............................................................................................................................................
GERARD <OF BOLTBY>. All Gerards in Yorkshire are very probably one man. All seven of his manors were held from Hugh son of Baldric in the North Riding, all are of similar status, and six of the seven are the only tenancies created by Hugh in the Riding from lands he acquired from the sons of Karli (q.v.). There are no other Gerards on Hugh's Honour. Gerard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4693) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 207.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERARD [* OF LORRAINE *]. Gerard, who held Whittlesford in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Gerard of Lorraine, who held the adjacent manor of Duxford from the Count and was a juror in Whittlesford Hundred where both manors lay according to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 38, 42, 99). There are no other Gerards in Cambridgeshire, and no more on Count Alan's extensive Honour. Gerard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 219) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 207.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERARD [* OF TOURNAI-SUR-DIVE *]. Gerard, who held a fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is identified as Gerard of Tournai by his grant of the vill of Betton recorded in a confirmation of the foundation charter of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38. Tournai is shown to be Tournai-sur-Dive in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan) by a later charter: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 104. There are no other Gerards in Shropshire, and Earl Roger had no more on his Honour. Gerard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2974) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 204-205.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERARD [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. The Gerards who held several parts of the royal manor of Tewkesbury are probably Gerard the chamberlain, named at Boddington and Kemerton, which duplicates those submanors of Tewkesbury. He may also be the Gerard who held land from the king on an unnamed holding and monitored customary dues for him at Chepstow. One other Gerard held land in the county, at Oakley, from Roger of Lacy; he has no links with royal estates or the chamberlain. Gerard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3449) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 207; the tenant at Oakley is identified as another man (no. 4701).

.............................................................................................................................................
GERARD [* THE DITCHER *]. Gerard, who held a manor in Lopen in Somerset from Count Robert of Mortain, is probably Gerard the ditcher, named in Exon. as holding a second manor in the vill from Roger of Courseulles and in Greinton and Ham from Glastonbury abbey. He may be the royal servant, Gerard, at Earnshill, which lies between Lopen and Ham and Greinton. Of the three tenants-in-chief, only the Count of Mortain had another Gerard among his tenants, at Loders in Dorset, likely to be the same man since in addition to the tenurial link he is the only Gerard in the county. The one other Gerard in Somerset, at Bratton Seymour, has no apparent links with the ditcher. Gerard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1997) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 207; the tenant at Loders is identified as a Gerold (no. 9903).

.............................................................................................................................................
GERMUND. Germund is a rare name which occurs a dozen times, distributed among half-a-dozen adjacent counties between Buckinghamshire and Norfolk and the lands of four tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERMUND <OF "CUDESSANE">. As the name is rare, the tenants of Walter Giffard at Cudessane in Bedfordshire and Swaffham in Norfolk are probably the same Germund, despite the distance separating them. Germund of Swaffham is not included Coel; Cudessane is attributed to Germund of Villers.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERMUND <OF OAKLEY>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Ralph Baynard at Little Baddow and Little Oakley in Essex are probably the same Germund. In the early thirteenth century the two manors were held with others for five and a half fees from the Baynard Honour by a Richard Fillol, fees held in by 1166 by Richard of Baddow (Badwan): Book of Fees, p. 577; Red Book, i. 348. Germund is unidentified in Coel (nos. 5196, 5198).

.............................................................................................................................................
GERMUND [* OF ST OUEN *]. Geoffrey de Mandeville's tenants at Ivinghoe Aston in Buckinghamshire, Birchanger in Essex, and Ashwell, Hainstone and 'Stetchworth' in Hertfordshire are probably Germund of St Ouen, named in the Inquisitio Eliensis as a juror in Odsey Hundred, where two of his Hertfordshire manors lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). The Mandeville Carta of 1166 referred to his 'fee', then in the hands of Walter de Cantilupe and Robert Chevacheshulle, whose relationship to Germund is unknown: Red Book, i. 345. There is no evidence from descent that he is the same man as the tenants of Walter Giffard and Richard son of Count Gilbert in Bedfordshire, Essex and East Anglia (Lewis, Domesday jurors', p. 36), though given that the name is rare and that the tenants of all four tenants-in-chief have at least one manor in the area between Bedfordshire and Essex where the manors of Geoffrey's tenant lay, this possibility cannot be excluded. Germund's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 952) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 205, where it is suggested that he originated from Saint-Ouen-sous-Bailly in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe).

.............................................................................................................................................
GERMUND <OF VILLERS>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Richard of son of Count Gilbert at Howe in Essex and Flowton in Suffolk are probably Germund de Villare, who witnessed a charter for Toppesfield for another tenant of Richard: Stoke by Clare cartulary, i. 57-58, 117. Toppesfield is a few miles from Germund's manor at Howe (in Finchingfield). Germund's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 953) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 205, together with the Giffard tenancy in Bedfordshire. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests Villare is probably either Villers-en-Ouche (Orne: arrondissement Argentan), or Villers-Canivet (Calvados: arrondissement Caen), both in Lower Normandy.

.............................................................................................................................................
GERWY [* OF LES LOGES *]. The three Gerwys in Domesday Book may be the same man and the three Gerins. As his name is very rare, the Gerwy who held a hide on the royal manor of Breamore in Hampshire is probably Gerwy of Les Loges, whose wife had a small fief at Temple Guiting in Gloucestershire. His hide is said to lie in the Isle of Wight, which very probably identifies him as the Gerin who held a hide among the king's thanes at Ningwood, and also as the Gerin with eighteen acres in Southampton and a fief consisting of a single manor at Binton in Warwickshire. The name of this Gerwy/Gerin is rendered Geri in an Evesham cartulary of the early twelfth century (Darlington, 'Aethelwig', p. 189), suggesting the possibility that he is the pre-Conquest lord of two Shropshire manors, the only Geris in Domesday Book. The one other Gerwy or Gerin, Gerwy at Oakley in Gloucestershire, may be the same man. The correct form of his name is uncertain, further complicated by a grant by his wife of land in Temple Guiting to St Peter's Gloucester, for the soul of 'her man', Juricus: Historia ... Gloucestriae, i. 80-81. The manors of Gerwy/Gerin and his wife are recorded in Coel (nos. 2121, 3639) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 208, 441.

.............................................................................................................................................
G[ILBERT] [* BLUNT *]. G, who held land or free men at Boyton in Suffolk from Robert Malet, is probably Gilbert Blunt, who held the previous manor and seven others from Robert. They are recorded in Coel (no. 152) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 209, apart from Boyton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 11988). Dr Keats-Rohan also assigns Manuuic, Ashfield, Thorpe Hall, Leiston and Westleton to Blunt. Robert had many other Gilberts among his tenants, two with bynames 'of Coleville' and 'of Wissant' who are difficult to distinguish among the unidentified Gilberts.

.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP [* GILBERT MAMINOT *] OF LISIEUX. Gilbert, bishop of Lisieux, was a tenant-in-chief in six counties and a tenant in five, usually of the bishop of Bayeux. He is almost always referred to simply as the bishop of Lisieux, though once as Gilbert of Lisieux and in Gloucestershire as Gilbert Maminot in the List of Landholders, the scribe interlining bishop of Lisieux above his name. Not that there is any doubt his name or identity, which is recorded in many sources, a particularly detailed and vivid description being provided by Orderic Vitalis (iii. 18-23). There is, however, some doubt about the identity of plain Gilbert Maminot, who occurs once each in Berkshire and Buckinghamshire, and twice each in Kent and Yorkshire, in Kent and Buckinghamshire as a tenant of Bishop Odo. Most authorities assume that this Gilbert Maminot is the bishop of Lisieux; but Round identified him as 'probably' a nephew and namesake of the bishop without, unfortunately, recording his reasons: 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 211. There is some textual support for two Gilbert Maminots. The Gloucestershire interlineation may be a scribal clarification when 'Gilbert Maminot' was found to be ambiguous; Gilbert Maminot and the bishop of Lisieux are named as such and treated as separate individuals in the summary of their holdings in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 101); and Gilbert Maminot and the bishop of Lisieux are separately named on the fief of Bishop Odo in Buckinghamshire, as in Kent. The bishop's manors - including those of Gilbert Maminot - are recorded in Coel (no. 849) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 212-13; the plain Gilbert Maminot of Kent, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Yorkshire is here treated as another individual.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT <OF ENGLEFIELD>. Although the name is common, the Gilberts who held Penn, Enville and Himley in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf may be one man. His manors form a fairly close group, Penn being three miles from Himley, and Himley five from Enville. The manors of other Gilberts in the county, all tenants of Robert of Stafford, form a distinct group twenty or more miles further north. William had two other Gilberts among his tenants, at Englefield and Stanford in Berkshire, the most substantial of all these manors. It is likely that they were held by the Staffordshire tenant, a William de Englefeud holding the third part of a fee of the Honour of Dudley in Himley in the thirteenth century, indicating a link between the Berkshire and Staffordshire holdings: Book of Fees, p. 968. This William de Englefeud is presumably a descendant of Elias de Englesfeld who held three fees of the Dudley Honour in 1166: Red Book, i. 269. Gilbert's Staffordshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9384) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 215; the Berkshire tenants are unidentified (nos. 904, 913).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* OF ESKECOT *]. The Gilberts who held Duntisbourne Abbots in Gloucestershire from Roger of Lacy and Bagendon from Hugh the ass are identified as Gilbert of Eskecot by his grant of land in those vills to St Peter's of Gloucester: Historia ... Gloucestriae, i. 73. He may also be Roger's tenant at Hampton, Bacton and Ledicot in Herefordshire. These were almost certainly held by one man since they were in the hands of the same family a century later: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 12, 42, 46, 85, 100. The family then took its name from Bacton, but this does not of course preclude their descent from Gilbert of Eskecot; at roughly the same date, Richard of Eskotot held three fees from the Lacy Honour in the Cartae of 1166, and three other member of the family also had fees in the Honour: Red Book, i. 282-83. Richard held the royal manor of King's Pyon in the Herefordshire Domesday (p. 48), but his Lacy fees are not recorded there under his name. Gilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4390) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 210, apart from Bagendon, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 29813).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* OF GHENT *]. Gilbert, who claimed land in Honington in Lincolnshire through his predecessor Ulf, is almost certainly Gilbert of Ghent, who had a manor in the vill and whose principle precedessor was Ulf Fenman (q.v.). Similarly, he must be the Gilbert who claimed land in Luddington and other vills in the county, where the English lord was Ulf Fenman.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT <OF HOPTON>. Although the name is common, the Gilberts who held Hopton, Salt, Cheswardine, Chipnall and Loyton in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man. Hopton and Salt are adjacent, as are Cheswardine and Chipnall, Chipnall being six miles from Loynton. The manors of other Gilberts in the county, all tenants of William son of Ansculf, form a distinct group twenty or more miles further south. Robert had one other tenant named Gilbert, at Aston in Oxfordshire, a respectable manor comparable to those at Hopton and Cheswardine. As Robert's 1072 charter for Evesham abbey names only one Gilbert among the witnesses, he may be the same man, though witness lists are not comprehensive: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178-82. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8174) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 215, apart from Aston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 27886).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* OF SANNERVILLE *]. The tenant of Roger son of Corbet at Cardeston in Shropshire is probably Gilbert of Sannerville, who gave tithes at Chirbury to Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 34, 39. He is the only Gilbert in the county and Earl Roger's only such tenant or subtenant. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8231) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 211.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT <OF WEST DERBY>. Gilbert, who held two carucates from Roger of Poitou at West Derby in South Lancashire, is his only such tenant, and the only Gilbert in Lancashire. It has been suggested that he may have been a household officer of Roger: VCH Lancashire, i. 285, note 7. He is identified as Geoffrey of Ria in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT <OF WORMLEIGHTON>. Gilbert is a common name; but eight of the nine Gilberts in Warwickshire occur on the interrelated fiefs of the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Arden so may be the same man. Thorkil's tenant at Ladbroke is two miles from the Count's at Hodnell, and the other Thorkil tenancy in the lost vill Bentone is in the same Hundred, possibly nearby. Of the Count's other manors, Fenny Compton is two miles from Wormleighton; and Stoneleigh, Woodcote and Newbold within four or five miles of each other. Since neither tenant-in-chief had a tenant of named Gilbert elsewhere, this distribution suggests that all eight Gilberts are one man, though his manors were in several different hands in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 507-508, 956-58. The ninth Gilbert, a tenant of Osbern son of Richard at Temple Grafton, is likely to be another individual, and may not have been in possession for long. The manor was mortgaged by Osbern to the abbey of Evesham, which assumed full possession when he could not repay the mortgage; he seized the manor again, but it was held by the abbey in the early twelfth century: Thomas of Marlborough, pp. 134-85, 174-75, 176-79; Darlington, 'Aethelwig', pp. 186-89. Gilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4757) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 215; the tenant at Grafton is unidentified (no. 28559).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* SON OF DAMA *]. Gilbert, who held Thorpe Stapleton and Stapleton in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy, is almost certainly Gilbert son of Dama, who gave tithes in Stapleton to Ilbert's foundation of St Clement, Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 83-84. He is the only Gilbert on Ilbert's Honour and the only unidentified Gilbert in Yorkshire. The name Dama does not occur in Domesday Book and appears to be unrecorded elsewhere. Gilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4622) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 213.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* SON OF TUROLD *]. Gilbert the sheriff, Robert of Tosny's tenant at Clifford castle in Herefordshire, is identified as the tenant-in-chief Gilbert son of Turold by the duplication of part of the entry on his fief: Lewis, 'Norman settlement of Herefordshire', p. 207. He has also been identified as Gilbert of Bouillé (Budi), who held a messuage in Warwick where the messuages are said to belong 'to the lands which these barons hold outside the Borough', a description which fits Gilbert son of Turold but no one else, the one other Gilbert among the tenants-in-chief in the county - Gilbert of Ghent - being separately listed among the householders. Turold's son may also be Gilbert with the beard, Robert of Tosny's tenant at Duxford in Cambridgeshire, a county in which he was a tenant-in-chief: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (p. 42); if so, he was probably also Robert's tenant at Stone and Cheddington in Buckinghamshire, all three valuable manors, two of them - one in each county - acquired from Ulf son of Manni (q.v.). There were no other unidentified Gilberts in those counties. A Gilbert was also Robert's tenant on two manors in Leicestershire, where one other Gilbert held land in Welham. Gilbert's tenancies were in the hands of different families by the thirteenth century; but it is doubtful whether this is significant since Gilbert's heirs seem to have failed, or been disinherited, his tenancies-in-chief in seven counties being later attached to other Honours, manors in Cambridgeshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire falling to the Tosny Honour of Flamstead: VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. 226; VCH Warwickshire, v. 154; VCH Worcestershire, iii. 128. Gilbert's manors - including the messuage in Warwick - are recorded in Coel (no. 495) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 213-14; Gilbert with the beard is identified as another man (no. 1609); Gilbert at Stone is unidentified (no. 1356), and the Leicestershire Gilberts are accidentally linked to a William. Dr Keats-Rohan rejects the derivation of Bouillé (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen), from Budi, suggesting that Gilbert was more probably from Notre-Dame-du-Hamel (Eure: arrondissement Bernay).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* THE HUNTER *]. The Gilberts who held from Earl Hugh in Cheshire and Dorset are probably Gilbert of Venables, alias Gilbert the hunter. In Cheshire, Gilbert is assigned two fiefs, one under each of his aliases; but their identity is demonstrated by the grant of land in Newbold by Gilbert of Venables to Chester abbey, Newbold being assigned to Gilbert the hunter in Domesday Book: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 8. Elsewhere in the county, the context indicates that the holdings among the shared lands and the salt-works are those of Earl Hugh's main tenants, and Gilbert is therefore Gilbert of Venables, the only Gilbert among them. As the only Gilbert in Dorset and a tenant of Earl Hugh who had no other known tenant of that name, it is likely that he is also the Gilbert at Fifehead Magdalen: Farrer, Honors, ii. 286-87; Lewis 'Honour of Chester', p. 60. Fifehead is the earl's most valuable manor in the county, so likely to be enfeoffed to an important tenant. Gilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2533) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 212; the tenant at Fifehead is unidentified (no. 2758).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* THE MARSHAL *]. Gilbert, who held Garsington in Oxfordshire from the abbey of Abingdon, is 'surnamed Latimer (that is, Interpreter)', alias Gilbert the marshal, in the abbey's chronicle: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 48-51, 324-25. He is the only Abingdon tenant of this name. Roger of Ivry had a tenant at Horspath, three miles away, the only Gilbert on his Honour, conceivably the same man, though the name is common; Garsington and Horspath were in different hands in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 827, 839. Gilbert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2789) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 214; the tenant at Horspath is unidentified (no. 27931).

.............................................................................................................................................
GILBERT [* THE PRIEST *]. Gilbert, who held Serlby in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully, is probably Gilbert the priest, who witnessed his foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. He is the only unidentified Gilbert in the county and the only Gilbert on Roger's Honour. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9334) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 214.

.............................................................................................................................................
GILLEPATRIC <OF SPENNITHORNE>. All Gillepatrics in Domesday are very probably one man, all being predecessors of Count Alan of Brittany in the North Riding of Yorkshire. Five of the six manors were subinfeudated to the same tenant, Ribald, and lay within a few miles of each other on either side of the river Ure.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN. Gladwin is a rare name which occurs eight times, distributed among six counties north of the Thames and seven tenants-in-chief, one Gladwin being a survivor; and the holdings are modest.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN <OF DIMSDALE>. Gladwin, who shared a manor worth ten shillings at Dimsdale in Staffordshire acquired by Richard the forester, has no links with other Gladwins, none of whom are within forty-five miles of his holding.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN <OF DODDINGTON>. As the name is rare, the Gladwin whose modest holding at Doddington in Lincolnshire was acquired by Odo of Bayeux may be Gladwin of Wysall, whose manors are thirty to forty miles away; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN <OF NEWTON>. Gladwin, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers holding a plough and a smallholder at Newton in Leicestershire, is the only survivor of this name; he is possibly Gladwin of Wysall, allowed to survive on a fragment of his previous estate; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 26374).

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN <OF PITSTONE>. Gladwin, whose four oxen and woodland for ten pigs at Pitstone in Buckinghamshire was acquired by the Count of Mortain, has no links with other Gladwins, all distant.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLADWIN <OF WYSALL>. As the name is rare, the Gladwins who preceded Roger of Bully at Wysall and Thorpe and William Peverel at Stapleford and Selston, all in Broxtowe wapentake in Nottingham, may be one man. Dr Fleming's thesis on block grants of Hundreds and wapentakes, and in particular of the grant of most of Broxtowe wapentake to William Peverel, would seem to militate against the identity of the two predecessors: Kings and Lords, p. 148. However, the Bully holdings are in a detached portion of Broxtowe wapentake in the extreme south of the county where the Fleming thesis evidently does not apply since four tenants-in-chief held land there and two of the vills were divided between three of them. Apart from the four Nottinghamshire holdings, it is likely that the Nottinghamshire Gladwin is the same man as the Gladwin at Sandiacre in Derbyshire, less than a mile from Stapleford, just across the county boundary.

.............................................................................................................................................
GLEU <OF ROTHWELL>. All Gleus in Domesday Book are almost certainly the same man. He held five of the six manors from Alfred of Lincoln: Wymington in Bedfordshire and Cuxwold, Rothwell, South Witham and Thistleton and their dependencies in Lincolnshire. The sixth manor, held from Godfrey of Cambrai, also lay in Thistleton. Gleu's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 955) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 216, where it is suggested he may have been Alfred's steward.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODA. The name Goda is rare north of a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, where the few occurrences may be scribal errors; and it is only common south of that line if those identified as Countess Goda and Gode of Woolley are included, though there are clusters in Devon and Suffolk. Goda and Gode are masculine and feminine forms of the same name, but are not used consistently to separate the sexes by the Domesday scribe: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 262-63, 273. A further complication is that such forms as God, Godus, Godo, and Golde are sometimes employed by the scribe for Goda or Gode, and Goda where Godiva or Gytha are probably intended.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNTESS *] GODA. Countess Goda, sister of Edward the Confessor, wife of Drogo Count of Mantes, and mother of Earl Ralph of Hereford (q.v.), was dead some time before the Domesday Survey, probably by 1049. She is accorded her title on manors in Sussex, Dorset, Middlesex, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire. Where it is omitted, distributional factors sometimes suggest an identification. Most, possibly all of the Godas in the Godwinson heartland of Sussex may be the Countess. In five cases, she had other manors in vill concerned where her title is given, in some of these being succeeded by a tenant with the uncommon name of Reinbert, which suggests that the God at Mountfield and Godo at Chalvington, whose manors were acquired by Reinbert, may be the Countess. Two other manors are substantial, and close to others of hers. Only Birchgrove, where the holding is tiny and somewhat isolated from the remainder, is particularly doubtful. Even there, however, the holding is freehold held directly from the Crown, and Countess had tiny holdings elsewhere in the county.
	Outside Sussex, she is usually accorded her title; but in Devon, the unidentified Goda who preceded Ralph of Fougères may be the Countess, Ralph being her predecessor on manors in Buckinghamshire and Surrey. In Gloucestershire, the Countess is identified in the first entry on the fief of Sigar of Chocques and so is very probably the Goda from whom he acquired the remainder of the fief. Elsewhere, the scribe has attributed to her manors which more probably belonged to Countesses Godiva or Gytha (q.v.). Clarke, English nobility, does not include the Countess in his lists; had he done so, she would have ranked among the top twenty in wealth among the nobility, or raised her family from twenty-sixth to thirteenth place. Her lands are discussed by Williams, 'The king's nephew, pp. 331-32, who does not identify her with the God or Godo of Sussex, or the Goda in Devon.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODE [* MOTHER OF WULFRIC *]. If Countess Goda is discounted, the name Goda/Gode and variants occurs fifteen times in the adjacent counties of Huntingdonshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire, but only once more in the remaining thirteen counties of circuits four, five and six. Apart from this skewed distribution, there are grounds for suspecting that all fifteen names refer to one woman, Gode, who shared a holding with Wulfric at Woolley in Huntingdonshire; she is almost certainly the Golde who held the remainder of Woolley with her son Wulfric, although Golde is recognised as a different name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 273.
	Gode's five manors at Broadfield, Corneybury, Hoddesdon and Welwyn in Hertfordshire devolved upon five different tenants-in-chief; but since her name is uncommon and the overlord in four cases was Queen Edith, and in the fifth the queen's husband, it is likely that all five predecessors are one woman. Other links provide some confirmation. Two of the manors are in the same vill, Hoddesdon; King Edward's manor at Corneybury is a couple of miles from Queen Edith's at Broadfield; and Welwyn was held from Queen Edith by Gode and her son. The son is unnamed; but widows sharing with their sons are a sufficiently rare phenomenon to identify the Hertfordshire Gode as Wulfric's mother with a degree of confidence.
	Between Gode's manors in Hertfordshire and Huntingdonshire lay a tight cluster of eight manors in Cambridgeshire, seven of them held by a Goda from Earl Algar, and another from Edeva the fair. Six devolved upon Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. Several of them - Shingay, Meldreth, Papworth - were substantial manors, appropriate to a magnate of regional standing. Their status, geographical concentration and tenurial links strongly suggest they were held by one person; and their situation between those in Huntingdonshire and Hertfordshire suggests that person is Gode of Woolley. One further clue points to this conclusion. Gode's successor at Broadfield in Hertfordshire was Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who acquired the bulk of her Cambridgeshire manors. This insignificant property was the earl's only manor in Hertfordshire, perhaps acquired as a designated successor to Wulfric's mother. If these deductions are valid, she was one of the richer women in Domesday Book, with lands valued at approximately £45, which would rank her very comfortably among the hundred wealthiest untitled landowners in Anglo-Saxon England if recorded in Clarke, English nobility, pp. 32-33. She survived on land at Woolley worth £3, sharing it with her son. Her tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 6158) and referenced in Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, p. 233, under the name Golde.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODEBOLD. Godebold is an uncommon name which occurs on two fiefs and a dozen other manors, distributed among six counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief and two tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, perhaps borne by four men, one of them a pre-Conquest landowner.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODEBOLD [* FATHER OF ROBERT *]. The Godebolds who held Hockley, Notley and Nayland in Essex from Swein of Essex are probably the father of Robert son of Godebold, who founded Little Horkesley priory. Godebold, described in a Westminster charter as a 'baron' of Swein, witnessed a grant by the abbey on the occasion of Swein's burial: Early charters of Essex, pp. 41-42. Swein's tenant is the only Godebold in Little Domesday or adjacent counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1849) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 216.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODEBOLD <OF BRICKHILL>. Godebold, who held a hide at Brickhill in Buckinghamshire in 1066, is the only pre-Conquest lord of this name, a name apparently unknown in Anglo-Saxon England: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 263. He has no links with his post-Conquest namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODEBOLD [* THE BOWMAN *]. Godebold, who held a small fief in Devon, is identified as Godebold the bowman in Exon. on the second of his manors there: Devonshire Domesday, ii. 1098-99, 1110-11. As the name is rare, he may be the one other Godebold with a fief, consisting of a single manor in Somerset. Possibly also, though less certainly, he is the Godebold who held two manors from William son of Ansculf in Berkshire, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. Godebold's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 801) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 216; the Berkshire Godebold is identified as another man (no. 12174), with a note that he may be the bowman.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODEBOLD [* THE PRIEST *]. The Godebolds who held three manors from St Alkmund's of Shrewsbury, and Lack from Earl Roger in Shropshire, are almost certainly Godebold the priest, tenant of St Alkmund at Lilleshall, witness to the earl's foundation charter for Shrewsbury abbey and, according to Orderic Vitalis (ii. 262-63), one of three learned clerks in the earl's household: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33. As the name is uncommon, he may also be the subtenant of the earl at Preen. These are the only Godebolds in the border counties, or those adjacent to them. Godebold's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3765) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 216-17.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODFREY [* OF VAUTORTES *]. Geoffrey of Vautortes appears in the Geld Roll for Devon in place of Reginald of Vautortes (q.v.), who held Fardel in Devon from the Count of Mortain according to the Domesday text: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xliv. Reginald was an important tenant of the Count, but the Count has no other tenant named Godfrey, and none of the half-dozen Godfreys in Devon have links to him.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODGYTH. Godgyth is an uncommon name which occurs seventeen times, distributed among five counties between Essex and Cheshire and the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief, with a small cluster in Cheshire and a larger one in the adjacent counties of Hertfordshire and Essex; one Godgyth being a survivor.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODGYTH <OF ALBRIGHTON>. Godgyth, whose modest holding at Albrighton in Shropshire was acquired by Norman the hunter, has no links with her namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODGYTH <OF MIDDLETON>. Godgyth, whose small property at Middleton in Derbyshire valued at six shillings was retained by the king, has no links with other Godgyths.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODGYTH <OF THORLEY>. As the name is rare and its distribution skewed, it is likely that most if not all of the cluster of manors in Hertfordshire and Essex were held by one Godgyth, a free woman who held the valuable manor of Thorley in Hertfordshire. She was the man of Esger the constable (q.v.) on her six demesne holdings in that county. Of the four acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne, one lay in Hoddesdon, where another of her manors devolved upon Geoffrey de Mandeville, who also acquired Thorley and the nearby manor of Wickham, held by one of her men. The remaining property, held by another of her men and acquired by the bishop of London, was at Thorley, where the bishop claimed he had bought her other manor, that acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville.
	Of the three Essex manors, that of Geoffrey de Mandeville at Hallingbury, almost certainly belonged to Godgyth of Thorley since, apart from the tenurial link, it is less than three miles from Thorley, just across the county border. The identity of the others is less certain as there are no apparent links; but three individuals of this name in south-west Essex seems improbable when the name is rare elsewhere. Of the two, the Godgyth of Norton Mandeville is likely to be Geoffrey's predecessor. The surname of the vill suggests this; and although it had been argued that the surname originates at a later date and does not signify an early Mandeville interest, it would be an extraordinary coincidence if another Godgyth held land in a vill which later acquired a connection with the predecessor of Godgyth of Thorley, the name being rare. The concurrent suggestion that Godgyth is a scribal error for Godhild (q.v.), who had another holding in the vill from Haimo the steward, is an unnecessary hypothesis, given that Godgyth is attested in the county: VCH Essex, iv. 151-52, 179. Like Norton, Basildon is a free holding, appropriate to the status of Godgyth of Thorley. Finally, she is likely to be the Godgyth who had '2 houses and 14 acres' in Colchester, evidently a wealthy woman, though in this case the date to which the entry refers is, on the face of it, 1086, though this is also true of may urban holdings where a 1066 tenure may reasonably be suspected. It is perhaps more likely than not that Godgyth of Thorley held this with the other three Essex properties.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODGYTH <OF WARFORD>. As the name is rare and its distribution skewed, it is probable that the four Godgyths in Cheshire, all of whose manors devolved upon Ranulf of Mainwaring, are one woman. Warford, 'Chapmonswiche' and Ollerton are adjacent to each other, Tetton twelve miles further south. She is the only Godgyth to survive until 1086, retaining her three-shilling holding at Warford as Ranulf's tenant. Warford is assigned to Ranulf's demesne in Coel.
.............................................................................................................................................
GODHILD <OF GREENSTED>. It is likely that all four Godhilds in Domesday Book are the same woman, a predecessor of Haimo the sheriff on three holdings in Essex, including the substantial manor of Greensted. The fourth manor, at Wateringbury in Kent, of the same value as Greensted, was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux. Haimo was sheriff in Kent and a tenant of the bishop there, so the link, though indirect, is perhaps sufficient in view of the rarity of the name and the status of the manors, to suggest that the Godhilds in both counties are the same woman.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODIVA. The distribution of the name Godiva is skewed, the majority - and the only concentration - clustering in the adjacent counties of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Staffordshire in the north-west Midlands. This is Mercian territory, where Godiva is named as the Countess in most cases. Outside this area, the name Godiva is not particularly common, occurring fewer than twenty times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of fifteen tenants-in-chief, suggesting a preponderance of minor landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNTESS *] GODIVA. Countess Godiva, wife of Earl Leofric of Mercia, mother of Earl Algar and grandmother of Earls Edwin and Morcar, is the Lady Godiva who rode naked through the streets of Coventry according to thirteenth-century legend. Her title is supplied on manors in Worcestershire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire, Shropshire and Nottinghamshire. Elsewhere, she is almost certainly the Countess Goda who held Appleby Magna in Derbyshire from Burton abbey since she held the other part of the vill and had close relations with Burton abbey, while Goda had no land or men north of Lavendon in Buckinghamshire; Stenton describes her name in this entry as 'merely a contracted form' of Godiva: 'Domesday survey of Leicestershire', p. 290. She very probably held Essington is Staffordshire, misplaced in the Warwickshire folios, where no pre-Conquest lord is named. If not a duplicate of her manor in the Staffordshire folios, it is the other half of the vill. There are few other unidentified Godivas whose holdings might be suspected of belonging to the Countess. Of those which lay within Mercian territory, Godiva at Furtho in Northamptonshire is a modest, shared holding, remote from others and without tenurial associations. Newton in Warwickshire is more likely to have been hers. Godiva was succeeded there by an Aldgyth, conceivably her granddaughter, Aldgyth wife of Gruffydd (q.v.). This would strengthen an identification; but, irrespective of Aldgyth's identity, Godiva may be the Countess, all other Godivas in the county being the Lady.
	Professor Meyer identifies the Godiva who held land acquired by Earl Roger and Robert of Stafford in Staffordshire, and by Roger of Poitou at Melling in Lancashire, as Lady Godiva: 'Women's estates', p. 121. The Staffordshire manors, however, are more likely to have been held by another woman, Godiva of Madeley; and although the Leofricsons dominated Cheshire, they held nothing in Lancashire and the holding there is too small and remote to be safely assigned to the Countess. A list of Lady Godiva's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 217-18, which does not include Newton but adds a waste virgate at Cauldon in Staffordshire and Melling in Lancashire. She would be ranked forty-first among the nobility by Dr Clarke, but is omitted from his table (p. 14). Her estates are also discussed by Dr Baxter, who does not include those in Staffordshire and Lancashire: Earls of Mercia, pp. 127, 160, 172, 180, 183, 291, 309, 314. She is listed in Coel (no. 3505) and in Domesday people, p. 218, with a note that fiefs entered under her name in Leicestershire and Warwickshire were escheats; she was dead before then.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. The six unidentified Godivas in Staffordshire are probably one woman. Her manors cluster around Moddershall, all but Moddershall itself devolving upon one tenant-in-chief, Robert of Stafford. Moddershall was held by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who acquired the Shropshire manors of Lady Godiva, who has been identified as the Staffordshire Godiva: Meyer, 'Women's estates', p. 121. However, where she is given her title, her manors in Staffordshire devolved upon William son of Ansculf, who also succeeded her in Warwickshire. These manors form a distinct group, twenty-five miles south of those around Moddershall. The Godiva at Cheswardine was bound to make a customary payment, and at Madeley 'could not withdraw', a phrase which suggests an unnamed overlord, which is unlikely for the countess on a lay estate; these two Godivas have nevertheless been identified as the countess by another scholar: Slade, 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', p. 7. However, none of the manors appear to have associations with Lady Godiva's family, though Robert of Stafford did acquire the large manor of Bradley from her grandson, Edwin: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, passim. It seems likely, therefore, that this cluster was held by another woman, here named after her principle manor. Clarke, English nobility, p. 218, assigns Cauldon to the Countess but not the remaining manors; Dr Baxter, none of them.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODIVA <OF NORTON>. Godiva, who shared a modest holding at Norton in Derbyshire acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with other Godivas. Roger had no other Godivas among his predecessors or tenants, and 'Scarsdale', where Norton lay, is not one of the wapentakes in which he received a block grant, so it is unlikely that Godiva is the Countess whose single manor he obtained on that basis: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-64. Norton has no known Mercia associations; Godiva is not identified as the Countess by Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 290.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODIVA [* WIFE OF BRICTRIC *]. The Godivas who held the valuable manors of Torbryan and Dodbrooke in Devon are probably Godiva wife of Brictric, who owed tax on a half-hide in Teignton Hundred: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxviii. Domesday Book records no land held by either a Godiva or Brictric which fits this description; but she is the only surviving Godiva in the county. At Torbryan, Brictric is described as 'her man' in Exon., so it is likely she is the Godiva who succeeded an unnamed husband at Mells in Somerset, the one other surviving Godiva in Domesday Book. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 835) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 218, apart from Mells, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 14632).

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* OF CALVERLEIGH *]. Godric, who modest manors in Calverleigh and Bulworthy among the king's thanes in Devon, is named Godric of Calverleigh (Calodelie) in the Geld Roll for Tiverton Hundred, where Calverleigh lay and where he owed tax on a half-virgate: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxiv. He is the only survivor of this name in Devon, with no apparent links to survivors in the adjacent counties of Dorset and Somerset or to the pre-Conquest Godrics in the county or elsewhere. On both manors he was preceded by an Almer, a combination which occurs nowhere else in Great Domesday as an identifying characteristic. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 808) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 221.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* OF COLCHESTER *]. Godric, who held land and a church in Colchester and four hides in Greenstead attached to the town, is almost certainly Godric of Colchester, who held land in East Donyland acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne, who also obtained a quarter of his holding in Colchester.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC <OF HOUGHTON>. The three surviving Godrics in Leicestershire may be one man. The survivors at Loughborough and Burton probably are, both being tenants of Earl Hugh of Chester on holdings which are close to each other and are components of the same manor, Barrow. The earl had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Less certainly, the survivor at Houghton, fourteen miles south-east of Barrow, acquired by Henry of Ferrers, may be the same Godric. There are a number of surviving Godrics in adjacent counties, including a tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire; but the name is common and none of the manors distinguished by status or other characteristics other than those assigned to Godric of Shuttington. All three Leicestershire Godrics are unidentified in Coel (nos. 26365, 26677, 26680), as is the Derbyshire tenant (no. 32252).

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC <OF LAWTON>. All Godrics in Cheshire may be one man. All but two of his fourteen manors form a fairly tight group in the adjacent Hundreds of Hamestan and Middlewich, nine of them forming the fief of Hugh son of Norman. Of the other three, Earl Hugh retained Marton in Hamestan with Ollerton, a few miles to the north; Robert son of Hugh acquired Cranage, also in Hamestan; and William Malbank obtained Hassall in Middlewich Hundred, as well as the fourteenth manor, Wilkesley. Wilkesley is almost twenty-five miles from the nearest of the other manors, but the tenurial link suggests it was held by the Godric on the other thirteen manors. Sawyer and Thacker suggest that the Godric who held Talke and Audley in Staffordshire in 1066 is the same man, which is not unlikely, they being three and five miles respectively from one of Godric's Cheshire manors: 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 322. Godric may also have held Betley, four miles from Audley. He is unlikely to be the any of the remaining Godrics in Staffordshire, tenants and in one case predecessor of Robert of Stafford and the abbey of Rheims; there are no indications that the Cheshire Godric was among the many survivors in that county.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC <OF SHUTTINGTON>. Seven of the eight Godrics in Warwickshire are probably one man. These seven occur on the fiefs of the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick, which share several tenants and predecessors and include a high proportion of English survivors, Godrics among them on both fiefs. Four were survivors, tenants of the Count at Shuttington, Astley and 'Smercote' and of Thorkil at Newton. At Shuttington, Godric retained his manor for two decades so he may be the pre-Conquest lord on the manors acquired by the Count of Meulan. Of these, Seckington is adjacent to Shuttington, where the Count acquired a second manor held by Godric; and Minworth, though detached from the others, is roughly equidistant from the two groups into which the remaining manors fall, around Shuttington and Astley. The eighth manor, at Studley, devolved upon a different tenant-in-chief and was a considerable distance away, so may have been held by a second Godric. Godric's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4754) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 221, apart from Shuttington, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28293).

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* SON OF EDEVA *]. Godric, who held a modest manor in Burton in Lincolnshire acquired by Peter of Valognes, is probably the lawman, Godric son of Edeva, who had full jurisdiction in Lincoln to which Peter succeeded. His mother is probably Edeva wife of Topi (q.v.), apparently the only Edeva in the county: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 208, 211. Burton was a jurisdiction of Scampton, a manor of Ulf Fenman (q.v.), who may be his brother; though a jurisdiction, 'there was a hall there, however'. If Godric's relations are correctly identified, he may be the Godric who held land in any of the seventeen vills in which other members of the family were landowners; but there are several identified Godrics in the county and unidentified Godrics are numerous.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* SON OF FREDEGIS *]. Godric, whose manors of Costock and Gotham in Nottinghamshire were acquired by Roger of Bully and Saewin of Kingston, is probably Godric son of Fredegis, whose land in those vills was granted to St Cuthbert's of Durham at some time between 1086 and 1100: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. Godric's father probably held land in 'Warby' so the Godric whose manor there was acquired by Roger of Bully may be his son. His name is too common to be safely identified elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* THE HUNTER *]. Godric, who held a virgate in Gillingham in Dorset, is almost certainly Godric the hunter, named in the Geld Roll for the Gillingham Hundred (where he is the only Godric). He is perhaps also the Godric among the king's thanes in Badbury Hundred, where he was succeeded by another hunter, Godwin. Two other Godrics held land among the king's thanes in 1086, one identified in the Geld Roll as Godric the priest; the other, at Stourton Caundle, may be the hunter, whose manor is closer and of similar status - three such survivors seems unlikely: VCH Dorset, iii. 53, 123, 141. Godric the hunter held Mere in Wiltshire in 1086, just across the county border from Gillingham, and probably Hartham, the following entry, where he succeeded his father, a common occurrence among the proto-serjeanties of the area. He may be the Godric who had another manor in the vill in 1066. The name, however, is too common to assign to him the nearby holdings of Weston and Todber or others in those counties. Godric's 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1787) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 221, apart from Godric at Caundle, who is unidentified (no. 3039).

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* THE PRIEST *]. Godric, who held five hides at Brianspuddle among the king's thanes of Dorset, is named Godric the priest in the Geld Roll for Bere Hundred, where Brianspuddle lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 134. Two other survivors of this name in the county are identified as another Godric. Godric's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1764) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 221.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* THE SHERIFF *]. Godric the sheriff of Berkshire and possibly of Buckinghamshire (Green, English sheriffs, pp. 26, 28) is named several times in the Berkshire folios, twice as predecessor of Henry of Ferrers who acquired Fifield, Hendred and Woolhampton from him, so he is probably the Godric who preceded Ferrers at Hendred, on a second manor in Fifield, at Bagshot and Sparsholt, and on the two manors which constituted his fief in Wiltshire. His official status and presence in Wiltshire suggest he may be the Godric who held Lydiard Millicent before the Conquest. Lydiard is by a considerable margin the most substantial royal manor held by an unidentified Godric. He may also be the Godric whose manor of Shalstone in Buckinghamshire was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, who succeeded the sheriff and one of his men at Weston Turville. 
	Two miles from Weston, the bishop of Lincoln acquired the substantial manor of Buckland from Bishop Wulfwy's brother, Godric. The bishop also obtained respectable manors at Dean and Riseley in Bedfordshire from the royal thane, Godric, and a substantial manor at Denton in Huntingdonshire from Godric. In Bedfordshire, one of the sheriff's men had another manor in Riseley, and 'Godric, the sheriff's man' at Easton may well be a scribal error for the sheriff himself, Easton, Dean and Riseley being near each other in 'Stodden' Hundred: Abels, 'Introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', p. 32, note 213. In view of these associations, it is not unlikely that the bishop's predecessor in all three counties is the same man, his brother, who was also the sheriff of Berkshire. He may possibly be the Godric at Hemingford Abbots in Huntingdonshire, a few miles from Easton, acquired by Ramsey abbey from the only Godric among its predecessors. Although the name is common, these are the only Godrics in either Bedfordshire or Huntingdonshire apart from a priest. On similar grounds, the eight Godrics in Leicestershire in 1066, all predecessors of the bishop of Lincoln, may be him too. This Godric was succeeded on six of his manors by a Ralph, possibly the Ralph son of Osmund who succeeded Godric at Hemingford Abbots, providing another possible link, though slight, between the Godrics of Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire. Bishop Wulfwy had another brother, Alwin, perhaps Alwin Devil (q.v.), whose lands in Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire were also added to the endowment of the bishopric of Lincoln. According to the Abingdon chronicle, Godric was killed at the battle of Hastings, though Domesday Book records one of his misappropriations after that date: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, i. 201, 224-25. His daughter was taught gold embroidery at the king's expense. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 309-10, who ranks him eighty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors here attributed to bishop Wulfwy's brother (as sheriff) would raise him almost forty places.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODRIC [* THE STEWARD *]. The Godrics who managed many of the royal manors in Norfolk or were otherwise engaged in their affairs - too numerous to list here - are almost certainly Godric the steward, who also managed royal manors in Suffolk where he is accorded his title. He is probably the Godric who appears on ten other fiefs in Norfolk in 1086 - again, too numerous to list - there acting in a steward-like capacity in relation to royal manors or to the forfeiture of Earl Ralph Wader (q.v.), whom he may have served before his forfeiture, managing the earl's lands on behalf of the king thereafter and consequently involved in disputes arising from their redistribution, notably on the fief of Roger Bigot.
	Godric the steward held land in his own right in 1086, though on a much lesser scale. He had fiefs in Norfolk and Suffolk, for the most part acquired from Edwin, who may be his uncle, whose will names some of these manors: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 86-89, 19-201. Godric's brother, Ketil Alder (q.v.), also bequeathed him land in Essex and Norfolk, though this was in other hands in 1086: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 90-91, 198, 204. He also held the royal manor of Great Sampford in Essex 'in the King's hands' and Exning, in Suffolk but recorded in Cambridgeshire. In East Anglia his identity was so apparent to the scribes that he is sometimes referred to simply as G the steward, or simply G. He was the predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany at Foxley in Norfolk, where the descent of his manor establishes that he is the same man as Count Alan's steward on the great manor of Gilling in Yorkshire, and his tenant on two manors in Lincolnshire: Farrer, Honors, iii. 102-110; Early Yorkshire charters, v. 205-207. Godric was later sheriff of Norfolk for William Rufus; his son, Ralph, was active under Henry I: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 108-109. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 281) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 219-21, apart from the Lincolnshire manors, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 33436, 33440).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] GODWIN. Although Godwin is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, the scribe appears to have been careful to identify the long-dead Earl Godwin by his title. There are only a handful of cases where he may have failed to do so. The earl is certainly the Godwin exiled with Harold in an entry in Herefordshire. The unidentified Godwin at Tilton in Sussex may be the earl, his son, Harold, having another manor in the same vill. The substantial manors of Sheffield and Marden, held in freehold from the Crown, may also have been his, and Dr Clarke suggests that so was Mayfield, the most valuable manor in Rotherfield Hundred other than Rotherfield itself, which was held by the earl. The Domesday Monachorum (pp. 92-93) reveals that he held the boroughs of Saltwood and Langport in Kent, and he is almost certainly the Godwin who unjustly held the valuable archiepiscopal manor of Sundridge according to the same source; Domesday is silent on the pre-Conquest owners in all three cases. Exon. also states that he is the Earl Edwin - who otherwise held nothing south of the Thames - who according to Domesday Book held the third part, 'or the third oak', of the royal manor of Burton Bradstock in Dorset, later attached to Frampton, held in 1066 by Gytha, almost certainly Earl Godwin's wife.
	In the counties in which the earl held land, there are a further five manors assessed at more than five hides or £5 held by unidentified Godwins, but insufficient information to associate them with the earl. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 164-69, which does not include the three manors recorded in the Domesday Monachorum, Chatham in Kent, or the valueless Staunton in Herefordshire. He attributes Tilton, Sheffield and Marden in Sussex to the earl (as here), and Woodchester in Gloucestershire, held by his wife, and Pembridge in Herefordshire, held by Harold. He is ranked third in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would not affect this. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies a higher estimate of his manorial income; the Statistics database total (£812) is somewhat higher still.

.............................................................................................................................................
G[ODWIN] [* HEALFDENE *]. G, who 'also' held Gnatingdon in Norfolk in 1066, is probably Godwin Healfdene, the tenant-in-chief there twenty years later; there is no other plausible explanation of the abbreviation on this fief.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN <OF BARROWBY>. The Godwins from whom Robert Malet acquired his entire fief in Lincolnshire are almost certainly one man, a significant landowner with two of the most substantial manors in Kesteven. He is implicitly named as Robert's predecessor in the Lincolnshire Claims, which record that Robert ought to have land in Ingoldsby 'through Azur, his predecessor'. Azur is not named in the relevant entry, which is a jurisdiction of Barrowby, Godwin's chief manor. Since Malet acquired his fief from Godwin, and nothing from Azur, it would appear that Godwin had replaced - or been replaced by - Azur.
	Most of Robert Malet's acquisitions outside Kesteven lay in 'Winnibriggs' wapentake, where both Robert and Berengar of Tosny succeeded to three manors of a Godwin, two of them in the same vill as one of Malet's, both of them fairly substantial. These Godwins, too, may be Malet's predecessor. Additionally, three holdings acquired by Ivo Tallboys were in the jurisdiction of Barrowby, one of Malet's capital manors; and since no pre-Conquest owner is named, he is presumably the Godwin of Barrowby. Ivo also obtained two other holdings from a Godwin; but these were modest, shared with others, and at the other end of the county, so possibly held by another Godwin; the name is a common one.
	Neither Ivo or the Tosnys acquired land from a Godwin outside Lincolnshire. Robert Malet, however, had Godwins among his predecessors in four counties. His one manor in Rutland had been held by a Godwin; and since it was reasonably endowed, no great distance away, and held by the only Godwin in the county, it is more likely than not that this Godwin was Robert's predecessor in Lincolnshire. In Essex and East Anglia, Robert acquired a number of valuable manors from Godwins, three of them with different bynames, any one of whom might be the Lincolnshire Godwin - possibly Godwin son of Alfhere - rather than a fourth individual. However, several tenants-in-chief had three individually-named predecessors with this forename, even four would not be unique, so a connection with the Lincolnshire Godwin, though plausible, is insecure. A list of Godwin's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 311-12, which includes only those acquired by Robert Malet. He suggests (pp. 131-32) that Godwin was the father, or at least the immediate predecessor, of Azur son of Svala (q.v.), and ranks the pair ninetieth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors attributed to them here would raise them two dozen places.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* OF *] BENFIELD. Godwin Benfield or Godwin of Benfield, whose men in Hertfordshire were acquired by the bishop of London and Robert Gernon, appears to be a lord of several men without demesne land of his own in the county. There is a Benfield in Sussex; but it is more likely that Benfield (Benefella) is a scribal error for Bentfield (Benedfelda), Bentfield Bury being a valuable manor of Robert Gernon in Essex, where he was preceded by an anonymous free man who may well be Godwin, who is once named Godwin de Benedfelle. Godwin may also be Gernon's predecessor on his even more valuable of Wormingfield and perhaps Culvert's Farm. The bishop of London was also preceded by a Godwin on a respectable manor at Little Burstead and a lesser one at Horndon-on-the-Hill in the county, and on a substantial manor in Stepney, where he is the only Godwin in the county, suggesting he is the same Godwin. The bishop had no other predecessors or tenants named Godwin elsewhere on his Honour, nor perhaps did Robert Gernon (below).
	Robert Gernon had predecessors in Hertfordshire named Godwin of Soulbury, Godwin son of Wulfstan, and Godwin, Almer of Bennington's man, at 'Woolwicks'. All three are possibly Godwin of Benfield. Apart from the tenurial link, the Godwins of Benfield, Soulbury and 'Woolwicks' each held land in Broadwater Hundred, 'Woolwicks' lying in Stevenage, adjacent to Godwin of Benfield's holding at Graveley. If these three Godwins are the same man, then they can probably also be identified with Godwin of Letchworth, an overlord at Willian, also in Broadwater Hundred, where Godwin of Soulbury held the valuable manor of Letchworth, adjacent to Willian. As Godwin of Benfield, Godwin of Letchworth and Godwin son of Wulfstan were all overlords apparently without demesne land in the county, it is not unlikely they are the same man, who is possibly also Godwin of Soulbury, the one of the four with a manor of his own in Hertfordshire. It is otherwise difficult to understand, as Round observed, 'what could have led Hertfordshire men to seek him [Godwin of Benfield] as a lord', an observation which applies equally to Godwin of Letchworth and Godwin son of Wulfstan: 'Domesday survey of Hertfordshire', p. 277. The scarcity of demesne holdings diminishes the possibility that the several bynames are an attempt by the scribe to distinguish different Godwins. To complicate matters further, Soulbury is in Buckinghamshire, where there are several Godwins with valuable manors, including men or thanes of the king and earls Harold and Leofwin, though the only Godwin at Soulbury itself is Godwin the beadle, who held a half-hide there in 1086, one of only two surviving Godwins in the county, the other a priest. It is conceivable that he is the pre-Conquest royal thane surviving on a fragment of his previous estate. Dr Abels suggests a somewhat different reconstruction of these identities: 'Introduction to the Hertfordshire Domesday', pp. 25-26, 30.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* OF CHITTLEHAMPTON *]. The Godwins who held eleven consecutive manors among the king's thanes of Devon, said to be the same man on nine of them, is probably Godwin of Chittlehampton, named in the Geld Roll for Axmouth Hundred where the last of these manors lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxv. One of the other two manors is Chittlehampton itself, the remaining manor being acquired from an Alstan who held all those not held Godwin himself in 1066. In Somerset, he is identified in the Geld Roll as the Godwin named in Exon. at Buckland St Mary: VCH Somerset, i. 535. Godwin retained his manors of Chittlehampton, Holbrook and 'Down Umfraville' for two decades, so it is not unlikely that he is the Godwin at Ridgehill and at Draycott, both of whom survived on their manors during the same period, the only others Godwins in the south-western counties to do so; at Draycott, Godwin is described as 'the Englishman in Exon. Other surviving Godwins in the two counties may be another man, Godwin the priest. Godwin's Devonshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 805) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 222, apart from Natson and Cheriton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 4308, 4310). In Somerset, the Godwins at Ridgehill and Draycot are unidentified (nos. 14721, 15303); the Godwin at Buckland is not included in Coel, where the manor is assigned to the demesne of the tenant-in-chief, Harding.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* OF HORMEAD *]. Godwin, who held the two manors which constituted the fief of Prince Edgar in Hertfordshire, stated to be the same Godwin in the text, is almost certainly Godwin of Hormead, a juror in 'Edwinstree' Hundred, where the fief lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). Godwin's manors are valuable; there are no comparable tenancies held by a Godwin in Hertfordshire or adjacent counties, the nearest equivalent being Godwin of Shepshed in Leicestershire, with whom he has no apparent links. Godwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8934) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 222.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN <OF MUNDON>. The Godwins who preceded Eudo the steward at Harlow, Mundon and Weeley in Essex, and at Eriswell and Chamberlain's Hall in Suffolk, are described as royal thanes on two of the Essex manors and on that in Suffolk. Four of the manors are valuable, Weeley and Chamberlain's Hall being the two most valuable on Eudo's Honour in 1086, while Mundon and Eriswell ranked fifth and sixth. The one other royal thane named Godwin in the two counties, at Wickford, held the most valuable of all the manors in 1066; he may be the same Godwin. Eudo acquired one other manor from a royal thane, at Braxted. The thane is unnamed, but since the manor is valuable and Eudo acquired the lands of no other royal thanes in Essex or East Anglia, he too may be Godwin of Mundon. The name Godwin is so common that he may have held other manors which cannot be identified, the most likely being Ridgewell in Essex, as valuable as the most valuable of Eudo's manors. Ridgewell was acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne, along with the valuable manor of a Godwin at Witchingham in Norfolk; but, apart from the value of their manors, there are no links to indicate whether the predecessors of Eudo and Eustace are the same man. A list of Godwin of Mundon's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 311, which does not include Braxted, Ridgewell or Wickford. Dr Clarke ranks him eighty-fifth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Braxted would raise him a dozen places; either Ridgewell or Wickford another dozen.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN <OF SHEPSHED>. Godwin, who held the substantial manor of Shepshed in Leicestershire from the king in 1086, 'also' held Dishley and farmed several other valuable royal manors, all apart from Shepshed previously held by Queen Edith. The three other surviving Godwins in the county held manors of little value without discernible links to the royal farmer whose closest namesake with manors of comparable status is Godwin of Hormead in Hertfordshire. Godwin at Shepshed and Dishley is unidentified in Coel (nos. 26165-66); the manors he farmed are assigned to the royal demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN <OF TISSINGTON>. The eight Godwins in Derbyshire, all predecessors of Henry of Ferrers, are probably one man. Although Dr Fleming's thesis might suggest that Henry acquired the manors as part of the grant of the bulk of the wapentakes concerned, there are enough connections between them to suggest they were held by one man: Kings and lords, pp. 151-52, 164-65. Barrow is adjacent to Stenson, and Kedleston close to Ireton, while Godwin shared Tissington and Hartington with an Ulfkil, and Kedleston and Barrow with a Wulfsi. Of the remainder, Yeldersley lay between Tissington and Kedleston, only Hoon is detached from all the others. The interpretation of the place-name - Hoge - is, however, uncertain; and if it is Houghpark, as suggested in the Place-names of Derbyshire (iii. 574), then it is adjacent to Yeldersley.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN <OF WORTHY>. The predecessors of Bernard Pancevolt on five manors in Hampshire, another in Wiltshire, and three houses in Southampton are very probably the same Godwin, despite the ubiquity of this name, the manors comprising all those held by Bernard in chief. Most cluster around the head of Southampton Water, probably serving a strategic function. Two are valuable, the most valuable held by unidentified Godwins in Hampshire. He may well therefore have held others, though his name is too common to identify them with confidence; the most likely candidates are the predecessors of Hugh of Port, several of whose manors are intermixed with those of Godwin of Worthy.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* SON OF *] AELFGYTH. Godwin Aelfgyth, man of Wigot, whose manor of Dawley in Middlesex was acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is presumably Godwin son of Aelfgyth. Wigot had no other men named Godwin, and Earl Roger no such predecessors or tenants; but Dr Williams points out that Robert d'Oilly, one of Wigot's principal successors, acquired the land of an Aelfgyth (q.v.) in Oakley in Buckinghamshire: World before Domesday, pp. 120, 206 and note 151. As the name is rare, these links suggest she may well be Godwin's mother.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* SON OF ALFHERE *]. Godwin son of Alfhere was a predecessor of Robert Malet in Suffolk, where he held the valuable manors of Edwardstone, Belstead and Playford among others; he may be the Godwin, or simply G, who held Thorpe Hall, Rushmere and Tuddenham, subinfeudated to tenants who were granted other manors of Alfhere's son, and also the Godwin on the valuable manor of Bedfield, a few miles from Thorpe Hall. He is likely to be the Godwin who held three of the four manors which constituted the Malet fief in Essex, just across the border from Edwardstone, these also being subinfeudated to tenants who were granted some of his Suffolk manors. In Norfolk, the one Godwin who preceded Robert Malet - at Glosthorpe and its dependency - is possibly Alfhere's son, though the potential link - Godwin's father - is tenuous. Alfhere may have been dead before 1066, and he is not explicitly associated with his son in Domesday Book; but the name is not a common one, and an Alfhere was a substantial landholder in Norfolk, with a group of three valuable manors in Wayland Hundred and possibly others in the adjacent Hundreds of 'Launditch' and South Greenhoe, the latter pair some ten miles from Glosthorpe. Finally, it is just possible that Godwin son of Alfhere is the same Godwin as Robert Malet's predecessor in Lincolnshire, Godwin of Barrowby, though not so-identified here: Hart, 'William Malet and his family', p. 141; Early charters of eastern England, p. 66.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* SON OF TOKI *]. Godwin, who held Shipmeadow in Suffolk from Roger Bigot, may be Godwin son of Toki, who held the previous manor from him and preceded him there and at Stoven in Suffolk and at Woodton in Norfolk. He may have held other manors since most of the tenants and some of the predecessors named Godwin in East Anglia were tenants or predecessors of Roger Bigot; but they include a son of Algar and a Godwin the priest, and the name is common. Godwin's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 496) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 224.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* THE NOBLE *]. Godwin, Earl Waltheof's man, who held Oakington and Over in Cambridgeshire, is named Godwin scild in the second of these entries in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 92), sometimes translated 'Shield' but more probably cild, or noble, in this case. Godwin the noble or his men held several other manors in the county according to Domesday or the Inquisitio, including the very valuable manor of Fulbourn, which makes it not unlikely that he is the juror of Fleamdyke Hundred named as Godwin of Fulbourn and Godwin Nabson in the Inquisitio Eliensis and the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis respectively (ed. Hamilton, pp. 25, 98). He is possibly also Godwin of Linacre (Inquisitio, p. 28), Linacre being in the parish of Horseheath where Godwin the noble had another manor; and he may be the Godwy who held land in Whitwell under Edeva the fair, the overlord of the noble Godwin at Fulbourn and other manors. Apart from his role as juror, there is no other indication that Godwin survived until 1086; but it is not uncommon for English jurors to appear to be landless: Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', pp. 22-32, 41-44. No other noble Godwins are recorded in Domesday Book or the satellite texts; both Count Alan of Brittany and Countess Judith - who between them acquired most of his Cambridgeshire manors - had predecessors and tenants named Godwin in other counties; but the name is common and none of these manors of distinctive status.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* THE PRIEST *]. Godwin, who held the valuable manor of Lavant in Sussex from Earl Godwin, is probably the Godwin the priest, who held the even more valuable manors of Saddlescombe and Plumpton from the earl, and Lavington and Farringdon from King Edward. Farrington belonged to the church of Bosham, to which Godwin may have been attached. Both Farrington and Lavington were acquired by the bishop of Exeter, who also held Bosham before and after the Conquest. Bosham, famously portrayed in the Bayeux Tapestry, was one of the wealthiest churches in the country. Godwin is perhaps also Godwin the priest, Harold's man, at Norton in Suffolk and just possibly plain Godwin, Earl Harold's man, at Wolverton in Buckinghamshire. The name, of course, is a common one; but Wolverton is a substantial manor and Godwin the priest is recorded on two other manors in the county, on one of which he is described a priest of Archbishop Stigand, an appropriate relationship for a protégé of the Godwinsons. It is less likely he is Godwin the priest who occurs on other manors between Devon and Nottingham, modest or insignificant and without links with Earl Godwin's priest. That Godwin is probably the man who witnessed several charters with the earl in the 1050s: Charters of Abingdon, ii. 559-66, 569-72; Barlow, English Church, pp. 154-58. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 310-11, which does not include those in Buckinghamshire and Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks Godwin forty-seventh in wealth among untitled landowners, one of the wealthiest clerks in the kingdom; the additional manors would raise him four places.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* UNCLE OF EARL RALPH *]. G, at Norwich, may be Godwin uncle of Earl Ralph Wader, named on two other royal manors, since he is named in the context of the earl and the premium due from the manor. He is probably also G uncle of Ralph at Field Dalling, and the Godwin succeeded by Earl Ralph at Burnham Thorpe. Earl Ralph is identified at Burnham as Earl Ralph junior - Ralph Wader - by the reference to his forfeiture: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 61-62.

.............................................................................................................................................
GODWIN [* WOODHEN *]. Godwin, who 'took away' two places from Horndon-on-the-Hill in Essex, is named Godwin Woodhen in the Annexations for the county. He also held land at Barking from the abbey there. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 173) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 222.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOSPATRIC [* SON OF ARNKETIL *]. All Gospatrics in Domesday Book may be one man, Gospatric son of Arnketil. The name occurs only in Yorkshire, where it appears in more than a hundred times, all lacking a byname. According to Orderic Vitalis (ii. 218-19), Gospatric's father Arnketil was 'the most powerful of the Northumbrian nobles'. Despite Arnketil's involvement in the northern revolts of 1068 and 1069 and his exile, his son was allowed to retain some of the family estates, perhaps the result of an impression made at court when he was a hostage for the good behaviour of his father after the revolt of 1068. Gospatric was the only English tenant-in-chief in Yorkshire in 1086, his fief comprising forty-one manors, all but one held by himself or by Arnketil in 1066. He is evidently therefore the tenant of Count Alan of Brittany on twenty-one manors - too numerous to list here - held by himself or Arnketil in 1066. He may also be the Gospatric who held two manors among the king's thanes in both 1066 and 1086, and perhaps the one other Gospatric of 1086, at East Heslerton. Most of these manors descended to the fief of the steward of the honour of Richmond, one of them being re-granted to Gospatric's grandson, Dolphin: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 18, 28, 38, 123, 221, 285; Charters of Mowbray, no. 392, pp. 250-51.
	The Gospatrics whose thirteen manors were acquired by Erneis of Buron are also identified as the son of Arnketil by their later history, being added to Gospatric's fief by Henry I for the benefit of Nigel of Aubigny: Charters of Mowbray, pp. xxii-iii, xxxix, 7-10, 102-103, 250-53; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 40, 68. This is also true of many of the manors of Gospatric on the king's fief. These, like most other such untenanted royal manors, are problematic due the terse nature of the entries: in very few cases is it stated whether the name is that of the landholder before 1066, in 1086, or at both dates. However, it is more likely that the names are those of pre-Conquest landowners, as stated in the first entry and a few others and indicated by the fact that all the tenant names are English and none are explicitly stated to be holding a manor in 1086. This does not preclude the possibility that some of the pre-Conquest landowners still held their manors twenty years later, as appears to be the case with Gospatric at Thorpe le Willows (1N108), attributed to him as held in chief by the Yorkshire Summary (SN,Bi2). This may be the case elsewhere since many of Gospatric's twenty-two manors on the royal fief descended to those who acquired other manors of Arnketil's son: VCH Yorkshire, ii. 183-185; Early Yorkshire families, p. 1. Of the remainder, five lay in vills in which Gospatric son of Arnketil held in chief, and another is adjacent to his manors. Two manors in 'Bulford' wapentake are within two miles of each other or of his manor of Harton, and Low Dalby in Dic wapentake is a similar distance from his manor at Thornton Dale. The final two Gospatrics on the king's fief held in lost vills in the same wapentakes.
	Manors held by a Gospatric in 1066 were also acquired by Ilbert of Lacy, Roger of Poitou and the Count of Mortain. Ilbert's manor of Gipton with Colton is a few miles from several manors he acquired from an Arnketil who may be Gospatric's father; those of the Count of Mortain are near neighbours of other manors of Arnketil; and those of Roger are in Craven, close to the heart of Gospatric's tenancy-in-chief, one of them previously held by Erneis of Buron. Finally, of the urban holdings of Gospatric, two were acquired by Erneis of Buron from two Gospatrics, perhaps Gospatric son of Arnketil and his son Gospatric son of Gospatric. If all or most of these identifications are valid, Gospatric would rank comfortably among the fifty wealthiest landowners in 1066if listed in Clarke, English nobility; the addition of his father's manors could raise the family twenty or more places. Dr Williams (English and the Norman Conquest, p. 99) calculates the total for Gospatric's assessed land as tenant-in-chief as 145.5 carucates, slightly less than the Statistics database; he probably also held almost a hundred carucates as a tenant, his demesne holdings being slightly greater (though much less valuable) than those of Edward of Salisbury (q.v.). Gospatric's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 2448) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 234-35.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTI. Goti is a rare name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among the five adjacent counties of Middlesex, Hertfordshire, Essex and East Anglia and the lands of eight tenants-in-chief, the majority on valuable manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTI <OF CHEDISTON>. Goti, who held fifteen acres and half a plough team worth two shillings under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield at Chediston in Suffolk, is almost a neighbour of Goti of Stambourne, whose manor of Freckenham is about nine miles to the north; he is possibly the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTI <OF MOULTON>. Goti, who shared 2 1/2 acres worth 2 1/2 pence at Moulton in Norfolk in 1066, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTI <OF STAMBOURNE>. As the name is rare and its distribution restricted, it is likely that the thane of Earl Harold at Cockhampstead in Hertfordshire, his Guard at East Bedfont and Feltham in Middlesex, and his man at Atelia in Essex are the same Goti, who is probably also Earl Harold's thane, Orthi, at Freckenham in Suffolk, a name about which etymologists are uncertain but shown to be a scribal error by a bilingual royal writ concerning the Domesday manor which renders Orthi as Gotinus in Latin text and Goti in the Old English: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 338; Bates, Regesta, no. 226, pp. 715-16. Goti's manor of Atelia devolved upon Haimo the steward, who also acquired Wigborough and Stambourne in Essex from Goti. Stambourne and Wigborough were valuable manors, as were Freckenham, Feltham and Cockhampstead, suggesting that the two remaining holdings, also valuable, at Hutton in Essex and Nettlestead in Suffolk, acquired respectively by Battle abbey and Count Alan of Brittany, were held by this Goti, who held both in his own right, no overlords being named. Gotis occur only twice more on rural holdings, one, Goti of Chediston, being conceivably the same man, though the modest scale of his holding and absence of links precludes an identification. A list of Goti's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 308-309, which includes Hutton but not Nettlestead. Dr Clarke ranks Goti seventy-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Nettlestead would raise him half-a-dozen places.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTSHELM. Gotshelm is a rare name which occurs once each in Cornwall and in Dorset, and on a fief and nine other manors in Devon, apparently borne by three individuals. The Dorset Gotshelm is identified in the text as a cook, and one in Devon as Gotshelm of Exeter, identified in the Geld Roll as a canon, presumably of Exeter: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxvi.

.............................................................................................................................................
GOTSHELM [* BROTHER OF WALTER OF CLAVILLE *]. The Gotshelms who held fiefs in Cornwall and Devon are probably the brother of Walter of Claville, though nowhere named as such. Their fiefs are described together in Exon., both descending to the Honour of Gloucester; they were joint tenants-in-chief of Virworthy; both held manors in the vills of Buckland, Coombe, Loosedon and Lupridge; and they shared six predecessors, too many to be coincidental, even though the names are common: Aelfeva, Alnoth, Alward, Brictric, Edwin and Wulfgeat. According to satellite texts, they both farmed royal manors, which almost certainly identifies Gotshelm on these and other royal manors: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. 74;76;78;80, 88. As his name is rare, he may also be the Gotshelm with tenancies at Rockbeare and Sellake from Baldwin the sheriff, and at Owlacombe from Theobald son of Berner, all three within a few miles of other manors of his, two of them with predecessors who occur on his fief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 635) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 235, apart from the three tenancies, Theobald's tenant identified as perhaps another man (no. 2080), Baldwin's tenants are unidentified (nos. 3633, 3657).

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMBALD. Outside Lincolnshire, Grimbald is an uncommon name which occurs eleven times, distributed among eight counties and the lands of five tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMBALD <OF HASKERTON>. The free man of the abbey of Ely with a few acres valued at two shillings at Haskerton in Suffolk recorded in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 150) has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMBALD [* OF HOUGHTON *]. As his name is uncommon, the Grimbald who held four manors in Northamptonshire from Countess Judith - stated to be the same man - is probably the Grimbald who held three others from her in Leicestershire, two of them in the same vill. Judith had no other tenants of this name; there are no other Grimbalds in either county, and the Leicestershire manors are bracketed by those in Northamptonshire. Grimbald was identified by Round as Grimbald of Houghton, who witnessed the foundation charter of St Andrew's priory in Northampton, granting it land in his manor Moulton; a descendant, Robert Grimbald, founded Owston abbey, where one of Grimbald's Leicestershire manors lay: Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', pp. 293-94. Hanging Houghton lies between Grimbald's manors of East Farndon and Moulton, and Countess Judith had land there, though Grimbald is not recorded as her tenant. The Grimbaud family did not continue to hold all these manors, though there are indications of a continuing family interest in the vills: Farrer, Honors, ii. 301-307. Grimbald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3709) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 238, without reference to his byname.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMBALD <OF SUTTON>. Grimbald, who held thirty acres from Theodric Pointel at Sutton in Essex, has no links with other Grimbalds, all remote. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 149) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 238; it is suggested in Coel that he may be Grimbald the priest, named in a charter of Bury St Edmunds: Feudal documents, pp. 151-52.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMBALD [* THE GOLDSMITH *]. Grimbald, who held a fief in Berkshire consisting of the single manor of Hendred, may be Grimbald the goldsmith, who held two manors among the king's thanes in Wiltshire. The fief of another goldsmith, Theodric, follows Grimbald's and, as Round pointed out, shares Grimbald's Wiltshire predecessors: 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 292. The Berkshire and Wiltshire manors ultimately descended to different families; but the routes by which they did so are unknown: VCH Berkshire, i. 302-307; Book of Fees, pp. 423, 714, 729, 741. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 15) also records that Grimbald the goldsmith held land at Quy and Stow before the Conquest, a manor which devolved upon Count Alan of Brittany. Count Alan was also preceded by a Grimbald in Lincolnshire, possibly the same man; but as the name occurs as frequently in Lincolnshire as in all other counties combined, it is possible that this Grimbald - Grimbald Krakr - is another man. Three other Grimbalds held land in southern England before the Conquest, one of these, King Edward's man at Husborne Crawley in Bedfordshire, may be the goldsmith, royal patronage of goldsmiths being the norm and the Confessor's partiality for Germanic servants well-attested, several of the goldsmiths in royal service - Otto, Reinbald, Theodric - bearing Germanic names: Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art, pp. 65, 78-79. Another Grimbald held land at Great Linford, eleven miles away, but there are no royal or other associations to support an identification. Grimbald's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 119) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 238.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMKEL. The name Grimkel is largely confined to the area north of a line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash. It is common in Lincolnshire and to some extent in Yorkshire, but uncommon elsewhere, occurring fourteen times, predominantly on small holdings, distributed among seven counties and the lands of eight tenants-in-chief, a distribution suggesting a preponderance of minor landowners. Two survivors bore this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMKEL <OF BILBY>. The Grimkels whose manors at Bilby and Clayworth in Nottinghamshire - ten miles apart - were acquired by Roger of Bully are probably one man, possibly the survivor at Watnall, though since all the holdings are modest and Watnall thirty miles to the south, this is too uncertain to establish an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMKEL <OF WATNALL>. The Grimkels who held Watnall in Nottinghamshire from William Peverel and preceded him on another holding in that vill and in three more in the county may be the same man. All five holdings formed a tight cluster in Broxtowe wapentake, four of them in two adjacent vills. Grimkel survived on his most valuable holding, albeit a modest one and shared with another tenant. He is one of only two surviving Grimkels, the other - with a plough at Rowden in Herefordshire - unlikely to be the same man. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 35381).

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMULF. Grimulf is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among three counties and the lands of four tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMULF <OF COLCHESTER>. As the name is rare, it is possible that the Grimulf with a substantial holding of two houses and nine acres in Colchester is Grimulf of Helmingham, whose manors lay some thirty miles away; but that Grimulf held his land only in 1066 and - if Little Domesday is to be trusted - the burgess only in 1086, and the transition from pre-Conquest manorial lord to post-Conquest burgess would be unusual. The dates assigned to urban holdings, however, sometimes appear suspect.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMULF <OF HELMINGHAM>. As the name is rare, the three Grimulfs in Suffolk may be one man, his holdings lying in a restricted area in south-east Suffolk. He had a modest manor at Winston acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester, and was the lord of men in Hasketon and Helmingham, ten and three miles respectively to the south, with a more substantial manor in the latter vill, acquired by Humphrey the chamberlain. It is possible, though perhaps unlikely, that he is the burgess Grimulf of Colchester.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRIMULF <OF MORTON>. Grimulf, who preceded Robert of Stafford at Morton in Warwickshire, is the only Grimulf in Great Domesday. Although his manor is fairly substantial, it appears unlikely that he is the same man as either the Essex burgess or the Suffolk landowner, both some 150 miles or more away.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRUFFYDD. Gruffydd is an uncommon name. As a forename, it occurs once in Staffordshire and Gloucestershire, twice in Cornwall, four times in Cheshire, and on a fief and three manors in Herefordshire; four of these references are to one or other of the Welsh kings.

.............................................................................................................................................
GRUFFYDD [* BOY *]. Gruffydd Boy, who held parts of the royal manor of Leominster in Herefordshire, and the Gruffydd who held King's Pyon from Roger of Lacy, are identified as Gruffydd son of King Maredudd, who held another manor and a fief in the county, by the descent of Pyon and some manors of Boy and Gruffydd's son to William de Blez: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 14, 48, 72, 95, 122-23. Gruffydd's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2583) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 238, apart from the tenant at King's Pyon, who is unidentified (no. 30537).

.............................................................................................................................................
GRUFFYDD <OF ROSCARNON>. Gruffydd, whose manor at Roscarnon in Cornwall was acquired by the Count of Mortain, and the Count's tenant in that vill are almost certainly the same man. The name does not occur elsewhere in the south-western counties. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 2081).

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNFRID [* OF CHOCQUES *]. It is likely that Gunfrid, tenant of Robert of Tosny in Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire, is Gunfrid of Chocques, a tenant-in-chief in those and three other counties. Robert's tenants are the only Gunfrids in the two counties other than Chocques himself; and the Lincolnshire Gunfrids were enfeoffed by Robert with the manors of the same predecessor, Arnbiorn of 'Avethorpe' (q.v.), from whom Gunfrid of Chocques acquired one of his two manors as tenant-in-chief, Arnbiorn having an interest in the other according to the Lincolnshire Claims. The Northamptonshire Survey appears to show that Gunfrid's tenancy had been resumed into the Tosny demesne, which may explain why Gunfrid's Lincolnshire tenancies do not appear in the hands of his descendants: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 386; Farrer, Honors, i. 20-53. Gunfrid's manors as tenant-in-chief are recorded in Coel (no. 2457) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 239-41; the Tosny tenant is identified as another man (no. 8409).

................................................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR. Gunnar is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times, predominantly on small holdings distributed among nine counties from Cornwall to Yorkshire and on the fiefs of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, the majority borne by pre-Conquest lords, with survivors in Cornwall, Yorkshire and Essex.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF AVINGTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Gunnars who preceded Richard Poynant on substantial manors at Avington in Berkshire and Calstone in Wiltshire are probably one man. Richard's Honour is small, his predecessors few, and Gunnar the only name to occur twice among them. There are no other Gunnars in either county.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF "CICLET">. Gunnar, whose modest holding in the lost vill of Ciclet in Devon was acquired by Walter of Claville, has no links with other Gunnars.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF DOMELLICK>. Gunnar, who survived on a tiny tenancy from the Count of Mortain - value twelve pence - at Domellick in Cornwall, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 2398).

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF HALESWORTH>. As the name is rare in East Anglia, the Gunnars there, both of whose manors - at Halesworth and Levington in Suffolk - were acquired by Roger Bigot, may be the same man, although they held minor holdings some thirty miles apart and under the patronage of different English lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF MALDON>. As the name is rare in the region, the Gunnars who held Maldon and Totham in Essex from Swein of Essex are probably one man; the vills are less than four miles apart. Gunnar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1862) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 241.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF MOLLINGTON>. Gunnar, who shared a waste holding at Mollington in Cheshire acquired by Robert of Rhuddlan, has no links with other Gunnars. It is possible, however, that he is the Gunnor at 'Redcliff' (in Chester), four miles away. The form is unique and although identified as the rare Gunneuare (Gunwor) which occurs in Yorkshire, it requires only a poorly formed 'o' to misidentify him: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 278.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUNNAR <OF PONTSHILL>. As the name is uncommon, the Gunnars whose three small holdings at Pontshill, Weston and Coldborough in Herefordshire were acquired by Durand of Gloucester are almost certainly one man, as the text appears to state, though somewhat clumsily, while misspelling the name at Coldborough as Gunuer. The vills are within five miles of each other.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHMUND. Guthmund is a fairly common name which occurs almost forty times, distributed among eleven counties between Dorset and Warwickshire and the lands of the king and thirteen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Essex and Suffolk. Guthmunds survived on ten manors, spread among six counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHMUND [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFRIC *]. With the exception of the tenant at Braxted, all Guthmunds in Little Domesday are probably the royal thane at Kelvedon in Essex, alias Guthmund, brother of Abbot Wulfric of Ely, named at Occold in Suffolk. Occold was acquired by Hugh de Montfort, along with Guthmund's manors in Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk. Of the three remaining manors, Guthmund is described as Hugh's predecessor on two of them, as also within Hugh's fief. He is elsewhere described as a royal thane, a thane, and a free man. Less certainly, the respectable manor at Tollesbury in Essex, acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne but encircled by de Montfort manors in other Hundreds, may also have been his, as suggested by Dr Clarke.
	The Liber Eliensis puts some flesh on these bones. Guthmund, spurned by a high-born lady as insufficiently endowed, not having the forty hides of land to be counted 'among the foremost nobles', prevailed upon his brother to lease to him some of the abbey's estates, which availed him little since shortly afterwards the Normans conquered the kingdom and Hugh de Montfort 'took possession of these lands and to this day has withheld them from the church' (ed. Fairweather, pp. 198-200). The Liber Eliensis names some of the manors recorded in Domesday Book - 'Bensted', Garboldisham (Wick), Livermere, Nacton, Occold - and adds Marham, held by the abbey in Domesday without mention of Guthmund. He probably did have an interest, however, since Hugh de Montfort is said to have received the customary dues of twenty-six Freemen attached to the manor. A list of Guthmund's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 312-14, which does not include Wick but does include Tollesbury. Dr Clarke ranks Guthmund forty-eighth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Wick would raise him two places. See also Williams, 'Little Domesday and the English', pp. 107-108, 209, where Guthmund is Guthmund of Nacton.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHMUND [* BROTHER OF THORKIL *]. As his name is uncommon in the region, it is likely that the Guthmund who held Aston in Warwickshire from William son of Ansculf is the one other Guthmund in the Midlands, the brother of Thorkil of Arden at Packington in the same Hundred, though the manors were in different hands by the thirteenth century: VCH Warwickshire, iv. 181-82; vii. 60-62. Dr Williams documents later connections between Guthmund's heirs and those of William son of Ansculf which suggest this conclusion: 'A vice-comital family', p. 288. Guthmund's manor of Packington is recorded in Coel (no. 4764) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 219; Aston is assigned to another tenant (no. 782).

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHMUND <OF BRAXTED>. Guthmund, tenant of Haimo the steward at Braxted in Essex, has no links with his one namesake in the region, the brother of Abbot Wulfric of Ely. It is unlikely he is the abbot's brother, Ely having no known interest in Braxted: Miller, Abbey and bishopric of Ely, passim. Guthmund is unidentified in Coel (no. 5018).

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHMUND [* SON OF SAERIC *]. As the name is uncommon, the Guthmunds who held a cluster of manors in Herefordshire acquired by Roger of Lacy from Saeric, are probably Saeric's son, named on the last of these manors, though they did not all descend to the same family: Book of Fees, pp. 804, 805, 814, 816, 1481. No other Guthmund held land in Herefordshire or adjacent counties, or on the Lacy Hnour. Guthmund's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4695) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 219.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHROTH. Guthroth is a rare name which occurs once in Essex and Yorkshire and four times in Lincolnshire, probably borne by three individuals, one of them a survivor: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 279-80; Fellows-Jensen, Scandinavian personal names, pp. 111-12.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHROTH <OF RADWINTER>. Guthroth, who held the fairly substantial of Radwinter in Essex from Tihel the Breton, is the only survivor of his name in Domesday Book; it is unlikely he is the same man as the Lincolnshire lawman or his Yorkshire namesake.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHROTH <OF SKEWSBY>. Guthroth, who held two manors at Skewsby in the North Riding of Yorkshire before the Conquest, is unlikely to be the same man as the Lincolnshire lawman, eighty miles to the south, still less the survivor in Essex almost 200 miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUTHROTH [* THE LAWMAN *]. Guthroth, who held a house of the abbot of Peterborough in Lincoln and land in Middle Carlton in pledge in 1066, is identified as Guthroth the lawman, burgess of Lincoln, with full jurisdiction in the city, by his association with Norman the fat, his predecessor. He is not named on Norman's fief, not even at Carlton. He is unlikely to be the same man as either of his two namesakes, the rural landowner in North Yorkshire or the survivor in Essex.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY. If the tenants-in-chief Guy of Craon and Guy of Raimbeaucourt and the readily-identifiable tenant Guy of Anjou are excluded, unidentified Guys are rare, occurring once each in Sussex, Dorset, Somerset and Cambridgeshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY [* OF ANJOU *]. As the name is rare, the tenants of Count Eustace of Boulogne at Finchingfield and Chishill in Essex are probably Guy of Anjou, his tenant at Massingham in Norfolk and at Duxford in Cambridgeshire, where his byname is recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 42). He is very probably also the Guy who claimed part of Anmer in Norfolk 'because it was delivered to his uncle', Osmund of Anjou (q.v.) and Count Eustace. Massingham, Anmer and Chishill were held by Guy's descendants: Book of Fees, p. 236. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 89) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 463.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY [* OF CRAON *]. Guy, who held South Warnborough in Hampshire from Hugh son of Baldric 'with his daughter', is evidently Hugh's son-in-law, named as such as Hugh's tenant at Claxby St Andrew and its dependencies and Sloothby in Lincolnshire. He is Guy of Craon, a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire. He is also the Guy at Mission in Nottinghamshire, identified by the reference to his manor of Laughton in Lincolnshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 562) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 464.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY [* OF EU *]. Guy, tenant of the abbey of Ramsey at Longstowe in Cambridgeshire, is probably Guy of Eu, perhaps the same Guy to whom Abbot Reginald (1114-1131) confirmed Longstowe: VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 121. His brother, Ingelrann (q.v.), was a Domesday tenant of the abbey in Huntingdonshire, where Guy subsequently held from the abbey. As the abbot of Ramsey's man, he was a juror in Longstowe Hundred: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 83). His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1657) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 463-64.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY <OF LAVANT>. Guy, who held a hide in the manor of Lavant in Sussex from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, has no links with his namesakes, all distant. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8858) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 465.

.............................................................................................................................................
GUY <OF POORTON>. As unidentified Guys are rare, the tenants of Roger Arundel at Poorton in Dorset and Halswell in Somerset are probably one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1217) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 465, where he is identified as the priest who held three hides in the manor of Long Ashton from the bishop of Coutances, which is possible but unverifiable; Guy the priest, who held Roxford in Hertfordshire from Geoffrey of Bec, is identified as another priest (no. 8907).

.............................................................................................................................................
GYRTH. Although the name Gyrth occurs more than 150 times, it is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, all but one of them pre-Conquest landowners. The distribution is skewed, fewer than two dozen names occurring outside East Anglia, most of those in the adjacent counties of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. This area, of course, was where the earldom of Harold's brother, Earl Gyrth Godwinson, lay. The only Gyrth north of Cambridgeshire is the one post-Conquest landowner of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] GYRTH. In view of the distribution of the name, it is probable that most - perhaps all - pre-Conquest Gyrths are Earl Gyrth Godwinson, all but a handful of the names occurring within the boundaries of his earldom. The distribution is important because Gyrth's title is recorded only seven times in East Anglia where there are far more unidentified Gyrths in each of the two counties than in the rest of the country combined. Within this area, Gyrth is almost certainly the earl on the royal demesne manors and on the substantial manors of Costessey, Sedgeford, Langham and Great Ryburgh in Norfolk. The only demesne holding which appears slightly doubtful is the modest holding at Burgh St Margaret. As no other Gyrth with significant demesne land in the region can be plausibly identified, Gyrth is evidently the lord of the considerable numbers of dependent free men of East Anglia.
	Outside East Anglia, he is identified by reference to his mother at Chaddleworth in Berkshire, and is accorded his title on all his manors in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and on three of the four in Hertfordshire, all held by his men. In the Sussex heartland of the Godwinsons, the two substantial manors of Merston and Coombes are probably his since, apart from their status, both are adjacent to other Godwinson manors, Coombes being close to his own huge manor of Washington. Similar considerations suggest that the handsome manors of Hartley Mauditt in Hampshire and Eaton Hastings in Berkshire may have been his, as also Warley in Essex, once the property of the Church. A list of the earl's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 194-200, which includes all the demesne manors of a Gyrth, but not those of his men at Pampisford in Cambridgeshire; Shottesham, Brundall, Kelling, Burgh, Wallington and Binham in Norfolk; or Brome, Pettaugh, Rushmere and Hemingstone in Suffolk. He is ranked by Dr Clarke sixteenth in wealth among the nobility; Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies a somewhat lower estimate of his manorial income, almost identical to the Statistics database (£230).

.............................................................................................................................................
GYRTH <OF QUADRING>. Gyrth, who held a modest manor at Quadring in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is the one survivor of this name. It is unlikely he held land before the Conquest, all such Gyrths probably being Harold's brother, killed at Hastings.

.............................................................................................................................................
GYTHA. The name Gytha occurs in twenty-one counties, stretching from Cornwall to Yorkshire; but if those who identified as Countesses Gytha of Hereford and Wessex are excluded, the name is rare, occurring twice in Yorkshire and once in Lincolnshire; there are no survivors. The scribe appears to have confused the name with Goda and Godiva on occasions.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNTESS *] GYTHA [* OF HEREFORD *]. Countess Gytha, wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford (q.v.) and mother of Earl Harold, a minor in 1066, is easily confused with another Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin and mother of Earl Harold Godwinson. She may have been the daughter of Osgod Clapa and widow of Tovi the proud: Williams, 'The king's nephew', pp. 333-36.
	She was a major predecessor of William Peverel in Buckinghamshire, which identifies her as the Gytha who preceded him in his Northamptonshire manors. The links between Gytha and Peverel make it likely that the Countess Goda (q.v.) recorded at Rushden in Bedfordshire and Clifton in Nottinghamshire are scribal errors for Countess Gytha. She is probably also the Goda who held Edwalton, a dependency of her husband's manor of Stockerston, and the Countess Goda who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Nottinghamshire. It is also possible, in view of their status, that the Godas who held the royal manors of Greetham and Cottesmore in Rutland are Countess Gytha, Cottesmore being no great distance from her husband's manor of Stockerston: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Rutland', p. 134. In all these cases, the particular reasons for identifying Goda as Gytha are supported by the fact that Countess Goda is not known to have held land anywhere north Twyford in Buckinghamshire whereas Gytha's family held extensive lands in the Midlands.
	When both Countesses are accounted for, there are five other occurrences of the name Gytha in Domesday Book, any of which could refer to Countess Gytha of Hereford, though only those at Tilton in Leicestershire and Walton in Warwickshire lay within the territory in which she and her family is known to hold land. Tilton is ten miles from her husband's manor of Stockerston and a cluster of his other holdings, and Walton a similar distance from her son's manor of Burton Dassett, itself four miles from another of her manors, at Mollington. In view of the rarity of her name, it is perhaps more likely than not that both manors were hers. The other holdings in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (5E35-36), may have belonged to other individuals, her family having no known associations with either county.
	Gytha's lands are listed, and her family and background documented, by Dr Williams, whose list does not include the manors in Rutland: 'The king's nephew', pp. 333-38. A list of Gytha's manors is also given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 225-26, which does not include Paulerspury in Northamptonshire; Tilton in Leicestershire; Greetham and Cottesmore in Rutland; or the manors, men and privileges attributed by the scribe to Countess Goda but here assigned to Gytha. She and her family are ranked by Dr Clarke twenty-sixth in wealth among the nobility; the additional manors, with those attributed to her husband, would place the family comfortably in the top twenty.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* COUNTESS *] GYTHA [* OF WESSEX *]. Countess Gytha, widow of Earl Godwin and mother of Earl Harold Godwinson, survived her husband and all but one of her many sons. She was an early opponent of Norman rule, collecting allies in the south-west, where the bulk of her estates lay, and escaping to the continent after the failure of the revolt in 1068 (as she had done in 1051), reportedly with a great treasure: Mason, House of Godwine, pp. 178-83.
	Where her title is omitted, the Countess can normally be readily identified, despite apparent scribal errors in a number of cases. Apart from single holdings in Berkshire and Gloucestershire, all her manors lay in eight counties south of the Thames, on most of which she is clearly identified. Elsewhere, she is almost certainly the Gytha whose manors in Somerset and Wiltshire were valued at over £140. Apart from their status, these manors form part of blocks of royal manors which are organised in both counties first by King Edward, then by the Godwinsons, and finally by those held by lesser mortals; Exon. also identifies her as the Gytha at Queen Camel and Coker, part of the same block in Somerset. The Countess is almost certainly the Gytha on the huge manor of Frampton in Dorset, held by St Stephens of Caen in 1086 but evidently once a royal manor, worth £40 before the Conquest; her husband, Earl Godwin (q.v.), disguised as Earl Edwin, held part of it attached to Burton Bradstock. The Cornish lands detached from her son's manor of Lanow are very probably hers, and at Werrington in Devon she is identified in Exon. as Earl Harold's mother, and as Harold's mother at Oxted in Surrey in Domesday, in both cases evidently the mother of Earl Harold Godwinson, not of Harold son of Earl Ralph (q.v.), whose mother held all her land north of the Thames. A list of Gytha's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 204-205, which does not include Little Puddle in Dorset. Dr Clarke ranks her fifth in landed wealth among the nobility; the addition of Puddle would not affect this. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies another, slightly larger estimate of her manorial income, the Statistics database total (£595) lying between the two.

.............................................................................................................................................
GYTHA <OF LECONFIELD>. As the name is rare, it is very probable that the Gythas whose manors in the adjacent vills of Leconfield and Raventhorpe in East Yorkshire were acquired by the Count of Mortain are the same woman. On similar grounds, she may be Gytha of Owston in Lincolnshire. These are the only occurrences of the name in either county, not excluding the Countesses; all the holdings are fairly substantial; and communications between them via the Trent and the Hull presumably possible. However, in the absence of tenurial or other associations, Gytha is here treated as another woman.

.............................................................................................................................................
GYTHA <OF OWSTON>. As the name is rare, the Gytha who held Owston Ferry in Lincolnshire, acquired by Geoffrey of la Guerche, may be Gytha of Leconfield in East Yorkshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
HADEMAR OF <`OF STOCKLEIGH'>. As the four Hademars in Domesday Book are all predecessors of the Count of Mortain, at Perranuthnoe in Cornwall and 'Stockleigh' and Chitterley in Devon, it is highly probable that they are one man; the three Devonshire manors cluster near each other.

................................................................................................................................................................
HAGNI [* THE REEVE *]. All Hagnis in Domesday may be one man. With a single exception, the forename is confined to Norfolk, borne by a substantial pre-Conquest landowner, a thane of the king and archbishop Stigand, most of whose estates were absorbed into the royal demesne; of those which were not, both Weybourne and Pentney are also substantial manors, while Hagni's overlord at Heckingham is Archbishop Stigand. Hagni is also the name of a royal reeve who held a small fief after the Conquest, as did his son, Ralph, both of which passed to the Warenne family: Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 242, 339-340. As the name is rare and the distribution restricted, it is not unlikely that Hagni the reeve is also the Cock Hagni at Creake and Burnham, whose manors devolved upon Roger Bigot, who acquired Pentney; Creake is another valuable manor. Dr Lewis suggests that the one other Hagni in Domesday Book, who held the respectable manor of Sollers Hope in Herefordshire in 1066, may be the same man, perhaps imported from Norfolk by Earl Harold who had earldoms in both counties: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Herefordshire Domesday', p. 12. Hagni's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1410) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMERIC [* OF ARQUES *]. Haimeric, who held a small fief in Devon, is named Haimeric of Arques by Exon. on three of the five manors on his fief. The name Haimeric does not occur again in Domesday Book. He was presumably from Arques (Pas-de-Calais: arrondissement Saint-Omer). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 803) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMO. Haimo is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and more than sixty manors, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and eight of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Kent, Essex and Suffolk. All Haimos are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMO [* OF MASCY *]. Haimo, who held tenancies from Earl Hugh in Cheshire and Wiltshire, is almost certainly Haimo of Mascy, identified by the descent of his lands: Farrer, Honors, ii. 288-91; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 312. He was probably from Macey in Lower Normandy (Manche: arrondissement Avranches): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 61-62. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 959) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMO [* OF VALOGNES *]. The Haimos who held Parham, Blaxhall, Carlton, Bruisyard, Rendham, Swefling, Benhall and Great Glemham in Suffolk from Count Alan of Brittany are probably Haimo of Valognes, Count Alan's tenant at Wrabetuna and Blaxhall in the same county, Blaxhall being a vill in which one of the unidentified Haimos had another manor. His descendants held Parham and its appurtenances as 5 1/2 fees - the Valognes fee - from the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 234-37. As Parham is valued at only £2, it is likely that the remaining holdings are included in the 'appurtenances' of the Valognes fee, the whole being worth approximately £14 in 1086, not an extravagant endowment for 5 1/2 fees; the manors form a fairly tight cluster between Blaxhall and Bruisyard. Count Alan had no other Haimos on his Honour. The one other unidentified Haimo in East Anglia, at Hundon on the other side of the county, may be another man. Haimo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 753) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 242-43, apart from Rendham, Swefling, Benhall, assigned to the Count's demesne; the tenant of Hundon is unidentified (no. 13334).

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMO [* THE SHERIFF *]. Haimo the sheriff, alias Haimo the steward, was steward to both the Conqueror and William Rufus, and sheriff of Kent: Domesday Monachorum, pp. 55-56. He was a tenant-in-chief in Essex, Kent and Surrey, and held tenancies in Kent from the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishop of Bayeux; in Surrey from Chertsey abbey, and in Essex from the king, in all of which he is accorded one of his two bynames. At Nettlestead in Kent he is identified as the sheriff in the Domesday Monachorum (p. 103); and he is probably the Haimo on the royal manor of Hatfield Broad Oak, where he is associated with Ralph of Marcy, his tenant on seven manors in the county. He is also likely to be the Haimo on an unnamed holding in the county, where his man Richard had annexed land and 'still has the booty from it', the sheriff being the only Haimo with a tenant named Richard. Haimo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 282) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 242.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAIMO [* THE SHERIFF *]'S SON. The son of Haimo whose Holding is referred to at Notley in Essex is - if not a scribal error - probably Haimo, son of Haimo the sheriff, since he is associated with Ralph of Marcy (q.v.), a tenant of the sheriff. However, his appearance at Notley may be a scribal error - though it is not apparent what feudo filii hamonis might be a corruption of - since this entry is a duplicate of part of the sheriff's manor of Notley, where Ralph was the tenant of the sheriff himself. The only son of Haimo named in Domesday Book is Geoffrey, a tenant of Richard son of Count Gilbert, who appears to be unrelated. The sheriff did, however, have a son named Haimo, who succeeded him in his lands and office: Domesday people, p. 242.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAKON. Hakon is not a particularly common name, occurring twenty-one times, distributed among nine counties between Wiltshire and Yorkshire, and the lands of the king and fifteen of his tenants-in-chief; three manors are held by Hakons in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAKON <OF ASHE>. Hakon, whose share in Ashe in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers, has no links with other Hakons.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAKON <OF STAVELEY>. The Hakons whose manors of Barlow and Staveley in Derbyshire were acquired by Haimo of Mascy are probably one man, who is possibly also the Hakon at Calow, all these manors being within six miles of one of the others. Hakon was a fairly substantial landholder so may have had other estates in the area, the most likely being that at Rotherham in Yorkshire, twelve miles to the north, or even the predecessor of Henry of Ferrers at Ashe; but there are no links to confirm either identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAMELIN. Hamelin is a rare name, distributed among five counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAMELIN [* OF CORNWALL *]. As his name is rare, it is probable that the Hamelin who held a fief from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall is his tenant on two other manors in the county, one a part of the royal manor of Winnianton at 'Crawle', where Hamelin held the other part of the vill, the other stolen by the Count from one of the Cornish churches, a consistent feature of his endowment of his tenants. Hamelin held two more manors from Count Robert in Devon. There are no other Hamelins in the south-western counties or on the Honour of the Count of Mortain. Hamelin is perhaps the Hamelin of Cornwall who witnessed a charter of Count William of Mortain, circa 1103-1106, his style suggesting he may have been sheriff of the county. There is no documentary evidence for this, and he is not listed among the English sheriffs identified by Professor Green; but no sheriff of Cornwall prior to 1086 has been identified: Calendar of documents: France, p. 437; English sheriffs, pp. 33, 35. Hamelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 164) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 243.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING. Although the name Harding is stated or implied on forty-eight manors, it is a rare name in the sense that it was probably by few individuals, perhaps fewer than half-a-dozen. The manors - many of them substantial - are distributed among eleven counties and the lands of the king and nine of his tenants-in-chief. Roughly a third of the manors were held by survivors in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING <OF COVEHITHE>. Harding, who had a smallholder and four oxen at Covehithe in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the Harding at Horswold, some thirty miles south-west of Covehithe.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING <OF HORSENDEN>. The Hardings who held Horsenden and Bradenham among the king's thanes in Buckinghamshire are almost certainly the same man, the name being rare and the vills four miles apart. It is possible, even likely, that he is Harding son of Alnoth, though there are no links to confirm this: VCH Buckinghamshire, ii. 254; iii. 35. He is identified as Alnoth's son in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING <OF HORSWOLD>. Harding, who shared four oxen with another free man at Horswold in Suffolk acquired by Roger of Auberville, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the Harding at Covehithe, some thirty miles north-east of Horswold.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING [* OF OXFORD *]. Harding, who shared with Leofeva nine messuages in Oxford, is probably Harding of Oxford, who granted Eynsham abbey two houses in the city before going to Jerusalem, where he died: Eynsham cartulary, i. 37. He may be the Harding reputed to have strangled a lion with his bare hands in Constantinople at about the time of the Domesday Survey: William of Malmesbury, Gesta regum, ii. 245-46. His death in the Holy Land precludes the possibility that he is Harding son of Alnoth, who was alive when William of Malmesbury was writing in the 1120s: Gesta regum, i. 470-71. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4732) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDING [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. The Hardings who held thirteen manors in 1086, and thirty-three before the Conquest, are probably Harding son of Alnoth, so-named at Lopen among the royal thanes in Somerset in 1086. His father was the English magnate, Ednoth the constable (q.v.) - Alnoth and Ednoth being sometimes confused by the scribe - and he was the ancestor of the Merriott family in Somerset and of Robert fitz Harding, the wealthy burgess of Bristol. There is little reason to doubt that he is the Harding who held the five manors among the royal thanes of Somerset which follow Lopen, although the scribe has omitted an 'also' in three cases; he is named as the son of Alnoth owing geld on 1.125 hides in the Geld Roll for 'Abdick' Hundred which must refer to one or more of these manors where his patronymic is omitted: VCH Somerset, i. 536. His most substantial manor was at Merriott, from which he is named in the Geld Roll for Crewkerne Hundred where Merriott lay; his son Nicholas held it at a later date: VCH Somerset, i. 532; Book of Fees, p. 85. Dr Williams suggests that the Harding at Wheatenhurst in Gloucestershire in 1086 is Alnoth's son, as the nearest of the Domesday Hardings to Bristol, where his descendants were to flourish: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 120.
	One other Harding held land in Somerset in 1086, as a tenant of Glastonbury abbey at Cranmore. He is named Harding of Wilton in the Geld Roll for Frome Hundred, and so may be the royal thane Harding in Wiltshire, who retained his manors for two decades: VCH Somerset, i. 537. He is probably also the Harding who held Bredy in Dorset, held by Berengar Giffard in 1086 but farmed in 1086 by his predecessor according to the Geld Roll for the Hundred in which Bredy lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 131. It is also likely he is the Harding at Alton in Hampshire and 'Burley' in Berkshire in 1086, both previously held by Queen Edith from whom Harding is said to have held 'Burley'. He is likely to be Queen Edith's butler of that name, recorded in the Waltham charter of 1062 and the butler of subsequent charter of 1065: Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 206-207. His service with the queen may explain his byname, Queen Edith being the patron of Wilton abbey, which she rebuilt, where she was educated, to which she was exiled in the crisis of 1051-1053, and where she may have passed her widowhood; it was also where she held court in 1072 at a meeting of her counsellors where Harding was present: Stafford, Queen Emma & Queen Edith, pp. 109, 145, 257-59, 264-65, 269-70.
	As Harding of Wilton held land in both 1066 and 1086, he is possibly to be identified with the pre-Conquest lord of six of the remaining eight Wiltshire manors, two of which were within a mile of two of his Wilton manors, and another within three miles, an unlikely clustering if the Hardings were different individuals, the only two in the county and both survivors. A seventh manor, at Winterslow, lay in the same vill as one of the other six. Those six were acquired by Earl Aubrey of Coucy, who obtained his fief in Leicestershire, and three of his manors in Warwickshire, from an Harding, presumably Queen Edith's butler. He may also be the one other Harding in Warwickshire, a tenant of Thorkil of Warwick at Hodnell, which lay between the three Coucy manors.
	Harding of Merriott, the son of Alnoth, of Somerset and Gloucestershire, and Harding of Wilton, Queen Edith's butler, of Somerset and six other counties, have been identified as the same man by Dr Clarke and others, an identification considered improbable by Dr Williams on the grounds that Harding son of Alnoth is reported by William of Malmesbury to be alive and active in the 1120s, and so unlikely to have held land in 1066: Gesta regum, i. 470-71; English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 119-22. However, while unlikely, it is not impossible, and the Harding who according to Domesday Book held Beechingstoke in Wiltshire from Shaftesbury abbey in 1066 is almost certainly Harding son of Alnoth, since his daughter was a nun in the abbey and he was in possession of the manor in the 1120s: Williams, 'Knights of Shaftesbury abbey', pp. 227-28. Beechingstoke is just a few miles from a cluster of the manors assigned to Harding of Wilton. On general grounds, too, the identification is likely, since two survivors with more than modest holdings in the same area, with a name borne by few individuals, is statistically unlikely. Other Domesday landowners - Forne son of Sigulf, Frawin of Cornwall and Roger of Beaumont - may have lived as long as Harding.
	A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 282-83, which includes every manor held by an Harding before the Conquest except two small holdings in Suffolk. Dr Clarke ranks the combined wealth of Harding and his father Ednoth twenty-seventh among the nobility, sixteenth among untitled laymen; additional manors assigned to Ednoth would raise them two and one places respectively. Apart from Harding of Oxford, all 1086 Hardings recorded in Coel (no. 557) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244, are identified there as Harding son of Alnoth, including those here identified as Harding of Horsenden.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWIN. The name Hardwin is not uncommon, occurring on two fiefs and more than three dozen other manors; but it is rare in the sense fewer than half-a-dozen names may be identified with some confidence as one of two individuals named in the text, the exceptions being two Hardwins each in Cheshire and Suffolk and one in Northamptonshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWIN [* BROTHER OF EARL RALPH *]. It is likely that most Hardwins in East Anglia are the son of Ralph the constable and brother of Earl Ralph Wader, who lost his lands in the aftermath of Ralph Wader's rebellion in 1075. He is named as Ralph's brother, accused of removing a half-mill from each of two adjacent vills in Suffolk, presumably the halves of a shared mill. He is almost certainly the Hardwin at Barking, holding free men from Ely abbey 'when he forfeited', presumably in 1076 when his brother lost his lands. All three cases refer to the period after the Conquest, his intermediate status allowing him to be identified as the Hardwin at Brundon in Essex, Repps in Norfolk, and Blakenham, Weston and Creeting in Suffolk. Three of these manors were acquired by William of Ecouis, who obtained all but one of Hardwin's manors in Norfolk, as well as others from those disinherited after 1075. The remaining manor, at Didlington, was held by Ralph of Limésy in 1086, who also succeeded Hardwin at Brundon in Essex. Two other Hardwins held land in England before 1066, both free men on tiny holdings in Suffolk, presumably different individuals.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWIN [* OF SCALES *]. All Hardwins in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire are probably Hardwin of Scales, tenant-in-chief in those counties. He is identified as the tenant of Count Alan at Reed, where he also held in chief, by the tenure of the Scalers fee from Count Alan's descendants: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 260-65. On four Cambridgeshire manors, his byname is supplied by the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 18, 54 107); the other ten Hardwins in the county occur on the fief of Ely abbey, in every case in vills where he was a tenant-in-chief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 633) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 244-45.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWULF. The name Hardwulf occurs three times, on modest holdings distributed among three widely separated counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, borne by pre-Conquest lords, one of whom survived until 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWULF <OF BRADLEY>. Hardwulf, whose land valued at ten shillings at Bradley in Devon in 1066 was acquired by the bishop of Coutances, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWULF <OF BURNSALL>. Hardwulf, who retained land without recorded resources at Burnsall in Yorkshire for two decades, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed; he is the only survivor among them.

.............................................................................................................................................
HARDWULF <OF COTTAM>. Hardwulf, whose modest manor valued at sixteen shillings at Cottam in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his two namesakes, both remote and as poorly endowed.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD. Harold is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring several hundred times in total, in every county except Derbyshire and Northamptonshire, and on the fiefs of almost a hundred tenants-in-chief. However, if those who are named or identified as the two earls - Harold Godwinson and Harold son of Earl Ralph - are excluded, there are about two dozen names, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of fifteen tenants-in-chief, occurring at different dates.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD [* BROTHER OF AELFRIC AND GUTHFRITHR *]. It is possible that all Harolds in Lincolnshire other than Earl Harold are the brother of Aelfric and Guthfrithr, named as predecessor of the bishop of Durham in the Lincolnshire Claims; the bishop acquired Kirkby-on-Bain and Keddington from him. Less certainly, Aelfric's brother may be the Harold at Westlaby. The bishop's dispute with Eudo concerned rights which he claimed his predecessor, Harold, had in Langton-by-Wragby. Harold's interest is not recorded in the relevant entry; but Westlaby is just a few miles from Langton, and the bishop also held land in the nearby vill of Snarford. As the only significant landowner in the region other than the earl, Harold may be Harold the constable, who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in the county but not, apparently, any land there or in any other county.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] HAROLD. Most unidentified Harolds in Domesday Book are probably Earl Harold Godwinson, the scribes being particularly remiss in omitting his title, far more often than seems to be the case with his fellow earls. His identification is these cases is suggested by two general considerations: first, apart from Harold son of Earl Ralph, only two other Harolds in Domesday Book have a title or byname (both in Lincolnshire); and, secondly, in twenty counties where Harold's identity is not in doubt, only five other Harolds are named, four of them post-Conquest tenants, the one pre-Conquest landowner, a free man with a virgate in Hampshire. Two other counties offer few difficulties. In Nottinghamshire, the unidentified Harolds from whom Earl Hugh of Chester acquired three of his four manors are probably the earl, who preceded him in seven other counties; while the Harold who shared a modest holding at Keyworth acquired by Roger of Bully is unlikely to be him, Roger succeeding the earl nowhere else. Buckinghamshire presents the one ambiguous case: Harold of Tyringham, the one untitled Harold in the county, is conceivably the earl, though probably not.
	Of the remaining counties in Great Domesday, the Harolds in Berkshire, Kent, Wiltshire, Hertfordshire, Worcestershire, Herefordshire and Yorkshire present only minor problems. The Harolds on seven royal manors in Berkshire, and the Harold who preceded Earl Hugh of Chester at Drayton, are unlikely to be anyone other than the earl; the Harold at Barcote less certainly so, though the manor is a respectable one and had passed through the Conqueror's hands. In Kent, only Earl Harold is likely to have had such a well-endowed a concubine, or to have behaved violently towards the Church with impunity, or to be the lord of men; and in Yorkshire, where Earl Harold was a major landowner, the Harold who held the very valuable (£32) manor of Cleeton and its dependency is surely the earl, the Harold with fourteen carucates at Rothwell and its dependencies probably - though less certainly - so. There is no doubt at all that Harold and Godwin, reported as exiled or acting together in the Herefordshire folios, are the two earls exiled in 1051, little doubt that Harold's 'war against the Norsemen' mentioned in a Worcestershire entry refers to King Harold's Stamford Bridge campaign. Almost as certainly, the earl is the one unidentified Harold in Hertfordshire, a lord of men in a county where he was overwhelmingly the greatest lay landowner. Finally, the one untitled Harold in Wiltshire - at Clyffe Pypard - is circled by the earl's manors. Clyffe was held by Miles Crispin, who acquired the previous and a subsequent manor from the earl.
	Most unidentified Harolds in Great Domesday occur in Sussex and Surrey, in both of which counties the earl was the greatest lay landowner in 1066. In Surrey, his identity at Pyrford is established by a royal writ (Regesta, i. no. xviii, p. 123), and at Oxted, Lambeth and Streatham by references to his mother and his relationship with the Canons of Waltham, his foundation. He is probably the Harold who held the valuable manor of Limpsfield used to endow Battle abbey and also the Harold whose men held two others, and more likely than not the one other Harold in the county, on the modestly prosperous manor of Wotton, acquired by the tenant who held the following manor from the earl. In Sussex, the Godwinson heartland, the very largest manors will have been Earl Harold's. Of those valued at less than £20, Compton lay in Laughton, where his father held the main manor; Tottington in Findon, was worth £28; and Fulking in Shipley, which is not recorded in Domesday Book but is adjacent to Steyning where the Harold who held the borough worth £86 must be Harold Godwinson. The remaining Harolds are overlords, so probably the earl, there apparently being no other Harolds with demesne holdings in the county.
	In Great Domesday, therefore, there are comparatively few uncertainties in identifying the earl, and very few Harolds who are not the earl. There is no reason to suppose that matters are different in the three counties of Little Domesday, once part of Harold's earldom. This is important because unidentified Harolds occur far more frequently there than anywhere else - more times in each one of the three counties than in all of Great Domesday - but the earl is given his title only once in each county. In itself, of course, this may reflect the scribes' knowledge that other Harolds were extremely rare, if they existed at all. It is possible that there was only one such. Elsewhere, the royal estates, the larger manors, his lordship over men, his territorial predominance in some areas, association with members of his family, high-handed acts of violence, and relationships between estates, point to his identity.
	Clarke, English nobility, pp. 169-91, lists Harold's manors. The list does not include manors named only in satellite texts or without valuations, or the demesne manors of Heddington, Hullavington and Latton (doubtful) in Wiltshire; St Stephens in Cornwall; Kimbolton and its dependencies in Huntingdonshire; Stoneley in Cheshire; Childerditch in Essex; Dereham (doubtful) or Panworth in Norfolk; or those of Harold's men at Balham in Surrey; Amwell in Hertfordshire; Wavendon in Buckinghamshire; Lexham, Ingworth and Spixworth in Norfolk; or Bealings and Derneford in Suffolk. Harold was, by a very considerable margin, the wealthiest English landowner after the king, far wealthier in demesne lands than any of the Conqueror's tenants-in-chief, even without taking the lands of his dead father into account. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies other estimates of his manorial income, all lower than his own (£3174); the Statistics database total is higher still than his estimate (£3432). Williams, 'Land and power', pp. 171-72, calculates his assessed land as approximately 2400 hides/carucates, the Statistics database as 2850.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF BISHOPSTONE>. As the name is rare in 1086, the tenants of the bishop of Chichester at Bishopstone and Aldingbourne are probably one man, despite the distance separating the vills. This Harold is the best endowed of the survivors so it is not improbable that he is also Hugh of Montfort's tenant on two manors in East Kent, not much further from Bishopstone than it is from Aldingbourne. Harold's manors in Kent are recorded in Coel (no. 8805) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 249; the Sussex tenants are unidentified (nos. 15644, 15654).

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF CLAPCOT>. Harold, who held a tiny subtenancy from Miles Crispin at Clapcot in Berkshire, has no links with his namesakes. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 949).

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF CODDENHAM>. The abbot of Ely's free man with a plough and a couple of smallholders at Coddenham in Suffolk in 1066 may be the free man with a similarly modest holding at Thurleston, four miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF KEYWORTH>. Harold, who shared a modest holding at Keyworth in Nottinghamshire acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF KNIGHTON>. The thane Harold who held a virgate worth five shillings and the fifth part of a mill worth 22d in the royal manor of Knighton on the Isle of Wight before the Conquest has no links with his namesakes; he is unlikely to be the earl.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF TYRINGHAM>. Harold, who held three hides at Tyringham in Buckinghamshire, may be the thane who had shared ownership of the following unnamed manor, probably at Astwood some eight miles away, both acquired by William son of Ansculf. It is just possible that he is Earl Harold Godwinson, despite his holding being conflated with that of four other thanes (normal bureaucratic procedure in circuit three). This is suggested by a number of coincidences. Harold of Tyringham is the only Harold other than the earl who was a lord of men before the Conquest, though he apparently had no manors other than these, and no men other than Godric. He is the only Harold apart from the earl to have a wife who held land in her own right. Earl Harold and his men were also predecessors of William son of Ansculf and his uncle Giles elsewhere in the county. The name of his wife, Aelfeva (Aluueua), however, seems to preclude an identification. The earl's wife, named in Domesday Book only as the wife of her first husband, King Gruffydd (d. 1063), is Aldgeat or Aldgid, variously rendered as Aldid, Aldgyth, Edith (Orderic Vitalis, ii. 138, 216) or Ealdgyth. But the scribe committed worse blunders in dealing with Old English name-forms.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF WESTLECOTT>. As the name is rare in 1086, it is not unlikely that the Harold with a modestly substantial tenancy from Hugh the ass at Westlecott in Wiltshire is the one other survivor there, at Enford, though this is on the other side of the county. Both are unidentified in Coel (nos. 16582, 17072).

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD <OF WHITNEY>. Harold, who held a waste holding worth six shillings at Whitney in Herefordshire from the Canons of St Guthlac's in 1086, has no links with his namesakes, though it is just possible that he is Harold son of Earl Ralph, who held land elsewhere in the county. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 30239).

.............................................................................................................................................
HAROLD [* SON OF EARL RALPH *]. Harold, son of Earl Ralph of Hereford (d. 1057), held land as a minor before the Conquest and had small fiefs in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire and Warwickshire in 1086. He is almost certainly the Harold who had two or four messuages in Warwick which 'belong to the lands which these barons hold outside the Borough', since he is the only Harold with land in the county, though it is curious that his name occurs twice in the list of 'barons'. It is possible, though unlikely, that he is the surviving Harold at Whitney in Herefordshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2572) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 245 as Harold of Ewyas; the tenant at Whitney is unidentified (no. 30239.

.............................................................................................................................................
HAWARTH <OF STOKESLEY>. The name Hawarth is entirely confined to the adjacent wapentakes of Allerton and Langbaurgh in the North Riding of Yorkshire where the tight cluster of seventeen vills spanning fifteen miles from east to west very probably belonged to one man, the lord of the very valuable manor of Stokesley; only the king, the earls, the archbishop and two magnates had more valuable manors. Hawarth was an early casualty of the Conquest, the Yorkshire Claims recording that his land was held by William Malet 'before the castle was taken'. Dr Newman doubts that William Malet 'ever came into actual seisin' of Hawarth's land, largely on the grounds that Hawarth's recorded land lay far beyond the area the Normans are thought to have controlled by September 1069: 'Yorkshire Domesday Clamores', pp. 265-69. But direct evidence for the area under Norman control is slight, and there appears to be no substantial reason to doubt the explicit statement of the jurors about Malet's possession of Hawarth's lands. As Hawarth was clearly a significant landowner, Dr Fleming's judgement that Malet's predecessors 'were an undistinguished lot', needs some modification: Kings and lords, pp. 159-60.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEALFDENE. Healfdene is common name, with a skewed distribution, most names occurring in Suffolk and the adjacent counties of Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, and Yorkshire, a pattern suggesting a few significant landowners among the small fry. Seventeen manors were held by survivors, all but two of them in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEALFDENE <OF CROMWELL>. It is likely that most if not all fourteen Healfdenes in Nottinghamshire are one man, the lord of Cromwell, where he had a church: Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, i. 169-70. Of the twelve survivors among them, eleven are recorded among the king's thanes, seven preceded by an Ulfkil, while in two other cases no pre-Conquest lord is recorded and a tenth is held by an anonymous group. All were in vills a few miles from one or more of the others, in several cases in adjacent vills. The one other survivor in the county was a tenant of the Count of Mortain at Normanton, eight to ten miles from the holdings of Healfdene of Cromwell at Widmerpool, Chilwell and Toton. As only one other Healfdene may have survived in the other thirty-three counties combined (below), it is likely the Nottinghamshire survivors are one man. Four manors were held by other survivors, three in the West Riding of Lincolnshire where one is a priest and the others likely to be so too and so probably not the Nottinghamshire thane. The fourth thane probably is (below).
	Healfdene of Cromwell may also be the pre-Conquest lord of seven manors in Nottinghamshire. Of these, Chilwell is a jurisdiction of Toton, and Broxtowe and Watnall of Nuthall; only Broadholme is at a distance from the others. Although none of the post-Conquest holdings are in the same vills, Trowell lies between Nuthall and Toton, while Awsworth is adjacent to Broxtowe, a mile from Nuthall, and two from Watnall. The two Healfdenes in Derbyshire may also be Healfdene of Cromwell. This is very likely the case at Esnotrewic, where he was succeeded by William Peverel, who acquired most of Healfdene's manors in Nottinghamshire, and probably also at Vlvritune, held by the one remaining survivor among the royal thanes; though a lost vill, its position in the text suggests it cannot be too far across the county border from those of the Nottinghamshire thane. Healfdene's Nottinghamshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3807) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134; the priest is identified as another man (no. 3808), the other tenants being unidentified (nos. 32512, 34889, 34891).

.............................................................................................................................................
HEALFDENE <OF HANSLOPE>. Healfdene, who held Tewin in Hertfordshire in 1066 which he retained as a tenant of Peter of Valognes, may be the juror in Broadwater Hundred recorded in the Inquisition Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). He was a royal thane, evidently a significant figure since the Conqueror granted him and his mother Tewin 'for the soul of his son Richard, as he says himself and shows through his writ'; Peter tried to wrest the manor from him, claiming another royal grant. As his name is uncommon in southern England, Healfdene is probably also Peter's predecessor at Higham Hill in Essex, and the royal Guard at Hanslope and Earl Harold's man at Chearsley, both in Buckinghamshire, all three valuable manors held by the only Healfdenes in those counties; Hanslope, in particular, is a high status manor (£26). It was held in 1086 by Winemar of Flanders, who also acquired three of his five manors in Northamptonshire from Healfdene. Chearsley was held by Miles Crispin, who obtained two of his Berkshire manors from Healfdene, all three being subinfeudated by Miles to Richard son of Rainfrid (q.v.), as was Ickford in Buckinghamshire, and Swyncombe, Draycot and Alkerton in Oxfordshire, where no pre-Conquest lords are named, possibly therefore all held by Healfdene in 1066. It is not unlikely that one or more of the three Healfdenes in Gloucestershire and Leicestershire are the same man, but there are no links to support this. Healfdene qualifies as a magnate of regional significance; if included in Clarke, English nobility, he would rank among the ninety wealthiest untitled laymen of 1066, in the top eighty if the Oxfordshire manors are included. His one tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 9880) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 134; see also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 79-80, who suggests that it is 'possible, though perhaps unlikely' that his mother is Edeva, a landholder in Dorset in 1086 whose land was freed of tax by Queen Matilda in memory of her son Richard.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEALFDENE [* SON OF TOPI *]. Healfdene Topi, from whom the bishop of Lincoln acquired Bigby, is Healfdene son of Topi, brother of Ulf, who granted Claxby to him in his will: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 208, 211-12. The Peterborough chronicle recounts that Abbot Brand, his relative, leased Dunsby to him because he had been deprived of his lands by the Conqueror to endow the bishop of Lincoln, an arrangement alluded to in the Lincolnshire Claims: Hugh Candidus, p. 69. This identifies Healfdene as the bishop's predecessor on eight manors, six of which were the subject of grants by Ulf, though to other family members. He must also be the Healfdene at Steyning, which the Claims for the county identify as belonging to the bishop, not Count Alan of Brittany, because it was held by the bishop's predecessor, Healfdene. The manors acquired from Healfdene by the bishop fall into two groups, at the two extremities of the county, which suggests that some of the intervening Healfdenes may be the same man. The predecessor of the archbishop of York is the most likely candidate. His principle manor of Dowsby lay within a couple of miles of the son of Topi's manor at Dunsby, and one of its dependencies a similar distance from the Steyning wrongfully detained by Count Alan. The archbishop had, moreover, bought the manors from Ulf son of Topi, and one of those he acquired from Healfdene lay in vills where other members of his family held land. He may also be the Healfdene at Bonby, a mile from his manor of Worlaby. The archbishop had no other Healfdenes on his Honour but the bishop was preceded by Healfdene at Buckminster in Leicestershire, a county in which the bulk of the episcopal fief appears to be a new endowment, so this Healfdene may also be Topi's son. The one other Healfdene in the county has no apparent link; neither do the many other unidentified Healfdenes in Lincolnshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEINFRID <OF ICKLINGHAM>. The three Heinfrids in Domesday Book (Henfridus, Hainfridus), are certainly one man, all being intermediate landowners on the Honour of Eudo son of Spirewic in East Anglia, twice described as the predecessor of Eudo. He is almost equally certainly the Herfrindus - a unique form - who preceded Eudo at Alburgh, where he is also described as Eudo's predecessor. As an intermediate landowner, Heinfrid's manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGHI. Helghi is a rare name which occurs only in Sussex and Nottinghamshire, all Helghis being pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGHI <OF OWTHORPE>. As the name is rare, the three Helghis in Nottinghamshire, whose manors were acquired by Roger of Bully and lay close to each other, are almost certainly one man, conceivably the Sussex Helghi though there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGHI <OF WORTH>. As the name is rare, the three Helghis in Sussex may be one man. Two of his manors were acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and were subinfeudated to Reginald the sheriff. The third, at Worth, some fifty miles away, acquired by the Count of Mortain, may also have been his given the rarity of the name, its free tenure under King Edward, and its reasonably substantial nature. The tenurial settlement of Sussex by Rapes means that little significance can be attached to its acquisition by another tenant-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGOT. Helgot is an uncommon name which occurs on one fief and eleven manors, distributed among four counties between Devon and Buckinghamshire and the lands of five tenants-in-chief; two more Helgots are recorded in Exon., both in Devon.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGOT <OF AWLISCOMBE>. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the Helgot who held Awliscombe in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy is his tenant at Heaton, and possibly also the tenant of Fulchere the bowman at Huish, both named in Exon. but not in Domesday Book itself. It is not clear whether Domesday is correcting Exon. or has accidentally omitted the information; but the coincidence suggests both Helgots are the same man: Devonshire Domesday, ii. 924, 1128. Although the manors are not insubstantial, it is unlikely that he is related to his namesakes in Buckinghamshire or Shropshire with whom there are no links. Helgot is unidentified in Coel (no. 4061).

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGOT <OF DRAYTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is very probable that the Helgots who held Helsthorpe and Drayton Beauchamp in Buckinghamshire from Mainou the Breton are the same man; the vills are seven miles apart. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1655) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 246.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELGOT <OF HOLDGATE>. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that all Helgots in Shropshire are one man, the ancestor of the barons of Castle Holgate. Apart from his fief from Earl Roger, Helgot was a tenant of Ralph of Mortimer at Adley, Bucknell, Sheinton and Burwarton. Only Sheinton appears to have descended to his heirs; but Burwarton shared the same predecessor - Azur - as Sheinton and Norton, and was adjacent to Charlcotte, as was Belswardyne to Sheinton; Eyton suggests, with some circumstantial support, that the tenancies were lost, or sold, to subtenants, the Girros family: Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. 31-33; vi. 214-15; xi. 312-13, 318, 332-33.
	Earl Roger also had a tenant named Helgot at Meaford in Staffordshire, as did Robert of Stafford at Barlaston and Bobbington. Barlaston is less than two miles from Meaford; and since a Philip son of Helgot held land in Shropshire and fees of the Honour of Stafford in 1166, and the heirs of John son of Philip had fees of the Honour of Stafford in Barlaston and Bobbington in the thirteenth century, it is not unlikely that the Staffordshire Helgots are one man, Earl Roger's tenant Helgot of Holdgate: Red Book, i. 267, 277; ii. 454; Book of Fees, p. 967. The heirs of John son of Philip are said to hold fees in Barlaston, Bobbington and Hilderstone with a Ralph de la Mare: Book of Fees, p. 974, and the de la Mare family married into that of the barons of Holgate: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 28-29. Philip and John presumably represent a cadet branch of the baronial family. Helgot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2973) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 246.

.............................................................................................................................................
HELIO <OF OAKLEY>. The two Helios in Domesday Book, tenants of Robert of Stafford at Cooksland and Oakley in Staffordshire, are very probably one man. Robert had two other tenants with uncommon names - Algot and Helgot - holding land within a few miles of Cooksland; and since the name Helio is otherwise unknown, it is possible that it is a corrupt form of one or other of them, Helio possibly being Helgot of Holdgate. The two Helios are unidentified in Coel (nos. 31493, 31518).

.............................................................................................................................................
HELTO [* THE STEWARD *]. As there are no other Heltos in Domesday Book, those who held three manors in Kent and four in Buckinghamshire from Bishop Odo of Bayeux are probably Helto the steward, who held part of the royal manor of Dartford. Helto was one of a handful of Odo's honorial barons who were wealthier than the majority of tenants-in-chief, his manors of Swanscombe in Kent and Dinton in Buckinghamshire being particularly valuable. He may have lost his lands when Bishop Odo was exiled, since he was in Normandy with the bishop after the Conqueror's death: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 530-31. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 161) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 247.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEMMING. Hemming is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, distributed among six counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief. Most of the manors are substantial, suggesting few men, possibly only one or two.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEMMING <OF BRANSTON>. It is possible that all Hemmings in Domesday Book are one man. Those who preceded Walter of Aincourt in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire almost certainly are. This Hemming had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire and was a substantial landowner in both counties, his manors at Branston and Granby each being worth more - £20 and £12 respectively - than the entire manorial wealth of many tenants-in-chief. Walter's three most valuable manors came from Hemming, who contributed roughly a quarter of the total value of his Honour. With the addition of Blankney and Metheringham, his manorial income would place him among the hundred wealthiest pre-Conquest landowners. In view of this, it is possible that he is to be identified with the Hemmings of Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire or Sussex, also substantial landowners, though these were acquired by other tenants-in-chief, Walter of Aincourt having no fiefs in those counties. The Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire manors at Hitcham, Marlow and Claydon and Cherington in Gloucestershire, individually valuable and together worth £13, were acquired by Miles Crispin and so were probably held by one man. As Marlow is only a few miles further from Granby than it is from Cherington, he may be the Lincolnshire Hemming rather than another wealthy landowner with a rare name.
	This may also be the case with the Sussex Hemming, whose Sussex manors are roughly as far from Marlow as Marlow is from Cherington. There is little doubt that all the Sussex manors were held by one man. The four respectable manors which devolved upon the Count of Mortain were held by Hemming as the Count's tenant as well as his predecessor, and two such survivors with this uncommon name in the same Rape is improbable. Rottingdean, though held by Hemming only in 1066 and acquired by William of Warenne, 'lay in Firle', one of the manors Hemming held from the Count of Mortain. Hemming's son, Richard, endowed Wilmington priory from these lands: Round, 'Some early grants', p. 77. There is another link, albeit slight, between the predecessors of the Count of Mortain and Miles Crispin. In Buckinghamshire, Hemming is described as a royal thane, and he held his Gloucestershire manor from King Edward. He also held three of the Sussex manors directly from the king, the other two from Earl Godwin. The one other Hemming in Domesday Book had a tiny property at Shepreth in Cambridgeshire. This Hemming was, however, King Edward's man, so even he may be the Lincolnshire magnate. Apart from the Worcestershire monk and a moneyer of circa 900, the name appears to be otherwise unrecorded, which lends a little weight to the suggestion that the Domesday Hemmings are one man. If these deductions are valid, Hemming held land valued at £67, placing him among the sixty wealthiest English landowners. If not, one at least of the two or three landowners bearing this name - Walter of Aincourt's predecessor - was wealthy enough to rank among the untitled laymen listed by Clarke, English nobility. In Sussex, Hemming survived on the bulk of the land he held there before the Conquest, more fortunate than the majority of his English peers. His Sussex tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 2157) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 244.

.............................................................................................................................................
HENRY. If the three tenants-in-chief are excluded, the name Henry is rare, most tenants occurring on the Honour of Henry of Ferrers, where they are carefully distinguished from their lord. There are three other Henrys in Domesday Book, one each in Norfolk, Suffolk and Yorkshire, one a pre-Conquest landowner.

.............................................................................................................................................
HENRY [* OF FERRERS *]. Henry, who held a site in Wallingford, is probably the tenant-in-chief Henry of Ferrers, whose tenant Nigel held this site from him. The context suggests he is also the Henry who held part of the royal manors of Shalbourne and Hendred, since he was sheriff of the county and his predecessor, Godric, was involved with the land concerned. In Derbyshire, he is identified as the Henry at Mapperley and Ednaston by reference to his manors in those vills. Henry was a tenant-in-chief in fourteen counties; his manors are recorded in Coel (no. 639) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 247-48.

.............................................................................................................................................
HENRY [* OF FYFIELD *]. As the name is rare among tenants, those of Henry of Ferrers in Berkshire, Derbyshire and Essex are almost certainly the same Henry, variously named Henry, a second Henry, or Henry the steward. In the cartulary of the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory, he is named Henry of Fifidre, evidently from his manor of Fyfield in Berkshire, where he is 'a second' Henry: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 280) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 248.

.............................................................................................................................................
HENRY <OF OTTRINGHAM>. Henry, a tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière on a fairly substantial manor at Ottringham in Yorkshire, is the only Henry in the county, or indeed in the north of England other than the tenant-in-chief Henry of Ferrers; it is unlikely therefore that he is related to any other Henry in Domesday Book. His manor was later held from the Holderness fee of Drogo's successors by a family which took its name from the vill: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 83. Henry is unidentified in Coel (no. 37865).

.............................................................................................................................................
HENRY <OF RUSHALL>. The three Henrys in East Anglia are almost certainly one man. He held Rushall in Norfolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds before the Conquest and part of Rede in Suffolk from the abbey twenty years later. He held another twenty acres in the vill from Ely abbey in 1086, where he is described as a man of the abbot of St Edmunds in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 182). His holdings are assigned to the demesne of the abbeys in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT. Herbert is a fairly common name which occurs more than seventy times, distributed among twenty-two counties and the lands of the king and thirty of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT <OF BURROUGH>. As the name is rare in the area - there is one other Herbert in Leicestershire and none in Derbyshire - the tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Breaston in Derbyshire may be the king's servant who held Cold Newton and Burrough in Leicestershire, where Henry had a second manor. He was perhaps the ancestor (or predecessor) of the FitzHerbert family. The descent of the Leicestershire holdings is obscure; but FitzHerberts were tenants of the Honour in both counties at a later date, and the family was established in both by the 1120s: VCH Leicestershire, v. 64; Nichols, History and antiquities of Leicestershire, ii. 526-27; iv. 860. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8808) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* OF FURCHES *]. The Herberts who held four manors in Shropshire and two in Herefordshire from Roger of Lacy are identified by their descent as the ancestor of the Furches family; he is probably the Herbert de furcis who witnessed a Lacy charter in 1085: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, v. 44-45; Red Book, i. 282; Galbraith, 'Episcopal land-grant', p. 373. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3712) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 249, where Eaton, held from Ralph of Tosny, is also attributed to him, though on what grounds is unclear.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT <OF HARGRAVE>. The Herberts who held three modest holdings at Stukeley and Hargrave in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff are probably one man. There are no other Herberts in the county, or in the neighbouring counties of Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire, and Eustace had no tenant of this name elsewhere on his Honour. Herbert is unlikely to be Herbert son of Ivo, his nearest namesake, all of whose manors were held from Odo of Bayeux. The descent of the Huntingdonshire holdings is unrevealing: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. 230-31; VCH Northamptonshire, iv. 18-19. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8809) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* SON OF AUBREY *]. The Herberts who held Langton in Leicestershire and three manors in Lincolnshire from the archbishop of York may be Herbert son of Aubrey, father of Herbert the chamberlain of Henry I, who received further grants from Archbishop Thomas II: Early Yorkshire charters, i. 35-36. He held Lissington and its dependencies in the Lindsey Survey, later held together with Stallingborough and Rigsby by the same family: Early Yorkshire charters, i. 36, 44-47, 50-51; Book of Fees, pp. 159, 1014, 1062, 1082, 1476. The descent of the Leicestershire manor has not been traced: VCH Leicestershire, v. 210. The archbishop had no other Herberts on his Honour. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2992) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250, apart from Langton, attributed to another Herbert (no. 8808).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* SON OF IVO *]. The Herberts who held Ospringe, Ringleton, Hammil and Boswell Banks in Kent and Turvey and Wilden in Bedfordshire from the bishop of Bayeux are probably Herbert son of Ivo, his tenant on two other manors in Bedfordshire and several in Kent, many of them substantial. In Bedfordshire, Ivo's son held the two preceding manors, so the scribe may have omitted an 'also'; Wilden, the most valuable, was subinfeudated by Herbert to his nephew, Hugh. Herbert and his nephew also appear together in Kent, at Ospringe and Hammil, and probably also at Boswell Banks, where Herbert was succeeded by a Hugh who is probably his nephew since the same succession occurs at Ospringe, and Herbert is elsewhere recorded as an intermediate tenant. Ringelton was one of his most valuable manors, though farmed for a substantial premium. Bishop Odo had no other tenants named Herbert on his Honour, and the one other Herbert in the two counties, a reeve with a half-hide at Eversholt in Bedfordshire, is unlikely to be the bishop's tenant. Herbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 547) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* THE JERKIN-MAKER *]. Herbert, who had a subholding in the manor of Upton in Cheshire in 1086, has been identified as Herbert Wambasarius, or jerkin-maker, from a reference to his half-hide in the cartulary of Chester abbey: Lewis, 'Herbert the jerkin-maker', pp. 159-60. As the only other Herbert in the county, or anywhere in England, holding from the Honour of Chester, the Herbert at Heswall may be the same man. Both manors are in the Wirral, some thirteen miles apart. Both Herberts are unidentified in Coel (nos. 28746, 38693).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* THE LATINIST *]. Herbert, named by Orderic Vitalis (ii. 262-63) as one of the three 'learned clerks' of the household of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury', elsewhere described as Herbert grammaticus, may be the Herbert who held Albright Hussey and Great Sutton: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 109-10. He was archdeacon of Shropshire, and witnessed charters of the earl as Herbert the archdeacon: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 30; ii. 255. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8806) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250; see also Mason, 'Officers and clerks', p. 253.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBERT [* THE STEWARD *]. Herbert, who held Farwood in Devon from William of Poilley, is identified as Herbert the steward in William's grant of the tithes of his manors to St Martin's of Sées in 1093: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. There are no other Herberts on William's Honour, or in the county. Herbert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2038) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 250.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBRAND. Herbrand is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBRAND [* OF PONT-AUDEMER *]. As the name is rare, the Herbrand of Pont-Audemer listed among the tenants-in-chief in Hampshire is probably the Herbrand at Pan in the Isle of Wight, both manors - of equivalent status - being acquired from a Godric. The two Herbrands in Worcestershire are tenants of Urso of Abetot, so very probably one man. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Hampshire and Worcestershire Herbrands are the same man. Their estates are similar, and Abetot and Pont-Audemer are both in Upper Normandy, separated by the Seine estuary, so the identification is plausible given the rarity of the name. Manorial descents do not clarify the issue, since all four manors were in different hands at a later date, though it is most improbable that they were held by four individuals in 1086: VCH Hampshire, iii. 442; v. 200; VCH Worcestershire, iii. 24-25; iv. 145-46. Herbrand's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 964) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERBRAND [* OF SACKVILLE *]. Herbrand, who held Fawley in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard, has been identified as his steward, from Sauqueville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe), on the basis of later evidence accepted by Round as essentially sound due to its circumstantial detail, including Herbrand's name (Esbrandus), the name of his manor (selected, it is said, for the beauty of its site), and the statement that Giffard acquired his land from Aelfeva 'the crazy', when he did in fact obtain his principal manor in Buckinghamshire - Long Crendon - from Saeric son of Aelfeva, and two more from Sired son of Aelfeva: Peerage and pedigree, ii. 285-89. Herbrand's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8810) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

.............................................................................................................................................
HEREWARD [* 'THE WAKE' *]. It is possible that all Herewards in Domesday Book are the famous outlaw, Hereward 'the Wake', though the manors lay in four counties and devolved upon six tenants-in-chief; his byname is not contemporary but so familiar it would be pedantic to use another. He is almost certainly the Hereward whose Lincolnshire manors were acquired by the abbey of Peterborough and Oger the Breton, the Lincolnshire Claims revealing that the predecessors of both tenants-in-chief fled the country. As the name is rare, it is likely that the four Warwickshire Herewards are one man; the three tenants of the Count of Meulan held their manors for twenty years, and the fourth manor was held from Thorkil of Warwick who shared other tenants with the Count. It is also possible that the Hereward who held Evenlode in Worcestershire from the Church before the Conquest is the same man as Count's tenant, two Evesham satellite texts implying that the 'held' of Domesday Book may be an error for 'holds', or even 'held and holds'. Ladbroke, the fourth Warwickshire manor, held by Hereward in 1066, lay between the others in the county and that in Worcestershire.
	Freeman and others have suggested that the Lincolnshire and Warwickshire Herewards are one man, a suggestion forcefully rejected by Round, who argued that 'there was absolutely nothing' to connect the two; this remains the accepted view: Feudal England, p. 162; Oxford DNB, xxvi. 767. Dr Baxter, however, has argued that 'the balance of probability is that there was only one Hereward', pointing to links between the Herewards of both counties and the earls of Mercia to support this view: Earls of Mercia, pp. 261-66. The Lincolnshire Hereward was associated with the Leofricsons, possibly a dependant. The abbot of Peterborough, who was present at the battle of Hastings and died shortly thereafter, was a cousin of Earl Leofric of Mercia; and Bourne, with which Hereward the Wake is strongly associated in later sources, was held by Leofric's grandson, Earl Morcar. Both Morcar and Hereward were, of course, involved in the rebellion of 1071 and the siege of Ely. As for the Warwickshire Hereward, he held land at Ladbroke, where Earl Leofric's family were endowed by Aethelred the Unready; and at Evenlode from Evesham abbey, of which the Leofricsons were patrons. The Warwickshire Hereward, and perhaps the Worcestershire one, was alive in 1086, by which date Hereward is usually assumed to be dead, having lost his Lincolnshire manors; but the date of his death is unknown, and later sources record that he made his peace with the Conqueror (though not, perhaps, the abbey). Dr Baxter does not discuss one other Hereward in Domesday, with a small holding at Wickham in Suffolk. Its status, and distance from the Midlands manors, suggest that this Hereward is another man; yet he, too, was a dependant of the house of Leofric, commended to Burghard of Mendlesham (q.v.), a son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric. See also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 49-51. Hereward's Warwickshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4756) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251, without reference to the outlaw.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERFAST. Although the name Herfast occurs more than two dozen times, it is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by no more than two individuals, Bishop Herfast of East Anglia and a tenant in Bedfordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERFAST <OF MARSTON>. As all laymen named Herfast are tenants of Nigel of Aubigny in Bedfordshire, there is little doubt that they are one man though the manors are in several different hands when next documented: VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 261-62, 281; iii. 309; Brett, English Church, pp. 147-48. Herfast's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 308) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 190.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* BISHOP *] HERFAST [* OF THETFORD *]. All Herfasts in East Anglia are almost certainly Bishop Herfast of Elmham, who moved the see to Thetford in 1071/2 and was succeeded by William of Beaufour in 1085. He therefore appears in Domesday Book as an intermediate landowner, which together with associations with his bishopric and with his episcopal predecessor and successor allows him to be identified where his title is omitted in Norfolk and Suffolk. One Norfolk entry refers to his sons, so he was presumably married.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERFRID <OF THROWLEY>. All Herfrids in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man. Seven of his eight manors were held from the Bishop Odo of Bayeux, four in Kent and the other three in Surrey, where even his hide in the royal manor of Dorking was held from the bishop. Several of these manors are valuable, notably Throwley in Kent and Gatton in Surrey. The eighth manor, Poulton, held from Hugh de Montfort, is adjacent to his tenancy from Odo at Boswell Banks in the same Hundred. By the thirteenth century, Herfrid's successor held Throwley and Gatton from the Honour of Peverel of Dover, though the composition of the remainder his fee had changed: Book of Fees, p. 582. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may have come from Bavent in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen), where a Ralph son of Herfrid gave land to St Stephen's of Caen. Herfrid's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 965) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 251.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN. Herlewin is uncommon forename, stated or implied on fifteen manors in Domesday Book, and in Exon., distributed among six counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by half-a-dozen individuals, one of them a pre-Conquest landowner.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN <OF COLLYWESTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Collyweston in Northamptonshire from Ralph of Limésy may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Huntingdonshire or Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27241).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN <OF LUDDINGTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Luddington in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Northamptonshire or Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32687).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN <OF PEASEMORE>. Herlewin, whose manor of Peasemore in Berkshire was acquired by Gilbert of Bretteville, is the only pre-Conquest Herlewin; the name-form (Vrleuuine) is held to be an indigenous variant of the Old German name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 248. It is, however, possible that he is Herlewin of Shelswell, Peasemore lying between his manors in Somerset and Northamptonshire. Peasemore is a few miles from two of the Berkshire manors of Baldwin son of Herlewin (q.v.), so Herlewin may be his father and the name continental.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN <OF SHELSWELL>. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewins who held four manors in Somerset and Shelswell in Northamptonshire from the bishop of Coutances are probably one man. According to Exon., he also held a subtenancy from the bishop at Winscombe in Somerset, on the manor of abbey of Glastonbury there. An Herlewin held a second manor in Northamptonshire, but this was the other end of the county and acquired by another tenant-in-chief so he may be another man. Herlewin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2002) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 252, apart from the tenant at Shelswell, who is unidentified (no. 26887).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN <OF SHUCKBURGH>. As the name is uncommon, the Herlewin who held Shuckburgh in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan may be the same man as one or more of his namesakes in Huntingdonshire or Northamptonshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28304).

.............................................................................................................................................
HERLEWIN [* SON OF IVO *]. The six Herlewins in Norfolk are almost certainly Herlewin son of Ivo, named in the Norfolk Annexations of Reginald son of Ivo, his tenant on the other five manors. There are no other Herlewins in Little Domesday, and Reginald's Honour is confined to Norfolk. In a grant of the tithes of his manor Panworth to Thetford priory, he is styled Herlewin of Panworth, the second of these manors: Regesta, ii. no. cxxvii, p. 338. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1955) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 252, where it is suggested that Ralph and Herlewin were brothers.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER. Although the name Hermer is fairly common in Norfolk, it rare elsewhere, occurring once in Berkshire, Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire, and three times in Devon, on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief. One Hermer held land in 1066.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER [* OF FERRERS *]. It is probable that all Hermers in East Anglia are the tenant-in-chief, Hermer of Ferrers, who held a substantial fief in Norfolk and a single manor in chief in Suffolk. All but two of the references to Hermer are to his predecessor, which can only refer to Hermer of Ferrers as there are no other Hermers among rural landholders in the county. He is probably also the Hermer with eight burgesses, a man named William and a priest, Fulbert, in the city of Norwich, since a William and Fulbert are among his tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 640) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 252-53.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER <OF GOOSEY>. The tenant of Abington abbey at Goosey (or Denchworth) in Berkshire is unlikely to be the same man as any of his namesakes. The abbey's house chronicle records that when he was granted Goosey by the abbey he held no other land, the abbey endowing him at the king's request because he had been seized by pirates and mutilated while on the abbey's business abroad: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 8-9. The chronicler records somewhat sourly that his mutilation rendered him unfit to perform his knightly duties for the abbey; less obligated patrons were unlikely to take a more humanitarian view. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 966) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER <OF HOLTON>. Hermer, tenant of Ivo Tallboys on at respectable manor at Holton-le-Clay in Lincolnshire, has no links with his namesakes, all of them remote. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3009) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER <OF SPURWAY>. As the name is rare, the tenants of Gotshelm of Claville at Hampson and Washbourne in Devon are almost certainly the same man, who is probably also the tenant of Walter of Douai at West Spurway, the one other Hermer in the south-western counties. Hampson is somewhat closer to Spurway than to Washbourne. According to Dr Keats-Rohan, Hermer's manors were later held by men named from Washbourne. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2109) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 253.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERMER <OF STOKE>. Hermer, whose share in the royal manor of Stoke Orchard was held by Bernard (Pancevolt) in 1086, is the one pre-Conquest landowner of this name. It is unlikely that he is related to any of the Hermers of 1086, all remote apart from a maimed man-at-arms in Berkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY. Hervey is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and more than fifty manors between Wiltshire and Yorkshire, distributed among fifteen counties and the lands of the king and eleven of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners. There are clusters in Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and Suffolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY [* OF BOURGES *]. H, or Hervey, who held several manors from the abbey of Ely in Suffolk, is almost certainly Hervey of Bourges, alias Hervey of Berry, alias Hervey Bedruel, a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk, named as the abbey's tenant on twenty more manors in Domesday Book or the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 162, 179-80). He held Westerfield from the abbot 'by order of the King', a formulae repeated in the following entry for Pettaugh, where he held in chief. In Bredfield, he held in chief and had another manor from the abbey there, four miles from Bromswell, whose holdings are intermixed with those of Bredfield. Walton and 'Plumgeard', five miles from his manor of Bucklesham, are like Westerfield held from the abbey after Hervey claimed to hold in chief. Ely had no tenant of this name elsewhere. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 141) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 253-54.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY <OF HARDMEAD>. Hervey, who held three and a half virgates in Hardmead from William son of Ansculf, is identified by Dr Keats-Rohan as Hervey the commissioner, who held at Ibstone in the county and probably elsewhere. There appear to be no links between this Hervey and his namesakes in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, however, and the property is small and isolated from other holdings; its descent has not been traced.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY [* OF `SPAIN' *]. The Herveys who held Willingale, Finchingfield and Stevington in Essex from Count Alan of Brittany are almost certainly Hervey of 'Spain', who held three other manors on the same fief, the six constituting the bulk of the Count's fief in Essex; he gave his name to Willingale Spain and to Spain's Hall in Finchingfield. His Essex manors later constituted the Espagne fee in the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 230-34. There are no other Herveys in the county. Count Alan had tenants named Hervey in Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the first of whom may be Hervey of 'Spain', the only unidentified Hervey in the county. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 663) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 254-55.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. The Herveys who held a tight cluster of manors at Stretton, Water Eaton, Gailey, Great Saredon and Shareshill in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford are probably one man, who is possibly also Robert's tenant at Norton Lindsey in Warwickshire. They are the only Herveys in either county or on Robert's Honour. Hervey of Stretton held two fees of the barony of Stafford in 1166, and Richard of Stretton had fees in Stretton and Eaton in the following century, Gailey apparently being subinfeudated: Book of Fees, pp. 266, 951, 967, 974; Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 245, 252-53. The remaining manors were held by two other families when next recorded; but it is improbable that Robert had three tenants with this uncommon name in a limited area; none occur in Robert's charter of 1072: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178-82; VCH Staffordshire, v. 174; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 138. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3617) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 255.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY [* OF WILTON *]. It is possible that all Herveys in the five south-western counties of circuit two are Hervey of Wilton, so-named among the king's officers of Wiltshire at Edington but named Hervey the chamberlain among the king's servants of Dorset, at Wimborne St Giles; he is probably also the Hervey with a second manor in Edington. A royal charter names Hervey of Wilton as a landowner in Netheravon, where a Domesday Hervey had two manors: Regesta, iii. no. 450. Another royal charter suggests he is the Hervey in Ratfyn, where a royal sergeant and a tenant of Edward of Salisbury named Hervey had manors in Domesday: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 75, 106. Hervey's two bynames may be accounted for by the fact that he farmed the borough revenues of Wilton for the king, a chamberlain's task. The one other Hervey in the south-west, at Stockland in Dorset, is named Hervey son of Ansger in Exon. Stockland is the most valuable of the manors held by a Hervey, and its tenant might be expected to have others, so he too may Hervey of Wilton; but there are no links to confirm an identification. Hervey later became a monk: Calendar of documents: France, p. 511. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 172) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 254-55.

.............................................................................................................................................
HERVEY [* THE COMMISSIONER *]. Although the manors descended by different routes, the Herveys who held three consecutive manors among the king’s servants at Ibstone and Bix in Oxfordshire are probably Hervey the commissioner, who held a second manor at Ibstone, recorded in the Buckinghamshire folios, where his byname is supplied: Round, 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', pp. 215-16; VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 62. He may also be the Hervey who held four manors from the bishop of Bayeux in Oxfordshire which cluster a few miles to the north-west of Ibstone and Bix. These manors descended to the Scalebroc family, of Skelbrooke in Yorkshire, held from Ilbert de Lacy in 1086 by a Hervey who is evidently the commissioner. He is identified in a Lacy charter as Hervey de Campellis, alias Hervey of Sai if the Henry de Saieo who granted tithes in Skelbrooke to St Clement in Pontefract is a clerical error for Hervey de Saieo: Book of Fees, pp. 449, 829-30, 838; Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87, 228-29. He was probably from Campeaux in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 23. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held part of the royal manor of Cholsey in Berkshire which, as a royal commissioner, is not unlikely, and also Hardmead in Buckinghamshire, here assigned to another man. He is more likely to be the Hervey who purloined the profits of the royal manor in the lost vill of Verneveld, in Benson Hundred, where two of his other manors lay. There are no other Herveys in the four counties apart from two in Yorkshire, identified as the ancestor of tenants of the Sutton fee in the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 258-60. Hervey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 330) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 255.

.............................................................................................................................................
HILDEBERT [* OF TOURS *]. Hildebert, tenant of the bishop of Wells at Evercreech and Yatton in Somerset, has been identified as the steward and brother (or brother-in-law) of John of Tours, bishop of Wells (1088-1122): Keynes, 'Giso, bishop of Wells', p. 219 note 93. He is probably also the tenant of Matthew of Mortagne at Clevedon and Milton Clevedon, the only other Hildeberts in Domesday Book. Yatton was later held together with Clevedon and Milton, and Milton Clevedon is less than two miles from Evercreech; the other two manors are four miles apart: Oggins, 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance', pp. 74-75. Hildebert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 969) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279.

.............................................................................................................................................
HILDWIN. Hildwin is a rare name which occurs four times, distributed among three counties and the lands of two tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
HILDWIN <OF "ASSECOTE">. Hildwin (Elduinus), who held a villager paying thirty pence at Assecote in Devon from William of Poilley, is unlikely to be related to his namesakes in the Midlands. He may have lost his manor by 1093 as he is not mentioned William's grant of tithes of all his manors to the abbey of Sées, though neither is Assecote, which is perhaps subsumed in another manor: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Hildwin is unidentified in Coel (no. 3870).

.............................................................................................................................................
HILDWIN <OF BRAMPTON>. As the name is rare, it is all but certain that the tenants of Robert of Tosny at Bottesford (Helduinus) in Leicestershire and Brampton and Dingley (Ilduinus) in Northamptonshire are one man. In the Northamptonshire Survey, Brampton was held by his son, Ralph fitz Eldewyn, Dingley apparently being by then absorbed into Brampton: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 386; Farrer, Honors, ii. 393. Hildwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3704) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279.

.............................................................................................................................................
HOWARD <OF NAVESTOCK>. The name Howard (Houardus) occurs only twice in Domesday Book. Although the substantial manor at Navestock in Essex in 1066 is more than eighty miles from the modest holding on the royal manor of Bungay in Suffolk, it is very probable they were held by one man, Howard being paired with a Wulfsi in both cases, both men apparently surviving for two decades. Although they lost Navestock to the Canons of St Paul's, they protested that they 'had it by the king's gift', so their share in the royal manor at Bungay may have been by way of compensation. It was a modest compensation, however, as they were obliged to pay sixteen shillings to the manor, said to be worth thirty shillings in 1086, leaving the two lords with a tenth of their former manorial income. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies the Howard at Bungay as Huard of Vernon: Domesday people, p. 256.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUARD. Huard is an uncommon name which occurs about sixteen, distributed among five counties and the lands of six tenants-in-chief. There is some uncertainty about its relationship with Oder and Odard. According to Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 154-55, 194, 196, Huard, Oder, and Odard are separate names; but Dr Keats-Rohan suggests they may be interchangeable. Circumstantial evidence suggests that all Oders, who occur on two fiefs in Norfolk, may be Huards; and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin records an Oder (Odarus) where Domesday has Odard (Odardus): Feudal documents, p. 19. Elsewhere, the case for identifying Odard and Huard is not clear. Unidentified Odards and Huards both occur in four counties, on the lands of five tenants-in-chief, the only overlap being the occurrence of an Odard and Huard in Leicestershire, though they are tenants on different fiefs. No pre-Conquest lords bear these names.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUARD <OF LUS HILL>. Huard, tenant of Edward of Salisbury at Lus Hill in Wiltshire, has no links with his namesakes, all of them remote. He does not appear to be referenced in Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, but is recorded in Coel (no. 11532) as an Odard, whose successor in 1166 was Richard of Listelhul: Red Book, i. 240.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUARD [* OF NOYERS *]. Huard (Huardus), tenant of Geoffrey de Mandeville at Bengeo in Hertfordshire, is almost certainly Huard of Noyers (Huart de noderes), the juror in Hertford Hundred where Bengeo lay; there are no other Huards, Oders or Odards in the county: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 100). It has been suggested that the Hugh who held Barkway from Geoffrey may be a scribal error for Huard, whose descendants held Barkway by the 1140s; though the manor may, of course, have been acquired by the Noyers family after 1086: VCH Hertfordshire, iv. 30; Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 36. Dr Keats-Rohan also suggests that the Odard (Odardus) who held Foulton in Essex from Swein of Essex - here identified as Odard of Foulton (q.v.) - is the same man. Huard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6691) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307, under the form Odard, where it is suggested that he was 'perhaps' from Noyers in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Les Andelys).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUARD <OF PEATLING>. As the name is uncommon, the Huards who held four manors in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil are probably one man, the only Huard Leicestershire or neighbouring counties. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies him as the Odard (Odardus) at Ilmington in Warwickshire. Huard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8766) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUARD [* OF VERNON *]. There are grounds for identifying all Oders, Odards and Huards in East Anglia as Huard of Vernon, named as a tenant of William of Ecouis at Ixworth Thorpe and Market Weston in Suffolk. Dr Keats-Rohan has shown that he is also named Odard in contemporary sources, and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin names the Oder of Domesday Book at Great Ashfield and Stow as Odard: Feudal documents, p. 19. Oder is a name-form which occurs only in Norfolk, where four Oders are tenants of William of Ecouis, the other four of Ralph of Beaufour. As Oder, Odard and Huard are all uncommon, William's Norfolk tenant Oder is very likely his Suffolk tenant, Huard of Vernon; Ralph's possibly also. The Odard who held Stow and Great Ashfield from Bury St Edmunds according to Domesday Book - Oder according to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin (Feudal documents, p. 19) - may be the same man, Ashfield being roughly equidistant from Ixworth and Weston, six or seven miles from either. Huard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1961) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256, with the addition of the Houart on the royal manor of Bungay, here identified as Howard of Navestock (q.v.).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUBERT. Hubert is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and some forty manors, distributed among thirteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUBERT [* OF COURSON *]. Hubert, who held the valuable manor of Lockinge in Berkshire from Henry of Ferrers, is identified as Hubert of Courson by the Abingdon chronicle, which names his sons, including another Hubert who succeeded him, and a Giralmus of Curzon, who held West Lockinge, or part of it: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 44-45, 282-85. The son is probably the Hubert of Courson who held three fees from the Ferrers Honour in the reign of Henry I: Red Book, i. 337. Hubert also held Fauld in Staffordshire from Henry, where he is identified by its descent to his heirs: Book of Fees, p. 969. Henry had no other tenants of this name on his Honour, and there are no other Huberts in Staffordshire. Hubert probably came from Notre-Dame-de Courson in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 37. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1572) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256, where he also is identified as a tenant of Abingdon abbey at Wytham. As the only Hubert in Berkshire or surrounding counties who is not plausibly identified, this is not improbable, given the family's association with the abbey; but it is curious that the house chronicle does not mention associate their tenant - 'a knight named Hubert' who was endowed with peasant land - when discussing the Coursons, or vice-versa: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 8-9. Other scholars have identified this Hubert as probably the ancestor of a family which took its name from the vill, established by the 1130s: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 428.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUBERT [* OF MONT-CANISY *]. All Huberts in East Anglia are probably Hubert of Mont-Canisy, who held Wyverstone in chief and Bromeswell and Staverton in Suffolk from Robert Malet. The remaining Huberts in East Anglia - all without bynames - are also tenants of Robert Malet, five of his manors lying in one of the vills named above; three more - Edwardstone, Rickinghall and Yaxley - being later held by the Mont-Canisy family: Eye priory cartulary, i. 13; ii. 58, 76. A Hubert also held two manors in Essex from Robert. The only other Hubert in that county, or elsewhere in eastern England, is possibly the same man, though there are no links to confirm this. He held a virgate at Waltham from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Hubert of Mont-Canisy also had a messuage in York, so may be the one other Hubert in the county, at Goldsborough, a tenant of Ralph Paynel. With a house in York and a manor in the general area of the 'lost fee' of William Malet, Hubert may have been one of William Malet's men who followed his son south, since the Malet lands in Yorkshire were lost to his son. The manor was later held by a family which took its name from the vill: Early Yorkshire charters, vi. 118. Hubert was seneschal of Eye. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 686) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 256-57, apart from Goldsborough, assigned to another Hubert (no. 10781); the tenant at Waltham is unidentified (no. 5056).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUBERT [* OF ST CLAIR *]. The Huberts who held 'Winterborne', Hemsworth and Witchampton in Dorset and Charleston in Sussex from Count Robert of Mortain are probably Hubert of St Clair, named in Exon. as the Count's tenant on the substantial manor of Kingstone in Somerset. Count Robert had no other Huberts on his Honour, and there are none in either county or, in the case of Sussex, in the surrounding counties either. Hubert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 778) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 257, apart from Charleston, assigned to Hubert of Mont-Canisy.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH. Hugh is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring over a thousand times and in every county except Cornwall. Almost sixty Hughs have different bynames, thirty of them tenants-in-chief, Hughs also occurring as tenants of nearly a hundred other tenants-in-chief. Six Hughs appear in pre-Conquest contexts.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* HUGH *] BURDET. The Burdets who held Braunstone and Gaulby in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil are probably Hugh Burdet, a tenant of Countess Judith in the same county: Crouch, Beaumont twins, pp. 127-28. The Domesday scribe occasionally omitted a forename, and Burdet occurs only in Leicestershire. He was perhaps the son of Robert Burdet, whose wife held Ratcliffe from Robert of Bucy and probably Croft from Hugh of Grandmesnil. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3078) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258.

.............................................................................................................................................
[HUGH] DE MONTFORT. Montfort, named on the royal manor of Ringsfield in Suffolk, can only be Hugh de Montfort, a byname here being used as a forename, as occasionally elsewhere; no one else in Domesday had this byname. Hugh held parts of other royal manors in Essex and Suffolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 682) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 265-66.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] HUGH [* OF CHESTER *]. Earl H on the royal manor of Bungay in Suffolk can only be Earl Hugh of Chester. It has been suggested that the Hugh who held 'Shipton Dovel' in Gloucestershire from William of Eu may also be the earl, who was William's brother-in-law; if so, it is an exceptional tenurial arrangement for an earl. The descent of Hugh's manor has not been traced; but the earldom of Chester later had an interest in Shipton: VCH Gloucestershire, xi. 252.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* GOSBERT *]. Hugh, who held Lewell among the king's thanes in Dorset, is named Hugh Gosbert in the Geld Roll for Cullifordtree Hundred, where Lewell lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 147. He held four other manors on the fief where his byname is supplied. He is possibly also the tenant of Roger Arundel at Powerstock, adjacent to his manor of Woolcombe, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. Though a very common name, Hughs are not particularly thick on the ground in Dorset, and all but the Arundel tenant may be identified with a degree of confidence. Hugh of Teversham, a tenant of Roger Arundel in Somerset, is conceivably the same man; like the Hugh at Lewell, he was preceded by an Alward, though the name is a common one, particularly so in the south-western counties. Apart from these slight associations, there are no specific links between the Arundel tenant and the thane. Powerstock was later the centre of the Arundel barony, Roger's heirs favouring Roger and Robert as forenames: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 72-73. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 291) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270 apart from Lewell, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3054).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* HUBOLD *]. Hugh, who held three manors in Warwickshire from Osbern son of Richard - said to be the same Hugh - is very probably Osbern's Bedfordshire tenant, Hugh Hubold, the Warwickshire manors descending to another Hugh Hubold in the thirteenth century, together with Longstanton in Cambridgeshire, where Hugh is identified as Hugh Hubold in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 93): VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. 226. Longstanton was held from Gilbert son of Turold, who also had a tenant named Hugh in Worcestershire, possibly Hubold since Gilbert's fief was modest and his tenants few, one Hugh being more likely than two. As Gilbert was disinherited during the reign of William Rufus, the descent of his manors is unrevealing: VCH Worcestershire, iv. 275-76. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 312) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270, apart from the Warwickshire manors, attributed to another Hugh (no. 9396).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* MALTRAVERS *]. The Hughs who held ten manors from William of Eu in the south-western counties may all be Hugh Maltravers. He is named in Exon. as William's tenant on part of Hinton in Somerset, and is probably the Hugh on part of the following entry, at Yeovil, where a manor was later named Henford Matravers: Morland, Glastonbury, p. 14. On similar grounds, he is likely to be the Hugh at Lytchett Matravers in Dorset, the most valuable of the ten; the other manors in the county were later held by the Maltravers family or were 'also' held by the same Domesday Hugh: Feudal Aids, ii. 36; Hutchins, History and antiquities of Dorset, iii. 314, 683. Of the three Wiltshire manors, Sopworth was later held by the Maltravers family. Hugh's estate included substantial manors in all three counties, making him the wealthiest of William's tenants, so the other two Wiltshire manors - valuable and said to be held by one man - are perhaps more likely to have been held by Hugh Maltravers than a second Hugh, particularly as William had no tenants named Hugh in the other six counties of his Honour: Book of Fees, pp. 711, 724, 745, 1421. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 271, apart from the Wiltshire manors, assigned to Hugh the large (no. 344), and Woolcombe, whose tenant is unidentified. The tenant of William of Mohun on three Somerset manors is also identified as Maltravers.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* HUGH *] NEPHEW OF HERBERT [* SON OF IVO *]. The anonymous nephew who justified the mill built by his uncle, Herbert son of Ivo, at the entrance to Dover harbour which 'wrecks almost all ships, through its great disturbance of the sea' on the grounds that it was authorised by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, is probably Hugh, both Hugh and his nephew Herbert (q.v.) being important tenants of the bishop in Kent and elsewhere, Hugh succeeding his uncle on other manors in Kent and on the bishop's fief in Bedfordshire. He is probably also the unnamed nephew of Herbert son of Ivo on Odo's fief in Essex, at Kelvedon Hatch, and likely to be the unidentified Hugh who succeeded the unidentified Herbert at Boswell Banks on Odo's fief in Kent, the one other Hugh in Domesday to do so. Nepos is ambiguous and may mean nephew, grandson, cousin or even kinsman; but as it was his uncle (avunculus) who built the offending mill in Dover, his relationship is that of nephew. Hugh was the bishop's tenant in Kent, Bedfordshire, Nottinghamshire and Essex; his manors are recorded in Coel (no. 853) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 271.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF BEAUCHAMP *]. The Hughs who held two manors from William Speke in Bedfordshire, and nine from Countess Judith, may be Hugh of Beauchamp, the sheriff and most important tenant-in-chief in the county. The two Speke manors were in vills where Beauchamp held in chief, William Speke having no other tenants named Hugh. Six of the nine manors held from Countess Judith are also in vills where Hugh of Beauchamp held in chief, two of the remaining three - Bolnhurst and Radwell - being adjacent to other such vills. A half-virgate in Potton is somewhat apart. Hugh does not appear to be a tenant elsewhere; and although the Countess had at least four other Hughs among her tenants, none held land in counties where Beauchamp had a presence other than Bedfordshire itself. In that county, all other unidentified Hughs are plausibly identified as either Hugh of Flanders or Hugh of Hotot, though the latter's manor in Houghton Conquest lies in a vill where Beauchamp also had a manor. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 423) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 260, apart from the tenants of William Speke, who are unidentified (nos. 341, 355).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF BOLBEC *]. Twenty-seven manors were held from Walter Giffard by tenants named Hugh, all of whom are very probably Hugh of Bolbec, named as his tenant on three Bedfordshire manors, two in Buckinghamshire, and two more in Cambridgeshire in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 12, 14, 102); one of these, Swaffham Bulbeck in Cambridgeshire, preserves his name. His remaining tenancies in Buckinghamshire, Huntingdonshire and Oxfordshire descended to his heirs, the earls of Oxford, who held them from Giffard's heirs: Book of Fees, pp. 829, 833, 881-82, 930. He may have been a relative of Walter, the founder of the Giffard dynasty being Osbern of Bolbec: Round, 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', p. 213. Hugh was also a tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Huntingdonshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 368) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 261, apart from the tenant in Huntingdonshire, who is unidentified (no. 32640).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF BOSCHERBERT *]. The tenants of the wife of Hugh son of Grip at Stafford, Bridge, Chaldon and Ringstead in Dorset may be Hugh of Boscherbert, named in Exon. as her tenant at Brenscombe and Winterborne Houghton. Stafford, Chaldon and Ringstead were later held by a William of Gouiz; Bridge is in the same Hundred: Feudal Aids, ii. 1, 9, 20, 29, 38. Hugh had a small fief of his own in the county. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 438) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 261, apart from Stafford, attributed to another Hugh (no. 9196), and Bridge, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2945).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF FLANDERS *]. The tenants of Walter of Flanders at Turvey, Podington, Thurleigh, Astwick and Henlow in Bedfordshire, and at Canons Ashby, Preston Capes and an anonymous holding in Northamptonshire, are probably Hugh of Flanders, who may be Walter's brother. He is probably also the Hugh who held Silsoe in Bedfordshire from Walter brother of Sihere, possibly his uncle: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 100. Hugh himself had a small fief in Bedfordshire, including the one other manor in Podington. Podington, Thurleigh, Henlow and Canons Ashby descended to Hugh's successors, the La Lega family of Thurleigh, other members of the family having interests in Turvey and Silsoe: Farrer, Honors, i. 69-76. Preston and Astwick were held by the Wahull family, barons of Odell, whose relationship to their Flemish predecessors is unknown: ibid. i. 77-78, 82; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 68-69. Preston Capes is adjacent to Canons Ashby, Henlow to Astwick, and neither Walter had tenants named Hugh elsewhere, so Preston and Astwick may have been held Hugh of Flanders, despite their descent. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 476) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 270, apart from those in Northamptonshire, where the tenants are unidentified (nos. 27314, 27319, 27322); some Bedfordshire references are missing in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF GOUVILLE *]. Hugh, who held Marston Trussell, Thorpe Lubenham, Weedon Bec and Ashby St Ledgers in Northamptonshire from Hugh of Grandmesnil - stated to be the same man in the text - is Hugh of Gouville (Witvile), who held five houses from Hugh in Leicester 'in exchange for Watford', Weedon being part of that exchange. He is probably also the Grandmesnil tenant at Shangton and Stonton Wyville in Leicestershire, Stonton taking its name from his family. Grandmesnil had several other tenants named Hugh in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, most or all of whom may be Hugh of Gouville though this cannot be demonstrated because the descent of Hugh's manors was disrupted, the Northamptonshire Survey revealing that every one of his tenancies in that county - including those where Hugh's identity is not in doubt - had escheated or were held by different individuals, no one successor having more than a single manor: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 367-68, 370, 372, 384. Those held by three lay tenants in the Survey were held by their families in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 920, 929-40. As it is unlikely that three or more Grandmesnil tenants named Hugh lost their manors between Domesday and the Survey, Hugh of Gouville probably held them all in 1086. Kings Sutton, like Maidford, was acquired from Willa - who appears nowhere else in Domesday Book - and which like Thorpe Lubenham was held by the earl of Leicester - successor to Hugh of Grandmesnil - in demesne in the Survey; Middleton Cheney, like Weedon, had been used to endow one of the earl's ecclesiastical foundations. Hugh has been identified as the ancestor of the Wyville family, major tenants of the Honour of Mowbray from the twelfth century: Crouch, Beaumont twins, p. 129; Ancient charters, pp. 59-63. If so, the family had lost all its Domesday manors by then: Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, pp. xxxiv-vi, 264. Hugh's Leicestershire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3685) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from Whitwick, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 26340). Marston, Weedon and Ashby are assigned to another Hugh (no. 12082), the remainder are unidentified (nos. 27175, 27177-78, 27181).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. Hugh, tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at Loughborough and Burton-on-the-Wolds in Leicestershire, may be Hugh of Grandmesnil, the greatest landowner in the county. The scribe has indicated by his sigla that the two Hughs are the same person, and Hugh of Grandmesnil claimed jurisdiction in Burton-on-the-Wolds. He had no other recorded holding in the vill in Domesday, though two fees were later held of his descendants as part of the Honour of Leicester: Feudal Aids, vi. 558. The Hugh who held Kirkby Mallory from St Mary's, Coventry, may also be Grandmesnil, who held the other part of the vill. Hugh's manors, which are recorded in Coel (no. 652) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 262-63, do not include these manors, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 26216, 26676, 26686).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF HOTOT *]. It is likely that the Hugh who appears three times - two entries are duplicated - as a tenant of Countess Judith in Thistleton are one man. He has been identified as Hugh of Bucy, ancestor of the Bussey family, which held land in the vill at a later date: VCH Rutland, ii. 156. But the descent of the tenancies of the Honour of Huntingdon were disrupted by political upheavals and are an unreliable guide to Domesday identities. The Busseys first appear in Thistleton in the thirteenth century, other tenants intervening: Farrer, Honors, ii. 296-301, 304, 306, 308. It is more likely that Hugh is Hugh of Hotot, named as Judith's tenant in Whissendine, seven miles away, particularly as he and the unidentified Hugh appear in consecutive entries, described in each as the Countess's man, a scribal eccentricity if they were different men. The descent of the Whissendine manor was also disrupted, being later granted to the Moreville family, constables of Scotland, who also held Houghton Conquest in Bedfordshire and Offord d'Arcy in Huntingdonshire from the Honour, both held from Countess Judith by an unidentified Hugh in 1086. On this basis, Farrer suggested these Hughs may be Hugh of Hotot: Honors, ii. 356-58. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1648) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264, apart from Offord and Thistleton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 32714, 32627).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF HOUDAIN *]. 'Of Houdain' at Whatfield in Suffolk, and 'H of Houdain', who administered a group of royal manors in the county when Roger Bigot was sheriff, can only be Hugh of Houdain, Roger's brother-in-law and tenant in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. He may also be Roger's tenant in a group of vills in 'Clackclose' Hundred, several of which also contained royal manors, albeit not those he was responsible for. Roger had one other unidentified tenant of this name, at Aslackton. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 659) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264, apart from Aslackton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 9660). The byname does not occur elsewhere in Domesday.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH <OF INGESTRE>. The tenants of Robert of Stafford in the adjacent vills of Tixall and Ingestre are likely to be the same man, represented by the Wastenis family in the thirteenth century, probably descendants of the William of Wastimais who held two fees of the Honour of Stafford in 1166: Red Book, i. 266; Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974. Hugh's manors are assigned to Hugh son of Constant in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF LACY *]. All or most of the nine tenants of Roger of Lacy named Hugh may be his younger brother, who according to Orderic Vitalis (iv. 284-85) was granted the Lacy Honour by William Rufus when he banished Roger for rebellion in 1096. Four of the six Herefordshire manors - Pudleston, Collington, Sawbury and Wolferlow - appear to be Lacy demesne early in the following century, perhaps re-united by Hugh's succession: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 79, 103-104, 127-29. The descent of the other two is obscure: ibid., pp. 103-105. Of the two Gloucestershire manors, the Lacy Honour retained a demesne interest in Wick Rissington and perhaps Windrush, both substantial: VCH Gloucestershire, vi. 115. It has also been suggested that Hugh of Lacy held Chesterton in Cirencester from William son of Baderon; the manor is adjacent to the Lacy vill of Siddington, both manors being subsequently held by the Langley family; William had no other Hughs among his tenants. Finally, the one other Hugh on the Lacy Honour, at Stanford-on-Teme in Worcestershire, may also be Lacy. The vill is four miles from Wolferlow and also four from Windrush, acquired from the royal thane Godric who may be the Godric at Stanford. One curious circumstance lends some general support to these identifications: although Hugh is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, there remains only one unidentified Hugh among the landholders of the three counties of Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire if the identification of Lacy and Hugh Hubold are acceptable. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4368) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 264-65, apart from Chesterton in Gloucestershire, assigned to another Hugh (no. 4337), and Stanford and Bishops Frome in Herefordshire, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30309, 30376).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF `SPAIN' *]. The tenants of Alfred 'of Spain' at Plainsfield, Marsh Mills, Leigh, Rodhuish and Preston in Somerset may be Hugh 'of Spain', named in the Geld Roll for Cannington Hundred where two of the manors lay: VCH Somerset, i. 533. Hugh de Tevera, also named in the Geld Roll for this Hundred, is probably another Hugh, a tenant of Roger Arundel. Alfred is known to have had unnamed brothers (Domesday people, p. 141), and Hugh has more manors and the most valuable tenancy on Alfred's Honour, if all five manors are his. Alfred had no tenants named Hugh in the other four counties in his Honour. Hugh's manors - including both in Cannington Hundred - are recorded in Coel (no. 1987) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 264.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF TEVERSHAM *]. The Hughs who held the consecutive manors of Fiddington and Tuxwell in Somerset from Roger Arundel may be Hugh of Teversham, named in the Geld Roll for Cannington Hundred where both manors lay: VCH Somerset, i. 533. Tevera has been identified as Teversham in Cambridgeshire (Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 52), though the form bears little resemblance to the Domesday place-name and Roger had no known connection with that county, his Honour being limited to those of Dorset and Somerset. Roger had another Hugh on his Honour at Powerstock in Dorset, here identified as Hugh Gosbert, who is conceivably the same man. Hugh's Somerset manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2099) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 272.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF VAUTORTES *]. The tenants of Count Robert of Mortain at Bolberry and Batson in Devon are probably Hugh of Vautortes, named in the Geld Roll for Diptford Hundred, where both manors lay; he may have owed tax on parts of one or other or both. Exon. records that Hugh was also a Mortain subtenant on part of the royal manor of Brompton Regis and his tenant at Foddington in Somerset, a vill in which he held another manor on his own account. The Count of Mortain had no other unidentified Hughs on his extensive Honour, except in Sussex. Hugh may be the brother of Reginald of Vautortes (q.v.), a major tenant of Count Robert in the south-west. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1213) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from his subtenancy, which is unrecorded, and Bolberry, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3442).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* OF WANCHY *]. Hugh, who held Barsham in Norfolk from William of Warenne, is identified as Hugh of Wanchy, his tenant at Depden in Suffolk, by Hugh's grant of a church, a priest and tithes in those vills to Castle Acre priory, to which his son added the mill on the bridge, some peasants and land: Monasticon, v. 49, no 1. He is probably also the Hugh at Clopton, near Depden, all three manors being acquired from Toki of Walton (q.v.). They were later held by members of the Wanchy family, together with Fincham, Denver and Larling in Norfolk, all held by a Hugh from William of Warenne in 1086: Farrer, Honors, iii. 373, 380-82. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 764) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 267, apart from Barsham, assigned to Hugh son of Golda, and Clopton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 13486).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF CONSTANT *]. The Hughs who held five manors in Warwickshire and two in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford and two other tenants-in-chief are probably Hugh son of Constant, tenant of Hugh of Grandmesnil at Loxley. Hugh held another manor in Loxley from the Count of Meulan, Loxley descending to Robert son of Odo of Loxley, probably the grandson of the Stafford tenant, Hugh. Robert was his last male descendant, one of his heiresses marrying into the Bagot family, their descendants holding Preston and Morton Bagot, held by Hugh in 1086 from the Count of Meulan and Robert of Stafford respectively, these links suggesting the identity the tenants of the three tenants-in-chief as one man: Red Book, i. 265, 326; VCH Staffordshire, xx. 163-64; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 130-31, 135, 142-43. Hugh's descendants also held land in Spernall, held by a Hugh from William Bonvallet in 1086, and Patshull in Staffordshire, held by Hugh from Robert of Stafford. Hugh may also have held the following manor, Oaken, acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord, and possibly Tixall and Ingestre, though these were in the hands of another family by 1166 and are here assigned to another Hugh. Hugh's manors in Loxley and Preston are recorded in Coel (no. 2573) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 268; the remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 28466, 28468, 28521, 31515, 31516).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF GOLDA *]. The tenant of William of Warenne at Threxton in Norfolk may be Hugh son of Golda, a Warenne tenant at Barnham in Suffolk, fifteen miles south of Threxton; Hugh's successors held land in both counties, and Threxton 'belongs to Lewes' in Sussex, where Hugh was also a Warenne tenant, the descent of his manors identifying him at Ilford, Rottingdean, Warningore, Beeding and perhaps Allington: Farrer, Honors, iii. 334-39. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 594) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 268-69, with the addition of Barsham in Norfolk, here attributed to Hugh of Wanchy.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF GRIP *]. All references to H, or Hugh, as an intermediate landowner on the fief of his wife - actually his widow - in Domesday Book or Exon. are to Hugh son of Grip, the sheriff of Dorset, who was dead by 1086. The context makes it clear that he is also the Hugh who granted a manor at Gillingham to St Mary's of Cranborne, acting as a royal official. He is several times referred to as Hugh the sheriff in the Dorset folios, always in the past tense. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF GRIP *]'S WIFE. The wife of Hugh son of Grip is named in the rubric of her fief and on a number other Dorset manors. Only two landowners named Hugh had a wife recorded in Domesday Book, and only one of them held land in the south-west, or was a widow, so there is little doubt that Hugh's wife in Dorset and Wiltshire is the widow of the deceased sheriff of Dorset, Hugh son of Grip. Her identity was so well-known that the scribe could simply refer to her as 'H's wife' on one occasion. Her name, not recorded in Domesday, is Hawise. She later married Alfred II of Lincoln and many - though not all - of her manors were held by their descendants: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, i. 181-82; iii. 413-15 Keats-Rohan, 'Domesday Book and the Malets', pp. 28-29; Williams, 'Domesday survey of Dorset', pp. 55-56. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 596) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 441.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF NORMAN *]. The Hughs who held Shenley in Buckinghamshire and a fief and Odd Rode in Cheshire from Earl Hugh of Chester are probably Hugh son of Norman, his principal tenant of that name, who also held manors elsewhere in Cheshire, Suffolk and Yorkshire from him. Hugh's predecessor on the Buckinghamshire manors was Burghard of Mendlesham (q.v.), from whom he also obtained some of his Suffolk manors where his byname is supplied; Odd Rode was acquired from a Godric, from whom he also inherited his Cheshire fief: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 50-51, 56-57, 217; Farrer, Honors, ii. 15-16, 110-15, 236; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 312-14. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 535) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 269, apart from those in Buckinghamshire, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 1253-54), but with the addition of Gresford, here assigned to Hugh son of Osbern.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* SON OF OSBERN *]. The Hughs who held South Ormsby and Ketsby in Lincolnshire and fiefs in Cheshire from Earl Hugh are probably Hugh son of Osbern, alias Hugh Blundus, as suggested by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 127-29. He is given his byname as the earl's tenant at Broughton and Claverton in Cheshire. He may be the Hugh at Gresford in the county, where he shared the manor with Osbern son of Tezzo (q.v.), probably his father, a tenant of the earl elsewhere in Cheshire and in Lincolnshire: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 313-14. He was the Hugh who held the remaining manors in Exestan Hundred, including the neighbouring vill of Allington where his predecessor is Thorth, from whom he probably acquired Gresford. Less certainly, he may be the Hugh at Eastham, Osbern holding Poulton three miles away. Hugh's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2584) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 269, apart from Eastham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28661), and Gresford, attributed to Hugh son of Norman. See also Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 50-52.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* THE BOWMAN *]. Hugh, tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Trusley in Derbyshire, is very probably Hugh the bowman, who gave tithes in that vill to Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Hugh had tenants of this name in Leicestershire, conceivably the same man, since only one Hugh witnesses Henry's charters; but the name is a common one. For that reason, Hugh the bowman, who held land at Filsham in Sussex from the Count of Eu, may be another Hugh the bowman. Hugh's Derbyshire manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3857) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258; the Leicestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 26367, 26383) and the Sussex bowman identified as another man (no. 107).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUGH [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Hugh the interpreter, who held land at Arnewood in the New Forest, is 'probably identical' with Hugolin the interpreter who held a house in Bath and three manors among the king's thanes in Somerset and with Hugh the interpreter, a tenant of Bath abbey in Bathampton according to Exon.(SOM 7,11): Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 416. He is named Hugolin the commissioner (legatus) in the Geld Roll for Bath Hundred: VCH Somerset, i. 528. Hugh Beard, who held Dogmersfield among the king's thanes in Hampshire, may be another alias of his, Hugh the interpreter making a grant to Wells abbey as Hugolin cum barba: English episcopal acta, x. no. 3. Hugh at Dogmersfield and Hugolin at Claverton were each preceded by a Swein, who may be the same man as the name is rare in the area - there is only one other Swein between the two counties - and both manors are substantial. Hugh/Hugolin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 314) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 258.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* HASTANG *]. Humphrey, who held land at Chebsey in Staffordshire from Henry of Ferrers, is probably the Humphrey who held three manors - said to be held by one man - in Warwickshire from Hascoit Musard; Chebsey was later held from Henry's descendants by Robert de Hastenc, and the Hastang family held fees in 1166 from Hascoit's descendants, their representative, Aitrop, being named as the son of Humphrey Hasteng in a charter of Henry I: Book of Fees, pp. 969, 975; Red Book, i. 110, 338, 342; Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 132. Another son, Saloman the cleric, held the churches of Chebsey and Leamington Hastings during the reign of Henry I: Regesta, ii. no. 1857. Leamington is the one remaining manor on the fief of Hascoit Musard, its name indicating the association with the Hastang family, which acquired the whole of Hascoit's fief. Neither Henry of Ferrers or Hascoit had other Humphreys on their Honours, and there are no other such tenants in either of the two counties. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3542) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* NEPHEW OF RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER*]. Humphrey, who held the Norfolk fief of Ranulf brother of Ilger, is very probably his nephew, named on the royal manor of Aylsham, three miles south of his manor at Erpingham. He is perhaps also Ranulf's one other tenant of this name, on the respectable manor of Ramsden Bellhouse in Essex, and possibly also the tenant of Peter of Valognes at Great Walsingham, a manor he acquired from Bondi of Raynham (q.v.), a thane from whom Ranulf's nephew acquired two of his manors. Peter's tenure of Walsingham was apparently queried, the scribe noting that it 'was delivered to make up a manor, his men do not know which'. Walsingham is eight miles west of two of Humphrey's other manors. He may have held other manors, his forename being particularly common in East Anglia, but there are no links to identify him elsewhere. His manors on Ranulf's fief are recorded in Coel (no. 8886) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273; the tenants at Ramsden and on a second manor in Erpingham are unidentified (nos. 5305, 11275), the tenant at Walsingham as another man (no. 3672), Domesday people, p. 274.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF ANNEVILLE *]. Humphrey, who held Knebworth in Hertfordshire from Eudo the steward, is named Humphrey of Anneville in the account of Hertford, where he held two houses with one garden under Eudo; he probably also held the anonymous manor in Hertford Hundred from Eudo. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 70, 82) names him as the Humphrey who held Wimpole from Eudo and Barton from Guy of Raimbeaucourt; and he is identified as Eudo's tenant at Clopton, East Hatley and Kingston, and of Guy at Eversden, by their descent: Farrer, Honors, iii. 207-10. The Inquisitio names him as a juror in 'Arringford' Hundred, where three of his manors lay. There are no other tenants of this name in Cambridgeshire or on the Honours of Guy and Eudo. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 408) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF CARTERET *]. H of Carteret, who held land at Beaminster in Dorset from the bishop of Salisbury, can only be Humphrey of Carteret, who is probably also the Humphrey who held Up Exe in Devon as a subtenant Drogo son of Mauger, tenant of the bishop of Coutances there, the Geld Roll for Witheridge Hundred revealing that Drogo's subtenant at Thelbridge - who is not included in Domesday Book - is Humphrey of Carteret: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxiii-iv. The bishop of Salisbury had no other tenants of this name; but Geoffrey of Coutances had, at Cameley in Somerset and Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire, the latter at least probably Humphrey of Carteret, even though the forename is a common one, since he is the only Humphrey in the county, as is the bishop's tenant in Devon, which makes it somewhat more likely that he is also his Somerset tenant. Humphrey may have been the son of Mauger, brother of Drogo of Carteret, alias Drogo son of Mauger (from whom he held Up Exe), major tenants of the Count of Mortain and the bishop of Coutances in the south-western counties. Humphrey's manor of Beaminster is recorded in Coel (no. 611) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273; his subtenancy at Up Exe is not included, and the tenants in Bedfordshire and Somerset are unidentified (nos. 123, 14490).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF MAIDENHILL *]. Humphrey, who held a hide at Upton St Leonards in the royal manor of 'Kings Barton' in Gloucestershire, is probably Humphrey of Maidenhill, whose small fief included a hide at Upton. Maidenhill, not named in Domesday, is close to Humphrey's manor of Sezincote. The Humphrey on several other royal manors in the county is probably another man, Humphrey the chamberlain. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3380) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF ST OMER *]. The Humphreys at Wickmere and Helhoughton in Norfolk are identified as Humphrey of St Omer at Brampton by his status as an intermediate landowner and predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière, characteristics which also identifies him as the Humphrey of St Bertin at Sotherton in Suffolk. The Brampton entry reveals that he had forfeited his lands. There are no other intermediate landowners of this name. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF THE COTENTIN *]. Humphrey, who held land at Tushingham in Cheshire from Robert son of Hugh, is probably Humphrey of the Cotentin, witness to the grants of Robert son of Hugh to St Werburgh's abbey: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, p. 41. As the name is uncommon in the north of England and only one Humphrey witnessed Earl Hugh's charters, he may be Robert's tenant at Burwardsley and Earl Hugh's tenant at Coppingford in Huntingdonshire, where he shared the fief (in adjacent vills) with Fulco of Bainville (q.v.), a fellow-witness to Robert's grant and his tenant in Cheshire, where Humphrey and Fulco also held in adjacent vills; the descent of Coppingford confirms his identity there: Farrer, Honors, ii. 27-28. Less certainly, he may be the one other Humphrey in Cheshire, the subtenant of William son of Nigel at Halton. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3832) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275, apart from Coppingford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 32638). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that he may be the Humphrey with demesne at Damblainville in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* OF VEILLY *]. Humphrey, tenant of Ilbert de Lacy at 'Newton Wallis', Ackworth and Snydale in Yorkshire, is almost certainly Humphrey of Veilly, who gave tithes in Newton and Snydale to the Lacy foundation of St Clement's of Pontefract, and whose descendants held all three manors at times, though with fluctuating fortunes: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 186-87, 254-56; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 95-97. Ilbert has no other Humphreys among the tenants on his Honour, and Humphrey of Veilly appears unconnected with his two namesakes in the county, both in the East Riding. Humphrey came from Villy-Bocage (Calvados: arrondissement Caen): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 109. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4623) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 275.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY <OF WIGGINTON>. The Count of Mortain had two dozen Humphreys among his tenants, most if not all of whom are probably one man. In Northamptonshire, where all Humphreys are Mortain tenants, thirteen of fourteen are stated to be the same man; the fourteenth, who held a subtenancy, is not grouped with the others in the text but it is surrounded by them on the ground. By the time of the Northamptonshire Survey, Humphrey or his descendants had lost their lands, which were in the hands of the king and several other men: VCH Northamptonshire, i. 374, 378-79, 381, 383-86. This is presumably the case elsewhere, so clues to his identity are slight. He is probably the Humphrey in Buckingham and Cornwall, where the Mortain tenants are the only Humphreys in those counties, and in Dorset where all but one of the Humphreys are identified. Less certainly, he may be the Humphrey in Sussex, where there is one other unidentified Humphrey, Somerset, where there are two, and Hertfordshire, which has three, the Count being the only tenant-in-chief with a tenant named Humphrey in more than one of those counties. The two Hertfordshire manors of Wigginton and Little Gaddesden are the most substantial held by Humphrey, both close to Berkhamsted (of which Gaddesden was an outlier), the centre of the Mortain Honour, and on that account probably held by the Humphrey widely endowed by the Count. If these identifications are valid, Humphrey would rank among the ten wealthiest of the Count's tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3394) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 276, apart from Goathill in Somerset, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 14812).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* SON OF ROBERT *]. Humphrey son of R, who held Boyton in Suffolk from Robert Malet, and the Humphreys who held another fourteen manors in the county from him, as well as Shotford in Norfolk, are probably Humphrey son of Robert, who held the Malet manors of Playford and Grundisburgh. Apart from two small holdings in Henley and Thicchebrom, all these manors were held by Alan of Withersdale in the thirteenth century. Thicchebrom is apparently in Weybread, where Humphrey had a manor: Eye priory cartulary, i. nos. 311-13; ii. p. 75. Robert Malet had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 513) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273, apart from Thicchebrom, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 12229).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* SON OF RODRIC *]. Humphrey, William of Warenne's man, who held land in Rattlesden in Suffolk from Ely abbey, is almost certainly Humphrey son of Rodric, who held a manor from William in the same vill. He may also be the Humphrey who held Buxhall and Creeting - between six and eight miles from Rattlesden - from Warenne. William had no other tenants of this name on his Honour. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 512) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 273, apart from Buxhall and Creeting, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 13477, 13480).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. Humphrey, who held Holton in Somerset, is almost certainly Humphrey the chamberlain who held the preceding and following manors according to Exon. He is very likely also the Humphrey who farmed three royal manors in Gloucestershire and held another from the king on the same fief. He held a fief in the county, in which one other Humphrey can be distinguished with reasonable confidence. Less certainly, he may be the Humphrey who 'holds a bit' of the royal manor of Bowcombe in Hampshire, another county in which he held in chief. He had modest fiefs in several other counties between Dorset and Leicestershire. He was chamberlain to Queen Matilda and the brother of Aiulf the chamberlain (q.v.). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be Humphrey Goldenbollocks, who illegally held a manor in Essex. Humphrey's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 179) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274; those of Humphrey Goldenbollocks (aurei testiculi) in Coel (no. 116), p. 272.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUMPHREY [* THE COOK *]. Humphrey, who shared Widhill in Wiltshire with another royal servant, Theobald the doctor (q.v.), is almost certainly Humphrey the cook, both being named together in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210. Humphrey held another ministerial-type fief in Gloucestershire, where his byname is given. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1832) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 274.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDING. Hunding is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among the three northern counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, all on modest, pre-Conquest holdings. As two of the counties and tenants-in-chief shared an even rarer name - Hundulf - scribal error in one or other name may reasonably be suspected. Hunding appears to be otherwise unknown, but Hundulf occurs at the York mint around the millennium and left its name on the landscape, at Hundulfthorpe Farm in the North Riding.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDING <OF BUTLEY>. Hunding, whose manor of Butley in Cheshire was acquired by Robert son of Hugh, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hundulf at Tiverton, also acquired by Robert, and perhaps the Hunding at Winnington, which lay between the two.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDING <OF CASTLETON>. Hunding, whose modest holding at Castleton in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hundulf at Hucklow, also acquired by William.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDING <OF RAISTHORPE>. Hunding, who shared a modest holding at Great Houghton in Yorkshire retained by the king, has no links with his namesakes. The three unnamed sons of Hunding at Great Houghton, more than fifty miles away, are presumably the sons of another man.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDING <OF WINNINGTON>. Hunding, whose very modest holding at Winnington in Cheshire was acquired by Osbern son of Tezzo, has no links with his namesakes but may nevertheless be the same man as the Hunding at Butley and the Hundulf at Tiverton, whose manors span his own.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDULF. Hundulf is a rare name which occurs three times, twice in Derbyshire and once in Cheshire. As two of the counties and tenants-in-chief shared an even rarer name - Hunding - scribal error in one or other may reasonably be suspected though the names are recognised as distinct: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 295. It has also been suggested that it may be the same name as Hunwulf, but it is unlikely that the one Hunwulf in Domesday is either of the Cheshire men: Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 42.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDULF <OF HUCKLOW>. Hundulf, whose modest holding at Great Hucklow in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hunding at Castleton, also acquired by William. He may also be the Hundulf at Walton, given Peverel's association with the royal manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNDULF <OF TIVERTON>. Hundulf, whose holding at Tiverton in Cheshire was acquired by Robert son of Hugh, has no apparent links with his namesakes though he is possibly the same man as the Hunding whose manor at Butley was also acquired by Robert, and perhaps also the Hunding at Winnington, which lay between those manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNEF. Hunef is a rare name which occurs once in Kent and twice in Huntingdonshire where it is almost certainly the same name as Huneva, though recorded as distinct in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 296, and in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNEF <OF OAKLEIGH>. Hunef, whose respectable manor of Oakleigh in Kent was acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, is conceivably the same man as the one other Hunef in Domesday Book, his prosperous Huntingdonshire namesake, though there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNEF <OF STUKELEY>. Huneva, whose valuable manor of Great Stukeley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by Countess Judith, is almost certainly the Hunef whose sixteen houses with full jurisdiction and market rights in the borough were also acquired by the Countess. The borough holdings were shared with a Gos who according to the Claims for the county shared land with Hunef intended for Earl Waltheof, Judith's husband; the name Gos is unique to Huntingdonshire, so there can be no doubt that Hunef and Huneva here refer to one individual. As a significant landowner, it is conceivable that he is the same man as the one other Hunef in Domesday, at Oakley in Kent, though as Stukeley is said in the Claims to have been in the king's hands in 1066, this is perhaps unlikely.

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNNING [* BROTHER OF WULFGEAT *]. Apart from Hunning of Colchester, all Hunnings in Domesday Book are concentrated in Shropshire so are probably one man, the Hunning who shared Moreton Corbet with his brother Wulfgeat for twenty years, and Preston Brockhurst with him before the Conquest. He held Lawley, Moreton, Preston and Willey as a tenant of Turold of Verley (q.v.), three of them retained since 1066. He also held Fitz and Merrington, acquired by Picot de Sai; Pulverbatch, shared with Wulfgeat and acquired by Roger the hunter; and Cothercott and Leaton, retained by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors in Rossall, Welbatch and Stapleton were acquired by Reginald the sheriff and Roger son of Corbet, both of whom obtained manors from a Wulfgeat; and he is likely, too, to be the Hunning a Neen Savage, acquired by Ralph of Mortimer. Dr Williams suggests that Hunning and his brother may be the two unnamed milites who held part of Longford from Turold; either of them may also have held his manor of Lawley, where no pre-Conquest lord is named: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 90. Hunning's tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3017) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 276, apart from Longford, whose milites are unidentified (no. 30976).

.............................................................................................................................................
HUNNING <OF COLCHESTER>. Hunning, who had two houses in Colchester, is the only urban Hunning and the only man of this name other than Hunning of Preston.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT. Although the name Ilbert occurs scores of times, it is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by fewer than half-a dozen individuals, among whom Ilbert of Lacy is by far the most significant. The skewed tenurial distribution of the name suggests he is the unidentified Ilbert in most cases.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT <OF BLUNSDON>. Ilbert, who held a modest manor at Blunsdon in Wiltshire from Humphrey de l'Isle, has no links with other Ilberts. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 11535) but not, apparently, in Domesday people. DR Keats-Rohan also assigns the previous and more substantial manor of Smithcot to him where the name of the tenant - Elbertus - is unique in Domesday, rendered as Elbert by the translations in the Victoria County History Alecto Editions and as Albert by Phillimore. The form is not recorded in Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT <OF FARNHAM>. Ilbert, who held Farnham in Dorset from the wife of Hugh son of Grip, has no links with other Ilberts. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9392) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT [* OF LACY *]. The great majority of unidentified Ilberts in Domesday are probably Ilbert of Lacy, tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire, named as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Oxfordshire. Most Ilberts occur in these last two counties, every one of them on the fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux, the majority in Lincolnshire but also numerous in Oxfordshire. An Ilbert is also the bishop's tenant at Cuddington in Surrey, where he is again the only Ilbert in the county. Most of these manors can later be traced as part of the Lacy Honour of Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 123-433; Wightman, Lacy family, pp. 26, 31-32, 35, 39, 60, 67-68. In Yorkshire, where the bulk of the Lacy manors lay, only one other Ilbert is recorded, a tenant of the archbishop of York at Warmfield. Since Warmfield, encircled by Lacy manors, is the only one held by another tenant-in-chief within the bounds of the Honour of Pontefract, this Ilbert is probably also Ilbert of Lacy: Wightman, Lacy family, pp. 29-30. Ilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 667) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 277-78. Coel suggests that the Ilbert at Campsall, on the Lacy fief in Yorkshire, is not the tenant-in-chief himself but a tenant, Ilbert of Reineville (no. 9367), who gave land in Campsall to St Clement's, Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87. The entry, however, uses the standard formulae for a demesne manor. Coel also identifies Ilbert the sheriff in Herefordshire who farmed Archenfield as Ilbert of Lacy, though the sheriff is more probably Ilbert son of Turold. 

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT [* OF ROULLOURS *]. Ilbert, who held a small fief in Cheshire from Earl Hugh, is 'presumed to be' the father of his successor, Richard of Rullos: Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 314. The name is not strictly contemporary but is the one by which he is usually known: Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 61. Earl Hugh had no other tenants of this name and there none apart from Ilbert of Lacy in adjacent counties or indeed in the north of England. Ilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3481) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279. He probably came from Roullours in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire): Early Yorkshire charters, v. 95-99.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBERT [* SON OF TUROLD *]. All Ilberts in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Herefordshire may be one man. Ilbert the sheriff, who farmed Archenfield, is almost certainly Ilbert son of Turold, who held portions of two other royal manors in the county, and the unidentified Ilbert who held parts of several more. Ilbert was a tenant-in-chief in the county where Gilbert son of Turold (q.v.), possibly his brother, may have succeeded him as sheriff: Green, English sheriffs, p. 45. He is probably also to be identified with Ilbert of Hertford, named at East Hatley in Cambridgeshire and on several manors in Hertfordshire, whose functions identify him as the unidentified Ilbert elsewhere in that county and as a past sheriff. Ilbert held no land on his own account in either Hertfordshire or Cambridgeshire, an improbable circumstance for any of the Conqueror's sheriffs, suggesting his endowment must be sought elsewhere, which can only be in Herefordshire. The Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 56) does in fact name the Ilbert at Hatley as sheriff of Herefordshire; and although Round was disinclined to believe its testimony, it does make more sense of the Domesday texts than he was able to suggest: Feudal England, pp. 460-61; Regesta, i. no. 250. Dr Keats-Rohan provides circumstantial evidence that Ilbert is Ilbert of Fontaines, from Fontaines-sous-Jouy in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Evreux), a Tosny fief. The Tosny connection also suggests that Ilbert brother of William, at Dinedor in Herefordshire, is another alias of Ilbert son of Turold, Dinedor being a Tosny manor. William and Ilbert, who shared the royal manor of Dewsall as subtenants of Ralph of Tosny, are very likely the same two brothers; Dinedor and Dewsall were both previously held by a Wulfheah. Ilbert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2631) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 278-79, apart from Linton, where the sheriff is identified as Ilbert of Lacy.

.............................................................................................................................................
ILBOD [* BROTHER OF ARNULF OF HESDIN *]. The three Ilbods in Domesday may be one man. As the name is rare, the Ilbod who held a small fief in Essex is likely to be the Ilbod who held two free men on the royal manor of Witham in the county, both perhaps the brother of Arnulf of Hesdin who held a fief of comparable value in Oxfordshire, though the manors were in different hands in the thirteenth century: VCH Essex, ix. 411; Book of Fees, pp. 821, 840, 1348, 1360, 1463. Ilbod's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 816) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 279, where it is suggested he forfeited his land shortly after 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGELRANN. The name Ingelrann occurs twenty-five times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Shropshire and Sussex.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGELRANN <OF AMPORT>. The tenants of Ralph of Mortimer at Amport in Hampshire and on six manors in Shropshire are probably the same Ingelrann, the only Ingelranns in either county; he is preceded by an Edric identified as Edric the wild (q.v.) at Amport and on two of the Shropshire manors. Several manors - including Amport - descended to the Savage family. At Walton, where this was apparently not the case, its name - Walton Savage - reveals an otherwise undocumented connection: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iv. 230, 232, 269, 271-72; VCH Hampshire, iv. 341-42. Neither Ralph nor Earl Roger of Shrewsbury had other tenants of this name. Ingelrann's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6833) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 280.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGELRANN [* OF EU *]. All Ingelranns in Sussex and Huntingdonshire may be one man. Those in Sussex, all tenants of the Count of Eu, are probably the brother of Guy of Eu (q.v.), who gave a half-hide of land to St Mary's of Hastings in Wilting, where Inglerann held two manors: Chartulary of Chichester, p. 301. The brothers are perhaps relatives of the Count, Ingelrann probably his sheriff, also known as Ingelrann of Hastings, alias Ingelrann of Scotney, who attested charters of the Count: Round, Calendar of documents: France, p. 81. He is probably also the Ingelrann who held Gidding and Liddington in Huntingdonshire from Eustace the sheriff, and part of St Ives from Ramsey abbey on which Eustace appears to have had a claim. A charter of Henry I records that Ingelrann de Auco (Eu) gave a knight's fee in Gidding and Liddington to Huntingdonshire priory: Monasticon, vi. 79-80, no. 2; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. 334. Both Guy and Ingelrann were tenants of Ramsey abbey: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 147-48, 151-52. Ingelrann's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 970) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 280.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGENULF. Ingenulf is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among three counties and the lands of two tenants-in-chief, probably borne by two men.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGENULF <OF IBSTOCK>. As the name is rare, the Ingenulfs who held Ibstock in Leicestershire and Wilnecote, Seckington and Bourton in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan are probably one man. Wilnecote and Seckington were shared with Arnulf of Wilnecote (q.v.); Ibstock, Seckington and Bourton descended to the Bruton family, but not apparently Wilnecote: VCH Warwickshire, iv. 198, 249-50; vi. 39. Ingenulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4751) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 281.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGENULF <OF WHADDON>. As the name is rare, the Ingenulfs who held Whaddon and Alderbury in Wiltshire from Waleran the hunter are probably one man, who may also be Engenold, the tenant at Barford. Engenold - an otherwise unknown name, perhaps a scribal error - was preceded by Bolla, who also preceded Ingenulf at Whaddon. Ingenulf has no links with the tenant of the Count of Meulan in Leicestershire and Warwickshire. His manors, including Barford, are recorded in Coel (no. 8772) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 188.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGRAM <OF BILBY>. All Ingrams in Domesday Book are tenants of Roger of Bully - at Norton and Alfreton in Derbyshire and Bilby in Nottinghamshire - and so are almost certainly one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6835) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 281.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGVAR. The name Ingvar occurs sixteen times, distributed among five counties and the lands of eight tenants-in-chief. The distribution is skewed, with five names in Devon and the remainder in four adjacent counties in eastern England where several of the manors are valuable. All sixteen are names of pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
INGVAR <OF BURSTEAD>. In view of their distribution and value, it is likely that all the manors held by an Ingvar outside Devon belonged to one man, variously described as a royal thane, a thane, and a free man. As thane and free man occur on two of his most valuable manors, the terms are evidently scribal idiosyncrasies rather than accurate descriptions of status. Ingvar was the predecessor of three tenants-in-chief, each of whom acquired at least one of his valuable manors in one or more counties: Count Eustace of Boulogne at Duxford in Cambridgeshire and Chrishall in Essex; Ranulf brother of Ilger at Everton in Huntingdonshire and Harlow, Thorpehall, Baythorn, and Mountnessing in Essex; and the bishop of Bayeux at Burstead in the same county, the most valuable of all. He may also be the anonymous free man who preceded Ranulf on the valuable manor of Birdbrook, sandwiched between his manors of similar status at Thorpehall and Baythorn End. His less valuable manors at Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire and St Lawrence in Essex devolved upon Ranulf. The only 'man' of Ingvar, at South Elmham in Suffolk, was presumably his also. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 315-16, who ranks him forty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
IOVIN [* THE CRAFTSMAN *]. Iovin, who held a small fief in Cornwall and part of the royal manors of Winnianton (in Exon.) and Lanow from the Count of Mortain, may be Iovin the craftsman (faber) named in a charter of Launceston priory, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan. The name Iovin does not occur elsewhere in Domesday Book. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 166) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 284-85.

.............................................................................................................................................
"IRIC". The name Iric occurs four times, once in Devon and three times in Suffolk, all pre-Conquest landowners. Iric may be the same name as Erik, Erik of Tealby (q.v.) being named Yri in the Ramsey chronicle: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 175. However, the distribution and status of Erik's lands make it improbable that he is related to the Irics of Suffolk or Devon.

.............................................................................................................................................
"IRIC" <OF BULKWORTHY>. Iric, whose respectable manor at Bulkworthy in Devon was acquired by the Count of Mortain, has no links with his remote namesakes in Suffolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
"IRIC" <OF WINSTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Irics at Winston, Hemingstone and Ashbocking in Suffolk are one man, though the manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief, the vills being within a few miles of each other and the abbey of Ely having an interest in each of them.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUDHAEL. If Iudhael of Totnes is discounted, Iudhael is a rare name which occurs four times, twice in Devon (Judhell, Juhel) and once each Gloucestershire (Idhel) and Warwickshire (Juhellus). It is sometimes confused with Judicael.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUDHAEL <OF SECKINGTON>. Iudhael (Juhellus), tenant of William son of Corbucion at Seckington in Warwickshire, is very unlikely to be either Idhel the reeve of Gloucestershire or Iudhael of Totnes. He is identified as Judicael the priest (q.v.) in Coel (no. 972), referenced in Domesday people, p. 282.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUDHAEL [* OF TOTNES *]. The Iudhaels assigned the borough revenues of Totnes and the queen's tenant at Asprington in Devon are almost certainly Iudhael of Totnes, tenant-in-chief in the county and the only Iudhael in the south-west. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 747) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 285-86.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUSTEN. Iusten is a rare name which occurs five times, distributed among three counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by two individuals.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUSTEN <OF HORDLE>. As the name is rare, the Iusten whose substantial manor at Hordle in the New Forest was acquired by Ralph of Mortimer may be the Iusten with a subtenancy from the bishop of Winchester at Crondall. There is no direct link between them, but several such between the bishopric and Mortimer, who had acquired several manors at the expense of Winchester, Hordle perhaps being one of them.

.............................................................................................................................................
IUSTEN <OF NORMANTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Iustens whose manors of Normanton and Bridgford in Nottinghamshire were acquired by Roger of Bully is one man, who is perhaps also the thane Iusten at Newton in Lincolnshire, a similar distance from Bridgford as Bridgford from Normanton. If so, he survived on the least of his holdings, which he retained for two decades but was waste in 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 34898).

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO. Ivo is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs and more than forty other entries as well as a number of Claims, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief, with one significant cluster in Lincolnshire. It is, however, uncommon in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals, perhaps no more than half-a-dozen.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO <OF "ALUREDESTUNA">. Ivo, who held the substantial manor of Aluredestuna in Suffolk from Ranulf son of Ilger, has no links with his namesakes. There are no more Ivos on Ranulf's Honour, and no other unidentified Ivos in East Anglia. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is 'possibly' Ivo of Verdun, a benefactor of Thetford priory named in the charters of the Bigot family. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8043) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 282-83.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO <OF DRIBY>. As the name is uncommon, the Ivos who held several manors from Gilbert of Ghent and Eudo son of Spirewic in Lincolnshire may be one man, the ancestor of the Driby family, which held fees from their successors in 1166 and into the thirteenth century: Red Book, i. 383; Book of Fees, pp. 182, 1052,1056-57, 1067, 1069-70. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8862) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 283.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO [* OF GRANDMESNIL *]. The Ivos who held manors from Hugh of Grandmesnil and his wife in Bedfordshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire may be their son, Ivo; if so, the Bedfordshire entry reveals that he was his father's steward: Mason, 'Barons and their officials', p. 256. Stenton suggested that the Leicestershire tenant might be the knight Ivo who witnessed a charter of 1077 for Monks Kirby priory; but the tenancies are rather substantial for a simple miles and more likely to have been those of his lord, Ivo: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1; 'Domesday survey of Leicestershire', p. 292. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Ivo was 'perhaps' the tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Sussex. No other Ivo held land south of the Thames so these manors were probably held by one man though in the hands of different families in the thirteenth century: Farrer, Honors, iii. 33, 65-66. Ivo succeeded his father in the mid-1090s and was exiled by Henry I in 1102, both of which events may have affected the descent of his tenancies: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 61-62. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 401) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 282, apart from a subtenancy at Hardham in Sussex.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO <OF LOUGHTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Ivo who held Weston Underwood in Buckinghamshire from the Count of Mortain may be the tenant of Walter Giffard at Loughton, ten miles away, though the manors were in different hands in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 396, 500. Neither tenant-in-chief had other Ivos among their tenants, and there are no others in the county. Ivo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6840) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 283.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO [* OF THIERCEVILLE *]. Ivo, who held Long Clawson in Leicestershire and Ropsley in Lincolnshire from Robert of Tosny, is identified in a charter of Henry I as Ivo of Tigerivilla, from Thierceville in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Les Andelys): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 103. The descent of Ivo's other tenancies from Robert has not been traced; but as the name is uncommon, they are likely to have been held by the same man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2733) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 282.

.............................................................................................................................................
IVO [* TALLBOYS *]. The Ivos on the royal manors of Grantham and Great Ponton in Lincolnshire are evidently the sheriff, Ivo Tallboys, who is also the Ivo who held Walcot and its dependencies from the abbey of Peterborough, confirmed by royal writ: Regesta, i. no. 409. He is probably the Ivo who held Ashton in Northamptonshire from the abbey, and also the tenant Roger of Poitou and Jocelyn son of Lambert at Dunstall and North Willingham in Lincolnshire, where he held in chief in all three vills, sharing the entire vill in the first two cases. Finally, he may be the tenant of Robert Malet at Casthorpe, a dependency of Barrowby, since he acquired three other dependencies of the manor from Malet's predecessor, Godwin of Barrowby; his wife was Robert Malet's niece: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 17-18). The Ivo named in the Lincolnshire Claims is identified by entries on Tallboys' fief. Ivo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1595), apart from a subtenancy at Casthorpe and a jurisdiction at Dunstall; most of the references are missing from Domesday people, p. 283.

.............................................................................................................................................
IWAR. Iwar is a rare name which occurs three times, once in Shropshire and twice in Staffordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
IWAR <OF ALTON>. As the name is rare, the Iwars who held adjacent, waste manors in Alton and Denstone in Staffordshire in 1066 are almost certainly one man, but perhaps unlikely to be the other Iwar in Domesday Book, a tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury on a small manor in the lost vill of Newetone, south of Oswestry, in Shropshire, some sixty miles to the west.

.............................................................................................................................................
IWAR <OF NEWETONE>. The tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury on a modest property in the lost vill of Newetone, near the Welsh border in Shropshire, has no links to the one other Iwar, the pre-Conquest lord of Alton and Denstone in Staffordshire, roughly sixty miles to the east. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31119).

.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* OF TUSCHET *]. The Jocelyns who held Newton, Croxton and Tabley in Cheshire, Kniveton, Allestree and Mackworth in Derbyshire, and Ashwell in Rutland from Earl Hugh of Chester, are identified as Jocelyn Tuschet, or Jocelyn of Tuschet, by the descent of his manors to his son and grandson: Farrer, Honors, ii. 28-32, 254-55; Statham. 'Later descendants', pp. 91-103. He may also be the Jocelyn with a subtenancy on Earl Hugh's manor of Weaverham with Antrobus, whose descent has not been traced; these vills are six and eight miles from Jocelyn 's manor of Tabley. There are no other Jocelyns in Cheshire; Jocelyn the Breton, a tenant of the earl at Slapton in Northamptonshire, is the one other Jocelyn on the Honour of Chester. Jocelyn's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2977) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 236.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* SON OF LAMBERT *]. Although his tenancies devolved upon six tenants-in-chief, all but one of the Jocelyns in Lincolnshire may be Jocelyn son of Lambert, a tenant-in-chief whose Honour is confined to that county. Of the six, only one - the bishop of Lincoln - had a Jocelyn among his tenants outside the county.
	Jocelyn son of Lambert is named as the tenant of Gilbert of Ghent at Hagworthingham and of the bishop of Durham at Blyborough, so he may also be the bishop's tenant at Pickworth and its dependency, particularly as the bishop acquired this from Aghmund (q.v.), the principal predecessor of Lambert's son, while another of the bishop's tenants, Lambert (q.v.), is probably a relative of Jocelyn, if not his father. Both the bishop of Lincoln and Ivo Tallboys were involved in a claim concerning Aghmund's land, suggesting that Ivo's tenants at Scotton and Cuxwold and the bishop's at Willingham, Elsham, Worlaby, Croxton, Owersby and Kingerby may also be the son of Lambert. Additionally, in the bishop's case the descent of these manors indicates that his tenant and that of the bishop of Durham are the same man (below). There are other links. One of the bishop's manors lay in Willingham-by-Stow, where Jocelyn held in chief, and Owersby and Kingerby are a mile from Jocelyn's manor of Osgodby; Ivo himself was probably a tenant of Jocelyn at North Willingham. The Jocelyn who held Normanby and Tealby from Drogo of la Beuvrière is also likely to be Lambert's son. The manors are a few miles from his manor of Worlaby and there is a distinct possibility that Drogo's tenant Lambert (q.v.) is, if not Jocelyn's father, then a relative.
	Less certainly, Alfred of Lincoln's tenant Jocelyn may be Lambert's son. His tenancies are all in Kesteven or Lindsey South Riding where they are intermixed with manors which Jocelyn held in chief or as a tenant of the bishop Durham and Gilbert of Ghent: Torrington is two or three miles from Holton and Bleasby; Boothby Graffoe and Somerton are six to eight miles from Braceby; 'Sempringham' and Billingborough a similar distance from Pickworth, and Alvingham and Cockerington eleven miles from Maltby-le-Marsh. There is also a tenurial link, albeit slight. Of the tenancies in Lindsey South Riding, Cockerington had been resumed as demesne by the time of the Lindsey Survey (18/1), Alvingham cannot be disentangled from other holdings in the vill, and Torrington was held by a Jocelyn (16/9) who is possibly Lambert's son though it is usually assumed that he was dead by the date of the Survey, his fief being held by his son, Gilbert; possibly the scribe's information was not up-to-date. However, Gilbert son of Jocelyn did hold Stixwould from Alan, Alfred of Lincoln's son (13/8). This manor was held from Alfred by a Siward in 1086, so some reconfiguration of Alfred's tenancies had occurred which involved Jocelyn's heir.
	The tenants of the bishop of Durham at Pickworth and Braceby and of the bishop of Lincoln throughout the county have previously been identified as one man by the descent of their manors to the Amundeville family; but the evidence cited above suggests that Amundeville is an alias of Jocelyn son of Lambert. Dr Clay identified the ancestor of the Amundeville family as probably the Jocelyn (Ivelin) of Amundeville who witnessed a charter of Fécamp abbey on the eve of the Domesday Inquest: 'Family of Amundeville', pp. 109-110. Dr Keats-Rohan, however, cites charter evidence to prove that this identification is 'certainly wrong', as is Jocelyn's place of origin in Mondeville (Calvados: arrondissement Caen) which Loyd derived from that identification: Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 4. She suggests instead one of two Emondevilles, respectively in Seine-Maritime and Manche, the former being the more likely. In view of this uncertainty and the derivation of the bulk of Jocelyn's Honour, however, it is perhaps possible that the family name has an English origin, derived from Jocelyn's predecessor, Aghmund, though no such English place-name other than Amounderness survives.
	The manors of Jocelyn son of Lambert are recorded in Coel (no. 2581) and include the tenants of Gilbert of Ghent and Ivo Tallboys; Jocelyn of Amundeville is identified as another man whose manors include two of the three held from the bishop of Durham and all of those from the bishop of Lincoln (no. 2993); and the tenant of Alfred of Lincoln is identified as a third individual (no. 3357), the manors of all three being referenced in Domesday people, pp. 233, 236-37. The tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Normanby is unidentified (no. 34233), its dependency assigned to Drogo's demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* THE BRETON *]. Jocelyn, who held Slapton in Northamptonshire from Earl Hugh of Chester, is identified as the tenant-in-chief in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Gloucestershire by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 216-219. They are recorded in Coel (no. 155) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 235-36.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOCELYN [* THE LORIMER *]. It is possible that all Jocelyns in Little Domesday are one man, whose various aliases are Jocelyn the lorimer, Jocelyn of Loddon, Jocelyn of Norwich, Jocelyn a man of Frodo, Jocelyn a man of the Count of Mortain and perhaps Jocelyn of Ely. Most of the Jocelyns in East Anglia are tenants of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds: at Quidenham, Blo Norton, Mundham and Norton Subcourse in Norfolk, and at Oakley and Stuston in Suffolk where he is described as a man of Frodo, Abbot Baldwin's brother. The Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin indicates that these manors were held by one man, though some shuffling of his tenancies occurred at some point, the most significant being that Loddon, held by Frodo in Domesday Book, is assigned to Jocelyn while Mundham is held by Frodo: Feudal documents, pp. 10, 22-23. Jocelyn's tenure of Loddon identifies him as the Jocelyn of Loddon whose widow was granted his lands by the abbot: Feudal documents, p. 109.
	The abbey's tenant may also be Jocelyn of Norwich, who held land on his own account alongside Jocelyn of Loddon in the vill of Norton Subcourse. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Jocelyn the lorimer, who held a fief and two manors in Essex - one claimed by Ely abbey - is another of his aliases, as is Jocelyn of Ely, whose nephew was granted land by Ramsey abbey, a grant witnessed by the prior and monks of Ely: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, pp. 249-50. One of the two remaining Jocelyns in East Anglia was a tenant of Ely abbey at Rattlesden(SUF 21,1) while the other, a tenant of Robert Malet at Maneuuic in Suffolk, was partially under its jurisdiction; since the abbey had no Jocelyns on its Honour, the link, those slight in some cases, has some weight. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies Malet's tenant as the man who granted tithes in Huntingfield to the Malet foundation of Eye priory; but this tithe was subsequently referred to as the tithe of Rocelin, and the family as the FitzRocelins, so Jocelyn in the Eye cartulary (p. 72) may be a scribal error for Rocelyn. Neither Malet or Bury St Edmunds had other Jocelyns on their Honours. Jocelyn's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 691) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 234, apart from Rattlesden, assigned to another man (no. 8426), and Maneuuic, assigned to Jocelyn of Hollesley (no. 8222).

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHAIS <OF BARCHESTON>. Although the manors are roughly twenty miles apart, tenants of William son of Corbucion at Weston-under-Wetherley and Barcheston in Warwickshire, are almost certainly the same man, the only Johais in Domesday Book. When next recorded at the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the tenancies are in the hands of different families, though a half-fee in both vills was held by the Hastings family in the fourteenth century: VCH Warwickshire, v. 5; vi. 252. Johais is unidentified in Coel (nos. 28503, 28505).

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN. John is a fairly common name which occurs on five fiefs and more than fifty manors, distributed among eighteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and nineteen of his tenants-in-chief. It is more common after the Conquest than before, when eight manors in five counties were acquired by four tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN <OF ORTON>. The tenants of the bishop of Lincoln and of Eustace the sheriff, who both held manors in Orton Waterville and Stilton in Huntingdonshire, are almost certainly the same John. Similarly, those of Erneis of Buron at Coleby in Lincolnshire and Newsome Farm in Yorkshire are probably one man, though the descent of the tenancies across the two counties cannot be traced to one family: Early Yorkshire charters, x. 1 note 10, 62-63, 86-87. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests the tenants of the bishop, sheriff and Erneis are the same man, which is possible in view of the comparable status of their manors and the rarity of the name in region. With the exception of a tenant of Osbern of Arques at Green Hammerton, they are the only Johns in circuit six or on the Honours concerned. Green Hammerton is ten miles from Newsome Farm, three from Tockwith, where the descendants of the Buron tenant had an interest, so Osbern's tenant may be the same John. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8725) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284, where Weston Favell in Northamptonshire is also assigned to him. The tenant at Green Hammerton is identified as another man (no. 8866).

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN <OF THURLESTONE>. As the only Johns in Devon, the predecessors of Iudhael of Totnes at Bovey and Thurlestone are almost certainly one man; the vills are thirty miles apart. It is possible that he is John the Dane, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN <OF WOODCOTE>. John is a comparatively rare name in the north. If John of Orton is excluded, it occurs four times in the fourteen counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and those of circuits four and six. Three of the four, tenants of Henry of Ferrers at Woodcote in Leicestershire and Rodsley and Osleston in Derbyshire are probably therefore one man. He contributed the tithes of Sudbury, Aston and Osleston in Derbyshire to the foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Sudbury and Aston were held by other Ferrers' tenants in Domesday, so some re-arrangement of his tenancies had taken place by the date of the charter (1087-1100); the descent of Woodcote has not been traced; Leicestershire Survey, p. 47. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3855) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* SON OF WALERAN *]. John, who held Henny in Essex as one of the Annexations of Waleran, is almost certainly his son who held a manor in Henny on his own fief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 489) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* THE DANE *]. The predecessors of Matthew of Mortain at Milborne St Andrew and Overmoigne in Dorset and Shipton Moyne in Gloucestershire are very probably John the Dane, named in Exon. as Matthew's predecessor at Clevedon in Somerset and of the bishop of Wells at Yatton in the county. The other manor on Matthew's fief in Somerset was held by Thorkil the Dane, one of his other two manors in Gloucestershire by Strang the Dane, and one of the two in Essex by Aki the Dane. The Denyes family, which retained an interest in several of these manors, may be descendants of John and Thorkil: Oggins, 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance', 57-67. Dr Williams suggests that John and Strang may in fact be the same man, John being the 'Christian' name of Strang: 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 26. John was probably the sheriff named as an overlord at Dinedor in Herefordshire, who otherwise was a sheriff without a landed interest. Only two other pre-Conquest lords of this name are recorded in Domesday Book, both predecessors of Iudhael of Totnes on respectable manors at North Bovey and Thurlestone in Devon. The distribution suggests they may be John the Dane, though there are no links to confirm this. A list of John's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 316, which does not include the manors in Devon or connect John to the sheriff. He ranks John eighty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
JOHN [* THE USHER *]. John, who held 'Winterborne' among the king's sergeants in Dorset, is named John the usher in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Dorset, iii. 135. John had similar service holdings in Wiltshire and Somerset, where he is given his byname in Exon. on the last three of the Somerset manors. According to Exon. he was also a tenant of the bishops of Winchester and Wells and of Glastonbury abbey in the county. It is not unlikely that he is the tenant of Roger of Courseulles at 'Edstock', and of Cranborne abbey in Dorset, the only other tenants of this name in the south-west. 'Edstock' is adjacent to Cannington, held by John the usher according to Exon.; the two Cranborne manors are adjacent to each other. John's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 297) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 284.

.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL. Judicael is a rare name, borne by five unidentified men, all possibly one of the two landowners who are accorded bynames. It is sometimes confused with Judhael.

.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL [* THE HUNTER *]. The Judicaels whose urban properties and rural manors in Girton and Histon in Cambridgeshire were acquired by the Count of Mortain are almost certainly Judicael the hunter, whose manors of Barton and Grantchester also devolved upon the Count, all five forming a tight group in and around Cambridge. At Barton, Judicael is described as King Edward's hunter. As the name is rare and the functions related, he may be Judicael the falconer, on the royal manor of Redenhall in Norfolk, the one other pre-Conquest Judicael. If so, he survived until 1086, initially as falconer to Earl Ralph Wader.

.............................................................................................................................................
JUDICAEL [* THE PRIEST *]. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Judicael who held Yatton in Wiltshire and Wyboston in Bedfordshire may be Judicael the priest, who had small fiefs in Norfolk and Suffolk and was probably a canon of Cherbourg, appointed by the Conqueror. The manors are of comparable size and the name is rare, but there are no precise links between them; the manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 716; VCH Bedfordshire, iii. 199. A stronger case can be made for the one other tenant, who held Langley in Warwickshire from Robert of Stafford and may be the Judicael the priest who witnessed his charter of 1072: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178, 181. Judicael's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 972) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 282, apart from the tenant of Langley, identified as another Judicael (no. 3640) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291 under the form Ludichel.

.............................................................................................................................................
COUNTESS [* JUDITH *]. The Countess named in the Huntingdonshire Claims concerning Little Catworth in Huntingdonshire can only be Countess Judith, her claim being based on the grant of Catworth to Earl Waltheof (q.v.), her husband. The manor concerned is either entry 13,4 or 13,5. The Countess is the only Judith in Domesday Book. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 267) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 286-87.

.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI. The name Karli is common in Yorkshire, fairly so in Lincolnshire, but comparatively rare elsewhere, occurring once each in Berkshire, Surrey, Somerset and Derbyshire; twice in Hampshire, Shropshire and Cheshire, and three times in Sussex, one survivor holding a manor in Lincolnshire and in Yorkshire. The manors in southern England distinguished by the large proportion of high status manors, most of them acquired by one tenant-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI <OF DONISTHORPE>. Karli, whose tiny holding worth twelve pence at Donisthorpe in Derbyshire was acquired by Nigel of Stafford, has no links with other Karlis.

.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI <OF NORTON>. All Karlis in southern England may be one man, a predecessor of Alfred of Marlborough in Surrey, Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset, who contributed roughly half the value of Alfred's Honour. It seems likely that he was the father of the Godric and Godwin, sons of Karli, whose valuable manors in Kent were acquired by Bishop Odo. Toli, who shared Higham with Godwin and held another valuable manor at Cray six miles from Godric's manor of Wickham, may be another of his sons, the three of them perhaps being the three brothers from whom Humphrey Visdeloup acquired the valuable manor of Boxford in Berkshire, or the three thanes from whom he obtained another valuable manor at Benham; Humphrey inherited his most valuable manor - Speen - from Karli and four-fifths of the value of his Honour from his family if these identifications are correct. The three other Karlis in southern England are Sussex landowners, their manors - freehold or held directly from the king - devolving upon the lords of the respective Rapes rather than a designated predecessor; but given the distribution of the name, it is not unlikely these, too, are Karli of Norton. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 317-18, which accidentally omits Rowde in Wiltshire. He ranks Karli nineteenth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Rowde would raise him a place and, if correctly identified, the family estate would rank it in the top dozen.

.............................................................................................................................................
KARLI [* SON OF KARLI *]. All Karlis in Yorkshire are probably one man, a member of the powerful family of Karli son of Thorbrand which conducted a long-running feud with the earls of Northumbria but made common cause with them to lead the northern rebellion of 1068 against Norman rule: Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 29-31, 40, 59. Orderic Vitalis names 'four sons of Karli' among the rebel leaders: Cnut (q.v.) and Sumarlithi (q.v.) are named in the tract De obsessione Dunelmi, Thorbrand (q.v.) is readily identifiable, and Gamal (q.v.) is probably a fourth son. For reasons considered below, the Domesday Karli is unlikely to be Karli son of Thorbrand himself but may be a close relative, perhaps a fifth son of whom Orderic was unaware or a grandson, as some historians have suggested.
	This Karli is probably the Karli at Hunmanby, the largest and most valuable of his manors, acquired by Gilbert of Ghent. As Gilbert was appointed castellan of the second castle in York after the suppression of the revolt and Hunmanby is his only manor in Yorkshire, it may have been his prize at the expense of one of the main rebels. Karli of Hunmanby very likely also held the other large and/or valuable manors in the county, principally Nafferton, held by William of Percy in 1086 and Rounton, Flixton and Burton Fleming, retained by the king. All but Rounton lay in Torbar or Hunthow wapentakes where it is not unlikely that the remaining manors of Karli were held by the same man. In Hunthow, Cnut and Gamal also held several manors, Karli himself holding Bridlington, Auburn, Staxton, Fordun, Sewerby, Marton and Fraisethorpe. Most of these manors are substantial but waste in 1086, as are those in Torbar, retained by the king if waste or held by William of Percy if not. Percy also obtained more of Karli's manors, in Dic and 'Yarlestre' wapentakes where he also acquired manors from other members of Karli's family. Like Gilbert of Ghent, Percy was charged with the defence and pacification of the north after the suppression of the rebellion and profited at the expense of the same family. The one other large manor in the East Riding, Wharram Percy, waste and retained by the king, is also likely to have been held by the same Karli; it is three or four miles from those retained by the king at Towthorpe and Burdale.
	Four more manors were held by a Karli in Yorkshire, among which Redmere in Holderness, was probably held by Karl of Hunmanby, Holderness being at one stage at least a family lordship, his grandfather Thorbrand being 'Hold' of the area; the manor was acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière who also obtained other manors from Karli's family, including their ancestral home at Rise. Less certainly, Stub House in 'Skyrack' wapentake and Rathmell in Craven, though isolated from Karli's other manors, may have been his too. Rathmell is just a few miles from some of the manors of Gamal son of Karli, four of them acquired by Roger of Poitou who held Rathmell in 1086. Stub House is surrounded by manors held by the family, though none of them are nearby. Bolton in the East Riding is in a similar situation, with the difference that Karli retained Bolton for two decades, one of only two Karlis to survive the Conquest. Most, but not all, of his family was massacred at Settrington in 1073 in the final act of its blood feud with the earls of Northumbria. If Karli at Bolton is, indeed, a surviving member of the family, then his circumstances were extremely reduced, his manor being worth just four shillings.
	As the family is prominent in the history of the north in the eleventh-century and took a leading role in the revolt against Norman rule, its members were presumably major landowners, so the scale of landholding suggested by these identifications is not implausible. If the bulk of them are correct, then the manorial income of Karli and his family was in excess of £100 in 1066, though in Yorkshire the assessment of their lands - more than 600 hides - is probably a better guide to their status. If included in Clarke, English nobility, their manorial income would rank them among the three dozen wealthiest untitled laymen; in assessed land, they were exceeded among laymen only by the royal family and some earls.

.............................................................................................................................................
KARSKI [* FATHER OF ALSI *]. Karski is a rare name which occurs twice each in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, all four probably being Karski father of Alsi (q.v.) who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' over Workshop. Alsi can be identified as a predecessor of Roger of Bully in Nottinghamshire and of Henry of Ferrers in Derbyshire, the tenants-in-chief who acquired three of Karski's four manors. His Derbyshire manor lay in the same Hundred as that of his son, and those in Nottinghamshire in the Hundred where Worksop lay. The second Derbyshire manor, at Eyam, was retained by the king.

.............................................................................................................................................
KENTWIN <OF COMPTON>. The three Kentwins in Domesday, predecessors of the Count of Meulan at Woodcote, Compton Verney and Frankton in Warwickshire are almost certainly one man.

.............................................................................................................................................
KENWARD [* THE SHERIFF *]. Kenward is a rare name, all seven occurrences probably referring to one man whose manors cluster near the borders of Gloucestershire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire. Three of his manors devolved upon Gilbert son of Turold, one in each of the three counties; three others on the bishop of Worcester, who subinfeudated all three to Robert the bursar. Gilbert's manors lay either side of Robert's, while Duntisbourne Abbots, acquired by Roger of Lacy, is adjacent to Gilbert's manor at Oakley. Kenward is described as a royal thane in the Duntisbourne entry. He is probably Kynewardus de Lauro, witness to a document of Robert of Stafford in 1072, and the Kinewardus, past sheriff of Worcestershire, named in Hemming's cartulary: Staffordshire chartulary, pp. 178, 180; Hemingi cartularium, p. 82; Bates, Regesta, no. 349, pp. 997-99. Lauro is probably Laugherne (Laure), one of his manors: Round, 'Domesday survey of Worcestershire', pp. 267-68. Kenward (Kinewardus), addressed in a writ to the magnates of Berkshire in the 1040s, is conceivably the same man, though 'otherwise unknown': Harmer, Writs, pp. 131, 558; Green, English sheriffs, pp. 22, 87. Dr Williams, who names him Cyneweard of Laugherne, suggests that in addition to these manors he may also have held a second manor in Duntisbourne where no pre-Conquest is named; it had been given to St Peter's of Gloucester by the mother of Roger of Lacy. She suggests he was 'almost certainly' related to the family of Wulfstan II, bishop of Worcester and archbishop of York (d. 1023): Williams, 'Gloucestershire', pp. 24-26. Kenward's kinsmen - Alric, Azur and Godric - held a number of other manors in the county: Williams, 'Introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', pp. 24-26.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL [* ALDER *]. The name Ketil is fairly common in East Anglia, especially in Norfolk; but family wills identity many of the Domesday manors held by Ketil Alder - most of them acquired by Ranulf Peverel - at Frating in Essex; Harling, Stratton, Hainford, Walsingham, Carleton, Melton and Kettingham in Norfolk, and Onehouse and Rushford in Suffolk: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 84-91, 197-204. Ketil's own will identifies Archbishop Stigand as his principal lord, bequeathed his heriot of 'a helmet and a coat of mail and a horse with harness and a sword and a spear'. On the Peverel manor at Walsingham, Ketil is described as a thane of Archbishop Stigand, and at Onehouse as a royal thane. As Stigand's thane, Dr Williams suggests he is almost certainly the anonymous thane of Stigand at Ashwellthorpe, where land in the vill was bequeathed to him by his uncle Edwin, and probably also the archbishop's man at Thurton and Stoke Holy Cross, and the predecessor of the abbey of St Benedict of Holme (to which the family made donations) at Billockby: World before Domesday, pp. 5, 150 note 32. Stoke devolved upon a Tovi, whose holdings in Hackford and Holkham had been held by a Ketil; and since Tovi had only three named predecessors, it is likely the three Ketils on his fief are one man; Holkham is a fairly substantial manor.
	Dr Clarke assigns to Ketil Alder manors acquired by Reginald son of Ivo. None of these are mentioned in the three wills, nor is Ketil described as a man or thane of Archbishop Stigand on any of them; but these are not necessarily fatal objections since Ketil is only once described as Stigand's thane on the Peverel manors and many of the holdings named in the wills were in different hands in Domesday Book. The total estate of Reginald's predecessor is comparable to that assigned above to Alder, whose holdings at Stratton and Mayton lie between those of Reginald's predecessor at Great Witchingham, Scottow and Sloley. The combined estates include all but two of the Norfolk manors held by a Ketil worth more than £1, both of those conceivably held by the same man (or men): Great Snoring is two miles from Walsingham, Wells-next-the-Sea four, less from Stiffkey. It may be significant that Wells was held in 1086 by an Aldgyth, one of three landowners of that name in East Anglia, the only one with a significant holding. Aldgyth is the name of one of Ketil Alder's sisters. Her mother, most of whose manors lay in Norfolk, bequeathed her a manor at Chadacre in Suffolk, held by the Countess of Aumale in 1086; but the family bequests are complex (Fleming, Kings and nobles, pp. 141-43) and may have been reshuffled in the intervening four decades more often than the documentation reveals. A list of Ketil's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 318-19, which does not include Snoring, Wells, the holdings identified by Dr Williams, or those acquired by Tovi. Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-ninth in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would place him in the top fifty. Dr Williams estimates his assessed land at 25 hides; the holdings itemised above total twice that amount.
	
.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL [* FATHER OF EDRIC *]. It is likely that all five Ketils in Gloucestershire are Ketil father of Edric. At 'Duntisbourne' and Windrush, Ketil - said to be the same man - retained his manors among the king's thanes for two decades. As the name is uncommon in the area, it is probable that he is the Ketil who held a second manor in 'Duntisbourne' before the Conquest, and likely that he is the unnamed father succeeded by Edric son of Ketil at Baunton and Alkerton. If these identifications are valid, Ketil lost his most valuable manor, acquired by William son of Baderon, and allowed his son to hold the two most substantial of the other four holdings. William had no other predecessors of this name, and there are no Ketils among the survivors outside Gloucestershire who appear likely to be Edric's father. Ketil is unidentified in Coel (nos. 29891-92); see also Williams, 'Introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', p. 35.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF BUCKNALL>. Ketil, whose waste manor at Bucknall in Staffordshire was retained by the king, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom are nearby.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF EDENSOR>. The name Ketil is uncommon in central England, occurring only six times in the ten counties of circuits three and four. In these circumstances, it is likely that the group of eight manors held by Ketil in Derbyshire belonged to one man. Six were acquired by Henry of Ferrers and the seventh, at Mugginton, was held by Ketil as his tenant. Although the eighth holding, 'Langley', was in the king's hands, it 'lay in' Edensor, one of the manors acquired by Ferrers, both 'Langley and Edensor being shared with a Leofnoth Sterre (q.v.). All eight manors are within four or five miles of at least one of the others. Ketil survived with less than a fifth of his pre-Conquest wealth. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 32358).

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF HALSALL>. Ketil, whose land worth eight shillings at Halsall in South Lancashire was acquired by Roger of Poitou, is unlikely to be the same man as Roger's predecessors in Yorkshire and Norfolk, given the scale of his holding and the distances involved.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL <OF SOMERFORD>. Ketil, who shared with two others a holding at Somerford in Cheshire worth six shillings, acquired by Earl Hugh, is unlikely to be the same man as the earl's predecessors in Hampshire and Northamptonshire, given the scale of his holding and the distances involved.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETIL [* THE STEERSMAN *]. Ketil, assigned by the Conqueror 'land for one plough' in Stockbridge Hundred in Sussex, is identified in later documents as Ketil the steersman (esterman), with a carucate of land 'lying without the gate' of Chichester and houses in the city: Regesta, i. nos. 352, 460. His name is uncommon south of the Thames, so in view of his office it is not unlikely that he is the Ketil who held a number of substantial manors before the Conquest - most of them in freehold from the king - to the west of Chichester, around Southampton Water and its approaches. If so, he had exempt land in Southampton itself (alongside the notorious steersman, Stephen son of Erhard), the handsome manor of Dibden and perhaps Utefel by the side of Southampton Water, Fratton on Portsea Island, Bicton and Avon on the river above Christchurch harbour, Warnford in the Meon Valley leading to the Solent, and manors on the Isle of Wight. There are no other Ketils in Sussex or Hampshire, and none of the five tenants-in-chief who acquired his manors had other Ketils among their tenants or predecessors in southern England; the Ketils west of Hampshire appear to be unrelated. Ketil is unidentified in Coel (no. 16215).

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT. The name Ketilbert is rare outside Yorkshire, occurring six or seven times, distributed among four Midland counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief; it is sometimes treated as interchangeable with Ketilbiorn, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Osbern/Osbert, Thorbert/Thorbiorn. The scribe himself appears uncertain as to whether there is a difference in the names, often dropping the final character, which occurs several times in the counties of circuit six: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 302-304; Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 43.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT <OF CROWLE>. As the names are rare, it is not unlikely that the Ketilbert who held land at Powick in Worcestershire and the Ketilbiorn in the adjacent vill of Pixham, both paired with an Alwy, are one man and the same man as the Ketilbert at Crowle, eight miles away, the one other Ketilbert or Ketilbiorn in circuit five.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBERT <OF FOLKSWORTH>. As the names are rare outside Yorkshire, it is probable that the Ketilbert or Ketilbiorn (Chetelber) who held Folksworth in Huntingdonshire in 1066 is the Ketilbert in the adjacent vill of 'Washingley', which he had held since 1066. He may therefore be the Ketilbert at Carlton in Bedfordshire and Braybrooke in Northamptonshire, both of whom retained their manors for two decades. The manor of Folksworth is fairly substantial, so Ketilbert might be the Ketilbert at Crowle in Worcestershire, another respectable holding; but there are no links to confirm this and the Worcestershire holdings are all pre-Conquest. A more likely link is with either (or both) of the surviving Ketilbiorns, of Holwell or Nettleton; but there are no more specific links. All three tenants are unidentified in Coel (nos. 552, 27479, 32738).

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN. Outside Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, the name Ketilbiorn is rare, occurring in four counties on the lands of five tenants-in-chief; it is sometimes treated as interchangeable with Ketilbert, as with Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Osbern/Osbert, Thorbert/Thorbiorn. The scribe himself appears uncertain as to whether there is a difference in the names, often dropping the final character, which occurs several times in the counties of circuit six: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 302-304; Dodgson, 'Some Domesday personal-names', p. 43.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF BACONSTHORPE>. Ketilbiorn, whose tiny holding at Baconsthorpe in Norfolk was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, has no links with his namesakes. Count Alan had no other predecessors or tenants of this name, and there were no more Ketilbiorns in East Anglia.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF CUBBINGTON>. As the names are rare, it is possible that the Ketilbiorns or Ketilberts in Warwickshire are one man, though the manors devolved upon three tenants-in-chief. Cubbington is three miles from Radford Semele, and both about ten from Church Lawford. Ketilbiorn has been identified as a brother of Thorkil of Warwick, whose family had an interest in Ketilbiorn's manors of Cubbington and Radford: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 280, 283-84, 286-88.

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF HOLWELL>. Ketilbiorn, who held land worth six shillings at Holwell in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln, has no links with other Ketilbiorns or Ketilberts, though as a survivor with a rare name he may be the same man as Ketilbiorn of Nettleton or Ketilbert of Folksworth, the other survivors. The bishop had no other predecessors or tenants named Ketilbiorn or Ketilbert, and there were no more in the county. Ketilbiorn is unidentified in Coel (no. 26201).

.............................................................................................................................................
KETILBIORN <OF NETTLETON>. All Ketilbiorns and Ketilberts in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire may be one man, the king's thane in Lincolnshire, ancestor of the Keal family: Thomas, English and the Normans, p. 403. Although the predominant name-form in Lincolnshire is Ketilbiorn, as only Ketilbiorn held land in the county in 1086, he is presumably the Ketilbert (Chetelbertus) who had 'not paid tax on all his land'. He held Grasby in 1066, so unless this is a scribal error he not only survived for two decades but prospered in the process perhaps, as Dr Thomas suggests, because his expertise in falconry was a valued asset to the new political elite. As his name is uncommon and he was a landowner before the Conquest, it is not unlikely that he is the Ketilbiorn who preceded the bishop of Bayeux at Elsham and Nettleton and Osbern the priest at Binbrook; Nettleton is four miles from Grasby and Binbrook five from one of the dependencies of Nettleton.
	In Yorkshire, where the predominant name-form is Ketilbert or is indeterminate (Chetelber, etc), those at Wombwell, Wildthorpe and Darfield in Strafforth wapentake were pre-Conquest lords, the tenant at Worsborough a survivor. They may be the same man, however, since the manors are a few miles apart, in adjacent wapentakes. If they are, then it is not improbable he is the Lincolnshire thane. Some slight support for this conclusion is that the survivors at Nettleton and Worsborough shared their manors with a Gamal, though the name is common. Finally, the one Ketilbiorn in Nottinghamshire is a survivor who like the Lincolnshire thane retained his manor - at Gamston - for two decades. It is not entirely impossible that one or other (or both) of the survivors, Ketilbert of Folksworth and Ketilbiorn of Holwell, are the same man: a surprisingly high proportion of Ketilbiorns and Ketilberts held land in 1086. Ketilbiorn's Lincolnshire tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 3840) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 173; the tenants at Gamston and Worsborough are unidentified (nos. 35510, 37438).

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND. Kolbrand is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among the lands of as many tenants-in-chief and across four counties between Devon to Yorkshire, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF CREECH>. Kolbrand, whose fairly modest manor at Creech in Dorset in 1066 was acquired by Roger of Beaumont, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of whom was some seventy miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF CULM>. As the name is rare, the Kolbrands on respectable manors at Hockworthy and Culm in Devon - about eight miles apart - are likely to be the same man, though the manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief. It is possible that he is the same man as the Dorset Kolbrand, some seventy miles away, but there are no links between them other than broadly comparable manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF MALTON>. As the name is rare, the two Yorkshire Kolbrands, at Malton and Leavening - six miles apart - are likely to be one man; he is unlikely to be the same man as any of his southern namesakes, the nearest of them roughly 150 miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLBRAND <OF WALSGRAVE>. Kolbrand, whose modest holding at Walsgrave in Warwickshire was acquired by Richard the forester, has no links with his namesakes, all of them 150 miles or more away.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM. Outside Lincolnshire, the name Kolgrim is uncommon, occurring eleven times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of as many tenants-in-chief, one borne by the only survivor outside Lincolnshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM <OF ARLESTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Kolgrims whose adjacent holdings in Arleston and Barrow in Derbyshire were acquired by Henry of Ferrers are very probably one man. He has no links with his namesakes outside the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLGRIM [* OF GRANTHAM *]. All Kolgrims in Lincolnshire are probably one man, named Kolgrim of Grantham in the Ramsey cartulary, no doubt from his connection to the town, in which he had full jurisdiction: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 131; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 108. He is one of only two Kolgrims still holding land twenty years after the Conquest - the other in Somerset - and the only one to prosper.
	Kolgrim held Ewerby, Ingoldsby, Belton, 'Houghton' and Gonerby with their dependencies in his own right, many of which he had held for since before the Conquest. He also held Fulbeck, Leadenham, Westby, Billingborough, Stoke Rochford and North Hykeham from Count Alan of Brittany; a second manor in Stoke and 'North Stoke' and Witham on the Hill from Drogo of la Beuvrière, and Skinnand from Robert of Stafford. Almost all these manors were later held by his heirs as part of the Wensley fee of the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 255-58. Additionally, the tenant of Peterborough abbey at 'Houghton' must be Kolgrim of Grantham, who had the abbey as his tenant in the same vill; and he is probably the thane Kolgrim at Westby, a vill in which he held in chief. Of the remaining manors, Austhorpe is an outlier of his manor of Ewerby, both held for two decades; Silk Willoughby is four miles from Ewerby; and Kelby, where Bishop Remigius, Kolgrim 'and their companions' had meadow and underwood in the manor, five miles from Willoughby. Finally, he is probably the tenant of Crowland abbey at Sutterton Dowdyke since there a history between his heirs and the abbey, which subsequently established its rights to the advowsons of many of the churches on the Wensley fee, perhaps a quid pro quo for the tenancy at Dowdyke: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 257. Two claims refer to Kolgrim's manor of Belton. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2935) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 174.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLLUNG. Kollung (Collinc) is a rare name which occurs twice, once each in Shropshire and Derbyshire; it is possibly the same name as the equally rare Culling (Culling, Cullingus), a burgess in Colchester and Ipswich; but it is improbable the burgess is either of the rural Kollungs.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLLUNG <OF HATTON>. Kollung, whose modest shared manor in Hatton in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers, has no links with his one namesake, at Steel in Shropshire, or with the urban Culling.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLLUNG <OF STEEL>. Kollung, whose modest shared manor in Steel in Shropshire was acquired by Roger of Courseulles, has no links with his one namesake, at Hatton in Derbyshire, or with the urban Culling.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLSVEINN. Kolsveinn is a common name in Lincolnshire but rare elsewhere, occurring once in Kent, Wiltshire and Devon, and four times in Cambridgeshire. The Kolsveinns in Kent, Wiltshire and on three manors in Cambridgeshire are pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
KOLSVEINN [* OF LINCOLN *]. Although his manors were held from eight tenants-in-chief, it is likely that all Kolsveinns in Lincolnshire are the English tenant-in-chief in the county, one of three Kolsveinns - the others in Cambridgeshire and Somerset - holding land in 1086. Known from later records as Kolsveinn of Lincoln, he was singled out by Sir Frank Stenton as one of only two Englishmen holding tenancies-in-chief 'of the first order' at the time of the Domesday Survey ('English families', p. 1). Although an Englishman, he apparently held no land before the Conquest. Many of his tenancies are in vills where he held in chief, these and others apparently in the hands of his heirs, the de la Haye family, in either the Lindsey Survey or in the Cartae of 1166: Holt, 'Carta of Richard de la Haye', pp. 291-93; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, p. 107. Only the tenants of Earl Hugh at Bullington and of Drogo of Beuvrière at Claxby appear to have no such associations; but the former is within five miles of a cluster of Kolsveinn's manors, and the descent of the latter fief was disrupted almost as soon as the Domesday Survey was complete. Kolsveinn was involved in numerous Claims, in many of which he is identified as holding the manors concerned, though there is little reason to doubt that he is the Kolsveinn involved in the remainder. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2934) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 175.

.............................................................................................................................................
LAMBERT. Lambert is an uncommon name which occurs twenty-one times, distributed among eleven counties and the lands of a dozen tenants-in-chief, all post-Conquest tenants. There are no significant clusters, but the Lamberts of Cambridgeshire, Essex and Norfolk held substantial manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
LAMBERT <OF GONERBY>. Three of the four Lamberts in northern England are associated with Jocelyn son of Lambert (q.v.) so are probably a relative, conceivably his father, though it is curious in that case that his endowment is modest and his son's substantial. A Lincolnshire claim refers to Jocelyn and his father, though in terms which do not make it clear whether the father is still alive. Lambert was a tenant of Jocelyn at Enderby in Lincolnshire, and is probably the tenant of the bishop of Durham at Gonerby, Jocelyn himself being a tenant of the bishop. Similarly, he is probably the one Lambert in Yorkshire, a tenant of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Sutton on Hull, Jocelyn probably holding a tenancy from Drogo in Lincolnshire. It is unlikely that Lambert is the same man as his namesake in Cheshire, the one other northern Lambert, who has no apparent associations. Lambert's Lincolnshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9259) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 286, where Odo of Bayeux in the commentary should be the bishop of Durham; the Yorkshire Lambert is unidentified (no. 37902), as is the Cheshire tenant (no. 28472).

.............................................................................................................................................
LAMBERT [* OF ROSAY *]. The Lamberts who held West Wratting and West Wickham in Cambridgeshire and Waterden and Rudham in Norfolk from William of Warenne are probably Lambert of Rosay, who granted tithes or land in his Norfolk manors to the Warenne foundation of Castle Acre priory: Monasticon, v. 49, no 1. The Cambridgeshire manors descended to his heirs: VCH Cambridgeshire, vi. 117, 192. He was from Rosay in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 86-87. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 976) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 287.

.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC. Landric is an uncommon name which occurs sixteen times, distributed among four counties and the lands of the king and three of his tenants-in-chief, all post-Conquest tenants. The name is rare in the sense that it may have been borne by only three men.

.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC <OF "BRIME">. As the name is rare, it is probable that the Landrics who held Maidenhead in Berkshire and a cluster of three manors in Northamptonshire from Giles of Picquigny are the same man, who is possibly also the tenant of Guy of Raimbeaucourt at Aldwincle, the one other Landric in the Midlands. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1576) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.

.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC [* OF HORNBY *]. The Landrics who held land in Danby Wiske, Cowton, Ainderby Mires and Hutton Hang in Yorkshire and in Killingholme, Welton and Holbeach in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany, are identified by the descent of these manors as Landric of Hornby (in Ainderby parish), alias Landric of Holbeach, named in charters of the Honour of Richmond and the Red Book of Thorney. Landric's descendant, probably his great-grandson, was Conan son of Ellis, also known as Conan of Hornby, who held a fee of five knights from the Honour of Richmond in the same vills (apart from Danby) in the late twelfth century : Early Yorkshire charters, v. 39, 272-73, 284-85. Landric's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2462) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.

.............................................................................................................................................
LANDRIC [* THE CARPENTER *]. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Landrics who held land at Bishopthorpe and Acaster Selby, three or four miles to the south of York, are Landric the carpenter, who had 10 1/2 messuages in the city 'which the sheriff gave into his charge'. The Yorkshire Claims reveal that he also held land (with a dubious title) at Pallathorpe and Mulehale, also in Ainsty wapentake, held by Nigel Fossard and three thanes respectively according to the main text. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2450) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 288.

.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER". Langfer is a rare name whose origin is obscure. It occurs four times in Domesday Book, once each in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire and twice in Suffolk, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 308.

.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF HARGRAVE>. As the name is rare, it is possible that the Langfer with a small manor at Hargrave in Huntingdonshire acquired by Eustace the sheriff is the Langfer at Horn in Northamptonshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF HORN>. As the name is rare, it is possible that the Langfer with a respectable holding at Horn in Northamptonshire acquired by the bishop of Durham is the Langfer at Hargrave; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
"LANGFER" <OF WESTERFIELD>. As the name is rare, the free man Langfer with fourteen acres at Westerfield in Suffolk acquired by Geoffrey de Mandeville may be the Langfer on a tiny holding at Wadgate, despite the twenty or so miles separating them.

.............................................................................................................................................
LAURENCE <OF DENCHWORTH>. Laurence is a rare name which occurs three times, so the tenants of Robert of Stafford at Denchworth in Berkshire and Wilbrighton in Staffordshire are almost certainly one man, despite the distance separating the manors. Hervey of Wilbrighton held land in the two vills from the Honour of Stafford in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 846, 967. The Stafford properties are roughly equidistant from the third Laurence, at Bosworth in Leicestershire, a tenant of Robert of Vessey, possibly therefore the same man. The descent of Bosworth is unrevealing, being absorbed into another manor in the vill by the time of the Leicestershire Survey (pp. 23, 33). Laurence's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1662) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 289.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER. The name Leodmer occurs roughly two dozen times, distributed among nine counties between Devon and Derbyshire and the lands of eleven tenants-in-chief, with small clusters in Essex and Hertfordshire, two manors being held by survivors. The name is sometimes confused with Leofmer, and Lemar may be one or the other or possibly a different name, as also the one Leomer. These forms add four counties and ten tenants-in-chief to the distribution.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF AFFLINGTON>. Leodmer (Leodmar), who held a small holding at Afflington in Dorset acquired by Roger of Beaumont, has no links with his namesakes, or with Leofmers or Lemars, none within a hundred miles.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF ASH>. As the name is uncommon, the Leodmers (Leimar, Ledmar) from whom Ralph of Pomeroy acquired land in the adjacent vills of Ash and Putford in Devon are probably one man; he has no links with other Leodmers, or with Leofmers or Lemars, all distant.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF BARTON>. The Leodmers (Ledmer) whose modest holdings in the neighbouring vills of Barton, Burnaston and Bearwardcote in Derbyshire were acquired by Henry of Ferrers are very probably one man. He has no links with his namesakes elsewhere, or with Leofmers or Lemars, all distant.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF BYGRAVE>. It is likely that the Lemars and Leodmers on four manors in Odsey Hundred in Hertfordshire are one man, despite the different name forms and the acquisition of the manors by two tenants-in-chief, the bishop of Chester of Bygrave (Lemarus) and Broadfield (Ledmaer) and Ralph of Limésy of Hainstone and Caldecote (Lemar, Lemarus). In all four cases Lemar/Leodmer is described as a man of Archbishop Stigand, who had no dependants with this name or its variants elsewhere; Caldecote and Bygrave, the two principle manors, are five miles apart. As the name-forms are uncommon, the archbishop's man may also be the Lemarus at Graveley, six miles from Bygrave, and the Ledmarus at Astwick in Bedfordshire, two miles from Caldecote, five from Bygrave. If so, then like others of his status he survived on a fragment of his once substantial estate, retaining the modest holding at Astwick, one of two Leodmers holding land in 1086. Earlier in the century, a Leofmer (Leommaere) of Bygrave, perhaps an ancestor, was restored to the estate (unspecified) taken from him by Ealdorman Aethelstan: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 60-61, 173. Leodmer is unidentified in Coel (no. 291).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF HORSEHEATH>. Leodmer (Ledmarus), whose half-virgate at Horseheath in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Hardwin of Scales, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Leodmer holding land in the county, though several Leodmers and Lemars are recorded among the jurors there, all in different Hundreds from Horseheath: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton), pp. 38, 99-100. The Inquisitio (p. 37) also records a Lemar (Lemmarus) at Babraham, seven miles from Horseheath.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF WENHAM>. Leodmer (Ledmerus), who shared a holding at Wenham in Suffolk worth ten shillings acquired by the bishop of Bayeux, has no links with other Leodmers, though Higham, one of the manors of the Leodmer the priest, a predecessor of Count Eustace of Boulogne, is four miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER <OF WHITTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Leodmers (Leimer, Lemer) whose manors at Whitton and Polmere - five miles apart - in Shropshire were acquired by Roger son of Corbet and the earl of Shrewsbury, are probably one man. He is the only Leodmer, Leofmer or Lemar in circuit five.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODMER [* THE PRIEST *]. As the name is uncommon, it is likely that the Leodmers (Ledmarus) who preceded Count Eustace at Claret Hall and Belchamp in Essex and Higham in Suffolk are his predecessor at Bendysh Hall, Leodmer the priest. Both Claret Hall and Bendysh are substantial, and Belchamp is close to Claret Hall. Leodmer is almost certainly the priest who was head of the substantially-endowed collegiate college of St John at Clare, a mile away across the border with Suffolk, the caput of the Honour of Richard of Clare in Suffolk. Leodmer the priest was also a predecessor of Richard of Clare at Gestingthorpe. All these manors are within a few miles of each other and are further linked by indications that Richard of Clare had interests in the manors acquired by Count Eustace. A Leodmer of Hempstead also occurs on the fief of Richard of Clare, annexing Braintree, about ten miles from Gestingthorpe. Alternative bynames are not uncommon, but Leodmer of Hempstead was a reeve, active after the Conquest, so unlikely to be the priest.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODWIN. Leodwin (Leduinus) is an rare name, occurring eight times in Domesday Book, once in Devon, twice in Yorkshire, the remainder in Lincolnshire. A Leofwin in Somerset is rendered Leodwin (Letuuinus) in Exon.; a similar inconsistency may be suspected in some of the Lincolnshire entries.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEODWIN [* SON OF RAVEN *]. As the name is rare, the only Leodwin in the country in 1086, the king's thane at Kexby, is probably Leodwin son of Raven, named as having full jurisdiction in place of Healfdene the priest; Healfdene held nearby. Leodwin's jurisdictional privileges are recorded in Coel (no. 5639) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 289; the Leodwin at Kexby is omitted from Coel and Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA. Leofa is a rare name which occurs once in Hampshire in 1086, once in Somerset at both dates, and once in Huntingdonshire before the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF BEERE>. Leofa, who retained a small holding among the king's clerics in Somerset for two decades, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the other survivor, at Shalfleet in Hampshire. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 14719).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF SHALFLEET>. Leofa, who held Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight in 1086 from Jocelyn son of Azur, has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare he may be the other survivor, at Beere in Somerset. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 6896).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFA <OF WARESLEY>. Leofa, whose manor of Waresley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf, has no links with his distant namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFEVA <OF LAWFORD>. Leofeva is a fairly common name. Of the six survivors, three occur in Warwickshire, two identified as Leofeva the nun, whose alms land was subsequently granted to Kenilworth priory: Regesta, iii. no. 418. In these circumstances, it is not unlikely that the third Leofeva, a tenant of Thorkil of Arden at Little Lawford, is also the nun, though the descent of her holding, held by the Craft family for a fifth of a fee from the earldom of Warwick in the thirteenth century, suggests otherwise: Book of Fees, pp. 508, 957. Although this is not conclusive, Leofeva is here treated as a second individual. She is unidentified in Coel (no. 28385).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFFLED. Leoffled is an uncommon name. There are single occurrences in Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire, two each in Berkshire and Shropshire, and three in Colchester and Suffolk, but the name is fairly common in Herefordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFFLED [* WIFE OF THORKIL *]. As the name is uncommon, all Leoffleds in Herefordshire and Shropshire may be Leoffled wife of Thorkil White (q.v.), named in two late Anglo-Saxon lawsuits: Robertson, Charters, pp. 150-53, 186-87, 399-402, 435. Since the latest date of one of these is 1035, and may be as early as 1016, Leoffled was probably dead by 1086. Her manors were acquired by two tenants-in-chief, Nigel the doctor and Hugh the ass. The lawsuits refer to her husband's manor of Wellington, acquired by Hugh the ass, who is named elsewhere as Thorkil's successor, the bulk of Hugh's fief coming from Leoffled and Thorkil. Leoffled also provided half of the fief of Nigel the doctor in Herefordshire, her manors being distributed around those acquired by Hugh the ass. Finally, the Letflede (Leodfled) from whom Hugh the ass acquired Hatfield may also be Thorkil's wife. Although Leodfled and Leoffled are regarded as different names by von Feilitzen, the former is rare, occurring only once more in Domesday Book, so its occurrence on the fief of Hugh the ass suggests a scribal error: Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 309, 311. A list of Leoffled's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 345-46, which does not include those in Shropshire. Dr Clarke ranks Leoffled and her husband fifty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the Shropshire manors were both waste, but the addition of one manor attributed to Thorkil would raise husband and wife a place.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFKETEL. Leofketel is a rare name which occurs only twice, both on pre-Conquest holdings.

........................................................................ counties and the lands of the king and xxx of his tenants-in-chief.............................
LEOFKETEL <OF AUGHTON>. As the name is rare, the Leofketel with four bovates at Aughton in Yorkshire may be the Leofketel of Nottinghamshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFKETEL <OF MORTON>. As the name is rare, the Leofketel with a small, shared holding at Morton in Nottinghamshire may be the Leofketel of Yorkshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFMAN <OF SOBERTON>. The Leofmans who held the consecutive manors of Hayling Island and Soberton in Hampshire are almost certainly one man. Both manors - twelve miles apart - are fairly substantial, and Leofman was deprived of both of them by King Harold during his brief reign. There are no other Leofmans in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH. Leofnoth is a very common name which occurs almost 120 times, distributed among twenty-one counties between Cornwall and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and more than forty of his tenants-in-chief. There are large clusters in Northamptonshire, Cheshire and Derbyshire and smaller ones in Wiltshire and Shropshire; the name is almost entirely absent in eastern England, with none in Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and the three counties of Little Domesday and only two occurrences each in Kent and Yorkshire. Survivors held single manors in Sussex, Northamptonshire, Worcestershire and Staffordshire and three in Cornwall.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* BROTHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Almost 90% of the Honour of Ralph son of Hubert came from a Leofnoth or Leofric, evidently his designated predecessors. He acquired Middleton in Derbyshire from Leofnoth and his (unnamed) brother, the majority of Ralph's holdings in that county having been held jointly by Leofnoth and Leofric. It is probable therefore that the Leofnoth who preceded Ralph elsewhere in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire is the same man, the only Leofnoth in Nottinghamshire, and one of two in Derbyshire. A single Leofnoth in Staffordshire, a post-Conquest landowner, may be him, though there are no links to confirm this. A list of Leofnoth's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 321-22, which includes those given above, apart from dependencies. The brothers are ranked by Dr Clarke forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen. Dr Williams suggests that Leofnoth may be the same man as Leofnoth son of Osmund: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF BRANSTON>. Leofnoth, who held a manor worth £1 at Branston in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln in 1066, has no links with other Leofnoths, and the bishop no other tenant or predecessor of this name.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF CALDY>. All Leofnoths in Cheshire may be one man, the predecessor of Robert of Rhuddlan at Caldy and five other manors in Willaston Hundred and another three in Ati's Cross, a substantial estate in Cheshire terms, on a par with the assessed land held by Earl Morcar. Leofnoth may also be the Leofnoth who held all or most of the remaining manors, a group clustered around Cogshall, in Tunendune and Bucklow Hundreds, held in 1086 by Earl Hugh, Richard of Vernon, William son of Nigel, and Ranulf Mainwaring. Richard and Ranulf also acquired Moulton and Winnington in other Hundreds, the latter a mile from Cogshall. The remaining manor, acquired by William Malbank at Minshull, is twelve miles south of Cogshall. If these manors were held by a second Leofnoth, he would rank fifteenth among pre-Conquest lords; it seems more likely there was one Leofnoth rather than two substantial landowners of that name in a small county. If so, his manorial income - very modest in national terms - would rank him immediately after the king and the earls in the county. See also Sawyer and Thacker, 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 323; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH <OF VERYAN>. The Leofnoths who held Tredower and Elerkey in Cornwall from the Count of Mortain in 1086, and Halvana in both 1066 and 1086, are probably one man. He is one of two survivors of this name south of the Thames, and one of three who retained the same manor for twenty years. He does not appear to be related to the others, in Sussex and Northamptonshire. There are no pre-Conquest Leofnoths in Cornwall, and Leofnoth has no links with the predecessor of Baldwin the sheriff in Devon. Leofnoth's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1692) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 290.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Although Leofnoth is a common name and Leofnoth's patronymic is supplied only once, his substantial estate in the south Midlands may be largely reconstituted from its tenurial and geographical characteristics. He was a significant predecessor of Walter of Flanders, who acquired his entire fief in Northamptonshire and the bulk of his manors in Bedfordshire from him. In Bedfordshire, Leofnoth is described as a royal thane in most entries, and so may be the man of King Edward who held the substantial manor of Ellesborough in Buckinghamshire. The one other Leofnoth in the county, at Wavendon, was a lord of men and so is perhaps the lord of Ellesborough, named the son of Osmund at Wavendon, this manor lying between those of Walter's predecessor in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. Wavendon is also adjacent to the only other manors in Bedfordshire held by a royal thane named Leofnoth, which were acquired by another Flemish tenant-in-chief, Walter brother of Sihere, probably the nephew of Walter of Flanders; the estates of uncle and nephew descended together: Farrer, Honors, i. 61, 73-76.
	One other manor in Bedfordshire was held by a Leofnoth who was a lord of men, at Carlton, surrounded by the manors of Osmund's son. Finally, he may be the Leofnoth who held half-a-dozen manors in Northamptonshire. These do not record the lordship detail to aid identification; but the manor at Grimsbury, held 'with full jurisdiction', devolved upon another of the Flemish tenants-in-chief, Gunfrid of Chocques; and those at Litchborough and Croughton were held freely and are adjacent to others held by Osmund's son. One of these devolved upon the Count of Mortain, who acquired another manor from Leofnoth. That, though, was somewhat apart and modestly endowed. It is also possible, as suggested by Dr Clarke, that Osmund's son is the Leofnoth whose manor at Berkswell in Northamptonshire was acquired by the Count of Meulan, in which case he may have held the other manor in Berkswell, recorded in the Warwickshire folios, along with others nearby acquired by the Count from a Leofnoth. This Leofnoth held freely; some of his properties were modestly substantial; and two of them were reasonably close to those acquired by Walter of Flanders. There are no other Leofnoths in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire or Warwickshire.
	A Leofric son of Osmund is recorded at Tilsworth in Bedfordshire, and a lease of circa 1050 names Leofric son of Osmund and his brother Leofnoth: Baxter, 'Earls of Mercia', pp. 25-26. On this basis, Dr Williams suggests that the two Domesday sons of Osmund are the brothers named in the lease, who may also be the brothers Leofric and Leofnoth whose considerable estate in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire was acquired by Ralph son of Hubert: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note 66. Though possible, the latter suggestion seems unlikely. Leofric and Leofnoth are common names, of course, and the considerable estate of the predecessors of Ralph son of Hubert was allocated on antecessorial principles, his acquisitions cutting into the territorial blocks allocated to William Peverel and Roger of Bully, suggesting that he was endowed before those blocks were created: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 162. No such characteristics distinguish the southern manors of Leofric and Leofnoth. Of the tenants-in-chief in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire or Warwickshire, only Miles Crispin acquired a significant manor from both a Leofric and a Leofnoth, Whitchurch and Henton in Oxfordshire being his only manors from either. On the other hand, Walter of Flanders Leofnoth's principle predecessor on the reconstruction suggested above, had no predecessors named Leofric.
	Like many others of his condition, Leofnoth son of Osmund may have survived on a fragment of his former holdings, as a tenant of Walter of Flanders at Plumpton, a manor he had retained for two decades. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 319-20, which does not include Astwick in Northamptonshire or the Meulan manors other than Berkswell, or that of his man at Carlton in Bedfordshire. Leofnoth is ranked twenty-sixth in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would not affect this. The tenant at Plumpton is unidentified in Coel (no. 27318).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFNOTH [* "STERRE" *]. Although Leofnoth is a common name, it is uncommon in the north Midlands, except in Derbyshire. Apart from Leofnoth brother of Leofric, the name occurs once in Staffordshire, twice in Leicestershire, and not at all in Nottinghamshire. In Derbyshire, all Leofnoths apart from Leofric's brother are predecessors Henry of Ferrers or the king, a distribution which suggests that Henry's predecessors may be Leofnoth Sterre, Henry's predecessor at Breaston, notwithstanding Dr Fleming's thesis on the allocation of land by wapentakes: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 151-52, 163-65. Of the three royal manors , Marsh is adjacent to Breaston and Leofnoth shared 'Langley' with Ketil, as did Henry's predecessor at Edensor. One of the two Leicestershire Leofnoths was also Henry's predecessor, so may be the same man. There are no other Leofnoths on Henry's Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC. Leofric is one of the most common names in Anglo-Saxon England, occurring in all but three counties and the lands of more than eighty tenants-in-chief. There are large clusters in Northamptonshire and Suffolk and lesser ones in Devon, Leicestershire, Derbyshire and Lincolnshire. English survivors occur in nineteen entries, distributed among thirteen counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *]. Ralph son of Hubert acquired approximately 90% of his Honour from a Leofnoth or a Leofric, evidently his designated predecessors. As the majority of Ralph's holdings in Derbyshire had been held jointly by Leofnoth and Leofric, Leofric is presumably the unnamed brother of Leofnoth at Middleton, which Ralph acquired from the two of them. Leofnoth's brother is very probably also the Leofric who occurs elsewhere on Ralph's fiefs in Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire, who may also have held Ingleby in Derbyshire, where the name of the landowner is omitted. He may also be the predecessor of Nigel of Stafford (q.v.) at Kingsley, since he preceded Ralph in the same vill, where Nigel was Ralph's tenant, the only other Leofric in the county. In Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, by contrast, the name occurs frequently; but as it is a common name, and much of the land was allocated by wapentake, it is impossible to determine whether any of these Leofric's are Leofnoth's brother; only one of the manors, however, is valuable.
	Leofric's brother is identified as Leofnoth son of Osmund (q.v.) and a Leofric son of Osmund, predecessor of William Peverel, is recorded at Tilsworth in Bedfordshire. On this basis, Dr Williams suggests that the Domesday sons of Osmund are the brothers Leofnoth and Leofric sons of Osmund named in a lease of circa 1050 names: World before Domesday, pp. 19, 157-58 note 66; Baxter, 'Earls of Mercia', pp. 25-26. While not impossible, it seems more likely that William's predecessor is another man since Ralph appears to have been allocated the lands of his predecessors at an early date, before William Peverel was allocated his territorial block in the north: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 162. Peverel's predecessor is therefore likely to be another man. A list of Leofric's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 321-22, which agrees with that above apart from dependencies. The brothers are ranked forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen by Dr Clarke.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF BOTTESFORD>. Leofric is a common name but it is probable that the Leofrics from whom Robert of Tosny acquired the majority of his manors in Leicestershire are one man, the Leofric who held the substantial manor of Bottesford around which the fief clustered and upon which several others were dependent. It is possible that Robert acquired his entire fief in the county from this man, since those entries where he is not named or implied have no recorded pre-Conquest lords. One ambiguous entry names him and three other thanes collectively as holding a group of entries and could imply that Leofric was the overlord of those manors he did not hold directly. Robert of Tosny had another predecessor of this name, at Woolsthorpe in Lincolnshire, five miles from Bottesford, so perhaps the same man. It is also possible that he is the same man as Leofric the noble, son of Leofwin, despite the ubiquity of their forenames. Both held land in Stathern, which is approximately half-way between the centres of their respective clusters of manors, at Bottesford and Melton Mowbray; but the name is common in Leicestershire, so Leofric of Bottesford is here treated as another man.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF TWYFORD>. Although the name Leofric is common, it is likely that the predecessors of Henry of Ferrers on four manors in Derbyshire are one man. Twyford, Stenson and Normanton are adjacent, and Leofric shared a holding with Gamal at Normanton and Tissington. The fourth holding, at Linton, is about nine miles from Swepstone in Leicestershire, held by the one other Leofric on Henry's Honour, perhaps therefore the same man. Twyford is a valuable manor in Litchurch wapentake, most of which was probably allocated to Henry as a block (Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 164), so it is not unlikely that Leofric was the predecessor of other tenants-in-chief, of whom the most likely is William Peverel. However, the name is common and Leofric held manors in two other wapentakes where Henry was not as dominant, so the predecessors of Peverel and Ferrers are here treated as different men.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC <OF WILLOUGHBY>. Guy of Raimbeaucourt acquired the bulk of his Honour from a Leofric, who contributed manors in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, and Northamptonshire. Those in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire are all connected to Stanford, and Leofric is the only named predecessor of Guy in Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, in both of which counties he had at least one substantial manor. Leofric contributed about 20% of Guy's Honour, perhaps a little more since he may be the unnamed predecessors on Guy's Leicestershire manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* SON OF OSMUND *]. Tilsworth in Bedfordshire, held by the royal thane Leofric son of Osmund, is one of the most valuable manors acquired by William Peverel and practically his entire fief in the county so possibly allocated on an antecessorial basis, in which case William's predecessor at Bolsover, Glapwell, and Shirland in Derbyshire may be the same man. Though modest in comparison to Tilsworth these manors are not insignificant by Derbyshire standards and were probably held by one man: Glapwell is three miles from Bolsover and nine from Shirland. A royal thane might be expected to hold more but his name is common and there are no apparent links with unidentified Leofrics on other manors, the most valuable being Willian in Hertfordshire and Twyford in Derbyshire, the latter perhaps the more likely since Henry of Ferrers may have acquired Twyford and other manors as part of a block grant of the wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 164. However, as the name is common Henry's predecessor is here treated as another man. It has been suggested that Peverel's predecessor is Leofric, brother of Leofnoth son of Osmund (q.v.), but there are problems with that identification too.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFRIC [* THE NOBLE SON OF LEOFWIN *]. Geoffrey of la Guerche acquired almost two-thirds of his Honour from Leofric or Leofwin, evidently his designated predecessors. Leofric is described as the son of Leofwin on his Leicestershire manors, and as Leofric the noble (cilt) in Lincolnshire. He may have preceded Geoffrey on other manors on his Leicestershire fief, where few predecessors are recorded. He is probably also the Leofric from whom Geoffrey acquired substantial manors in Northamptonshire and Nottinghamshire. Geoffrey of la Guerche married his sister, Aelfeva: VCH Warwickshire, i. 275-76. Father and son are not included in from Clarke, English nobility, where their combined estate would rank them forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFSI. Leofsi is a fairly common name, occurring about forty times, distributed among sixteen counties and the lands of the king and about more than two dozen tenants-in-chief. The name is almost entirely absent in the south-west, and outside Lincolnshire it is rare north of the Wash. One Leofsi survived in Buckinghamshire, another in Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFSI <OF HOLLINGTON>. It is probable that the Leofsis who preceded Henry of Ferrers on modest, shared holdings in the adjacent vills of Hollington and Shirley in Derbyshire are one man. There are no other Leofsis on the Ferrers Honour, and the three Leofsis recorded in the six adjacent counties - all in Yorkshire - appear to be unrelated.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN. Leofwin is a very common name which occurs roughly 350 times, in every county except in Rutland and on the lands of the king and almost a hundred of his tenants-in-chief, with large clusters in Sussex, Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Essex and Suffolk. Leofwins survived on almost forty manors though the number of individuals holding them is probably less than half that number.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* CAVE *]. Leofwin Chaua, who held Wavendon in Buckinghamshire in both 1066 and 1086, is probably the same man as Leofwin Oaura at Simpson and Leofwin at 'Wanden' during the same two decades. It is possible that he is to be identified as Leofwin of Nuneham, who also survived on the same manors for twenty years, one of them in Wavendon; but the forename is common in Buckinghamshire so Cave is here treated as another man. Leofwin Chaua, Leofwin Oaura, and Leofwin of Nuneham are recorded as different individuals in Coel (nos. 199, 689, 1651), referenced in Domesday people, p. 290; the Leofwin at 'Wanden' is unidentified (no. 1555).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] LEOFWIN. Earl Leofwin is given his title on more than sixty manors in eight counties between Devon and Hertfordshire. Where his title is omitted, his name is so common that he is difficult to identify. Even in the Sussex heartland of the Godwinson family, where Leofwins are thick on the ground, there are few cases where a reasonably secure identification may be suggested. It is likely, for instance, that most if not all of the substantial manors held by a Leofwin in the county belonged to the earl, as there are no other identified Leofwins in Sussex; but only at Worthing and Sompting, where the interdependence of manors and the coincidence of the names of Earl Godwin, Leofwin and Tosti suggest a family interest, is an identification reasonably certain. The Leofwin who held Lancing may also be the earl, Lancing lying a mile from Sompting, with which it shared an important strategic situation overseeing Shoreham harbour; it is the largest and most valuable manor held by a Leofwin in the county. Applesham, held from Earl Godwin, is another possibility, on similar grounds. Less certainly, Duncton, Burpham and Streat, each assessed at more than five hides or £5, may have been his, though not here allocated to him.
	Dr Lewis has suggested that Odo succeeded Leofwin as earl in Kent, Surrey, Middlesex, Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire after 1066: 'Early earls', pp. 217-18. Odo was certainly his main successor, acquiring fifteen of his seventeen demesne manors in those counties where he is given his title, and many of those of his men. It is likely, therefore, that he is the Leofwin who preceded Bishop Odo at Islington in Middlesex, Libury in Hertfordshire, and on one or more of the manors in Kent held by an unidentified Leofwin. Of these, he is likely to be the Leofwin who held the valuable manor (£12) of Bekesbourne from King Edward and perhaps Frinsted, also held from the king and a few miles from his demesne manors of Leeds and Sutton Valence. He is less likely to be the bishop's predecessor who held Siffleton jointly with Wulfwin, or who shared Pising with five other lords, or held the small manor in the lost vill of Leueberge in the same Hundred. Although the bulk of his manors lay in eastern England, Earl Leofwin was also the predecessor of the bishop in Somerset, so he may be the Leofwin from whom Odo acquired the substantial manor of Rampisham in the neighbouring county of Dorset, each manor constituting the bishop's fief in that county, probably therefore acquired by antecession. Finally, Count Eustace of Boulogne may have obtained Stanford and Laver from the earl, these being by a considerable margin the most valuable manors held by a Leofwin in Essex, and just a few miles apart; Essex was part of Leofwin's earldom: Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 67, 303.
	A list of the earl's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 200-203, which also attributes Islington, Libury, Rampisham, Stanford and Laver to him, but not the Sussex manors of Applesham, Worthing, Sompting and Lancing, or Bekesbourne and Frinstead in Kent; it does not include his men at Hemel Hempstead and King's Langley in Hertfordshire. Leofwin is ranked thirteenth in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would raise him to twelfth place. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, p. 129, supplies an almost identical estimate (£283) of his manorial income; the Statistics database total (£321) is higher.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* FATHER OF LEOFRIC *]. Geoffrey of la Guerche acquired almost two-thirds of his Honour from a Leofric or Leofwin, evidently his designated predecessors; he married Leofwin's daughter: Dugdale, Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1; Round, 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', pp. 275-76. Leofwin himself is named as Leofric's father on two of Geoffrey's Leicestershire manors. He is almost certainly therefore the Leofwin who preceded Geoffrey on his entire fief in Warwickshire, and probably also Geoffrey's predecessor at Burton-on-the-Wolds in Leicestershire, and possibly on several other manors on the fief among those where the pre-Conquest lords are not named. He may also be the Leodwin from whom Geoffrey obtained two of his most valuable manors in Lincolnshire; Geoffrey had no other predecessor with this uncommon name, and philological arguments point to the same conclusion: Fellows-Jensen, 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', pp. 33-34. He is probably also the Leofwin who preceded Hugh of Grandmesnil at Thurcaston, which had been held by Geoffrey of la Guerche but was exchanged with the king for other manors. Father and son are not included in Clarke, English nobility, where their combined estate would rank them forty-third in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN <OF ASTON>. Although the name is common, it is likely that the Leofwins who survived among the king's thanes in Derbyshire at Coal Aston and Handley are one man, who may be the other survivor in the county, the tenant of Roger of Bully at Beighton, a few miles from Aston, and perhaps also Roger's predecessor at Dore, five miles from Aston. As it is likely that Leofwin of Aston survived in the area for twenty years, he may be the Leofwin who shared the royal manor of Unstone in 1066 with Edwin who, like Leofwin, was Roger's predecessor at Dore. Roger had other Leofwins among his predecessors, Leofwin the noble at Breaston and a Leofwin at Thrumpton in Nottinghamshire, either or both conceivably the same man; but the name is common and the Derbyshire manors modest, so the Derbyshire Leofwin is here treated as a separate individual. All three tenants are unidentified in Coel (nos. 32485, 32496-97).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* OF BARTON *]. Leofwin, who preceded the bishop of Lisieux on his fief in Oxfordshire, 'can safely be identified' as Leofwin of Barton, who early in the reign of the Confessor witnessed a charter concerning Great Tew, which lies in the same Hundred as the bishop's fief: Stenton, 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', pp. 380-81. Although his name is common, it is not unlikely that Leofwin also held Rodmarton and Lasborough in Gloucestershire, two of the three manors on the fief of the bishop of Lisieux there; Lasborough and Barton are the most valuable manors held by a Leofwin in either county. The bishop had no other predecessors of this name, and Oxfordshire none who are unidentified. The name is fairly common in Gloucestershire, where the most valuable of other manors held by a Leofwin - Syde, Siddington and Oakley - lie between those of Leofwin of Barton in Oxfordshire and Gloucestershire; but the name is common and there are no links to confirm an identity in these cases.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* OF NUNEHAM *]. The Leofwins who held Mursley, Maids Moreton, Beachampton and Wavendon in Buckinghamshire are probably Leofwin of Nuneham, named in the fief heading and on the first manor in the group and as holding five burgesses in the county town at Drayton Parslow before the Conquest. He held the very valuable manor of Nuneham Courtney which he granted it to Abingdon abbey with the approval of Odo of Bayeux; but the Conqueror seized it after Odo's disgrace and granted to another landowner, presumably Richard of Courcy, who held it in 1086: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 12-13. He may also be the Leofwin who retained his three valuable manors in Oxfordshire during the same two decades, and is possibly the man here identified as Leofwin Cave, another survivor on his pre-Conquest manors in Buckinghamshire, one of which lay in Wavendon, alongside that of Leofwin of Nuneham. Dr Williams suggests he may be the one other survivor in the county, a tenant of Roger of Ivry at Beachampton, where one of Leofwin of Nuneham's manors lay, and possibly the Leofwin Doda whose manor at Wilmcote in Warwickshire acquired by Osbern son of Richard, who also obtained one of his manors from Leofwin of Nuneham's mother: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 117-18. Leofwin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 689) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 290, apart from the Oxfordshire manors, assigned to two other men (nos. 28081, 28088), and Beachampton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1484).

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Leofwin, who held land in Leominster in 1086, is very probably Leofwin the interpreter, named in two other entries, where he held 'as much land in Leominster as is worth 25s' in one, and land at Yarpole in the same manor. He may also be Roger of Lacy's tenant at Mawfield and his predecessor at Heath and Yarsop, the only other Leofwins in the county. Roger of Lacy had a significant presence on the royal fief, in particular on components of the manor of Leominster, and in that context the absence of Leofwins on all fiefs in the county other than his own may be significant. Roger had predecessors (though not tenants) of this name in Berkshire and Gloucestershire, but the name is a common one. There are no more surviving Leofwins in adjacent counties.

................................................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* THE NOBLE OF BACTON *]. The Leofwins whose respectable manors of Purleigh and Colne Engaine in Essex were acquired by Walter the deacon are probably Leofwin the noble, his predecessor on a second, more valuable manor in Purleigh; Walter's Honour was modest and his predecessors few. Leofwin cilt also held the substantial manor of Helions Bumpstead in Essex and Ulverston in Suffolk, where he is also named as a free man, as at Wickham Market in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 146). Most of the Honour of Walter the deacon lay in Suffolk, where he had six named predecessors, three of the Leofwins having manors sufficiently valuable to suggest they are the noble Leofwin. At Milden, Leofwin is described as a royal thane named Leofwin of Bacton, so he is evidently the Leofwin who held the valuable manor of Bacton and its dependency, the most valuable of his holdings, where he is described as a free man of Earl Harold. He is perhaps also Walter's predecessor at Akenham, Wintesham and Bruntuna, which lay within a few miles of Leofwin cilt's manor of Ulverston. Leofwin of Bacton was also the overlord of men acquired by Robert Malet. Several other Leofwins held valuable manors in the two counties, one of them a royal thane at Ingham in Suffolk, a predecessor of Roger of Poitou who may be the same man as his predecessor Leofwin Croc on other valuable manors in Essex and Suffolk; but there are no specific links to connect him with Walter's predecessor.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* THE NOBLE OF CADDINGTON *]. Leofwin the noble, who held Kensworth and (probably) Caddington in Hertfordshire and Caddington, Streatley, Beeston and Meppershall in Bedfordshire, is probably Leofwin of Caddington, whose father bequeathed him land in three of those vills: Fowler, 'Some Saxon charters', pp. 53-54; Keynes, 'Lost cartulary of St Albans', pp. 275-79. Leofwin the noble is described as a royal thane on three of these manors so may be the royal thane Leofwin elsewhere in the area. This was almost certainly the case at Meppershall, where the vill was split (as was Caddington) by the county boundary, both halves being acquired by Gilbert son of Solomon. Walter of Flanders succeeded the royal thane on five manors in Bedfordshire; he also acquired three manors in Hertfordshire, on the first and most valuable of which Leofwin is described as a man of Earl Harold. William of Auberville, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Walter Giffard, Nigel of Aubigny and William Speke all succeeded to manors of the royal thane, and Peter of Valognes and Ralph Tallboys' daughter to those of Earl Harold's man. Nigel of Aubigny, who acquired the land of one of Leofwin's men, also obtained Millbrook from Godwin son of Leofwin, possibly Leofwin of Caddington's son. Of these nine tenants-in-chief, only Geoffrey de Mandeville had a predecessor named Leofwin elsewhere; Nigel had no other predecessor named Godwin.
	The only other manors held by a Leofwin in these two counties were at Clifton and Totternhoe in Bedfordshire and Boarscroft and Bozen in Hertfordshire. Clifton is surrounded by the manors mentioned above, and Totternhoe is six miles from Caddington, so both may have been held by Leofwin of Caddington, particularly the valuable manor of Totternhoe, even though Leofwin is there described as Earl Waltheof's man. As Fowler pointed out, the unidentified 'Puttanho' in the will of Leofwin of Caddington's father is a likely scribal error for Totternhoe, 'by the common mistake of p for Þ, Thotenho being a known early spelling of this name': Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 105. Bozen, on the other hand, is unlikely to have been his, as it is tiny and in the lordship of Godwin of Benfield. Clifton and Boarscroft raise an intriguing possibility, as both were still held by Leofwin in 1086, Boarscroft held 'at a revenue' from the tenant-in-chief who superseded him. Perhaps, as Fowler suggested, this is another example of an English magnate clinging to a fragment of his previous estate: Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 105; Abels, 'Introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', p. 36.
	A royal thane named Leofwin held Ingham in Suffolk but has no tenurial or other links with Leofwin of Caddington; and Leofwin the noble occurs in Essex, Suffolk, Shropshire and Derbyshire. Stenton was of the opinion that the title cilt was 'unlikely to have been applied to two different persons of the same name', identifying Leofwin the noble in Derbyshire as Leofwin of Caddington on that basis: VCH Derbyshire, i. 322. As there are no links other than the title cilt, there is no way of testing Stenton's suggestion, though the concentration of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire manors and the ubiquity of the name Leofwin suggests that more than one noble Leofwin is the more likely situation. If the identifications suggested above are valid, Leofwin's estate was worth £100, which would rank him among the fifty wealthiest landowners in England, in the top forty untitled laymen, if included in Clarke, English nobility.

.............................................................................................................................................
LEOFWIN [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. Most if not all Leofwins in Warwickshire may be one man. The Leofwins at Flecknoe and Fillongley in Warwickshire and Kemerton and Oridge in Gloucestershire have been identified as an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, named at Alveston as a son of Brictwin, Thorkil's grandfather: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 282-83, 288, 291, 293-94. All of these manors were held in 1086, but the Alverton text reveals that Leofwin was also a landowner twenty years previously. He may therefore be both the tenant and predecessor of the Count of Meulan in Warwickshire, where Thorkil and the Count shared other predecessors and tenants. The Count acquired Harbury and Cubbington from Leofwin, Harbury being a 'family' vill identified by Dr Williams and Cubbington shared with another member of his family. The Count's tenant at Shuttington has Thorkil as a neighbour at Ermendone and Syerscote, two and four miles respectively on either side of Shuttington. The Count's predecessors at Milverton, Bourton and Shuckburgh are not as clearly linked; but Bourton is valuable and since these are all but one of the remaining unidentified Leofwins in the county, it is not unlikely they are Thorkil's uncle. The Count also had a predecessor named Leofwin in Leicestershire; but the name is common and Thorkil's family appears to have no associations with the county, or with the one remaining Leofwin in Warwickshire. The tenants on one manor in Flecknoe and at Fillongley and Shuttington are identified as a kinsman of Thorkil in Coel (no. 9858) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291, those on the other manors in Flecknoe being unidentified (nos. 28594-95); the Gloucestershire subtenancies are not recorded.

.............................................................................................................................................
LISOIS [* OF MOUTIERS *]. All men named Lisois - at Beeston in Bedfordshire, Mundon in Essex, Lakenheath in Suffolk, and on six manors in Norfolk - are almost certainly Lisois of Moutiers, named at Gamlingay in Cambridgeshire. All ten manors were acquired by Eudo the steward (q.v.), Lisois' named predecessor on three of them; a fourth, at Beeston, is stated to be 'not of Lisois Holding', impugning Eudo's title and emphasising Lisois' status as as official predecessor. J.H. Round suggested that the Leofsi who preceded Eudo at Harlow in Essex is a corruption of Lisois, which is likely given that he, like Lisois, gave title to Eudo in circumstances involving dubious additions to his manors: 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 492. No other Leofsi appears as an intermediate landowner or is involved in claims in Domesday Book. As an intermediate landowner, Lisois is not included in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
LOSOARD <OF ROLLESTON>. All Losoards in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man, tenant of the bishop of Bayeux at Barnby, Coddington and Rolleston in Nottinghamshire and Hemswell, Tealby and Rigsby in Lincolnshire. He was a delinquent taxpayer and his men imposed a new toll in Grimsby, though Losoard denied it was done with his authority. He claimed land in Well against Gilbert of Ghent apparently granted him by bishop Odo, but the jury expressed scepticism as to Odo's right to it. By the date of the Lindsey Survey (15/6), Losoard's son, Richard, held Rigsby from the Honour of Richmond, his descendants, the Nevilles of Pickhill, owing castle-guard at Richmond for Rigsby and Rolleston: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 153-57; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 66-67. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2994) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDI <OF ASHFORD>. Ludi is a rare name which occurs twice, once at Marston Stannett in Herefordshire and once at Huntingdon in Shropshire. Although the manors are modest, almost forty miles apart, and acquired by different tenants-in-chief, it is not unlikely they were held by one man. More certainly, the Shropshire Ludi is probably the same man as Lethi at Ashford Carbonnell, immediately adjacent to Huntingdon, though this was acquired by a third tenant-in-chief and the name is believed to be of different origin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 319, 321. As Dr Lewis has observed, 'the likelihood that Ludi and Lethi were different men, bearing virtually unique but extraordinarily similar forenames, and holding adjoining manors, must be regarded as slim': 'Introduction to the Shropshire Domesday', p. 20. A Lodi - perhaps the same name as Ludi - who held a hide at Moulsoe in Buckinghamshire, has no apparent connection.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDO [* OF VRED *]. All Ludos in Domesday Book are probably one man. Both his manors in Somerset, and six of his eight in Devon, were held from Walter of Douai, a seventh being held 'wrongfully with Walter's' land on the fief of Odo son of Gamalin. His eighth manor, acquired by Gotshelm at Farway, is ten miles south of a cluster of four of the other manors. Ludo is named in the Glastonbury cartulary Ludo de Utreto, which Dr Keats-Rohan suggests 'is perhaps poor orthography for Vred (Veretum)', nine miles east of Douai. Ludo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 978) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 291.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC. Ludric is a rare name which occurs three times, in as many counties, as predecessors of as many tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC <OF FULSCOT>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Fulscot in Berkshire was acquired by Roger son of Seifrid, has no links with either of his namesakes in Herefordshire or Warwickshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC <OF HILLBOROUGH>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Hillborough in Warwickshire was acquired by Osbern son of Richard, has no links with either of his namesakes in Berkshire or Herefordshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUDRIC <OF YAZOR>. Ludric, whose respectable manor at Yazor in Herefordshire was acquired by Roger of Lacy, has no links with either of his namesakes in Berkshire or Warwickshire; but as the name is rare a connection cannot be excluded, though such dispersion of a modest estate would be unusual.

.............................................................................................................................................
"LUNEN" <OF GLATTON>. Lunen is a rare name which occurs twice, once as the tenant of the entire fief of Count Eustace in Huntingdonshire, a second time as a tenant of the abbey of Ramsey at Great Gidding, three miles from the substantial manor of Glatton, the centre of the Count's fief. Gidding and Glatton were in the hands of their tenants-in-chief again in the twelfth century, so their descent offers no guide to the identity of the Domesday tenants: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. 50, 141, 178, 218. As the name is rare and its distribution narrowly restricted, however, it is improbable there was more than one Lunen. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3703) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 292.

.............................................................................................................................................
LUSTWIN <OF OTLEY>. The six Lustwins in Domesday Book are likely to be one man, who may be the father of Thorsten son of Wine, an East Anglian magnate whose widow Aelgyth (q.v.) held several manors in Domesday bequeathed to her by her husband. A Lustwin named in Thorsten's will is possibly Thorsten's father, Wine being a short-form of Lustwin: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 78-85, 197-99. It seems likely that he is related to the Domesday Lustwin, though whether he is Thorsten's father is uncertain. All his manors are in Suffolk, though none of them in the vills named in Thorsten's will, or nearby. There is little reason to doubt, however, that they are held by one man, though in the hands of four tenants-in-chief in 1086. All are in south-east Suffolk. Both the predecessors of Robert Malet and Humphrey the chamberlain were under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield, Roger of Poitou's under Wihtgar son of Aelfric (whose son witnessed Thorsten's will) and Ely abbey, which received several bequests in the will and declares Lustwin a 'friend of ours' in the Book of Ely: Liber Eliensis (ed. Fairweather), pp. 187-89. Robert Malet's predecessor also had associations with Ely, as did the sixth Lustwin, Roger Bigot's predecessor at Ringshall.

.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS. Maccus is a rare name which occurs once in Cornwall, twice in Yorkshire and three times in Lincolnshire, as a predecessor of four tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF COCKERINGTON>. Maccus, whose manors at Cockerington, Cadeby and Kelstern in Lincolnshire were acquired by Alfred of Lincoln, is probably the same man in each case. He is the only Maccus in the county and his manors form a tight cluster in 'Louthesk' wapentake. He has no links with his namesakes, though as the name is rare, he is possibly the Maccus at Preston in Holderness.

.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF FURSNEWTH>. Maccus, who held Fursnewth in Cornwall from the Canons of St Petroc between 1066 and 1086, is the only survivor of this name. He has no links with his namesakes in northern England. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1707) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 292.

.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF OUSEBURN>. Maccus, whose manor of Ouseburn in Yorkshire was acquired by Maelcolumban, has no links with his namesakes; but as the name is rare, he may be the same man as the Maccus at Preston and, if so, also the Lincolnshire Maccus.

.............................................................................................................................................
MACCUS <OF PRESTON>. Maccus, who shared the manor at Preston in Yorkshire acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière with seven other thanes, has no links with his namesakes; but as the name is rare, he may be the same man as those in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, his manor lying roughly midway between theirs.

.............................................................................................................................................
"MACHEL" <OF COCKERMOUTH. The English lords with the obscure names of Machel and Machern whose modest manors in Lancashire were acquired by Roger of Poitou are almost certainly the same man. Their names are otherwise unknown and their manors four miles apart: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 323.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAGNI. Magni is a rare forename which occurs three times. It may be the same name as Manni, another rare name, though the two are regarded as being distinct but 'occasionally ... confused' in Domesday: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 323-24.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAGNI <OF WARESLEY>. Magni, whose shared manor at Waresley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by William son of Ansculf, has no links with his namesake in Suffolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
MANASSEH [* THE COOK *]. All men named Manasseh in Domesday Book are probably Manasseh the cook, so named in the Geld Roll for Brunsell Hundred in Dorset, where his manor of Stalbridge lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 141-42. It is likely that he died at about the date of the Geld Rolls and the Domesday Survey since three manors in Somerset attributed to him in the Geld Roll for Somerset were held by his wife in Domesday Book: VCH Somerset, i. 530-31. He is probably therefore the Manasseh who bought Bletchingdon in Oxfordshire without the king's permission but did not hold it in 1086, his son retaining a messuage in Oxford attached to Bletchingdon. No other Manassehs are recorded in Domesday Book. Manasseh's manors, with those of his wife and son, are recorded in Coel (nos. 1904, 992, 4744) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 294-95, where it is suggested that he or his son may be the Manasseh Arsic who succeeded to the barony of Wadard of Cogges (q.v.). If the identification suggested above is correct, as seems likely, Manasseh the cook died before Wadard so cannot be Manasseh Arsic; the name of the cook's son is unknown.

.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED. Manfred is a rare name which occurs six times, distributed among three counties as tenants on the fiefs of four tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED <OF CHUBWORTHY>. As the name is rare, it is very probable that the Manfreds who held three manors in Somerset from William of Mohun are one man, who may also be the tenant of William the goat at Colebrook in Devon, twenty-five miles to the south; the one other Manfred, over 200 miles away, is unlikely to be the same man. Manfred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8110) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293

.............................................................................................................................................
MANFRED <OF THORPE>. As the name is rare, the tenant of Ralph of Limésy at Thorpe and its dependency in Nottinghamshire is probably also the tenant of Ilbert of Lacy in the adjacent vill of East Stoke. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8782) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293.

.............................................................................................................................................
MANNI. Manni is a rare forename which occurs six times, seven if Manno in Somerset is taken as the same name. It may be the same name as Magni, another rare name, though the two are regarded as being distinct but 'occasionally ... confused' in Domesday: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, pp. 323-24.

.............................................................................................................................................
MANNI [* SWART *]. As his name is rare and occurs only in Suffolk, it is likely that the Manni who held the respectable manors of Mells and Yoxford acquired by Robert of Tosny is Manni Swart, predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany on the substantial manors of Cowlinge and Bramfield. Bramfield lies between Mells and Yoxford, a few miles from either. As the only Manni with demesne manors, Manni Swart is probably the overlord of an Ali on two Suffolk manors. There are no other Mannis in Domesday Book unless Manno in Somerset be one; but as the name Magni is even rarer, Manni Swart is very probably the Magni Swart whose valuable manor of Chessington in Surrey was acquired by Miles Crispin, particularly as the one other manor on Miles' fief was probably held by Manni's son, Ulf, Miles acquiring the fief by antecession. Ulf son of Manni (q.v.) also held a manor alongside his father in Suffolk. Finally, he may be the one other Magni in East Anglia, who shared land worth eight shillings at Benhall in Suffolk with six other free men. The status of this holding suggests otherwise; but is was acquired by Magni Swart's predecessor, Count Alan of Brittany, and important pre-Conquest landowners are to be found elsewhere in East Anglia included by the scribe among groups of free men on small plots of a similar nature.

.............................................................................................................................................
MARTIN <OF WOUGHTON>. Martin is a rare name, borne by two tenants-in-chief on modest fiefs - a single manor at Woughton in Buckinghamshire and a fief in Lincolnshire worth less than Woughton. A Martin also held one small pre-Conquest manor at Walgrave in Northamptonshire. As Round observed, the tenancies-in-chief were 'probably' held by one man, despite the absence of 'even a common tenure by an English predecessor to account for his lands lying thus far apart': 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', p. 215. It may be that the English lord of Walgrave is the link between them, Walgrave lying roughly a third of the distance from Woughton to the Lincolnshire manors, in a straight line. If so, then Martin had prospered from humble beginnings. He was not succeeded by English descendants. By the date of Lindsey Survey, his manors were in the hands of magnates who were evidently not his direct descendants (2/4;11;18-19), as was Woughton when next recorded: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 515. Martin's tenancies-in-chief are recorded in Coel (no. 1604) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 295-96.

.............................................................................................................................................
MATILDA. Apart from one reference to the queen's daughter Matilda and a single tenant in Somerset, only the Conqueror's wife bore this name after the Conquest; the name occurs on three pre-Conquest manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* QUEEN *] MATILDA. The numerous post-Conquest references to the queen, or the king's wife, refer the Conqueror's queen, Matilda, who died in 1083 though still represented in Domesday Book as holding a fief in Buckinghamshire and manors in several counties three years later. Queen Edith, the Confessor's wife, who died in 1075, appears never to be referred to simply as 'the queen' after 1066, her forename being supplied, though an entry in Lincolnshire is arguably ambiguous. As an intermediate landowner, Matilda's manors are not included in the Statistics database; Coel (no. 874) credits her with the escheated Buckinghamshire fief and 'premiums' paid to the queen in Bedfordshire, Warwickshire and Norfolk, referenced in Domesday people, pp. 296-97.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER. Mauger is a fairly common name which occurs more than forty times, distributed among thirteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of fourteen tenants-in-chief, all borne by post-Conquest landowners. There is a cluster in Somerset and a smaller one in Essex.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF ALVERTON>. Mauger, who held a jurisdiction of Staunton[-in-the-Vale from William of Aincourt in Nottinghamshire, is the only Mauger in the county or on the Aincourt Honour. It is unlikely he held land elsewhere, his namesakes in the northern counties being identified with reasonable confidence. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER [* OF CARTERET *]. As all Maugers in Dorset, Somerset and Devon are tenants of the Count of Mortain, who had no such tenants elsewhere on his extensive Honour, they are almost certainly one man, Mauger of Carteret, named by Exon. on the Count's fiefs at Donningstone in Devon and Clapton in Somerset. Mauger also held Barton St David in the county on his own account, where his byname is supplied. He may have been the father of Drogo and Humphrey of Carteret (q.v.), important tenants in the south-western counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 612) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 293.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF EDLINGTON>. The six Maugers in Yorkshire are almost certainly one man. Five are tenants of William of Percy, their lands later forming part of the Vavasour fee on the Percy Honour: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 118-37; Early Yorkshire families, p. 95. The fee included a tenancy in Hessle (in the West Riding) held from the Lacy Honour, Ilbert of Lacy's tenant at Hessle in 1086 being the sixth Mauger in the county. Hessle was probably granted to Ilbert because it was in the heart of his Honour of Pontefract, where no other lay tenant-in-chief held land. Neither Ilbert or William of Percy had other Maugers on their Honours. Mauger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4629) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF GOSBERTON>. As the tenants of the bishop of Lincoln at Grayingham, Messingham, Wyham and Gosberton Cheal in Lincolnshire are the only Maugers in the county, they are probably one man; the bishop had no Maugers among his tenants elsewhere. Mauger was succeeded by his son Richard at Grayingham by the date of the Lindsey Survey, Messingham and Wyham being apparently without tenants (1/11. 4/4. 10/2); the tenancies were in several different hands by the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 194, 1075. Mauger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2997) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.

.............................................................................................................................................
MAUGER <OF ILKESTON>. It is all but certain that the Maugers who held the substantial manor of Ilkeston and the adjacent manor of Shipley in Derbyshire from Gilbert of Ghent are one man. The two manors form Gilbert's entire fief and there are no other Maugers in Derbyshire; Gilbert had no other Maugers on his Honour. Mauger is presumably the man who granted land at Reighton in East Yorkshire to Gilbert's foundation of Bridlington priory, c. 1114: Regesta, iii. no. 119. According to evidence cited by Dr Keats-Rohan, his heir was probably his daughter, Emma, who married into the Tison family: Early Yorkshire charters, xii. 4-8. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2989) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 294.

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN. Merewin is a rare name which occurs on seven manors, distributed among the lands of as many tenants-in-chief and five counties between Surrey and Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF BAYSHAM>. As the name is rare, the Merewins at Baysham and Mathon in Herefordshire may be one man, described as Earl Oda's thane at Mathon, acquired by Roger of Lacy. On similar grounds, he is possibly the Merewin at Hillmorton in Warwickshire; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF FYLING>. Merewin, whose small holding at Fyling in Yorkshire was acquired by William of Percy, has no links with his namesakes, all of whom are remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF HASLINGFIELD>. Merewin, whose tiny holding of twelve acres at Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom hold land in adjacent counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF HILLMORTON>. As the name is rare, the Merewins at Hillmorton and Grafton in Warwickshire may be one man, particularly as he shared both with a Scroti, an even rarer name, found only in Warwickshire. He is the only surviving Merewin, finding refuge on the fief of the Count of Meulan, like many other Englishmen. It is just possible that he is the same man as the Merewin at Baysham in Herefordshire; but there are no links to confirm this. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28307).

.............................................................................................................................................
MEREWIN <OF THORNCROFT>. Merewin, whose hide and plough at Thorncroft in Surrey were acquired by Richard of Tonbridge, is the only Merewin south of the Thames; he has no links with his distant namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
MERLESWEIN [* THE SHERIFF *]. It is probable that all Merlesweins in Domesday Book are one man, Merleswein the sheriff. He is named as sheriff and a designated predecessor of Ralph Paynel in the Claims for Lincolnshire, those for Yorkshire also implying that he is Ralph's recognised predecessor. As he is named sheriff in the Lincolnshire folios, he is usually assumed to be sheriff of that county, though it would make more sense if he were sheriff of Yorkshire, where the political weight of a magnate-sheriff was needed; if so, he was followed in that post by his successor Ralph Paynel: Green, English sheriffs, p. 89. He was one of only five magnates who had full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues in the county; and a late tradition states that he was given an official position in the north by Harold in the aftermath of Stamford Bridge: Walker, Harold, p. 142.
	Merleswein is a classic case of an English lord supplying title to a Norman baron. Virtually the entire Honour of Ralph Paynel came from him: all Ralph's land in Somerset, Devon, Gloucestershire, Yorkshire, and Lincolnshire. The few apparent exceptions can be explained. Ralph's manor at Sandburn in Yorkshire was illegally acquired according to the Canons of York, as was Burton-le-Coggles in Lincolnshire, previously held by Earl Morcar according to the Lincolnshire Claims; while those at Broughton and Scawby, previously held by Grimkel, had in fact been in Merleswein's possession in 1066, granted to him by Grimkel in an attempt to evade forfeiture. Ralph's one other manor, at East Carlton in Northamptonshire, where his predecessor was a Thorkil, may be the exception proving the rule; but it is also possible that Merleswein was Thorkil's unnamed overlord, overlords not normally being recorded in the circuit in which Northamptonshire lay.
	Those manors of Merleswein which did not devolve upon Ralph Paynel were those which intruded into the territorial blocks allocated to others: the Count of Mortain's Cornish fiefdom, Count Alan's honour of Richmond, the royal manor of South Petherton, and Walter of Douai's fief in north Somerset, east of the river Parrett, the Paynel manors lying to the west. There is little reason to doubt that these too were held by the sheriff rather than other well-endowed Merlesweins, all apart from the Cornish manors lying in counties in which the sheriff had a significant presence. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 322-24, which does not include Tarlton in Gloucestershire Pillaton in Cornwall or others without valuations. Dr Clarke ranks him eighteenth in wealth among the nobility, eighth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him one place in each case.

.............................................................................................................................................
MILES. Although Miles is a common name, it is very rare in the sense that it was borne by a small numbers of individuals, possibly only three, the few who are unidentified probably being one of the three accorded bynames; all are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
MILES [* CRISPIN *]. Miles, who held twenty messuages in Wallingford, is identified as Miles Crispin by their dependence on his manor of Newnham Murren in Oxfordshire. He is probably also the Miles on an anonymous manor in Kingsclere Hundred in Hampshire, identified by his relationship with Wigot of Wallingford (q.v.), whose granddaughter and heiress he probably married: Sanders, English baronies, p. 93. Miles was lord of Wallingford, sometimes named Miles of Wallingford: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 16-19. He may also have been known as Miles Molay, the reference to whose lands in Wallingford may refer to his messuages attached to Newnham Murren. Dr Keats-Rohan, however, suggests that Molay may be another man, whose family occurs in Wallingford records in the twelfth century (no reference supplied). Miles' manors are recorded in Coel (no. 168) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 297-98; that of Molay separately (no. 369).

.............................................................................................................................................
MILES [* DE "BELEFOL" *]. As the name is rare, it likely that the tenants of Roger of Rames at Stonham Aspal and Coddenham in Suffolk are Miles de Belefol, Roger's tenant at Otley. There are no other men of this name in eastern England or on Roger's Honour. Miles' manors are recorded in Coel (no. 424) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 298.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR. The name Morcar occurs frequently but is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by no more than half-a-dozen individuals. As all unidentified Morcars occur in Mercian counties, it is likely that the majority were Earl Morcar. Survivors held four manors, three in Buckinghamshire and one Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* EARL *] MORCAR. In the Midlands, the manors of Morcar at Saltby in Leicestershire, Alfreton in Derbyshire and Gunthorpe and Elton in Nottinghamshire were acquired by Roger of Bully and probably therefore from a single predecessor, likely to be the earl in view the substantial scale of Saltby (£9) and Gunthope (£15). He may also be the Morcar at Newbound. This devolved upon William Peverel; but since he had a block grant of most of Broxtowe wapentake, the tenurial factor is probably not significant: Fleming, Kings and lords, p. 148. Neither Bully or Peverel had other Morcars on their Honours. The son of Aelfeva at Warkton in Northamptonshire is almost certainly the earl; another Morcar with a mother of that name is improbable.
	The majority of unidentified Morcars occur in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. In Yorkshire, where Morcar is never accorded his title, there can be little doubt that he held the royal manors and had 'full jurisdiction, market rights and all customary dues' in the county. He is almost certainly the Morcar whose manors were acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière, some of their valuations - £56 - implying royal or comital origins. Similar considerations apply to those acquired by the bishop of Durham and, less certainly, to those of Count Alan of Brittany. The remainder were dependencies of these manors, apart from those allocated to Morcar of Smeaton.
	In Lincolnshire, the Morcar who received the third penny is evidently the earl. As in Yorkshire, the bulk of his manors were retained by the king, or devolved upon the bishop of Durham and Drogo of la Beuvrière. For the most part, his title is supplied; but where it is not, the status of such manors as Wellingore, Carlton, Bytham and others suggest the earl, and it is in any case highly improbable that either the bishop or Drogo had two predecessors with this rare name. Two other tenants-in-chief acquired manors from a Morcar, Alfred of Lincoln and Countess Judith. The status of Judith's manor suggests the earl, while those of Alfred cluster just a few miles to the east of the earl's manors of Keelby, Limber and Habrough and his large manor of Caistor. The Lincolnshire Claims record a conflict of interest between Drogo and Alfred involving Morcar; and the will of Ulf and Madselin reveals that all three tenants-in-chief had an interest in Ulf's estate, both circumstances consistent with the predecessors of Drogo and Alfred being the same man: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, no. 39, pp. 95-97;207-12. Ulf's will reveals that Countess Judith also had an interest in his estate, though not in its Lincolnshire manors.
	A list of the manors of the earl and his men is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 215-17, which does not include Dorney in Buckinghamshire or the manors of Count Alan here attributed to Earl Morcar. Morcar is ranked second in wealth among the nobility by Dr Clarke; the additional manors would not affect this. Baxter, Earls of Mercia, pp. 129, lists other estimates of his manorial income, his own being considerably higher than others; the Statistics database total (£987) is closer to that of Dr Clarke. Edwin was the son of Earl Algar (d. c. 1062) and brother of Earl Edwin (q.v.); his career is documented by Dr Baxter (pp. 48-57).

.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF BURSTON>. As the name is rare, the two free men of Edric of Laxfield at Burston in Norfolk and Burgate in Suffolk are probably the same Morcar; the vills are some seven miles apart. He has no links with other Morcars outside East Anglia.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF CLIFTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Buckinghamshire tenants of the bishop of Coutances at Clifton and of Countess Judith at Hardmead and Broughton are one man. Clifton Reynes and Hardmead are four miles apart, and no other Morcar south of Yorkshire held land in 1086. He may also be Morcar, Earl Harold's man, who preceded Urso of Berchères at Shenley Brook End, and the overlord of a man with half a hide at Woughton on the Green. Woughton is two miles from Broughton and four from Shenley. Earl Morcar was an overlord in the county, his man, Aldred, holding Dorney; but Dorney is at the other end of the county. Morcar's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1899) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 298.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF ROWTON>. Morcar, who shared Rowton in Shropshire with another lord in 1066, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Morcar in Shropshire and adjacent counties not identified in the text as the earl.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORCAR <OF SMEATON>. As the name is rare, the Morcars who held two manors at Smeaton in Yorkshire as predecessor and subtenant of Ilbert of Lacy, and shared both with an Ulfkil, are very probably one man. On similar grounds, he is may be the Morcar who preceded Richard of Sourdeval on a cluster of manors at Treeton, Wales, Ulley and Brampton, the first and last of which he also shared with an Ulfkil. Apart from the earl, no other Morcar held land within forty miles. He is not recorded in Coel, where the manor is assigned to the tenant, Robert, rather than the subtenants.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORIN. Morin is a rare name which occurs in four counties on the lands of the king and six of his tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of individuals, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
MORIN [* OF CAEN *]. As the name is rare, the Morins who held Stedcombe, Wilmington and 'Beer' in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff, and Leonard among the king's servants, are probably Morin of Caen, named in the Geld Roll as owing tax in two of the three Hundreds in which the manors lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xxxi, xxxiv. There are no other Morins in the south-western counties of circuit two. Morin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1778) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 299.

.............................................................................................................................................
MUNDRED [* THE SHERIFF *]. All eight Mundreds in Domesday may be one man, who was probably the sheriff of Earl Hugh of Chester, since he held the city of Chester from him 'for £70 and 1 gold mark. He also had all the Earl's pleas in the County and the Hundreds, except Englefield, at a revenue of £50 and 1 gold mark'. He was the earl's tenant at Eastham, Upton and Bartington in Cheshire and on two manors in Suffolk, and very likely his subtenant - tenant of Robert son of Hugh - at Chowley. Probably, though less certainly, he held a hide at Ellesmere in Shropshire alongside a fellow sheriff, Reginald. Ellesmere, like Eastham, Upton, and presumably the city of Chester, had been held by Earl Edwin. Mundred's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3829) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 299, apart from the Suffolk manors, assigned to another man (no. 2031).

.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH. Murdoch is a rare name which occurs five times, once in Sussex in 1086, four times in Yorkshire in 1066.

.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH <OF ALDINGBOURNE>. Murdoch, a man-at-arms of the bishop of Chichester, is the only Murdoch in southern England; he was presumably an Englishman though unlikely to be the same man as his distant Yorkshire namesake. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 15655).

.............................................................................................................................................
MURDOCH <OF HILSTON>. As the name is rare, the four Yorkshire Murdochs are probably one man. His manors of Hilston, Catwick and Roos in Holderness were acquired by Drogo of la Beuvrière, and his three messuages in York by Gilbert Maminot. Although he held nothing in 1086 according to Domesday Book, he or a descendant probably survived like many other Englishmen on a lower rung of the tenurial scale, his name being borne by a family 'of some importance' in the following century: Farrer, 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', p. 171.

.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS. Nicholas is an uncommon name which occurs on two fiefs and eleven manors, distributed among nine counties and on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by half-a-dozen men, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS <OF HANNEY>. Nicholas, who held a hide from Abingdon abbey at Hanney in Berkshire, does not appear among the list of the abbey's knights; he has no links with his namesakes elsewhere. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1869) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300.

.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS [* OF KENNETT *]. As the name is uncommon, the tenants of William of Warenne at Kennett in Cambridgeshire and Elveden, Herringswell and Tunstall in Suffolk are probably Nicholas of Kennett, named as a juror in Staploe Hundred in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 1, 97). He is the only Nicholas in eastern England. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1613) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300, where he is confused with the tenant of Alfred of Marlborough at Kennett in Wiltshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS <OF STAFFORD>. Nicholas, who claimed to farm Thorpe in Staffordshire as part of the royal manor of Clifton Campville, may be the sheriff of the county, named as N. de Estafford in a writ of William Rufus, perhaps the Nicholas the sheriff named in a case by Burton abbey against his descendant, Stephen of Beauchamp: Regesta, i. no. 456; Burton cartulary, pp. 8-10; Green, English sheriffs, p. 75. He is recorded in Coel (no. 3621) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 300-301, where he is assigned the Warwickshire manors of Countess Godiva farmed by Nicholas, here assigned to Nicholas the bowman.

.............................................................................................................................................
NICHOLAS [* THE BOWMAN *]. Nicholas, who farmed the escheated fief of Countess Godiva in Warwickshire, may be Nicholas the bowman, a tenant-in-chief in the county, as suggested by Lennard: Rural England, p. 144. Nicholas was also a tenant-in-chief in Devon and, as the name is uncommon, may be the tenant of Alfred of Marlborough at Kennett in Somerset and Chelwood in Wiltshire; their descent has not been traced: VCH Wiltshire, xii. 91. It appears from the cartulary of St Peter's, Gloucester, that he was also known as Nicholas de la Pole: Historia ... Gloucestriae, i. 74; Round, 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', p. 280. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 126) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 300, apart from those of Godiva, assigned to Nicholas of Stafford.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* FOSSARD *]. Of the 128 manors which the Count of Mortain subinfeudated in Yorkshire, 126 were granted to men with two forenames, Richard and Nigel, the majority to Nigel, too numerous to list here. Nigel is evidently Nigel Fossard, named once in York and in several entries in the Yorkshire Claims which connect him to manors he held from the Count, later documentation identifying a number of others: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 325-426. He is probably the one other unidentified Nigel in Yorkshire, who held six carucates from the bishop of Durham in a dependency of Welton, where he held several other dependencies from the Count: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 297. Nigel's tenancy became a tenancy-in-chief in 1088, later known as the barony of Mulgrave: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 66-67. The Count of Mortain had tenants named Nigel on a small fief in Cornwall and single manors in Northamptonshire and Suffolk. His Northamptonshire tenant appears to have no discernible links with Fossard; and although those in Cornwall and Suffolk are the only Nigels in those counties, neither do they, though the possibility cannot be excluded. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2458) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 302-303; the Cornish tenant is identified as another man (no. 230); the Northamptonshire tenant is unidentified (no. 27130); and the Suffolk subtenant is not included in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF AUBIGNY *]. The Nigels who held Austrey in Warwickshire and Catton in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers are almost certainly Nigel of Aubigny, who married Henry's daughter, Amice; he held land in Austrey in chief, and he and Amice granted the tithes of Catton to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 64-65. He may also be Henry's tenant at Swepstone in Leicestershire, where his son held two carucates which belonged to its assessment in the Leicestershire Survey (p. 19). Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Henry's tenant at Wallingford and on the valuable manor of Willington in Berkshire, and the tenant of Stephen son of Erhard at Padworth. Nigel had alienated his one manor in the county to St Albans abbey; but his son, Henry of Aubigny, retained an interest there, granting land in Bedfordshire to Abingdon abbey: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 146-49. Stephen son of Erhard (q.v.) may be Nigel's tenant in Bedfordshire. The reversal of roles of tenant and tenant-in-chief between the two counties is odd; but as these are the only Nigels in Berkshire or Stephens in Bedfordshire, an even odder coincidence is involved if these are different Nigels and Stephens. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 12) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 301, apart from Swepstone, attributed to Nigel of Stafford, and Austrey, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28442). Coel adds Linton, here attributed to Nigel of Stafford.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF BURCY *]. Nigel, who held a small fief from Earl Hugh in Cheshire, is almost certainly Nigel of Burcy, who granted the tithes of two of his manors to St Werburgh's abbey: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 41-42. He may also be the Nigel who held part of Salford from Roger of Poitou, the only other Nigel in Cheshire. As the descent of his manors appears to have been disrupted, this cannot be verified: Charters, p. 51. Neither the earl or Roger of Poitou had other tenants of this name elsewhere. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3482) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 301, apart from Salford, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 29184).

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF GOURNAY *]. The Nigels who held Farmborough, Clewer, Backwell and Keyford in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances are probably Nigel of Gournay, named in Exon. as the bishop's tenant at Barrow, Swainswick, Englishcombe and Twerton. Farmborough and Barrow were acquired from an Edric; Clewer and Backwell shared with a Fulcran. The bishop had no tenants named Nigel in other counties, and only one tenant-in-chief in Somerset had an unidentified Nigel among his tenants. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1680) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 301-302.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The Nigels who held Windeseres and Linton in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers are almost certainly Nigel of Stafford; the manors were held by his son, William of Gresley, in the Leicestershire Survey (p. 46). He is possibly also the Nigel who held Twycross from Henry, not included in the Survey. The descent of his manors identifies him as the tenant of the bishop of Chester at Wolseley, Moreton and Tamhorn in Staffordshire: Liber Niger Scaccari Staffordscira, p. 153. He may also be bishop's tenant at Hixon, Coley and Drointon, a few miles from Wolseley and Moreton, as the bishop had no tenants of this name elsewhere on his small Honour, which support only a handful of tenants. Nigel's tenure of Morton suggests he is the Nigel with a small fief in Staffordshire, one of whose manors was in Moreton. If so, then he is probably the tenant of Ralph son of Hubert at Kingsley, another of the manors on his small fief lying in that vill, both acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord. Finally, he may be the tenant of Richard the forester at Thursfield, Whitmore, Hanford and Clayton. The latter three manors were probably held by one man as they were subsequently in the hands of the family which held Knutton, responsible for castle-guard at Newcastle-under-Lyme: Book of Fees, pp. 143, 593. This was later held by Henry of Audley, who married one of the heiresses of Nigel of Stafford's grandson, Ingenulf; the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme then included Clayton and Thursfield: Eyton, Domesday studies: Staffordshire, pp. 51, 80-82, 87-89. In 1215, the manor of Newcastle was given by King John to the earl of Chester, who granted rents in Thursfield and other vills owing castle-guard to Henry of Audley: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 393-94; Book of Fees, pp. 594, 1285; VCH Staffordshire, viii. 184. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2776) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 302, apart from Linton, attributed to Nigel of Aubigny, but with the addition of Swepstone, here attributed to Aubigny.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL <OF WIVENHOE>. The Nigels who held an anonymous holding in Middlesex and Wivenhoe, Stapleford and Dickley in Essex from Robert Gernon may be one man. The Essex manors were in the hands of two families in the thirteenth century; but the Honour escheated in the interval and was re-granted by Henry I: VCH Essex, iv. 227; x. 281; Book of Fees, p. 608. Only two other tenants-in-chief had tenants named Nigel in the two counties, and Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the tenant of one of these, Hugh de Montfort, may also be the same man; his manor of Markshall is in the Hundred of Lexden, where Wivenhoe lay. Nigels are uncommon in this region: only two other tenants-in-chief had such tenants in the neighbouring counties of East Anglia, Cambridgeshire or Hertfordshire, and Robert Gernon had none elsewhere. Nigel's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2112) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 304.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL <OF WORTHYVALE>. Nigel, who held a fief from the Count of Mortain in Cornwall, is probably the Nigel who held a virgate in Lancarffe from St Petroc's according to Exon., perhaps a duplicate of the virgate he held 'of the Honour of St Petroc's' on his fief; he is the only Nigel in the county, with no links to the Nigels who held from the Count in Northamptonshire, Yorkshire or Suffolk. His manors were later held by the Boterel family: VCH Cornwall, ii. part 8, p. 58. They are recorded in Coel (no. 230) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 303.

.............................................................................................................................................
NIGEL [* THE DOCTOR *]. Nigel, who held a small fief from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury in Shropshire, is probably Nigel the doctor, who also held a fief from the king and the manor of Bromfield from St Mary's of Bromfield in the county: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, x. 1-2. He was a tenant-in-chief in three other counties and a tenant in several more. No other Nigels are recorded in Shropshire, Herefordshire or Worcestershire, and those in the two other adjacent counties of Cheshire and Staffordshire are identified as Nigel of Burcy and Nigel of Stafford respectively. Nigel is probably also Earl Roger's tenant in the New Forest, Hampshire being one of the other counties where he held in chief. He also held four houses in Southampton. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 359) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 303.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN. Norman is a fairly common name which occurs more than fifty times, distributed among a dozen counties between Devon and Derby, with clusters in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Somerset and Suffolk. By convention, the translation renders post-Conquest Normanni as Norman; pre-Conquest as Northmann, though some Normans may, of course, be surviving Northmanns.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN [* OF ARCY *]. The tenants of William of Percy at Habrough, Cabourne and Reasby in Lincolnshire - the only unidentified Normans in the county - are almost certainly Norman of Arcy, who held in chief in two of the vills. In the Lindsey Survey (8/1. 11/3;6), all but two bovates of these manors were in the hands of the Percy family. Two bovates (in Cuxwold) were held by Robert of Arcy, and there were Arcy fees in Cabourne, Cuxwold and Reasby at a later date, though Norman of Arcy held nothing in chief in those vills in 1086: Book of Fees, pp. 167, 1022, 1076. It appears that the Lindsey Survey is misleading. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2416) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 305.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN <OF HALLATON>. Apart from the tenant of William of Percy in Lincolnshire, all unidentified Normans north of Bedfordshire are concentrated in Leicestershire and may be one man. He was the tenant of Geoffrey Alselin on his entire fief, farmed four manors on the escheated fief of Aubrey of Coucy, and may be the one other Norman, a tenant of Robert of Vessey at Shenton, whose descent throws no light on his identity: Nichols, History and antiquities of Leicestershire, iv. 526-27. Neither Robert or Geoffrey had a tenant or predecessor named Norman or Northmann elsewhere on their Honours. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8457) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN [* OF NOSTERFIELD*]. Norman, who held Camps and Horseheath from Aubrey de Vere, is very probably Norman of Nosterfield, the juror in Chilford Hundred, where the two manors lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 28). Nosterfield itself is not recorded in Domesday; it is a mile from Camps and less than three from Horseheath. There are no Normans elsewhere in the county, and Aubrey had no other such tenants on his Honour; the one Northmann, at Trumpington sixteen miles away, has no links with Norman. Norman's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2169) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 305.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORMAN [* THE HUNTER *]. Norman, who held a small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is probably Norman the hunter, who gave land at Booley, a dependency of his manor of Brockhurst, to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38. There are no other Normans (or Northmanns) in Shropshire, or on the Honour of the earl; but in Sussex, where the other major component of that Honour lay, the Norman who held Rodmell in Sussex from William of Warenne may be the same man since he is probably Norman the hunter who gave land to the Warenne foundation of Lewes priory: Chartulary of Lewes, i. 12. He, too, is the only Norman in the county. He may have come from Macé in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Alençon), where he gave land to Saint-Martin of Sées on his son becoming a monk: Bates, Regesta, no. 271, pp. 815-17. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1837) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306, with the addition of Frankwell, here assigned to Northmann of Mereworth.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN. Northmann is a common name, though unevenly distributed among seventeen counties, with significant concentrations in Suffolk and Yorkshire and lesser clusters in Devon, Essex, Kent and Northamptonshire. By convention, the translation renders pre-Conquest Normanni as Northmann; post-Conquest as Norman, though some surviving Northmanns may be recorded as Norman where their native origin is not apparent.

.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN <OF MEREWORTH>. The name Northmann is not common in the south-east, where all Northmanns are identified by Dr Clarke as the magnate with legal privileges in eastern Kent. In Kent, Surrey and Sussex he had no lord but the king, and several of his manors are of appropriate status for a regional magnate. At least one substantial manor devolved upon each of the three tenants-in-chief in Kent, while his single valuable manor in Surrey was acquired by Haimo the sheriff, his predecessor on two manors in Kent, including Mereworth, the most valuable of all.
	Due to its division into Rapes tenurial associations in Sussex, where the holdings are more varied in size, have little or no relevance to pre-Conquest landownership; but three of the four tenants-in-chief acquired at least one valuable manor, more likely to have been held by one man rather than several wealthy individuals with a name uncommon in the area. There can be less confidence with the smaller Sussex properties; but if Dr Clarke is correct in his identification, Northmann was one of the many English magnates permitted to survive on a fragment of their previous estates, holding a small part of the manor of Frankwell he had previously held in its entirety, serving moreover as one of a number of men-at-arms in the entourage of the Norman who had supplanted him.
	It is also possible, even likely, that Northmann of Mereworth is the pre-Conquest tenant of Abingdon abbey in Berkshire, the only man of this name in the county. His status among Abingdon tenants is unique. He had five manors when only one other tenant had more than one, Blaecmann having two if he is the same man as Blaecmann the priest. Northmann also held the largest single tenancy, the most valuable single tenancy, and more than twice as much in land and in value than any other Abingdon tenant. Only one lay tenant of the Church in the country held ecclesiastical estates worth more in value before the Conquest. Northmann was evidently a powerful and influential man, and only Northmann of Mereworth fits that description, since it is improbable that a landowner should hold such an extensive ecclesiastical estate without a lay estate of his own. It is curious that the abbey's chronicle fails to mention this man though devoting a paragraph to the one post-Conquest Norman in the county, who gave the tithes of his manor of Winterbourne to the abbey: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 246-47; cf. 381-82, 385. A list of Northmann's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 325, which does not include the Berkshire manors. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-second in wealth among untitled laymen; the Berkshire manors would raise him ten places. His tenancy at Frankwell is assigned to Norman the hunter in Coel (no. 1837).

.............................................................................................................................................
NORTHMANN [* THE SHERIFF *]. Northmann the sheriff is identified by his title on four occasions: once on the single manor - consisting of burgesses in Ipswich - he held on his own account; once as the predecessor of Roger Bigot at Darsham; and twice on the fief of Robert Malet, as his predecessor at Wrabetuna and his tenant at Ash. He was sheriff of Suffolk, succeeded by William and Robert Malet, then Roger Bigot, which almost certainly accounts for the hugely disproportionate number of Northmanns on Roger's fief - and a few on Malet's - too numerous to list here. The scribes were confident enough of being understood to abbreviate his name to a simple N almost three dozen times on the Bigot fief. The abbreviation occurs only twice more, both times in Suffolk, both probably referring to the sheriff. At Walton, the name is given in full later in the entry and Northmann appears to have held it at both dates; at Hemley, he is an overlord, all such overlords in the county likely to be the sheriff in the absence of another landowner of that name with significant - or any - demesne land.
	Of the one hundred times where the name or abbreviation is stated or implied in Suffolk, it occurs only six more times on other fiefs. One of these, on a substantial manor at Cavendish acquired by Ralph of Limésy, may be the sheriff, since he held from King Edward and Ralph had no other predecessor of this name, nor any tenant named Norman. On three other manors, Northmann was an overlord, so probably the sheriff; in the remaining two cases, a free man, without links to suggest he may be the sheriff, though the possibility cannot be excluded since other apparently insignificant free men listed as part of a large group by the scribes can be identified as important landowners, particularly on the fief of Roger Bigot. Roger had no Normans or Northmanns among his predecessors or tenants outside the county, and Robert Malet had one, a Northmann in Yorkshire, unlikely to be the sheriff, though even he cannot be confidently excluded in view of the Malet presence in the county from an early date.
	Of the nine post-Conquest Normanni in Suffolk not identified above as the sheriff, the tenants of Robert Malet at Farnham and Bredfield are most likely to be him, both being fairly close to other of his manors, and he is also likely to be the Northmann with a presence in Malet's borough of Dunwich. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is also the tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds at Risby, which is possible; the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin refers to him as Norman of Risby: Feudal documents, p. 137. It is possible, too, that the remaining Normans in Suffolk are the sheriff, since Bigot or Malet (or both) held land in the vills - Aldeburgh, Bredfield, Glemham and Westerfield - concerned; but, again, there are no specific links to confirm this. Northmann's tenancies (apart from Bredfield) are recorded in Coel (no. 893) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 306, where it is suggested he may have been related to Roger Bigot by marriage.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD. Odard is a rare name which occurs on one fief and about ten manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and five of his tenants-in-chief. There is some uncertainty about its relationship with Oder and Huard. According to Forssner, the names Huard, Oder, and Odard are distinct: Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 154-55, 194, 196. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests they may be interchangeable. Circumstantial evidence suggests that all Oders, who occur on two fiefs in Norfolk, may be Huards; and the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin records an Oder (Odarus) where Domesday has Odard (Odardus): Feudal documents, p. 19. Elsewhere, the case for identifying Odard and Huard is not clear. Unidentified Odards and Huards both occur in four counties, on the lands of five tenants-in-chief, the only overlap being the occurrence of an Odard and Huard in Leicestershire; but they are tenants on different fiefs. No pre-Conquest lords bear these names.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF ASTON>. As the name is rare, it is likely that the Odards who held Halton, Weston, Aston-by-Sutton and Whitley in Cheshire from William son of Nigel and Dutton from Earl Hugh of Chester are one man; Dutton lies between Halton and Whitley, three to four miles from either. Odard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8390) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF FOULTON>. Odard, who held Foulton in Essex from Swein of Essex, has no links with his distant namesakes. He is the only Odard or Huard in the county, and Swein had no other such tenants elsewhere. Coel identifies him as Huard of Noyers (q.v.), who held Bengeo in Hertfordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD [* OF HOTOT *]. Odard, tenant of Robert of Tosny at Bottesford in Leicestershire, is almost certainly Odard of Hotot, who witnessed an agreement between Robert of Tosny and the abbot of St Albans for the foundation of Belvoir priory; his descendants granted land and tithes in Bottesford and elsewhere: Foulds, 'Origins of the Hotot family', pp. 79-81. Odard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3567) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 307, where it is suggested that he came from Hotot-en-Auge in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux).

.............................................................................................................................................
ODARD <OF ILMINGTON>. Odard, who held Ilmington in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan, has no links with other Odards or Huards. Coel identifies him as the Huard at Peatling in Leicestershire, some forty miles to the south.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* OF BERNIERES *]. Odo, who held a small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is probably Odo of Bernières, who granted land at Broadstone to the earl's foundation of Shrewsbury abbey; he is probably also Odo, miles, who granted Hordley, one of the manors on his fief, to the abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33-34, 39, 43, 45. Broadstone belonged to Stanway, one of five manors held from Reginald the sheriff by an Odo, who is therefore likely to be Odo of Bernières. Odo's son, Roger, made a further grant to Broadstone in which his father is named Odo of Rushbury, thereby identifying the tenant of Roger of Lacy in that vill: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 15. There are no other Odos in Shropshire or on the Honour of Earl Roger. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3016) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 308.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODO <OF BOTELET>. The Odos who held land at 'Perran' in Cornwall from the Canons of St Neot's, and a fief and part of Canons' manor in St Neot from the Count of Mortain, are probably one man; many of the Count's tenants were partially endowed at the expense of the Cornish churches. No other Odo held land in the county, and the Count had no such tenants elsewhere on his Honour. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 236) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 311.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* OF WINCHESTER *]. Odo of Winchester held exempt land in Southampton before the Conquest and several manors among the king's thanes in Hampshire, Berkshire and Wiltshire in 1086. He also shared a small fief in Sussex with Aldred (q.v.), almost certainly his brother named in the Winton Domesday and on three manors in Hampshire. Their relationship suggests that he was also known as Odo the steward, who held land alongside Aldred in the large episcopal manor of Micheldever, and that he is the Odo whose four consecutive manors among the king's thanes of Devon is followed by three held by Aldred: 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', pp. 427-28; 'Domesday survey of Somerset', p. 417; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 115-16. If so, he was also known as Odo son of Edric, so-named in the Geld Roll for Axmouth Hundred, where one of those manors lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. pp. xxvii, xxxv. Round suggested that he is also the king's thane at Dibden in the New Forest, and the pre-Conquest lord of an anonymous holding in Somborne Hundred and Chawton in Hampshire, and of Wimborne Minster in Dorset. Chawton was acquired by Hugh of Port, whose steward was given the very valuable manor of Chaddleworth in Berkshire by Odo of Winchester; and the Odo at Wimborne is identified in Exon. as Odo the treasurer, a description consistent with Odo's byname and his favoured status as a royal official. Round also suggested that he is the Oda whose substantial manor of Compton in Berkshire was granted to the bishop of Coutances. Odo was evidently an Englishman, so-named in the Geld Roll for Devon, so the name-form may be more appropriate than the Odo usually favoured by the scribe, who did however twice name him Oda of Winchester. Although Odo and Oda are thought to be of different origin, one authority believes it to be 'a useless task ... to keep them distinct in detail': Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 198-99. Odo's official status suggests he may be the Odo on two royal manors in Hampshire, and he is possibly the tenant of Bockhampton, seven miles from Chaddleworth, the only other Odo in either county. He is probably the Odo the chamberlain whose son claimed land at Chelborough in Dorset. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 301) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 308-309, apart from Devonshire manors, identified as Odo son of Edric (no. 806), and the subtenant at Micheldever, identified as Eudo the steward.

.............................................................................................................................................
ODO [* THE CHAMBERLAIN *]. Odo, tenant of Count Alan of Brittany at Harston, Wendy, Whaddon, Wilbraham and Quy in Cambridgeshire and Fencote, Kirkby Fleetham, Langthorne and Hackforth in Yorkshire, is almost certainly his chamberlain in all eight cases, so named in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis on the first three Cambridgeshire manors (ed. Hamilton, p. 46, 58, 64). Of the other two, Wilbraham was later part of the Chamberlain's fee, held by Odo's descendants from the Honour of Richmond, and Quy is three miles from Wilbraham. Three of the four Yorkshire holding were also part of the Chamberlain's fee, Langthorne being later alienated to St Mary's of York, when it may have included Hackforth , their combined total being four carucates, the size of the grant: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 167-79. Probably, though less certainly, the one other Odo on the Honour of Richmond, at Holbrook in Suffolk, is also the chamberlain, Odos being rare in East Anglia, only two other tenants-in-chief having tenants there. Odo's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1176) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 308, apart from the tenant of Holbrook, who is unidentified (no. 11620).

.............................................................................................................................................
OGER. Oger is a rare name, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief but borne by only four unidentified tenants in 1086, two of whom are probably the tenant-in-chief Oger the Breton.

.............................................................................................................................................
OGER <OF DIDLINGTON>. Oger, who held a carucate and a ploughteam at Didlington in Norfolk from William of Warenne, has no links with other Ogers, all remote; he is the only Oger in East Anglia. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 9210), his carucate assigned to William's demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
OGER <OF TOLLER>. Oger, who held Toller in Dorset from Waleran the hunter, has no links with other Ogers. His manor recorded in Coel (no. 1758) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312.

.............................................................................................................................................
OGER [* THE BRETON *]. The Ogers who held Burton-le-Coggles in Lincolnshire and Aldwincle in Northamptonshire are probably the tenant-in-chief in those counties, Oger the Breton, the notorious enemy of Hereward the Wake. The Lincolnshire Claims reveal that Burton-le-Coggles was held illegally by its tenant-in-chief, Ralph Paynel, since it had been held by Earl Morcar, who was not Ralph's predecessor. The earl was the predecessor of Oger on several of his manors, and the Wake family - Oger's heirs - later had an interest in the vill: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 107-108; Book of Fees, pp. 1048, 1078. Aldwincle is less than four miles from Oger the Breton's manor of Thrapston; Oger shared the tenancy with two others in 1086 so the descent of his portion is uncertain: VCH Northamptonshire, iii. 164-65. Oger is probably to be identified as Oger son of Ungemar, whose fief at Austhorpe in Rutland is similar to his small single-manor fiefs in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the unknown Ungemar may be a alternative form of the Breton Gingomar, recorded circa 1060. All claims involving Oger in the Lincolnshire Claims relate to manors of Oger the Breton. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1180) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 311-12.

.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD. Oidelard is a rare name which occurs fourteen times, distributed among nine counties and the lands of three tenants-in-chief, probably borne by no more than that number of men, all post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD [* THE LARDERER *]. As the name is rare, the Oidelards who held three manors from Eustace the sheriff in Winwick, on the border of Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, are almost certainly his tenant at Grafham, Oidelard the larderer. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2494) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312.

.............................................................................................................................................
OIDELARD [* THE STEWARD *]. As the name is rare, the Oidelards who held manors from Ralph of Mortimer in Hampshire, Berkshire, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire, Herefordshire and Shropshire are very probably one man, possibly Oidelard the steward, tenant of St Augustine's, Canterbury, on the valuable manor of Northbourne in Kent: Ballard, An eleventh-century inquisition, p. 21. His Mortimer tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 1660) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 312, where he is described as 'perhaps' Ralph's steward; the tenant of St Augustine's is identified as another man (no. 1916).

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING. Ording is a rare name which occurs three or four times, once (doubtful) in Cheshire, once in Norfolk, and twice in Kent, all borne by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING [* OF HORTON *]. Ording, who held part of Horton Kirby from King Edward, is probably Ording of Horton, who had full jurisdiction in Sutton Lathe, where Horton lay. His manor is modest for the privileges he enjoyed, but there appear to be no others which can be attributed to him, even if possible scribal errors are taken into account. Half of those who enjoyed similar privileges, however, do not appear as landholders at all: Williams, World before Domesday, p. 54.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING <OF MULBARTON>. Ording, who held the manor of Mulbarton in Norfolk acquired by Ralph of Beaufour, has no links with his remote namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDING <OF TRAFFORD>. Ordm, whose manor of Trafford in Cheshire was acquired by Earl Hugh, has no links with others who may be represented by this name-form, perhaps Ording or Ordmer, neither of which occur elsewhere in Cheshire or on the Honour of the earl of Chester: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 336.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDMER. Ordmer is an uncommon name which occurs fewer than twenty times, distributed among a dozen counties and the lands of the king and twelve of his tenants-in-chief, three manors being held by survivors.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDMER [* OF BADLINGHAM *]. Ordmer, who held Badlingham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Ordmer of Badlingham, a juror in 'Staploe' Hundred, where Badlingham lay: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 1). As he retained his manor for two decades, it is likely he is the Ordmer who preceded the Count at Wilbraham, both Ordmers being dependents of Edeva the fair. He is less likely to be the one other Ordmer in the county, one of ten Freemen on a manor of Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Meldreth according to the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 109). Count Alan had no other Ordmers on his Honour. Ordmer's tenancy is recorded in Coel (no. 6626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313; see also Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 87-88.

................................................................................................................................................................
ORDMER <OF SOMERSAL>. Ordmer, who shared a modest at Somersal in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers, may be the Ordmer who preceded Robert of Stafford on four manors in Staffordshire. They are the only Ordmers in those counties, and little if any tenurial significance can be attached to Henry's acquisition since he acquired the bulk of 'Appletree wapentake, where Somersal lay, probably as a block grant of all unallocated land in the wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 164-65. One of Ordmer's four Stafford manors lay in Tixall, where the other part of the vill was held by Henry of Ferrers, his one tenancy in the county. Henry held Tixall from the earl of Shrewsbury, who acquired it from Almund (q.v.), whose son Alward held Polmere in Shropshire from the earl with Ordmer as his subtenant, he being the only Ordmer in the county. Although the mechanisms which might produce these links are unclear - exchanges, perhaps - it seems unlikely they can be explained as simple coincidences. Alward's subtenant is probably therefore Robert and Henry's predecessor, surviving by the grace of another survivor, albeit in very modest circumstances, on a manor worth four shillings. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31102).

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC. Ordric is a fairly common name which occurs almost forty times, distributed among fifteen counties, the lands of the king and almost two dozen of his tenants-in-chief, survivors - probably three men - holding eight manors in 1086. The distribution of the name is skewed, concentrated in the West Midlands and the south-west, the remainder of the map being almost empty, with one occurrence north of the Wash, and three in the eastern and south-eastern counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC <OF CROOME>. The Ordrics who held Eycot in Gloucestershire and Croome, White Ladies Aston and Oddingley in Worcestershire are probably one man, one of two survivors of this name in the Midlands, the other being an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick. Curiously, Ordric's predecessor at Oddingley is a Thorkil; but that name is not uncommon in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire, and there are no discernible links between Thorkil's many family members and these counties. Ordric may be the steward of the bishopric named in a writ of William Rufus of 1095 as liable for a relief of £40, or possibly the Ordric Black (blaca) whose liability was £5: Hemingi cartularium, pp. 79-81; Round, Feudal England, pp. 308-313. The steward's relief was the largest demanded by the king so was perhaps that due from the bishop's demesne. The Ordric at Eycot is identified as the steward in Coel (no. 2246) but is not recorded in Domesday people; the Worcestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 31736, 31772-73).

................................................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC <OF ORDSALL>. Ordric, whose modest holding shared with three lords at Ordsall in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his distant namesakes to the south.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDRIC [* UNCLE OF THORKIL *]. The Ordrics who held nine manors in Warwickshire are probably the uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, seven of his manors - at Hodnell, Calcutt, Harbury, Ratley, Compton and Ettington - lying in vills dominated by Thorkil and his relatives: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 284, 291, 295. Of the other two, Wormleighton, held by Thorkil in 1086, is surrounded by family vills; and Wishaw, acquired by William son of Corbucion, is adjacent to one of them, at Marston. Wishaw was held for twenty years, as was Calcutt and perhaps Ettington (where no pre-Conquest lord is named); no other Ordric in Domesday did so, and only a tenant of the bishop of Worcester held land in 1086 elsewhere in the Midlands. Ordric held Ettington from the king, seven of the other eight manors occurring on the interrelated fiefs of the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick. Neither they nor William son of Corbucion had Ordrics among their tenants or predecessors elsewhere on their Honours. Ordric's three tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 4760) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF. Ordwulf is a moderately common name which occurs on almost thirty manors in Domesday Book and a few more in Exon. for Devon, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief. All Ordwulfs are pre-Conquest lords, one surviving until 1086. Their distribution is skewed, all but two in Berkshire occurring in the four south-western counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset and Wiltshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF BANWELL>. The Ordwulfs who held land and a mill in the adjacent vills of Congresbury and Banwell in Somerset, in both of which the bishop of Wells had an interest, are probably one man, conceivably Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain. If so, he was another great pre-Conquest lord allowed to eke out a meagre existence on a fraction of his previous estate. However, an unusual number of native landowners survived on the Count's lands, so it is unusual if his predecessor failed to do so while surviving elsewhere. As there are no apparent links between the two Ordwulfs, they are treated here as different men. Ordwulf of Banwell is the only survivor of this name. His manor at Congresbury is recorded in Coel (no. 386) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF GROUNDWELL>. Ordwulf, whose modest holding at Groundwell in Wiltshire was acquired by Humphrey de L'Isle, has no links with his namesakes, though in view of the distribution of the name it is conceivable that he is Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain in Cornwall, Devon and Somerset.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF ILSLEY>. The Ordwulfs who preceded Geoffrey de Mandeville at Ilsley in Berkshire are probably one man. The two parts of the vill constituted a fairly substantial holding so he may be the English magnate, Ordwulf of Tehidy, predecessor of the Count of Mortain on many manors in the south-west; but there is no more precise link, and the manors of the Count's predecessor are more than a hundred miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWULF <OF TEHIDY>. The distribution of the name suggests that most if not all Ordwulfs in the south-western counties are one man, implicitly described as the predecessor of the Count of Mortain in a rubric which states that 'the Count holds the undermentioned seven lands, with Ordwulf's land', perhaps implying that Ordwulf held the previous forty-six manors, either in demesne or as overlord. He is explicitly stated to hold fourteen of them, plus one later holding; and satellite texts emphasise that the seven lands were not of Ordwulf's Honour. His principle manor acquired by the Count was Tehidy in Cornwall.
	Of the five remaining Devonshire manors, the Count's predecessor almost certainly held Broadclyst and Haxton, since Haxton was acquired by the bishop of Exeter in an exchange with the Count of Mortain, and Broadclyst was a valuable royal manor, revealed by a satellite text to have been farmed by Reginald of Vautortes, subinfeudated by the Count with several of Ordwulf's manors. Of the two manors acquired by Roald Dubbed, Lamerton was a high status manor, while the Count of Mortain had an interest in Weare. The one remaining holding, at Woodhuish, was surrounded by those of Ordwulf of Tehidy and acquired by Richard son of Turolf, a tenant of the Count who had another of Ordwulf's manors. It is likely, therefore, that all Devonshire Ordwulfs are the Count of Mortain's predecessor.
	Elsewhere, the two manors of an Ordwulf in Cornwall were acquired by the Count, as was Brushford in Somerset. There are no apparent links between Ordwulf and his four remaining namesakes, though it is not impossible that they, too, are the Count's predecessor. Of the four, the two Berkshire manors here attributed to Ordwulf of Ilsley are the most likely candidates in view of the value of Ilsley (£9). If Ordwulf held Ilsley, it is not improbable that he had Groundwell, en route to Devon; and if he also held the part of the royal manor of Congresbury, then he survived until 1086 on a tiny fragment of his Honour. But without confirmatory links, these four manors are here assigned to different men. A list of Ordwulf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 326, which includes only those manors acquired by the Count of Mortain. Dr Clarke ranks him fifty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of the other five manors attributed to him above would place him comfortably within the top forty.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY. Ordwy is an uncommon name which occurs thirteen times, on modest holdings distributed among six counties, the lands of the king and ten of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Bedfordshire. Survivors held five manors, four of them in Bedfordshire. With one exception, all Ordwys occur in the Midland counties.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY <OF ANSTIE>. Ordwy, whose modest holding at Anstie in Surrey was acquired by William son of Ansculf, has no links with his namesakes. He is the only Ordwy south of the Thames.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY [* OF BEDFORD *]. As the name is uncommon, the Ordwys who held Biddenham, Stanford and 'Westcotts' in Bedfordshire in both 1066 and 1086 - the only Ordwys to retain their manors for twenty years - are probably Ordwy of Bedford, who claimed to be a tenant of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds on a second manor in Biddenham. This entry, which implies that Ordwy of Bedford, Ordwy the burgess, and Ordwy the reeve are the same man, also suggests that he is the overlord of Wulfmer in Sutton, since a Wulfmer is the man the jury says he dispossessed in Biddenham. His manors in Biddenham are recorded in Coel as held by two men (nos. 419, 1626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 313, the tenants of the other two are unidentified (nos. 556, 558).

.............................................................................................................................................
ORDWY <OF HEMINGFORD>. Ordwy, whose respectable manor of Hemingford in Huntingdonshire was acquired by Eustace the sheriff, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORM. The name Orm occurs only north of the Trent, once in Cheshire and Lincolnshire, twice in Derbyshire and over sixty times in Yorkshire, distributed among the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief. Survivors held two manors in Derbyshire and seven in Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORM <OF WYASTON>. As the name is rare outside Yorkshire, the Orms who held Wyaston and Ireton in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers are probably the Orm who granted land at Ireton to Tutbury priory, possibly Orm de Ocoura (Okeover), who witnessed a charter between Burton abbey and Robert of Ferrers in the 1120s; the abbey held land in Okeover: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65; Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 9, plate vii. Orm's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3859) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 314.

.............................................................................................................................................
ORM [* SON OF GAMAL *]. Although the name is common in Yorkshire, it is likely that the Orms from whom Hugh son of Baldric acquired the largest part of his Yorkshire fief and his most valuable manors are the same man in most if not all cases. He is probably Orm son of Gamal, commemorated on the sundial of St Gregory's Minster, Kirkdale, near Kirby Moorside, which records that he bought the minster 'when it was quite broken down and ruined, and he had it built anew from the foundations in honour of Christ and St. Gregory in the days of King Edward and of Earl Tosti', which dates it between 1055 and 1065, and probably later rather than earlier in the decade: Page, 'How long did the Scandinavian language survive', p. 179. Orm held a manor in Kirby Moorside, acquired by Hugh. He may also be the Orm whose manors in Acklam Hundred were acquired by Odo the bowman, one lying in Raisthorpe, where Hugh's predecessor also had a manor, and another within a couple of miles of that vill and shared with a Gamal, conceivably his father, though the name is common and his father died in 1063. Dr Lewis suggests he is also the Orm who held the strategically important manor of Halton in Cheshire, which probably incorporated the once royal burhs at Runcorn and Thelwall and commanded the Runcorn Gap at the head of the Mersey estuary: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 15. It is not unlikely that he is the Orm on many other manors in Yorkshire, though there are no specific links to connect him. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 327-28, which does not include Halton; Dr Clarke ranks him seventy-third in wealth among untitled laymen; the addition of Halton would raise him two places.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN. Osbern is one of the more common names in Domesday Book, the forename of seven tenants-in-chief holdings twenty fiefs between them, and occurring elsewhere more than 170 times, distributed among twenty-eight counties and the lands of the king and more than thirty of his tenants-in-chief. It is interchangeable with the less common Osbert, as with Gamal son of Osbert, Osbern Male, Osbern of Brouay, Osbern of Sacey, Osbern Paisforiere, Osbern son of Ledhard, Bishop Osbern of Exeter, and as with the names Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Thorbert/Thorbiorn.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN <OF BEECH>. The Osberns who held Beech from both Battle abbey and the Count of Eu are probably one man, named in the Chronicle of Battle abbey, pp. 48-49. He may also be the tenant of the abbey at Penhurst, in the same Hundred; Battle had no other tenants of this name. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 15713, 15717, 15812).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF BROUAY *]. Osbern, tenant of Countess Judith in Bletsoe in Bedfordshire, is 'undoubtedly' Osbert of Brouay, who held the other half of the vill from Hugh of Beauchamp and Sharnbrook from him as Osbern of Brouay: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, pp. 96-97. He may also be the tenant of the Countess at Sudbury and at Stapleford in Lincolnshire, as 'tentatively' suggested by Farrer: Honor, ii. 309-12. Countess Judith had one other tenant named Osbern, at Stonton Wyville in Leicestershire, possibly the same man; the descent of this manor has not been traced: VCH Leicestershire, v. 309. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 444) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318, apart from Stonton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 26629).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF EU *]. Osbern, who held the church of Woking in Surrey from the king, may be Osbern of Eu who held the church of Leatherhead from him and that of Farnham from the bishop of Winchester, with a hide in Hampshire, probably the hide and virgate on the episcopal manor of Bentley,. Dr Keats-Rohan identifies this Osbern as Bishop Osbern of Exeter (no. 840), who held another manor in Woking, which is possible. However, bishops are normally accorded their title in Great Domesday and do not normally hold subtenancies from other bishops, so Osbern of Eu is perhaps more likely. He is possibly also the one other tenant of this name in either county, at Chilcomb - also held from the bishop of Winchester - as suggested by John Morris. Osbern was a canon of St Paul's, from Eu in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, i. 69. His churches at Leatherhead and Farnham are recorded in Coel (no. 701) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315; the tenants at Bentley and Chilcomb are unidentified (nos. 6131, 6140).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. The Osberns who held several manors from Hugh of Grandmesnil in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire, are probably Osbern of Neuf-March, his identity suggested by their descent as the 'family fee' of the Neuf-Marché family: Crouch, 'Normans and Anglo-Normans', p. 54 note 10. Hugh had no other tenants of this name. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3702) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 314-15, where it is suggested he was 'probably' the ancestor of the Neuf-Marché family, originally from Neuf-Marché in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). Dr Crouch, however, argues that the byname derives from the Grandmesnil castle of Neuf-Marché in the Norman Vexin in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Evreux).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF GEOFFREY *]. Of the twenty-five Osberns in Sussex, twenty are tenants of the Count of Eu, who appears to have had at least three such tenants but is unlikely to have had many, if any, more. Osbern son of Geoffrey, who held two of the most valuable manors, at Laughton and Willingdon, is likely to have had others, including perhaps the most valuable of all, in Bexhill. He may be the Osbern who held six consecutive manors which follow Laughton, four in the Edivestone Hundred, where Laughton lay; and he is perhaps also the Osbern on a second manor in West Firle - possibly a duplicate of the first - which is in 'Totnore' Hundred with Preston, all seven manors lying in these two Hundreds. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held 'Bassingham' in Staple. Osbern's father is identified as Geoffrey of Balliol in later sources, from Bailleul-Neuville in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 11. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 592) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF HUGH *]. Osbern, who held land at Bodiam from the Count of Eu, is named Osbern son of Hugh in the Chronicle of Battle abbey, pp. 122-23, 254-57, which records that his wife Emma gave the abbey a mill at Criel in Upper Normandy, from where she presumably originated (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). Criel is just a few miles from Eu, the centre of the Count's Norman Honour. A Criel family were tenants of Battle abbey: Searle, Lordship and community, pp. 67, 85, 100, 120, 132-33, 143, 165, 341. Osbern's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 982) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 315.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF RICHARD *]. Osbern, who held a small fief in Shropshire and a subtenancy at Condover from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is probably Osbern son of Richard, whose descendants retained an interest in one of the manors, at Badger: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, ii. 62-63. He is possibly the one other Osbern in the county, who held Forton from Roger of Lacy: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Shropshire Domesday', p. 22. Osbern was a tenant-in-chief in Shropshire and in four other counties. He was the son of Richard Scrope, pre-Conquest lord of Richard's Castle and other manors in Herefordshire, Shropshire and Worcestershire, most of them acquired by his son. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2585) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 316, apart from Condover and Forton, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30669, 30898).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* SON OF TEZZO *]. The Osberns who held Gresford in Cheshire and Stainton, Reasby, Maidenwell and Newball in Lincolnshire from Earl Hugh of Chester are probably his tenant in Cheshire, Osbern son of Tezzo, perhaps the father of Hugh son of Osbern (q.v.). Osbern and Hugh shared Gresford, and both are named in full at Edritone. In Lincolnshire, all but one of their manors were acquired from a Godric; Osbern's identity is confirmed by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 175-78. Earl Hugh had no other tenants named Osbern. See also Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 51-52. Osbern's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2587) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 316.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERN [* THE PRIEST *]. Osbert, who held land in Marston in Lincolnshire, may be Osbern the priest, who held land in the same vill. Osbert's manor (though not Osbern's) is recorded in Coel (no. 10839) but not, apparently, in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERT. Osbert is not a particularly common name, occurring little more than two dozen times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of fifteen tenants-in-chief, the only concentration being in East Anglia, with only three occurrences north of the Wash, one of which is the only pre-Conquest landowner, a Gamal son of Osbert in Yorkshire. The name is, however, demonstrably interchangeable at with the far more common Osbern, as with Gamal son of Osbert, Osbern Male, Osbern of Brouay, Osbern of Sacey, Osbern Paisforiere, Osbern son of Ledhard, Bishop Osbern of Exeter, and as with the names Colbern/Colbert, Fridebern/Fridebert, Ketilbert/Ketilbiorn, Thorbert/Thorbiorn.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSBERT <OF STOKE>. Osbert, who held Stoke and its dependency in Nottinghamshire from Walter of Aincourt, has no links with other Osberts, though it is possible that he is the Osbert at Marston in Lincolnshire, the only other tenant north of the Wash. Osbert of Stoke is unidentified in Coel (no. 35412).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSFRITH. Osfrith is an uncommon name which occurs on one fief in Cornwall and seventeen manors elsewhere, five in East Anglia, one in Lincolnshire, the remainder in Devon. The one survivor held the fief in Cornwall.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSFRITH <OF OKEHAMPTON>. In view of the distribution of his name, it is not unlikely that all Osfriths in Devon and Cornwall are one man. He held substantial manors in both counties: in Cornwall he was a tenant of the Count of Mortain on a dozen manors, eight of them retained since 1066; in Devon all eleven Osfriths were pre-Conquest landowners, nine predecessors of Baldwin the sheriff. One of his manors, at Kelly, is a few miles across the county boundary from Trelaske, held by the Count of Mortain's tenant. It seems likely that the two predecessors are one man, his manors allocated according to the counties in which they lay, a not uncommon procedure, particularly where one or more of the tenants-in-chief dominated the county or counties concerned, as in this case. The other Devon Osfriths held Challonsleigh and Train in Plympton Hundred, near the coast or its estuaries, between Osfrith's manors at Manely and West Prawle. A list of Osfrith's pre-Conquest manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 328, which includes Challonsleigh and Train but not Baldwin's manors of Burston or Filleigh. Osfrith's 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 235) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 311. Dr Clarke ranks Osfrith eighty-eighth in wealth among pre-Conquest lords; Burston and Filleigh would raise him half-a-dozen places.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEARD <OF DARENTH>. Osgeard is a rare name which occurs three times, all in Kent and all on reasonably substantial holdings, which may therefore have been held by one man. The name is easily confused with another rare name, Osgeat, but their distributions are sufficiently distinct to separate them.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT. Osgeat is a rare name which occurs five times, once each in Essex and Suffolk, thrice in Bedfordshire, probably borne by three men.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF BROMHAM>. As the name is rare, it is probable that the three Osgeats in Bedfordshire are one man, listed among the royal reeves in 1086 at Bromham and holding land in an unnamed vill in the same Hundred, where he is called a royal reeve. He held Bromham for twenty years, so he may be King Edward's man at Northill in 1066. Bromham and Northill lie either side of Bedford, where he was perhaps a reeve in the borough. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2044) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF COLCHESTER>. Osgeat, who had a house in Colchester, has no links with his namesakes, and is unlikely to be the free man in Suffolk or the reeve in Bedfordshire, in view of their differing status. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 5750).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSGEAT <OF STERNFIELD>. Although the name is rare, it is improbable that the free man who shared a holding at Sternfield in Suffolk with fifteen other free men is related to either of his namesakes, the householder in Colchester or the reeve in Bedfordshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC. Oslac is an uncommon name which occurs seventeen times, distributed among eight counties and the lands of the king and fourteen of his tenants-in-chief; two survivors held a manor each in Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. Its distribution is skewed, falling into three groups, in Shropshire, the Midlands, and East Anglia and Essex, with a solitary outlier in Devon recorded in Exon.; there are no significant clusters.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF FLECKNOE>. Oslac, who held land in Flecknoe in Warwickshire from Thorkil of Warwick, may be one of Thorkil's relatives. Flecknoe is a 'family' vill and Oslac's predecessor - Edwin - possibly another member of Thorkil's family: Williams, 'A vice-comital family', pp. 293-94. If so, then it is unlikely he is the same man as the other survivor, Oslac of Lubenham, whose manors were in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire where the reach of Thorkil's clan does not appear to have extended. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 28373).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF INGRAVE>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Ingrave in Essex was acquired by Ranulf brother of Ilger might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF KESGRAVE>. Oslac, whose ten acres at Kesgrave in Suffolk was acquired by Robert Malet, has no links with his namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Soham, Thorpe or Wantisden, no great distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF LETHERINGSETT>. Oslac, whose manor of Letheringsett in Norfolk was acquired by Walter Giffard, may have held its dependencies in Bodham and Hunworth, where no pre-Conquest landowners are named.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF MONTGOMERY>. Oslac, whose shared site of Montgomery and its dependencies in Shropshire was acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, was evidently a man of substance. The manor is very extensive - over fifty hides - exempt from all tax by King Edward, and held by the three landowners who shared it 'for hunting'. One of Oslac's co-owners was the magnate Siward the fat (q.v.). Despite his substance, no normal demesne manors can be confidently assigned to Oslac. He has no namesakes within the county and no links with those outside. Among these, the Midland landowner Oslac White is the most likely to be the Shropshire Oslac.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF OTTERY>. Oslac, who according to Exon. shared a manor at Ottery in Devon with two other thanes Robert of Aumale, has no links with his remote namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF SOHAM>. Oslac, whose modest manor at Soham in Suffolk was acquired by Hugh de Montfort, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Thorpe or Wantisden, no great distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF STEVINGTON>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Stevington in Essex was acquired by Tihel the Breton might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF SWANTON>. In view of the rarity of the name, it is likely that the Oslac with a modest pre-Conquest holding at Swanton in Norfolk is the same man as the lord of two free men at Carleton in the same Hundred; but less likely to be the same man as Oslac of Letheringsett on the opposite side of the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF THORPE>. Oslac, whose ten acres at Thorpe in Suffolk were acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Soham or Wantisden, no great distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF TOLLESHUNT>. As the name is uncommon and his manor respectable, the Oslac whose manor of Tolleshunt in Essex was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux might be one of the other two Oslacs in the county, with roughly comparable manors; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC <OF WANTISDEN>. Oslac, whose three acres at Wantisden in Suffolk were acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, has no links with his Suffolk namesakes, though he might be the Oslac at Kesgrave, Soham or Thorpe, no great distance away.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSLAC [* WHITE *]. All but one of the Oslacs in the Midlands may be Oslac White, named as overlord of two Freemen on the royal manor of Barford but apparently without demesne manors of his own. Flecknoe apart (below), the Midland Oslacs cluster on the borders of Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, their manors devolving upon five tenants-in-chief. White's nearest namesakes held a tight group - within two miles of each other - of four manors astride the county boundary, at Marston Trussell and Thorpe Lubenham, acquired by Hugh of Grandmesnil; East Farndon, held by Oslac among the king's thanes in 1086; and Lubenham, acquired by the archbishop of York. Eight to nine miles from this group are Swinford and Walcote, held by one man and acquired by Robert of Bucy. With one exception, these manors are isolated, no other Oslac holding land within a hundred miles. The exception, Oslac of Flecknoe in Warwickshire, is conceivably the same man, though his family connections suggest otherwise. If correctly identified, Oslac White, like many others, appears to have survived on a fragment of his previous estate, at East Farndon. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27546).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER. Osmer is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times, on modest holdings distributed among six counties between Devon and Cheshire - none on the eastern side of the country - and the lands of the king and eight of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in Cheshire. Survivors held four manors.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF BOWOOD>. As the name is uncommon, the tenants of the bishop of Salisbury at Bowood and Buckham in Dorset - six miles apart - are very probably one man, who is also likely to be the king's thane who succeeded his father at Otterhampton in Somerset, these being the only surviving Osmers in Domesday Book apart from a priest in Derbyshire. As he was preceded by his father, he is unlikely to be the Osmer in Devon, the only other Osmer south of Leicestershire. Osmer's manor at Bowood is recorded in Coel (no. 365) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320, under the form Oswar; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 2547, 15313).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF LEIGH>. As the only pre-Conquest lords in southern England, the two Osmers in Devon, at Rocombe and Leigh in Halberton, are possibly the same man though his manors are modest, some thirty-five miles apart, and devolved upon different tenants-in-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF NEWTON>. The Osmer whose waste manor of Newton Grange in Derbyshire was acquired by Henry of Ferrers is somewhat isolated from his namesakes, with whom he has no links. It seems unlikely he is the same man as the Osmer in Cheshire, some forty miles away, or the priest at Derby in 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF PEATLING>. Osmer, whose modest holding at Peatling in Leicestershire was acquired by the Count of Meulan, has no links with his namesakes, the nearest of whom is the one survivor north of the Thames, a priest in Derby.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMER <OF SHIPBROOK>. Given the distribution of the name, it is likely that most if not all ten Osmers in Cheshire are one man. Six of his manors devolved on Richard of Vernon, three on William Malbank, and Claverton on Hugh son of Osbern. Four of Richard's six manors form a tight group, the other pair - Audlem and Crewe - spanning Malbank's manors of Austerson and 'Wisterton', Malbank's third manor, at Frith, being shared by a Leofwin who also shared 'Wisterton' with Osmer. Hugh son of Osbern's manor at Claverton, though somewhat apart, was connected via a holding in Northwich, adjacent to Richard of Vernon's main cluster. See also Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', p. 323; Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', p. 20.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* BENZ *]. Osmund is an uncommon name north of the Wash, occurring twice in Cheshire and not at all in Rutland, Staffordshire or Yorkshire. Otherwise, there is a group of interrelated clusters in Nottinghamshire and the adjacent parts of south Derbyshire, south Lincolnshire and the northern tip of Leicestershire, the widow's peak of land between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. There are no Osmunds to the north, and none for roughly forty miles south of southern-most vill in this cluster, a distribution which suggests that many of the manors within this area may be held by one man. If so, he is probably Osmund Benz, a king's thane at Ilkeston in 1066 and 1086 in Derbyshire, who is probably the thane Osmund at Cellesdene in the same wapentake at both dates; only one other Osmund in the country - in Hampshire - retained his manor during those two decades. Benz is perhaps also the Osmund at Sandiacre, four miles from Ilkeston, another of the thanes of 1066.
	No other Osmund in this area held the same manor for twenty years, but other tenants-in-chief had an Osmund both as predecessor and as tenant. In Leicestershire, Robert of Tosny acquired seven manors from a group of four thanes which included an Osmund an Osmund also being his tenant at Hose, between one and six miles from three of these manors. Similarly, Ralph of Buron acquired Denby in Derbyshire and three manors in Nottinghamshire from an Osmund and had Osmund as a tenant at Hucknall and Lamcote in the same county.
	In Lincolnshire the links are more tenuous. Robert of Stafford acquired Boultham, Rauceby and Silk Willoughby from an Osmund but had no tenant of that name, while the bishop of Lincoln had Osmund as a tenant at Quarrington and Evedon but no Osmunds among his predecessors. The bishop's tenant and Robert's predecessor may, however, be the same man, since Quarrington is a couple of miles from both Willoughby and Rauceby. The one other Osmund in the county, a predecessor of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Thimbleby, the only Lincolnshire Osmund outside Kesteven, is almost twenty miles from the nearest of his namesakes. This Osmund may be a different man, though one characteristic might suggest otherwise. Thimbleby is a fairly substantial manor, the most valuable of those in Lincolnshire, and Osmund Benz - if all these Osmunds are Osmund Benz - had few such manors for a landholder with land in several counties.
	Two other tenants-in-chief had predecessors but not tenants in these counties: in Derbyshire, Henry of Ferrers acquired Osmaston and its dependency, and in Nottinghamshire Grove and its dependencies devolved upon Roger of Bully. If Dr Fleming's thesis on 'block' grants by wapentake is valid, the tenancies-in-chief are not a significant identifying characteristic because Roger of Bully and Henry of Ferrers were granted the bulk of the wapentakes concerned: Kings and lords, pp. 162, 164. Since Osmaston is nine miles from the Benz manor of Sandiacre, and eleven from that at Ilkeston, this Osmund, too, is conceivably Osmund Benz. The Bully manors are slightly further apart; and in the absence of a tenurial association, there is no basis for an identification other than the broad distributional pattern.
	The more tenuous of these suggested identifications should be seen in three contexts: none of the seven tenants-in-chief had predecessors or tenants named Osmund outside the region; only two other tenants-in-chief had an Osmund as both tenant and predecessor elsewhere in Domesday Book; and distribution of the name north of the Wash is limited and patterned. The manor of Osmund Benz at Ilkeston is recorded in Coel (no. 3064) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 318; the bishop of Lincoln's tenant is identified in Coel (no. 12080) but not included in Domesday people; the remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 26407, 32511, 35501, 35504).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* OF ANJOU *]. Osmund, uncle of Guy of Anjou (q.v.) who preceded his nephew at Anmer in Norfolk, is probably Osmund of Anjou, named on the royal manor of Hatfield in Essex, both being intermediate landowners. No other Osmunds fit this description. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND <OF EATON>. The Osmunds whose manors in Surrey, Hampshire and Wiltshire devolved upon Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are probably one man. All were subinfeudated to the same tenant, Turold nephew of Wigot (q.v.), who held only one other manor from the earl. In Surrey, Earl Roger's entire fief was acquired from Osmund, and in Wiltshire two of his three manors there. After the king and the earls, Osmund was one of Earl Roger's most significant predecessors. Only one other Osmund held land before the Conquest in those three counties, an insignificant holding at Bentley in Hampshire. Dr Williams suggests Osmund may have been Turold's father: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 102. A list of his manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, p. 329. Dr Clarke ranks him seventieth in wealth among untitled laymen.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* THE DANE *]. Osmund, from whom Giles brother of Ansculf acquired Stuchbury in Northamptonshire, is probably Osmund the Dane, from whom he also obtained the nearby holding in Thorpe Mandeville. Giles had no other predecessors or tenants named Asmund or Osmund. There are other Osmunds in the county, none with links to Giles' predecessor, though the Osmund at Syresham is a few miles away, the manor of Halse to which it belonged only two miles across the fields.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSMUND [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Osmund, who held Pomeroy among the king's thanes in Wiltshire in 1066 and 1086, is named Osmund the interpreter in the Geld Roll for Bradford Hundred, where Pomeroy lay: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 198. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1767) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 319, where he is identified as 'possibly' the tenant of Swein of Essex (q.v.) at Milborne Stileham in Dorset, though the grounds for doing so are not apparent; Milborne is over fifty miles from Pomeroy, Galton and Woodstreet, held by another king's thane, Osmund the baker, being far closer. See also Tsurushima, 'Domesday interpreters', p. 208.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK. The forename Ospak occurs four times, twice each in Nottinghamshire and Norfolk, all modest properties held by pre-Conquest landowners, likely to have been held by one man in each county.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK <OF DALLING>. As the name is rare, the Ospak who held a modest holding at Field Dalling in Norfolk in 1066 is probably the overlord of a free man at Antingham, eighteen miles away. He may have been the father of Ansketil son of Ospak, tenant of Robert Gernon at Barningham, almost exactly midway between Dalling and Antingham.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSPAK <OF SIBTHORPE>. As the name is rare, the Ospaks whose modest manors in Sibthorpe and Saxondale in Nottinghamshire were acquired by Count Alan of Brittany and Roger of Bully may be one man, his manors devolving upon different tenants-in-chief perhaps in consequence of the allocation of much of the county by wapentake: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 162-64. The vills are eight miles apart.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD. Oswald is a rare name which occurs once each in Hampshire and Staffordshire, twice in Somerset and nine times in Surrey.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFWOLD *]. As the name is rare, the Oswald who held a small fief among the royal thanes in Surrey, identified there as the abbot (of Chertsey)'s brother, is almost certainly the Oswald who held Effingham from the abbey of Chertsey, and probably the Oswald who held a second manor in Effingham and another in Mickleham from Richard of Tonbridge; he retained both manors in Mickleham and three of those he held in chief for twenty years. The one remaining Oswald in the county was a predecessor of Richard, so probably the same Oswald. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 915) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320, apart from Mickleham and the Chertsey manor, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 15453, 15512).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF DURBOROUGH>. As the name is rare, the Oswalds who held Durborough and Marksbury in Somerset from the abbey of Glastonbury in 1066 are probably one man. He is the only Oswald in the south-western counties or on the Glastonbury Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF HINTS>. Oswald, who held land for seven ploughteams from the bishop of Chester at Hints in Staffordshire in 1086, has no links with his namesakes, none of whom occur north of the Thames. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31348).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWALD <OF TWYFORD>. Oswald, whose wife Aldgyth held the substantial manor of Twyford in Hampshire from the bishop of Winchester after 1066, will have been a significant landowner; but he held no land in his own name in 1066 so his identity is unknown. There are no other Oswalds in southern England whose identity is not reasonably certain. Twyford was by a considerable margin the most valuable manor held by an Aldgyth in 1066 or 1086.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD. Osward is a fairly common name which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and more than twenty of his tenants tenants-in-chief. With a single exception, the name occurs only south of the Wash, with a marked clustering in Kent, Surrey and Sussex, where all but one of the twenty most valuable manors lay. There is a scattering of manors in the western counties between Wiltshire and Worcestershire. Survivors held ten manors spread across six counties between Wiltshire and Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD [* OF NORTON *]. In view of the distribution of the name, it is likely that most if not all Oswards in the adjacent counties of Kent, Surrey and Sussex are Osward of Norton, who had full jurisdiction in western Kent and was perhaps the sheriff named on the royal manor of Dartford: Green, English sheriffs, p. 50. Dr Williams suggests that some of these manors may have been held by another Osward, Osward of Harrietsham, named in a charter of the late 1040s, on the grounds that apart from his byname the Osward who held Harrietsham was not succeeded by Hugh of Port, the tenant who succeeded Osward of Norton on several other manors in Kent (including Norton) and was one of his successors as sheriff: World before Domesday, pp. 49-50, 57, 173 notes 31-37, 177-78 notes 99-104. However, although Hugh was Osward's most important successor, there were eight others in Kent alone; and as aliases from estate names are common in the period, 'of Harrietsham' may well be one of them, like Norton itself. Osward was the predecessor of the bishop of Bayeux at both Harrietsham and Norton and on most of his other manors in Kent and also acquired the single manor held by an Osward in Essex. The bishop's predecessor may also be the Osward who held the three remaining Kentish manors: Crayford and Sheppey from the archbishop of Canterbury according to the Domesday Monachorum (pp. 85-86), and Sellindge, acquired by Hugh de Montfort. The substantial manor of Crayford was adjacent to the royal manor of Dartford where Osward was active as sheriff, and the valuable manor of Sellindge lay in western Kent, where Osward of Norton had full jurisdiction.
	In Sussex, where the allocation of each of the Rapes to a single tenant-in-chief obliterated Anglo-Saxon tenurial arrangements, it is likely that the Oswards who held land in four of the Rapes are this man. In three of the four Rapes at least one of his manors was substantial, and in the fourth the single manor was not negligible and was held from King Edward, like the majority of others. In one case, manorial links confirm a connection, two of the tenants-in-chief having an interest in Claverham. Additionally, two of the manors were held by Osward at both dates, and a third in 1086. These manors are among his most modest in the three counties, so it is possible that Osward was allowed to survive on a fraction of his former estate, as happened to many other English magnates. Finally, in Surrey, two of the three manors were valuable or very valuable, while the third was acquired by Haimo the sheriff, Osward's successor in that office in Kent in 1086. Apart from the status of most of his manors, what makes these tenuous associations reasonably persuasive evidence of identity is the absence of Oswards elsewhere on the map, with not a single name in the adjacent counties: none in Hampshire, and none at all in circuits three and four or in Suffolk.
	A list of Osward's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 329-31, which does not include Crayford and Sheppey, recorded in the Domesday Monachorum, or the manors acquired by William of Warenne and William of Braose in Sussex. Dr Clarke ranks Osward thirty-first in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him several places, higher still if allowance is made for the income he probably derived from managing the royal manors: Williams, World before Domesday, p. 57. Osward's 1086 holdings are attributed to three unidentified tenants in Coel (nos. 15786, 16363, 16366).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD <OF ORDSALL>. Osward, whose land at Ordsall in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his namesakes. There are no other Oswards in the county or on the Honour of Roger of Bully.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWARD [* OF TREWSBURY *]. Osward, who held Trewsbury in Gloucestershire from Gilbert son of Turold, is named Osward de Trusseberie in a charter of Henry I: Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 5. As his name is not particularly common, he may be the one other Osward in Gloucestershire, who held Rodmarton - three miles away - in 1066 and 1086, and perhaps the Osward who held in Nether Stowey in Somerset for two decades. He shared Stowey with an Alward, and Osward of Trewsbury was preceded at Trewsbury by an Alward who, in turn, may be the Alward who succeeded Osward at Milton. These are the only three manors in Domesday Book where Alward and Osward appear together; and since the Stowey entry shows that both were survivors from 1066, this is unlikely to be a coincidence, though the manors were in different hands by the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 819; VCH Gloucestershire, xi. 238; VCH Somerset, v. 193. Alward and Osward may have been brothers, or close relations. Trewsbury is recorded in Coel (no. 8793) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 320; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 15150, 29893).

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWULF <OF HARDWICK>. The Oswulfs on adjacent manors in Hardwick and Burston in Buckinghamshire acquired by Miles Crispin and both subinfeudated to a William are probably one man, possibly Oswulf son of Frani, though there are no links to confirm this. There are no other Oswulfs on Miles' Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWULF <OF WILLINGHAM>. Oswulf, whose virgate worth three shillings at Willingham in Cambridgeshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany, has no links with his namesakes. There are no other Oswulfs in the county or on the Count's Honour.

.............................................................................................................................................
OSWULF [* SON OF FRANI *]. It is likely that most, if not all, Oswulfs in the ten counties of circuits three and four are Oswulf son of Frani, designated predecessor of Robert of Tosny in Hertfordshire, where Robert acquired his fief from Oswulf, and named in full on his manors acquired by Robert at Cheddington in Buckinghamshire and Studham in Bedfordshire. On three of these, he is described as a royal thane, so he is probably the royal thane Oswulf who preceded Robert at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire and Oakley in Bedfordshire. The third manor on Robert's Bedfordshire fief was also held by an Oswulf, evidently the same man since the three manors constituted Robert's fief. In view of this pattern, he is likely to be the Oswulf who preceded Robert in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. In both counties, Frani of Ashley (q.v.), perhaps Oswulf's father, held land within four miles of one of these manors, in Northamptonshire as Robert's predecessor.
	The son of Frani is also named as the lord of men whose lands were acquired by the Count of Mortain, Count Eustace of Boulogne and Robert d'Oilly in Hertfordshire, so he may be the Oswulf at Wigginton, where the Count acquired the land of his man, Leofric, and perhaps at Furtho in Northamptonshire, where an Oswulf preceded the Count. Of the five remaining Oswulfs in the two circuits, the man of King Edward on the valuable manor of Sherington in Buckinghamshire, four miles from Clifton Reynes, is probably the Frani's son, and perhaps also the Oswulf at Moulsoe, five miles south of Sherington. The two manors in the county acquired by Miles Crispin, though possibly his also, have no discernible links and are here attributed to another Oswulf, as is the one manor in Cambridgeshire. No Oswulf in this area survived until 1086. A list of Oswulf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 331-32, which does not include the Leicestershire manors or Moulsoe and Sherington. Dr Clarke ranks Oswulf eighty-seventh in wealth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him a dozen or more places.

.............................................................................................................................................
OTHENKAR [* SON OF ALNOTH *]. All Othenkars in Domesday Book may be one man, who is perhaps the Oingar son of Alnoth of Nottingham whose (unspecified) land in the county was granted to the Church of Durham shortly after the Domesday Survey: Bates, Regesta, no. 116, p. 409. The form Oingar is otherwise unknown but will fit no one else in Domesday Book. The seven Othenkars in Nottinghamshire are probably the same man since all were predecessors of Roger of Bully, only one them in a 'Bully' wapentake. Willoughby-on-the-Wolds, somewhat isolated from the other manors, lay in the block of territory held by William Peverel, suggesting Roger acquired it by antecession: Fleming, Kings and lords, pp. 148-52, 162-64. Roger acquired the land of an Alnoth at Thrumpton, eight miles south-west of Nottingham, one of two Alnoths in the county, the other possibly the same man (below).
	The one Derbyshire manor, at Shipley, devolved upon Gilbert of Ghent, who also acquired Croft and Wainfleet in Lincolnshire, his manors bracketing those in Nottinghamshire. Of the remaining Lincolnshire holdings, those acquired by Jocelyn son of Lambert included one in Wainfleet alongside Gilbert, and jurisdictions of the bishop of Bayeux's manor of Ashby Puerorum in Markby and Bag Enderby, the other two vills the bishop acquired from Othenkar as dependencies of Ashby. Only Willoughton has no obvious links with other manors, though it is of comparable status.
	Less certainly, the tenant of Countess Judith at Gaddesby in Leicestershire may be Alnoth's son. This Othenkar, the only survivor, may have held the manor before the Conquest, too, since no 1066 lord is recorded. Gaddesby is some eleven miles south of Othenkar's manor of Willoughby and is adjacent to Rearsby, held by an Alnoth - the other Alnoth in the county - before the Conquest. If he is the son of Alnoth, then like many of his peers he was left holding a fragment of his previous estate in 1086. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 26636).

.............................................................................................................................................
OTTO. The name Otto is difficult to disentangle from the more common Odo/Oda and other forms, Otto the goldsmith, for instance, appearing as Otto, Otho and Odo. Forssner has declared it to be 'a useless task' to separate the forms: Continental-Germanic personal names, pp. 198-99. Apart from the one Odo who can be identified as the goldsmith, Odo is here treated as a separate name. There appear to be no grounds for identifying the other two Othos in the text with the Ottos discussed below.

.............................................................................................................................................
OTTO <OF CHEADLE>. Otto, who held a half-hide at Cheadle among the king's thanes in Staffordshire in 1086, does not appear to be related to his one namesake, the goldsmith. His name-form (Otha) is unique in Domesday. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 31626).

.............................................................................................................................................
OTTO [* THE GOLDSMITH *]. Odo, who held Hawkstead in Suffolk from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds, is almost certainly Otto the goldsmith, who subsequently donated land there to the abbey, a gift confirmed by Henry I: Feudal documents, pp. 61-62. Otto was a minor tenant-in-chief in Cambridgeshire and Essex, and managed royal lands in Essex and Suffolk. His son, another Otto, succeeded him: Round, 'Early reference to Domesday', pp. 555-57. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 121) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 320-21.

.............................................................................................................................................
OWEN <OF LYE>. Owen (Ouen), whose manors at Lye in Herefordshire were acquired by Ralph of Mortimer and Gruffydd Boy, is the only man of this name in Domesday Book. The name might be confused with Owine; but there are no links between the bearers of those names.

.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE". Owine is a rare name which occurs four times, once each in Derbyshire and Essex and twice in Cheshire: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest personal names, p. 342. The rural Owines are pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE" <OF AUSTERSON>. The Owines whose modest manors of Basford and Austerson in Cheshire - six miles apart - were acquired by William Malbank are very probably one man. As his name is very rare, it is possible he is the same man as the one other rural Owine, on a comparable manor at Bradwell in Derbyshire, some forty-five miles away; but there are no links to confirm an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE" <OF BRADWELL>. Owine, whose share in the modest manor of Bradwell in Derbyshire was acquired by William Peverel, has no links with his namesake in Cheshire, though as his name is very rare, he might be the one other rural Owine, in Cheshire, some forty-five miles away; but there are no links to confirm an identification.

.............................................................................................................................................
"OWINE" <OF COLCHESTER>. Owine, who had a house in Colchester, has no links with his northern namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI. The name Palli occurs twice, once each in Gloucestershire and Warwickshire, both borne by pre-Conquest lords.

.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI <OF BLEDISLOW>. Palli, whose small manor of Bledislow in Gloucestershire was acquired by Walter the bowman, might be the one other Palli, at Middleton in Warwickshire, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
PALLI <OF MIDDLETON>. Palli, whose fairly substantial manor of Middleton in Warwickshire was acquired by Hugh of Grandmesnil, might be the Palli at Bledislow in Gloucestershire, his one namesake, but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE. Payne is a fairly common name which occurs which occurs almost fifty times, distributed among nineteen counties and the lands of the king and eighteen of his tenants-in-chief, with one cluster in the adjacent counties of Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. All but three Paynes are 1086 landowners, tenants of fifteen tenants-in-chief, none of whom appears to have had more than one tenant of that name. Although fairly common, no tenant-in-chief bore this forename.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE [* FATHER OF EDMUND *]. Payne is a rare name in 1066, occurring once each in Gloucestershire and Norfolk and once or twice in Hampshire. In the last two counties, Payne is probably the father of Edmund, since he is succeeded by Edmund son of Payne in Norfolk, and in Hampshire he may be the father who preceded an Edmund at 'Michelton', while his unnamed manor in the New Forest lay in the same Hundred of Boldre as one of Edmund's. He is probably the Payne who held two manors in Boldre itself, though the text is unclear as to when he held these manors. He may, however, have survived the Conquest, the only other Payne in Hampshire holding land at 'Buckholt' in the New Forest, in the Hundred where two of Edmund's manors lay, one of which he acquired from a Saewin, Payne's predecessor at 'Buckholt'. Payne is unidentified in Coel (no. 6693).

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF CLANFIELD>. The Paynes who held Westbury in Buckinghamshire and Clanfield and Bourton in Oxfordshire from Roger of Ivry are probably one man. The Oxfordshire manors are adjacent, and held by the only Paynes in the county; while Clanfield was held at a later date by Ralph Hareng, who also had land in Westbury: Book of Fees, pp. 822, 871, 892; VCH Oxfordshire, xv, 81. There are no other Paynes in Oxfordshire or on Roger's Honour. Payne's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3781) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF COMPTON>. The Paynes who held Compton Bassett and Cumberwell from Humphrey de l'Isle are probably one man, the only Payne in the county, with the same predecessor on both manors. Humphrey's Honour is confined to Wiltshire and is unlikely to include two Paynes among his comparatively few tenants. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11534) but are not included in Domesday people.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF HOGGESTON>. William son of Ansculf's tenants in Buckinghamshire, Staffordshire and Worcestershire may be the same Payne, although some of these manors were held by different families in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 369-70, 415-17, 424; Book of Fees, p. 968. The Staffordshire and Worcestershire manors are within three miles of each other; and of the seven in Buckinghamshire, five lie within a four mile radius of Stewkley, the other two being three miles apart, though William's fief in the county extends some sixty miles from north to south. His Staffordshire and Worcestershire tenants are the only Paynes in those counties, while the two other Paynes in Buckinghamshire may be identified as other men with reasonable confidence. Payne was William's wealthiest tenant, with a number of substantial manors in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1903) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321, where the Staffordshire reference is missing.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE <OF LUBBESTHORPE>. William Peverel's tenants at Tetchwick in Buckinghamshire, Barby in Northamptonshire, 'Lubbesthorpe' in Leicestershire and Basford in Nottinghamshire are probably the same Payne. In the last three counties, he is the only Payne in the county; and the descent of the three manors, albeit broken, offers circumstantial evidence to support his identification: Farrer, Honors, i. 168-73. The descent of Tetchwick was interrupted by forfeiture: Farrer, Honors, i. 222-26. He is one of Peverel's more important tenants, only two others being significantly better-endowed. Payne's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3705) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321.

.............................................................................................................................................
PAYNE [* THE STEWARD *]. The Paynes who held Anstey in Hertfordshire and six manors in Cambridgeshire from Hardwin of Scales are probably his steward, named in the Inquisitio Eliensis as a juror in Whittlesford Hundred, where his manor of Duxford lay (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). He is the only Payne in Cambridgeshire, and one of three in Hertfordshire. The other two, both tenants of the bishop of London, may also be Hardwin's steward since their manors at Pelham and Meesden are adjacent to his manor of Anstey, Meesden being acquired from an Alward who may be the Alward who held Anstey. Neither the bishop or Hardwin had other Paynes on their Honours. The manors of Hardwin's tenant are recorded in Coel (no. 983) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 321; those of the bishop's tenant are unidentified (nos. 6990, 6995).

.............................................................................................................................................
PETER [* OF VALOGNES *]. P, or Peter, named on royal manors in Essex, is very probably Peter of Valognes, sheriff of Essex and Hertfordshire: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 39, 47. He may also be the Peter who held Libury from the bishop of Bayeux and Graveley and Boxbury from William of Eu - all in Hertfordshire - and Great Ryburgh in Norfolk from William of Warenne, since he held in chief in those vills and at Graveley his officer, Roger, held part of the manor from him. He probably also held Rye House in the county as well as Libury from the bishop of Bayeux, Bishop Odo having no other Peters on his extensive Honour; and he is very probably the one other unidentified Peter in the county, at Berkesden, where he intervened officially in an exchange involving Libury. He was a tenant-in-chief in Essex and Hertfordshire and four other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 395) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 322-23, apart from Graveley and Boxbury, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 7187, 7192).

.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT. If the tenants-in-chief Picot of Cambridge and Picot of Sai are excluded, Picot is not a particularly common name, occurring twenty-six times, distributed among ten counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief. There is one cluster in Yorkshire/Lincolnshire but otherwise an un-patterned scattering between Hampshire and Staffordshire. All Picots are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF CAMBRIDGE *]. Picot is a common name only in Cambridgeshire, where Picot of Cambridge was sheriff and tenant-in-chief, 'a starving lion, a footloose wolf, a deceitful fox, a muddy swine, an impudent dog' who, according to the Liber Eliensis (ed Fairweather, p. 25), acted 'as if the whole county was one carcass, he claimed it all for himself'. He is very probably the unidentified Picot on all entries in the county, named as such on several of them in the satellite texts: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton pp. 52-53, 75, 78, 84, 93-94, 106, 123). The context indicates his identity in entries relating to the royal lands and to his activities at Orwell. In the remaining cases, he either held in chief in the vills concerned, or had another tenancy in the vill where he is accorded his byname. His official status also identifies him as the Picot on the royal manors of Wethersfield in Essex and Barrow and Badmondisfield in Suffolk. He may also be the tenant of Robert Gernon, his fellow sheriff whose daughter he married, at Patching and Arkesden in Essex. There are no other Picots in Essex or East Anglia. He founded St Giles in Cambridge, endowing it with many of the churches and tithes of his lands: Liber de Bernwelle, pp. 40-41. He is identified by some authorities as the same man as Pirot of Wyboston (q.v.). His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 650) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 324, apart from those held from Robert Gernon, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 5165, 5175).

.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF LASCELLES *]. Picot, tenant of Count Alan of Brittany on five manors in Yorkshire and another three in Lincolnshire, is identified as Picot of Lascelles in the Lindsey Survey (8/2) and in contemporary and later documents: Book of Fees, p. 154. His manors formed the Lascelles fee held by his descendants from the Honour of Richmond: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 182-96. There are no other Picots on the Count's Honour or in Lincolnshire, and no links with the one Picot in Yorkshire who cannot be identified with confidence. Picot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2463) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 324-25.

.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF PERCY *]. Picot, tenant of William of Percy at Bolton upon Dearne and Sutton upon Derwent, is probably Picot of Percy, who witnessed Percy charters early in the following century and whose descendants were the Percys of Bolton Percy: Early Yorkshire charters, ii. 201-205; xi. 105-18. Bolton upon Dearne was later held by the Normanville family, but there is little reason to doubt it was held by the Picot who held Sutton in 1086. Like Sutton, it was acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord, Northmann; and the descent of the William of Percy's tenancies shows some shuffling between Picot and another tenant, Roscelin of Fulstow (q.v.), who held in Bolton Percy in 1086, though this did not descend to his successors, the Normanvilles: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 286. There are no other Picots on the Percy Honour. It is possible that Percy is the one other Picot in Yorkshire who cannot be confidently identified - at 'Little Braham' about fifteen miles to the west of the nearest of Picot's holdings - but there are no links to provide confirmation. Picot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4630) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 325.

.............................................................................................................................................
PICOT [* OF SAI *]. Picot, who held a fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, is almost certainly Picot of Sai, named by Orderic Vitalis as one of the earl's chief vassals to whom he gave a position of authority (ii. 262-63; iii. 146-47). Picot is a nickname, his forename being Robert, lord of Clun: Calendar of documents: France, p. 233; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 112-13. He may also be the Picot who held Mytton from St Mary's of Shrewsbury, Mytton being less than a mile from his manor of Fitz. It is also likely he is the one other Picot who held from the earl of Shrewsbury, holding Wepham in Sussex - the only Picot in the county - from him, the most valuable of Picot's tenancies. It was the earl's practice to enfeof his major tenants in both counties. Picot had a tenant of is own named Picot, a man-at-arms in Shropshire who is perhaps more likely than his lord to be the one other Picot in the county, a subtenant of Roger son of Corbet at Worthen. Picot of Sai was from Sai in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 96. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2972) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 325.

.............................................................................................................................................
PILWIN <OF SIBTHORPE>. The name Pilwin occurs twice, on manors in the adjacent vills of Elston and Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire, acquired by different tenants-in-chief but both enfeoffed to an Arngrim, so very probably held by the same Pilwin before the Conquest.

.............................................................................................................................................
PIROT <OF WYBOSTON>. All Pirots in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man. His name is rare, occurring nine times, seven as a tenant of Eudo the steward (q.v.): at Babraham, Pampisford and Sawston in Cambridgeshire; Beeston and Northill in Bedfordshire; Hawkwell in Essex, and Glemham in Suffolk. Streatley and Wyboston in Bedfordshire were held from Nigel of Aubigny, either as part of the marriage portion of Pirot's wife, or of Nigel's Honour, the only such cases on the Honour. They span the Bedfordshire manors held from Eudo. Apart from their tenurial and distributional characteristics, Pirot's manors descended together: Farrer, Honors, iii. 155-57, 217-19. He has been identified as Picot the sheriff, Pirot being seen as a scribal error. At Babraham and Pampisford, the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 36, 38) does render Pirot as Picot; both Pirot and Picot held land in those two vills; and marriage portions for both Picot's and Pirot's wives are recorded, a striking coincidence since marriage portions are a rare occurrence in Domesday Book. However, the arguments against the identification are compelling. The Domesday scribe altered the familiar Picot to the unfamiliar Pirot, suggesting errors being corrected, and Pirot's name is preserved as a patronymic among his descendants (Farrer, op. cit.). Moreover, it is difficult to credit that both the Domesday scribe and those of Little Domesday made the same error in four counties, but only on the manors of Eudo and Nigel, from neither of whom Picot the sheriff held land. Finally, though not in itself conclusive, Picot's manors did not descend by the same route as those of Pirot: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 97; Domesday people, pp. 324-26. Pirot's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 988) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 324-26.

.............................................................................................................................................
PLEINES [* OF SLEPE *]. Pleines, who shared four hides at St Ives in Huntingdonshire with two other tenants of Ramsey abbey, is named Pleines of Slepe in the abbey's cartulary: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 129. His name is unique, of unknown derivation. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 987) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.

.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL. Rabel is a rare name which occurs only among post-Conquest landowners in Cornwall and Norfolk.

.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL <OF TREGUNNICK>. Rabel, who held two small manors in Cornwall from Count Robert of Mortain, is one of two men in Domesday Book to bear this name, the other a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk. Rabel's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1689) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.

.............................................................................................................................................
RABEL [* THE ENGINEER *]. As the name is rare, the Rabel who held two houses and two messuages in Norwich is probably Rabel the engineer, alias Rabel the carpenter, who had a small fief in the county. His fief, together with land in Norwich, was granted by Henry I to Robert son of Walter: Regesta, ii. no. 987. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 114) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 326.

.............................................................................................................................................
RADA <OF REDENHALL>. Rada, who held the substantial manor of Redenhall and its dependencies in Norfolk under the patronage of Edric of Laxfield, is probably the Rada who held the respectable manor of Sotherton in Suffolk, fifteen miles south-east of Redenhall, from Earl Harold, these being the only Radas in Domesday Book.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER. Rainer is a fairly common name which occurs on two fiefs, more than thirty manors and in a number of Claims, distributed among fourteen counties between Devon and Yorkshire and the lands of the king and sixteen of his tenants-in-chief, with clusters in Devon and Lincolnshire. All Rainers are post-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* OF BRIMEUX *]. The tenants of Drogo of la Beuvrière at Arram and Hatfield in Holderness, and at Kettleby across the Humber in North Lincolnshire, may be Rainer of Brimeux, a tenant-in-chief in Lincolnshire. Drogo and Rainer both came from the Pas-de-Calais and shared at least two tenants, Baldwin of Flanders and Kolsveinn of Lincoln. Like many of Drogo's men, his tenant Rainer appears to have lost his lands after Drogo's flight, as did Rainer of Brimeux himself, replaced by Ralph of Criol by the date of the Lindsey Survey: English, Lords of Holderness, pp. 139-40. Drogo had no other tenants of this name. Rainer's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2425) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 356, apart from Kettleby, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 34236).

.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* OF THONGLANDS *]. Rainer, who held a hide in the manor of Tugford in Shropshire granted by Reginald the sheriff to Shrewsbury abbey, is probably Rainer of Thonglands, named in a charter confirming various gifts to the abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. no. 1, p. 2. The hide was located at Thonglands: Book of Fees, pp. 963, 971. There are no other Rainers in Shropshire, on the Honour of the earl of Shrewsbury, or on the fiefs of his sheriff. Rainer's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 8239) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 356-57.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAINER [* THE STEWARD *]. The Rainers who held Germansweek, Kigbeare, Payhembury, Langford, Tedburn, Rockbeare and Dotton in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff are probably his steward, named in Exon. as the Rainer who held Greenslade from him. Six of the eight manors were later held by the same family, named from Langford; and of the other two, Payhembury is five miles from Langford, Kigbeare eight from Germansweek, between the latter and Greenslade: Book of Fees, 755, 763, 785-87; Feudal Aids, i. 314. As the name is rare in the region, the one other Rainer in the county, at Lowton, seven miles from the steward's nearest manor, may also be the steward. Apart from the tenant of Robert son of Gerald in Wiltshire, these are the only Rainers in the south-western counties. Rainer's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1721) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 351, apart from Lowton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4257). See also Mason, 'Barons and their officials', pp. 246-47.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH. Ralph is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring well over a thousand times and in every county except Rutland. More than seventy Ralphs have different bynames, three of the earls and almost two dozen tenants-in-chief, Ralphs also occurring as tenants of almost 130 other tenants-in-chief. Apart from the two earls, Ralphs appear on four manors in pre-Conquest contexts in Domesday Book or the satellite texts.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* RALPH *] BAYNARD. Baynard, or R Baynard, who occurs in Essex and East Anglia, can be identified as Ralph Baynard, tenant-in-chief in those counties, sometime sheriff of Essex. His official functions identify him on the royal fief in Essex, while references to his Holding, or his predecessors, identify him elsewhere. He is almost certainly the Baynard responsible for five annexations in the Norfolk folios, since he held in chief in the vills concerned. As he is the archbishop's tenant elsewhere, he is probably the Baynard who held Malling in Sussex and Walworth in Surrey from him, and probably also the Baynard at Pachesham in Surrey and Westminster in Middlesex, given their proximity to London and Baynard's Castle, to which the family gave its name: Mortimer, 'Baynards of Baynard's Castle', pp. 241-43, 252. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 123) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 327.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* BLOIET *]. The Ralphs who held Hillmarton and Lackham in Wiltshire and 'Duntisbourne' in Gloucestershire from William of Eu are probably Ralph Bloiet, his tenant at Silchester in Hampshire and, according to Exon., at Yeovilton and Hinton Blewitt in Somerset. The Wiltshire and Gloucestershire manors descended to the Bloiet family: Book of Fees, p. 724; GLS 31,7 Ralph note. He may also be the Ralph who held another manor in Duntisbourne, and manors in 'Shipton' and 'Littleton', from Durand of Gloucester. William of Eu had no other Ralphs on his Honour, but Durand had two, one at Cliddesden in Hampshire, ten miles from Silchester, the other at Ashperton in Herefordshire, whose descent has not been traced: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 62, 117. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 150) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 328, where William's tenant at 'Duntisbourne is identified as Bloiet, the other Ralphs being unidentified (nos. 6455, 16991, 16994, 29716, 29767, 29770, 30469).

.............................................................................................................................................
EARL RALPH [* OF HEREFORD *]. There are three Earl Ralphs in Domesday Book, but Earl Ralph of Hereford, nephew of Edward the Confessor, husband of Countess Gytha (q.v.), and father of Harold son of Earl Ralph (q.v.), is normally easy to distinguish, either through association with his wife or son, because died before 1066 (d. 1057), or by the distribution of his lands in the Midlands and the west, where the other earls are absent; Lincolnshire - where he is presumably the Earl Ralph who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in Lincolnshire, since the other possiblity earl, Ralph the constable, occurs in the same list. - is the only county where he and another Earl Ralph are recorded. His manors are distributed among the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire. He was subsequently known by the unflattering nickname of Ralph the timid, after an inglorious encounter with the Welsh in 1055 when, according to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, he fled the field 'before any spear had been thrown'. His career and lands are documented by Dr Williams, who points out that he held Chalfont, and possibly also Chalton, in Bedfordshire, in addition to the manors attributed to him in Domesday Book: 'The king's nephew', pp. 327-43. He had also held Glaston in Northamptonshire, which he granted to Peterborough abbey, though it was in lay hands at the time of Domesday Book: Hugh Candidus, p. 69; Early charters of eastern England, p. 246. Lists of his manors are given by Williams (p. 332) and Clarke, English nobility, pp. 224-25, who does not include Lighthorne or Radway in Warwickshire. Dr Clarke ranks Earl Ralph with his wife and son twenty-sixth in wealth among the nobility; the additional manors, with those attributed to his wife, would place the family comfortably in the top twenty; only a modest part of this was retained by his son.

.............................................................................................................................................
EARL RALPH [* THE CONSTABLE *]. Ralph the constable and his son, Ralph Wader, both earls of East Anglia, are often simply designated 'Earl Ralph', 'Earl R', or even just 'Ralph' or 'R', by the scribes of Little Domesday. In most cases the two earls can be distinguished by the context. References to Ralph the Elder or Ralph the constable identify the father unambiguously, as do pre-Conquest contexts, though he is sometimes anachronistically named 'Earl Ralph', a title he did not have before 1066. Apart from one entry where he is named in full as Earl Ralph the constable, and two references to when he 'became earl', Ralph the elder is normally named Earl Ralph in a post-Conquest context only alongside his wife or son, though there are one or two ambiguous cases. He settled in England at an early date and succeeded Gyrth as earl of East Anglia after the Conquest, dying sometime between 1068 and 1070. His origins, career and relationships are documented in Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 60-61, 109; Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 44-45. A list of his manors - too numerous to list here - is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 332-34, which does not include his demesne manors of Buckenham, Ashby, Hoveton and Filby in Norfolk, or the many East Anglian free men whose holdings have no separate valuation. Dr Clarke ranks Ralph eleventh in wealth among untitled laymen, twenty-first among the nobility; the additional manors would place him in the top ten and twenty respectively.

.............................................................................................................................................
EARL RALPH [* WADER *]. Ralph Wader and his father, Ralph the constable, both earls of East Anglia, are often simply designated 'Earl Ralph', 'Earl R', or even just 'Ralph' or 'R', by the scribes of Little Domesday; but they can normally be distinguished by the context. References to his forfeiture identify the son unambiguously, as almost certainly do references to his 'Holding', or in most cases to the succession of Godric the steward, who assumed control of much of his forfeited land on behalf of the Crown. Ralph Wader was also a designated predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany for some of the Count's East Anglian manors. Where other identifying characteristics are lacking, he is probably the intermediate 'R' or 'Ralph' on manors where pre-Conquest lords are named, though one or two cases are ambiguous. Apart from Whaddon in Cambridgeshire, Munden and Wallington in Hertfordshire, and Sampford and Bentley in Essex, all his manors - too numerous to list here - lay in East Anglia. His byname - Wader - is recorded in the one Cambridgeshire entry. He succeeded his father as earl sometime between 1068 and 1070, rebelled and forfeited in 1075-1076. His origins, career, relationships and rebellion are documented in Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 59-63, 109; Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 44-47; and Marten, 'Rebellion of 1075', pp. 168-82. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF ASHBY>. The tenants of Countess Judith at Ashby Folville, 'Newbold' Folville and Welby in Leicestershire are stated to be the same Ralph on the first two manors and may be the Ralph on the tiny holding at Welby, though its descent has not been traced: Farrer, Honors, ii. 320-21. Ashby - the most valuable manor - and Newbold were later held by the Folville family, from which both vills derive their surnames. Judith had one other Ralph among her tenants, at Lavendon in Buckinghamshire, shared between three individuals in the thirteenth century: Feudal Aids, i. 74; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 382. Ralph's Leicestershire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8948) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 346; the tenant at Lavendon is unidentified (no. 1531).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF BAGPUIZE *]. The Ralphs who held 'Ashden' and Kingston Bagpuize in Berkshire and Barton Blount, Alkmonton and Bentley in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers were identified as Ralph of Bagpuize by Round: 'Bachepuz charter', pp. 152-55. The Abingdon chronicle names the Ralph at Kingston as Ralph of Bagpuize (Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 42-43, 176-79), while a charter of the reign of Henry II issued by his descendant Robert in the Hallimot of Barton identifies Ashden as another Bagpuize manor. The Barton of the Hallimot is evidently Barton Blount, earlier named Barton Bagpuize: Lay subsidy of 1334, p. 45. Land in Alkmonton and Bentley was also held by Ralph's descendants from those of Henry of Ferrers: Book of Fees, p. 994; Derbyshire charters, nos. 238-39. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1571) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 329; he probably came from Bacquepuis in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Evreux).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF BIGNOR>. The Ralphs who held a site in Arundel and subtenancies in Buddington, Glatting, Stopham, Wittering and Bignor in Sussex from Robert son of Theobald, tenant of the earl of Shrewsbury, are probably one man, ancestor of the Sanzaver family, who later held these manors or had interests in the vills in which they lay: Salzman, 'Family of Chesney', pp. 32-34; Farrer, Honors, iii. 24-26. Earl Roger had no other Ralphs among his tenants or subtenants in the county, although a Ralph the cook was his tenant in Shropshire and an unidentified Ralph in Warwickshire with modest holdings. Ralph's Sussex manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2147) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345, apart from Stopham, Wittering and Bignor, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 16190, 16222, 16265).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF BUCY *]. The Ralphs who held Wantley, Woolfly and Shermanbury - stated in the text be one man - and Kingston-by-sea (once Kingston Bucy) in Sussex from William of Braose are identified as the Ralph of Bucy named in several Braose charters by the descent of his manors: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 395-97, 406; Book of Fees, p. 689; VCH Sussex, vi/i. 133-34. He may also be one of the Ralphs at Lancing: VCH Sussex, i. 370, 379; vi/i. 41-42. William had at least one other Ralph among his tenants - Ralph son of Theodric - so identifying other Ralphs on his fief is problematic. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 920) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331; he was probably from Boucé in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 21.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF CARDIFF>. Ralph, who held part of the royal manor in Walton Cardiff in Gloucestershire, may be the Ralph who farmed Tewkesbury for the king. His successors were the Cardiff family, from which Walton derives its surname. Tewkesbury itself was subsequently held by the earl of Gloucester, whose stewards were the Cardiffs. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4387) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 344.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF COSTENTIN *]. The Ralphs who held 'Fouswardine' and Oldbury in Shropshire from Reginald the sheriff, and Petton from Robert the butler, are identified as one man by the descent of these manors: Feudal Aids, iv. 218, 231, 242; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 133, 137; x. 308-309. Ralph was perhaps the father of the Hugh de Constantino, who gave land in Petton to Shrewsbury abbey and his name to Eaton Constantine, a later acquisition: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38, 41; Eyton, Antiquities, viii 1-2. Petton was later held by a different family, named from the vill. Neither Reginald or Robert had other tenants named Ralph, and there are no other unidentified Ralphs in the county. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8791) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF CRANBORNE *]. The Ralphs who held two manors in 'Tarrant' in Dorset may be Ralph of Cranborne, who owed tax in Langeberge Hundred in the Geld Roll for the county, though it is not possible to determine from which of the two manors the tax was due: VCH Dorset, iii. 138. He also held West Parley in Cranborne Hundred, where his byname is recorded, and is probably the tenant at Wimborne St Giles of Cranborne abbey - one of only two on its small Honour - from which his byname presumably derives. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331, apart from those in 'Tarrant', whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 2919, 2956).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF ELLESBOROUGH>. The Ralphs who held the valuable manor of Ellesborough in Buckinghamshire and West Bromwich - misplaced under Northamptonshire - and Wombourne in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf are probably one man, the manors being later held by a William son of Guy from the heirs of William son of Ansculf: Liber Niger Scaccarii Staffordscira, pp. 198-200; VCH Staffordshire, xvii. 14. William had one other Ralph on his Honour, identified in the text as Ralph of Fougères. Ralph of Ellesborough is confused with a tenant of William son of Corbucion at Sibford in Coel (no. 9388) and Domesday people, p. 346, where the commentary fits Ralph of Ellesborough and his three manors but is applied to Ralph of Sibford and his one manor. Coel lists the tenants at Ellesborough, West Bromwich and Wombourne as unidentified (nos. 1323, 27299, 31553), naming the Ralph at Wombourne Adulfus. Sibford was added by the scribe on a blank space following the fief of William son of Ansculf but is clearly attributed to William son of Corbucion; it should probably have been entered in the Oxfordshire folios. Ralph of Ellesborough was succeeded by Guy de Opheni, possibly his son, and may have originated from Offignies in Picardy (Somme: arrondissement Amiens): Domesday people, p. 346.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF GRENVILLE *]. Ralph, who held Wotton Underwood in Buckinghamshire from Walter Giffard, is probably Ralph of Grenville, who witnessed a Giffard charter from the Conqueror's reign: Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. 1074; Early Buckinghamshire charters, pp. 65-71. His family held three fees of the old enfeoffment from the Giffard Honour in 1166 and had interests in the vill in the thirteenth century: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 131. The other Ralphs on the Giffard Honour may be identified as another man with reasonable confidence. Ralph's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1675) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 333. He was probably from Grainville-la-Teinturière in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 47-48.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH <OF KIMCOTE>. The Ralphs who held Cotes de Val, Poultney, Misterton, Walcote, Kimcote and Swinford in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln are stated in the text to be one man, though his manors were in the hands of several families at a later date: Nichols, History and antiquities of Leicestershire, ii/i. 106; iv/i. 306, 316, 318. He also may be the Ralph who held Branston - almost forty miles to the north - from the bishop, since Roger and William of Mortein held land from the bishop in Walcote and Branston respectively in the late thirteenth century. The bishop also had Ralphs among his tenants at Dunsby, Haconby and Willoughby in Lincolnshire, and Clifton in Nottinghamshire, these manors closer to Branston than Kimcote, so possibly held by Ralph of Kimcote. They are the only other Ralphs in Nottinghamshire.
	The Lincolnshire manors were in the hands of the Salvain family by 1166, since Ralph Salvain then held a fee of four knights from the bishopric, subsequently stated to be in Dunsby; and his heirs were also tenants of the bishop at Willoughby: Red Book, i. 375; ii. 516; Book of Fees, pp. 179, 1031. On this basis, it has been suggested that the Salvains were descendants of the Domesday Ralph, which is possible; but since the descent of the manors between the 1130s and 1160s is unknown, it is equally possible that theirs was a new enfeoffment: Early Yorkshire charters, xii. 97-103; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 80-81. The Salvains also had interests in Nottinghamshire, where Osbert Salvain was sheriff between 1128 and 1130: Green, English sheriffs, p. 68. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8790) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 345; the tenants at Clifton are unidentified in Coel (nos. 35152, 35156).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF LANQUETOT *]. Ralph, who held Hempton in Oxfordshire from Walter Giffard, is probably Ralph of Lanquetot, his tenant on several manors in Bedfordshire and Suffolk, since Hempton was later merged with the Chesney manor of Deddington and Ralph's daughter married Roger of Chesney: Fowler, Bedfordshire in 1086, p. 97; VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 91. According to the Abingdon chronicle, Ralph held Lyford in Berkshire from the abbey, though this is attributed to Walter Giffard in Domesday Book, Ralph perhaps being his unrecorded subtenant there: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 387. As Ralph was one of the three most important tenants - the three honorial barons - on the Giffard Honour, he may be the Ralph on most or all of the seven manors held from Walter in Buckinghamshire, several of them substantial, none negligible. Walter evidently did not have seven, or even several, tenants named Ralph in a single county; but the manors were in the hands of several families in the thirteenth century, the Lanquetot manors in Bedfordshire being held by two more families: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 407, 483; iv. 168, 289, 382, 512; VCH Bedfordshire, ii. 219, 267. In the thirteenth century, another Ralph of Lanquetot held a quarter fee in Lenborough from the Englefield family, who leased Edgcott to the family of that name, so these manors may be attributed to Ralph of Lanquetot in 1086. Of the remainder, the tenant of Wotton Underwood was probably Ralph of Grenville, whose family were connected with the vill and the Giffard Honour from an early date. The other tenancies are not recorded before the late twelfth century, and in the meantime the Giffard Honour had escheated and was in the hands of the Crown for a generation: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 62-63. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 668) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 333-34, apart from Pitstone, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1276).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF MARCY *]. It is likely that the Ralphs who held seven manors in Essex from Haimo the sheriff are Ralph of Marcy, tenant of Count Eustace of Boulogne in Essex and Suffolk. Notley and Rayne are said to be held by one Ralph, identified as Ralph of Marcy by an entry for Notley on the Count's fief, who may also be the Ralph on the preceding manor of Faulkbourne, while the Ralph at Ryes is similarly identified by an entry on the royal manor of Harlow. Of the remaining manors, Greensted and Navestock are said to be held by one man, and the following manor of Kelvedon Hatch was probably later absorbed into Navestock; the Marcy family had an interest in all three: Round, 'Early reference to Domesday', pp. 553-55; 'Domesday survey of Essex', pp. 502-503; VCH Essex, iv. 59, 65, 143. Ralph probably also held Magdalen Laver from Count Eustace, later held by his descendants from those of Eustace: VCH Essex, iv. 105. Neither the Count or Haimo had other unidentified Ralphs on their Honours. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 676) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 334, apart from Laver, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4742).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF MONTGOMERY *]. The Ralphs who held Snelston and Cubley in Derbyshire and Ecton in Northamptonshire from Henry of Ferrers are probably Ralph of Montgomery. Walter of Montgomery held four fees of the 'old enfeoffment' from Earl Ferrers in 1166, and a Ralph of Montgomery - conceivably the Domesday tenant - witnessed a Ferrers' charter in the 1120s: Red Book, i. 337; Facsimiles of royal charters, no. 9. William of Montgomery held land in all three vills in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 934, 993; Feudal Aids, i. 258; iii. 16. Ralph probably came from either Saint-Germain-de-Montgommery or Sainte-Foy-de-Montgommery in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Lisieux): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 68. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2979) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 334-35.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF NEUF-MARCHE *]. Ralph, who held Elton in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully, is probably Ralph of Neuf-Marché, who witnessed his foundation charter for Blyth priory and whose descendants gave land in the area to the priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, pp. xxvi, xxxiii-iv, 209, 231-32. Roger had no other tenants of this name on his extensive Honour. Ralph's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 3717) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336, where it is suggested that he came from Neufmarché in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe); but the place-name might apply to many places; the identification is rejected by Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 72.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF POMEROY *]. The one Ralph in Cornwall, who held Whitstone from the Count of Mortain, may be Ralph of Pomeroy, his tenant at Hollowcombe in Devon according to Exon., who also held Dunsdon - across the border from Whitstone - in which the Count took an unwelcome interest. He was a tenant-in-chief in Somerset and Devon, where he may be the tenant of his brother William the goat (q.v.) on six manors, having interests of his own in several of the vills. He held in chief in Awliscombe, and is named in Exon. at Yowlestone: Devonshire Domesday, pp. 707-708. Puddington is adjacent to Yowlestone and like Ash acquired from the English lord Alward son of Toki, while Matford is adjacent to his manor of Peamore and Whimple lies between his manors of Aunk and Strete Ralegh. According to Exon., Ralph held seven manors in Devon from Iudhael of Totnes and it is likely that he is the Ralph who held another twenty-one manors from Iudhael. Almost all these manors can be found in the possession of one of two families at a later date. The Bolley family, which held eight, also acquired five of those attributed to Ralph of Pomeroy in Exon.; two others were 'also' held by the same Domesday Ralph; of the other eleven, eight descended to Richard son of Stephen and his heirs: Feudal Aids, i. 316-17, 321, 323-24, 331-35. The three remaining manors - Ford, Stadbury and Okenbury - are adjacent to or near neighbours of one or more of the other manors. The majority of the manors in both groups lie in the same four Hundreds so may have been separated some time after Domesday. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 712) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336, apart from Whitstone, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2411).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF QUESNAY *]. The Ralphs who held six manors in Sussex and five in Norfolk from William of Warenne are probably Ralph of Quesnay, named on a subtenancy of the huge manor of Bosham, identified by the descent of his Warenne tenancies. On the same basis, Farrer identified the Ranulf (Rardulphus) who held Stinton and Kerdiston in Norfolk from Warenne as the same man: Round, 'Note on the Sussex Domesday', pp. 140-43; Farrer, Honors, iii. 313-22. He may also be the Ralph who held Heyford in Oxfordshire from Miles Crispin, since Roger of Quesnay held a manor in the same vill from the father-in-law of Miles, Robert d'Oilly. Both manors would have descended to the Honour of Wallingford, from which Ralph of Chesney held two fees in 1166: Red Book, i. 309; Eynsham cartulary, i. 411-23. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he may be the Ralph who held 1 1/2 hides from Geoffrey de Mandeville at an unknown location in 'Ossulstone' Hundred in Middlesex. His descendants held land in the county: Farrer, Honors, iii. 318. Warenne has no other Ralphs on his Honour. Ralphs manors are recorded in Coel (no. 608) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 331.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF REUILLY *]. Ralph, who held the valuable manor of Tarlton in Gloucestershire from Ralph Paynel - effectively his whole fief since a second manor was abandoned - may be Ralph of Reuilly, named in Exon. as Paynel's tenant on four of his five manors in Somerset, the fifth being the least valuable. Paynel had no other Ralphs on his Honour. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 911) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 336.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF SAVENAY *]. R of Savenay, who held land in Kenton and Burstall in Suffolk from Bishop Odo of Bayeux, can only be Ralph of Savenay, who held another eight manors from the bishop in Suffolk; no other landowner in Domesday has this byname. He is probably also the Ralph whose possession of Ashfield - held from the bishop - was disputed by Earl Hugh of Chester. Ashfield is in Claydon Hundred, where Ralph had three other manors, one - Debenham - adjacent to Ashfield. Debenham was held from Ranulf Peverel, with three other tenancies; he was also a tenant of Ely abbey in the county. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 735) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 337, apart from Ashfield, the subject of a dispute, which is assigned to Bishop Odo's demesne. Coel assigns to Ralph another four manors in Suffolk as a tenant of Roger Bigot, here attributed to Ralph of Tourlaville.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* OF TOURLAVILLE *]. R, who held three manors from Roger Bigot in Suffolk, is evidently Ralph of Tourlaville, who 'also' held the preceding manor as well as Briusyard, and Ringstead in Norfolk from him. He is probably also the Ralph who held another manor in Bruisyard from Roger, together with Rendham and Swefling, all said to be held by one Ralph. Roger had one other unidentified tenant named Ralph on his Honour, at Titchwell in Norfolk, who may be this man whose manor at Ringstead is five miles away; another Ralph, however, also held land in that manor. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 749) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 338, apart from Bruisyard, Rendham and Swefling, attributed to Ralph of Savenay; the tenant at Titchwell is unidentified (no. 9518).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* PAYNEL *]. Ralph Paynel, a tenant-in-chief in six counties, is identified as the Ralph who held Sturton in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy by a charter from the 1090s: Early Yorkshire charters, vi. 68. His predecessor was a Grimkel, the only Grimkel on the Lacy Honour perhaps the predecessor of Ralph on two of his Lincolnshire manors. Ralph's manor is attributed to Ralph the steward in Coel (no. 9371) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 343; Lennard, Rural England, pp. 94-98, totals his manors for each county and provides a valuable analysis of his fee.

.............................................................................................................................................
R[ALPH] SON OF H[ERLEWIN]. Ralph son of H and R son of H, who held Hunstanton and Sturston in Norfolk from Roger Bigot, are almost certainly Ralph son of Herlewin, who held six other manors in the county from Roger, including a second manor in Hunstanton. He was also known as Ralph of Hunstanton: Farrer, Honors, iii. 117. He is probably also the tenant of Reginald son of Ivo at Massingham, where he held another manor from William of Ecouis, and at Stanford. Reginald had no other tenants of this name, and William none in the county, but Roger Bigot had an unidentified Ralph at Titchwell, six miles from Hunstanton and five from another of the manors of Herlewin's son, at Ringstead. However, another Bigot tenant, Ralph of Tourlaville, also held land in the same manor of Ringstead. It is conceivable that the two bynames refer to the same Ralph, but unlikely since they occur in the same entry and there is no trace of the Tourlaville holdings among those held by the descendants of Herlewin's son: Farrer, Honors, iii. 117-19. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Herlewin is Herlewin son of Ivo (q.v.), also a tenant of Reginald son of Ivo in Norfolk, and perhaps his brother. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 548) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 340, where there are errors in the commentary; the tenant at Titchwell is unidentified (no. 9518)..

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* SON OF JOCELYN *]. The Ralphs who held Dart, Dart Raffe and Worth in Devon from William of Poilley are probably Ralph son of Jocelyn, named in a grant of 1093 by William of Poilley of the tithes of his manors to St Martin's of Sées which included 'the three manors of Ralph son of Jocelyn': Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Pedley, a fourth manor held by Ralph, is said in the grant to be held in demesne by William, but was possibly also held by the son of Jocelyn in 1086 since William's Honour was small and his tenants few: five are named in Domesday and three in the grant, which appears to included all his manors; the fees had undergone some re-arrangement since 1086, half-a-dozen manors changing hands. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2037) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 339.

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* SON OF THEODRIC *]. Ralph, who held land in Cokeham in Sussex from William of Braose, is probably Ralph son of Theodric, who held the other part of the vill from William, in which case he 'also' held Dankton. He has been identified as one of the two Ralphs who held land in Sompting and Lancing from William, the second Ralph named in the text as 'another' Rodulfus, evidently a scribal error for Ralph, named in the previous entry. All these manors are within a mile or two of each other. There is no 1166 Carta for the Bramber fee; different families held fees in Sompting and Lancing in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, pp. 689-90. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2107) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 341, where Ralph is identified as the Rodulfus at Sompting rather than the Ralph of the previous entry, who is unidentified (no. 16459).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* RALPH *] SON OF TUROLD. R, Ralph, and the unnamed son of Turold who between them held thirteen manors in Essex from Bishop Odo of Bayeux are probably Ralph son of Turold, named as the bishop's tenant at Sampson's Farm and Hanningfield and on ten manors in Kent. The scribes normally used extreme abbreviation only where the identity of the tenant appeared certain, so R must be Ralph son of Turold, the bishop having no other tenant in Essex whose name began with that letter. The other sons of Turold in Domesday Book - Gilbert and Ilbert - were not tenants of Bishop Odo so those in Essex are probably Ralph, who is named 'son of Turold of Rochester' at Wricklesmarsh in Kent, the Domesday Monachorum (p. 102) supplying his forename. The Ralph at Thorrington may also be Turold's son, since his father Turold of Rochester (q.v.) annexed this manor, also holding alongside his son in Hanningfield. Ralph's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 493) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 341, apart from Thorrington, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 4683).

.............................................................................................................................................
RALPH [* TALLBOYS *]. The Ralphs at Sandy and Dean in Bedfordshire are probably Ralph Tallboys, identified by his official activities and his intermediate status. At Sandy, he is explicitly stated to have been the sheriff, a position in which he was succeeded by his son-in-law, Hugh of Beauchamp (q.v.): Green, English sheriffs, p. 25. He was the brother of another sheriff, Ivo Tallboys (q.v.). He died before 1086. His depredations as sheriff are writ large in the Bedfordshire folios. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WALTER *]. Ranulf, who held Kinwarton in Warwickshire from the abbey of Evesham, was identified as the brother of the abbot and ancestor of the Wrottesley family by his descendant, Major-General G. Wrottesley. According to the Evesham chartulary, Abbot Walter also granted his brother Littleton and Bretforton in Worcestershire, Weethley in Warwickshire and Stoke in Gloucestershire: Wrottesley, History of the family of Wrottesley, pp. 10-12; Thomas of Marlborough, p. 179. These manors are all held by the abbey in demesne in Domesday Book; but a Ranulf held Abbots Morton in Worcestershire, and since the abbey had only two named tenants, Ranulf and Urso, it is likely that this Ranulf is the abbot's brother, some re-arrangement of the abbey's fees having occurred. Ranulf's manor at Kinwarton is recorded in Coel (no. 4750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352; the tenant at Morton is unidentified (no. 31945).

.............................................................................................................................................
R[ANULF] BROTHER OF ILGER. R brother of Ilger at Tuddenham in Suffolk can only be Ranulf brother of Ilger, the only brother of Ilger in Domesday Book. He was a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk and in seven other counties. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 461) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 355.

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* FLAMBARD *]. Ranulf the cleric, who held three sites on the royal manor of Guildford, is probably Ranulf Flambard, the notorious minister of William Rufus, who held the church on the royal manor of Goldalming and the manor of Tuesley, as well as manors in six other counties. He is probably also the R Flambard, tenant of the abbey of Malmesbury at Charlton in Wiltshire, where he held a second tenancy from the abbey; the one other Flambard in Domesday Book is Humphrey, in Sussex. It is possible, though unlikely, that Ranulf is the sheriff, who had another site in Guildford: Green, English sheriffs, p. 78. At Bile in the New Forest Flambard is said to have 'held' a hide, now in the Forest; which might suggest he had settled in England before the Conquest; but the formulae is more likely to refer to the period between the Conquest and the loss of his hide to forest law, rather than the usual 'before 1066'. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 479) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 354 (as bishop of Durham), apart from the tenants at Guildford and Charlton (nos. 15315, 16682), who are unidentified.

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* OF MAINWARING *]. The Ranulfs who held a fief and two manors in Cheshire and three in Norfolk from Earl Hugh of Chester are identified by their descent as Ranulf of Mainwaring, ancestor of the family of that name: Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 15, 42; Farrer, Honors, ii. 227-29; Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, p. 55. He may also be the Ranulf who held Tilston and Christleton in Cheshire and Buscot in Berkshire from Robert son of Hugh, a tenant of Earl Hugh, though Buscot was held by another family in the thirteenth century: Honors, ii. 22-25; VCH Berkshire, iv. 512-13. The earl and Robert shared several other tenants: Drogo, Fulco, Humphrey and Mundred. The one other Ranulf on the Honour of Chester, at Aston five miles from the Mainwaring manor of Blacon, is possibly also Mainwaring. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3480) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 354, where it is suggested he was from Le Mesnil Guérin, now named Pont-Farcy, in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Vire).

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* OF STRINGSTON *]. Ranulf, who held Stringston in Somerset from Alfred of 'Spain', is very probably Ranulf of Stringston, named in the Geld Roll for Williton Hundred, where Ralph held another manor from Alfred in Alfoxton: VCH Somerset, i. 532. It is likely that he is the Ranulf who also held Merridge from Alfred. All three manors were acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord and components of all three manors lay in the same Hundred of Cannington; Alfred had no other Ralphs on his Honour: VCH Somerset, vi. 114, 172. Swang, also in the same Hundred, was possibly held by the same Ranulf, though there is no link to confirm this, and the manor was held from another tenant-in-chief. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1991) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352, apart from Merridge, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 15162).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* RANULF *] PEVEREL. R Peverel and R Pev who occur on several manors in East Anglia must be Ranulf Peverel, a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk and Suffolk and six other counties. Three occurrences of Pev or Peverel are also Ranulf Peverel, identified by references to his predecessor Saxi, and to his tenant Ralph of Savenay (q.v.); the other Peverel, William, did not hold land in East Anglia. Ranulf Peverel may also be the Ranulf who held Welbatch and Stapleton in Shropshire from Roger son of Corbet. Peverel was a tenant-in-chief and the only other Ranulf in the county. His Honour was forfeit before 1130 so the descent of the tenancies may not be relevant, though the fact that they were held by different families in the thirteenth century is consistent with the heirs of the Domesday tenant or tenants suffering the same fate of those of the tenant-in-chief: Sanders, English baronies, p. 120; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vi. 108, 119. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1503) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 355-56.

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* SON OF WALTER *]. R son of Walter, who held Knodishall in Suffolk from Roger Bigot, must be Ranulf son of Walter, who held the previous manor. He was an important tenant of Roger Bigot in East Anglia, given his byname on one other manor in Suffolk and thirteen in Norfolk. He is probably also the Ranulf who held a group of four manors from Roger - said to be held by one man - since two are in vills where he is accorded his byname on other holdings. Similarly, he is very probably the Ranulf at Saxmundham, with outliers in Peasenhall and Knodishall, his byname being recorded on one holding in Knodishall; he may also have held the following manor. Roger had no other Ranulfs on his Honour. Roger's tenant does not appear to be related to the R son of Walter who held Buckminster in Leicestershire from the bishop of Lincoln. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 488) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 354-55.

.............................................................................................................................................
RANULF [* THE LATINIST *]. Ranulf, who held Knottingley in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy, is very probably Ranulf the Latinist (Grammaticus) who gave tithes in Knottingley to Ilbert's foundation of St Clement, Pontefract: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 185-87. He is probably also the one other Ranulf among Ilbert's tenants, at Shippen House and Sturton Grange. The St Clements charter attributes to him land in Darrington and his descendants held land in Hardwick, both in other hands in 1086 so some shuffling of tenancies occurred later: Early Yorkshire families, pp. 35-38. The one other Ranulf in Yorkshire, a tenant of Erneis of Buron at Dunsforth, in the same part of the West Riding, has no discernible links with Ilbert's tenant. Ranulf's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4620) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 352; the tenant at Dunsford is unidentified (no. 38160).

.............................................................................................................................................
[* RANULF *] THE SHERIFF. The anonymous sheriff of Surrey who held the royal manor of Childerditch in Essex may the sheriff Ranulf who held a site in Guildford in Surrey from the king in 1086. It is possible, though unlikely, that he is Ranulf Flambard: Green, English sheriffs, p. 78. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4311) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 353.

.............................................................................................................................................
RATHI [* OF GIMINGHAM *]. Rathi, who preceded William of Warenne at Gimingham in Norfolk, is almost certainly Rathi of Gimingham, William's predecessor at Repps, two miles away. As the name is very rare and its distribution localised, the two other Rathis in Domesday Book, both in eastern Norfolk, are likely to be the same man, though their manors were acquired by different tenants-in-chief; they are roughly twenty miles to the south and ten miles apart.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN. Raven is an uncommon name which occurs eighteen times on small or tiny holdings, scattered among ten counties between Buckinghamshire and Yorkshire, on the lands of the king and ten tenants-in-chief; all but two Ravens are pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF BROXTON>. As the name is uncommon, the Raven whose modest holding at Broxton in Cheshire was acquired by Robert son of Hugh may be related to either of the other Ravens in the county; but there are no links to confirm this; their manors, equally or more modest, are twenty or more miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF DUTTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is possible that the Raven whose modest holding at Dutton in Cheshire worth five shillings was acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester is the Raven at Warburton or Broxton, twelve and twenty miles away respectively; but there are no links to confirm either.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF GOLDSMITHS GRANGE>. Raven, who held a small manor among the king's servants at Goldsmith's Grange in Leicestershire, has no apparent links with his namesakes. It is unclear whether his closest neighbour, at Normanton in Nottinghamshire some sixteen miles away, survived the Conquest. The one definite survivor, at Yoxall in Staffordshire, is roughly forty miles away. Raven is unidentified in Coel (no. 26655).

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF LAMPORT>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that Bishop Wulfwy's man at Lamport in Buckinghamshire is the thane Raven in the adjacent vill of Dadford. Although modestly endowed, Lamport is the most valuable of the Raven manors, and Dadford one of the few worth as much as £1.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF LANGER>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravens whose shared manors at Langer and 'Alston' in Suffolk were acquired by Roger Bigot are one man, but perhaps unlikely that he is related to the one other Raven in East Anglia, on an equally modest holding at Occold on the other side of the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF NORMANTON>. It is unclear whether Raven, who held a tiny manor of two bovates at Normanton among the king's thanes of Nottinghamshire, held it before or after the Conquest, or at both dates. His nearest namesake, at Goldsmiths Grange in Leicestershire some sixteen miles away, was a survivor so is possibly the same man.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF NORTHILL>. It is probable that Raven, Wulfmer of Eaton's man on two manors at Northill in Bedfordshire, is one man. His has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF OCCOLD>. As the name is uncommon, the Raven whose shared manor at Occold in Suffolk worth ten shillings was acquired by Robert Malet is possibly Raven of Langer; but there are no links to confirm this and Langer is on the other side of the county.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF OUSEBURN>. Despite the comparative rarity of the name, it is perhaps unlikely that the Raven who held one of five manors in Ouseburn before the Conquest is related to the other Raven in Yorkshire, at Torp in the North Riding, some forty miles or more away.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF "TORP">. Despite the comparative rarity of the name, it is unlikely that the Raven whose manor worth five shillings in the lost vill of Torp in the North Riding of Yorkshire was acquired by Count Alan of Brittany is related to his one namesake in Yorkshire, at Ouseburn in the West Riding.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF WARBURTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is possible that the Raven whose modest holding at Warburton in Cheshire worth five shillings was acquired by Osbern son of Tezzo is the Raven at Dutton or Broxton, twelve and twenty miles away respectively, or even Raven of Broxton, thirty miles away; but there are no links to confirm this.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF WINSTER>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravens who preceded Henry of Ferrers at Winster, Stanton and Birchover in Derbyshire are one man. Birchover is a dependency of Stanton, and a little over a mile from Winster. Less certainly, he may be the Raven at Handley, eleven miles to the east.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVEN <OF YOXALL>. Raven, who shared land on a dependency of the bishop of Chester's manor of Lichfield in Staffordshire with another survivor, has no links with his namesakes elsewhere. He is one of two surviving Ravens, the other at Goldsmiths Grange in Leicestershire, some forty miles away. The thane at Normanton in Nottinghamshire is somewhat closer but it is unclear whether he survived the Conquest. Raven is unidentified in Coel (no. 31349).

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENGAR <OF BECKNEY>. It is probable that all Ravengars in Domesday Book are one man. The name occurs five times, all in Essex, four in Barstable Hundred, the fifth in the neighbouring Hundred of Rochford, on four occasions named for his depredations after the Conquest. At Beckney he is said to have 'held' the manor, normally meaning before the Conquest. Since Beckney was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, who also held two others where Ravengar was active, he is probably the same man here, too; and it may be suspected that he 'held' as an intermediate landowner, rather than in 1066; the manor is, however, attributed to him as the pre-Conquest lord in the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL. Ravenkel is an uncommon name which occurs on two dozen manors, distributed among five counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, all but three of the manors lying in the northern counties of Cheshire, Derbyshire and Yorkshire, the one cluster being in Yorkshire, where the only survivors are recorded.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF ARLESTON>. Ravenkel, who shared a small manor at Arleston in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF CLAYTON>. As the name is uncommon, it is probable that the Ravenkels who preceded William Malbank at Aston and 'Clayton' in Cheshire are one man; and since the holdings of the other two Ravenkels in the county, at Burwardsley and Edritone, lay between Aston and 'Clayton', they may also have been held by him.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF DILWYN>. As the name is uncommon, the Ravenkels in the adjacent vills of Dilwyn and Luntley in Herefordshire, both acquired by Ilbert son of Turold (q.v.), are very probably one man. The manors are modestly valuable, including two of the three worth £1 or more. Ravenkel has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
RAVENKEL <OF HIMLEY>. Ravenkel, who shared land worth twenty-four shillings at Himley in Staffordshire acquired by William son of Ansculf, has no links with his namesakes elsewhere.

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* CNUT *]. All Reginalds in Wiltshire are probably Reginald Cnut, who held Chippenham in chief. The remaining Reginalds are tenants of Miles Crispin, two of whom are named Reginald Cnut in the Geld Roll for the county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210, 215-16. Reginald Cnut is identified as Reginald son of Croc, a tenant-in-chief in Hampshire and ancestor of the Foliot family, by the descent of his manors, which include the Crispin manors of Chilton Foliat and Draycot Foliat in Wiltshire, as well as nine manors in Oxfordshire held from the fiefs of Robert d'Oilly, Miles Crispin and the escheated fief of William son of Osbern: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 308, 312-13; Farrer, Honors, iii. 234-37. The last of these manors, Albury, identifies Cnut as the Reginald who held eleven messuages in Wallingford dependent upon that manor; most of these manors can be traced as part of the Honour of Wallingford. Given the very close ties between Robert d'Oilly and Roger d'Ivry (q.v.), it is possible that Reginald Cnut is the Reginald who held Northbrook and Brookhampton from Roger and, if so, the tenant of Robert of Stafford in the former of those vills. None of the three tenants-in-chief had a tenant named Reginald elsewhere on their Honours. Finally, Cnut is possibly the Reginald who held subtenancies on royal manors in Berkshire and Oxfordshire, the only Reginald to do so in Great Domesday. Reginald Cnut (no. 186) and Reginald son of Croc (nos. 170, 577) are identified as different men in Coel, where Reginald Cnut is credited with the manors listed above, apart from those in Hampshire attributed to the son of Croc; those of Roger of Ivry's tenant, identified as another man (no. 12171), and one of the two manors of Miles in Somerton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 27997).

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD <OF FLINTHAM>. Reginald, who held a small manor at Flintham in Nottinghamshire from Walter of Aincourt, has no links with his namesakes. He is Walter's only tenant of that name, and the only Reginald in Nottinghamshire or the four adjacent counties. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 35432).

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* OF ST HELENS *]. The Reginalds who held seven manors from the abbey of Abingdon in Berkshire are probably Reginald of St Helens, who witnessed one of the abbey's charters and is stated in the list of knights appended to abbey's chronicle to have held Frilford and Lyford, two of his Domesday manors: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 50-51, 322-23. This list also attributes Garsington and Hendred to him; the latter does not appear as an Abingdon manor in Domesday, but Garsington was held by another tenant, Gilbert, so there had been some re-arrangement of the Abingdon fees. There is little reason to doubt, however, that Reginald is the same man on all these Abingdon manors since, with a single exception, he is the only Reginald in the county. The abbey had no tenants named Reginald elsewhere. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1012) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 348.

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* OF VAUTORTES *]. The Reginalds who held twenty-five manors from the Count of Mortain in Devon are probably Reginald of Vautortes, named in Exon. as his tenant at Bigbury in the county, at Beercrocombe and Charlton Adam in Somerset, and on the fief and three other manors he held from the Count in Cornwall. He is no doubt the Count of Mortain's unnamed tenant - though the text speaks of 'men' - who withheld dues belonging to the royal manor of Ermington at Fardel, Dinnaton, Broadaford and Ludbrook, he being the Count's only tenant in those vills. He is the only Reginald in Cornwall and one of only two in Somerset, so some of the remaining sixteen Reginalds in Devon may be him, though there are no links to identify them. His heirs owed the service 59 knights for the barony of Trematon, the most valuable of his Domesday manors: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 90-91. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 228) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 348-49.

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* THE BRETON *]. Reginald the Breton held Lidgate in Suffolk and, according to the Feudal Book of Abbot Baldwin, was a tenant of Bury St Edmunds at Great Livermere together with his brother Hubert the Breton, who does not occur elsewhere: Feudal documents, p. 22. Their tenancies at Livermere cannot be identified in Domesday Book, where the only tenant was the abbot's brother, Frodo, holding different amounts of land and men. The abbey had no other tenants named Reginald, and Reginald no links with his namesakes in the county, both tenants of Hervey of Bourges. Reginald's fief is recorded in Coel (no. 157) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 347.

.............................................................................................................................................
REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. It is likely that all Reginalds in the five counties of Cheshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Sussex and Warwickshire are Reginald of Balliol, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury's sheriff of Shropshire. He is identified as the sheriff in Sussex and Staffordshire by the descent of his manors there: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vii. 202-11. In Shropshire, where Reginald succeeded Warin the bald as sheriff, he was succeeded in turn by Alan son of Flaad to his lands and office: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 70-71. Reginald was one of the earl's major tenants-in-chief in Shropshire and a tenant-in-chief in his own right in Staffordshire. He is almost certainly the Reginald who built Oswestry castle, and probably the Reginald who held land alongside the English sheriff Mundred and acquired part of Broome from an Austin - an uncommon name - from whom he also obtained Cardington, which he held in chief. He can be identified as the Reginald with a small fief and another manor in Cheshire, mostly acquired from a Thorth, probably Thorth of Wroxeter (q.v.), his predecessor and sometimes his tenant on half-a-dozen of his Shropshire manors. Finally, he is probably the tenant of Earl Roger in Warwickshire, where he is preceded on some manors by an Almund, probably Almund father of Alward (q.v.) from whom he acquired several Shropshire manors: Tait, Domesday survey of Cheshire, pp. 55-56. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1836) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 348. He was from Bailleul in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 11-12.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* REGINALD *] WADARD. Reginald Wadard, who held Somerton and Fritwell in Oxfordshire from the bishop of Bayeux, may be the son of Wadard of Cogges (q.v.), one of Odo's honorial barons well-known from his appearance in the Bayeux Tapestry. Reginald may have lost these manors after the forfeiture of the bishop and his father, since they descended - like Wadard's - to the Arsic family; the mesne tenancy was later held by the Pipards: VCH Oxfordshire, vi. 139, 291. An unnamed Wadard's son - presumably Reginald - who held Thrupp as a tenant of Roger of Ivry and Barford as his subtenant, may be the same man, though Stenton doubted this: 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', p. 381. However, though there is no direct tenurial link, it seems unnecessary to postulate two sons of Wadard in one county. At Barford, at least, Wadard's son retained his land, perhaps protected by his association with Roger; Barford passed to a Walkelin Wadard, then his daughter: VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 46-47. Reginald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4730) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 350.

.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD. The name Reinbald occurs on four small fiefs and two dozen manors but is rare in the sense that it was probably borne by few individuals. It occurs in ten counties, on the lands of the king and four of his tenants-in-chief, perhaps borne by two or three individuals.

.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD [* OF CIRENCESTER *]. Reinbald the priest, alias Reinbald the chaplain, Reinbald of Cirencester and Reinbald the chancellor, held land before and after the Conquest and was chancellor to Edward the Confessor and (probably) to William the Conqueror. Most of his manors and churches are recorded in a grant of Henry I of 'the whole tenure' of Reinbald to the abbey of Cirencester, which identifies him where his byname is omitted at Bray in Berkshire and Boycott in Oxfordshire, and probably as the anonymous priest at Shrivenham in Berkshire: Cartulary of Cirencester abbey, i. 21-24. This 'whole tenure' is not exhaustive, however, since Reinbald is identified by one of his bynames in Domesday as holding land in Wallingford in Berkshire, Frome and Rode in Somerset, Boveney in Buckinghamshire, and Eldersfield in Herefordshire. It is also probable that he is the Reinbald who held land attached to the church on the royal manor of Cheltenham, and he is identified as the Reinbald holding from Westminster abbey in Longdon by the satellite text Evesham A, which locates one of these entries at Eldersfield, revealed to have been held by the chancellor in an Herefordshire entry for that vill. He may therefore be the tenant of the abbey at Elmstone in Gloucestershire, and his brother the tenant of the abbey of Gloucester at Ampney where Reinbald himself held land in the other part of the vill. The otherwise unknown Reginald the chaplain, who held the royal manor of Wincot, is possibly a scribal error for Reinbald. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Reinbald is the son of Bishop Peter who held land from the king at Reading. Reinbald's manors are discussed and mapped by Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 194-97, 211-13; see also Oxford DNB, xlvi. 364-65. His 1086 tenancies are recorded in Coel (no. 616) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 351, with the addition of Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire, here assigned to another Reinbald.

.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD [* OF TUBNEY *]. The tenant of the abbey of Abingdon at Leckhampstead, Frilford and Tubney in Berkshire is named Reinbald of Tubney in the abbey's chronicle, which reveals that he held these three manors and two others, these two latter subsequently restored to the abbey. A later source, the untrustworthy 'List of knights' of the abbey, appears to attribute several other manors to him: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 322; Hudson, 'The abbey of Abingdon', pp. 193-94. A son-in-law of Abbot Reginald, he involved the abbey in his troubles with the king, lost his lands, was reinstated a few years later, but did not ultimately retain Leckhampstead, his most valuable manor, which was enfeoffed to Henry I's chamberlain, Herbert. His son, Adelelm, became a monk at Abingdon, which may explain the space devoted to his father in the chronicle: Historia, ii. 54-59, 190-91, 196-99, 246-47, 381. It has been suggested that he also held a small fief in Oxfordshire, here assigned to Reinbald of Cirencester, chancellor of England: Historia, ii. p. cxxii, note 665. Reinbald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1579) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 350-51.

.............................................................................................................................................
REINBALD <OF UPTON>. Reinbald, who held Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire from Arnulf of Hesdin, may be Reinbald of Cirencester, the chancellor, Upton being seven miles from his manors of Frome and Rode. However, the descent of most of the chancellor's manors has been traced and does not include Upton, and Arnulf acquired no other of his manors: Keynes, 'Regenbald the chancellor', pp. 212-13. Upton was in the hands of the Cormeilles family a century later, too late to be conclusive evidence of the identity of the Domesday tenant in view of the upheavals in the Hesdin Honour in the interval: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 110; viii. 82. On balance, this Reinbald seems more likely to be a different man from the chancellor.

.............................................................................................................................................
REINBERT [* THE SHERIFF *]. The name Reinbert occurs almost three dozen times, once as Reinbert the Fleming, an intermediate landowner in Gloucestershire, the remainder in Sussex, all but two of them on the fief of the Count of Eu, all probably therefore the Count's sheriff in the Rape of Hastings, alias Reinbert the steward, Reinbert of Hastings and Reinbert of Sutton: Regesta, ii. nos. 619, 752; Green, English sheriffs, p. 81; Round, 'Some early grants', p. 70. The two Reinberts who held Alciston and Bathurst from Battle abbey are probably also the sheriff, who had another manor from the Count in Alciston. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 917) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 357.

.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP R[EMIGIUS OF LINCOLN]. Bishop R on the fiefs of the bishopric of Lincoln in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire can only be Bishop Remigius of Lincoln. In Lincolnshire, Bishop R at Owmby is almost certainly Remigius, who had a manor in the vill; and at Wilsford he is evidently the Bishop R who bought the manor for the Church of Lincoln. The interest of 'Bishop R, Kolgrim and their companions' in the ninety acres of underwood at Kelby is probably explained by their claim on lands and jurisdiction of Arnketil, one of the pre-Conquest landowners. No other landowner in Domesday is named Remigius. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 838) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 357-58.

.............................................................................................................................................
ABBOT R[HIWALLON]. Abbot R, who held a house in Ewelme in Oxfordshire, may be Rhiwallon, abbot of New Minster, Winchester, from 1072-88: Heads of religious houses, p. 82.

.............................................................................................................................................
RHIWALLON <OF PULLOXHILL>. All laymen named Rhiwallon are almost certainly one man. All five occur in Bedfordshire, three on a tight cluster of manors at Chawston, Roxton and Great Barford held from Hugh Beauchamp, a fourth involved in a claim concerning Chawston, there described as Hugh Beauchamp's man. In view of the rarity of the name and its distribution, the other Rhiwallon, a tenant of Nigel of Aubigny at Pulloxhill sixteen miles south of Barford, is likely to be the same man; the descent of his manors has not been traced. Dr Keats-Rohan suggest he may have been a relative of Nigel as the name occurs in the Aubigny family. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 991) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.

.............................................................................................................................................
RIBALD [* BROTHER OF COUNT ALAN *]. All Ribalds in Domesday Book are almost certainly one man, a tenant of Count Alan of Brittany and probably his half-brother. He held ten manors from the Count in Yorkshire and another dozen in Norfolk. His Yorkshire manors were later part of the Middleham fee, named from his manor in that vill, the fee being later held by his descendants, with considerable accretions. The descent of the Norfolk manors is less well documented but the most valuable of them - Pickenham and Hethersett - can be traced as part of the same fee and there is no reason to doubt that the remainder were also: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 297-315. Ribald's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 859) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 358.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF BEAUMAIS *]. Richard, who held Preen and Meadowley in Shropshire from Helgot of Holdgate, is 'not improbably' Richard of Beaumais, a clerk of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who may have granted Preen to Wenlock abbey. He was later bishop of London (1108-1127) and 'viceroy' of Shropshire: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 149; ii. 192-201; vi. 221; Mason, 'Officers and clerks', pp. 253-54. He witnessed charters in favour of Shrewsbury abbey: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, pp. 30, 33. He was from Beaumais-sur-Dive in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen) in Lower Normandy: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, pp. 13-14. His Shropshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1492) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 362-63.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD <OF BRAMPTON>. Although the name is common, the Richards who held fourteen manors from Ralph of Mortimer in Wiltshire, Herefordshire and Shropshire may be one man. Two of the three Herefordshire manors lay in Birley, the third - Kinnersley - being held in the thirteenth century from the lord of Birley who held from the Mortimer Honour of Wigmore: Book of Fees, p. 803. With one exception, the Shropshire manors fall into two closely related groups, centring on Brampton and Wall town respectively. The exception, Huntington, lies between the two groups. One manor from each group - Kinlet and Brampton - was held by Brian of Brampton from the Honour of Wigmore in the mid-thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 963. Brian also held Ashton in Herefordshire from the Honour, though not Kinnersley and Birley, so a process of fragmentation and estate building had occurred since Domesday: Book of Fees, pp. 799, 804, 814. Brian also held Alderton in Wiltshire from the Honour, one of two manors in the adjacent vills of Surrendell and Alderton held by a Richard from Ralph of Mortimer in 1086 who is therefore likely to be Richard of Brampton: Book of Fees, p. 963. Ralph of Mortimer had two other tenants named Richard, at Walton in Somerset where Richard is named Richard de Barra in Exon., and at Grimsby in Lincolnshire. Either or both might be Richard of Brampton, but there are no links to confirm this. Richard's Shropshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9385) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 368, apart from Huntingdon and Wall Town, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 30911, 30924), as are those in Herefordshire (nos. 30293-95), Lincolnshire (no. 34393) and Wiltshire (nos. 17032, 17034).

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF GUILDEN MORDEN *]. Richard, who held Guilden Morden in Cambridgeshire from Geoffrey de Mandeville, is undoubtedly Richard of Morden, a juror in 'Arringford' Hundred (where Morden Lay) named in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and the Inquisition Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 51, 98). He is the only Richard in the county apart from the tenant-in-chief Richard son of Count Gilbert, though other Richards are named among the jurors. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 287) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 365, where he is identified a Richard Gernet, a tenant of Geoffrey de Mandeville in Essex; see also Lewis, 'Domesday jurors', p. 38.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF MONTGAROULT *]. Richard, who held Brocton in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, may be Richard de monte Warold (or de montewarult), who witnessed charters in favour of Shrewsbury abbey, the one unidentified Richard holding from the earl in the county: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, pp. 30, 33. His manor - the entries are duplicates - is recorded in Coel (no. 8232) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 360, where his byname is identified as Montgaroult in Lower Normandy (Orne: arrondissement Argentan).

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF NEWARK *]. Richard, who held part of the large episcopal manor of Cropredy in Oxfordshire from the bishop of Lincoln, is probably Richard of Newark, who gave tithes in Claydon to Evesham abbey early in the next century, Claydon being part of the manor of Cropredy: Eynsham cartulary, i. 37; VCH Oxfordshire, x. 186. The bishop had no other tenants of this name. Richard's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 4731) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 360.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF SACKVILLE *]. With one exception, the Richards who held Rockland in Norfolk and eleven manors in Essex from Eudo the steward are probably Richard of Sackville, named as Eudo's tenant at Aspenden in Hertfordshire and Rivenhall in Essex; his identity is suggested elsewhere by the descent of his manors: Round, 'The Essex Sackvilles', pp. 223-26; Farrer, Honors, iii. 168, 271. The exception is Eudo's tenant at Broxted, identified as Richard son of Count Gilbert. Richard of Sackville was the wealthiest of Eudo's tenants. Richard's estate was later known as the Honour of Richard of Sackville: Red Book, i. 365; ii. 501. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 726) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 361.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF SOURDEVAL *]. Of the 128 manors which the Count of Mortain subinfeudated in Yorkshire, 126 were granted to men with two forenames, Richard and Nigel; and of the forty-nine unidentified Richards in the county, forty-six are the Count's tenants; Farrer's counts are higher than this: VCH Yorkshire, ii. 154. It is probable, therefore, that all forty-six - too numerous to list here - are Richard of Sourdeval, who held two messuages in York, is named as the Count's tenant at Aislaby, and is party to several Claims, one of which names him as the Count's tenant at Middleton. His estate, later known as the barony of Hooton Pagnell after his most valuable manor, passed to Ralph Paynel, who married his daughter: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 55-56. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2459) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 362.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF STANTON *]. The Richards who held subtenancies on the manors of Stanton Lacy and Aldon from Roger of Lacy are probably Richard de stantuna, who witnessed a grant to Roger of Lacy in 1085: Galbraith, 'Episcopal land-grant', p. 372. The manors are five miles apart; Roger had no other tenants named Richard on his Honour. Richard is unidentified in Coel (nos. 31182, 31190).

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* OF VERNON *]. Richard, whose lands owed salt-dues at Nantwich, is identified as Richard of Vernon by reference to his lands in the Hundred of Warmundestrou, these being part of the fief he held from Earl Hugh in Cheshire. He was also the earl's tenant in Norfolk, where his byname is supplied. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 758) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 362.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SCROPE *]. Richard Scrope was one of the Normans who settled along the Welsh border during the reign of Edward the Confessor, as did his son Osbern (q.v.) who succeeded him on several manors where Richard is identified as Osbern's father rather than by his own name. Osbern is once named Osbern son of Richard Scrope, though more commonly Osbern son of Richard. Where not associated with Osbern, Richard may be identified by his pre-Conquest status, and in one case by his association with Richards Castle, built by and named after him: Round, Feudal England, pp. 320-26; Barlow, Edward the Confessor, p. 94. The three other Richards who held land before the Conquest - two in Nottinghamshire, and one in Worcestershire - are unlikely to be Scrope.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF ALAN *]. Richard, who held three free men in the royal manor of Ormesby in Norfolk 'by the gift of Bishop Herfast', is probably Richard son of Alan, who held more free men in the same vill and others in Scratby from Herfast's successor, Bishop William of Thetford. He is probably also the Richard with another small subtenancy in the manor of Hemsby, two miles from Ormesby, all these holdings being in the 'Flegg' Hundreds, where no other Richards held land. The bishop of Thetford had one other tenant named Richard, at West Tofts, possibly the same man, though Tofts is a more substantial manor and is on the other side of the county. Richard's manors in 'Flegg' are recorded in Coel (no. 552) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 363; the tenant at Hemsby is unidentified (no. 9714).

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF COUNT GILBERT *]. Richard, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne, a relation of the Conqueror, was a tenant-in-chief in nine counties, with lands whose value ranks him among the ten wealthiest laymen in 1086. He was nevertheless the tenant or subtenant of the king and at least five other tenants-in-chief, on manors in four counties. In most cases, he is identified by one of his aliases - son of Count Gilbert, of Clare, or of Tonbridge - and in some others by reference to his known predecessors, Fin the Dane or Wihtgar son of Aelfric. In Kent, he is the Richard who held woodland or resources in a series of manors, identified by references to his 'territory', the Lowy of Tonbridge. Most of these subtenancies in Kent were on the manors of Bishop Odo of Bayeux, from whom a Richard held a number of manors, including the very substantial manor of Hadlow. He may also have held the valuable manors of Banstead and Fetcham in Surrey from Odo. Fetcham was later held from the Honour of Clare; while Banstead was the marriage portion of the wife of Nigel of Mowbray, Mabel, 'who seems to have been the daughter of Roger, earl of Clare': VCH Surrey, iii. 254, 285. The name of Mabel's father is illegible in the relevant document (Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, pp. 180-81); but the status of Banstead, which was acquired it from an Alnoth, who may be the Alnoth of London (q.v.) from whom Richard of Tonbridge obtained several of the manors on his fief in Surrey, suggests the identification. Richard was also a tenant of Eudo the steward at Broxted in Essex, identified in a pre-Domesday royal writ ordering the restitution of Broxted to the abbey of Ely, taken from it after the Conquest: Bates, Regesta, no. 121, pp. 426-27; Liber Eliensis, pp. 204-205. Richard retained the manor, his descendants holding a half-fee in the vill from the abbey in 1166: Red Book, ii. 525. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 306) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 363-64.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF RAINFRID *]. Richard, tenant of Miles Crispin at Appleton and Eaton in Berkshire, Ickford and Chearsley in Buckinghamshire and Draycot and Alkerton in Oxfordshire, is almost certainly Richard son of Rainfrid on most of these manors and probably on all of them. He is so-named as donor to abbey of Bec of the tithes of Appleton, Ickford and Alkerton and (apparently) of the manor of Swyncombe: Bates, Regesta, no. 167, pp. 559-61. Domesday Book does not record Richard's interest in Swyncombe, which is said to be held by Bec directly from Miles himself. Richard's three manors which do not appear in this grant may have come to him from the same source as those which did. Appleton had been held by Healfdene of Hanslope (q.v.), who also held Eaton and Chearsley in 1066; no pre-Conquest lord is recorded at Draycot, or at Swyncombe, Ickford and Alkerton, so it is not unlikely that Richard was endowed with all the manors which Miles acquired from Healfdene. His identity on all six manors is confirmed by their descent: Boarstall cartulary, pp. 320-22. Richard also held land in Wroxton not recorded in Domesday, which was granted by his son Hugh to Abington abbey after his death: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 158-63. Miles had no other Richards on his Honour. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1574) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 364.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* SON OF TUROLF *]. Although Richard is a common name, the Count of Mortain appears to have had only two Richards among the tenants on his vast Honour: Richard of Sourdeval in Yorkshire and Richard son of Turolf in the south-western counties, who between them held eighty-two manors. The identity of Richard son of Turolf is complicated by the alternative forms of the Domesday scribe, notably filius Turulfi and filius Turoldi and their variants, also found in the charters of the Count; but there is little doubt that they represent the same man, whatever the correct form of his father's name. Richard, a tenant-in-chief himself in Devon, is identified in Domesday Book or Exon. as the Count of Mortain's tenant at Cosawes in Cornwall and St Marychurch in Devon, and as a tenant of the bishop of Exeter at Burniere in Cornwall and of Baldwin of Exeter at Martin in Devon. In Cornwall, the Phillimore editors suggest that the Richards who held twenty-eighty consecutive manors may not all be the son of Turolf named in Exon. on the first of them, largely on the grounds that the scribe used 'Richard holds', rather than 'He also holds' in some of the following entries. But this is the scribe's usage on several subsequent fiefs, and Richard's is delimited by the usual conventions: a blank line separating his from those which preceded and followed, with his name interlined in red in the first entry on the fief. Elsewhere in Cornwall the three unidentified Richards are tenants of the king, the bishop of Exeter and the Canons of Bodmin; the first and third of these effectively tenants of the Count of Mortain, while the Bishop's manor at Tinten is seven miles from Burniere, the two manors spanning two held by Richard son of Turolf. In Devon, the manors of the four Mortain Richards were held of the Honour of Cardinham by the successors of Richard son of Turolf: Book of Fees, pp. 768, 795-96; Feudal Aids, i. 316; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iv. 44; vii. 462; Sanders, English baronies, p. 110. Richard was possibly also the Count's tenant at Carlingcott in Somerset, apparently resumed by the Count or his successor, who granted the demesne tithes to the priory of Montacute: Two chartularies, pp. 120-21. Most other Richards in Devon are tenants of Baldwin the sheriff; and since Exon. reveals that Turolf's son was his tenant on one manor, he may have held others, which have not been identified. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 165) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 364-65.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE ARTIFICER *]. Richard, who held a small fief in Northamptonshire, is probably Richard the artificer (Inganie), who had four houses in the county town and similar service fiefs in Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. He claimed land belonging to the Forest in Huntingdonshire, his lands and those of his brother William being associated with a forest serjeanty of pre-Conquest origin: Round, 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', p. 294. William also had manors in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire. Dr Williams suggests that Richard 'may well be' Richard the forester/huntsman of Warwickshire and Staffordshire; but though their comparable forest serjeanties are very suggestive, what is known of the descent of the Engaine fee does not support an identification, and a forestership covering six counties would be unusually extensive: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 117. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1605) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 366-67, with a revisionist note on the descent of his lands and the Engaine forestership.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE BUTLER *]. Domesday Book records two butlers on the Honour of the earl of Shrewsbury, Robert and Richard. Eyton demonstrated that Richard is probably the butler to Reginald the sheriff, since the manor held by Richard the butler from the earl of Shrewsbury at Morville was located at Tasley and Henley, which descended to Reginald's successors, the FitzAlans: Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, i. 30, 84. Reginald had a tenant named Richard on six of his manors, who is possibly the same man: Mason, 'Officers and clerks', pp. 249-40. The manors were in the hands of several families in the thirteenth century, but there are suggestive links between them. Acton Reynald was then held by Thomas Butler from the Stanton family of Stanton-upon-Hine-Heath, the parish in which High Hatton lay: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 75; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, x. 61-63. Of the remaining manors, one is unlocated; the other two, at Lutwyche and Brocton, are linked tenurially, Lutwyche held by a family of that name from the tenant of Brocton, also named from the vill in which his manor lay: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 71. Richard's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 737) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 367.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE FORESTER *]. The Richards who held Calcutt from Thorkil of Warwick, and Grandborough, Shuckburgh, Hillmorton and Radway among the kings thanes and servants in Warwickshire, are identified as one man, the forester at Harborough and Bramcote and the hunter at Sowe and Chesterton, all on the same fief, by a thirteenth-century narrative of the endowment of Richard Chiven, or Cheven, by William the bastard to guard the forest of Cannock, and the subsequent history of its fees: Book of Fees, pp. 1274-78. Dr Slade suggests Richard may have been the son of the Cynewin (Chenuin) who held Codsall among the king's thanes in Staffordshire in 1066 and 1086, though Codsall did not descend with Richard's lands: 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', p. 35. Richard also held part of the royal manor of Stoneleigh in Warwickshire and a fief in Staffordshire, and may have held Little Onn, seven miles from his manor of Rodbaston, held by the one other Richard in the county. Dr Williams suggests he may be the same man as Richard the artificer: English and the Norman Conquest, p. 117. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 5869) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 365 (partially duplicated on p. 368), apart from Calcutt, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 28362). The commentary in Coel is the more informative of the two.

.............................................................................................................................................
RICHARD [* THE PRIEST *]. Richard, who held Perlethorpe in Nottinghamshire from Roger of Bully, may be Richard the priest, who witnessed Roger's foundation charter for Blyth priory: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. Roger had another Richard among his tenants, at Wyfordby and Burton in Leicestershire, possibly the same man since only one Richard is named in the Blyth cartulary and he is the only Richard in the county; but the name is common. Richard's Nottinghamshire manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9331) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 367; the Leicestershire tenant is unidentified (nos. 26473-74).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD. Roald is a rare name. Roald Dubbed held a fief in Devon, a Roald is named in Hampshire, another in Leicestershire, and two in Lincolnshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD [* FATHER OF THORI *]. As the name is rare, the Roald who held Ewerby and its dependencies in Lincolnshire may be the Roald who held a manor in Belton before the Conquest, the father of Thori (q.v.) who had a manor in the same vill. Roald is the only pre-Conquest landowner of this name. He may also be the Roald who held Gopsall in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers; his father held manors to the north and south of the county and is probably the Thori (q.v.) who preceded Henry of Ferrers on one of his Derbyshire manors. Roald is unidentified in Coel (nos. 26360, 34829), where the dependencies of Ewerby are assigned to the tenant-in-chief, Kolgrim.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROALD [* SON OF FATHERLING *]. As the name is rare, the Roald who held Lomer, south-east of Winchester, from the abbey of St Peter's is probably son of Fatherling (q.v.) - named in the Winton Domesday (pp. 39, 103, 170) - who held a cluster of manors north of the city. Roald's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 9891) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT. Robert is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring almost two thousand times and in all Domesday counties. Very nearly ninety Roberts have different bynames, almost forty of them tenants-in-chief, Robert also occurring as a tenant of 130 other tenants-in-chief. The only Robert to appear in pre-Conquest contexts is Robert son of Wiuhomarch.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* BLUNT *]. Blunt and R Blunt, who occur on several manors in Norfolk, are almost certainly Robert Blunt, sheriff of the county, where he was a tenant on several manors. A Roger Blunt occurs on a single manor in Devon, and Robert had a brother, Ralph, who died before 1086; but Robert is securely identified by the nature of the references in Norfolk, all of which refer to official activities as sheriff. He was also a tenant-in-chief in Suffolk, Northamptonshire, Middlesex and Wiltshire, and may be the Robert who held Blunsdon - Blunt's dun, a coincidence? - in the latter county from Edward of Salisbury, held in 1066 by Aki, perhaps the Dane who was Robert's principal predecessor: Darlington, 'Domesday survey of Wiltshire', p. 106. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 151) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 370, apart from Blunsdon, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 16829).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* BURDET *]'S WIFE. Robert's wife, who held Croft in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil, is probably Robert Burdet's wife, the tenant of Robert of Bucy at Ratcliffe. Her son, Hugh (q.v.), held two manors in the county from Hugh of Grandmesnil. Robert Burdet himself evidently died before 1086; but the Domesday scribe normally refers to widows as wives. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3533) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 442.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* ROBERT *] COUNT OF EU. The Count of Eu, a tenant-in-chief in Essex, Huntingdonshire and Sussex, also named on several manors in Kent and Sussex, is never accorded his forename in Domesday Book, where his son and heir William, a tenant-in-chief in his own right in nine counties, is never described as Count of Eu. There is therefore an element of uncertainty as to whether the 'Count of Eu' is Robert or William, though probably the former, despite the existence of a copy of a probably-authentic writ of the Conqueror naming Count William of Eu: Bates, Regesta, no. 21, pp. 158-60. It may be, of course, that the ambiguity is deliberate, reflecting genuine uncertainty as to ownership. It is certainly highly unusual that William is regularly named William of Eu, without a title, if were recognised as Count. No other of the Conqueror's earls were treated in this manner. Robert is thought to have died about 1092 but to have spent the last decade of his life in Normandy. The Count's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 265) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 373; William's (no. 2150) at pp. 477-78.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* D'OILLY *]. Robert d'Oilly, castellan of Oxford castle, tenant-in-chief in eight counties, and sheriff at different dates of Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Warwickshire, is also the tenant of perhaps a dozen other tenants-in-chief. Since Robert is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, identifying him in the absence of his byname is often problematic. His official status, however, makes it probable that he is the Robert managing royal manors in Berkshire and Warwickshire, while the chronicle of Abingdon abbey identifies him as the Robert who held Sandford-on-Thames and Arncott in Oxfordshire from the abbey, and South Weston from Earl Hugh of Chester: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 32-35, 98-101. Robert was buried in the abbey and his affairs loom large in its chronicle, so he may be the unidentified Robert who held a hide at Appleford in Berkshire, two miles from his holding in the manor of Sutton Courtney; the abbey had no other Roberts among its tenants.
	Elsewhere, the descent of Marston, Adderbury, Watlington, Watcombe, Noke, Swerford, 'Ingham' and Worton makes it likely he is the tenant there, and therefore 'also' at Kirtlington and Hensington: Oseney cartulary, iv. 2-4, 7-8, 24-27, 32-36,51-52; vi. 10, 158-59, 236, 428; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 77; VCH Oxfordshire, viii. 216-17, 220-21; ix, 18; xii. 43; Book of Fees, pp. 821, 837. The Robert who held land in pledge from a Saewold at Little Minster is almost certainly Robert d'Oilly, since he held land on the same terms from Saewold in Rofford. Robert may have held land from the bishop of Lincoln in Oxfordshire, where his heirs held a fee from the bishopric: Red Book, i. 375. Two of the three Roberts who held from the bishop are plausibly identified as other Roberts, so the remainder, at Banbury and Cropredy, whose holdings cannot be traced, may be Robert d'Oilly. Some support is provided by the fact that part of Cropredy was held by a Roger, possibly Roger of Ivry (q.v.), shared manors being a characteristic of these two 'sworn brothers' in arms (below).
	In other cases where the evidence of descent is inconclusive, other factors point to Robert d'Oilly. Unidentified Roberts in vills where d'Oilly is tenant-in-chief may be him, particularly where he is a tenant elsewhere of the tenant-in-chief concerned, as at Heyford in Northamptonshire, and Watlington, Ducklington, and Kirtlington in Oxfordshire, confirmed by the evidence of descent in two of these cases. Robert d'Oilly was famously a 'sworn brother' of Roger d'Ivry according to the cartulary of Oseney abbey; and although the formulation is that of a later age, Domesday Book provides unmistakable evidence of their close association, in the form of joint holdings at Stowe, Newington, Arncott, and Sandford, and manors held in the same vill at Great Shefford, Shirburn, and Rousham, or in the adjacent vills of Finmere and Hethe, as well as being joint founders of St George in the Castle: Oseney cartulary, iv. 1. Similar pairings of a Robert and Roger suggest the identify of one or other, occasionally both men, as at Horsenden, Toot Baldon, Noke, Worton, and possibly Cropredy. As all other Roberts on the escheated fief of William son of Osbern have been identified above as Robert d'Oilly, it is possible that he is the Robert at South Newington; the vill, whose descent has not been traced, is surrounded by his manors, some two or three miles away.
	The relationship of Robert d'Oilly and Miles Crispin (q.v.), his son-in-law, suggests further identifications. They, too, held in several of the same vills - Aston Sandford, Betterton, Heyford, Thurleigh, Watcombe - which tends to confirm the identity of Robert as Robert d'Oilly at North Marston and Aston Sandford and in the adjacent vill of Ilmer, and perhaps also at Hartwell, close to Crispin's manor of Upton. Hartwell and Aston were acquired from the same predecessor; so, too, were Ilmer and Horsenden, so the Robert in the latter vill is possibly also d'Oilly, a possibility strengthened by the fact noted above that Roger (of Ivry) held in the same vill from the same tenant-in-chief. All four vills lay within a few miles of each other.
	In Warwickshire, the Robert at Barston is probably d'Oilly, who acquired another manor in the same vill from the same predecessor. Dr Williams has pointed out that all but one of Robert d'Oilly's manors in the county were acquired from kinsmen of Thorkil of Arden, five held as a tenant of Thorkil himself, which suggests that the Robert who held Napton from Thorkil, previously held by his kinsman Edwin, may also be d'Oilly: English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 100-104. The one other Robert on Thorkil's fief, at Weston-under-Wetherley, three miles from d'Oilly's tenancy at Lillington, may be the same man, as perhaps is the Robert who held in Napton and Weston from the Count of Meulan, manors in those vills being held as two fees from the descendants of Thorkil and the Count: Book of Fees, p. 509. The Robert who held Aldridge and Barr from William son of Ansculf in Staffordshire is probably also d'Oilly, both being held by his descendants: Liber Niger Scaccarii Staffordscira, pp. 202-203. Robert d'Oilly also held Shenstone in Staffordshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors in Berkshire and Oxfordshire are recorded in Coel (no. 379) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 378, apart from those of the bishop of Lincoln and Newington, Swerford and 'Ingham', whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 27699, 28123-4, 28133). The tenants of the Warwickshire manors are unidentified (nos. 28303, 28327, 28371, 28399), and those in Staffordshire attributed to another Robert (no. 9383). Hartwell in Buckinghamshire is assigned to d'Oilly; Ilmer and Aston to Robert of Romney; and remaining tenants are unidentified (nos. 1129, 1135, 1455).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* FATHER OF AUCHER *]. Robert, who held ten hides from the bishop of Lincoln in Thame in Oxfordshire,, has been identified as the ancestor of the Chevauchesul family, perhaps the father of Aucher and grandfather of Robert Chevauchesul, who flourished at Tetsworth in the first half of the twelfth century, Tetsworth probably being included in the ten hides of Thame: VCH Oxfordshire, vii. 148-49. It is also suggested that he held Banbury, Cropredy and Wykham from the bishop, though these were more probably held by Robert d'Oilly and Robert son of Walkelin. His manor, together with Chetwode in Buckinghamshire, is assigned to Robert de Tham in Coel (no. 744) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 380, with the comment that the Buckinghamshire Robert de Tham may be the unnamed son of William Taum (or Tahum) recorded in Kent or 'alternatively' the bishop of Lincoln's tenant at Thame, who is 'probably' Robert d'Oilly.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* ROBERT *] MALET. R Malet and Ro Malet, who occur on dozens of manors in Essex and East Anglia, cannot be anyone other the tenant-in-chief Robert Malet. These abbreviated forms are particularly common in Suffolk, where Robert held more than three hundred manors and was sheriff of the county. He is almost certainly also the 'Malet' who occurs in dozens of entries in Suffolk, too numerous to list here. The only possible source of confusion is with his father, William, who is probably the 'Malet' referred to in the Yorkshire Claims. Ambiguities in East Anglia are rare, father and son normally distinguished by the fact that William died early in the Conqueror's reign and Robert held nothing in his own right before then. The few ambiguous cases are likely to be Robert Malet, who is clearly the Malet in the majority of entries, there being no certain or even probable case where it is his father. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 347) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 389-91.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* MARMION *]. The Roberts who held Appleby with Risby and Winteringham in Lincolnshire from Gilbert of Ghent may be Robert Marmion, who held Winteringham and perhaps Risby from Walter of Ghent in the Lindsey Survey (1/2). A later Robert Marmion held three fees in Winteringham from another Gilbert of Ghent in 1212, and Robert's son, William, held the same three fees 'of the old enfeoffment' three decades later: Book of Fees, 190, 1070. The Robert who held another valuable manor from Gilbert, at Stow, is possibly the same man. Robert's manors are attributed to another of Gilbert's tenants, Robert of Armentières, in Coel (no. 113) and Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Stow, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 33955).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF ARMENTIERES *]. Robert, who held Ewelme in Oxfordshire from Gilbert of Ghent, is almost certainly Robert of Armentières, who had a house in Wallingford attached to Ewelme. He 'also' held Hanborough, the two manors constituting Gilbert's fief in Oxfordshire. In 1166 David de Armere - probably his grandson (Keats-Rohan, Domesday descendants, pp. 291-92) - held the largest fee on the Honour of the earl of Huntingdon in 1166: Red Book, i. 381-84. If Robert did so in 1086, then he may be the Robert who held the manors of Whichford in Northamptonshire and Whatton in Nottinghamshire, the two most valuable of the manors subinfeudated by Gilbert; a John of Armentières was a Ghent tenant in Northamptonshire in the Northamptonshire Survey, albeit on a different manor. Robert is named in the Abingdon chronicle as witness to a charter recording a grant made by Gilbert to the abbey so he is possibly Gilbert's tenant in the county, the one other Robert on his Honour other than Robert Marmion: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, pp. 18-21. If these identifications are correct, Robert was indeed Gilbert's most substantial tenant in 1086 by a considerable margin, his manors being worth more than twice that of any other tenant. Gilbert of Armentières is next in wealth, between them having more than half the value subinfeudated to lay tenants, suggesting that Robert and Gilbert are relatives and perhaps also relatives of Gilbert of Ghent himself. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 113) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Whatton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35538). Coel also attributes to Robert of Armentières the manors here assigned Robert Marmion.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF ASHTON>. Although the name is common, it is likely that the Roberts who held six manors from Humphrey de l'Isle in Wiltshire are one man. Humphrey's Honour is confined to the county; and of the dozen names among his tenants, only two others occur more than once, and of these Hugh's two manors are modest while the two more substantial manors of Payne (q.v.) were probably held by one man. All Robert's manors are fairly substantial and included five of the seven most valuable held by Humphrey's tenants. His total holding was almost half as valuable as that retained by Humphrey himself, worth almost four times that of any other tenant. He is unidentified in Coel (nos. 16926-29, 16934, 16944).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF BARLBOROUGH>. The Roberts who held three manors in Derbyshire from Ralph son of Hubert are probably one man. Two of the manors are in Stretton, which at a later date was held from Barlborough: Feudal Aids, i. 247. Ralph had two other Roberts among his tenants, one identified in Domesday as Robert of Bucy, the other an unidentified Robert in Leicestershire. Robert's Derbyshire manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9379) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395; the Leicestershire tenant is unidentified (no. 26507).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BASKERVILLE *]. Robert, who held Eardisley from Roger of Lacy, is probably Robert of Baskerville, whose descendants made the castle the caput of their holdings: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 47, 100-101. He is probably also the Robert at Stretton, Yazor and Yarsop, Baskerville manors at a later date: Herefordshire Domesday, p. 43; Book of Fees, p. 803. He may also be the Robert who held Yarlet in Staffordshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, the manor later being granted by the Baskervilles, with the consent of their Lacy overlord, to abbey-Cwmhir: Plea Rolls of the reign of Henry III, p. 26; Chetwynd, 'History of Pirehill Hundred', pp. 106-107. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4706) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 374, apart from Eardisley (no. 30350), whose tenant is unidentified.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BEAUMONT *]. Robert, who held Landcross in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff, is probably Robert of Beaumont, named as owing tax on land held from the sheriff in the Geld Roll for Merton Hundred, where Landcross lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xviii. He is probably also the Robert who held land in Ashford, where he held the rest of the vill from Baldwin according to Exon.. Robert is not named in Domesday Book; but according to Exon. he held five other manors in the county from Baldwin. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9075) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 374-75, apart from Landcross, Ashford and Whitestone, assigned to Robert son of Ivo.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF BITTESWELL>. The tenants of Geoffrey of la Guerche at Bitteswell and Dalby in Leicestershire, Cestersover in Warwickshire and Blyborough in Lincolnshire may be the same Robert, though the name is common and manors in the hands of different families in the thirteenth century: Charters of Mowbray, p. 263. All three families held several other manors from the Honour, so there had been changes in their distribution since Domesday, unsurprisingly in view of the forfeiture of Geoffrey's successor Robert de Stuteville in 1106. According to the Lindsey Survey (2/7), Blyborough was resumed as demesne of the tenant-in-chief by the 1120s. The witnesses to the la Guerche foundation charter of 1077 for Monks Kirby include two Roberts, one identified as Robert Burdet: Monasticon, vi/ii. 996, no. 1. Burdet, however, appears to have died before 1086, since no manors are attributed to him, though his wife and son are tenants in Leicestershire. Geoffrey possibly therefore had just the one tenant named Robert in Domesday. Robert may be the Robert who held another manor in Bitteswell, on the escheated fief of Aubrey de Coucy. If so, he 'also' held Swinford. In Warwickshire, Geoffrey of la Guerche was in charge of Aubrey's escheated fief and no doubt had some influence on its composition in Leicestershire. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9355) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394 where the references for the two Coucy manors and for Cestersover are omitted.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF BUCY *]. The Roberts who held Scalford, Oadby and Wigston Magna in Leicestershire and Bisbrooke, Wothorpe and 'also' Boughton in Northamptonshire from Countess Judith are probably Robert of Bucy, identified by the descent of his manors: Farrer, Honors, ii. 365-69; VCH Rutland, ii. 175. Bucy held seven other manors in Leicestershire from the Countess and was himself a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, in which capacity he held other manors in Scalford and Boughton. The Countess had another Robert on her Honour at Sutton in Bedfordshire, conceivably the same man though the name is common and the holdings modest. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2544) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375; the tenants at Sutton are unidentified (nos. 493, 495).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF CHERRY HINTON *]. Robert, who Teversham in Cambridgeshire from Count Alan of Brittany, is almost certainly Robert of Cherry Hinton, the juror of Fleamdyke Hundred, that vill being assessed together with Teversham, both vills lying in Fleamdyke Hundred: Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 25). The same Robert probably also held Eversden from the Count, land in both vills being held by the same family in the thirteenth century: VCH Cambridgeshire, v. 62; x. 176. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4957) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, where Hinxton and Haslingfield are also attributed to him, the latter here assigned to Robert the priest. The remaining Roberts on Count Alan's Honour can be identified with some confidence.

.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF CLAVILLE. R of Claville, who held Stratton in Suffolk from Robert Malet, is almost certainly Robert of Claville, his tenant at Swefling. Only two other Clavilles occur in Domesday, the brothers Walter and Gotshelm, whose manors lay in the south-western counties. Oddly, the Domesday scribe has signalled that Walter of Claville might be an error for Walter of Glanville, and Robert Malet had a Robert of Glanville among his tenants in Suffolk whose manor at Great Glemham is only a mile from Swefling. The orthography of the two names, however, is distinct and the toponyms are plausible though - again oddly - related: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 29. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 617) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375.

.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF COURSON. R of Courson, who had two manors at Uggeshall in Suffolk, is almost certainly Robert of Courson, tenant of Roger Bigot on several other manors in East Anglia. One manor in Uggeshall was held from Earl Hugh of Chester, the abbreviation there presumably stemming from a geographically arranged source. The only other landowner with this toponym is Hubert, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers in Berkshire and Staffordshire. Earl Hugh had no other tenants named Robert in Suffolk. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 626) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 375.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF DOYNTON>. The Roberts who held the valuable manor of Doynton and 'Lee' and Gaunts Earthcott in Gloucestershire from the bishop of Coutances are probably one man, a Thomas of Doynton holding Lea and Earthcott in the thirteenth century: Cartulary of St Mark's hospital, pp. 180-81, 183-85. Bishop Geoffrey had tenants of this name in five other counties, several with manors of comparable value to Doynton butnone of whom appear to have links with the Gloucestershire tenant; all but one of them are unidentified in Coel. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 4388) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF DUN *]. Robert, who held Dalbury in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers, is almost certainly Robert of Dun, who granted tithes in the vill to Tutbury priory, confirmed by his descendant Roger: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, pp. 65, 108-109. Henry had several tenants named Robert, two of them in Derbyshire identified in the same record, one holding land in the adjacent vill of Ashe. Three others are unidentified, one or more of whom may be Robert of Dun since Robert of Dun - possibly the Domesday tenant - held two fees of the Ferrers Honour by 1135, a substantial burden for one modest manor, though he may of course have acquired more land in the interval: Red Book, i. 337. There are no clues as to which of unidentified tenants might be Dun. He probably came from Le Bourg-Dun in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Dieppe). His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2982) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 376.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF GLANVILLE *]. R of Glanville, who occurs several times on the fief of Robert Malet in Suffolk, can only be Robert of Glanville, his tenant at Honing in Norfolk and on eight other manors in Suffolk. He is probably also the R of Glanville who held Burgh and two other manors from William of Warenne, and the Robert who held the intervening free men in Boulge and perhaps Debach, dependent on Burgh; he held the church of Boulge from Robert Malet. There are no other Glanvilles in Domesday Book apart from a scribal dithering at Afflington in Dorset, where the scribe was uncertain of the byname of Walter of Claville and hedged his bets, adding above Walter of Glanville 'or Claville'. Curiously, Robert Malet had a Robert of Claville among his tenants in Suffolk whose manor at Swefling is only a mile from the Glanville manor of Great Glemham. The orthography of the two names, however, is distinct and the toponyms are plausible though - even more curiously - related: Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 29. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 647) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 376, apart from the Warenne tenant at Boulge, who is unidentified (no. 13506).

.............................................................................................................................................
BISHOP R[OBERT OF HEREFORD]. Bishop R, who claimed the manor of Montford in Shropshire, is probably the bishop of Hereford, Robert Losinga (1079-1095), though possibly the new bishop of Chester, Robert of Limésy (1086-1117): VCH Shropshire, i. 291. Whoever he was, the claim was unsuccessful for the manor was subsequently granted to Shrewsbury abbey by Roger of Lacy, whose family later held land in the vill: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76. He is certainly R bishop of Hereford who held a hide in the royal manor of Writtle in Essex. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2515) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF HERILS *]. The Roberts who held Tibshelf and Wingfield in Derbyshire and Stapleford in Nottinghamshire from William Peverel are probably Robert of Hérils, identified by the descent of his lands: Book of Fees, pp. 984, 992; Farrer, Honors, i. 154-58, 181-82. Farrer tentatively suggested he is also the Robert who held Bolsover from William, his one other tenant of that name in Derbyshire, which is not unlikely since the Hérils family held land at Oxcroft in Bolsover parish at a later date: Book of Fees, p. 1321. Robert's descendants were tenants of other manors on the Peverel Honour, including Gonalston, held in demesne in 1086, so some re-arrangement of fees occurred. Robert may have come from Hérils, just south of Port-en-Bessin in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Bayeux). Another Robert held from William at Sibthorpe in Nottinghamshire: Farrer, Honors, i. 147-48, 246-48. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2976) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 376-77, apart from Wingfield, assigned to Robert of Pavilly (no. 2986).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF MOUTIERS *]. The Roberts who held Syerston in Nottinghamshire, Cowling, Kirklington, Yarnwick, Burneston and Howe in Yorkshire and Lea and its dependencies in Lincolnshire from Count Alan of Brittany are very probably Robert of Moutiers, his tenant at Treswell in Nottinghamshire, identified by the descent of his lands: Early Yorkshire charters, v. 242-55. The Lincolnshire manor was subinfeudated to the Trehamton family before the Lindsey Survey (4/2) and subsequently held directly from the Honour of Richmond. This may have occurred when Robert's heirs were disinherited, his grandson being reinstated in the 1140s when the service of Geoffrey Trehamton was reserved; a trace of the original Moutiers interest nevertheless remaining: Early Yorkshire charters, iv. 27-28; v. 242 note 9. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Robert may have been the brother of Lisois of Moutiers (q.v.); it is probable they were related in some way: ibid. v. 246. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3020) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, apart from Cowling, whose tenant in unidentified (no. 37197). Following its normal practice, Coel assigns the dependencies of Lea to the tenant-in-chief, Count Alan; but the Lindsey Survey (4/2) confirms that they were held with the manor by the tenant.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF NOYERS *]. As there are only five names among the tenants of the bishop of Lisieux, it is very probable that the Robert who held Bow Brickhill in Buckinghamshire from him is Robert of Noyers, his tenant on the previous manor of Crafton (in Wing), the two manors constituting the bishop's fief in the county, both acquired from the same pre-Conquest lord. The bishop had no other tenants of this name but Robert of Noyers also held Gayhurst from him, as a subtenant of Odo of Bayeux. It is not unlikely that Walter Giffard's tenant on a second manor in Bow Brickhill is the same Robert, and perhaps also his tenants at Littlecote and Akeley, the only other Roberts on his Honour. Although the name is common, this identification receives some slight support from the fact that another Robert with a manor in Littlecote is the only Robert on the Honour of Miles Crispin, likely therefore to be the same man. Less certainly, he may be the tenant of Jocelyn the Breton at Grove, two miles from Crafton and three from Wing. Jocelyn had no other tenants of this name. These manors were in the hands of different families in the thirteenth century. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 692) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 377, apart from Littlecote, Akeley and Grove, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 1274, 1283, 1407, 1505).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF PENN>. The Roberts who held Penn, Oxley, Ettingshall and Bushbury in Staffordshire from William son of Ansculf may be one man. Penn and Bushbury were later held as a single fee, while Oxley is less than a mile from Bushbury and Ettingshall three from Penn, all four in the same Hundred: Book of Fees, p. 543. William had other tenants named Robert in Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Worcestershire; but the name is common and there are no discernible links between them. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests Robert of Penn held Linford in Buckinghamshire, though the grounds for doing so are not apparent, Linford being the smallest and not the nearest - some fifty miles from the Staffordshire manors - of these tenancies; it was later held by the Hauville family: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 392. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9383) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395, together with Aldridge and Barr in Staffordshire, here assigned to Robert d'Oilly; the Northamptonshire and Worcestershire tenants are unidentified (nos. 32030, 32033).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF PONT-CHARDON *]. Robert, who held Charles in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff, is almost certainly Robert of Pont-Chardon who 'also' held the following manor of Mockham, his byname supplied there by Exon. He is probably also the Robert who held Hagginton from Baldwin, a manor sandwiched between Charles and Heanton, another manor attributed to Pont-Chardon by Exon., which also assigns Blakewell, another of Baldwin's manors, to him. He also held Welwyn in Hertfordshire from Robert Gernon, where his byname is supplied. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 713) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 378.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF RHUDDLAN *]. Robert, who held Byfield, Boddington, Trafford, Marston, Radstone, Middleton, Blakesley and Yelvertoft in Northamptonshire from Earl Hugh of Chester - said to be one man in the text - is almost certainly Robert of Rhuddlan, a tenant-in-chief in Cheshire and one of the principal tenants of the earl, his kinsman. According to Orderic Vitalis (iii. 238-39), Robert of Rhuddlan granted the churches of Byfield and Marston to the abbey of St Evroul . His son William was either disinherited or a bastard (Crouch, 'Administration of the Norman earldom', pp. 75-76), which makes it difficult to identify Robert elsewhere; but it is likely he held Mentmore in Buckinghamshire and Bisley in Gloucestershire from the earl, both valuable manors and neither apparently held by the descendants of Robert son of Hugh, the other major tenant named Robert on the earl's Honour and the only likely alternative : Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59 note 3; Farrer, Honors, ii. 13-15, 51-52, 211-15, 219-34. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1669) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 379.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF ST QUENTIN *]. Robert, who held Thurvaston in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers, is very probably Robert of St Quentin, who gave tithes in the vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Several other Roberts were tenants of Henry in the county, but none have links with Thurvaston. Robert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2980) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 379.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF STAFFORD *]. Robert, who held Acton Trussell in Staffordshire from the bishop of Chester, is identified as Robert of Stafford, a tenant-in-chief in Staffordshire and six other counties, by the descent of Acton, held by his successors from the bishopric: Red Book, i. 263; Book of Fees, p. 967. He is also the Robert who shared the borough revenues with the king, identified in an entry on his fief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 739) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 381, apart from Acton, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 31291).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF STRATFORD *]. Robert, who held Stratford in Suffolk from Swein of Essex, is probably Robert of Stratford, a tenant-in-chief with a small fief in the county. Swein had no other tenants of this name there. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8870) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 380.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT <OF THURLASTON>. The Roberts who held Thurlaston and Wibtoft (or Willey) in Warwickshire from the Count of Meulan may be one man. Although the name is common and the manors held by different families in the thirteenth century, the disruption in the descent of many Meulan fees makes descent a poor guide to Domesday identities: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 82, 258. The Count probably had another tenant named Robert in the county - Robert d'Oilly - and three such in one small county seems unlikely when there are few Roberts on other fiefs combined. The vills are a dozen miles apart. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8993) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394, where he is also assigned Dorsington in Gloucestershire, here attributed to Robert the butler.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF VATTEVILLE *]. Robert, who held Shalford in Surrey from Richard of Tonbridge, is probably Robert of Vatteville, Richard's tenant on eight other manors in the county, most of them valuable, Shalford itself being the most valuable of all, the most valuable on Richard's fief. Robert 'is said to have sold the manor to Robert de Dunstanville' though the record source for this statement 'cannot be verified': VCH Surrey, iii. 107-111. Richard had no other Roberts among his tenants in Surrey, but he had two in Essex, both with valuable manors, one held by Robert of Vatteville, the other possibly his too. Richard also had three Roberts on his Honour in Suffolk; two with modest manors; but the third, Desning, is the most valuable of those he subinfeudated by a considerable margin. It seems likely that this Robert is Robert of Vatteville. He is by a long way Richard's most favoured honorial baron. Even without the unidentified manors, his manorial income is three times that of any other tenant on the Honour; with them, six times. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 5816) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 382-83, apart from Shalford and Desning, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 15534, 13325).

.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] OF VAUX. R of Vaux, who occurs once on the royal manor of Worlingham in Suffolk and thirteen times on the fiefs of Roger Bigot in Norfolk and Suffolk, is almost certainly Robert of Vaux, Roger's tenant on many other manors in those counties and also in Essex, his wealthiest tenant. His byname is borne by only one other landowner, Aitard of Vaux (q.v.), probably a relative since his lands are also concentrated on Bigot fiefs in East Anglia. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 382.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* OF VERLY *]. Robert, who held Little Birch in Essex from Robert Gernon, is probably Robert of Verly, his tenant on four other manors in the county and himself a tenant-in-chief in Norfolk. He was identified by J.H. Round from a now-lost thirteenth century inquisition which listed Birch among the manors held by Verly's descendants from those of Gernon: 'Domesday survey of Essex', p. 389. His byname is borne by his brother Hugh in Essex, and by a William in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Robert Gernon had four other Roberts among his tenants in Essex, at Bollington, Rainham, Widdington and Shortgrove, the last two held by one man, all possibly Verly; but the name is common and there are no specific links, though Widdington and Shortgrove were acquired from a Wulfwin, possibly Verly's predecessor at Birch. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 755) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 382; the subtenant at Bollington is omitted from Coel, and the tenant at Widdington and Shortgrove is unidentified (nos. 5173-74). Coel identifies the Robert at Rainham as a different man (no. 2111) from Robert the lascivious named elsewhere in the entry.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SAVAGE *]. The Roberts who held Broadwater and ten other manors in Sussex from William of Braose are probably Robert Savage, or silvaticus, witness to Braose charters for the abbey of Saumur about a decade after Domesday: Calendar of documents: France, pp. 396, 398, 401. Another Robert Savage held Broadwater in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 689. All the Braose manors held by Robert descended to his heirs, ultimately the Camoys family: VCH Sussex, p. 447 note 6; vi/ii. 65. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 921) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392, apart from Ashington, whose tenant is unidentified.

.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] SON OF CORBUCION. R son of Corbucion, who claimed free men or land at Kirby Cane and Wheatacre in Norfolk of the fief of Ralph Baynard, is almost certainly Robert son of Corbucion, named in full elsewhere on Ralph's fief, and himself a tenant-in-chief in Essex and East Anglia. The one other landowner with his patronymic is William son of Corbucion, a tenant-in-chief in Berkshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 575) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF *] FAFITON. The Domesday scribes appear unsure whether Robert is Robert Fafiton or Robert son of Fafiton. In Huntingdonshire, he is Robert Fafiton in the list of landowners and in the rubric of his fief, but Robert son of Fafiton - interlined - in the first entry. He is Robert Fafiton in Middlesex, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire. To the scribe of the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, he is Robert son of Fafiton twice in six times, and both Fafiton and son of Fafiton in the entry for Trumpington on his fief (ed. Hamilton, pp. 35, 51, 70-72). Despite the preponderance of Robert Fafiton, his byname is believed to be a patronymic, though the forename Fafiton is not recorded: Tengvik, Old English bynames, pp. 182, 217. The Fafiton who occurs in the Claims for Huntingdonshire, is Robert, identified by the reference to his manor of Hail Weston and his predecessor there, Saxi. He may be the Robert who held land from Picot the sheriff in Grantchester, where he held in chief, the Inquisitio also naming him as the tenant of the Count of Mortain on another manor in that vill, as also at Barton. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 218) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 384.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF GILBERT *]. Robert, who held Leigh in Somerset from William of Mohun, is almost certainly Robert son of Gilbert, named in the Geld Roll for South Petherton Hundred where Leigh lay: VCH Somerset, i. 534. Another Robert held from William at Chubworthy, and others in Dorset and Devon; but the name is common and there are no other links to confirm an identification. Robert's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2102) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 385; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 2823, 3785, 15067).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF HUGH *]. The Roberts who held Buscot in Berkshire, Tackley in Oxfordshire, Kegworth in Leicestershire and Sutton Bonington and its dependency in Nottinghamshire from Earl Hugh of Chester may be his tenant in Cheshire, Robert son of Hugh: Lewis, 'Honour of Chester', p. 59; Sawyer and Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', pp. 308-309. At Buscot, Robert's subtenant was Drogo of les Andelys (q.v.), his tenant on five manors in Cheshire. Drogo also held two manors from Robert d'Oilly, which has led to the suggestion that d'Oilly may be the tenant at Buscot; but the later interest of the Patric family, who succeeded to part of his estate by marrying one of his daughters and heiresses, point to Robert son of Hugh. The Patrics also had interests in Sutton Bonington and Kegworth, the latter held together with Tackley in the later twelfth century: Farrer, Honors, ii. 22-25, 45-46, 79-80, 242-44; VCH Oxfordshire, xi. 197. The form of the entries on the final two manors of his Cheshire fief - separated by gaps in the manuscript and missing the regular 'also' - suggests the scribe may have been uncertain of the identity of Robert at Butley and Cranage: Lewis, 'Introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', pp. 7-8. Robert's manors - including Buscot, Butley and Cranage - are recorded in Coel (no. 2580) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 385; Tackley and Kegworth are assigned to a second Robert (no. 10301), and the Nottinghamshire manors to Robert son of William.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF IVO *]. The Roberts who held Morden and Stafford (or 'Wey') in Dorset from the Count of Mortain are very probably Robert son of Ivo, named in the Geld Roll for Loosebarrow and Cullifordtree Hundreds where these vills lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 136, 147. Robert's byname is not recorded in Domesday Book, but Exon. supplies it on five manors in Somerset and one in Devon, all held from the Count of Mortain. The descent of his manors suggest he is the same man as Robert the constable, his alias in Exon. as the Count's tenant at Crowcombe and Hatch Beauchamp in Somerset, the latter becoming the centre of the barony held by Robert's successors, the Beauchamp family: Sanders, English baronies, p. 51; Golding, 'Robert of Mortain', pp. 137-38. He is probably also the Robert who held five manors from the Count in 'Winterborne', several of which were later held by the Beauchamp family, as was Charmouth and Marston Magna in Somerset: Book of Fees, pp. 751, 1468-69. The last of the Winterbornes is followed by an entry which begins Ipse Ro., a formulae indicating the tenant is the Robert of the previous entry. He may also be the Robert who held Moreton, later held with 'Winterborne' by William of Lanvalay, whose daughter and heiress was the wife of John de Burgo, a Beauchamp tenant: Book of Fees, pp. 426, 667, 866. The two remaining manors in Dorset held by Robert from the Count each follow immediately one attributed to Robert son of Ivo, the scribe perhaps omitting an 'also' as he frequently did in the Dorset text. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 791) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 385-86, apart from Warmwell in Dorset and Marston Magna in Somerset, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 2741, 14815). Coel also assigns Landcross, Ashford and Whitestone in Devon to Robert, here attributed to Robert of Beaumont.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF ROSCELIN *]. The Roberts who held Corneybury, Berkesden and Wakeley in Hertfordshire from Count Eustace of Boulogne are probably Robert son of Roscelin, his tenant at Reed in the county and at Sharnbrook in Bedfordshire, all except Wakeley being held by one man in 1166; Wakeley, whose descent has not been traced, may have been absorbed into its neighbour, Berkesden: Red Book, ii. 581; VCH Hertfordshire, iv. 20-21. He is presumably the same Robert son of Roscelin named in Exon. as the tenant of Ralph Paynel at Newhall in Somerset. Ralph had no Robert among his tenants but Count Eustace had four in Essex holding manors of equivalent status to those in Hertfordshire; but the name is a common one and the Essex and Hertfordshire manors descended by different routes: Book of Fees, pp. 1428, 1430. He was a minor tenant-in-chief in Middlesex and Essex. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 508) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386; the tenants in Essex are unidentified (nos. 4729, 4736-37, 4769).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF SARLE *]. Robert, who held Ashe in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers, is very probably Robert son of Sarle, who granted tithes in that vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. He is possibly the Robert in the adjacent vill of Hilton; but the name is common and Henry had several Roberts identified as different men among his tenants in the county. Robert's manor of Ashe is recorded in Coel (no. 2978) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF THEOBALD *]. It is possible that the Roberts who held thirty-seven manors in Sussex from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are all Robert son of Theobald, his tenant at Arundel and Treyford and on a small fief in Shropshire. He was identified by J.H. Round as Robert of Arundel, and his lands as the core of the later Honour of Petworth, held by Jocelyn of Louvain, brother of Henry I's queen Adeliza, and later by a branch of the Percy family: Round, 'Some early grants', pp. 63-66. This link enables Robert to be identified with some certainty on two-thirds of his manors, and with reasonable probability on most of the remainder: Farrer, Honors, iii. 16-27, 30-36;40;52-54;97-98. The descent of a virgate in Sullington has not been traced, and Farrer was inclined to identify the Robert at Storrington as another man, though Robert's descendants did have an interest in the vill: Honors, iii. 32, 81-82. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 498) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 386, apart from Bignor and Hardham, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 16264, 16266).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WALKELIN *]. Robert, who held two hides from the bishop of Lincoln in Wykham, is probably Robert son of Walkelin, who later granted tithes in Wykham to Eynsham abbey: Eynsham cartulary, i. 36-37. He also held a mill at Banbury and part of the manor there from the bishop; and since he is one of two Roberts on that manor, he may also be the second Robert on the following manor of Cropredy; the descent of neither has been traced: VCH Oxfordshire, x. 162-64. His manor of Wykeham and mill are recorded in Coel (no. 4341) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387; the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 27699, 27687).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WALTER *]. The Roberts who held Worminghall and Shalstone in Buckinghamshire from the bishop of Coutances and Robert d'Oilly respectively, and Waterperry in Oxfordshire from Robert, are probably Robert son of Walter, d'Oilly's tenant at Oakley in Buckinghamshire which descended with Worminghall and Waterperry to Lovel de Brai: VCH Oxfordshire, v. 296. The bishop of Coutances held the other part of Shalstone in demesne. According to Exon., Robert son of Walter held Harptree in Somerset from the Count of Mortain. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 487) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387, apart from Shalstone, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 1366); Robert at Harptree is identified as different son of Walter (no. 1683).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WIDELIN *]. Robert, who held Seal and 'also' three other manors in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers, is probably Robert son of Widelin, who granted tithes in Steyle to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Henry had another Robert among his tenants in the county, named Robert the hunter in the same source. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8765) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 387.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WILLIAM *]. Robert the usher, who held a small fief in Leicestershire, is named Robert son of William the usher in a duplicate of his fief. He may therefore be the Robert son of William who had similar small fiefs in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire and the Robert the usher named in the Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 115) at Chesterton in Cambridgeshire. The Leicestershire tenant-in-chief is treated as two men in Coel: Robert the usher, also identified as the Cambridgeshire tenant (no. 1701), and Robert son of William, holding the other fiefs (no. 3253), also identified as the tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester on two manors in Nottinghamshire here attributed to Robert son of Hugh: Domesday people, pp. 387, 389. Coel identifies another Robert son of William (no. 2004), named in the Geld Roll for Somerset, as a tenant of Robert of Courseulles.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* SON OF WIUHOMARCH *]. Robert son of Wiuhomarch, possibly of Breton origin on his mother's side, a kinsman and favourite of Edward the Confessor, had settled in England by the early 1050s: Harmer, Writs, pp. 51-52, 571. He is named as holding land in the nine counties of Cambridgeshire, Essex, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Shropshire, Somerset, Suffolk and Wiltshire, the bulk of his manors lying in Essex, where he was sheriff after the Conquest, succeeded in that office and his lands by his son, Swein of Essex (q.v.). He was dead before 1086, though treated as alive at that date in one Domesday entry. Where his byname is not supplied, he is identified as the Robert who preceded his son Swein in Essex and Suffolk. As Swein acquired most of his Honour from his father, Robert may be the unnamed father succeeded by a Swein on three manors among the royal thanes of Dorset and another in Wiltshire. Dr Williams suggests that this Swein may be Swein son of Azur, who succeeded his father on a number of manors in Northamptonshire, since Swein's predecessor at Ailwood in Dorset was an Azur, though not named as his father. The associations are suggestive but - Stoke apart - the identifiable manors of Swein and Azur are in the Midlands, all acquired by Gunfrid of Chocques; and although the Robert's manors are concentrated in eastern England, he certainly held one manor in the south-west, at Widhill in Wiltshire.
	A list of Robert's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 334-36, which does not include the three Dorset manors; Stapleford in Wiltshire; Witham in Somerset; three Cambridgeshire holdings recorded in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, pp. 78-80;82); or Shoebury, Pudsey, Ashingdon and Sutton in Essex . It does not, of course, include manors acquired by Robert after the Conquest; but does add five Essex manors held by Swein where no pre-Conquest lord is named. All were valuable; and as Robert's post-Conquest acquisitions are often recorded, it is not unlikely that he held these before 1066. Dr Clarke ranks Robert twentieth in wealth among the nobility, ninth among untitled laymen; the additional manors would raise him a couple of places in each case, but without the five Essex manors, he would fall to twenty-seventh and twentieth respectively.

.............................................................................................................................................
R[OBERT] THE BALD. R the bald, who held Whitwell in Cambridgeshire from Hardwin of Scales, is probably Robert the bald, Hardwin's tenant at Kingston. He might also be the man-at-arms at Abington Pigotts, named Robert in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 60), the one other Robert on Hardwin's Honour; but the name is common. No other Robert the bald occurs in Domesday, though a Richard the bald is named in Suffolk. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 167) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 370; the man-at-arms is recorded among miscellaneous knights (no. 18780).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BASTARD *]. The Roberts who held Goosewell and Sampford in Devon from William of Poilley may be one man, William's Honour being small and his tenants few. Robert is not named in William's grant of the tithes of all his manors to St Martin's of Sées in 1093, perhaps displaced by the Ascelin - who is not named in Domesday - who held two unnamed manors in the grant which are otherwise unaccounted for: Calendar of documents: France, p. 235. Robert may be Robert the bastard, who held a small fief in Devon, Goosewell being later held by the family which held the manors on this fief: Book of Fees, pp. 759, 765-66, 789-90. Robert's manors as tenant-in-chief are recorded in Coel (no. 135) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 370, 393; the tenant at Goosewell and Sampford (no. 2039) is identified as another man, possibly William's son or the Robert de Osereto who witnessed a second grant to Sées by William: Calendar, pp. 235-36.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *]. Robert, who held Ditchampton in Wiltshire from Odo of Bayeux, is probably Robert the bursar, named in the Geld Roll for 'Cadworth' (Branch) Hundred where Ditchampton lay: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 209-10. He was the brother of the notorious Urso of Abetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, his heir. He may be the same man as Robert the king's officer in Gloucester, a county in which he was tenant-in-chief: Taylor, Domesday survey of Gloucestershire, p. 127. He was also a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Warwickshire, and a tenant in three other counties. Bursars were normally modestly endowed but Robert was evidently not the domestic bursar of another tenant-in-chief. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1834) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 383.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BURSAR *]. Robert the bursar, who witnessed the foundation charter for Blyth priory, is probably the domestic bursar of Roger of Bully: Cartulary of Blyth priory, p. 209. Roger had tenants named Robert at Shelton, Grove and Weston in Nottinghamshire, any or all of whom may be the bursar, who is not linked to a place in the charter. Grove and Weston, both later held by a Gilbert of Arches, were probably held by one man in 1086: Thoroton, Antiquities of Nottinghamshire, iii. 182, 261. As Roger had no other Roberts among the tenants on his Honour, it is possible that all three Nottinghamshire Roberts are one man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9333), apart from Weston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35255).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BUTLER *]. Robert, who held Dorsington in Gloucestershire from Roger of Beaumont, may be Robert the butler, Ralph le Boteler of Oversley granting the tithes of Dorsington to his foundation of Alcester priory in 1140: VCH Warwickshire, ii. 59; v. 199. The vill of Oversley was held by the Count of Meulan in 1086, and Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the Count's tenants at Thurlaston and Wibtoft (or Willey) - the only Roberts on his Warwickshire fief - may also be the butler; but as there does not appear to be any subsequent Boteler interest in those vills, that Robert is here treated as another individual: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 82, 258. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8993) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 394.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE BUTLER *]. The Roberts who held Great Ness in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and Wootton from his sheriff are probably the earl's butler, to whom he gave a small fief. Robert may have lost his lands after the forfeiture of the earl in 1102, and they were granted to the Honour of Montgomery, from which Ness and Wootton were subsequently held, Wootton in combination with Aston, a manor on Robert's fief: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76, 89. Robert's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 6760) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392; see also Mason, 'Officers and clerks', p. 249.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE HUNTER *]. Robert, who held Burton Lazars in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers, is very probably Robert the hunter, who granted tithes in the vill to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, p. 65. Robert the hunter also held single manors from Robert d'Oilly and Robert of Stafford in Warwickshire, an unusual case of an (apparently) small landowner with several lords. His name is too common to establish whether he is to be identified with other Roberts. His three manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3865) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 392.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE INTERPRETER *]. Although Robert is a common name, the Robert who held Teston and Bensted 'at a revenue' from Bishop Odo of Bayeux can be identified with some confidence as the Robert the interpreter who held eight other manors from the bishop on similar terms, often preceded - as at Teston and Bensted - by Aethelwold the chamberlain (q.v.). Like other men of the bishop, he also held land from St Augustine's, in Bromfeld and - according to the Domesday Monachorum (p. 87) - from the archbishop at Otford. Despite his name, he was an Englishman, possibly named Leofgeat, who changed his name after the Conquest: see Lennard, Rural England, pp. 114, 150-51, 153, 155; Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 83-85. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 327) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 389, apart from Teston and Bensted, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 7735-6), and Otford, assigned to the archbishop's demesne.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROBERT [* THE PRIEST *]. Robert, who held a few acres from Count Alan at Haslingfield in Cambridgeshire, is probably Robert the priest, who held another manor from him in the same vill according to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 72). He is identified as Robert of Cherry Hinton in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER. Roger is one of the most common names in Domesday Book, occurring almost two thousand times and in every Domesday county except Rutland. Very nearly fifty Rogers have different bynames, twenty of them tenants-in-chief, Rogers also occurring as tenants of well over one hundred other tenants-in-chief. No Roger appears in pre-Conquest contexts.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* ARUNDEL *]. Roger, who held a hide at Sturminster Newton in Dorset from Glastonbury abbey, may be Roger Arundel; land at Bagber (in Sturminster) was later held by the Fitzpaine family which acquired part of Roger's Honour of Poorstock by marriage: Feudal Aids, ii. 37; Sanders, English baronies, pp. 72-73. Roger was a tenant-in-chief in Dorset and Somerset. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 115) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 395, apart from Sturminster, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 2559).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* BIGOT *]. R Bigot and Ro Bigot, who occur in dozens of entries - too numerous to list here - in East Anglia, can only be Roger Bigot, a major tenant-in-chief in Essex and East Anglia and sheriff of Norfolk and Suffolk. He is probably also the Roger at Sharpstone and Ulverstone, both entries following those in which he is named, in the first case as lord of Ralph of Savenay, his tenant on several other manors. He is probably also the Roger supervising free men in an apparently official capacity in Norfolk and Suffolk. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 144) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 396-98.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* BLUNT *]. Roger, who held Huxham in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy, is named Roger Blunt (Flavus) in the Geld Roll for Wonford Hundred where Huxham lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xlvii. He probably also held Heavitree from Ralph, both being later held by the same family: Feudal Aids i. 316. Ralph had more tenants named Roger than the remaining tenants-in-chief in the county combined, so it is unlikely there are more Rogers on his Honour than the three with recorded bynames. Unfortunately this consideration does little to distinguish them, as the one cluster among the manors, around Exeter and the estuary of the river Exe, contains two of the three bynames, Blunt himself and Roger son of Payne. It is possible, of course, that both are borne the same man, but impossible to verify. Reichel assigned Clyst St George, Gappah, Dunstone, 'Blackslade', Weycroft and Keynedon to Roger Blunt, though later held by five different families, but did not give his reasons for doing so: 'Feudal baronage', pp. 561-62. Roger's manor of Huxham is recorded in Coel (no. 1809) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 408; the tenant at Heavitree is unidentified (no. 4095), as are those identified by Reichel (nos. 4065, 4080, 4082, 4093, 4096).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* D'OILLY *]. Roger, who held Bampton and Ascot d'Oilly and 'also' Kencot in Oxfordshire from Robert d'Oilly is very probably Roger d'Oilly, who is given his byname as Robert's tenant at Naunton in Gloucestershire. He may be Robert's nephew, or possibly his brother. His three Oxfordshire manors were held by another Roger d'Oilly in the 1240s, and thereafter by a succession of Rogers: Book of Fees, p. 837. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2750) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF BASKERVILLE *]. It is likely that the Rogers who held Charingworth, Combe Baskerville, Harnhill and South Cerney in Gloucestershire from Ralph of Tosny are Roger of Baskerville, though only Combe Baskerville apparently descended to his heirs. The four manors constitute two-thirds of the fief and are all substantial, so it is unlikely that several Rogers are involved. The Domesday text treats Harnhill and Cerney as a unit, with a combined value. Roger was probably also the tenant of Ralph of Mortimer at Stretton Baskerville in Warwickshire, a Baskerville manor until the early thirteenth century: VCH Warwickshire, vi. 240. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2252) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 400, which assigns these manors to Roger but expresses doubts about one or more of them, suggesting some may have been held by Roger of Gloucester.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF BERKELEY *]. Roger, who held Dodington in Gloucestershire from the bishop of Coutances, may be Roger of Berkeley, who held the remainder of the vill in chief, the manors combining to produce a five hide unit. He is probably also the Roger who farmed the royal manor of Berkeley for the enormous sum of £170, and held some of its components, as suggested by his byname and his tenure of other royal resources. He had a small fief in the county and another in Wiltshire, where he held a messuage 'of the King's revenue' in Malmesbury. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 428) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 401.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF BOSC-LE-HARD *]. The Rogers who held land at Clifton Reynes in Buckinghamshire, South Croxton and Stathern in Leicestershire and Tallington in Lincolnshire from Robert of Tosny are probably Roger of Bosc-le-Hard, identified by association with his brother William. They shared Clifton Reynes, there named as brothers, and so may be the Roger and William who held joint tenancies from Robert in the other three vills, and also the pair who shared a second manor in Stathern from Geoffrey de la Guerche. Roger may be the one other unidentified Tosny tenant in the three counties, at Hose in Leicestershire, later held from the heirs of Robert of Tosny by a Peter of Lincoln, who acquired other land held by the two brothers: Book of Fees, pp. 953-54. He is possibly also the Roger who held the remainder of South Croxton from the bishop of Lincoln. Clifton and Tallington are assigned to Roger in Coel (no. 440) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 401, Geoffrey's tenant being identified as another man (no. 10238); the other tenants are unidentified (nos. 26198, 26402, 26408). Coel also identifies the tenant of Robert of Tosny on two manors in Essex as Roger of Bosc-le-Hard; but the Tosnys do not appear to have shared tenants, and neither of the manors descended to either branch of the Tosny family: VCH Essex, viii. 198.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF CHILDERLEY *]. Roger, a man of Bishop Remigius with three burgesses in Cambridge and a manor in Childerley, is almost certainly Roger of Childerley, a juror in Chesterton Hundred where Childerley lay: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 99). The Childerley family held the manor well into the thirteenth century: VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. 42-43. The bishop had no other tenants of this name in the county but others in Oxfordshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, all but the latter being identifiable with some confidence. It seems unlikely that the Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire tenants are the same man, the Lincolnshire manors being resumed as episcopal demesne by the date of the Lindsey Survey (11/9). Roger's manor is recorded in Coel (no. 6684) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 403; the burgesses are assigned to the Lincolnshire tenant.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF COURSEULLES *]. The Roger who held a small fief in Cornwall and (according to Exon.) land at Treninnick from the Count of Mortain is the only Roger in Cornwall. He may be Roger of Courseulles, who is known to have held land in the county: Soulsby, 'Introduction to the Cornwall Domesday', p. 14. Roger is very probably also the tenant of Ralph of Pomeroy at Weycroft in Devon, where Roger of Courseulles owed tax in Axminster Hundred, in which Weycroft lay; no other Roger had land there: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxiii. Eyton suggested that he is the Roger who held three manors in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances, named Roger Whiting in Exon., which assigns a fourth manor to him; Whiting probably also held Radstock from the bishop, identified by his grant of the church to Bath priory: VCH Somerset, i. 452. Eyton was 'sure' of the identity of Whiting and Courseulles, which has been cautiously accepted by most authorities since, though the basis of Eyton's confidence is not apparent: Eyton, Domesday studies: Somerset, pp. 59-60; Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 11; Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', 412-13. Eyton also wrote 'we do not marvel' if other Rogers holding from the bishop were the same man, and believed he was also a tenant of William of Mohun. Professor Loud, however, has argued that Eyton was 'undoubtedly wrong' about the identity of Roger Whiting, pointing out that the Coutances' tenancies were held in 1166 by a Roger Witenge from the bishop's successors, those of Roger of Courseulles (including those he held as a tenant of Glastonbury abbey) devolving on Robert Malet: Loud, 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday', pp. 23-24. While not quite conclusive - the descent of the Courseulles barony is not entirely clear - this is the more convincing argument: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 38-39. Roger's manors (including those of Whiting) are recorded in Coel (no. 622) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 403, 412, apart from those of the Cornish tenant, identified as another man (no. 9389).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF EVREUX *]. R of Evreux, who held Great Bircham in Norfolk from William of Ecouis, is almost certainly Roger of Evreux, William's tenant at Tasburgh in the county. The byname occurs elsewhere only as that of the abbey, bishop or Count. Roger is probably William's tenant at Ringstead, included in the valuation of Great Bircham, and possibly also at Buckenham, the one other Roger on William's Honour. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 632) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 403, apart from Buckenham, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 10324).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF GLOUCESTER *]. Roger, who held Lassington in Gloucestershire from the archbishop of York, is probably Roger of Gloucester, who granted land which was once Ulfkil's - his Domesday predecessor at Lassington - to St Peter's of Gloucester for the soul of his brother Herbert: Historia Gloucestriae, i. 112, 118-19, 235-36, 352. He may also be the Roger who held Westmill in Hertfordshire from Ralph of Tosny. Werri de Marinis held part of a fee from the archbishop of York in 1166 and family of Marines, which included a Gwerric, were subtenants at Westmill at a later date: Red Book, i. 95, 415; VCH Hertfordshire iii. 400. Roger was probably a relative of Durand of Gloucester, though the nature of the relationship is uncertain. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8992) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 412-13, where it is suggested that he may also have been a Tosny tenant in Gloucestershire, on some of the manors here assigned to Roger of Baskerville.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF IVRY *]. Roger of Ivry, a tenant-in-chief in six counties, may have been sheriff of Oxfordshire: Green, English sheriffs, pp. 35, 69. Like his 'sworn brother', Robert d'Oilly (q.v.), he was a serial tenant, with tenancies from no fewer than eleven tenants-in-chief. In many cases his byname is supplied, and in others he can be identified by the descent of the manors, as at Westbury in Buckinghamshire; Cowley, Forest Hill, Baldon, Yarnton, Barford St Michael, and Astrop in Oxfordshire; and Whatcote and Rowington in Warwickshire, held from his father-in-law: VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 263; VCH Oxfordshire, i. 380; xi, 47; xiii, 3; VCH Warwickshire, iii. 149-50.
	Where evidence of descent is inconclusive, circumstantial details suggest his identity. Tenants in vills where Roger was tenant-in-chief may be Ivry, particularly where he was a tenant elsewhere of the tenant-in-chief concerned, as at Westbury in Buckinghamshire and Whitehill in Oxfordshire. His brotherhood with Robert d'Oilly provides another clue. Domesday Book provides unmistakable evidence of their association, in the form of joint holdings at Stowe, Arncott, and Sandford, and manors in the same vill at Great Shefford, Shirburn, and Rousham, or in the adjacent vills of Finmere and Hethe. Similar pairings of a Robert and Roger suggest the identity of one or other, occasionally of both men, at Horsenden, Newington, Toot Baldon, Sandford, Noke, Worton, and possibly Cropredy. These characteristics are sometimes combined, as on the escheated fief of William son of Osbern in Oxfordshire - where all fourteen unidentified Rogers or Roberts are possibly one of the two 'sworn brothers' - the Roger of Noke, Astrop, Milton and Worton being probably Roger of Ivry. Further confirmation is provided by the churches, tithes, or land in Astrop, Noke and Worton held by Oseney abbey, largely endowed by Robert and Roger and their families, as also at Baldon, Cowley, Forest Hill, Westbury, Woodperry, and Yarnton: Oseney cartulary, iv. 2-4, 7-8, 24-27, 32-36,51-52, 361-62; vi. 229, 236.
	Less certainly, Roger of Ivry may be the Roger at Milton under Wychwood, adjacent to Ascot d'Oyley, and at Whaddon and Drayton Parslow, as suggested by Dr Keats-Rohan; the Buckinghamshire manors were acquired by Woburn abbey: VCH Buckinghamshire, iii. 346, 413. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 319) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 403-404, apart from Horsenden, whose tenant is identified as Roger of Beaumont; and Cowley, Forest Hill, Woodperry, Whitehill, Yarnton, Barford St Michael, Astrop and Milton-under-Wychwood, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 27717, 27725-26, 27733, 27742, 27792, 28110, 28125).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER OF IVRY'S WIFE [* ADELINA *]. The unnamed wife of Roger of Ivry on her Oxfordshire fief is identified by Orderic Vitalis (iv. 230) as Adelina, daughter of Hugh of Grandmesnil; she was a benefactor of Abingdon abbey and other churches: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 106-109, 162-63, 216-17, 386. Her mother and daughter were named Adeliza, her name being sometimes confused with theirs. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2725) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 443.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LACY *]. The tenants of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Norbury, Walton and Blithfield in Staffordshire are probably Roger of Lacy, the earl's tenant in Shropshire, as indicated by the descent of these manors: Eyton, Domesday studies: Staffordshire, pp. 84-86; VCH Staffordshire, iv. 156. At Norbury, the tenant is named Reger, an otherwise unknown name, a scribal error on the evidence of descent: Book of Fees, p. 967. Lacy is probably also the tenant of Hugh of Grandmesnil at Quinton and 'Weston Maudit' in Gloucestershire, Quinton being held by Hugh of Lacy, who succeeded his brother in 1096, according to the satellite text known as Evesham N (no. 11). Another satellite, the Herefordshire Domesday, reveals that the Roger who held '3 churches, a priest and 32 acres of land' from Henry of Ferrers in the castlery of Ewyas Harold is Roger of Lacy, these assets being then held by Hugh of Lacy: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 53, 104-105. The tenant of Reginald the sheriff at Henley in Shropshire is probably also Lacy, Henley descending to his heirs: Book of Fees, 964. It has been suggested that he held Montford in Shropshire, a Lacy manor in the thirteenth century, though the text clearly assigns this to the tenant-in-chief, Roger son of Corbet: Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, i. 33, 38; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. 76. Roger, a tenant-in-chief in five counties, was a serial tenant, holding manors from another eight tenants-in-chief where his byname is supplied, and possibly some others where it is not. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 666), which includes only Blithfield of the tenancies discussed above, the other six tenants being unidentified (nos. 29806-807, 30393, 39804, 31413-14, 314320). Most of the references to Roger's manors are accidentally omitted from Domesday people, p. 404.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LIVET *]. Roger, who held Little Dalby and Somerby in Leicestershire from Henry of Ferrers, is almost certainly Roger of Livet, who granted tithes in those vills to the Ferrers' foundation of Tutbury priory; he 'also' held the following manor of Burrough-on-the-Hill. Robert of Livet held two fees from the Honour before 1135, but was succeeded by William Pantulf by 1166: Cartulary of Tutbury priory, i. 65; Red Book, i. 337. It is possible that all or most of the Rogers who held Congerstone, Shenton, Newton and Stretton-en-le-Field in Leicestershire, Fauld in Staffordshire and Croxall, Edingale, another part of Stretton-en-le-Field, Sapperton and Mercaston in Derbyshire from the Ferrers Honour are also Livet. Only one Roger is named in the Tutbury cartulary; and although not a comprehensive list of tenants, it names three Ralphs, five Roberts and two Henrys, so it is unlikely that several Rogers are omitted, and one other Roger - the hunter - has been identified as a Ferrers tenant. The two Stretton manors are likely to be held by one man, and Edingale was a dependency of Croxhall. The descent of the manors reveals only that the process of fragmentation evident in the Red Book had progressed much further, perhaps as many as eight families sharing them: Book of Fees, pp. 946-47, 969, 985, 994-95. Roger probably came from Livet-en-Ouche in Upper Normandy (Eure: arrondissement Bernay): Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, p. 55. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3861) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 404, apart from Fauld and Mercaston, whose tenants are unidentified (nos. 31448, 32360).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF LOUVETOT *]. All unidentified Rogers in Nottinghamshire are tenants of Roger of Bully, who had only one other tenant of this name, on a minor holding at Wymeswold in Leicestershire. It is likely that all his Nottinghamshire tenants are Roger of Louvetot, who is not named in Domesday but is roughly contemporary with the Survey since he succeeded to some of the manors of Eustace the sheriff, who died about 1100: King, Peterborough abbey, pp. 46-48; Henry of Pytchley, pp. 90-94. Roger was succeeded by William, who granted churches in Normanton-on-Trent, Wysall, Car Colston, Walkeringham, Gringley-on the-Hill, Misterton and Treswell in Nottinghamshire - all held by Roger in Domesday - to Roger of Bully's foundation of Worksop priory: Monasticon, vi/ii. 118, no. 2; VCH Nottinghamshire, i. 226; Cartulary of Blyth priory, pp. cxvi-cxvii. Of the remaining manors, Grasshthorpe and Sutton-on-Trent are one to three miles from Normanton, and Clifton and Spalford just across the Trent from there; Flintham is three miles from Car Colston, only 'Roolton' is apart. It has been suggested that Roger may also have held the manor of Misterton, in addition to the jurisdiction he had there, on the grounds that the formulae used - 'Roger has ...' - is ambiguous, Roger referring Roger of Louvetot the tenant, rather than Roger of Bully the tenant-in-chief. While possible, this is unlikely. The formulae occurs over thirty times on the fief, the only occasion where a tenant clearly held the manor being stated unambiguously, uncharacteristically at the end of the entry in what looks like a late addition. Roger probably came from Louvetot in Upper Normandy (Seine-Maritime: arrondissement Rouen): Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman families, p. 55. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3713) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 411, apart from 'Roolton', whose tenant is unidentified (no. 35222).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MEULLES *]. The Rogers who held Exbourne, Highhampton and Lashbrook in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff are probably Roger of Meulles, Baldwin's tenant at Lewtrenchard, all three manors being later held by a John of Meulles: Book of Fees, p. 784. According to Exon., Roger also held and Warson, George Teign and Petecote from Baldwin. He may also be the Roger at Chichacott, four miles from Exbourne. Baldwin had two other Rogers on his Honour, Roger son of Payne and Roger of Roerico. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1720) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405, apart from Chichacott, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 3491).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MILLY *]. Roger de Millai and other tenants of Earl Hugh of Chester gave tithes in Leicestershire to the abbey of St Evroul in 1081, Bates, Regesta, no. 255, p. 773. Earl Hugh had two tenants named Roger on his Honour, both in Leicestershire: at Loughborough, where Roger had two holdings, and in Theddingworth. Their descent is unrevealing. Loughborough was held in demesne in Leicestershire Survey, subsequently granted to the Despenser family; and Theddingworth, claimed by the king, was re-granted at an early date: Farrer, Honors, ii. 58-63, 78. Roger of Milly may have held either or both. He, or his heirs, may have been compensated elsewhere, for the family were later tenants of the Honour of Chester in Lincolnshire: Farrer, Honors, ii. 109, 126, 167-68, 172, 176, 184-85; Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, pp. 16-21, 395. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Roger was also the tenant of Robert son of Hugh at Broxton in Cheshire, which is not improbable but unverifiable; and that he was from Meslay in Lower Normandy (Calvados: arrondissement Caen). Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3831) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405, apart from the tenants at Theddingworth and on the smaller of the two Loughborough holdings, who are unidentified (nos. 26678, 26682).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF MUSSEGROS *]. The tenant of Ralph of Tosny at Monnington-on-Wye in Herefordshire was identified by J.H. Round as Roger of Mussegros, who witnessed one of Ralph's Norman charters: 'Domesday survey of Herefordshire', p. 327; Calendar of documents: France, p. 219. He held a small tenancy in chief in the county; Monnington was held by his descendant, Miles of Mussegros, in the late twelfth century: Herefordshire Domesday, pp. 35, 94. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3034) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 405.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF OLNEY *]. Roger, tenant of Countess Judith at Lavendon and Emberton in Buckinghamshire, is probably Roger of Olney, her tenant at Clifton Reynes, which lies between them, two to three miles from either across the fields. All three manors were in the hands of different families when next recorded: Farrer, Honors, ii. 400-401, 408; VCH Buckinghamshire, iv. 340, 382. Roger had presumably held land in Olney - a mile from Clifton - but if so had relinquished it before 1086 as the one manor there was held in demesne by the bishop of Coutances. The Countess had two other Rogers on her Honour: Roger of Bully in Yorkshire and a Roger in Cambridgeshire identified as the ancestor of the Oliphant family. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 698) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF PITRES *]. Roger, described as the brother of Durand the sheriff in one entry in Gloucestershire, as Roger the sheriff in another, and as Roger of Pîtres in Herefordshire, was the father of Walter of Gloucester, also sheriff of the county and heir to his nephew, Durand, the family supplying three successive sheriffs of Gloucestershire: Green, English sheriffs, p. 42. He was dead before 1086. As an intermediate landowner, his manors are not listed in Coel, Domesday people or the Statistics database.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF POITOU *]. R of Poitou on the royal manor of Brockdish in Norfolk is almost certainly the tenant-in-chief, Roger of Poitou, though a tenant of that name held land in Yorkshire. He may also be the Roger whose unnamed predecessor at 'Olden' in Suffolk had the patronage of two free men, Roger of Poitou himself holding a free man in the vill. Roger was a tenant-in-chief in both counties, and in five others, holding almost three hundred manors; he was a younger son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1502) and referenced in Domesday people, pp. 409-11.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF POITOU *]. The Rogers who held 'Westerby' (Altofts) and Whitwood in Yorkshire from Ilbert of Lacy are identified by the descent of these manors as Roger of Poitou, though not the tenant-in-chief of that name: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 235-36; Early Yorkshire families, pp. 70-71. Ilbert had no other Rogers on his Honour. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8611) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 413.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF QUESNAY *]. The Rogers who held Heyford and Ducklington in Oxfordshire and Wicken and Thenford in Northamptonshire from Robert d'Oilly are probably Roger of Quesnay (later Chesney); the first three manors were later held by the Chesney family, and Thenford is stated in the text to be held by the tenant of Wicken: Eynsham cartulary, i. 411-23; Farrer, Honors, iii. 62-63, 227-28. The other Rogers on Robert's Honour are probably Roger d'Oilly, a relative. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 8298) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 402.

.............................................................................................................................................
RO[GER] OF RAMES. Ro Rames, who claimed a free man at 'Olden in Suffolk, is almost certainly Roger of Rames, the only landowner with this toponomic in Domesday. He was a tenant-in-chief in East Anglia, Essex and Middlesex. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 716) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 406.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER OF RAMES' DAUGHTER. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that Roger's unnamed daughter, who held two of his manors in Suffolk, may be Wiberga, his tenant at Rayne in Essex. Her manors are recorded in Coel (no. 717) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 198.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF "ROERICO" *]. Roger, who held Smallicombe in Devon from Baldwin the sheriff, is named Roger de Roerico in the Geld Roll for Colyton Hundred, where Smallicombe lay: Devonshire Domesday, i. p. xxxiv. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 1794) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 407. His toponym has not been identified.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* OF STANTON *]. Roger, who held ten hides at Stanton Drew in the royal manor of Keynsham in Somerset, is named Roger of Stanton in the Geld Roll for Keynsham Hundred, where Stanton lay: VCH Somerset, i. 528. His manor is recorded in Coel (no. 2087) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 407.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* SON OF CORBET *]. The Rogers who held Minsterley, Trewern and Alberbury from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury are very probably Roger son of Corbet. All three manors were later held by the Corbets, and all lay in Reweset, which belonged to the manor of Alberbury: VCH Shropshire, viii. 195, 202, 310-11; Meisel, Barons of the Welsh frontier, pp. 62-64, 66, 69. Almost the entire Hundred was shared between the earl and the Corbet brothers, Earl Roger retaining only the most valuable manor in demesne. The Corbets had evidently been entrusted with the defence of this frontier area, centred on the castle they built at Caus. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 2574) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 400.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* SON OF PAYNE *]. Roger, who held West Putford in Devon from Ralph of Pomeroy, is probably Roger son of Payne who according to Exon. held Peamore from Ralph, and Hennock from Baldwin the sheriff; Richard son of Payne of Putford held a fee of two knights from the Honour of Berry Pomeroy in 1166. The other Ralphs on Baldwin's Honour can be identified with a degree of confidence; but Ralph had more unidentified Rogers than the remaining tenants-in-chief in the county combined. It is unlikely there were more Rogers among his tenants than the three recorded bynames suggest; but unfortunately, this consideration does little to distinguish them, as the one cluster among the manors, around Exeter and the estuary of the river Exe, contains two of the three bynames, Roger son of Payne himself, and Roger Blunt. It is possible, of course, that both are borne the same man, but impossible to verify. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 1726) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 408, with the addition of Lydford and Great Torrington.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* THE CLERIC *]. The Rogers who held small portions of Pevensey and Peelings from the Count of Mortain may be Roger the cleric, who held from him in Eastbourne, 'Cudnor' and Horsey. The manors are of comparable status and close to each other; and although Roger is a common name, it is remarkably rare on the vast lands of the Count of Mortain outside Sussex, where only one other tenant, Roger of Courseulles, occurs. It is possible, therefore, that the other unidentified Rogers on the Honour, also in Sussex, at Charleston and West Firle, about a dozen miles from the manors of Roger the cleric, are the same man. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 207) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 399, apart from Charleston, whose tenant is unidentified (no. 15982).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* THE HUNTER *]. The Rogers who held Ilsley and Frilsham in Berkshire and Boylestone in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers were identified by J.H. Round from charters in the Ridware cartulary as Roger the huntsman, a dependency of Boylestone being held by hunting tenure: 'Tenure of Draycote-under-Needwood', pp. 1-10; Rydeware chartulary, pp. 257-58, 283-84. Roger's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 11099), but not in Domesday people, the entry for Roger the hunter there (p. 411) referring to another man (no. 7838).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGER [* WHITING *]. Roger, who held the valuable manor of Radstock in Somerset from the bishop of Coutances, is very probably Roger Whiting (Wythent), identified by his grant of the church to Bath priory: VCH Somerset, i. 452. He is named in Exon. as the bishop's tenant on several other manors in the county. He has been identified by scholars from Eyton onwards as the same man as Roger of Courseulles: Eyton, Domesday studies: Somerset, pp. 59-60; Tengvik, Old English bynames, p. 11; Round, 'Domesday survey of Somerset', 412-13. Professor Loud, however, has argued that the identification is 'undoubtedly wrong' since the Coutances' tenancies were held in 1166 by a Roger Witenge from the bishop's successors, those of Roger of Courseulles devolving on Robert Malet: Loud, 'Introduction to the Somerset Domesday', pp. 23-24. Whiting is identified as Roger of Courseulles in Coel.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROGO [* SON OF NIGEL *]. Rogo is a rare name, borne only by tenants of Baldwin the sheriff in Devon, who are all therefore probably Rogo son of Nigel, Baldwin's tenant at Appley and Porlock in Somerset according to Exon.: Domesday Book (1816), iii. 294. If so, the Domesday scribe is in error, recording the name there as Drogo. Rogo has left his mark on the landscape, the surname of his manor of Holcombe Rogus preserving his name. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 907) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 413.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROLF. Rolf is a fairly common name which occurs about three dozen times times, distributed among seven counties and the lands of the king and a dozen of his tenants-in-chief, one cluster in Lincolnshire accounting for roughly two-thirds of the names The three manors in Devon and one each in Oxfordshire and Norfolk were held by tenants in 1086, the remainder by pre-Conquest landowners.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROLF [* SON OF SKJALDVOR *]. The distribution of the name make it likely that most if not all Rolfs in Lincolnshire are one man, Rolf son of Skjaldvor, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the county. He was probably a relative of Abbot Brand of Peterborough and Ulf son of Topi, here identified as Ulf Fenman (q.v.). Ulf's will and the Peterborough chronicle itemise extensive grants made to the abbey by Abbot Brand, Ulf, and their relatives; and although Rolf is not among those named, he held four of the abbey's Lincolnshire manors, three of them in vills recorded in the will, so he is likely to be one of the unnamed relatives referred to in the royal confirmation of the abbey's lands: Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon wills, pp. 94-97, 207-12; Bates, Regesta, no. 216, pp. 686-88; Hugh Candidus, pp. 40-41, 69, 71-72.
	Rolf's relatives provide some confirmation of his identity on the lands of the six other tenants-in-chief who obtained his manors. Apart from Abbot Brand and Ulf, these relatives are Alnoth, Eskil, Godric, Healfdene, Siric, Siuorthus, and Ulf's wife and mother, Madselin and Edeva. One or more of these held land in three of the vills where Bishop Odo of Bayeux acquired land from Rolf; in two of those acquired by the bishop of Lincoln; the one of Count Alan of Brittany; one of those of Alfred of Lincoln; four of those of Drogo of la Beuvrière; and two of those of Durand Malet. Several of the relatives' names are common; but there are too many associations to be explained by coincidence. The distribution of the manors provides some additional confirmation. Both the bishop of Bayeux and Alfred of Lincoln acquired land from Rolf in Tealby; the manors of Drogo and Durand Malet at Coates are within a mile of each other, and those of Irby and Laceby little over a mile apart; Alfred's manor at Caistor is a mile from Malet's at Nettleton; and the bishop of Lincoln's at Wyham four miles from Count Alan's at Fulstow, which in turn is three from Malet's at North Thoresby. Some, but not all, of these distributions may have been produced by chance.
	Professor Whitelock has suggested that Skjaldvor is the name of Rolf's mother, recorded with her husband, Jol, in the Liber vitae of Thorney abbey: 'Scandinavian personal names', pp. 141-42. Jol granted land in three Lincolnshire vills to Ramsey abbey, and Skjaldvor is noted in its chronicle as a wealthy benefactor: Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, i. 280-81; iii. 167; Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, p. 199. If so, this is another link between Rolf and Peterborough, since Yawthorpe (Iolestorp), acquired by the abbey from Rolf, may incorporate his father's name: Early charters of eastern England, p. 242. If this Rolf is the predecessor of Durand Malet in Lincolnshire, then he is probably also his predecessor in Nottinghamshire and Leicestershire, the only Rolf in Nottinghamshire and one of two in Leicestershire. Only one other Rolf is recorded in the Midlands or the north, a tenant of Henry of Ferrers at Sibford in Oxfordshire, unlikely to be the pre-Conquest son of Skjaldvor. A list of Rolf's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 314-15, which includes those listed above apart from dependencies. He ranks Rolf sixty-fourth in wealth among untitled laymen. The tenant at Sibford is unidentified in Coel (no. 27863).

.............................................................................................................................................
ROSCELIN. Roscelin is a rare name which occurs once each in Sussex, Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire, three times in Devon and four in Yorkshire, tenants of five tenants-in-chief, one in each county.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROSCELIN <OF FULSTOW>. The Roscelins who held Brinsworth, Thrybergh, Dalton and Bolton Percy in Yorkshire from William of Percy are probably one man, predecessor of the Normanville family who acquired the first three manors and also Bolton upon Dearne, held in 1086 by Picot of Percy, whose descendants later held Bolton Percy, some shuffling of the tenancies occurring in the interval (unless the scribe has confused the two Boltons). 'There is no doubt' that Roscelin is also the tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester at Fulstow in Lincolnshire, which also descended to the Normanvilles: Early Yorkshire charters, xi. 286-94. There are no other Roscelins in northern England. Roscelin's manors are recorded in Coel (no. 3006) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 415.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL. Rosskell is a rare name which occurs nine times, once in Nottinghamshire, the reminder in Yorkshire, all on modest or meagre pre-Conquest holdings.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL <OF BRIDGFORD>. Rosskell, who shared land at Bridgeford in Nottinghamshire worth eight shillings acquired by Roger of Bully, has no links with his distant Yorkshire namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
ROSSKELL <OF STOCKTON>. As the name occurs only once outside Yorkshire, all or most of the eight Rosskells in the county are possibly one man. This is very likely the case with the tight cluster of four waste manors at Stockton, Newhall, Lofthouse and Alwoodley in the West Riding retained by the king, which later formed part of the barony of William le Meschin: Early Yorkshire charters, iii. 467-69. It is not unlikely that this Rosskell also held Linton and perhaps Ryther, the former about four miles from Stockton and the latter acquired by Ilbert of Lacy because it lay within his 'territory' of the Honour of Pontefract. The remaining manors of Wath and Kirklington are some forty miles to the north but also acquired as part of a territorial block, that of Count Alan of Brittany.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 another. 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 Newton, 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 Nottinghamshire are probably one man. Two of his manors are in the same vill, and all within a 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 Bayeux, 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 Mortimer 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'Isle, 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 Ansculf, is very probably the overlord of a man with a virgate at Woughton, a mile away; 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 1086. Of his eleven holdings, he held seven in 1086 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 decades; the remaining property, Benson, is five miles from his manor of Rofford. 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'. His manors are recorded in Coel (no. 9218) and referenced in Domesday people, p. 418, apart from Oxford, Thame 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 Corbucion, 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 Buckinghamshire; and since Giles acquired his whole fief from Siward and Saewulf, 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 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 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 Northamptonshire. He is probably the Saewulf whose men held land in Burnham and Iver, since no other Saewulf had demesne manors in Buckinghamshire. The one remaining Saewulf in the three counties, at Greatworth in Northamptonshire, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 duplicates. He has no links with other Saewulfs.

.............................................................................................................................................
SAEWULF <OF SNELSTON>. Saewulf, who held part of Snelston in Derbyshire acquired by Henry of Ferrers, 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 Warwickshire is probably the Salo whose manor of Bramcote was acquired by Earl Aubrey of Coucy before escheating to the Crown, 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 Suffolk, is probably the Sasselin with a somewhat more substantial fief in Essex, 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 Berkshire and Rycote and 'also' Wendlebury in Oxfordshire from Geoffrey de Mandeville, and who dispossessed Fairstead in Essex of fifteen acres which then 'lay in' the fief of Geoffrey de Mandeville, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
SASWALO <OF BYTHAM>. Saswalo, who held Bytham in Lincolnshire from the abbey of Peterborough, 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 Northamptonshire, Ettington in Warwickshire, Hoon, Hatton and Etwall in Derbyshire, and Witton with Winterton in Lincolnshire 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 Eu, 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 Peverel - said to be the same man in the text - is also the Saxfrith who held Ashby in Leicestershire and two manors in Old Basford in Nottinghamshire 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 Crispin, 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 Shropshire are the same 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 York 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 Conquest, 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 Leicestershire and all but one of those in Warwickshire devolving upon the Count of Meulan, who almost certainly had just the one predecessor of this name. The exception, Bramcote in Warwickshire, is surrounded by the Meulan manors, one of them - Weston - 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 Clatford and five valuable manors, three of them royal, all held directly from King Edward. The one other manor, at Empshott, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
SCROTI <OF HILLMORTON>. The name Scroti occurs three times, all in Warwickshire in 1066, 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 Peverel, 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 Hubert, 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 Wiltshire may be Serlo of Burcy, tenant of the abbey on five manors in Somerset according to Exon.. He is possibly also the Serlo who held Netherbury in Dorset from the bishop of Salisbury, 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 man. 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 Cornwall, and the Count's predecessor at 'Wey' and Creech in Dorset and Cricket St Thomas in Somerset, his one valuable manor. He was also tenant of the bishop of Coutances at Rode in Somerset and his predecessor at Cameley and Hallatrow according to Exon.. Exon. also records a Sheerwold holding from Glastonbury abbey at Butleigh and Pilton in 1066, which lie between Cricket and Rode, while Sheerwold's manor of Leigh, acquired by William of Mohun, is adjacent to his manor of Cricket St Thomas. Of the remaining manors, Hillersdon and Poltimore in Devon lie between Gothers and Cricket; and the distance between Rode and Culkerton in Gloucestershire is a fraction of that from Gothers to Rode; Somerford in Wiltshire 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 Northamptonshire. 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 Buckinghamshire, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
SIGAR <OF ABINGTON>. The status of the Freeman Sagar who held a half-virgate under Picot the sheriff at Abington in Cambridgeshire 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 Cambridgeshire 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 Marlborough, 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 London, 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 Bayeux 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 Beaufour, 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 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 chaplain. 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 county 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 Sawston. 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 juror: 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 Fulbourn and Caldecote were acquired by John son of Waleran and David of Argentan, and the Sagar succeeded by Robert son of Fafiton at Dry Drayton. 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 bowman 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
SIGMUND <OF ROCKLAND>. As the name is rare, the Sigmunds who held land at Peyton in Essex and at Barwick, Feltwell, Methwold and Houghton in Norfolk from William of Warenne 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 Hemming: 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 Conquest, 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 Canterbury, is certainly the Sired who held the very valuable (£40) manor of Chilham, 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 Kent. 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 identified as the tenant of the Canons of St Martin's at St Margaret's 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 1066, is probably the Sired who held a valuable manor at Charlton from the community at the same date, 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 1066. 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 community. 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 location 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 Warwickshire and Nottinghamshire 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 manors; and in Derbyshire every manor held by Siward was acquired Henry. 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 holdings.
	Henry of Ferrers had a predecessor named Siward at Stebbing in Essex, 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 Peverel, 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 valuable, including Maldon itself. He is probably also the Siward who preceded Ranulf at Tollesbury and Rettendon. Rettendon was held from the abbey of Ely, with which Siward had close associations, holding Kentwell in Suffolk, later in the hands of the brother of the abbot of Ely, and possibly Pettaugh also; 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 man: 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 Lincoln. 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 Fryerning - 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 Gloucestershire. 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 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 Buckinghamshire; and since Giles acquired his whole fief there from a Siward 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 Siward, and three of his four manors in Berkshire from a Siward 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 Wappenham 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 Buckinghamshire, and Irchester and Holdenby in Northamptonshire. 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 Burston, 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 Harrowden, 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 county. Apart from one manor, Siward, Aki and Wiglac provided the entire fief of Robert the bursar in Lincolnshire, Siward himself holding Scrivelsby, Tathwell and Haltham. 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 Stainfield. It is likely, too, that he is the predecessor of Gilbert of Ghent at West Ashby and Driby, 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 Conquest, three and five miles respectively from West Ashby and Driby, and perhaps also Snarford, 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 Withcall and Roger of Poitou at 'South Cadeby'. 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 valuable, 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 county. In Dorset, Baldwin was preceded on the valuable manor Iwerne Courtney 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 Baldwin, 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 Thistleton, and three others are linked by manorial ties or proximity. 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 remote. Of the remaining holdings, Stixwould lay between those grouped around Thistleton and the pair near the coast, at Huttoft and Theddlethorpe. The Siward who held these is probably the Siward with a second holding in Huttoft. Siward of Stixwould retained his land for two decades so may be the Siward Buss with a claim against Alfred of Lincoln. 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.. He is probably also the Siward at Seavington, 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.. 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 Hampshire and Chadlington in Oxfordshire, 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', 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 1086. He is probably also the Siward who retained Frodesley, Overs, Neen Sollars and Milson between those dates. 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 Tetstill. 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 Magna, 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 Siward - thirteen if the Saeward at Stanton 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 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 Cleobury is a scribal error, as seems likely. Siward was also a Lacy tenant at Waters Upton. Ralph of Mortimer acquired manors from Aldred and Siward, too, and also from Shrewsbury abbey.
	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 Overs and at Eyton, and likely that he did so at Montgomery and Weston, whose scale suggests a major landowner. His manor at Grinshill is about a mile from Reginald's manor of Acton Reynald, and Fenemere two from Myddle and also two from Walford, where Siward preceded Robert the butler; while among the Corbet holdings, Ratlinghope is adjacent to Overs, Brompton roughly midway between Upton Magna and Frodesley, Leighton a mile from Trelystan, and Winsley and Bausley four to five miles from Eyton. Similarly, the Helgot manors of Bouldon and Oxenbold lay between Siward's manors at Frodesley and Neen Sollars. Finally, the Siward who preceded Earl Roger on his valuable manor of Poulton in Wiltshire 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 Lincolnshire 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, replaced after the Conquest by another Englishman. He had a wife and a son. 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 man. 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 Mandeville and the Skalpi who preceded Robert Gernon at Ardleigh in Essex and Churchford, Stutton and Woolverstone in Suffolk: 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 land. 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 Norfolk, '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 1066, 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 Nottinghamshire 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-chief, 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 Suffolk, 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 counties and also in Kent and Hampshire. According to Exon., he also preceded Nigel on a subtenancy at Lamyatt, held from Glastonbury abbey. Only one manor held by Spirtes the priest - at Woolston in Shropshire - 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 alone, 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 Derbyshire 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 a single manor of thirty acres at Ousden in Suffolk. He is probably the Stanhard who held a comparable one-manor, thirty-acre fief at an unnamed location in Essex, 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 son. 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 Suffolk and virtually none in Norfolk, where every Stanhard in Domesday Book is a Bigot tenant.
	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 house, 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 Waltham; the abbey also had an interest in another of Stanhard's manors, at Barnham in Suffolk. 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 Magna 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 Honour. Edric was also joint overlord with Ely abbey of Stanhard at Burgh in Norfolk, 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 Cambridgeshire and Bealings in Suffolk. The one remaining Stanhard, at Wortham in Suffolk, 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 Malet, Westerfield by Count Alan of Brittany, and Heveningham by Roger Bigot. 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 Book, which record that Stanwin 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 Nottinghamshire were acquired by William Peverel, who also had charge for the king of Staplewin's holding Mapperley in Derbyshire, 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 Berkshire, 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 Bagpuize, 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 tenant 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 Northamptonshire, 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 manors, in both of which Ernwin the priest (q.v.) had an interest, and Cuxwold 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 Loges, has no links with his distant namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 county, while Rowthorn, 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 Calow, 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 Cheshire. Three other manors in Cheshire were held by a Stenulf, at Tilstone, Weaver and Clotton, 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 1086, 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 Nottinghamshire, 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 Shrewsbury. 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 Yorkshire, 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 Rookwith, 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).

.............................................................................................................................................
STENULF <OF VENNS GREEN>. As the name is rare, the Stenulf whose manor at Venns Green in Herefordshire was acquired by William son of Norman 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 Southampton and a messuage in Warwick. He is probably also the Stephen who held Dorsington and Milcote in chief in the county and was a tenant there of Bishop Odo of Bayeux at Arrow and Broom, 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 Roade, 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 Berkshire, 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 Bedfordshire. 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 Herefordshire were held by one man. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he is Stephen son of Fulcred, who held Daylesford from the Church of Worcester; 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* 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 Yorkshire 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 also. 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 Bolingbroke and very probably the Stori who preceded Countess Judith at Hougham in the county since she held a messuage of his in Lincoln claimed by Ivo Tallboys. 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 Easton Stori is described as a man of Earl Tosti, and elsewhere 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 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 Chester, 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 Nottinghamshire 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 Vatteville, 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 land. 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 Suffolk acquired by Earl Hugh of Chester has no links with other Sumarlithis.

.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI <OF NORTHLEIGH>. Sumarlithi, whose virgate worth three shillings at Northleigh in Devon was acquired by Nicholas the bowman, has no links with his namesakes, all remote.

.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI <OF WARESLEY>. Sumarlithi, whose half-hide worth ten shillings at Waresley in Huntingdonshire was acquired by Eustace the sheriff, has no links with other Sumarlithis.

.............................................................................................................................................
SUMARLITHI [* SON OF KARLI *]. Sumarlithi, who held Crambe in Yorkshire, 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 Boltby, 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 Durham, 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 Siward, is about thirteen miles from the bishop's manor at Cadeby and also from Kolsveinn's acquisition at Ingham 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 Keal is the most distant, twenty miles to the south; but the Lincolnshire Claims reveal that Sumarlithi had held land at Greetham, seven miles from Keal and thirteen from the bishop's jurisdiction at Welton le Wold. 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, 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 father, named as having full jurisdiction and market rights in the county and a messuage in the borough.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Leicestershire 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 1086 and 1066; the Lincolnshire Claims prove that he is the Swartbrand who claimed land at North Hykeham against a Siward, who may be a relative with whom he had a shared interest in the Nottinghamshire vill of Muskham. He may also be the one remaining Swartbrand, whose manor of Burgh-le-Marsh was acquired by Eudo son of Spirewic. Burgh is two miles from the manor of Ulf's son at Bratoft. 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 byname, usually in his capacity as sheriff, so he is probably the Swein recorded on other royal manors there. Elsewhere, references to his dependants, his manors or to his father identify him as the Swein at Tollesbury, Tilbury and Colchester in Essex. The only other Sweins in Essex, tenants of the bishop of Bayeux at Stambridge, Creeksea and Bradwell Quay, may also be the sheriff, who held the other part of Stambridge in chief, and whose manors in Asheldham 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 Dorset and another in Wiltshire, 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 manors 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 Wiltshire.
	Swein (Suin) may also have held the substantial manor of Yelling in Huntingdonshire 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 Conquest 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 son 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 Dodworth, 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 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 years. 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 Northamptonshire, is identified in the Borough entries as Swein son of Azur, with twenty-one houses in that vill. 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 Buckinghamshire and eight manors in Northamptonshire. Father and son may be the two thanes from whom Gunfrid acquired Flore, and among the four thanes at Wollaston in the same county; they may even be the two Freemen who preceded Gunfrid on his Bedfordshire fief, a single manor likely to have been acquired by antecession. 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 father: '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 Nottinghamshire and Greetwell in Lincolnshire devolved upon Roger are probably Svavi's son. Roger had predecessors named Swein at Beighton in Derbyshire and in several vills in Yorkshire 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 Sheffield, six and seven miles respectively from the Derbyshire manor of Beighton. 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 Edenthorpe, which the Yorkshire Claims state was acquired from him by Fulco of Lisors, who was subinfeudated by Roger with other of his manors.
	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 Hardwick, 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 Honour. According to the Lincolnshire Claims, 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 dependency may be Swein son of Svavi. Finally, Count Alan of Brittany's predecessor at Mumby - 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 Derbyshire, in the same wapentake as the remainder; and on the other six in Nottinghamshire, all respectable if not substantial manors. 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 Oxfordshire, is identified in the chronicle of the abbey as the 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 Bigot, 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 Constantine, 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 Judith, 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 Warenne, 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 Auberville, Barkestone by Robert son of Corbucion. 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 man. 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-arms who held Shepreth - in 'Wetherley' Hundred, adjacent to Thriplow - from Hardwin: 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 county: VCH Wiltshire, ii. 210. He may also be the Theobald who held Shrewton from Edward of Salisbury, 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 Conquest, 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 Northamptonshire, 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 Conquest, 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 Ferrers, is the only Theodric north of the Wash. He has no links with other Theodrics.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* THEODRIC *] POINTEL. Pointel, who occurs twice each on the fiefs of the bishop of Bayeux and Ralph Baynard in Essex, 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 Bedfordshire, 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 Shrewsbury, 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 Derbyshire 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 Yorkshire was apparently untenanted in 1086, has no links with other Tholfs, all distant.

.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF <OF RENDHAM>.Tholf, a free man who shared thirty-five acres with four other free men at Rendham in Suffolk acquired by Roger Bigot, 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-chief.

.............................................................................................................................................
THOLF [* THE DANE *]. The Tholfs who preceded William of Eu at Deane in Hampshire and on six manors in Dorset are probably Tholf the Dane, his predecessor on the valuable manor of 'Somborne' in Hampshire. William also had predecessors named Toli (Tholi, Toli) in Devon, Dorset and Wiltshire, Thurs (Torsus) at Powderham in Devon, Teolf at Tickenham in Somerset and Tous Upton Scudamore in Wiltshire. At Upton he is Toli in one entry and Tous in another, both referring to the same matter. 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 Mortain 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 Buckinghamshire almost certainly are, as also the tenant of Countess Judith at Sutton in Bedfordshire, both she and the bishop acquiring manors from a Thorbert, Countess Judith at Lavendon - adjacent to Clifton - and the bishop at Chellington in Bedfordshire, 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 Northamptonshire. 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 Conquest, 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 Wiltshire, may be the man who held Swindon before the Conquest, 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 Brittany, 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 Hertfordshire; 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 Harold. 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 Peverel, 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 Thorbiorns are predecessors of Haimo the sheriff, as are both Thorberts. 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 Tolleshunt, 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 Colne, 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 Tosny, 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 1086, and one each by William of Percy and Hugh son of Baldric, 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 Riding: 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. 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 Brittany, 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 Bodin. Thorfin's manors in Craven went to Roger of Poitou, and the wasted manors of Amounderness were retained by the king. 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 itself, which makes it not unlikely that he also held the manors acquired by Count Robert of Mortain, 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 Riding, 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 Thorfin, though that name is common in Yorkshire.

.............................................................................................................................................
THORFRIDH. Thorfridh is a common name but, with one exception, 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 Nottinghamshire 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 Scales, 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 1066, 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 Derbyshire, 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 Judith, 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 Ansculf 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
THORGER <OF PIXLEY>. As the name is rare, the Thorger whose small manor at Pixley in Herefordshire was acquired by Ansfrid of Cormeilles 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 Courseulles, 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 Lincolnshire and North Dalton and Naburn in Yorkshire, 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 Oxfordshire and Broadholme in Nottinghamshire 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 Lincolnshire 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 Clay - was held by a Wimund in 1086, as was the one other Thorgot manor in Oxfordshire, 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 Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are probably Thori son of Roald, who had full jurisdiction and market rights in Lincolnshire. If, as seems likely, the Stori at Rawcliffe 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 Lincolnshire, 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 dependency, 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 Ferrers. 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'. 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 himself. 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 Berkshire, without apparent links to the Lincolnshire magnate.

.............................................................................................................................................
THORKIL [* OF DIGSWELL *]. Thorkil, who held land at Digswell in Broadwater Hundred in Hertfordshire from Geoffrey de Mandeville, 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 Bengeo, six miles away, and the Thorkil at Libury, 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 dates, 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 wapentakes; Roger of Bully, with six holdings in 'Bassetlaw and 'Lythe' wapentakes; and Ralph of Buron, at Cotgrave. 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'Oilly, 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 Oxfordshire identifies him as the tenant-in-chief of this single-manor fief, which in turn means he is the Thorkil of a duplicate entry, 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 1066: Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis, ii. 10-13, 26-27. He may also be the Thorkil who held Syerscote in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford, 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 Corbucion. 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 borough. It is not unlikely that he is the Thorkil at Chalgrove in Oxfordshire, 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 Staffordshire, 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 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 Buckinghamshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire and Leicestershire 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 Bromswold 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 Bourne: 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 Kennett 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 Buckinghamshire, 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 Burgred, is identified as Thorkil the priest by a more detailed account in the entry for Botuluesbrige.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 he gave him the land of his predecessor, Thorkil'. This Thorkil is almost certainly Thorkil White, who is accorded his byname on three of Hugh's manors. 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 Wellington: 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 wife.
	Thorkil White may also be the Thorkil whose Herefordshire estates were acquired by Roger of Lacy. 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 ass and Roger of Lacy, an unlikely coincidence if the predecessors of Hugh and Roger are different men. Thorkil may also have been the predecessor of William son of Baderon, 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 Gloucestershire. 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 man. 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 county: 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 Bigot 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 Ouse and at Catton sixteen miles to the north, are the same man, despite Linton devolving upon the Count of Mortain and Catton on William of Percy. At Newton Kyme, a similar distance to the south of Linton, the Yorkshire Claims reveal that Thorn had shared a manor with Ligulf, 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 1086 probably represents surviving Thorstens.

.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN <OF CRANFORD>. The Thorstens who preceded William son of Ansculf on respectable manors at Wombourne and Ettingshall in Staffordshire are probably his predecessor on another valuable manor, at Cranford in Middlesex, 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 Harcourt and Broome - 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 Sussex.

.............................................................................................................................................
THORSTEN [* OF THETFORD *]. Thorsten, who held two tenancies in Great Snarehill in Norfolk from Roger Bigot and preceded him on another holding in that vill, 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 burgess. 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).

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Shropshire so is probably Reginald's predecessor on three other manors in the county and also the Thorth who held Langley at both dates there. One of the manors acquired from him by Reginald was Wroxeter, 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 Cheshire, and according to James Tait 'we may safely identify him' as the Thorth on the remaining manors in the county, 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 Norfolk and another six in Suffolk were acquired by Ralph Baynard. Several of these manors are valuable. Of the remaining Thorths, those on the substantial manors of Billingford and Babingley 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 Rodenhala and perhaps the Thorth on a small holding at Blundeston in the adjacent Hundred, which cannot be too many miles from Rodenhala. Bulcamp, 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 Wiltshire and Gold Hill in Dorset were both acquired by Osbern Giffard; Manston, which devolved upon Waleran the hunter, is adjacent to Gold Hill. 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 Leofstan, so can be identified as the Tihel preceded by Leofstan on the royal manor of Crackford in the county. Similarly, as tenant of the bishop of Bayeux in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, he is very probably his tenant at Haverhill in Suffolk, where he also held in chief, and is likely to be the Teher who held Wickford from the bishop, 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-Marsh, 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 Vernon, lay in Willaston Hundred, as did Guilden Sutton, two miles from Picton, held by Robert son of Hugh in 1086. Elton and Manley in Ruloe Hundred, retained by Earl Hugh, are a few miles away, Elton being also three miles from Picton. Only Norton, acquired by William son of Nigel, 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 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 Cambridgeshire, twenty manors in Norfolk (8,7;21-22;30;47;62;68;98-101;103-105;107-108;110;116-118) and four in Suffolk, including his principle and very valuable manor at West Walton in Norfolk. He is probably the one other Toki in Cambridgeshire, at West Wratting, where Warenne's predecessor had another manor; and perhaps also the predecessor of Peter of Valognes on two manors in Norfolk, 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 king, 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 Hales. Toketorp and its variants may well preserve his name, the vill occurring on the fief of William of Warenne. 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 Harold, is perhaps Earl Harold's free man at Broome, both likely to be Toki of Winterton, who held a villager in Ingworth from Roger Bigot, 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 Shropshire and at Cotton as a tenant of the earl of Shrewsbury in the same county 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 Yorkshire, and hence the Toki whose manors constituted the fief of Geoffrey Alselin in that county. The Toki with similar rights in Nottinghamshire must be Auti's son, since all the manors held by a Toki in Nottinghamshire devolved upon Geoffrey Alselin.
	In addition to Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, Geoffrey acquired his entire fiefs in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Northamptshire from a Toki, and all but one of his manors in Derbyshire. The holdings of other Tokis in that county are, with one exception, claimed by Geoffrey Alselin or dependent upon his manors, the exception - Sandiacre - lying two miles from his manor of Breaston. In Lincolnshire, two holdings where he is unnamed are identified on Geoffrey Alselin's fief as dependencies of his manor of Ruskington; while Stubton lay in the same vill as an Alselin manor, and Westby 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 Spirewic, 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 Wadworth, to which Geoffrey Alselin laid claim. Wadworth is the most isolated of the three manors, Osgodby and Burghwallis lying between Alselin's Yorkshire and 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 Walton, 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 Muskham; but the layout of the text suggests that the dependencies of Muskham 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 Derbyshire, Burton in Nottinghamshire, and Cantley in Yorkshire. 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 1086 is almost certainly the Toli who held Ilkeston before the Conquest since Ilkeston belonged to Sandiacre. He may also have held Ilkeston and two other manors in Sandiacre 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 other 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 1086. 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 1086 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 Northamptonshire. Furthermore, a Yorkshire Tonni also held land in 1066 and 1086 and was preceded by a Thorkil in a vill where William of Percy, one of Tonni of Lusby's successors, held land. 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 Ghent who acquired from Tonni half his fief in Oxfordshire, all but one of his manors in Northamptonshire, and Langton, Lusby, Claxby and Well with their dependencies in Lincolnshire, Lusby being the most valuable of those manors. Gilbert also obtained his fief in Berkshire, and Culverthorpe, Willoughby and Kyme in Lincolnshire, 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 Percy, were those of the same Tonni, as the Lincolnshire Claims reveal. A list of Tonni's manors is given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 350-51, which omits dependencies but adds Appleton in Yorkshire, 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 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 Lincolnshire 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 Hertfordshire, 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 manor 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 Gernon, 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 Mandeville 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 sheriff, 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 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 Bayeux 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 county, 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 Yorkshire 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 Hampshire, held by William Bertram in 1086; Buckworth in Huntingdonshire, held by the Count of Eu; Bingham in Nottinghamshire, by Roger of Bully, and the anonymous manor of Guy of Raimbeaucourt in Northamptonshire. The earl was a predecessor of Roger of Bully elsewhere in Nottinghamshire; and Buckworth was an outlier of Great Paxton, 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 Tosti; both holdings are surrounded by those of his brother Harold. The Tosti of Freshwater on the Isle of Wight is shown to be the earl by its dependence upon his manor in that vill, and there can be little doubt that the Tosti at Somerton in Norfolk who 'went from England' is the earl, too. Finally, the Tosti who held a minuscule property at Worthing 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 Claims, and Mission in Nottinghamshire, a dependency of the royal manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey in Lincolnshire where it is implied he preceded Earl Edwin. His manors of Bayford in Hertfordshire and Potton and Chalton in Bedfordshire 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 Mortain, 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 1066 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 Richard, has no links with other Tostis.

.............................................................................................................................................
TOSTI <OF LEYTON>. Tosti, whose modest holding at Leyton in Essex was acquired by Westminster abbey, 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 Mortain, 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 Lovet 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF GRAFTON>. Toti, who shared land worth a few pounds with three other lords at Grafton in Warwickshire acquired by Osbern son of Richard, 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 Toti 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 Mortimer, has no links with other Totis.

.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF SCREVETON>. Toti, whose modest holding at Screveton in Nottinghamshire was acquired by Bishop Odo of Bayeux, has no links with other Totis.

.............................................................................................................................................
TOTI <OF WALLBURY>. Toti, whose modest holding at Wallbury in Essex was acquired by Richard of Tonbridge, 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 Somerset, 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 Keynsham, which identifies him as the Tovi whose manor in Belluton - a partial duplicate - was acquired by Count Eustace of Boulogne. Of the other two Tovis in the county, he may be the Tovi at Freshford, eleven miles from Keynsham, and less certainly the Tovi at Berkley, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
TOXUS [THE PRIEST]. Toxus, whose manor of Swyre in Dorset was acquired by William of Eu, 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 Meulan, 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 Ansculf, 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 Surrey, Penton Mewsey and Houghton in Hampshire and Castle Eaton and Milston in Wiltshire 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 Bully, 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 him, 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 Bayeux, is probably the Turold of Rochester named on the previous manor, and probably also the Turold who annexed land on the bishop's fief at Alresford - 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 Fobbing. 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 manors, and perhaps also at Wricklesmarsh in Kent, 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 Drayton 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's. 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 Sussex. 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 Huntingdonshire and Hassenbrook and Basildon in Essex from Swein of Essex 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 Peverel 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
"TURSTIN" [* OF CORMEILLES *]. Turstin, who held Syde in Gloucestershire from Ansfrid of Cormeilles, 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 Ferrers, 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 Mortimer 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 Wigmore, 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 Marlborough, 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 Herefordshire and Mawley in Shropshire, 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 Wiltshire, 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.
	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 Marcle may well be a fellow-warrior like Turstin of Wigmore, though Marcle is nowhere near the frontier zone; the Lacy tenant at Stanford 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 Wigmore. 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 Ecouis, 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 Giffard, 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 Somerset, 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 Turstin. Theoretically, the other three Turstins 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 Church, 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 Winnianton. The same source identifies the tenant of Iudhael of Totnes at Froxton - 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 Thomas and Easthams in Somerset, 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 Bayeux - said to be one man - are probably Turstin Tinel, the bishop's tenant at Leueberge, since the Domesday Monachorum (p. 102) assigns all four manors to one man. It is not unlikely that he also held Knowlton, 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 Buckland, 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 Ospringe, 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 him. 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 Stafford 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 Tuschet, 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 vill, and perhaps the Uhtbrand with a fairly substantial manor at Trowell in Nottinghamshire, nine miles away, acquired by William the usher. 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 Poitou, constitute a major estate of more than thirty hides, widely spread throughout the Hundred. Uhtred had significant jurisdictional privileges in Crosby and Kirkdale, 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 Cheshire, held by an Uhtred who may also be the West Derby magnate, as also at Norton south of the Mersey, 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 Yorkshire, 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 antecessor, so most if not all Ulfs on Gilbert's fiefs in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Rutland 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 county, while manorial links identify him as the predecessor of Guy of Craon and Peter of Valognes at Threekingham and Burton. Of these three tenants-in-chief, only Geoffrey had an Ulf elsewhere on his Honour, on a modest shared manor at East Norton in Leicestershire; but since Geoffrey received this manor through an exchange, this Ulf may be another man. Ulf Fenman is several times described as a royal thane, so he may be the royal thane Ulf who preceded William son of Ansculf on the very substantial manor of Newport Pagnell in Buckinghamshire, another valuable manor at Tickford and a lesser one at Woolstone, as well others held by his men in Caldecote and Hardmead. 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 1086. The small fief of Gilbert of Ghent was held by Karli and Ketilbert; 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 Beuvrière, 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 elsewhere from another substantial Lincolnshire landowner of this name, Ulf son of Topi, 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.
	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 Rasen 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 Limber.
	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 Bytham. 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, Ulf; and Ulf of Barnetby 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 York is the Ulf from whom they acquired twelve of the previous thirteen manors. He may also be the Ulf who preceded the archbishop at Langtoft and Cottam. Neither the archbishop or the Canons were preceded elsewhere by an Ulf. His most valuable manor was Carlton Husthwaite.
	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, 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 archbishop. 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 Slettan: 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 county 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 Arcy may be the second Ulf - Ulf Fenman is the first - who had 'full jurisdiction and market rights' in Lincolnshire, 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 Judith are almost certainly Ulf son of Azur, whose manors in those vills she claimed from the bishop of Bayeux. He may also be the Ulf who held Hardwick from her, although the 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 Topi. The Countess had a second manor in Hardwick for which no pre-Conquest holder is named, 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 Lincolnshire, 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 Chadstone, 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 Leicestershire, 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 Countess. He is unidentified in Coel (no. 27480).

.............................................................................................................................................
ULF [* SON OF MANNI SWART *]. Robert of Tosny acquired his fiefs in Gloucestershire and Cambridgeshire, one of his most valuable manors - Stone - in Buckinghamshire and two of the four in Suffolk 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 Theberton. If so, then he is probably the Ulf whose valuable manor of Beddington in Surrey 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 Middlesex acquired by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, who also obtained Ickenham from a man of Ulfi son of Manni, 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 Bayeux. 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Bolbec, 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 Laughton, and of the bishop of Bayeux at Rasen and Cockerington. A Claim concerning Laughton renders Ulfgrim as Wilgrim, so the one Wilgrim in Domesday Book, predecessor of Count Alan of Brittany at Killingholme, 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 Ulfgrim 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 Lincoln. 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 Percy.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 1086 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 six others. Of the two remaining manors, Strelley is between four and five miles from two of the above manors, Kingston-upon-Soar 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 deleted, 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 Beeston, 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 - Lamcote - lay in a vill where the thane Ulfkil had another manor; and the other two, Hucknall and Rempstone, are each about six miles from one of the thane's. Bramcote, 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 Bully, are likely to be one man; and since he, too, was a survivor on three of Roger's manors, 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 wapentake, 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 Ferrers, all but two lying in 'Appletree' wapentake, and all but one within roughly five miles of one or more of the others. The exception, Tissington, 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 Stafford. It is five miles from the Ferrers acquisition of Sinfin, 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 William, may be the only man of this name in Domesday Book, the Ulvar at Thorner in Yorkshire 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 Norfolk, 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 Ferrers, 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 Warwickshire 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 Ansculf, 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 Warwickshire and Staffordshire 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 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 Worcester, tenant-in-chief in those counties and sheriff of Worcestershire. Urso was a tenant of the king, the bishops of Hereford and Worcester, the abbeys of Coventry, Westminster, Pershore and Evesham, the canons of Hereford, and Odo of Bayeux, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, Ralph of Tosny, and Osbern son of Richard. 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. Chastleton, seven miles from his manor at Sezincote, was held from the bishop of Bayeux, from whom he held land elsewhere; and Enstone, 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 Stafford, 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 Ansculf; 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 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 Ferrers, 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 later, 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 Barcheston, one of these held among the royal thanes in the county, as is the third at Hillmorton. 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 Suffolk, 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 Brittany, 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 man. 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 goat and Ralph of Pomeroy, who were very probably brothers and certainly related and who shared some tenants and predecessors. 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 Heavitree; Matford and Peamore. 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 Staffordshire from Vilgrip, also obtained Ingestre 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 Kynnersley. 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 Auberville, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
VITALIS <OF HILDERSTONE>. Vitalis, who held land worth ten shillings at Hilderstone in Staffordshire from Robert of Stafford, 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 Shropshire, acquired by Osbern son of Richard, is ten miles from Bobbington in Staffordshire, which is seventeen miles from Rushall in the same county, 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 Aincourt, 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 landowners, 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 Norman, 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 Nottinghamshire, is unlikely to be the same Wada as Roger of Bully's predecessor in 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 north. 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 Kent, Surrey, Wiltshire, Dorset, Oxford, Warwickshire, and Lincolnshire. The exceptions are parts of two of the manors of St Augustine's, an abbey which accommodated several of Odo's tenants; a piece of woodland in the royal manor of Milton Regis, and a mill belonging to St Martin's of Dover, possibly against the will of the Canons and with the connivance of the bishop. 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WADO <OF ASHBRITTLE>. As the name is rare, the predecessors of the Count of Mortain at Ashbrittle in Somerset and Modbury, Torridge, Bolberry, Shilston and Honicknowle in Devon are probably the same Wado, and very likely the Wadel and Wadilo at Whiteleigh and Widey, adjacent to Honicknowle, where Exon. renders Wadel as Wado. 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 Patrieda and Walo at Trecan 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 decades, 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 other. 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 Warson, in which case he is likely to be the Wadel in the adjacent vill of Lydford.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Durham 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 Ansculf 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 Dilhorne, some thirty-five miles to the north. William and Robert shared several other tenants. It 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 recorded, 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 mint, 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 Lawford, 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 Cambridgeshire, 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 Leicestershire, North Grimston in Yorkshire and North Witham and Billinghay and their dependencies in Lincolnshire from the archbishop of York is the nephew of the bishop of Winchester, the archbishop's tenant at Bishops Norton in Gloucestershire. 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 Aincourt 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WALKELIN <OF FAINTREE>. The Walkelin who held a very small fief in Shropshire from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury 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 Coutances are very probably one man; there is a marked tendency in the Northamptonshire folios for the fiefs to be arranged by tenants. Harrowden and Isham were held together in the Northamptonshire Survey, and Harrowden was held with Burton, Clipston and Edgcott 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 Ashley, 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 shillings, 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 shillings, 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 one Walo per county. The Sussex Walo, subtenant of Walter son of Lambert on the fief of the Count of Eu, is probably also the Lincolnshire Walo, tenant of Jocelyn son of Lambert, 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 Yorkshire 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 fat, is undoubtedly the father of Aghmund who had full jurisdiction and market rights in the city of Lincoln, 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 Conquest, 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 Flanders, 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 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 sheriff are probably one man, his manors descending to the Cockerell family. 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 Turold 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 York, 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 sheriff, 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 wife: Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, i. 208; Regesta, i. no. 322. He is probably also the Walter who held Papworth in Cambridgeshire from Eustace, 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 Aubrey and Bing by Walter of Caen, the Walter at Linstead evidently being the same man. As Walter son of Aubrey, Walter held three manors in Cambridgeshire from Walter Giffard, 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 Suffolk, or at Loudham as W son of Aubrey, a vill in which he also held as Walter of Caen, or on four other manors in the county as Walter son of Aubrey.
	Elsewhere, the descent of his manors identifies him as the Walter who held Colne Engaine in Essex; Thelveton, Semere and Woodton in Norfolk and Great Glemham in Suffolk 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 Glemham. In Norfolk, where he held Kilverstone, he is perhaps the Walter on the two following manors, and possibly at Burston and Roydon, 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 Shotesham, allocated to Walter the bowman, perhaps confusing Shotesham with Shottisham in Suffolk, held by the bowman; he is also allocated Framlingham, 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 Douai, 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 Warenne are probably Walter of Grandcourt, Warenne's tenant at Carlton and Weston Colville in Cambridgeshire: 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 Turold, 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 Worcestershire; and it is possible he is the Walter who held Stretton, Gilbert's one manor in Warwickshire, 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 Guerche, 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 Mortain, and Bevendean in Sussex and Roding in Essex 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 Mortain: Farrer, Honors, iii. 353-55. He may also be the tenant of the archbishop of Canterbury at South Malling in Pevensey Rape, 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 1086, 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 held burgesses in Pevensey itself and perhaps the Count's tenant elsewhere in the Rape. 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 Buckinghamshire and Northamptonshire; 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 him, 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' 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 Chester, 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 tenants. 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 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 abbey, 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 Ripe, and probably also the Walter at Filsham, three miles from Crowhurst, and perhaps at Playden, 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 Malet, 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 butler, who owed tax in the Geld Roll for Wonford Hundred where Bramford 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 Speke 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 her, 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 Grip, is probably Walter Thunder, her tenant at Turners Puddle, Swanage and 'Thorne' according to Exon., 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 Hallam. The remaining manors devolved upon the Count of Mortain 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 Tosti, while the overlord at Waterbeach in Cambridgeshire 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 Derbyshire. 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 given by Clarke, English nobility, pp. 221-25, which does not include Weston in Huntingdonshire or Bozeat in Northamptonshire, but adds Daventry, 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 Hesdin, 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 Hillmorton, where two held their land in both 1066 and 1086, as did the Waltheof at Shilton. 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 Suffolk, where he also had a manor from Roger Bigot; while his manors on the fief of the bishop of Bayeux were held as Roger Bigot's subtenant. He was also Roger's tenant in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, his remaining manors - held from Roger of Rames - having several links to these. At Hedingham in Essex he was a tenant of both Rogers, and Roger of Rames had claims on the Bigot manors of Stonham, Hemingstone and 'Olden', the latter involving the bishop of Bayeux. In addition to his Essex manor, Warengar held four others in Norfolk, and Higham in Suffolk, from Roger of Rames. He had held Coddenham from him - where he also had a manor from Roger Bigot - but Roger of Rames dispossessed him. An entry for Hemingstone in Suffolk 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 these tenants-in-chief - in the wake of the forfeiture of Earl Ralph Wader, Warengar's lord: Williams, 'Meet the antecessores', 282-84. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests that the one other Warengar in Domesday, at Manston in Dorset, 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 Warwickshire and in the adjacent vills of Blymhill and Brineton in Staffordshire 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 Shropshire 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 untraceable and where the tenancies are traced they were later in the hands of different families: 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 Warwickshire from the abbey of Abingdon may be Warin of Favarcis, who witnessed 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 Warwick, 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 Hill, 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 Compton, 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 manors, 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 Warenne, 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 Derbyshire and Toton and Wollaton in Nottinghamshire 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 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 Cotgrave, 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 Warenne, 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 Mortain, 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 Bourges 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 Nottinghamshire 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 Wiltshire and Chilton in Somerset 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).

.............................................................................................................................................
WARNER <OF EWYAS>. Warner, who held land worth five shillings from Alfred of Marlborough at the castle of Ewyas Harold in Herefordshire, 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 Craon 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 Beauchamp, 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 Nottinghamshire 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 Leicestershire, Harbury and Chesterton in Warwickshire and Sutton in Derbyshire 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 Lincolnshire, 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 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 manor. 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 Guerche, 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 Warenne, 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 Beuvrière, 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 man. More certainly, Wege at Coleby probably held the Yorkshire manor of Womersley acquired by Ilbert of Lacy, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* 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 Whitby. 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 away. He is named on the royal manor of Leominster in Herefordshire, where his holding in Farlow is valued, and he is probably the Widard who held Rochford - nine miles south of Hopton Wafers - and Litley from Durand of Gloucester. He may be the one other Widard in the region, with a messuage in Gloucester. Dr Keats-Rohan suggests he also held Birstall from Hugh of Grandmesnil, 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 priory: Stoke by Clare cartulary, i. 120. It is also probable that Richard's tenant at Withersfield in Suffolk, whose name-form (Wilard) is unique, is the same man, and likely that so too is Richard's tenant at Thurlow in Suffolk 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 Warenne, 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 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 1086, 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 Ansculf 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 Scales, 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 Hardwin, and who preceded Hardwin at Wratting in Cambridgeshire. 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 Hertfordshire, 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 Lincolnshire, only Fulstow being held by another man, Eskil. Wiglac himself had Addlethorpe, 'Butchett' and Langton-by-Wragby, all in Lindsey South Riding. He may have succeeded his father at Wilksby, 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 Claythorpe and Scremby - 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 town 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 Norfolk, 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 priest and a hunter, 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 Hertfordshire, and implicitly as the predecessor of Miles at Chessington in Surrey. Miles or Robert acquired from Wigot or his men Langley and Letcombe in Berkshire; Rodbourne and Manton in Wiltshire; Shabbington, Quainton and Wavendon in Buckinghamshire, in each of which his byname is recorded; Goring, Gatehampton, Chesterton and Cuxham in Oxfordshire; and Brawn and Alderley in Gloucestershire. The relationship of Miles and Wigot identifies both of them on an unnamed holding in Hampshire, which in turn identifies Wigot on the very substantial manor Broadwater in Sussex with which the Hampshire manor was exchanged. It is likely that he is also the Wigot with two other respectable manors in that county, at Bepton and Aldrington. 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 Dawley. 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 abbey. 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 Wiltshire, 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 Devon, 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 Suffolk, the first two - acquired by Roger Bigot and subinfeudated to Warengar of Hedingham (q.v.) - being claimed by Roger of Rames, who himself acquired Crowfield. Roger claimed 'all the free men which Warengar holds from Roger Bigot' 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 Norfolk. Wigulf's sixth manor, at North Barningham, 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 Bendish, identifiable here and elsewhere as an intermediate landowner. Most of the references to him occur as a predecessor of Reginald son of Ivo; three of the four on other fiefs also involving Reginald in some manner, two recorded in Domesday Book, the third in the Ely Inquisition: Inquisitio Eliensis (ed. Hamilton, p. 194). One entry, at Beechamwell, 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 entry suggests that Wihenoc was succeeded by Ivo, then by his son Reginald, while another states that he was the predecessor of Hermer of Ferrers, 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 Breton 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 Gloucestershire 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, 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 1086: 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 Wratting, 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 Brittany 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 Bigot, 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 folios, 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 occasions, and implicitly on others. 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 these, five others either lying in the same vill as another of his manors or within five miles of one of them. The eleventh, Barham, was acquired by Roger of Poitou, along with five others held by Wihtgar's men, the twelfth by the bishop of Bayeux. Of the remaining Wihtgars, one appears to be a peasant. Two demesne manors were acquired by other tenants-in-chief, Creeting and Ousden, both in vills within five miles of other demesnes of Aelfric's son, while at Creeting he had another holding in the vill. Only Epping in Essex 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 Hertfordshire 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 hand, 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 Essex.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Port who subinfeudated Througham to Hugh of St Quentin, the tenant-in-chief who obtained Wihtlac's manor of Bolderford 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 decades. 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 decades and probably one remaining Wihtlac, at Hinchelsea in the same Hundred, 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 .

.............................................................................................................................................
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 man, named Wihtric of Carlewuda at Stratton in Suffolk where he is described as Earl Harold's man in a second entry. 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 Hampshire was acquired by Osbern the falconer, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF HADLEY>. Wihtric, whose modest holding at Hadley in Shropshire 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 hunter, 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', 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 Ferrers, has no links with his namesakes.

.............................................................................................................................................
WIHTRIC <OF WOKEFIELD>. Wihtric, whose 1 1/2 hides worth £1 at Wokefield in Berkshire was acquired by Walter son of Other, 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 Eu, 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 Matilda. He may have held the lost vill of Hiwes from William of Eu, which follows Thornton and Bradford, the scribe perhaps omitting an 'also'; and he is probably the William who held Swyre and possibly also 'Tarrant' from William. 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 Horsey, 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 sheriff 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 Warwick is probably William Bonvallet, whose house in Warwick may be the one referred to in this entry. He is may also be the William who held Harbury from Thorkil, a vill in which he held in chief. He was a tenant-in-chief one waste manor in Leicestershire and of the valuable manor of Simpson in Buckinghamshire, 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 Tosny, is probably the brother of Ilbert son of Turold, who held Dinedor with his brother Ilbert from Ralph. 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 Gernon, is probably William de Alno, his tenant on nine manors in Suffolk. 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 Fryerning, 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 Lacy 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 Street 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 Grendon, 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 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 fief and at Woodwalton in Huntingdonshire. 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 Herefordshire, is evidently Earl William, alias William son of Osbern, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* GOULAFRE *]. The Williams who held two manors at Gissing in Norfolk from Robert Malet 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 Robert, 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 Berkshire, 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 Wiltshire, 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 Bec and Great Glen in Leicestershire from Hugh of Grandmesnil 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 Leicestershire and Ladbroke in Warwickshire from Hugh of Grandmesnil, in which case he may also have held tenancies in Ladbroke from the Count of Meulan and Thorkil of Warwick. 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. 26333, 28366) or, in the case of one of the Ladbroke manors, 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 Dorset, three of four in Somerset and two of the six in Wiltshire, 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 Buckinghamshire, and the tenant of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury at Alstonfield and its dependencies in Staffordshire, 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 chief; 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 tenants. Finally, since the bishop had only two lay tenants on his fief, both named William, it is likely he is the tenant at Tarvin: 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 *]. Malet, 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 estates; he is the only possible W Malet in Domesday Book; and he held land in England before 1066, a characteristic sufficiently uncommon among his namesakes to identify him as the William who preceded Roger of Poitou at Elsham and its dependency in Lincolnshire, and Alfred of Lincoln at Linwood, Rasen and Rothwell in the same county. 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 Alkborough 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 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 1086. 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 Searby. 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 Berkshire 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 Leigh, 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 Mauditt. 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 Eu, 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 Berkshire and Marlborough in Wiltshire, 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 bishops of Thetford. Elsewhere, Bishop W may be identified by association with other bishops of the see. 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 manor. 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 Hundred. 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 Bosc, though Ranulf had a Walter at Yeldham. The one other William on Ranulf's Honour, at Stagenhoe in Hertfordshire, 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 Buckinghamshire, South Croxton and Stathern in Leicestershire and Tallington in Lincolnshire 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 Guerche, 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 Leicestershire, 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 manors, named in full on four other Bigot manors in East Anglia. He also occurs as W of Bourneville at Gislingham and as a subtenant of Isaac at Redles. The byname does not occur 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 Bouville, 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'. He held several other manors in the county from Geoffrey under one of his aliases, as Saswalo's son, or 'of Bouville', his byname as a tenant of the bishop of Bayeux. He may also be the William who held the manors of Dunmow, Roding and Shellow Bowells in Dunmow Hundred in Essex from William, and possibly also Ardleigh, 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 1130. 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 entry. William of Caen held Thrandeston from Roger. 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 Bradenham, may be William of Cailly, named as a Warenne tenant at Trumpington in Cambridgeshire 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 Norfolk 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF CHERNET *]. The identity of the William who held South Charford and Clatinges from Hugh of Port is established by the claim of William of Chernet for 2 1/2 virgates which he alleged belonged to his manor in South Charford. Clatinges was held by the same William, both duplicated later in the fief. He is probably the William Orenet - presumably a scribal error - who held land from Hugh at Milton in the New Forest. According to Exon., his name was William Chernet - without the particle - a tenant of the wife of Hugh son of Grip in Dorset. 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 entry. 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 Somerset). 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 abbey, 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 Berkshire 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 text, 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 county, 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 Birchgrove 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 Sperchedene, 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 Dorset 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 Devon and Bickenhall in Somerset, and he probably held Knighton and Hooke in Dorset and Poyntinton in Somerset 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 Bhompston.

.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF LETCHWORTH *]. The Williams who held ten of the thirteen manors on the fief of Robert Gernon in Hertfordshire 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 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., is very probably William of Mohun, who held a number of other royal manors according to Domesday Book or Exon.. He may be the William the sheriff who accounted for the royal revenue of Cheddar in 1086, 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 Dorset, 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 Dorset, 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 Norfolk 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 bishop, 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 bishop, 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 Valognes, can only be William of Parthenay, responsible for annexing a group of manors in Suffolk belonging to Bury St Edmunds; 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 Shernborne; 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 Book, so there had presumably been some re-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 Chester, is almost certainly William of Percy, his tenant at Whitby 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 wife. 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 Lincoln 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 Pomeroy are very probably William of Poitou, his tenant at Ogwell according to Exon., 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 Guerche - 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-Hard. 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* OF ROLLESTON *]. William, who held Sinfin in Derbyshire from Henry of Ferrers, is probably the William of Rolleston 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 Staffordshire, 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 Lacy 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 Conquest 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 Yeadon, eleven miles from Keighley.

.............................................................................................................................................
[* WILLIAM OF *] VATTEVILLE. W of Vatteville, tenant of William of Warenne at Roding in Essex, 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 Suffolk, 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 Lincolnshire, is almost certainly his tenant at Ulleskelf in Yorkshire, 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 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 Winestead: 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 Norfolk and Suffolk, 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 manor. He is probably also the earl's tenant at Dawley in Shropshire. 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 Essex, is almost certainly William Peche, Richard's tenant on two manors in Suffolk, and very probably W Peche, tenant of Roger Bigot at Stoke Holy Cross in Norfolk. He was also a subtenant of Aubrey de Vere at Belchamp Walter in Essex and a householder in Colchester. 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 Peverel, 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 Bedfordshire, 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 registered. 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 Shield, 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 Berkshire and Bradenstoke and Clyffe Pypard in Wiltshire 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 Boselin, is probably his son. William son of Boselin had two houses in Northampton, and Boselin's son held land at Malling in Sussex, 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 father. William gave the half-hide he held in Alfriston to Lewes priory, and is 'probably' the tenant of Hailsham and Bowley in the same Hundred of Pevensey: 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).

.............................................................................................................................................
WILLIAM [* SON OF NIGEL *]. William, who held Pyrton in Oxfordshire and Barnetby-le-Wold and its dependencies in Lincolnshire 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 Chester 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 Halton, 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 Berkshire 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 Suffolk, 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 Dennis, 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 Speke, 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 Warenne, 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 Bedfordshire, 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 1066 is very likely William son of Skialdvarth, who held Sutton-on-Trent across the river at the same date, 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 Bigot. 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 Nottinghamshire. 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 Berkshire, Bradwell in Buckinghamshire, and Chesterton, Henton, Adwell and Britwell Salome in Oxfordshire from Miles Crispin are probably William son of Turold, alias as William of Sulham, Miles' tenant at Beddington in Surrey: 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 Northamptonshire, 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 Bedfordshire, 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 Berkshire, 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 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 Arundel, 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 Hundred, 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 Bully 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 Devon 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 Norfolk and another in Suffolk 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 Dorset. 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 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 sheriff 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 Norfolk. 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 him; 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 Turvey, 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 Oxfordshire and Rasen in Lincolnshire 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 Newton. 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 Aby 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 Hertfordshire 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 Swallow, eight miles from Grainsby, since this 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 Tallboys, whose manors of Old Clee and 'Thrunscoe' are slightly closer to Grainsby than Swallow, while Wyham and North Ormsby 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 Oxfordshire. 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 Berkshire are ten and eight miles respectively from Black Bourton, while the tenant of Haimo the sheriff at Ongar in Essex 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 Abingdon 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 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 Colchester, 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' from his one manor - Hanslope - in that county which was subsequently the head of his barony: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 50-51. He is probably the Winemar with a small fief in Northamptonshire, 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 Neston: Farrer, Honors, i. 36. The Northamptonshire Survey identifies him as the tenant of Walter of Flanders at Wootton, of Countess Judith at Denton, Preston Deanery, Quinton and Wootton, and of the bishop of Coutances at Hackelton and Preston Deanery, 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 Rothersthorpe and of Gunfrid of Chocques at Knuston; 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 Northampton, 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 Falaise, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WINEMAR <OF TUDDENHAM>. Winemar, who held a half-carucate worth ten shillings from William of Warenne at Tuddenham in Norfolk, 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 Devon 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 Norfolk and probably therefore the same man, who may also be the seventh Withri, a man of Earl Harold at Woodbastwick, roughly twenty miles south of the Bigot manors. Roger's predecessor had a substantial manor at Hanworth 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 Cambridgeshire 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 Yorkshire and Hickling, Somerton and Ingham in Norfolk 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 manors. 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 Bylaugh, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WUDIA <OF FENTON>. The name Wudia occurs twice, once as a predecessor of Henry of Ferrers on a modest shared manor at 'Fenton' in Derbyshire, and once on a waste holding left in the hands of the king at Stanshope in Staffordshire, 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 Brittany, 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 1086. 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 Warenne 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 Dunmow. 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 Grandmesnil, 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 Baldric, 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 Claims as holding Appleton Roebuck 'and all the other lands with exemption'; but he is not recorded at Appleton itself or anywhere else on Osbern's fief. Another claim, 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'. The four manors are recorded on Ilbert's fief, 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 1086, 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 Mandeville, 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 Ferrers and Ralph of Buron 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 Rhuddlan, 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 county, 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 Lancashire 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
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 Conqueror. 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 Monxton: '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 Beteslau, and might have added that she was probably the Wulfeva succeeded by the Countess at Kingweston in Somerset and by her husband at Loxton, both also valuable.
	One of Wulfeva's more valuable Hampshire manors, at Sherborne, was acquired by Hugh of Port, who also obtained a comparable manor from a Wulfeva in Berkshire. If, as seems likely, this is Wulfeva is Wulfeva Beteslau, then she may also be the Wulfeva at Bagnor, 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 Wulfeva. The two remaining manors of Wulfeva in the county, at Garsdon and Tytherton, 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 Devon and Bedfordshire 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 Somerset rather than Wulfeva Beteslau. She cannot be both because Beteslau was dead before 1086. Professor Meyer also suggests that the Wulfeva who held the valuable manor of Hamsey, plus Preston, in Sussex, 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-chief. 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 Shropshire: '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 Ilger, 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 Somerset from the bishop of Coutances. Of the remaining eleven manors - all in Devon - seven were acquired by the bishop of Coutances. The bishop also obtained Shelton in Bedfordshire from a Wulfeva; 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 Milton is a few miles from her manors at Buckland and Hartleigh, Clyst is an ecclesiastical holding of the type often acquired by local magnates, and Rawridge a substantial manor likely to have been held by such a magnate. Only the modest holding at Stoke, some distance from all the other properties, appears more likely to have belonged to another Wulfeva. Professor Meyer suggests that the 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 Falaise, 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 Malet, 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 Glemham, 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 Kelsale. Her share of the manor is reasonably substantial and there are some connections between Kelsale and Malet holdings, 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 Morston, 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 Cambridgeshire, 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 Preston and shared Pulverbatch with him in 1066. He may also be the Wulfgeat at Poynton, the only other Wulfgeat to hold land in the county in 1086, and the Wulfgeat whose manors were acquired by Reginald the sheriff and Roger son of Corbet, both of 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 Shirley, while Tissington, Swarkestone and Etwall are shared with a Gamal, 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 predecessors, 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 decades. 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 waste. The fifth, at Cheadle, 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 Hundreds, 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 Hundreds and 'perhaps' the tenant of Earl Hugh at Bartington, 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 Done, which cannot be many miles from Bartington, itself a couple of miles from Cogshall. Of the two remaining manors, Willaston is seven miles from Betley, the nearest of the Staffordshire manors, while Newbold is six miles from another, at Rushton. 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 manor. Wulfgeat's Staffordshire tenancies are 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 decades. 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 Dorset, Langley in Hampshire and Milford in Wiltshire 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 Dorset 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 Wiltshire. 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 adjacent, though Fenton 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 Bedfordshire were acquired by Azelina and her (probable) son-in-law, Hugh of Beauchamp. He is probably also the royal thane Wulfgeat who held Thurleigh, 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 manors were held by Eudo in 1086, 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 Ferrers 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 1066, 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 annexed is probably the king's reeve whose annexations are recorded elsewhere and who had charge of Bricett, another annexation, for the king, his identity suggested both by his activities and by his relationship with Roger Bigot, the sheriff, who had the heriot from his father and was his guarantor in annexing a free man to the royal manor of Bramford. 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 Peverel 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).

.............................................................................................................................................
WULFRIC <OF ASLOCKTON>. Wulfric, who held a bovate in Aslockton in Nottinghamshire from Ilbert of Lacy, is probably the Wulfric who held a bovate there from the king. 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 Derbyshire 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 away. 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 Staffordshire, 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 1066 may be Wulfric, who shared a manor at Woolley in Huntingdonshire with her in 1066, and another in that vill in both 1066 and 1086. 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 Dorset and Shalbourne and Britford in Wiltshire 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 Hampshire and Wiltshire are the same man, as perhaps are the Wulfrics at Godesmanescamp in Hampshire (HAM NF9,34) and at Swindon, Britford and 'Frustfield' in Wiltshire, where their predecessors are unnamed. Finally, he may be the Wulfric on the royal manor of Hinton in Dorset, 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 anonymous holdings in Hampshire and Dorset 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 Dorset 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 him. 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 Nottinghamshire 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 Nottinghamshire and Marr in Yorkshire 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>. The Wulfstans (Ultan, Ulstan) from whom William son of Ansculf acquired Orton, Himley and Pendeford in Staffordshire 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 Bradley, 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 Derbyshire 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 Mortain 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 Suffolk 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 abbey: Feudal documents, p 17. Bury had no other tenants of this name - though one predecessor - 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 Gloucestershire, Middlesex, Oxfordshire and probably Wiltshire, his predecessor was Arnulf of Hesdin, which makes it likely that he is the Wulfward who preceded Arnulf at Newbury in Berkshire and Toddington in Bedfordshire. 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 Wiltshire, 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 Domesday. 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 Kent; 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 Waldershare, also acquired by Bishop Odo.
	Another of Wulfward White's distinguishing characteristics is that he and his wife Edeva were dependants of Queen Edith, which enables him to be identified as the Wulfward who held land from her in the royal manor of Keynsham and at Addingrove and 'Shortley' in Buckinghamshire. He was also a thane of King Edward, so he may be the royal thane of that name at Stewkley and Shenley, 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 vill, and probably also the Wulfward at Milton Keynes, close to the manor at Shenley and adjacent to that of his son at Woughton, 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 lay: VCH Dorset, iii. 128. He may also be the Wulfgar White who leased twelve acres of meadow in the royal manor of Melcombe Horsey. In Lincolnshire, where he had full jurisdictional and market rights, he is probably the Wulfward who preceded Guy of Craon on the substantial manor of Butterwick, 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 Wiltshire, 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 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 Abbots. 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 Hormead 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 1086, 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 1066, who is named Wine in Exon., may be the Wine at Kilminorth, 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'Isle, 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WULFWIN <OF SUTTON>. Wulfwin, who preceded William the usher on a half-hide at Sutton in south Devon, 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 Courseulles are probably one man, who may also be the Wulfwin at Cheddon Fitzpaine and at Bray in Devon, 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 Devon, 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 Vere, 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 Cambridgeshire, Essex and Suffolk (35,1-2;5-7. 68,5. 76,21) were previously held by Wulfwin, with two minor exceptions, one a royal grant, the other where Wulfwin may be the unnamed overlord of the manorial lord. Aubrey held two manors in Huntingdonshire as a tenant-in-chief, previously held by an Aelfric from the abbey of Ramsey; 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 Babraham and Horseheath 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. 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 Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Somerset and Wiltshire 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 Buckinghamshire and Hinton Waldrist in Berkshire 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 Somerset. 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 Brayley. 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.

.............................................................................................................................................
WYNRIC [* OF PALENCES *]. 'It is highly probable' that Wynric (Wenric), who held the manors of Chilton in Berkshire and Sandford-on-Thames in Oxfordshire from Abingdon abbey 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 Gloucestershire and Sawbury Hill in Herefordshire, are probably Englishmen, not to be identified with the Abingdon tenant; and the Guerris of Middlesex and Norfolk 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 1066 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 Ferrers, 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 Norfolk, is apparently a lord without demesne land of his own. He has no links with other Ylvings, the nearest being almost 150 miles away.

.............................................................................................................................................

Abbreviations
ANS	Anglo-Norman Studies
EHR	English Historical Review
DNB	Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
Exon.	Liber Exoniensis (most relevant material is printed in the Phillimore edition)
Monasticon	Monasticon Anglicanum (edn. 1817-30)
Bates, Regesta	Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ed. David Bates
VCH	Victoria County History
Winton Domesday	Winchester in the early middle ages

Full titles of works cited in the notes
(numbers are pages numbers unless otherwise stated)

Abels, Richard. 'Introduction to the Bedfordshire Domesday', The Bedfordshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1991), 1-51.
Abels, Richard. 'Introduction to the Hertfordshire Domesday', The Hertfordshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1991), 1-36.
Abels, Richard P. 'Sheriffs, lord-seeking and the Norman settlement of the south-east midlands', ANS 19 (1997), 19-50.
Ancient charters, royal and private, prior to A.D. 1200, part 1, ed. J.H. Round, Pipe Roll Society, vol. 10 (1888).
Andrew Lowerre, Placing castles in the Conquest: landscape, lordship and local politics in the south-eastern Midlands, 1066-1100, BAR British series, 385 (2005).
Anglo-Saxons: studies presented to Cyril Roy Hart, ed. Simon Keynes and Alfred P. Smyth (2006).
Ballard, An eleventh-century inquisition of St Augustine's, Canterbury, British Academy Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, IV/ii (1920), i-xxvii, 1-33.
Barlow, Frank. Edward the Confessor (1970).
Barlow, Frank. The English Church, 1000-1066.
Baxter, Stephen. 'The death of Burghard and its context', in Frankland, pp. 266-84.
Baxter, Stephen. The earls of Mercia: lordship and power in late Anglo-Saxon England (2007).
Baxter, Stephen. 'The earls of Mercia and their commended men in the mid eleventh century', ANS 23 (2001), 23-46.
Beauchamp cartulary charters, 1100-1268, ed. Emma Mason, Pipe Roll Society 81, new series, 43 (1980).
Blair, John. The Church in Anglo-Saxon society (2005).
Boarstall cartulary, ed. H.E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society, vol. 88 (1930).
Book of Fees: Liber Feodorum. The Book of Fees commonly called Testa de Neville, reformed from the earliest manuscripts, by the Deputy Keeper of the Records, 3 vols. (1920-31).
Boyle, J.R. 'Who was Edeva?', Transactions of the East Riding Antiquarian Society, 4 (1906), 11-22.
Brett, M. The English Church under Henry I (1975).
British History online (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/).
Burton cartulary: an abstract of the contents, ed. G. Wrottesley, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, v/i (1884), 1-101.
Camden, William. Britannia: a chronological description of Great Britain and Ireland, translated by Edmund Gibson, 2 volumes (1695).
Calendar of documents preserved in France illustrative of the history of Great Britain and Ireland, i: 918-1206, ed. J.H. Round (1899).
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem and other analogous documents in the Public Record Office (Henry III-Richard III) 15 vols. (1904-70).
Campbell, James. 'Some agents and agencies of the late Anglo-Saxon state', in Domesday Studies, 201-18.
Carmen de Hastingae proelio of Guy bishop of Amiens, ed. Frank Barlow, Oxford Medieval Texts (1999).
Cartularium prioratus de Colne, ed. J.L. Fisher, Essex Archaeological Society, Occasional Publications, 1 (1946).
Cartulary of Blyth priory, ed. R.T. Timson (1973).
Cartulary of St Mark's hospital, Bristol, ed. C.D. Ross, Bristol Record Society 21 (1959).
Cartulary of the Cistercian abbey of Old Wardon, Bedfordshire, ed. G.H. Fowler, Bedfordshire Historical Society (1931).
Cartulary of Oseney abbey, ed. H.E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society, 89-91, 97-98, 101, 6 vols. (1929-36).
Cartulary of Ramsey abbey, ed. W.H. Hart and P.A. Lyons, 3 vols., Rolls Series 79 (1884-93).
Cartulary of Shrewsbury abbey, ed. Una Rees, 2 volumes (1975).
Cartulary of Tutbury priory, ed. A. Saltman (1962).
Charters of Abingdon abbey, ed. S.E. Kelly, Anglo-Saxon Charters, vii-viii, 2 vols. (2000-2001).
Charters of the Anglo-Norman earls of Chester, c. 1071-1237, ed. Geoffrey Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, vol. 126 (1988).
Charters of the Honour of Mowbray, 1107-1191, ed. D.E. Greenway (1972).
Charters of the Redvers family and the earldom of Devon, 1090-1217, ed. Robert Bearman, Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series, 37, (1994).
Chartulary of the high church of Chichester, ed. W.D. Peckham, Sussex Record Society, 46 (1946);; 40 (1935).
Chartulary of the priory of St. Pancras of Lewes, ed. L.F. Salzman, 2 parts, Sussex Record Society, 38 (1933); 40 (1935).
Chetwynd, Walter. 'Collections for a history of Pirehill Hundred', ed. Frederick Parker in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, 2 vols. new series, xii (1909), 1-273; republished on CD-ROM by Midlands Historical Data (2005).
Chronicle of Battle abbey, ed. Eleanor Searle (1980).
Chronicle of John of Oxenede, ed. Henry Ellis, Rolls Series 13 (1859).
Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. R.R. Darlington and P. McGurk, vols. 2-3 (1995-98).
Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis (c. 924-1200), ed. W.D. Macray, Rolls Series 83 (1886).
Chronicon monasterii de Melsa, ed. E. A. Bond, 3 vols., Rolls Series 43 (1866-68).
Clay, C.T. 'The family of Amundeville', Lincolnshire Architectural and Archaeological Society Reports and Papers, new series 3/i (1945), 109-36.
Clay, C.T. 'The Keepership of the Old Palace of Westminster', EHR 59 (1944), 1-21.
Coel database system: continental origins of English landowners, 1066-1166, complied by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (2001).
Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, 18 vols. (1879-1897); republished on CD-ROM by Midlands Historical Data (2005).
Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and United Kingdom, extant, extinct or dormant. Compiled by G.E. Cokayne; new edition edited by Vicary Gibbs and other, 12 volumes in thirteen parts (1910-59).
Crouch, David. The Beaumont twins: the roots and branches of power in the twelfth century (1986).
Crouch, David. 'Normans and Anglo-Normans: a divided aristocracy?', in England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, ed. David Bates and Anne Curry (1994), 51-67.
Crouch, David. 'The administration of the Norman earldom', in The earldom of Chester and its charters: a tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. A.T. Thacker, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 71 (1991), 69-95.
Darlington, R.R. 'Aethelwig, abbot of Evesham', EHR 48 (1933), 1-22, 177-98.
Davies, Robert. 'The horn of Ulphus', Journal of the Royal Archaeological Institute, 26 (1969), 1-11.
De obsessione Dunelmi, ed. Christopher J. Morris in: 'Marriage and murder in eleventh-century Northumbria: a study of De obsessione Dunelmi', Borthwick Paper, no. 82 (1992), 1-5.
Descriptive catalogue of the Derbyshire charters in the public and private libraries and muniment rooms, compiled by Isaac Herbert Jeayes (1906).
Devonshire Domesday and the Geld Inquest, ed. J.S. Amery and others, The Devonshire Association, 2 vols. (1884-92).
Dodgson, John McNeal. 'Some Domesday personal-names', Nomina, vol. 9 (1985), 41-51.
Dodwell, C.R. Anglo-Saxon art: a new perspective (1982).
Domesday Book, vol. iii, ed. Sir Henry Ellis, Record Commission (1816).
Domesday Book, ed. Elizabeth Hallam and David Bates (2001).
Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury, ed. David C. Douglas (1944).
Domesday studies: papers read at the Novocentenary conference of the Royal Historical Society and the Institute of British Geographers, Winchester, 1986, ed. J.C. Holt (1987).
Dugdale, Sir William. Monasticon Anglicanum, new edition by John Caley, Henry Ellis and Bulkeley Bandinel, 6 vols. in 8 (1817-30).
Earldom of Chester and its charters: a tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. A.T. Thacker, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 17 (1991).
Early charters of eastern England, ed. C.R. Hart (1966).
Early charters of Essex, ed. C.R. Hart (1971).
Early charters of northern England and the north Midlands, ed. C.R. Hart (1975).
Early charters of the west Midlands, ed. H.P.R. Finberg (second edition, 1972).
Early charters of Wessex, ed. H.P.R. Finberg (1964).
Early Buckinghamshire charters, ed. G.H. Fowler and J.G. Jenkins, Buckinghamshire Record Society 3 (1939).
Early Yorkshire charters, vols. 1-3, ed. W. Farrer (1914-16); vols. 4-12, ed. C.T. Clay, Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Record Series, Extra Series, vols. 1-10 (1935-65), vol. 4 being the index to the Farrer volumes, ed. C.T. Clay and E.M. Clay.
Early Yorkshire families, ed. C.T. Clay and D. Greenway. Yorkshire Archaeological Society 135 (1973).
Ekwall, The concise Oxford dictionary of English place-names, fourth edition (1960).
Electronic Sawyer (http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/esawyer.99/esawyer2.html).
Ellis, A.S. 'Biographical notes on the Yorkshire tenants named in Domesday Book', Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 5 (1879), 289-330.
Ellis, A.S. 'On the landholders of Gloucestershire named in Domesday Book', Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 4 (1879-80), 86-198.
English episcopal acta, x: Bath and Wells, 1061-1205, ed. Frances M.R. Ramsey (1995).
English, Barbara. The lords of Holderness, 1086-1260: a study in feudal society (1979).
Estate records of the Hotot family, in A Northamptonshire Miscellany, ed. Edmund King, Publications of the Northamptonshire Records Society 32 (1983), 1-58.
Eye priory cartulary and charters, ed. Vivien Brown, Suffolk Record Society, 2 vols. (1992; 1994).
Eynsham cartulary, vol. 1, ed. H.E. Salter, Oxford Historical Society, vol. 49 (1909).
Eyton, R.W. Antiquities of Shropshire, 12 vols. (1854-60).
Eyton, R.W. Domesday studies: analysis and digest of the Staffordshire survey (1881).
Eyton, R.W. Domesday studies: analysis and digest of the Somerset survey (according to the Exon. codex) and of the Somerset gheld inquest of A.D. 1084 as collated with Domesday, 2 vols. (1880).
Facsimiles of royal and other charters in the British Museum, i: William I-Richard I, ed. G.F. Warner and H.J. Ellis (1903).
Family trees and the roots of politics: the prosopography of Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (1997).
Farrer, William. 'An outline itinerary of Henry I', EHR 34 (1919), 303-82.
Farrer, William. 'Domesday survey of Lancashire, VCH Lancashire, vol. 1 (1906), 269-83.
Farrer, William. 'Domesday survey of Yorkshire', VCH Yorkshire, vol. 2 (1912), 133-89.
Farrer, William. 'Feudal baronage' [of Lancashire], VCH Lancashire, vol. 1 (1906), 291-376.
Farrer, William. Honors and knights' fees, 3 vols. (1923-1925).
Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300, 10 vols. (in progress), ed. Diana E. Greenway (1968-).
Fellows-Jensen, Gillian. 'On the identification of Domesday tenants in Lincolnshire', Nomina, vol. 9 (1985), 31-40.
Fellows-Jensen, Gillian. Scandinavian personal names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire (1968)
Feudal Aids: Inquisitions and assessments relating to feudal Aids, 1284-1431, 6 vols. (1899-1920).
Feudal documents from the abbey of Bury St Edmunds, ed. David C. Douglas, British Academy: Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, vol. 8 (1932; reprint 1981).
Fisher, J.L. 'Thurstan, son of Wine', Transactions of the Essex Archaeological Society, 30 (1940), 98-104.
Fleming, Robin. Kings and lords in Conquest England (1991).
Fletcher, Richard. Bloodfeud: murder and revenge in Anglo-Saxon England (2002).
Forssner, Continental-Germanic personal names in England in Old and Middle English times (1916).
Foulds, Trevor. 'The origins of the Hotot family', Northamptonshire Past and Present 7 (1983-84), 79-81.
Fowler, G.H. Bedfordshire in 1086: an analysis and synthesis of Domesday Book, Quarto memoirs of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society, 1 (1922).
Fowler, G.H. 'Some Saxon charters', Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society 5 (1920), 39-57.
Frankland: the Franks and the world of the early middle ages: essays in honour of Dame Jinty Nelson, ed. Paul Fouracre and David Ganz (2008).
Freeman, E.A. The history of the Norman Conquest of England, its causes and its results, vols. 1-2 (third edition, 1877), vols. 3-5 (second edition, 1875-76), vol. 6 (index, 1879).
Galbraith, V.H. 'An episcopal land-grant of 1085', EHR 175 (1929), 353-72.
Gale, Samuel. 'An historical dissertation upon the ancient Danish horn, kept in the Cathedral Church of York', Archaeologia, 1 (1770), 187-202.
Godfrey, John. 'The defeated Anglo-Saxons take service with the eastern emperor', ANS 1 (1979), 63-83, 207-209.
Golding, Brian. 'An introduction to the Hampshire Domesday', Hampshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1989), 1-27.
Golding, Brian. 'Robert of Mortain', ANS 13 (1991), 119-44.
Gordon, E. Eynsham abbey 1005-1228: a small window into a large room (1990). for St Albans charters.
Grassi, J.L. 'Lands and revenues of Edward the Confessor', EHR 117 (2002), 251-83.
Green, Judith A. English sheriffs to 1154 (1990).
Green, Judith A. 'Lords of the Norman Vexin', in War and government in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of J.O. Prestwich, ed. John Gillingham and J.C. Holt (1984), 46-61.
Green, Judith A. The government of England under Henry I, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought (1986).
Green, Judith A. Henry I: king of England and duke of Normandy (2006).
Haigh, D.H. 'On Yorkshire dials', Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 5 (1879), 134-222.
Harmer, F.E. Anglo-Saxon writs (1952).
Hart, C.R. The Danelaw (1992).
Hart, C.R. 'William Malet and his family', ANS 19 (1997), 123-65.
Heads of religious houses: England and Wales, 940-1216, ed. David Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke, Vera C.M. London (1972).
Hemingi cartularium ecclesiae Wigorniensis, edited by Thomas Hearne, 2 vols. (1723).
Henry of Pytchley's book of Fees, ed. W.T. Mellows, Northamptonshire Record Society, vol. 2 (1927).
Herefordshire Domesday, circa 1160-1170, edited by V.H. Galbraith and James Tait, Pipe Roll Society, 63 (1950).
Higham, N.J. 'The Cheshire landholdings of Earl Morcar in 1066', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 137 (1988), 139-47.
Higher clergy of the Church of England: Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066-1300, British History online (http://www.british-history.ac.uk/).
Historia Ecclesie Abbendonensis: the history of the Church of Abingdon, ed. John Hudson, 2 vols. (1863-1867).
Historia et cartularium monasterii sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W.H. Hart, 3 vols., Rolls Series 33 (1863-67).
Hollister, C. Warren. Monarchy, magnates and institutions in the Anglo-Norman world (1986).
Holt, J.C. 'The Carta of Richard de la Haye, 1166: a note on 'continuity' in Anglo-Norman feudalism', EHR 94 (1969), 289-97.
Hooper, Nicholas. 'An introduction to the Berkshire Domesday', The Berkshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams, and R.W.H. Erskine (1989), 1-30.
Hudson, John. 'The abbey of Abingdon, its chronicle and the Norman conquest', ANS 19 (1997), 181-202.
Hugh Candidus, Peterborough chronicle, ed. W.T. Mellows (1949).
Hutchins, J. History and antiquities of the county of Dorset. 3rd edition, ed. W. Shipp and J.W. Hodson, 4 vols. (1861-73).
Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton (1876).
Inquisitio Eliensis, in Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton (1876), 97-195.
Keats Rohan, K.S.B. 'Domesday Book and the Malets', Nottingham Medieval Studies 41 (1997), 13-51.
Keats Rohan, K.S.B. 'The making of Henry of Oxford: Englishmen in a Norman world', Oxoniensia, 54 (1989), 287-309.
Keats-Rohan, K.S.B. Domesday descendants: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066-1166, II: Pipe Rolls to Cartae Baronum (2002).
Keats-Rohan, K.S.B. Domesday people: a prosopography of persons occurring in English documents 1066-1166, I: Domesday Book (1999).
Keats-Rohan, K.S.B. 'The devolution of the Honour of Wallingford, 1066-1148', Oxoniensia 54 (1989), 311-18.
Kemble, John M. Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici, 6 vols. (1839-48).
Keynes, Simon. 'Giso, bishop of Wells (1061-88)', ANS 19 (1997), 203-71.
Keynes, Simon. 'A lost cartulary of St Albans abbey'', Anglo-Saxon England 22 (1993), 253-79.
Keynes, Simon. 'Regenbald the chancellor [sic]', ANS 10 (1988), 185-222.
King, Edmund. Peterborough abbey, 1086-1310: a study in the land market (1973).
King, Edmund, 'The Peterborough "Descriptio militum" (Henry I), EHR 84 (1969), 84-101.
Knowles, Dom David. The monastic order in England, 943-1216 (1950).
Lay subsidy of 1334, ed. Robin E. Glasscock (Records of Social and Economic History, new series, ii, 1975).
Leicestershire Survey, c. A.D. 1130, ed. C.F. Slade, Department of English Local History Occasional Papers, no. 7 (1956).
Lewis, C.P. 'Joining the dots: a methodology for identifying the English in Domesday Book', in Family trees and the roots of politics: the prosopography of Britain and France from the tenth to the twelfth century, ed. K.S.B. Keats-Rohan (1997), 69-88.
Lewis, C.P. 'The Domesday jurors', The Haskins Society, 5 (1993), 17-44.
Lewis, C.P. 'The earldom of Surrey and the date of Domesday Book', Historical Research, 63 (1990), 329-36.
Lewis, C.P. 'The early earls of Norman England', ANS 13 (1991), 207-23.
Lewis, C.P. 'The formation of the Honour of Chester, 1066-1100', in The earldom of Chester and its charters: a tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, ed. A.T. Thacker, Journal of the Chester Archaeological Society, 17 (1991), 37-68.
Lewis, C.P. 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest', ANS 17 (1995), 123-44.
Lewis, C.P. 'The King and Eye', EHR 104 (1989), 569-89.
Lewis, C.P. 'The Norman settlement of Herefordshire under William I', ANS 7 (1985), 195-203.
Lewis, C.P. 'An introduction to the Cheshire Domesday', The Cheshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1990), 1-25.
Lewis, C.P. 'An introduction to the Lancashire Domesday', The Lancashire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1991), 1-41.
Lewis, C.P. 'An introduction to the Shropshire Domesday', The Shropshire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1990), 1-27.
Lewis, C.P. 'Herbert the jerkin-maker', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire 131 (1982 for 1981), 159-60.
Liber Eliensis, ed. E.O. Blake, Camden third series, 92 (1962).
Liber Eliensis: a history of the Isle of Ely from the seventh century to the twelfth, trans. Janet Fairweather (2005).
Liber Landavensis, ed. W.J. Rees (1840).
Liber memorandum ecclesie de Bernewelle, ed. John W. Clark (1907).
Liber Niger Scaccarii Staffordscira, or feodary of A.D. 1166. ed. G. Wrottesley and R.W. Eyton, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, 1 (1880), 145-240.
Liebermann, F. 'An early English document of about 1080', Yorkshire Archaeological Journal, 18 (1905), 412-16.
Lindsey Survey, in Keats-Rohan, Domesday people, pp. 77-97; cited by page numbers.
Lindsey Survey, in The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, ed. C.W. Foster and Thomas Longley, Lincoln Record Society, 19 (1924, reprinted 1976), 237-260; cited by entry numbers.
Loud, Graham. 'An introduction to the Somerset Domesday', The Somerset Domesday, ed. Ann Williams, and R.W.H. Erskine (1989), 1-31
Loyd, Lewis C. The origins of some Anglo-Norman families, ed. C.T. Clay and David C. Douglas (1951).
Marten, Lucy. 'The rebellion of 1075 and its impact in East Anglia', in Medieval East Anglia, 168-82.
Mason, Emma. House of Godwine: the history of a dynasty (2004).
Mason, Emma. St Wulfstan of Worcester, c.1008-95 (1990).
Mason, J.F.A. 'Barons and their officials in the later eleventh century', ANS 13 (1991), 243-62.
Mason, J.F.A. 'Edric of Bayston', Transactions of the Shropshire Archaeological Society 55 (1954), 112-18.
Medieval East Anglia, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill (2005).
Meisel, Janet. Barons of the Welsh frontier: the Corbet, Pantulf and fitz Warin families, 1066-1272 (1980).
Meyer, Marc A. 'Women's estates in later Anglo-Saxon England', Haskins Society Journal, 3 (1991), 111-29.
Miller, Edward. The abbey and bishopric of Ely (1951).
Morland, Stephen C. Glastonbury, Domesday and related studies, Glastonbury Antiquarian Society (1991).
Morris, Christopher J. 'Marriage and murder in eleventh-century Northumbria: a study of De obsessione Dunelmi', Borthwick Paper, no. 82 (1992).
Morris, John. The age of Arthur: a history of the British Isles from 350 to 650 (1973).
Mortimer, Richard. 'The Baynards of Baynard's Castle', Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill, Christopher J. Holdsworth and Janet L. Nelson (1989), 241-53.
Mortimer, Richard. 'The beginnings of the Honour of Clare', ANS 3 (1981), 119-41, 220-21.
Newman, P.R. 'The Yorkshire Domesday Clamores and the 'lost fee' of William 'William Malet and his family', ANS 22 (2000), 261-77.
Nichols, J. History and antiquities of the county of Leicestershire, 4 vols. in 8 parts (1795-1811).
Northamptonshire Survey, in Keats Rohan, Domesday people, 98-117 [Latin text].
Northamptonshire Survey, VCH Northamptonshire, i. 357-89 [translation and identifications].
Oggins, Virginia Darrow and Robin S. 'Richard of Ilchester's inheritance: an extended family in twelfth-century England', Medieval Prosopography 12/1 (1991), 57-122.
Orderic Vitalis. The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. Marjorie Chibnall, 6 vols. (1969-80).
Orme, Nicholas. The saints of Cornwall (2000).
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, ed. H.G.C. Matthew and B. Harrison 61 vols.(2004); online at http://www.oxforddnb.com.
Page, R.I. 'How long did the Scandinavian language survive in England?', England before the Conquest: studies in primary sources presented to Dorothy Whitelock, ed. Peter Clemoes and Kathleen Hughes (1971), 165-81.
Palmer, J.J.N. 'Great Domesday on CD-ROM', Domesday Book, ed. Elizabeth Hallam and David Bates, 141-50, 213-15.
Palmer, J.J.N., 'The wealth of the secular aristocracy in 1086', ANS 22 (2001), 279-91.
PASE: Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (2005-); online at http://www.pase.ac.uk.
Pelteret, David A. Catalogue of English post-Conquest vernacular documents (1990).
Place-names of Derbyshire, ed. K. Cameron, English Place-Name Society, vols. 27-29 (1959).
Plea Rolls of the reign of Henry III, ed. G. Wrottesley, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, 4/i. (1888), 1-217.
Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England (2005-); online at http://www.pase.ac.uk.
Receuil des actes des ducs de Normandie de 911 à 1066, ed. Marie Faroux, Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, 36 (1961).
Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. Hubert Hall, 3 vols. (1896).
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154, i: Regesta Willelmi Conquestoris et Willelmi Rufi, 1066-1100, ed. H.W.C. Davis (1913); ii: Regesta Henrici primi, 1100-1135, ed. Charles Johnson and H.A. Cronne (1956); iii: Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathilis imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici ducum Normannorum, 1135-1154, ed. H.C. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (1968). Cited by document number.
Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: the Acta of William I (1066-1087), ed. David Bates (1998).
Reichel, O.J. 'Domesday survey of Devonshire', VCH Devon, vol. 1 (1906), 375-402.
Reichel, O.J. 'The feudal baronage', VCH Devon, vol. 1 (1906), 551-72.
Reichel, O.J. The Hundreds of Plympton and Ermington in early times, ed. F.B. Prideaux, Transactions of the Devonshire Association, Supplement 6 (1933), 245-332.
Reichel, O.J. The Hundred of Lifton in the time of Testa de Nevil, 1243, Transactions of the Devonshire Association 46 (1914), 185-219.
Reichel, O.J. 'Early descents of the manors in Wonford Hundred', Transactions of the Devonshire Association 44 (1912), 312-42.
Reynolds, Susan. 'Eadric silvaticus and the English resistance', Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 54 (1981), 102-105.
Robertson, Agnes J. Anglo-Saxon Charters (1939).
Roffe, The Inquest and the Book (2000).
Rotuli Hundredorum, Record Commission, 2 vols. (1812-1818).
Round, J.H. 'A Bachepuz charter', The Ancestor 12 (1905), 152-55.
Round, J.H. 'An early reference to Domesday', Domesday studies, ed. P.E. Dove, ii. 539-59.
Round, J.H. and L.F. Salzmann. 'Domesday survey of Sussex', VCH Sussex, vol. 1 (1905), 351-86.
Round, J.H. 'Bernard, the King's scribe', EHR 14 (1899), 417-30.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Bedfordshire', VCH Bedfordshire, vol. 1 (1904), 191-218.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Berkshire', VCH Berkshire, vol. 1 (1906), 285-323.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Buckinghamshire', VCH Buckinghamshire, vol. 1 (1905), 207-29.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Essex, VCH Essex, vol. 1 (1903), 333-425.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Hampshire', VCH Hampshire, vol. 1 (1900), 399-447
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Herefordshire', VCH Herefordshire, vol. 1 (1908), 263-307.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Hertfordshire', VCH Hertfordshire, vol. 1, edited by W. Page (1902), 263-99.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Northamptonshire', VCH Northamptonshire, vol. 1 (1902), 257-98.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Somerset', VCH Somerset, vol. 1 (1906), 383-432.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Surrey', VCH Surrey, vol. 1 (1902), 275-93.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Warwickshire', VCH Warwickshire, vol. 1 (1904), 269-98.
Round, J.H. 'Domesday survey of Worcestershire', VCH Worcestershire, vol. 1 (1901), 282-323.
Round, J.H. Feudal England: historical studies on the XIth and XIIth centuries (1895).
Round, J.H. 'Note on the Sussex Domesday', Sussex Archaeological Collections 44 (1901), 140-43.
Round, J.H. Peerage and pedigree: studies in peerage law and family history. 2 vols. (1910).
Round, J.H. 'Some early grants to Lewes priory', Sussex Archaeological Collections 40 (1896), 58-78.
Round, J.H. 'The early sheriffs of Norfolk', EHR 35 (1920), 481-96.
Round, J.H. 'The Essex Sackvilles', Archaeological Journal 64 (1907), 217.
Round, J.H. The king's sergeants (1911).
Round, J.H. 'The tenure of Draycote-under-Needwood', in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, new series, xi/i (1907), 1-10.
Rydeware chartulary, ed. I.H. Jeayes in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, xvi (1895), 257-302.
Saltman, L.F. 'Some Sussex Domesday tenants, i: Alvred pincerna and his descendants', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 57 (1915), 162-79.
Salzman, L.F. 'Some Sussex Domesday tenants, ii: The family of Dene', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 58 (1916), 171-89.
Salzman, L.F. 'Some Sussex Domesday tenants, iii: William de Cahagnes and the family of Keynes', Sussex Archaeological Collections, 63 (1922), 180-202.
Salzman, L.F. 'Some Sussex Domesday tenants, iv: The family of Chesney or Cheyney, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 65 (1924), 20-53.
Sanders, Ivor J. English baronies: a study of their origin and descent, 1086-1327 (1960).
Sawyer, Peter. Anglo-Saxon charters: an annotated list and bibliography (1968).
Sawyer, Peter H. and A.T. Thacker. 'Domesday survey of Cheshire', VCH Cheshire, vol. 1 (1987), 293-341.
Scott, F.S. 'Earl Waltheof of Northumbria', Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th series, 30 (1952), 149-215.
Searle, Eleanor. Lordship and community: Battle abbey and its Banlieu, 1066-1538 (1974).
Searle, Eleanor. 'Women and the succession at the Norman Conquest', ANS 3 (1981), 159-70, 226-29.
Sibton abbey cartularies, ed. Philippa Brown, Suffolk Record Society, 4 vols. (1985-88).
Slade, C.F. 'Domesday survey of Staffordshire', VCH Staffordshire, vol. 4 (1958), 1-36.
Smith, Mary Frances. 'Archbishop Stigand and the eye of the needle'. ANS 16 (1994), 199-219.
Soulsby, I.N. 'An introduction to the Cornwall Domesday', ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine, The Cornwall Domesday (1988), 1-17.
Stafford, Pauline. Queen Emma & Queen Edith: queenship and women's power in eleventh-century England (1997).
Staffordshire chartulary, ed. R.W. Eyton, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, 2/i (1881), 178-276.
Staffordshire Pipe Rolls (1130 & 1155-1189), ed. R.W. Eyton, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, first series, 1 (1880), 1-143.
Statham, S.P.H. 'Later descendants of Domesday holders of land in Derbyshire', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, new series, 2 (1926-27), 51-106, 233-328; 3 (1928-29), 48-70.
Statham, S.P.H. 'Notes on the Domesday tenants and under-tenants in Derbyshire', Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, new series, 1 (1924-25), 152-99.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Derbyshire', VCH Derbyshire, vol. 1 (1905), 293-326.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Leicestershire', VCH Leicestershire, vol. 1 (1907), 277-305.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Huntingdonshire', VCH Huntingdonshire, vol. 1 (1926), 315-36.
Stenton, F.M. 'Introduction to the Domesday survey of Lincolnshire', The Lincolnshire Domesday and the Lindsey Survey, edited by C.W. Foster and T. Longley (1924), ix-xlvi.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Nottinghamshire', VCH Nottinghamshire, vol. 1 (1906), 207-46.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Oxfordshire', VCH Oxfordshire, vol. 1 (1939), 373-95.
Stenton, F.M. 'Domesday survey of Rutland Domesday', VCH Rutland, vol. 1 (1908), 121-37.
Stenton, F.M. 'English families and the Norman Conquest', Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, fourth series 26 (1944), 1-12.
Stoke by Clare cartulary, ed. Christopher Harper-Bill and Richard Mortimer, 3 vols., Suffolk Charters, iv-vi (1982-84).
Survey of the county of York taken by John de Kirkby commonly called Kirkby's Inquest, ed. R.H. Skaife, Surtees Society, 49 (1867), 1-186.
Tait, James. Domesday survey of Cheshire, Chetham Society, new series 75 (1916).
Tait, James. 'Domesday survey of Shropshire, VCH Shropshire, vol. 1 (1908), 279-308.
Tait, James. Medieval Manchester and the beginnings of Lancashire (1904; reprinted 1972).
Taylor, C.S. An analysis of the Domesday survey of Gloucestershire, Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society (1889).
Taylor, Pamela. 'Clerkenwell and the religious foundations of Jordan de Bricett: a re-examination', Historical Research 63 (1990), 17-28.
Tengvik, Gösta. Old English bynames, Nomina Germanica 4 (1938)
Thomas of Marlborough: History of the abbey of Evesham, edited by Jane Sayers and Leslie Watkins (2003).
Thomas, Hugh M. The English and the Normans: ethnic hostility, assimilation and identity, 1066-c. 1220 (2003).
Thomas, Hugh M. 'A Yorkshire thegn and his descendants after the Conquest', Medieval Prosopography 8/1 (1987), 1-22.
Thompson, Kathleen. 'Monasteries and settlement in Norman Lancashire: unpublished charters of Roger the Poitevin', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 140 (1991), 201-25.
Thurgarton cartulary, ed. Trevor Foulds (1994).
Thoroton, Robert. The antiquities of Nottinghamshire, edited and enlarged by John Throsby, 3 vols. (1790-76).
Tsurushima, Hiro. 'Domesday interpreters', ANS 18 (1995), 201-22.
Two chartularies of the Augustinian priory of Bruton and the Cluniac priory of Montacute, ed. H.C. Maxwell Lyte and others, Somerset Record Society, vol. viii. (1894).
von Feilitzen, Olof. Pre-Conquest personal names of Domesday Book (1937).
Waltham chronicle, ed. L Watkiss and M. Chibnall, Oxford Medieval Texts (1994).
Walker, David. 'Charters of the earldom of Hereford, 1095-1201', Camden Society, 4th series, i (1964), 1-75.
Walker, David. ''The 'honours' of the earls of Hereford in the 12th century'. Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, 79 (1961), 174-211.
Walker, Ian W. Harold: the last Anglo-Saxon king (1997).
War and government in the Middle Ages: essays in honour of J.O. Prestwich, ed. John Gillingham and J.C. Holt (1984).
Whitelock, Dorothy. Anglo-Saxon wills (1930).
Whitelock, Dorothy. 'Scandinavian personal names in the Liber vitae of Thorney abbey', Saga-Book of the Viking Society, 12 (1937-45), 127-53.
Wightman, W.E. The Lacy family in England and Normandy, 1066-1194 (1966).
William of Malmesbury. Gesta regum Anglorum, Oxford Medieval Texts, 2 vols., ed. R.A.B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson, M. Winterbottom (1998-99).
Williams, Ann. 'A bell-house and a burh-geat: lordly residences in England before the Norman Conquest', Medieval Knighthood, 4 (1992), 221-40.
Williams, Ann. 'A west-country magnate of the eleventh century: the family, estates and patronage of Beorhtric son of Aelfgar', in Family trees, 41-68.
Williams, Ann. 'An introduction to the Gloucestershire Domesday', The Gloucestershire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams and R.W.H. Erskine (1989), 1-39.
Williams, Ann. 'An introduction to the Worcestershire Domesday', The Worcestershire Domesday, ed. Ann Williams, and R.W.H. Erskine (1988), 1-31.
Williams, Ann. 'Domesday survey of Dorset', VCH Dorset, iii. 1-60.
Williams, Ann. 'Land and power in the eleventh century: the estates of Harold Godwinson', ANS 3 (1981), 171-87, 230-34.
Williams, Ann. 'Little Domesday and the English: the Hundred of Colneis in Suffolk', Domesday Book, ed. Elizabeth Hallam and David Bates (2001), 103-20, 208-10.
Williams, Ann. 'Lost worlds: Kentish society in the eleventh century', Medieval Prosopography, xx (1999), 51-74.
Williams, Ann. 'Meet the antecessores: lords and land in eleventh-century Suffolk', in The Anglo-Saxons: studies presented to Cyril Roy Hart, ed. Simon Keynes and Alfred P. Smyth (2006), 275-87.
Williams, Ann. The English and the Norman Conquest (1995).
Williams, Ann. 'The king's nephew': the family and career of Ralph, earl of Hereford', Studies in medieval history presented to R. Allen Brown, ed. C. Harper-Bill, C.J. Holdsworth and J.L. Nelson (1989), 327-43.
Williams, Ann. 'The knights of Shaftesbury abbey', ANS 8 (1986), 214-42.
Williams, Ann. 'The spoliation of Worcester', ANS 19 (1996), 382-408.
Williams, Ann. 'A vice-comital family in pre-Conquest Warwickshire', ANS 11 (1989), 279-95.
Williams, Ann. World before Domesday (2008).
Winchester in the early middle ages : an edition and discussion of the Winton Domesday, ed. Martin Biddle, Winchester studies 1 (1976).
Wrottesley, Major-General George. History of the family of Wrottesley, in Collections for a history of Staffordshire, ed. William Salt Archaeological Society, second series, vi/ii (1903), 1-405.

July 2010