NOTES
(version 1a)

HUNTINGDONSHIRE. On folio 203ab the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title HUNTEDUNSCIRE. in vermilion capitals across the top of the page, centred above both columns. He abbreviated this to HUNTED'SCIRE. on folios 203cd–207cd. No running titles appear on folio 208 which contains the 'Declarations', perhaps by mistake. See {Domesday Book: Rubrication}.
	When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon letters thorn (þ) and eth (ð) are reproduced as th.

B1	[* 'HURSTINGSTONE' HUNDRED *]. The borough formed a quarter of 'Hurstingstone' Hundred (B15).
	HUNTINGDON. The first secure mention of Huntingdon is in 917 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but a settlement would naturally have arisen much earlier at the northern end of the bridge where Ermine Street crosses the River Ouse: see {Introduction: History}. The Roman fort of Godmanchester (1,10) lay just south of the river and a number of important roads converge on the bridge. There had been a mint T.R.E. (B15) and a castle T.R.W. (B4); there must also have been a market. The principal church was St Mary's, a superior establishment and probably once a minster; see 19,9 St Mary's note and {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. The town was considerably smaller than its fortifications, and there was room for agriculture within the walls (B18). The revenue of the borough had been divided between the king and the earl in 1066. It remained a royal borough into the Middle Ages: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 471. In 1086 a number of others had messuages, houses or burgesses in the borough: Ramsey Abbey (HUN 6); Gilbert of Ghent (HUN 21), Ely Abbey (HUN 4), the Bishop of Lincoln (HUN 2), Countess Judith (HUN 20), and the Bishop of Coutances (HUN 3). These were probably attached to particular rural manors and in some counties would have been scheduled with them. On the topography of the town, see Ladds, 'Borough of Huntingdon'; Hart, 'St Mary of Huntingdon', p. 106; Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 19. In general, see VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 121-23; Tait, Medieval English Borough, p. 127.
	FOUR QUARTERS. The mansiones and burgenses ('messuages' and 'burgesses') and other details in two quarters are described in B1-8, then those in the other two from B9 onwards, apparently to B13 (B14 borough note). The beginning of the description of each pair is indicated in the manuscript by a large, rubricated I for In. Entries B15-20 concern the revenues from the whole borough; again the distinction is clearly indicated in the manuscript by the use of an enlarged and rubricated H for Huntedun. B21 is an addition (B21 section note).
		The function of the quarters is unclear, but they were probably akin to wards in other boroughs: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 337; Tait, Medieval English Borough, p. 60, n. 3.
	100 SMALLHOLDERS. These men evidently do not hold the property that would classify them as burgesses and render them liable to specific obligations. They are probably tenants of the burgesses, perhaps renting the 2 carucates, 40 acres of land and 10 acres of meadow mentioned in B18. Thus the rural classification though unexpected is apposite here but it defines status as well as activity.
	ST BENEDICT'S OF RAMSEY. The Ramsey estate extended into the parishes of St Andrew, St Edward, and St John: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 146, ii. p. 137); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 226, 246, 281 nos. 1585, 1686, 1861; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 140; Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 21.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. The Latin cum saca 7 soca is from Old English sacu ('cause', 'affair', 'matter in dispute') and socn (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of saca in the phrase implies one particular meaning of soca. Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to investigate and hear cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and justice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *] TOOK THEM FROM THE ABBEY. On the identification of Eustace as the sheriff, see B10 Eustace note. Elsewhere in the county, Eustace the sheriff appears to be rapacious for himself; see B10 Eustace note. Here, he appears to be working on the king's behalf. The implication of the statement 'they only paid tax before 1066' is that they no longer paid it, but that it was due: the king's tax (if that is what is meant) was usually not included in any privileges or remissions given with the burgesses (B2; B9). In B9, which begins the description of the second half of the borough, St Benedict's has burgesses with whom Eustace has not interfered, perhaps because they continue to pay the king's tax.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 175 no. 817.
		The Domesday forms of the name Eustace - Eustachi(us), Eustaci(us), Eustach(ius) etc. - represent the Greek Eustakhus, Latin Eustatius ('faithful'), the name taken by the Roman Placidus (martyred 118): Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Eustache; Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Eustace.
	WITH THE OTHERS. That is, they now pay 'all customary dues and the king's tax' like the other 106 burgesses, from whom they had once been different, because subject to Ramsey Abbey and because they had stopped paying the (king's) tax.
B2	ULF FENMAN. Ulf was the predecessor of Gilbert at Fenstanton (21,1), his only manor in Huntingdonshire, to which these burgesses were probably appurtenant; see 21,1 Ulf note.
		The Domesday forms of his first name - Vlf(us), Olf(us), Wlf etc. - represent Old Norse Ulfr, Old Danish Ulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 400-401. Ulfr appears in the Phillimore printed translations for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, but has been standardized now as Ulf. The Alecto edition has Ulf.
		His byname fenisc probably means ‘Fenish’ rather than ‘from Fjón’(= Funen, a Danish island) or ‘the niggard’, as suggested in the review by Jón Stefánsson of Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und frühmittelenglischer Zeit, in English Historical Review, 25 (1910), p. 594. 'Fenman' may imply more than ‘from the fens’. A possibility is that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage.
	GILBERT OF GHENT. The Domesday form of his first name, Gislebertus (often abbreviated as Gisleb't'), represents Old German Gisilbert, Gislebert, Gillebert, Gilbert, Old French Gislebert, Gil(l)ebert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 115-16. The Alecto edition has Gilbert. See HUN 21 Gilbert note.
B3	ABBOT OF ELY. For the fief of Ely Abbey, see HUN 4.
	PLOT. Latin tofta, ultimately from Old Norse topf, means 'a homestead', that is, a plot of land with space for a house or farm, and its outbuildings.
B4	BISHOP OF LINCOLN HAD. See 2,1 bishop note.
	MESSUAGE. The Phillimore printed translation has 'residence'. The Latin is mansione[m]; mansio is difficult to differentiate in meaning from ma[n]sura. Because of its occasional association with domus ('house', 'dwelling') mansio is clearly more than a house; it is probably a house-site, that is, a messuage, which might contain one or more dwellings. In Nottingham, for example, Roger of Bully has 3 mansiones in which there are 11 houses (NTT B8); see also B5 messuage note. The Alecto edition has 'messuage'.
	CASTLE SITE. The castle was established here in 1068 by King William on his return from the north. Castles were constructed at Cambridge and Lincoln at the same time: Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesistical History (Chibnall ii. pp. 218-19) has: Rex post haec in reversione sua Lincoliae, Huntendonae et Grantebruge castra locavit et tutelam eorum fortissimis viris commendavit ('After this [the surrender of York] the king, on his return journey, placed castles at Lincoln, Huntingdon and Cambridge and entrusted their protection to the bravest men'); see 'Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 601; King, Castellarium Anglicanum, i. p. 224.
	IT IS NOT THERE NOW. This messuage might be additional to, but was more probably included in, the 20 messuages mentioned in B6 and B16. The clearance of houses for castle building is mentioned several times in Domesday Book; for example, in Wareham (DOR B3).
B5	EARL SIWARD. He was a Dane who was appointed Earl of Northumbria by King Cnut before 1033. Initially he ruled only in the southern part; the northern portion, between the River Tees and the Scottish border, being then ruled by earls descended from the kings of Bernicia. Following the murder of Earl Eadwulf (the last of these) in 1041 (on the orders of King Harthacnut and perhaps by Siward’s own hand) Siward ruled the whole of Northumbria. He seems to have extended his earldom to include lands formerly held by the British kings of Strathclyde. He was also Earl of Huntingdonshire and possibly of adjacent counties at some time. He was married to the daughter of Earl Ealdred of Northumbria and was father of Earl Waltheof. Earl Siward died in 1055. At the time of his death, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire went to Tosti, brother of Earl (later King) Harold. See {Introduction: History}.
		The Domesday form of his Christian name, Siuuard(us), represents Old Danish Sigwarth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 364. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Earl Siward.
	ONE MESSUAGE WITH A HOUSE. This makes a useful distinction between Latin mansio ('a messuage', 'plot of land for a house') which may or may not actually have a house on it, and domus, the house itself.
	COUNTESS JUDITH HAS IT. Countess Judith (HUN 20) was the wife of Earl Waltheof who was the son of Earl Siward. His house might have been attached to Diddington (20,9) the only one of Judith's manors said to have been held by Earl Waltheof in 1066. See B14 for other houses held by Judith.
		The Domesday forms of the name Judith - Iudita, Iudit, Gudeta - represent the biblical name Judith, meaning 'Jewess' or 'woman from Judea'.
B6	16s 8d. Domesday Book uses the old English currency system which lasted for a thousand years until 1971. The pound contained 20 shillings, each of 12 pence, abbreviated respectively as £(ibrae), s(olidi) and d(enarii). The main scribe of Great Domesday often expressed sums above a shilling in pence (e.g., 16d in 29,2) and above a pound in shillings (e.g., 100s in 1,2).
	THEY ARE NOT THERE NOW. For other references to messuages formerly on the castle site, see B4 not there note and B16.
B7	UNOCCUPIED. Latin wastae, the normal sense in boroughs. When applied to agricultural land it is normally translated as 'waste', although 'unoccupied', 'uncultivated' is implied.
	QUARTERS. Ferlinga is here feminine; but masculine in B1 and B9 (JRM). However, the quae refers back to the mansiones.
B8	BEFORE 1066 WERE FULLY OCCUPIED. The difference between these eight messuages and the 60 messuages of B7 is that these appear not to be paying customary dues now.
		A strong contrast is made between the wastae of B7 and the plenariae (from Latin plenus, 'full').
B9	OTHER TWO QUARTERS. The description of the borough now turns to the other half and is similar in outline to the first half (B1 quarters note).
	[WITH AS MANY HOUSES]. This insertion is needed as the Latin jumps from 140 burgesses to ½ house, presumably another instance of the scribe's over-zealous abbreviation of his source.
	CLOSES. Latin hagas, from Anglo-Saxon haga, a 'haw' or piece of enclosed land, especially in a town or city; see Dictionary of Medieval Latin, under haga (1). The Phillimore printed translation had 'sites'.
	22 BURGESSES. Farley xxii; manuscript, xx ii, filled in later, in darker ink, leaving space for an additional x. The number is detailed below as 2 and 30 (JRM).
B10	AELFRIC THE SHERIFF. Green (English Sheriffs, p. 48) says he is 'presumably to be identified' with Aluric (Aelfric) son of Godric, sheriff of Cambridgeshire before 1086 (CAM B14). In CAM B14 Aelfric note he is identified as sheriff of that county before 1066, though the text is not so explicit. See {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Aluric(us), Alebric, Aeluric(us), Alfric(us), Alfriz, Aluuricus, Aelfric, Aluriz, Eluric(us), Alberic, Alebrix etc. - represent Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has Ælfric.
	A MESSUAGE. The Latin un' mans' can be expanded to unam mansionem or to unam mansuram, probably without a difference in meaning. The scribe seems only to have used mansio in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		It is possible that the dispossession is that of a house (domus) recorded in D2, where the wife and female claimant is called Leofeva and Eustace (see B10 Eustace note) is said to have given it to Oger of London. However, it is not certain that Leofeva was the wife of Aelfric the sheriff. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 175 no. 818.
	KING WILLIAM. See HUN 1 land note. The Domesday form of his name, Willelmus (often abbreviated to Will's), represents Old German Willihelm, Willehelm, Willelm, Romance Guill[i]elm: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note, and on Eustace the sheriff, see HUN 19 Eustace note.
		Although the name Eustace occurs several hundred times in Domesday Book, there are only three clearly identifiable individuals bearing that name: Count Eustace of Boulogne, Eustace the cleric (SUS 9,72), and Eustace the sheriff of Huntingdon, named Eustace the sheriff here (HUN 19) but Eustace of Huntingdon in the neighbouring counties of Cambridgeshire (CAM 30. 39,2), Northamptonshire (NTH 55), and Lincolnshire (LIN S4). Although Count Eustace had four holdings in Huntingdonshire (9,1-4), all were subinfeudated and the count appears to have had no active interest in the shire. This makes it likely that all other references to Eustace in Huntingdonshire are to Eustace the sheriff. If so, then in those vills where he held from the tenant-in-chief (5,2. 13,3-4. 20,4) he was probably exploiting the powers of his office to enjoy land of which he was not truly the subtenant. The other references to a Eustace are where alleged seizures or disputed titles are involved (B13. 2,2. 6,3;7-8. 20,3. D2;19), an all too common characteristic of references to sheriffs within their sheriffdoms. See also HUN B1 Eustace note and HUN 19 Eustace note..	It is also probable that the 'Eustace' with seven holdings in neighbouring Northamptonshire was Eustace the sheriff since five of these holdings are in vills in which he held in chief (NTH 6a,13;17;24;26. 35,15) and the remaining two (NTH 48,12. 56,46) are connected to manors in which he had an interest. Apart from one tiny holding in Sussex (SUS 12,17), all remaining references to a Eustace in Domesday Book are to Count Eustace, which makes the identification of the Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire Eustaces with the sheriff the more plausible. See also Round, Feudal England, pp. 167-68, 222-23 (JP).
		Eustace has been identified as Eustace of Abbeville (in the French département of Somme: arrondissement Abbeville) and some of his tenants as natives of the same region: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 197 (JP).
	AN IMPOVERISHED MAN. The meaning of the Latin is unclear. Pauper (‘poor’) is an adjective, and used substantivally generally means ‘a poor man'; it is not normally used in the sense of ‘deprived’ (as in the Phillimore printed translation). The idea that the claim was being made by some impoverished individual living with the sons’ mother, while they were not claiming, seems strange, but the alternative, with pauper meaning ‘an impoverished son’, would imply that only one son was claiming. The latter would be possible if he held in parage (jointly) and was claiming on behalf of his brothers, but for this the scribe could easily have put unus ex istis, pauper, cum matre reclamat (‘one of them, impoverished, claims it, with his mother’). It is very unlikely that by paup’ the scribe meant the plural pauperes, for this would mean two scribal errors: the omission of -es from paup’es and the use of the singular reclamat for the plural reclamant.
B12	BURGRED. Apparently the father of Autin of Huntingdon and the grandfather of Baldwin and Burred: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 169. On his being a priest, see 19,9.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Burred, Borred, Borret, Burgered, Borgeret, Burret, Burgret, Borgred, Borgret, Borgretus, Burgeret, Borgered, Borgaret, Bugered, Bughered, Burredus, Bored, Boret, Buered, Bueret etc. - represent Old English Burgræd: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 212. JRM preferred the second element -ed for the Old English -æd. The Alecto edition has Burgræd.
	THORKIL. On his being a priest, see 19,9. The Domesday forms of his name - Turchil, Torchil, Turchill(us), Turchetel, Torchetel, Turketel, Torchill[us], Torchel, Thurchill[us], Turchitil - represent Old Danish Thorkil, Old Norse Thorkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 394-95. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Thorkell, Thorketel and Thorketill (the last following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 309-11); these have now been standardized as Thorkil, although the presence in Domesday of a few -chetel and -ketel endings suggests that there might have been two forms of this name current then. The Alecto edition has Thorkil for T.R.E. holders, but both Thorkil and Turchil for 1086 holders.
	ONE CHURCH… WITH 2 HIDES OF LAND. The Church of St Mary. Eustace the sheriff's tenure was illegal, as gently suggested by the 'now' and by the fact that the burgesses continue their tie to the king by paying customary dues; see B10 Eustace note. For the series of transactions involving this church, which was probably the minster church of the borough, see 19,9 and D1. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 819.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. The meaning here appears to be that the priests had the church, the 2 hides and full jurisdiction over the burgesses and their houses; the punctuation of the Alecto edition implies that this phrase refers only to the burgesses. On the general sense of the phrase cum saca et soca, see B1 jurisdiction note.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. See 19,9. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
B13	BISHOP GEOFFREY [* OF COUTANCES *]. Bishop Geoffrey must be the Bishop of Coutances (there being no other Bishop Geoffrey in 1086). He had only one manor in Huntingdonshire, at Hargrave (3,1).
		The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - Goisfridus, Gosfridus, Gaufridus, Gaufridus, Gaosfridus etc. - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as Galfridus or Gaufridus and Goisfridus and Gosfridus' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Jeffray etc.). Goisfridus and Gosfridus represent Old German Gosfrid, Romance Josfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 125-26. Gaufridus apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as Gaufrid, Gautfred, Waldfrid, Walfrid: ibidem, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German God(e)frid (on whom, see ibidem, pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME Geffrey, from Old French Geuffroi, Jeufroi or Old French Jefroi (Reaney, ibidem). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', Index of Persons, p. ix.
	1 CHURCH AND 1 HOUSE OF THE ABOVE. That is, of the 32 burgesses held by Ramsey Abbey T.R.E. This claim does not appear in the Declarations (HUN D1-29).
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 820.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	AND THE SAME ST [BENEDICT'S] STILL CLAIMS THEM. In the Latin, it is the Saint, not the church who claims them. Grants are often made, for example, to 'Saint Cuthbert and the brothers worshipping God there'.
		The use of Latin adhuc ('still') implies that Bishop Geoffrey has prolonged Eustace's alienation.
B14	IN THIS BOROUGH. This entry is squeezed in, though apparently not inserted after the initial campaign. The scribe may have restarted here after a pause. By referring to the borough as a whole, rather than to the two quarters of B9-13, the scribe appears to have been uncertain whether the houses were in the first two quarters described (B1-8) or in the other two (B9-13). This may be the reason why he placed this entry at the end of both sections before he moved on to detailing the borough's revenues and taxes.
	"GOS" AND HUNEF <OF STUKELEY> HAD 16 HOUSES. There are three interlocking entries (B14. 20,3 and D3) which individually and collectively do not contain quite enough information for their elucidation. Here Gos and Hunef had 16 houses in the borough of Huntingdon which Countess Judith now has. In D3, apparently relating to the borough of Huntingdon, the jurors testify that the ‘land’ of Hunef and Gos was in King Edward’s hands in 1066 and they held from him, but that King William should have given it to Waltheof (Countess Judith’s husband). In Countess Judith’s fief a Hunneue had held 3 hides of taxable land in [Great] Stukeley (20,3). It seems probable that the 16 houses in Huntingdon were appurtenant to [Great] Stukeley (in later times this manor had a parcel of Huntingdon Borough called ‘Balwinshou’). Both the houses and the manor had also probably been held by Waltheof and then by Countess Judith, being only temporarily in King Edward’s hands in 1066. The undertenants would have been Gos and Hunef/Hunneue. If this is so, then the ‘land’ of D3 is really the ‘houses’ (i.e. ‘messuages’) of B14 and Hunef and Hunneue are the same person. However, they represent different names, Hunef being Old Norse Hunnefr, Old Swedish Hunæf, and Hunneue being Old English Hungifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 296. They were rendered as Hunef and Huneva respectively by JRM, who preferred the second element -eva for Old English -gifu, as it more closely followed the Domesday form. They appear as Hunæf and Hungifu in the Alecto edition. This need not undermine the interpretation suggested above, however, as similar name-forms were frequently confused during the Domesday process. See also 20,3 Hunef note.
		There are no other mentions in Domesday Book of the name-form Gos. It is not clear what name is represented by it; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 273, suggests a nick-name from Old English gos ('goose') or Old Norse Gauss or Old German Gauz, Gaus. In view of this uncertainty, it has been left in the Domesday form for the present edition; in the Phillimore printed edition and in the Alecto edition it occurs as Gos.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 821.
	MARKET RIGHTS. Thol 7 Them. Thol is a tax or duty on the importing or sale of goods; them is the right to compel someone, in whose hands lost or stolen property is found, to name the person from whom he received it. Together these represent the legal and fiscal arrangements for holding a market
	COUNTESS JUDITH. See HUN 20 Judith note and on the name Judith, see B5 Judith note.
B15	THIS ENTRY and the following ones (B16-20) concern the borough as a whole, rather than its quarters, concentrating on matters of revenue and tax.
	A FOURTH PART OF 'HURSTINGSTONE' HUNDRED. That is, it counts for 50 hides in the double hundred. Without this addition, 'Hurstingstone' Hundred would have amounted to 137 hides, though a notional figure for Ramsey (HUN 6 Ramsey note) would bring it up to 200 hides: Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 63; see {Introduction: Hundreds}. Other boroughs liberated from the Danes in the same campaign were also hidated: Bedford, 50 hides, Cambridge, 100 hides, and Shrewsbury 100 hides. These hides are a purely fiscal notion: Huntingdon yields the tax equivalent of 50 hides. The entry for the borough of Bedford specifically says: 'The land of this town was never hidated and is not now, except for 1 hide which lay in [the lands of] St Paul's church before 1086' (BDF B1). This is very similar to the situation in Huntingdon where the land was not hidated, except for 2 hides belonging to a church (B12). There was, however, agricultural land in or dependent on Huntingdon, but assessed in carucates (B18).
	MINT. The tax on the mint clearly replaces the tax on the 50 hides that constituted the borough, even though the minters, who paid 40 shillings, were no longer there (B19). 50 hides at the exceptional 6s to the hide (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version E, for 1084) would have yielded £15. A mint tax might have been less, but it would have been a standard, regular and predictable sum. There was an unspecified tax on the mint at Lincoln (LIN C3); Malmesbury (WIL B5) paid 100s; Nottingham (NTT B7) paid £10. In Essex, Colchester and Maldon jointly paid £20 (ESS B6), which was the same as the sum from Gloucester (GLS G1).
B16	LAND TRIBUTE. Landgable. This rent, paid on a house or tenement, was the basic source of a borough's income; see Tait, Medieval English Borough, pp. 90-91.
	THE EARL HAD THE THIRD PART. That is, Waltheof had the third penny, the king the other two. This two-thirds/one-third division was common, and is even recorded sometimes in counties that did not have an earl in 1086, as here. See {Third Penny}.
	OF THIS DUE. De hoc censu probably refers to the landgable just mentioned; census is a general word meaning 'amount', 'tribute', 'sum of money'.
	16s 8d. This works out at 10d per messuage as at Malmesbury (WIL M1).
	[SHARED] BETWEEN THE EARL AND THE KING. This probably refers to the situation in 1066: '(which were shared) between the earl and the king' (B16 third part note) or the division of revenue could be anachronistic as in B18.
	NOW REMAIN. That is, 'remain unpaid'. The first sentence of this entry refers to the situation in 1066, the second to 1086. The entry has probably been greatly abbreviated, and the main scribe of Great Domesday was perhaps struggling with his source or sources. He may also have misplaced the Latin nunc ('now') which may have described the castle (= 'where the castle is now'), rather than the apparent non-payment of the 16s 8d. The sense, as it stands, appears to be that T.R.E the revenue of £10 from the landgable was shared one-third/ two-thirds, and that, of this revenue, 16s 8d came from the 20 messuages and was shared on the same basis. However, these 20 messuages were demolished to make way for the castle and so do not (and cannot) render landgable. Thus the revenue is now £10 less 16s. 8d. This seems to anticipate a question about the non-payment by gently pointing out that it is impossible to have both a royal castle and the rent from the messuages that were on its site.
	20 MESSUAGES WHERE THE CASTLE IS. These messuages are described in B6.
B17	HE COULD. The Latin singular poterat and the absence of quisque ('each') suggest that this clause refers only to the earl. The king's sum of £20 seems to be guaranteed.
	ARRANGE. Latin locare, like its compound collocare here, are from locus ('place') and mean 'to place', 'to position', 'to lay out'. The words are used in a variety of non-technical contexts. However, even in Classical Latin, loco can mean 'to let out for hire' and colloco 'to put out on contract' (see Oxford Latin Dictionary, under loco 7b, and colloco 13) and it is possible that the meaning of the present phrase is 'let out at farm', 'put out at a revenue'; compare locant in B18.
B18	IN THIS BOROUGH. These carucates could have lain within the large circle of the borough's walls or adjacent.
	CARUCATES. Latin carrucat' was interlined above hidę by scribe B, who underlined hidę for deletion. This is his only contribution to Domesday Huntingdonshire. Elsewhere scribe B followed the lead of the main scribe of Great Domesday in spelling, but here he seems inadvertently to have retained the –rr- in carrucatae from his source. This spelling is common in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon) and in other 'satellite' texts such as the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis and 'Bath A'. Scribe B might also have been responsible for the erasure of several words after 'third [part]' here, though the main scribe also corrected in that line; see B18 divide note.
		The correction is significant. Huntingdonshire is assessed in hides and virgates, not carucates and bovates like the rest of circuit VI, and twice in this county the main scribe corrected himself by interlining hid' above car' (15,1. 17,1) and should also have done so in 29,6 (see 29,6 carucate note). However, this is not the carucate of the Danelaw, equivalent to the hide, but a measure of land that has not been hidated and so does not have the geld obligations associated with the hide. This measure occurs occasionally elsewhere, especially on royal land in the south-western counties; see DOR 2,6 carucates note. See also STS 1,5 carucate note. The borough pays tax for 50 hides (B15), but this is essentially a fiscal estimate rather than a measure of area of agricultural capacity. The use of carucates here seems intended to make the point that these are not themselves liable for tax, as hides are, though they do yield revenue in the form of rent.
	THEY DIVIDE. The construction is confused here. This is shown by the initial omission of censum and by the apparent abbreviation into one sentence of what had probably been two in the source. The king and the earl share the revenue, the king getting two parts and the earl the third. The erasure of several words after this sentence may have been caused by the editing process.
		The Latin verb partiuntur is deponent, therefore the meaning is active, not passive, as implied by the Phillimore printed translation ('is shared'); moreover the verb is plural.
	THE KING [HAVING] 2 PARTS AND THE EARL THE THIRD [PART]. The Latin tense of partiuntur (B18 divide note) is definitely present, as is the tense of locant in the next sentence (B18 officers of note). However, Waltheof had not been replaced as earl by 1086, so the division appears to be anachronistic or notional, unless Eustace the sheriff were receiving the payment in lieu.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 822.
	LEASE IT THROUGH THE OFFICERS. The Latin locant per ministros appears to mean that the burgesses rent this land from the king and earl via their officials. They may have sub-let it to the smallholders of B1. This is a more likely meaning than that they let the land to the smallholders using the officials as agents. The Latin locant is probably used in the same sense as colloco (B17 arrange note).
	OFFICERS OF THE KING AND THE EARL. The Latin present tense locant again implies that this refers to 1086, and is therefore anachronistic in referring to an earl; see B18 parts note.
	WITHIN THE SAID REVENUE ARE 3 FISHERMEN. This is a clumsy and probably over-abbreviated phrase, which means: 'within the said revenue are 3s from 3 fishermen'. They fished no doubt on the River Ouse.
		On the Latin census, see B16 due note.
B19	MONEYERS. Latin monetarii, from moneta ('money', 'mint'). These are men who fetch dies from London and mint coins in the borough.
B20	IT PAID. That is, the borough of Huntingdon. This would normally be the final statement in this section equivalent to the value statement in rural manors.
B21	THIS SECTION was inserted by the main scribe of Great Domesday, using a finer pen, in the large space left between the borough section and the list of landholders. It is an additional note, only related to the borough in so far as Huntingdon answered for a quarter of the tax of 'Hurstingstone' Hundred (B15). There is no recognized place in the layout of Great Domesday for general statements of this kind. Compare 7,7 entries note. It was undoubtedly found during one of the checks made of the sources used for this county (see B21 record note) and thought to contain useful information, so it was added by the main scribe in a convenient space. At the same time he made several other additions related to the content of this note: see 4,1 hundred note; 6,19 ploughs note. The lack of rubrication here on HERSTINGEST' and on the added hundred head in 4,1 imply that these additions were made during one of the last campaigns of work on the manuscript.
	THERE ARE LORDSHIP PLOUGHS EXEMPT. Latin car' here could conceivably abbreviate carucatae ('ploughlands') rather than carucae ('ploughs'), although the scribe generally distinguished carucates from ploughs by including t'rę ('of land') after car'. However, a plough is exempt only in the sense that the land it ploughs is free of tax, so the meaning is the same.
		The word order here, with an early sunt, seems to imply that in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred there are lordship ploughs which are exempt, and by implication some which are not, rather than that in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred (all) the ploughs are exempt, which is the interpretation of the Phillimore printed translation and the Alecto edition. In fact there are three entries in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred where there is no contrast made between taxable hides and exempt plough(land)s in lordship: Hartford (1,1), one of the two entries for Bluntisham (6,10), and Broughton (6,3). There are also references to lordship land separate from tax-paying hides in three entries in other hundreds: for Elton (6,13) and Alwalton (8,2), both in Normancross Hundred, and for Offord D'Arcy in Toseland Hundred (6,19; see 6,19 ploughs note). The scribe may have thought that similar information was to be included for Sawtry in Normancross Hundred (6,12) as he left a space there; see 6,12 ploughs note.
		Alwalton was held by Peterborough Abbey and Elton and Offord D'Arcy by Ramsey Abbey, but these exemptions do not seem to be specifically tied to religious houses. Although Ramsey Abbey and Ely Abbey dominated 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, the exemption also applied to Countess Judith's manor of Great Stukeley (20,3) in this hundred. In entries for other Huntingdonshire hundreds Domesday gives the taxable hidage, then the ploughland estimate (land for n ploughs), then the number of ploughs in lordship and those worked by the villagers. In entries in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred (apart from Hartford, Broughton and one of the two entries for Bluntisham), an additional phrase says 'apart from these hides, land for n ploughs in lordship'; this phrase is found sporadically in other counties, as in DOR 2,2. 8,1. OXF 6,6. BUK 3,1. It appears to be parallel to the carucatae non geldantes found in some of the south-western counties on royal and ecclesiastical land; see B18 carucates note. The implication is not entirely clear. Perhaps on other estates there was no lordship land especially demarcated, but the produce and revenue and the sowing and reaping of the estate was divided according to the ratio of lord's to villagers' ploughs. In 'Hurstingstone' Hundred there appears to be specific lordship ploughland; on other lordship land in Huntingdonshire, see {Introduction: Lordship Land}. It would be unwise to assume that new land has been created and exploited only on these manors, not all of which border the fen, or that arable has been created from meadow by drainage. In other hundreds of Huntingdonshire, the ploughlands often exceed the taxable hides. This is a re-assessment rather than an arable expansion, or it is a formalization of the difference between the hidage of an estate beneficially hidated and the actual land available for ploughing. As comparison with charters shows, the hidage had not been reduced at least since the tenth-century hidation, but the amount of arable within the hides has been reassessed or increased. In 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, a clear exemption was made by specifying the lordship plough(land)s. In this entry the present tense is used, referring to 1086, but in the individual entries it would seem to be T.R.E. and in the entries for Ely land in the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 167) it is always so. The arrangement presumably continued under King William. See Round in VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 322-23; Finn, Introduction to Domesday Book, pp. 260-61. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 823.
	THE RECORD. In view of the reference immediately after this to Broughton, this might be thought to refer to the hides actually listed in Domesday Huntingdonshire, the breui being the manuscript, though one might expect the main scribe to have written in hoc breui ('in this record') or used the plural in breuibus (since places in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred occur in several fiefs) or even inferius scriptas ('written below'). However, the villagers' hides are not normally recorded in Great Domesday, Middlesex being a notable exception, though they are in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon) and in the Inquisitio Eliensis and were probably in other 'satellite' texts, extant or not; the only mentions of specific holdings of Freemen are in the entries for Broughton (6,3) and Great Gidding (19,15). Brevis can mean a 'feudal return', but that meaning is unlikely here as the reference is to the arrangements for tax within a hundred ('Hurstingstone') rather than within a fief. It is perhaps more likely therefore that the brevis was some form of geld list: Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 3. There must have been a context in which it was clear what the word meant. The source of this added statement might thus have been a hundredally-arranged document, possibly like the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, and the reference to brevis may have been mechanically transferred into Great Domesday from a note (or notes) attached to it, drawing attention to the unusual taxation arrangements in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred; see B21 Broughton note. For brevis as 'the royal return', see Harvey, 'Domesday Book and Anglo-Norman Governance', p. 178.
	APART FROM [IN] BROUGHTON. The whole entry though disjointed seems to have been written by the main scribe without pausing; it is possible that it was written in stages in one of the documents that preceded Great Domesday Book. The first sentence and up to 'entered in the record' in the second sentence belong together as a general statement about exemption and payment in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred. The Latin ablative absolute excepta Broctone may have originated as a marginal note, next to 'In 'Hurstingstone' Hundred', in one of the documents that preceded Great Domesday, and this was incorporated in the text here rather than after 'In 'Hurstingstone' Hundred'; the use of a large E for excepta suggests that it once was not embedded in a sentence. The clause 'where the abbot pays tax with the others for 1 hide' may have been added to this putative note in a subsequent version. The result is a rather disjointed entry.
		The abbot's manor of Broughton amounted to 9 hides which included 5 hides belonging to Freemen (6,3; see also D4). Although the manor is in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, no exemption is mentioned, and this statement underlines the fact. The estate at Broughton which became head of the honour of Ramsey and where the abbot had his court was assembled piecemeal. This particular hide had a separate history. It had been given by King Edgar to Thorney Abbey, or intended for it, in 973: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 792 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 16, see p. 168) along with the two hides associated with the Church of St Mary in Huntingdon (19,9). It features in only one manuscript of the Thorney foundation grant so it is possible that it never reached the abbey, being retained by Bishop Aethelweald. Soon afterwards (975 x 979) it was obtained for Ramsey Abbey by its prior Eadnoth from Bishop Aethelweald in exchange for land at Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire, which he used to endow his foundation at Ely: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 233 no. 317; the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, pp. 74-75). After 1086, a writ of William II instructs that this hide should be held in lordship: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 281 no. 1860b. It later became known as Harley's Manor: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 159-61. For a full account of Broughton, see 6,3 Broughton note.
	ABBOT. The abbot here is the Abbot of Ramsey: 6,3 and D4 (JRM).
	WITH THE OTHERS. The abbot apparently paid tax like the other tax-payers of Broughton (6,3), notably the Freemen.
1	LAND OF THE KING. King William. He was born in 1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy 1035-1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25th December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders; she predeceased him. Among his children were Robert Curthose, William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by his son Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).
		Huntingdonshire was not dominated by royal land in 1086, though there was a concentration around the borough; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. There are traces of much-decayed multiple estates centred on Alconbury (1,6), Kimbolton (13,1) and on the Ortons (1,4; see 1,2 Botolph note), Great Paxton (20,8), Eynesbury (20,6. 28,1) and perhaps on 'Washingley' (29,1; see 1,3 Stilton note). For 'Kingston', see 6,4 Wistow note, and in general, see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
		All the major royal manors except Godmanchester (1,10) were being administered by Ranulf brother of Ilger in 1086 and several of those were subject to tenurial disputes. Ranulf was a tenant-in-chief (HUN 24) and is evidenced in the 1090s as sheriff, probably in direct succession to Eustace; see VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 5; Green, English Sheriffs, p. 48.
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	1,1 'Hurstingstone' Hundred
	1,2-4 Normancross Hundred
	1,5 Toseland Hundred
	1,6-9 'Leightonstone' Hundred
	1,10 [Toseland? Hundred]. [This final entry is out of sequence; see 1,10 Toseland note].
1,1	HARTFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It contained Kings Ripton (TL2676). Hartford was granted to St Mary's Priory of Huntingdon by Henry I: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 171. Kings Ripton was granted by the same king to Ramsey Abbey and remained with it until the Dissolution: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. p. 136); Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 300 no. 1960. Later, as probably in 1086, the Royal Forest of Sapley, named from the place at TL2474, was attached to it. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 340 note, ii. pp. 121, 172, 181-83, 230; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197, ii. p. 591.
	KING EDWARD. Edward the Confessor, King of England from June 1042 to 5th January 1066. The Domesday forms of his name - Eduuard(us), Eduardus, Eaduuardus, Edw[ardus], Euuard[us] etc. - represent Old English Eadweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- and the second element -ward for Old English -weard, as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edward has survived into modern times and the king is known as Edward. The Alecto edition also has Edward.
	RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. See HUN 24 Ranulf note. He was administering all the major royal manors except Godmanchester (1,10); see HUN 1 land note; {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
		The Domesday forms of Ranulf - Ranulf(us), Rannulf(us) - represent Old German Ran(n)ulf: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 211-12. The Alecto edition has Ranulph. The Domesday forms of his brother Ilger - Ilgerius, Ilgerus - represent Old German Hildeger, Hilger: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 162. In view of the absence of initial H in the Domesday forms, JRM decided on Ilger. The Alecto edition also has Ilger.
	2 CHURCHES. One was probably at Hartford, one at Kings Ripton.
	2 MILLS, £4. The £4 was the payment from the 2 mills; see B17. 2,8. Presumably in the interests of brevity, the scribe did not generally include reddens/reddentes ('paying', the present participle being translated in the Phillimore printed edition, as here, by 'which pays'/'which pay'). The Latin case of lib' is not clear, but was probably genitive (= '2 mills (at a value of = worth/paying) £4'), as occasionally elsewhere in Huntingdonshire (4,4. 6,4. 7,6. 9,3. 11,1. 19,12. 20,6. 28,1). In other counties in Great Domesday the scribe added de before the payment (for example, KEN 1,4: i. molin' de .xx. sol'), translated by 'at' in the Phillimore printed edition, as in this edition. The use of the comma for those instances where the Latin case of the currency is unclear preserves the ambiguity of the Latin. See {Mills}.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the Phillimore printed edition, this phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where silua is a noun and pastilis an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This is obvious when in DBY 1,13 he recorded silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also 1YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both pastilis and minuta are adjectives that describe the silua, literally 'woodland, pasturable and low-growing'. It is also evident where he noted different types of woodland as in 20,8 where he recorded silua pastilis ... 7 alia silua ... ('pasturable woodland ... other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable.
		Great Domesday does not make it clear whether the pasture had been created by assarting or whether the woodland was naturally open. This phrase is not a reference to the pannage of pigs, but essentially replaces the normal entry for woodland combining it with a mention of pasture (principally for the plough-oxen). In such cases, separate pasture is rarely mentioned, an exception being in DBY 6,32: iiii ac' pascuae. Silua pastilis dimidiam leugam longa et dimidiam lata. ('pasture, 4 acres. Pasturable woodland ½ league long and ½ wide'). In fact throughout Derbyshire, Huntingdonshire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Rutland and Yorkshire, the woodland normally provided the pasture as well. When this was not the case, the scribe tended to note it, as in DBY 1,28;30. 5,5. NTT 14,8. YKS 5N8. 5W5 (silua non pastilis) and YKS 23N10 (silua sine pastura). An apparent exception is 1,10: l acras siluae pastilis. De pastura xx solidi ('pasturable woodland, 50 acres. From pasture 20s.'). There, however, there was pasture that exceeded the requirements of the estate and which was a source of income presumably from another village or other villages that lacked this resource. There pastura is really 'pasturage' and the grazing could actually have taken place in the silua pastilis. In LIN 56,16 there is an interesting entry: Silua pastilis viii quarentinas longa 7 v lata: medietas pascuae alia medietas minutae siluae (' Pasturable woodland 8 furlongs long and 5 wide: half [consists] of pasture, the other half of underwood'); here alia ('another') seems to be used in place of altera ('the other') as not infrequently. The purpose of the final phrase seems to be to give the relative proportions of pasture and underwood. No doubt these resources were intermingled on the ground and this is really silua minuta 7 pastilis ('pasturable underwood'); if the underwood and pasture were in separate blocks, they would have been expressed as such. Woodland and open land are similarly intermixed at YKS 1Y2, though at Tupton and Norton in Derbyshire (DBY 1,8) they are separate resources. See 1,7 woodland note.
1,2	BOTOLPH BRIDGE. This was an Ancient Parish. It is named from a bridge across the River Nene that is no longer in existence (Place-names of Huntingdonshire, pp. xli, 194). For the dedication, see 19,9 Botuluesbrige note. These 5 hides were possibly the rump of a major royal manor (also incorporating the Ortons) that had once dominated the hundred but had since broken up; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. Its later history is unclear, though it was held by serjeanty in the thirteenth century: Book of Fees, p. 930; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 195.
	1 PLOUGH; 15 VILLAGERS. The punctuation seeks to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin (JRM).
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. The woodland would have been across the bridge. There was no royal land in the adjacent Northamptonshire hundred of Upton, which was almost entirely in the hands of Peterborough Abbey. Unless the king was exploiting the abbot's woods, this woodland may have been regarded as a detached part of the present manor. There are three references in Huntingdonshire to timber taken from the Abbot of Peterborough's woodland (7,5. 9,2. 19,8).
	RANULF ^[BROTHER OF ILGER]^. See 1,1 Ranulf note.
	A DAM … CONTINUES TO DROWN. The Abbot of Thorney holds Woodston (7,3) just downstream, though the dam, sluice or fish weir is not mentioned. The Latin necat is present tense ('drowns'), but is used in the double sense of 'has inundated and still does'. Necat is a strong word, normally meaning 'to kill'.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 824.
1,3	THIS ENTRY and the next one (1,4) do not relate to full manors, but are notes rounding off the account of Normancross Hundred.
	STILTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Stilton is not here designated as a manor or a jurisdiction. Its 3 virgates belong with the 2 hides and 1 virgate of Stilton (19,5), which itself was either a jurisdiction of 'Washingley' (19,3) or a piece of land attached only to the hundred (19,4). Together with the two hides held by the Bishop of Lincoln (2,7) they formed a five-hide unit. These 3 virgates do not seem to have had an independent later history but descended with the Lovetot manor (19,5 Stilton note).
	NORMANCROSS [HUNDRED]. The word Hund' has, apparently, also been omitted in the entries for Hargrave (Jurisdiction in 'Leightonstone') at 3,1, and for Orton (Jurisdiction in Normancross) in 19,4;7, no doubt because estate names are common in such phrases. There are parallel phrases involving hundreds: for example 1,9 Grafham, 'Jurisdiction in 'Leightonstone' Hundred', and an identical phrase is part of a long deletion in the entry for Hamerton (15,1). The moot of Normancross Hundred lay in Yaxley on the border of Stilton parish: see {Introduction: Hundreds}. It is possible that, as in several other instances, this is a piece of royal land left by the break-up of a large royal manor, perhaps based on the Ortons (19,4 Orton note); see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. Lacking a manorial caput, this piece of land is attached, like the Freemen, to the hundred rather than to a manor. See 3,1 jurisdiction note.
	5 OXEN PLOUGHING. This phrase is a variation on '5 oxen there'. There were normally reckoned to be 8 oxen to a plough team, but there is evidence for smaller teams in the south-west; see Lennard, 'Domesday Plough-Teams'; Finberg, 'Domesday Plough-Team'; Lennard, 'Domesday caruca'. In Herefordshire there is evidence that, at least on the king's lordship land, a plough team of 6 oxen was the norm; see HEF 1,50 oxen note. See also CON 5,2,19 plough note. There is no sign of either 3 oxen or one ox in any entry for an adjacent estate. There are 6 oxen in another part of Stilton (19,5) where the same phrase as here is used; the mention of 6 oxen rather than of 1 plough might suggest that this was not a full team, or that a six-oxen rather than the usual eight-oxen team was being used. However, in the part of Stilton that is described as a manor (2,7) there is 'land for 2 ploughs and 1 ox'; there is no statement about the ploughs or oxen actually present.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. Though not explicitly stated, this holding was presumably a royal jurisdiction in 1066 as well as 1086.
1,4	THIS ENTRY and the previous one (1,3) do not relate to full manors, but are notes rounding off the account of Normancross Hundred.
	ORTON [WATERVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. These 3 ½ hides, not said to be a manor or jurisdiction, reappear in the fief of Peterborough Abbey (8,4) where the tense is different: 'the king had the jurisdiction over this land'. No dispute in mentioned in the Declarations. See 8,4 Orton note. It is possible that there had once been a large royal estate focussed on the Ortons including Botolph Bridge and perhaps Woodstone, Fletton and Stanground, guarding the crossing of the River Nene; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
	GODWIN. The particular Godwin is unknown.
		The Domesday forms of this name- Goduuinus, Goduin(us), Goduine, God(d)euuinus, Gotwinus, Couinus etc. - represent Old English Godwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 269-73. JRM preferred the second element -win to Old English -wine, as the vast majority of Domesday forms lacked the final -e. The Alecto edition has Godwine.
1,5	[GREAT] GRANSDEN. This was an Ancient Parish. 'Gransden' was sold (963 x 973) to Bishop Aethelweald of Winchester who gave it to Ealdorman Aethelwine. The latter divided it between the abbeys of Thorney and Ely, but the Abbot of Thorney gave it back to him in exchange for land in Holland, Lincolnshire, when it was described as '15 hides of fertile land': Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 171. In 1086 Ely Abbey retained its holding of 5 hides, by then known as Little Gransden and lying in Cambridgeshire. Great Gransden appears in 986 in the will of Aethelstan Mannessune as left to Alfwaru, who was probably his eldest daughter, 'just as it had been left for her by her grandmother Aethelswyth': Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 16 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 792), p. 24 no. 11, p. 29 no. 21 and p. 181; the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 59-60); Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 91).
		This royal land was later granted to Robert Earl of Gloucester (died 1147) and became part of the honour of Gloucester: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 287.
	EARL ALGAR. He was son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Earl Algar was Earl of Mercia in succession to his father, but died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, he is seldom recorded as the T.R.E. holder.
		The Domesday form, Algar(us), is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - Elgar, Aelgar, Alger(us), Aelger - could represent Old English Ælfgar, Æthelgar or Ealdgar or even Old Norse Alfgeirr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 144-46, under Al-gar, and also p. 142, under Al-. However, he included all the references to the earl under Old English Ælfgar (ibidem, pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spelling, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl Ælfgar.
	RANULF ^[BROTHER OF ILGER]^. See 1,1 Ranulf note.
1,6	'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the L of DELESTVNE slightly larger than the other capitals, as he regularly did with an L in a hundred name; see for example TOLESLVND (2,1), KENEBALTVNE (20,4). This presumably led Farley to print this L with a larger capital and to leave a small space between the DE and the LESTVNE as if he believed that the scribe intended 'Of 'Leightonstone' Hundred'. However, the form is regularly DELESTVNE (as well as LESTONE, LESTVNESTAN etc.) but Farley did not elsewhere use a larger capital and leave a space. Even so, the origin of the forms with initial DE- is undoubtedly in a phrase such as in hundredo de Lestvne.
	ALCONBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It had clearly been a multiple estate, and in 1086 still had dependencies at Gidding (1,6. 19,15), Thurning (5,2. 19,18), Winwick (19,17), Luddington-in-the-Brook (19,19) and [Alconbury] Weston (19,20). It is conceivable that other parts of Gidding (6,21;25. 26,1) had once been part of Alconbury. If the manor had occupied the northern half of 'Leightonstone' double hundred (possibly called “Cressuuelle”, see 26,1 Cressuuelle note and {Introduction: Hundreds}), it would also probably have contained Hamerton, Coppingford, Upton and possibly Buckworth and Woolley. The manor was granted to John Lupus by the end of the twelfth century, then given by King John to David, Earl of Huntingdon. John's grant consisted of Alkmundebir', Wodeweston' ([Alconbury] Weston; see 19,20) and Liminge (Lymage TL1367), but by then one hide of it belonged to the Lovetot barony (19,20): the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 528); Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197, ii. pp. 591, 607, 610; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 364, iii. p. 5.
	[GREAT] GIDDING. This was an Ancient Parish. This part of what later became Great Gidding (26,1 Gidding note) may have been adjacent to other members of the manor of Alconbury, such as Luddington-in-the-Brook (19,19). It is probably the Gidding mentioned in D22 as an outlier of Alconbury and in the king's revenue, though no dispute is mentioned here. It is separate from the hidation of other parts of Gidding, being counted in Alconbury's 10 hides: Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 65; see 6,21 Gidding note. Its later history was probably bound up with that of Alconbury itself, but it may be the land granted by Henry I to his dapifer "Turstin" in 1121: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 165 no. 1295.
	BELONGING TO THE HALL. The ad probably does not describe so much the physical position as the tenurial relationship, being perhaps an ellipsis for pertinentes ad ('belonging to'). The phrase is equivalent to in dominio ('in lordship'), the land of the 'home farm' often lying near the lord's residence.
	2 HIDES. On the sporadic inclusion in Huntingdonshire of the amount of land held in lordship, see {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	VILLAGERS HAVE 13 PLOUGHS; AND MEADOW, 80 ACRES. The Latin accusative acras here (as in 1,9) implies that the meadow belonged to the villagers, but it may be a scribal error. In the Phillimore printed translation there is a full-stop after 'ploughs' and a new sentence for the meadow; the Alecto edition puts a comma after the ploughs . Compare 5,2 meadow note and 20,5 meadow note. Compare also DBY 1,12 meadow note and NTT 1,2 meadow note.
	RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. See HUN 24 Ranulf note, and, on the names Ranulf and Ilger, see 1,1 Ranulf note.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. D22 records that [Great] Gidding was an outlier of Alconbury T.R.E. so Alconbury itself was presumably a royal manor then also.
1,7	KEYSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. D20 records that Eustace the sheriff had diverted the revenue of this manor, using as justification that Aelfric the sheriff had resided there and thus boldly claiming it as part of the shrievalty. His claim was unsuccessful, as it remained in the hands of the king: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 614; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 468; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 70.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is silue pastilis per loca. For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 1,1 woodland note. In the Phillimore printed edition the present phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture in various places' and in the Alecto edition as 'woodland, pasture in places'. The addition of per loca ('throughout the area') is potentially ambiguous. It could be read closely with silua ('woodland in places') meaning there is woodland scattered over the estate rather than in a single block, or with pastilis ('pasturable in places') which does not say whether the wood is in one place or dispersed, but means that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. If the first meaning was intended the scribe could have supported the phrase with a participle: silua pastilis per loca dispersa ('pasturable woodland scattered over the area [of the manor]'). For the second meaning ('pasturable in places') the order silua per loca pastilis would have been clearer, though too much reliance cannot be placed on word order. However, if this is the correct interpretation, the per loca is really unnecessary, as silua pastilis itself implies exactly what per loca is supposed to mean.
		In virtually every case it seems that the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is more probably the correct one. Although per loca may be ambiguous with silua pastilis it was also used of other resources by the scribe. Thus YKS 4N1: xxvi acrae prati per loca ('meadow, 26 acres in [various] places'); YKS 6N2: sunt prata per aliqua loca ('there are meadows in some places'); YKS C22: haec non fuit hospitata T.R.E. sed per loca culta a burgensibus ('this [land] was not inhabited before 1066 but cultivated in places by the burgesses'). An alternative to the use of per loca would be in aliqubus locis ('in some places'); a similar phrase is found in GLS 3,5: In quibusdam locis pratum 7 silua, sed non multa ('meadow and woodland in certain places, but not much'). The phrase per loca is also used with silua but without pastilis and with a consequent lack of ambiguity: YKS 1Y15 silua per loca ('woodland in [various] places'); YKS 9W48 silua minuta per loca ('underwood in [various] places'). Thus the woodland is scattered over the surface of the manor. Dimensions are often given in acres or in x furlongs or leagues by y furlongs or leagues, as here, but this merely indicates that any single square of pasturable woodland (as well as plain woodland) that Domesday surveys is an agglomeration of several pieces of woodland, often including that of outliers and jurisdictions. This must often have been the case even in the absence of per loca. At LIN 35,14, the scribe used silua pastilis and silua pastilis per loca in the same entry: Silua pastilis i leugam longa 7 x quarentinas lata. Extra hanc adhuc cc acrae siluae pastilis per loca ('Pasturable woodland 1 league long and 10 furlongs wide. Besides this, a further 200 acres of pasturable woodland in [various] places'). The obvious interpretation of this is that there is one large block of pasturable woodland (measured in leagues and furlongs) and various scattered pieces lumped together as 200 acres. In the previous entry (LIN 35,13) there is silua vii quarentinas longa 7 v quarentinas et dimidiam lata. Extra hanc 7 cc 7 quater xx acrae siluae pastilis per loca ('woodland 7 furlongs long and 5 ½ furlongs wide. Besides this, pasturable woodland in [various] places, 280 acres'). There, the first wood is not pasturable, but the same overall interpretation will apply.
		Support for the meaning 'pasturable woodland in [various] places' is given in the phrasing used in two Lincolnshire entries (LIN 56,11;18) which are duplicated by two entries in 'Roteland' (RUT 2,7;13): the two 'Roteland' entries have silua pastilis per loca, the Lincolnshire entries simply silua pastilis. The account of these entries probably derives from two separate county inquests (see RUT {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}) and it is possible that those responsible for writing up the results of the 'Roteland' inquest were being more specific than those writing up the results of the Lincolnshire one. Alternatively, in the sources used by the main scribe of Great Domesday for circuit VI (possibly, but not necessarily, a circuit volume) the phrase silua pastilis per loca was routinely used for woodland (and perhaps meadow and pasture as well) to indicate that these resources were each dispersed on the ground but that their extents had been added together for the purposes of Domesday valuations. The Domesday scribe, possibly unaware of the significance and under pressure to shorten, may have eliminated many (but not all) occurrences of per loca.
		A single phrase in Yorkshire (YKS 5W8) may involve the meaning 'pasturable in places'. The Latin is silua per loca pastilis, per loca inutilis ('woodland pasturable in places, unusable in places'). Again, too much reliance should not be placed on word order, but what is significant in the YKS example is the repetition of per loca which is not otiose.
	RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. See HUN 24 Ranulf note, and on the names Ranulf and Ilger, see 1,1 Ranulf note.
1,8	BRAMPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It remained in royal hands until granted in 1194 to Lambert de Colonia (of Cologne, Germany); then to David, Earl of Huntingdonshire, in 1203. It was a royal manor again later and contained Houlton ('Woodhoughton', lost: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 235). It was coupled with Liminge (Lymage TL1367; see 1,6 Alconbury note) in the Nomina Villarum of 1316; see the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 528); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 607; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 468, 471; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 13.
		This had probably been an important royal manor. In 1106 x 1125 the Abbot of Ramsey was asked to show that none of his predecessors had owed service to Brampton: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 278); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 196, 199 nos. 1438a, 1456. This suggests some ancient link between Brampton and one of the abbot's manors, possibly Ellington (6,26) which was adjacent.
		A claim that the land was in the king's forest is mentioned in D24. Certainly in later times the forests of Weybridge (TL1873) and Harthay (TL1771) were appurtenant to it: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 19. The manors of Alconbury and Brampton could thus have been connected by a tract of royal forest. Notifications were issued from Weybridge forest in 1102 and 1110 concerning land in 'Hurst' (6,7), Stukeley (6,1) and Ellington (6,26): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 79 no. 574, p. 97 nos. 966-67.
	A CHURCH. The church later became prebendal to Lincoln Cathedral: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 19.
	RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. See 1,1 Ranulf note and HUN 24 Ranulf note.
1,9	GRAFHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it was a dependant estate, possibly of Brampton, more likely of 'Leightonstone' Hundred itself (see 1,9 jurisdicton note). Eustace the sheriff held ½ hide there in 19,22 where it is not said to be either a manor or a jurisdiction. It was possibly part of these 5 hides. Later Eustace seems to have encroached on more, for he or his successors held more than ½ hide here. It seems that both parts may have descended to the Lovetots, though the manor was later divided into equal parts held by the honour of Gloucester (granted from royal land) and the Abbot of Sawtry (a Lovetot fee deriving from Eustace). It is not clear whether the king ultimately asserted his claim, or whether he had managed to retain some land here throughout. See Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 623; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 61.
	JURISDICTION IN 'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED. For the formula, see 1,3 hundred note. The phrase may suggest that Grafham was not or was no longer attached to Brampton (1,8) or that it had been moved from one hundred to another. It may once have been in Toseland Hundred, for as a part of 'Leightonstone' (in 1086 and later; see 19,22) it forms an unnatural southerly projection and the hundred boundary would much more naturally follow the line where Grafham and Ellington parishes meet. In 19,22 it is clearly either in 'Leightonstone' Hundred or Kimbolton Hundred.
		Previously in circuit VI the main scribe of Great Domesday had identified the members of a multiple estate by including S[oca] and B [erewica] for jurisdictions and outliers in the margin next to the entries immediately following a manorial caput (identified by a marginal M). In Domesday Huntingdonshire this only occurs with Kimbolton (see 13,1 Kimbolton note) and to a lesser extent in 6,18 where the jurisdiction of land in Hemingford Grey is in Hemingford Abbots (6,17). Elsewhere in this county, however, the scribe clearly indicated that the jurisdiction (signalled by a marginal S) lay in another manor or hundred, not in the preceding manor as might be expected, as here and in 19,4;7;15;17-20. See 19,5 Stilton note.
	administrative units/Hundred>
	FREEMEN… VILLAGERS… AND MEADOW. See 1,6 villagers note. The Latin case of the pasturable woodland, however, is nominative and so the Freemen and villagers did not have it too.
	VALUE … £5; NOW 10s LESS. This corrects the Phillimore printed edition of Huntingdonshire; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore edition of Staffordshire.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. As there is no indication of a change in the status of Grafham, it was presumably in King Edward's jurisdiction in 'Leightonstone' Hundred T.R.E.; see 1,9 jurisdiction note.
1,10	[TOSELAND? HUNDRED]. The hundred head at 1,6 would appear to place this entry in 'Leightonstone' Hundred. Were that the case, Godmanchester would sever Toseland Hundred into two parts and prevent a junction of three hundreds at the borough of Huntingdon. The natural boundary between the hundreds at this point would be the River Ouse. Godmanchester is in Toseland Hundred in later times (see, for example, Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472). Godmanchester's inclusion in Toseland Hundred would reduce the total of 'Leightonstone' Hundred to 200 hides and increase that of Toseland to 214 hides; see {Introduction: Hidage}. On the other hand, a royal manor in Toseland Hundred has already been entered at 1,5, and there is no sign that 1,10 is a later entry in the text of Great Domesday, though it could have been misplaced in a predecessor document. The reason for the entry here being out of sequence is probably that Ranulf brother of Ilger gave a return for those manors of which he had custody (1,1-2; 5-8, and see HUN 1 land note) whereas 1,10 was supplied from a different source, for example by a royal reeve.
	GODMANCHESTER. It was built on the site of a Roman settlement guarding the southern end of the crossing of the River Ouse; see {Introduction: History}; Green, 'Godmanchester'. A church and 3 hides here had been granted by King Edgar to Ramsey Abbey in 969 (the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 47-48); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 232 no. 312) but were taken back by him in exchange for Wistow (6,4): the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 48-49); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 232 no. 313. It continued as royal land: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 528); Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 591, ii. p. 666; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472. It became a self-governing Liberty by charter of 1212 and was a free borough from 1604: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 287-90.
	14 HIDES… 57 PLOUGHS. This manor, like other royal estates, appears to have had its tax liability reduced.
	2 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	AND 16 SMALLHOLDERS. This was a slightly later interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday.
	A CHURCH. This was a superior church, possibly a minster, in view of the grant of land mentioned above.
	FROM PASTURE 20s. See 1,1 woodland note.
	FROM THE MEADOWS 70s. This indicates that the amount of meadow exceeded the needs of the plough oxen, leaving some hay to be sold, or the grass grazed for profit.
2	LAND OF THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN. Bishop Remigius; he was consecrated in 1067. The Bishop of Lincoln is given as the T.R.E. holder of 2,1-4. This is an anachronism, since the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames, the correct T.R.E. holder, was not authorized to move his see to Lincoln until 1072. Similarly land is sometimes credited to the 'Bishop of Chester' in 1066, although the move from Lichfield did not take place until the Conqueror's reign.
		It is evident from Domesday that some of the lands of the new bishopric (2,1-4) had formerly been held by the bishops of Dorchester-on-Thames. The Bishop of Lincoln seems to have been allowed to keep all the lands of the former bishopric in several counties, but in Huntingdonshire and elsewhere this endowment was amplified by estates that had been in lay hands in 1066 (2,5-9).
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	2,1-4 Toseland Hundred
	2,5-7 Normancross Hundred
	2,8-9 'Leightonstone' Hundred.
	In some other fiefs, lands in Normancross Hundred are entered first; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}. It is likely that this unusual sequence reflects the division between 'old' and 'new' lands mentioned in the previous paragraph here.
2,1	WEALD. It lay in Eynesbury Ancient Parish, in that detached part that became the civil parish of Eynesbury Hardwicke in the nineteenth century. The detachment was caused by the development of part of Eynesbury into the parish of St Neots (28,1). In Great Domesday, Weald seems to be represented by Cotes, identified by JRM without supporting evidence as Cotton. This latter lay in Offord D'Arcy and is represented by Cotton Farm (TL2364) and Offord Cotton Lodge at TL238637, just north of Toseland Wood, on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map sheet 52 of 1835 (reprinted as sheet 53 in 1970), now beneath a disused airfield. However, Cotton was probably accounted for in Great Domesday under Offord D'Arcy itself, whereas the present 2 hides together with the 4 hides of Cotes (Caldecote: 20,5) coupled with Eynesbury (of which the second Cotes is said to be a dependency) make a 15-hide unit. Cotes is a plural word and one 'cot' seems to have been known as Weald, where 1 hide was held from the Bishop of Lincoln in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 671; see VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 276. Another part of Weald seems to have been held by Alan, Countess Judith's steward: 20,6 steward note. The deserted site of 'Weald village' is marked at TL230596 on the Ordnance Survey 1:50,000.
	THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN HAD. That is, the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames; see HUN 2 bishop note.
	2 OXEN. Farley omitted the figure ii, which is faint but legible in the manuscript, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile and here. The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce anything after hn'tes. It is possible that 2 ploughs are meant.
	"TURSTIN". It is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday form of this 1086 holder, Turstin[us]. The name is not mentioned in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, states that Tostain, Toustain are the archaic forms of the Norman names Totain, Toutain, deriving from the Nordic baptismal name Thor-steinn. Thorsteinn is the Old Norse form of the Old Danish Thorsten, used here for the T.R.E. holders (called Thurstan in the printed Phillimore edition), but has come into England by a different route, not directly from Scandinavia, but via Normandy, though retaining the medial -r-. The printed Phillimore edition has Thurstan, but this has been altered here to "Turstin". The Alecto edition generally has Turstin for the 1086 holders, though Thorsten for STS 12,31.
2,2	[GREAT] STAUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The Domesday form Tochestone stands apart from other early forms: Stoctun, Stoltun, Stoghton etc. Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 267, does not comment on the form in Great Domesday and it is not clear if it is a mangled form of Stoctun etc. or an alternative name; see D19 Easton note. Great Staughton is possibly the estate mentioned in 989 as left by the will of Aelfhelm Polga to Leofsige and his wife: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1487 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 24). If so, it descended to the widow Leofgifu who gave it with Dillington (6,20) and Yelling (6,15) to Ramsey Abbey; see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 238 no. 326; the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 199). Certainly, an estate at Staughton was confirmed on Ramsey by the 'charters' of King Edgar, of Edward the Confessor and of Pope Alexander III in 1178: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 136); see VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 356; and HUN 6 Ramsey note. Nonetheless, the estate was held T.R.E. and T.R.W. and as late as 1612 by the Bishop of Lincoln or his predecessors. It included Blaysworth ('Blasworth', lost: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 269) and Mora (Staughton Moor, TL1261); see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 680; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 357, 365.
	THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN HAD. That is, the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames; see HUN 2 bishop note.
	2 ½ PLOUGHS. There is no adjacent holding with ½ plough; but 7 dimid' may have been omitted from the villagers' ploughs.
	4 SMALLHOLDERS. In the manuscript iiii was a later interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday above v. which he then underlined for deletion. The deletion line was not misplaced (pace, JRM) but was written below the whole of the v., though it is naturally fainter at the right-hand end.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	THE ABBOT OF RAMSEY CLAIMS THIS MANOR. See 2,2 Staughton note. There is nothing in the Declarations concerning this claim. See Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 825.
2,3	DIDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. For the name-form, consistently Dodintone (as in Great Domesday) or Dudinton' in the Middle Ages, see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 254. The land continued to be held by the bishops of Lincoln after 1086 and the manor was known as 'Littleburys' or 'Gimbers': Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 685; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 270.
		The two holdings at Diddington (2,3. 20,9) together with Eustace's land at Southoe (19,29) formed a 10-hide unit.
	THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN HAD. That is, the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames; see HUN 2 bishop note.
	CHURCH ... MEADOW. All the detail concerning the church and the meadow was a later interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday.
	WILLIAM. On this name, see B10 William note.
2,4	BUCKDEN. This was an Ancient Parish. This large manor of Buckden cum Stirtloe (the latter at TL1966) continued to be held by the bishops of Lincoln, and a palace built there became their seat: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 260.
	THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN HAD. That is, the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames; see HUN 2 bishop note.
2,5	DENTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The land continued as part of the bishopric after 1086: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 151.
	GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Godric(us), Goddric, Gadric, Codricus - represent Old English Godric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.
	A PRIEST. According to Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 658, the rector of Denton had held ½ virgate of land here in alms from ancient times.
	"TURSTIN". On this name, see 2,1 "Turstin" note.
2,6	ORTON [WATERVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. This holding of 3 hides and 1 virgate may well have been once part of a major royal estate; see 1,2 Botolph note and {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. The holdings that formed Orton Longueville and Orton Waterville (probably once a single estate) amounted to 30 hides. Other parts were held in 1086 by Peterborough Abbey (8,3-4) and Eustace the sheriff (19,4;6-7), though one of these (19,4) was said to be 'a jurisdiction of the king in Normancross [Hundred]'. From the 30-hide estate evolved two separate 'villages': Orton Waterville or Cherry Orton (see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, pp. 193-94), divided between Peterborough Abbey and the Bishop of Lincoln, and Orton Longueville, which consisted of at least two of Eustace's holdings (19,4 Orton note).
		The present 3 hides were granted by King Edward the Confessor to the Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames and continued with his successors from 1072, the bishops of Lincoln, despite the king's claim (D29): VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 341, 355, iii. p. 200; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196, ii. p. 638; Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 35 no. 37.
	LEOFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuric(us), Leuuric(us), Leofricus, Lefric(us), Leofuriz, Lefriz etc. - represent Old English Leofric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 313-15. The Alecto edition has Leofric.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS AND 1 OX. The solitary ox-land joins three in 19,4 and two each at 8,3-4 to make a ploughland (assuming eight oxen to a plough; see 1,3 oxen note).
	JOHN <OF ORTON>. He was probably the same as the John in 2,7 and 19,4-5: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 284.
		The Domesday forms of John - Iohannes/Johannes (often abbreviated as Joh's) - are the usual Latinization of the Hebrew Johanan: Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under John etc. John is the English form of the name. The Alecto edition has John.
	THE KING CLAIMS. See D29. The marginal K (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim') refers to this. There are four other occurrences of a marginal K in Domesday Huntingdonshire (2,9. 6,3;7-8) and one of a marginal d (20,3; see 20,3 marginal note) which indicate matters of dispute. On these and the similar marginal A, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 124 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 188-90). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 826.
2,7	STILTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The entry unusually records the grant made T.R.E. to the bishop. The land continued as part of the bishopric: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 224. See 1,3 Stilton note.
	TOVI. The Domesday forms of this name - Toui, Toui[us], Toue, Touui, Thou[us], Touet - represent Old Danish Tovi, Old Norse Tofi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 384-85. The Alecto edition has Tovi.
	JOHN <OF ORTON>. He was probably the same as the John in 2,6 and 19,4-5; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 284. On the name John, see 2,6 John note.
	BISHOP [WULFWY]. Vluuino (dative) in the manuscript, which would normally represent Old English Wulfwine, is an error for Wluuio or the indeclinable Wluui, representing Old English Wulfwig. Wulfwy was Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames and died in 1067. Under his successor, Remigius, authority was given to transfer the see to Lincoln in 1072 (JRM/CT). See Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 827.
2,8	IN ... HAD. This was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday over an erasure.
	LEIGHTON [BROMSWOLD]. This was an Ancient Parish. This land, granted by Earl Waltheof to Bishop Remigius 'through [King] William's hand', was given at Remigius' request by King William to St Mary's of Lincoln, and continued within the lands of the bishopric: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 327, iii. p. 87; Monasticon Anglicanum, viii. p. 1296; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, no. 177, pp. 587-89. It contained the hamlet of Salene or Salewe (Salome [Lodge], TL1277; see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 246): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 617; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472. Leighton Bromswold contained the moot-site of the hundred of 'Leightonstone' and had perhaps once been a royal manor; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
	THORKIL THE DANE. He was also known as Thorkil of Harringworth and had held land in Conington and Sawtry which passed to Countess Judith (20,1-2). He was an important thane who also held land in Northamptonshire (including Harringworth, which gave him his byname). He may well be the Thorkil who held land in Lincolnshire T.R.E. His wife Thurgunt had left his estate at Sawtry (which is said by Domesday to have been held by 'Thorkil') to Ramsey Abbey; see 20,2 Sawtry note. He apparently joined the rebellion of Hereward the Wake: Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 604. On the man, see Hart, Danelaw, pp. 636-40. On the name Thorkil, see B12 Thorkil note.
		As Conington and Sawtry passed to Countess Judith, widow of Earl Waltheof, and the latter gave Leighton Bromswold to Bishop Remigius (2,8 Leighton note), it is possible that Thorkil held these lands from Earl Waltheof; see HUN 20 Judith note.
	½ PLOUGH. The nearest other half-plough appears to be at Catworth (13,4), but there is also 1 ox there which may be connected to the 5 oxen at Kimbolton (13,1; see 13,1 oxen note).
	EARL WALTHEOF. His father Siward was Earl of Northumbria and of Huntingdonshire and of some neighbouring counties, probably including Northamptonshire. On Siward's death in 1055, Waltheof was too young, so Northumbria, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire went to his brother-in-law Tosti. The northern revolt in 1065 against Tosti's harsh rule led to Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire being given to Waltheof, while Northumbria went to Morcar, the son of Earl Algar and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and brother of Earl Edwin. Waltheof married William the Conqueror's niece, Countess Judith. In 1075 he plotted with Earl Ralph (of Gaël, also known as Earl Ralph Wader) of Norfolk and Suffolk, who was married to the daughter of Earl William (son of Osbern) and with Earl Roger of Breteuil and of Hereford (son of Earl William). After the capture of Earl Roger by King William, Earl Waltheof went abroad and admitted his treason, returning to England when King William seemed to regard it lightly. However he was imprisoned and subsequently beheaded (on May 31st 1075).
		The Domesday forms of his Christian name - Wallef, Waltef, Walteif, Walteu etc. - represent Old Norse Valthiofr, Anglo-Scandinavian Wæltheof: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 403. The earl, however, is commonly known as Waltheof and JRM kept to this. The Alecto edition also has Waltheof. According to von Feilitzen (ibidem, note 1) all the instances of this name in Domesday refer to the earl.
	ST MARY'S OF LINCOLN. This was the new cathedral church of Lincoln diocese, founded in 1072. For the grant, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 587-90 nos. 177-78; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 283 (where it is wrongly identified as Leighton Buzzard); Monasticon Anglicanum, viii. pp. 1296-97. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 828.
2,9	PERTENHALL. This was an Ancient Parish in Bedfordshire. Despite the absence of any designation as a manor or a jurisdiction and despite the disputed tenure (see 2,9 claim note) the lands continued to be held by the bishops of Lincoln, as part of Bedfordshire (see, for example, Feudal Aids, i. pp. 5, 10; VCH Bedfordshire, iii. p. 153). The entry is somewhat mysterious in that in later times Pertenhall seems to have been larger, and divided: 2 virgates were held here from the Bishop of Lincoln, and a portion was held from the Earl of Hereford: Feudal Aids, i. pp. 5, 10, 25-26. This might suggest that part of Pertenhall, if not simply omitted from Domesday Huntingdonshire or Bedfordshire, was included under Kimbolton in 1086 (13,1 Kimbolton note).
	ALWIN ^[DEVIL]^. The byname comes from D16. He is probably the same Alwin Devil who had held West Perry (19,30; see 19,30 Devil note) and he may also be the same as the Alwin who held part of Keysoe (29,2) in 1066 and 1086 (see 29,2 Keysoe note).
		The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwin - Aluuin(us), Aluuine, Aeluuin(us), Aeluin(us), Aluin(us), Eluuine, Eluuin(us), Eluinus - could represent Old English Ælfwine, Old English Æthelwine, Old English Ealdwine or even Old English Ealhwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 158-60, under Al-wine, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English -wine, as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under Al-wine. Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English Ælfwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 181, but the Domesday forms (Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius) do not contain the -f- or –v- that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. Some also appear under Old English Æthelwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin(us), Aluinus) do not contain the -d- or -g- which JRM thought was the requisite for inclusion under that name. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alwine and A(i)lwin appear, but these have now been standardized as Alwin.
	SITUATED IN BEDFORDSHIRE. No other portion is mentioned in the Domesday Bedfordshire folios and the statement could be topographical rather than administrative: that is, it was a part of Huntingdonshire, but entirely surrounded by Bedfordshire. Nonetheless, Pertenhall was administratively in Bedfordshire in the Middle Ages; see, for example, Lay Subsidy Rolls (1334), p. 4.
	THE KING'S OFFICERS CLAIM IT. The marginal K (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim'; see 2,6 claims note) refers to this, as does D16 where the claim is asserted as fact. It is possible that Pertenhall had been a member of Kimbolton, whose lands were divided in 1086 by the county boundary. Kimbolton had been held by Earl Harold T.R.E., but the king was claiming a part (13,1 Kimbolton note). Latin ministri refers in a general sense to Crown officials or servants. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 176 no. 829.
	FOR HIS USE. That is, for the king's use.
	WILLIAM… PLOUGHS THERE. William is probably William of Warenne who had 5 ploughs in lordship at the nearby Kimbolton (13,1). On the name William, see B10 William note.
	BISHOP REMIGIUS. The Domesday form, Remigius (often abbreviated, to Remigi', Rem', Re', R. etc.), is that of the saint, the Archbishop of Rheims (died in 533), who baptized Clovis I, King of the Franks (481-511). Remigius itself is a Latin adjective used substantively, meaning 'a man from Rheims' or 'a member of the Remi', a Celtic tribe known to Julius Caesar, Remi (Rheims) also being the name of their civitas-capital. See Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Remy, the popular form of Remigius. In Domesday Book only Bishop of Remigius of Lincoln and Herbert son of Remigius appear with this name. The Alecto edition has Remigius for the bishop and fitzRemy for Herbert.
3	LAND OF THE BISHOP OF COUTANCES. Geoffrey of 'Mowbray' was Bishop of Coutances 1049-1093 and also of Saint- Lô; he is sometimes named from the latter in Domesday Book. Both Coutances and Saint-Lô are in the French département of Manche. He was apparently named from Montbray (arrondissement Saint-Lô, canton Percy). Geoffrey fought at Hastings and was an important administrative and judicial supporter of King William, but he also rebuilt the cathedral of Coutances and reformed its see. In Domesday his fief is a personal holding, not a holding of his Norman bishopric. Robert of 'Mowbray', Earl of Northumberland (1080/1081-1095) may have been his nephew; it was to him that the English fief passed after Geoffrey’s death, though it was forfeited for treason under William II.
		According to Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 5, this fief was a later addition to the text, but the manuscript offers no evidence of this.
		This fief consists of a single estate in 'Leightonstone' Hundred; the hundred head has had to be inserted.
3,1	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. Other parts of Hargrave occur in 19,13-14 in a group of places under a Kimbolton hundred head (19,11), which is assumed to be an occasional alternative name for 'Leightonstone' Hundred; see 13,1 hundred note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	HARGRAVE. This was an Ancient Parish in Northamptonshire. In 1086, the vill was apparently divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire, where 1 ½ hides of Hargrave, a jurisdiction of Higham Ferrers (NTH 35,15), was held under William Peverel by Eustace (presumably the sheriff), the tenant-in-chief of other parts of Hargrave in Huntingdonshire (19,13-14); see VCH Northamptonshire, iv. pp. 17-18. However, it is sometimes the case with jurisdictions that the actual county in which they lay is not recorded. Thus the whole of Hargrave could have been in Huntingdonshire in 1086, with the county boundary running down the western side of the parish. The date of Hargrave's transfer to Northamptonshire, where it now lies, is not recorded. The junction of the modern county boundaries is marked by the Three Shires House of unknown date (TL0470).
		The three Huntingdonshire holdings at Hargrave, amounting to 1 ½ hides, when added to the adjacent Covington (17,1), make a 10-hide unit.
		The present entry is not described as a manor, despite the marginal M in the Phillimore printed translation (corrected here). No later separate history has been traced. It may have merged with Eustace's holdings.
	SAEMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Semar, Semer, Samar[us], Samar, Saemar, Semaer, Semar[us] - represent Old English Sæmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 353-54. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær, as it reflected almost all the Domesday endings. The Alecto edition has Sæmær. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. There was land for another 2 oxen on other land at Hargrave (19,13). There was also land for 1 ½ ploughs at the same place (19,14). So the plough estimate for Hargrave was two (assuming there are 8 oxen to a ploughland; see 1,3 oxen note).
	JURISDICTION IN 'LEIGHTONSTONE' [HUNDRED]. For the omission of the 'Hundred', see 1,3 hundred note. This piece of land like others is not in a manor-jurisdiction relationship, so its obligations are discharged at the hundred court, of which the king had the profits. In the case of Saemer, apparently, the Bishop of Coutances has the homage, but the king has the jurisdiction; see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 328.
	HE PLOUGHS THERE WITH 2 OXEN. Clearly the team was shared, assuming that 2 oxen cannot pull a plough. The normal total of oxen per plough is eight. However, only 2 oxen (3,1), ½ plough (19,13) and 1 plough (19,14) are mentioned on the estates at Hargrave, so it looks as if 2 oxen are missing.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. As there is no indication of a change in the status of Hargrave, it was presumably in King Edward's jurisdiction in 'Leightonstone' Hundred T.R.E.; see 1,9 jurisdiction note. If so, Saemer would have held from King Edward.
4	LAND OF ELY ABBEY. A Benedictine monastery, dedicated to St Etheldreda. The earliest foundation appears to have been by Etheldreda herself in 673, but the religious house was destroyed by the Danes in 870. It was re-founded by Bishop Aethelwold of Winchester as a Benedictine abbey in 970 with 70 monks and substantially endowed by him with the consent and encouragement of King Edgar whose foundation charter dates from 970. The endowment grew between its foundation and 1086. The various grants to the abbey are tabulated in Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 213-30. For the confirmation of Edward the Confessor, see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 34 no. 35 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1051. A major source of information about the history of the abbey and its holdings is the Liber Eliensis and a fuller survey of the lands held by Ely Abbey in 1086 is included in the Inquisitio Eliensis.
		A new see of Ely was founded in 1109 and the abbey became the cathedral priory. The abbey's former lands were divided between the new bishopric and the priory and some lands were given to the see of Lincoln in compensation.
	The abbots during the period covered by Domesday Book were:
		1029-?1044 Leofsige
		?1044-?1066 Wulfric, possibly a relative of Edward the Confessor.
		?1066-1072/1073 Thurstan. A monk of Ely, appointed by Harold Godwinson, the	future king.
		?1073-1075/1076 Theodwine. A monk from Jumièges, in Normandy.
		During the ensuing vacancy the abbey was ministered by the monk Godfrey, later Abbot of Malmesbury (Wiltshire).
		1082-1093 Simeon, brother of Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester. He himself was prior of Winchester before being appointed to Ely.
	See Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 44-45.
	The five entries contained in this chapter in Great Domesday are found in greater detail and with some discrepancies in the main survey in the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, pp. 166-67). Because of the repetition of the holder in each entry there, they appear to have been drawn (like the rest of this survey in the Inquisitio Eliensis) from a schedule that was arranged by hundreds and within them by vills, similar to the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis. They are entered in the Inquisitio Eliensis in the order 'Leightonstone' Hundred 4,4-5; 'Hurstingstone' Hundred 4,1-3. Thus the order of hundreds is reversed, but the order within them is the same as in Great Domesday. The first four lands also appear in the Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 169) but in the order Somersham, Colne, Bluntisham, Spaldwick (4,3;1-2;4); there is no account of Little Catworth (4,5). The main survey in the Inquisitio Eliensis supplies additional details of population, livestock and dimensions for the five estates of Ely Abbey as they were when Abbot Thorsten held them (c. 1066 to 1072/1073). In particular it contains the numbers of sheep and pigs, an overall extent in leagues for the manors and (if they are not accidental repeats) an attempt in the entries for Colne and Bluntisham to give a wealth of detail for three dates: T.R.E., when Abbot Simeon acquired the manors (on his appointment in 1082) and 1086, just as requested by the questions prefaced to the Inquisitio Eliensis, but rarely evidenced in Great Domesday Book or in surviving 'satellite' texts. It also names the three outliers of Spaldwick. These entries are translated in full in the notes to the Great Domesday entries 4,1-5. Additional information in the Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate and discrepancies between it and Great Domesday are given in the notes to the Great Domesday entries 4,1-4.
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	4,1-3 'Hurstingstone' Hundred
	4,4-5 ['Leightonstone' Hundred]
4,1	'HURSTINGSTONE' HUNDRED. This was an unrubricated later addition by the main scribe of Great Domesday; see B21 section note.
	COLNE. This was a chapelry of Somersham. The manor was part of the foundation grant to Ely Abbey, confirmed by King Edgar. It was later regarded as part of the manor of Somersham (4,3). See the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 162); VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 167.
	APART FROM THE 6 HIDES. On this later interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday recording the regular exemption in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, see B21 section note.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. Latin terram is accusative and habuit or habebat ('had') is understood from earlier in the entry. The present tense ('he has') is unlikely (pace, JRM) as the 1086 detail starts after this phrase with 'Now in lordship'. All other occurrences of this phrase have the Latin terram.
	THE INQUISITIO ELIENSIS. The main survey has a fuller version (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 167):
		'In Colne [Colne] Abbot Turstinus [Thorsten] [had] a manor. 6 hides taxable and 6 ploughs for ploughing and 129 villagers and 5 smallholders with 8 ploughs. The abbot himself [had] 2 ploughs, apart from the 6 hides. Now Abbot Sy. [Simeon] has [it] and [***]† 2 ploughs and 30 sheep and 45 pigs and 13 villagers and 5 smallholders with 5 ploughs. Now he himself [has] 2 ploughs and 30 sheep and 45 pigs and 13 villagers and 5 smallholders with 5 ploughs, and 10 acres of meadow. Woodland pasture 1 league long and ½ league wide. A marsh 1 league long and ½ [a league] wide. The whole [is] 2 leagues in length and 1 league in breadth. Value before 1066 £6; now £5.'
	† There is i.u here with an abbreviation sign over the u in manuscripts A and B, and v 7 with an abbreviation sign over the v in manuscript C. The meaning is unclear.
	The Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate mentions 3 slaves (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 169).
4,2	BLUNTISHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. According to the Liber Eliensis, this land had been held by Toli the Dane early in the tenth century, but some years after his death (at the battle of Tempsford in 917: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle), it was in the hands of a certain Wulfnoth from whom the land was purchased for Ely Abbey by Bishop Aethelweald. However, this land was subsequently claimed (after the death of King Edgar in 975) by the sons of Boge of Hemingford, on the grounds that it should have belonged to their uncle Tope. Their claim was dismissed (see {Introduction: History}, the land was confirmed on Wulfnoth and re-acquired by Bishop Aethelweald in a new transaction. It remained with the abbey until the Dissolution, descending with Somersham (4,3). Two hides held by Alfsi Cilt had not been subject to forfeiture in 917. It is possible that these became Hinton's manor in Bluntisham. Earith (TL3874) was part of Bluntisham's jurisdiction. See Blake, Liber Eliensis, pp. xi, 98-99, 162, 202, 300, 304, 331; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 153, 154.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	THE INQUISITIO ELIENSIS. The main survey has a fuller version (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 167):
		'In Bluntesham [Bluntisham] Abbot Torstin' [Thorsten] had a manor of 6 ½ hides taxable. 8 ploughs for ploughing and 20 villagers and 5 smallholders with 7 ploughs. He himself had 2 ploughs apart from the aforementioned hides. And now Abbot Sy. [Simeon] has found 2 ploughs and 12 beasts and 60 sheep and 30 pigs and 10 villagers and 3 smallholders with 3 ploughs. Now he himself [has] 2 ploughs and 12 beasts and 60 sheep and 45 pigs and a church and a priest and 20 acres of meadow. Woodland pasture 1 league long and 4 furlongs in breadth. The whole 2 leagues long and 1 wide. Value before 1066 £5; now £5.'
	The Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate mentions 3 slaves (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 169).
4,3	SOMERSHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. Granted with Spaldwick (4,4) in 991 under the will of Brihtnoth, Ealdorman of Essex, though Ramsey Abbey expected the bequest. It encompassed Pidley (TL3377) and Fenton (TL3179). Subsequently Somersham grew into a manor with a jurisdiction comprising these two plus Colne, Bluntisham and Earith (4,1 Colne note and 4,2 Bluntisham note). See the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 162, 262, 422); the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 116-17); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 25; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 185, 224. A further member of Somersham was apparently Rowey ('rough island', TL335806) held under the abbey in 1279: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 607; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 186. On the creation of the bishopric of Ely, Somersham with its jurisdiction was transferred to it: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 468; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197, ii p. 605.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	3 FISHERIES. The Phillimore printed translation has 'fishponds', probably in an attempt to distinguish Latin piscina from piscaria. These piscinae were probably on the River Ouse, and the words piscaria and piscina appear interchangeable.
	THE INQUISITIO ELIENSIS. The main survey has a fuller version (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 167):
		'Sumresham [Somersham]. Abbot Torstinus [Thorsten] [had] a manor of 8 hides taxable. 12 ploughs for ploughing and 28 villagers and 9 smallholders with 16 ploughs. He himself had 2 ploughs apart from the aforementioned hides. Abbot Symon [Simeon] found 2 ploughs and 10 beasts and 90 sheep and 40 pigs and 13 smallholders† with 20 ploughs and 2 fisheries [rendering] 8s and 20 acres of meadow. Woodland pasture 1 league long and 7 furlongs wide. The whole 3 leagues long and 1 league wide. Value before 1066 £7; now £8.'
	† Great Domesday Book has '9 smallholders' but also '32 villagers'. This latter may well have been a detail omitted in the extant copies of the Inquisitio Eliensis rather than a piece of information that arrived later in the Domesday process. However, the figures under Abbot Thorsten (28 villagers and 9 smallholders) are closer to the Domesday figures, so perhaps there was some confusion. The figures in the Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate (see below) also suggest confusion.
	The information given in the Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 169) differs in certain respects both from that in Great Domesday and from that in the main Inquisitio Eliensis survey. It records 3 ploughs in lordship and 10 ploughs for the 'men', and 28 villagers, 13 smallholders and 4 slaves.
4,4	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from later evidence. On the possible relation of Spaldwick to Kimbolton Hundred, see 13,1 Kimbolton note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	SPALDWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. It was granted, like Somersham (4,3), to Ely under the will of Brihtnoth (Ealdorman of Essex), though Ramsey Abbey similarly expected the gift: the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 99, 162, 246, 250, 422); the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 116-17); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 25; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 97-98. In 1109 it was given to the see of Lincoln as part of the arrangements to create the see of Ely: Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 468, 471.
		The main survey in the Inquisitio Eliensis reveals that Spaldwick had three outliers left unmentioned in Great Domesday: Stow Longa (TL1070), Easton (TL1371) and Barham (TL1375). They descended with the manor whose jurisdiction also included part of Little Catworth (see 4,5 Catworth note) and Upthorpe (TL1271); see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 615; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 101. The tenure of Easton was disputed in 1086 (D19 Easton note). The particular part of Stow Longa that belonged to Ely Abbey was Nether Stow (Overstow being a part of Kimbolton, 13,1). Netherstow was among Ely lands given to the Bishop of Lincoln in 1109: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 101.
	5 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	THE INQUISITIO ELIENSIS. The main survey has a fuller version (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 166):
		'Spalduuic [Spaldwick]. The Abbot of Ely has a manor of 15 hides taxable within the manor and the outliers - Estou [Stow Longa], Estune [Easton], Bercheham [Barham] - and 15 ploughs can plough this land. The lord had 4 ploughs in lordship, on thaneland, free of tax† and 42 villagers and 8 smallholders. Now the Abbot of Ely has there 4 ploughs and 7 beasts and 30 pigs and 120 sheep and 1 cob and 4 beehives and a mill at 2s and 50 villagers and 10 smallholders. Between all these, 25 ploughs and 160 acres of meadow. Pasturable woodland, 60 acres. Value before 1066 with everything that belongs to it, £16; now £22. The whole [is] 3 leagues long and 2 leagues wide.'
	† This presumably corresponds to '4 ploughs on 5 hides of this land' in Great Domesday, though the information relates to different dates, to Abbot Thorsten's time (before 1072/1073) and to 1086 respectively.
	The Inquisitio Eliensis Breviate mentions 6 slaves (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 169).
4,5	LITTLE CATWORTH. This was a chapelry of Stow Longa (4,4 Spaldwick note), though an outlier of Spaldwick in 1086. It is parva Cateuuorde here and at D18, alia Cateuuorde at 13,5. Little Catworth was 4 hides and, with Great Catworth, formed a 15-hide unit in 1086. The marginal M is contradicted by the detail of the entry: Little Catworth was an outlier of Spaldwick and descended with it (VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 29).
	THE INQUISITIO ELIENSIS. The main survey has a fuller version (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 167):
		'In Cadeuurde [Little Catworth] Abbot Tursten' [Thorsten] [had] 4 hides taxable. An outlier of Spalduuic [Spaldwick]; and 8 villagers with 8 ploughs. Now the Abbot of Ely has [it]; 7 villagers with 2 ploughs. And it is assessed in Spalduuic [Spaldwick].'
5	LAND OF CROWLAND ABBEY. A Benedictine Abbey. It was said to have been founded by King Ethelbald (716-757) and dedicated to St Guthlac who had settled on the remote site in 699 (he died in 714). This early monastery was destroyed by the Danes in 870. It was said to have been re-founded for Benedictine monks by King Eadred (946-955), but perhaps by Thurcetel c. 966.
	The abbots who presided over the abbey in the mid-eleventh century were:
		c. 1061/1062-1085/1086 Wulfketel, a monk of Peterborough
		1085/1086-1109 Ingulf, a monk of Saint-Wandrille in Normandy
	See Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, p. 42.
	The two entries in this fief are in separate hundreds, both heads needing to be inserted:
	5,1 [Normancross Hundred]
	5,2 ['Leightonstone' Hundred]
5,1	[NORMANCROSS HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from later evidence.
	MORBORNE. This was an Ancient Parish. The land is included in the confirmation by King Eadred of land and privileges in 948 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 538), further confirmed by King Edgar in 966 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 741). The estate was held by the abbey until the Dissolution: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. pp. 85-87; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 188. The manor included Ogerston (TL1290): Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 192.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
5,2	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. Another part of Thurning occurs at 19,18 where it is in a long run of places apparently governed by the Kimbolton hundred head at 19,11. It is assumed that Kimbolton Hundred was an occasional alternative name for 'Leightonstone' Hundred. See 13,1 hundred note, 19,11 Kimbolton note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	THURNING. This was an Ancient Parish. It was divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire in 1086; the county boundary ran through the main street until the 1888 change. The Northamptonshire portion was held by Peterborough Abbey as a member of Oundle (NTH 6,10b). Land in Thurning is included with Morborne (5,1) in the confirmation by King Eadred of land and privileges in 948 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 538), further confirmed by King Edgar in 966 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 741). The 1 ½ hides had apparently also been confirmed on the abbey by Burgred, King of Mercia (854-874) in 868: Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. pp. 113, 115 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 213). The abbey continued to hold at least one hide here after 1086: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 470; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. pp. 86-87; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 110.
		The 1 ½ hides here, together with the 2 ½ hides of Luddington-in-the-Brook (19,19) and Ramsey Abbey's 1-hide holding at Gidding (6,21), make a 5-hide unit: Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 65.
	JURISDICTION IN THE KING'S MANOR OF ALCONBURY. See 1,6 Alconbury note. It is not clear whether the arrangement was recent or, more probably, ancient, possibly dating from the ninth century or earlier, Thurning being a member of Alconbury when the grant was made.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. He held other land here in chief (19,18). See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	MEADOW. Latin acras (accusative) implies that Eustace has the meadow and therefore probably the villagers too. This also occurs in 6,21. 8,3-4. 19,13;24;28. 25,1. 29,3;6. Compare 1,6 villagers note and 20,5 meadow note. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation does not always show this.
6	LAND OF ST BENEDICT'S OF RAMSEY. The Benedictine Abbey of St Mary and St Benedict, founded c. 969 on a site offered by Ealdorman Aethelwine to St Oswald, at that time Bishop of Worcester, later Archbishop of York.
	The abbots who spanned the period 1066-106 were:
		1043-1079/1080 Aelfwine, son of the priest Eadbriht. Formerly prior of Ramsey
		1080-1087 Aelfsige (Aelsi), a Winchester monk who had been Abbot of St Augustine’s, Canterbury.
	See Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 61-62.
	The estate at Ramsey itself (TL2985) had belonged to Ealdorman Aethelstan (half-king) of East Anglia, and passed to his son Aethelwine, founder of the abbey. The estate is omitted from Great Domesday because within its lowy (leuga, leugata, banleuca) it enjoyed quasi-regal rights and privileges. It had exemption from episcopal and secular power, probably from the time of its foundation, though its Liberty is first described in a charter of Henry I (c. 1100-1102) which granted sac and soc and toll and team and infangthief and foresteal and blodwite and murder and treasure trove and all other liberties pertaining to the Crown in the land for one leugata around the church of St Benedict, as well as all pleas pertaining to the Crown. The bounds of the lowy ran along the monticulum de Wistow (now represented by Hill Farm, TL2882), passed through Wistow itself, then skirted Great Raveley and Little Raveley before circling through the marsh. Several meres were included in it or bisected by it, principally Whittlesey mere where there were considerable difficulties in defining the rights and limits of the abbeys of Peterborough, Ramsey and Thorney (see 7,8 Whittlesey note). Ramsey also had rights in Wistow fen, Ramsey mere and Ugg mere. On all of this, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 104 no. 999, p. 181 no. 1370; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. pp. 559, 564, 575; Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1563; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 377-85, ii. p. 193; Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 6. Ramsey is listed in 'Leightonstone' Hundred in the Lay Subsidy Rolls (1334), p. 137. It was an Ancient Parish.
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	6,1-11 'Hurstingstone' Hundred
	6,12-14 Normancross Hundred
	6,15-20 Toseland Hundred
	6,21-26 'Leightonstone' Hundred.
	In some other fiefs, lands in Normancross Hundred are entered first; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}. It is likely that this unusual sequence reflects the fact that 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, the first to be entered, was the hundred in which Ramsey Abbey itself was sited.
6,1	'HURSTINGSTONE' HUNDRED. The plough(land)s in lordship are specifically mentioned on the majority of the abbey's manors in this hundred: (6,1-2;4-9;11); see B21 ploughs note.
	[LITTLE] STUKELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It was also known as Stukeley Abbots: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 224; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 599; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 234. The bulk of the manor was part of the abbey's foundation grant by Aethelwine. Other portions were perhaps added or surrendered: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 181-89); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. pp. 51-59); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 14, p. 233 no. 315. It is parva stanecle in Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; stevecley parva in Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271.
		The settlements of Great Stukeley and Little Stukeley had perhaps already defined themselves by 1086, for there were separate churches (see 20,3).
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	16 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript xvi. uill's (for uillanus, villager) is an error for uill'i. Farley misprinted uill'is (i.e. uillanis, dative or ablative plural) which is meaningless here.
	RICHARD. The Domesday forms of this name - Ricard(us), Ricard - represent Old German Ricard, Richard: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 213-14; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 349. The Alecto edition also has Richard.
	HUGH. The Domesday form of this name, Hugo (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is Hugonis, the accusative Hugonem, the dative Hugoni and the ablative Hugone), represents Old German Hugo, Old French Hugon, Huë: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin Hugo (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh.
6,2	[ABBOTS] RIPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The estate at Ripton was granted to Ramsey Abbey by Ealdorman Aelfwold (died 990), brother of Earl Aethelwine, with a life-interest reserved for his wife Aelfhild. It probably consisted of 4 hides and joined to it were 6 hides at Wennington (TL2379) to make a 10-hide estate. Aelfhild confirmed these gifts in her will: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. p. 56, iii. p. 166); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1808 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 26); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 420); Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 202.
		The 6 hides at Wennington had been granted (with 30 hides at Hemingford: 6,16-18) to Ely Abbey by the will of Wulfstan of Dalham (973 x 975), but the monks of Ely had exchanged Wennington and Hemingford and Yelling (6,15) - 41 hides in all - with Ealdorman Aethelwine for 40 hides at Hatfield, Hertfordshire; see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 17, p. 234 no. 318; the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 54-55); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 79-80, 126-27); VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 305. For Wennington itself, see the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. pp. 322, 329, iii. p. 210); VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 204.
		The combined estate continued to be held by the abbey; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 600.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,3	BROUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. This major estate became the head of the barony or honour of Ramsey and was held until the Dissolution: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 600; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 236 no. 1631; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 468; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 159-61.
		The estate was assembled piecemeal and it is not entirely clear how many of the grants overlapped, what the total size of the estate was (on a possible extra 1 hide, see B21) and whether, as Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 59, thinks, Old Hurst and Woodhurst were originally part of Broughton, but were annexed to Slepe (St Ives, 6,7) at the foundation of the priory there; see also Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 37 no. 42. It seems not unlikely that in the reign of the Confessor, Broughton was a 4-hide estate to which 5 hides of Freemen's land were added. Two hides had been granted to the abbey by Edward the Martyr (975-979): the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 74); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 233 no. 316.
		A further 1 hide was obtained (975 x 979) for the abbey by the prior Eadnoth from Bishop Aethelweald in exchange for land at Wilbraham, Cambridgeshire This is probably the separate hide mentioned in B21 Broughton note.
		9 hides were granted (979 x 1016) by King Aethelred II (the Unready): the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 75-76); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 29 no. 20. These may have been subsequently joined to St Ives (see above and 6,7 St Ives note) or the grant is to be suspected or did not take effect.
		3 hides were given (1016 x 1034) by Aethelric, Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames, for the support of the monks. This was confirmed by the Confessor and the Conqueror: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. pp. 74, 95); the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 135-40, 144, 202); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 320; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 158; Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 258 no. 59.
		By the early twelfth century, 1 hide in Broughton was subject of a precept (1115 x 1129) by Henry I to the effect that Roger Foillet was to hold it and if he held more at the present time it was to be in the abbot's lordship: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 236 no. 1631. The same Roger was pardoned the payment of Danegeld in Huntingdonshire in 1130 (Pipe Roll 31 Henry I, p. 49).
	2 OXEN … 6 OXEN. Together, they make a plough team.
	FREEMEN'S LAND. According to D4 it had been given to Ramsey Abbey T.R.E.
	FINES. These were normally reserved for the lord of the manor. The Freemen, who may have chosen the abbot as their lord or been transferred to his jurisdiction, are asserting a quasi-independence.
	THEIR [FINE FROM] ROBBERY. Latin suum distinguishes the smaller amounts (up to 4d) that they received from robbery from those larger fines (more than 4d) that the abbot received from the same crime.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *] CLAIMS 5 HIDES. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note. The marginal K (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim'; see 2,6 claims note) refers to this. The K was accidentally cut off when the pages of Farley were divided up for use in the Phillimore printed translation (CT). These are presumably the Freemen's hides (JRM). According to D4, the 5 hides of Freemen's land had been put under the jurisdiction of Ramsey Abbey by Edward the Confessor in exchange for a service done by Abbot Aelfwine in Germany; see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1107 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 37 no. 42); Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 258 no. 59. The claim was not mentioned in D4 and was unsuccessful (FRT).
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 830.
6,4	WISTOW. This was an Ancient Parish. It was granted to the abbey by (St) Oswald, Archbishop of York (972-992): the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. pp. 56; 72; 93); the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 48-9); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 798 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 27 no. 18); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 232 no. 313. In the Cartulary, the grant is described as of Kingestune, id est Wicstoue and its outliers were Roflea (Little Raveley, TL2579) and Byrig (Bury, TL2883). For the change of name, see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 228. As the original name implies, 'Kingston' had been a royal manor, in fact a lordship manor of King Edgar who exchanged it with St Oswald for Needingworth (see 6,6 Holywell note) and the church and 3 hides at Godmanchester (1,10). Needingworth had been intended for Ramsey Abbey, but did not go directly.
		Wistow and its outliers continued with the abbey until the Dissolution, but by 1178 the hierarchy had been changed, with Wistow and Little Raveley (Raveley Parva in Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271) being outliers of Bury: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. p. 135); Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 164, 201, 247. On Bury itself, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 118, 209 nos. 1064, 1504.
		The manor included 'Hepmangrove' (lost, but lying west of Bury: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 207), first mentioned in the statutes of Abbot Aldwin (1091-1102), the profits of it being assigned to the cellarer of Ramsey: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 165.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,5	UPWOOD. This was a chapelry of Wistow. It was included in the foundation grant by Ealdorman Aethelwine and had an outlier Rorflea (Great Raveley, TL2581), often coupled as Upwode et Ravele Major/ Magna: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 340); Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 198, 238.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,6	HOLYWELL. This was in the Ancient Parish of Holywell cum Needingworth. Land here is not mentioned in the confirmation of Edward the Confessor, nor of William I. Ramsey Abbey also held Holwell in Bedfordshire (BDF 8,8) with which this estate can be confused. Holywell in Huntingdonshire was apparently given to the abbey by Alfwaru (died 1007), probably the eldest daughter of Aethelstan Mannessune. She had apparently been given it by her mother: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 59-60, 192); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 167); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 29 no. 21, p. 32 no. 28; the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 91); VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 176; Hart, 'Eadnoth', p. 63. It is probable that this gift included Needingworth (TL3472) which had been bought from King Edgar by St Oswald who intended it for Ramsey, but had exchanged it for Wistow (6,4 Wistow note). It is also possible that Needingworth had been part of the land at Slepe (6,7) but it is generally associated with Holywell, for example Nidingworth cum Haliwelle in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. p. 232); see the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 42); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 602; Dewindt, Land and People, p. 9.
		The church and 'land' are also mentioned in the will of the priest Gode which was presumably later than Alfwaru's gift and may represent the return of a lease: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 85); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 319.
		Both estates continued with the abbey until the Dissolution: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 246 no. 1686; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND 1 LEAGUE AND 4 FURLONGS LONG AND 1 LEAGUE WIDE. It is more likely that the scribe accidentally wrote the lg' (for longa) after the '1 league' rather than after the '4 furlongs', as the furlong was a division of the league and the normal order would be x leagues and y furlongs. Such a scribal error (if it is one) occurs elsewhere in Great Domesday. However, the width could have been 4 furlongs and 1 league, as translated in the Alecto edition, the scribe inadvertently writing the furlongs before the league in the width.
	ALWOLD. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwold - Aluuold(us), Alwaldus, Aeluuold(us), Aluuol, Alnold (a scribal error for Aluold), Aluoldus, Aluolt, Aluol, Aluort, Eluuold, Eluolt - could represent Old English Ælfweald or Old English Æthelweald: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 154-55, under Al-weald, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English -weald as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwold in the present edition appear under Alfwold in the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Alweald.
6,7	ST IVES. This was an Ancient Parish. The original name Slepe, as in Great Domesday, has been displaced by the name of the priory established there as a cell of Ramsey Abbey c. 1001-1002 by Eadnoth, Abbot of Ramsey: Hart, 'Eadnoth', p. 64; the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 140-42). It is villa de Sancto Ivone and S. Ivo de Slepe in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, p. 539); villa Sancti Ivonis (Feet of Fines for 1200) and Strata de Sancto Ivonis (sic) in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 603; see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 388-89; Place-names of Huntingdonshire, pp. xli, 221-22.
		Land in Slepe was granted by the will of Aethelstan Mannessune to his youngest daughter Alwenna in 986 with reversion to Ramsey Abbey after her death: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 59-60, 192); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 91); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 29 no. 21; Hart, 'Eadnoth', pp. 61-67. The reversion is confirmed in the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 60-61); see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 29 no. 22. Nonetheless, 10 hides here became involved in a complicated dispute but were finally surrendered to Ramsey: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 76-78); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 30 no. 23. It is unlikely that the earlier history of Slepe has anything to do with the 40 manentes at Slaepi granted to Bath Abbey in 670-671 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1168 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 21 no. 2), which is more likely to be Islip, Oxfordshire.
		Slepe in Great Domesday is a 20-hide estate, whereas the hidage where given in earlier documents is 10 hides. It is possible that the bulk of these 10 hides consisted of the 9 hides granted at Broughton by King Aethelred II and which cannot be accounted for there (6,3 Broughton note). They may have been transferred as part of the foundation of the priory.
		Among the 20 hides held at Slepe in 1086 were Wodhirst and Woldhirst (Woodhurst and Old Hurst, TL3176, TL2977) also at Derhirst (lost): the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, p. 42, ii. pp. 109, 115, 163-65); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 603; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 207-209; 250-52. Old Hurst is derived from Old English weald and hyrst: there is no reference to the antiquity of the settlement; see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 211. A hide in one of them was held by Ingelrann (see 6,7 Ingelrann note) and this or another hide in 'Hurst' was the subject of writs by William II and Henry I. The first is addressed to Ranulf brother of Ilger (then sheriff) instructing him to re-seise the Abbot of Ramsey of land in Hyrst held by William son of Osmund (presumably a brother of Ralph) 'and to free the land of the hawk that William keeps there'. In the similar writ of Henry I, William is called William accipitrarius ('hawker' or 'falconer'): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 111 no. 447, ii. p. 19 no. 574.
		Land at Acleya (possibly 'Ockley', lost in St Ives: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 229) was left by Godric c. 1007 to his son Eadnoth who granted it to Ramsey Abbey: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 111-12); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1518 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 32 no. 29); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1231 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 35 no. 39).
		St Ives grew into an important settlement. A fair was granted here 'to St Benedict of Ramsey and St Ives of Slepe' in 1110: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 94 no. 953, see p. 226 no. 1585, p. 292 no. 1916.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	THREE OF THE ABBOT'S MEN. This holding was probably at Woodhurst or Old Hurst; see 6,7 they note.
	EVERARD <OF ST IVES>. The Domesday forms of Everard - Eurard[us], Ebrard[us] - represent Old German Eburhard, Eburhart, Eborhard, Eborhart, Eberhard, Eberhart, Everhard, Everhart etc. and Old French Evr(e)hard, Ev(e)rart: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 63-64. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Everard, Evrard, Ebrard and Eburhard; these have now been standardized as Everard. The Alecto edition has Everard. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		Everard is an uncommon name and there are no apparent links between the abbey's man and his namesakes elsewhere, the closest of whom is Everard son of Brian, in Cambridgeshire (JP).
	INGELRANN [* OF EU *]. Probably Ingelrann of Eu, and the same man who held in Huntingdonshire under Eustace the sheriff (19,15;19) and under the Count of Eu, to whom he was perhaps related, in Sussex. Ingelrann was brother of Guy of Eu. The Count of Eu was lord of the Rape of Hastings in Sussex in 1086 and this Ingelrann was probably the man of that name who was sheriff of the same Rape some time between 1101 and 1140 (Green, English Sheriffs, p. 81) where he was known as Ingelrann of Hastings. His successor in Huntingdonshire was Drogo of Hastings. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 334, iii. p. 50; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 280.
		The Domesday forms of Ingelrann - Ingelrannus, Ingelranus, Ingelramnus - represent Old German Engelramnus, Engelrannus, Ingelramnus, Ingelrannus: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 73-74. The Alecto edition has Ingelrann.
		His holding at plain 'Hyrst' appears to have been of 1 hide, being referred to in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 147), as the old fee of Ingelruus or Ingel'u' (possibly a mistranscription).
	"PLEINES" [* OF "SLEPE" *]. It has not been possible to find out definitely what name is represented by the Domesday form Pleines; it is not in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. It has therefore been decided to keep to the Domesday form for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Pleines. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Book, but the man occurs once also in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 129 no. xl); see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 326. The Ramsey Cartulary records an agreement between Pleines de Slepa with his two sons on one side and Abbot Aldwin of Ramsey with the whole chapter of the abbey on the other concerning a one-hide holding (presumably his share of the 4 hides that he has with two others) and 28 acres. The document names Pleines' wife as Beatrix (Beatrice) and his two sons as William and Richard. He also had daughters, unnamed. The names of his wife and children strongly suggest that Pleines was not an Englishman. Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms de Famille et Prénoms, has a modern French name Plein, from the French adjective plein ('full') and suggests it means 'full of wine', 'a drinker'. This could well be an explanation of the name. Pleines would originate as a nickname from the Latin adjective plenus, meaning 'full', 'filled up' and could theoretically refer to a person who was fat, gluttonous or frequently had a 'skin-full' of wine. The actual form Pleines would show the first -e- of Latin influenced by the characteristic differentiation of the vowel as the adjective plenus developed to plein, and a second -e- standing for a weakened -u-. The word is not Latin, but not yet French.
	[THEY HAVE] A CHURCH AND A PRIEST. Latin ęcclesiam et presbiterum, both accusative, apparently after habent ('they have') in the previous sentence, although the villagers and presumably the smallholders are not in the accusative.
		A church at St Ives has already been mentioned. This one was probably at Old Hurst or Woodhurst.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *] CLAIMS 2 ½ HIDES. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note. Farley omitted the marginal K (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim'; see 2,6 claims note) which refers to this. There is no certainty that this Eustace was the sheriff, though this claim would have been in character. Eustace the sheriff held in Hemingford in Toseland Hundred across the River Ouse from St Ives (19,23). The claim does not feature in the Declarations and was unsuccessful. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 831.
	2 ½ HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected this from '1 ½ hides' by the addition of a minim.
6,8	HOUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was given with Wyton (6,9) by Ealdorman Aelfwold (died 990), brother of Aethelwine. It was later treated with Wyton as a single manor (Houton cum Wytton: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 601) and continued as abbey property until the Dissolution: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 166); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 15 nos. 1262, 1262a; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 179, 253.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *] CLAIMS 1 HIDE. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note. The claim does not feature in the Declarations, and it appears to have been unsuccessful. The marginal K (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim'; see 2,6 claims note) refers to this. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 832.
6,9	WYTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It has the same history and descent as Houghton (6,8) with which it is later coupled.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,10	BLUNTISHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. The bulk of this vill, 6 ½ hides, was held by Ely Abbey (4,2). Great Domesday does not indicate the 1066 holder of Ramsey Abbey's portion (which is not called a manor) and its pre-Conquest history is obscure; it could have been an encroachment from Ramsey's adjacent manors of Holywell and St Ives. It continued to be held by the abbey after 1086 and was periodically leased out. Between 1114 and 1139 such a lease is of Stowe (possibly lost in Bluntisham, or Longstowe, CAM 7,2) et quicquid habemus in Bluntesham ('and whatever we have in Bluntisham') and 1 hide in Hyrst (Old Hurst or Woodhurst). Possibly preceding this (the document is dated 1107 x 1125) Henry I notifies that Gilbert son of Guy has granted to Ramsey Abbey all his father's land except Estou (that is, the same 'Stow') and Bluntisham. This suggests a tussle about the right to hold this and other lands. See 6,7 St Ives note; the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. pp. 107, 146, 246, ii. p. 300); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 195 no. 1438; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 153-54.
	BELONGING TO RAMSEY. Latin pertin' could be extended to pertinens (nominative) describing the half-hide, or pertinentium (genitive) describing the oxen. The former is perhaps more likely, as the scribe could have indicated the latter more clearly (by writing pertinent'); there is also a dot after bou'. A further possibility is that the scribe intended a new clause here (pertin' = pertinet, 'it belongs') referring to the half-hide. The difference affects interpretation because if the land belongs to Ramsey Abbey, it is rightly included in its fief, but if its oxen are ploughing the land, the doubt about the legitimacy of the tenure mentioned above is reinforced.
6,11	WARBOYS. This was an Ancient Parish. This manor was given to the abbey by (St) Dunstan (died 988). In Edgar's confirmation it is described as Weardebusc cum omnibus sibi pertinentibus ('Warboys with everything belonging to it'), and it is later regularly called the manor of Wardeboys cum Caldecote ('Caldecote', lost: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 227). See Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 601; the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. pp. 73, 305, iii. p. 208); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 158 nos. 1262, 1262a, p. 246 no. 1686; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 242.
		The later manor of Woolvey (TL3381), 'wolf island' or 'wolf enclosure' (Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 228) was of land here held by the infirmerer of Ramsey Abbey: Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 242.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,12	SAWTRY. There were later two parishes, Sawtry All Saints and Sawtry St Andrew, as well as an extra-parochial area, Sawtry St Judith. The four holdings here (see also 19,1. 20,2. 29,6) plus Glatton (9,1) made up a unit of 30 hides, but apart from Countess Judith's holding (20,2) the internal divisions of the vill and later 'villages' are not round figures of hides. The Ramsey Abbey manor was 'Sawtry Moyne', named from a family of later subtenants: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 659. It had been granted to the abbey by Countess Aethelflaeda, the first wife of Ealdorman Aethelwine, or by Aethelwine himself and is mentioned in the 'confirmation' of King Edgar. The holding remained in the abbey's hands until the sixteenth century but was granted in 1510-1511 to Sawtry Abbey (Cistercian, founded in 1147 as a dependency of Warden Abbey: Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 114, 125). See VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 204. In later times it incorporated the hamlet of Ludyngton' (Lutton, 6,14, a separate manor in 1086): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 660.
	LAND FOR 12 PLOUGHS. [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining quarter of a line after this. It is possible that he thought that he might need to add details concerning lordship plough(land)s additional to the 7 ½ hides and ½ virgate of taxable land, as he did in 6,13. See B21 ploughs note.
6,13	ELTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The vill was divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire in 1086. Portions in Northamptonshire (NTH 6,9. 9,3) were held by the Abbot of Ramsey as here and by the Abbot of Peterborough. The Northamptonshire portion was transferred to Huntingdonshire in the 1840s.
		This manor was given to the abbey (1016 x 1034) by Aethelric, Bishop of Dorchester-on-Thames, together with 3 hides at Broughton (6,3) for the supplies of the monks, perhaps in recompense for his cracking the abbey's bell when the future bishop was a pupil at its school. It is said to have been confirmed on the abbey by Edward the Confessor c. 1062 and remained with it until the Dissolution: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 135-40, 144); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 267); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1030 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 39 no. 47); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 320; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 158 nos. 1262, 1262a, p. 246 no. 1686; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196, ii. p. 656; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 158.
	LAND FOR 4 PLOUGHS. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
6,14	LUTTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The vill was divided between counties in 1086. Ramsey Abbey held another portion in Northamptonshire (NTH 9,2) as did the men of Peterborough Abbey (NTH 6a,11). The whole was incorporated into Northamptonshire in 1895.
		This estate was apparently acquired in 1055 from Peterborough Abbey, in exchange for Marholm, Northamptonshire: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1110 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 112 no. 167); Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs no. 62 and p. 478. Lutton was later held by the abbey as part of Sawtry (6,12 Sawtry note).
	IN LORDSHIP ½ PLOUGH. The other ½ plough was held by a villager on the abbot's land in Northamptonshire (NTH 9,2).
	EDRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Edric(us), Aedricus, Edericus, Eadricus, Headricus etc. - represent Old English Eadric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead-, as the vast majority of Domesday forms have Ed-. In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Eadric, except for SFK 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error). This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
6,15	YELLING. This was an Ancient Parish. The abbey held two 5-hide estates here in 1066, but by 1086 one of them was in the hands of Aubrey de Vere (22,1). The present 5 hides had originally been granted to Ely Abbey, then, by an arrangement with Ealdorman Aethelwine, were exchanged by the abbey (along with 6 hides in Wennington and 30 hides in Hemingford) for 40 hides in Hatfield, Hertfordshire. Wennington (6,2 Ripton note), Hemingford (6,16-18) and Yelling all descended to Ramsey Abbey at different times. This Yelling came to the widow Leofgifu who gave it to the abbey in 1056 together with Great Staughton (2,2) and Dillington (6,20); it appears in King Edward's 'confirmation'. On the history of the estate, see the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 54-55); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 79-81, 127, 419); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 318, p. 238 no. 326; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 305.
		The manor later became known as Butlers or Ashfields. Ramsey Abbey's overlordship later lapsed and it was held from the Crown: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 381.
	SWEIN [* OF ESSEX *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Suain, Suen(us), Suuen, Suein, Suuain, Suan(us), Suuan, Suin[us] etc. - represent Old Norse Sveinn, Old Danish/Old Swedish Sven: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire this name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition also has Swein.
		The name Swein occurs twice in Domesday Huntingdonshire, on both occasions as a landowner in 1086 (when the name was uncommon), on holdings in the same hundred which lay five miles from each other; it is therefore more likely than not that the Swein of 6,15 was the tenant-in-chief Swein of Essex of HUN 16 (JP).
6,16	HEMINGFORD [ABBOTS]. The two later settlements (and Ancient Parishes) of Hemingford Abbots and Hemingford Grey are represented in Domesday Book by two 20-hide units. The first consists of the abbey's 18-hide manor (6,16), together with the 1 hide held under it by Ralph son of Osmund but subject to dispute (6,17), plus a further hide held by him apparently in chief, but probably alienated from the abbey (27,1). The other 20-hide Hemingford consisted of the 5 hides retained by Ramsey (6,18), 4 hides held by Eustace the sheriff (19,23) and 11 hides held by Aubrey de Vere and by Ralph son of Osmund under him (22,2).
		30 hides in Hemingford (ultimately split between 20 hides in Hemingford Abbots and 10 hides in Hemingford Grey) were given to Ely Abbey between 973 and 975 by the will of Wulfstan of Dalham: the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 79-80, 126-27, 419); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 17. Ely Abbey gave these 30 hides, plus 6 hides in Wennington in Abbots Ripton (6,2 Ripton note) and 5 hides in Yelling (6,15), to Ealdorman Aethelwine in exchange for Hatfield, Hertfordshire: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 54-55); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 318. Of these 30 hides, the abbey only held 24 hides in 1086, of which 1 hide (6,17) held by Ralph son of Osmund seemed effectively to have been alienated.
		A further 11 hides described as terram orientalem de Hemmingeforde ('the eastern land of Hemingford'), which became known as Hemingford Grey, were given (1040 x 1042) to the abbey by King Harthacnut at the request of his mother Aelfgifu (Emma) and for the soul of his father (King Cnut), together with a further 5 hides in Yelling (22,1), a grant confirmed by Edward the Confessor: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 235 no. 322; the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 152); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 419); Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 257 nos. 57-58). These 11 hides were held by the abbey at the Conquest, but by 1086 had been seized by Aubrey de Vere (22,2 Hemingford note).
		The abbey retained the present 18-hide estate after 1086 and until the Dissolution: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 209); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 680; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 304.
6,17	MARGINAL M. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation but corrected here.
	THERE ALSO. That is, in Hemingford [Abbots]. For the earlier history, see 6,16 Hemingford note.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,5 Godric note.
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. For Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	NOW RALPH SON OF OSMUND HAS IT. He also held the 11 hides at Hemingford Grey under Aubrey de Vere (22,2) and 1 hide of Hemingford Abbots ostensibly as tenant-in-chief at 27,1. Both this present hide and the one in 27,1 are the subject of Declarations (D8). Of this hide it is said that, as here, Godric held from the abbot, but it adds that the abbot had (presumably later) given it to Saewine the falconer, from whom Ralph's father Osmund had seized it during the abbot's absence. The hide returned to the abbey according to the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 146) and may have been the one granted (back) to the abbey (1114 x 1130) by Hugh son of Alwold (VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 304).
		A writ of William II, addressed to Ranulf brother of Ilger (then sheriff) instructs him to re-seise the Abbot of Ramsey of land in Hyrst held by William son of Osmund 'and to free the land of the hawk that William keeps there'. In the similar writ of Henry I, William is called William accipitrarius ('hawker' or 'falconer'): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 111 no. 447, ii. p. 19 no. 574. These writs have been seen as relating to the present holding both by the editors of Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. and by D. Bates, 'Two Ramsey Writs', p. 338. This is no doubt because it is assumed that William son of Osmund inherited his brother Ralph's 1 hide. However, William could have held a quite separate hide under the abbot, as the place-name Hyrst has no apparent connection with Hemingford, and is more likely to refer to Woodhurst, Old Hurst or Derhirst (lost) in St Ives (6,7 St Ives note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 833.
		The Domesday forms of Ralph - Radulfus, Radulf, Radolf - represent Old German Radulf, from which Norman Radulf and Old French Raoul were derived: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from Radulf and Raoul (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the T.R.E. holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error. The Domesday forms of his father's name - Osmund(us), Hosmund[us], Hosmunt - represent Old English Osmund: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 340, though he mentioned that a possible base is also Old Norse Asmundr, Old Danish Asmund. The Alecto edition also has Osmund.
6,18	IN ANOTHER [ESTATE CALLED] HEMINGFORD [* HEMINGFORD [GREY] *]. Alia is probably an editorial ellipsis for 'another estate called Hemingford', and does not, in itself, imply the existence of a separate vill or village, though at an unknown date two separate settlements did in fact develop out of the land-unit of Hemingford and alia is used routinely in the Ramsey Cartulary to distinguish the two. On the meaning of alia and altera in these contexts, see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
		This was an Ancient Parish. For its connection with the other estates at Hemingford, see 6,16 Hemingford note.
		This estate in alia Hemyngford is held by Reginald le Grey in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. pp. 267-73), but the abbey retained the overlordship.
	AUBREY DE VERE. He held another 11 hides here, ostensibly in chief (22,2).
		The Domesday forms of Aubrey - Albericus, Alberi(c) - represent Old German Albericus (a stereotyped Latin form of which the English equivalent is Ælfric, Alfric) and Old French Aubri: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 18-19. The Old German names Alberic, Albric are recorded in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 143, 180 (under Ælfric). As Aubrey is the modern form of this name JRM chose that. The Alecto edition also has Aubrey.
6,19	OFFORD [D'ARCY]. This was an Ancient Parish. The combined total of Offord [D'Arcy] and Offord [Cluny] was 20 hides, which consisted of two 10-hide units, one consisting of Offord Cluny alone (18,1) and the other, Offord D'Arcy, divided between Ramsey Abbey, Eustace the sheriff (19,25) and Countess Judith (20,7). On the affix D'Arcy, see 20,7 Offord note.
		This estate seems to have been acquired early in the eleventh century. Osgot Swegn leased Westmill, Hertfordshire, which was to revert to the abbey on his death, and at that same time his own estate at Uppefordia would be given to the abbey: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 145); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 234 no. 321. It does not appear in the confirmations of Edward the Confessor, William I or Pope Alexander III. The estate was held by the abbey in later times by a William de Broctone and became known as Broughton's manor. It was abbey property at the Dissolution: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 668; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 324.
	OF THESE ... 2 PLOUGHS IN LORDSHIP. This information was added by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the same time as several other pieces concerning the exemption of lordship land; see B21 ploughs note.
	INLAND. The lord's land, usually exempt from tax, comparable with dominium ('lordship').
6,20	DILLINGTON. It was in Great Staughton Ancient Parish. A part of the early history of this estate might be contained in a highly suspect grant of 5 hides by King Wulfhere dating from 674: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 67 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 22 no. 3). Greater certainty attaches to the grant of Dillington with Great Staughton (see 2,2) and 5 hides in Yelling (6,15) by Leofgifu a widow in 1056: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 238 no. 326 (= the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 199)). The land was confirmed by the Conqueror and by Pope Alexander III (see {Ramsey Abbey}), and remained in the abbey's hands until the Dissolution: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 359-60. The holding was described as Dilinton' et Bichamstede ('Beachampstead', lost: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 268) in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 666 (20,6 Eynesbury note). It is coupled with Pyrie (West Perry, 19,30) in the Lay Subsidy Rolls (1334), p. 137. Concerning 'Beachampstead', a document of 1605 gives the alternatives Croftes alias Beauffittes alias Beachampstead: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 364. On the name-form, see Sandred, 'Beachampstead'.
		Ramsey Abbey also held Midloe (TL1664) in later times and granted it c. 1135 to Warden Abbey. Its early history is obscure, but it might have been a part of Dillington: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. pp. 266, 272); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 686; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 318.
6,21	[GREAT] GIDDING. This was an Ancient Parish. The Great Domesday form Redinges is the result of confusion between the late Old English letters g and r (Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 240).
		The 1 hide here, together with the 2 ½ hides of Luddington-in-the-Brook (19,19) and the 1 ½ hides of Thurning (5,2) made a 5-hide unit. Otherwise, the estates at Gidding (less 1,6; see 1,6 Gidding note) together with Coppingford (11,2) would have formed a 20-hide unit. In 1086, Ramsey Abbey held 1 hide in Great Gidding (6,21) and 7 hides in Steeple Gidding (6,25). The present Gidding, together with Weletona, was given to the abbey as part of its foundation grant by Ealdorman Aethelwine: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 52-55); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 231 no. 311. The joint extent was 10 hides, and it is not certain if that was an approximation, or whether the abbey had lost 2 hides by 1086. Hart (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 232) identified Weletona as Woodwalton, but Woodwalton was 5 hides in Great Domesday (14,1) and only came into the abbey's hands after 1086. The name-form does not suggest evolution to 'Walton'. It is more likely a lost 'Welton' in or adjacent to Gidding; see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 246 no. 1686.
		The abbey retained both its Giddings after 1086: 8 hides were held in Giddinge cum alia Gyddinge in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 209), and 7 hides in Geddingge and 1 hide in alia Geddingge in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 220, see i. p. 268, ii. p. 136); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 292 no. 1915; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 57.
		The present 1-hide manor was later known as 'Gidding Moyne' or 'Clarevaux': VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 50.
	"LUNEN" <OF GLATTON>. In the manuscript this is Iunen and was correctly transcribed by Farley (pace, JRM). The main scribe's source probably had a malformed L or l, which he misread. In the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday, as the tenant of all four of Count Eustace's holdings in this county (HUN 9; see 9,4), the form is Lunen. It is not known what name is represented by this form, so it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form of 9,4. It appears as Lunen in the Phillimore printed edition and in the Alecto edition. According to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 292, the descent of this holding and of those in HUN 9 confirms that the same individual was concerned. Glatton, a few miles from Great Gidding, was Count Eustace's largest holding (9,1).
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. The Latin acras (accusative) implies that "Lunen" holds the meadow too. The Latin case of the villagers and smallholders is unclear. For a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
6,22	BYTHORN. It was a chapelry of Brington (6,23). Land here was granted with Ellington (6,26) by Ealdorman Aelfwold (died 990), the younger brother of Earl Aethelwine. It was confirmed on the abbey by his widow: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 166); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 26 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1808). Though specified as a manor in its own right in 1086, it was later, like Brington (6,23), a dependency of Old Weston (6,24) but it continued to be held by the abbey until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 26.
		A writ of William II addressed to 'Ranulf son of Ilger, the sheriff' (that is, Ranulf brother of Ilger) instructs him to re-seise the Abbot of Ramsey of ½ hide here taken by Humphrey the larderer: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 104 no. 413; see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 246 no. 1686. His subtenancy is not mentioned in Great Domesday.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	OF THIS LAND. This corrects the Phillimore printed translation; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	OF LAND. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation, as also in the subholding in 19,15.
6,23	BRINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. This estate was obtained by Ealdorman Aethelwine from his father Ealdorman Aethelstan and granted to the abbey at its foundation: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 231 no. 311. After 1086, this manor, like Bythorn, became a dependency of Old Weston (6,24) and descended with it.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
6,24	[OLD] WESTON. This was an Ancient Parish, later a chapelry of Brington (6,24). 'Old' is a corruption of Old English weald ('wold'): Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 250.
		Westona was given by King Edgar (957-975) to Aelfwyn his nurse who was married to Ealdorman Aethelstan, and then by their son Ealdorman Aethelwine to the abbey at its foundation: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 11-12, 52-55); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. pp. 165-66); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 231 no. 310; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 116. Old Weston was united after 1086 with Bythorn (6,22) and Brington (6,23) into a single manor which continued in the abbey's possession: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 311); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 629; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 467, 471; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271.
	2 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
6,25	[STEEPLE] GIDDING. This was an Ancient Parish. It was also called Gidding Abbatis: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 467, 471. For the history, see 6,21 Gidding note.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
6,26	ELLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was granted with Bythorn (6,22) by Ealdorman Aelfwold (died 990), the younger brother of Earl Aethelwine. It was confirmed on the abbey by his widow: the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 166); Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1808 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 31 no. 26); VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 44. It ceased to be a manor after 1086 and, like Bythorn, became a dependency of Old Weston (6,24), continuing with it until the Dissolution: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 97 no. 967; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 467, 471; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51.
		It is possible that Ellington was originally part of the royal manor of Brampton (1,8), if a precept of Henry I dating from 1106 x 1123 preserves the echo of a connection by service: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 196 no.1438a. In it the king instructs that the Abbot of Ramsey is to be quit of service at Brampton if he can show that none of his predecessors did it.
		It appears anyway that the king or a servant had intruded on Ellington other than by annexing part of the arable to his wood, since c. 1110 Henry I announced that he had made an agreement between his steward William and Abbot Aelfwine [of Ramsey] to the effect that William should hold Ellington for his lifetime but that after his death all the lordship land should revert to the abbey, although 'his heirs shall only retain so much of the land in fee as William found in that manor': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 97 no. 967. It looks as if William had held part of the manor (legally under the abbot, or illegally by seizure), but had also adopted some or all of the lordship land.
	THE KING'S WOODLAND. This was probably the later royal forest of Weybridge appurtenant to Brampton; see VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 7; and 1,8 Brampton note. The hide was subsequently lost to the abbey by royal command: et decima hida est in nemore Walberg per praeceptum henrici regis ('and the tenth hide is in the wood of Weybridge by command of King Henry'): the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, iii. p. 305).
	2 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
7	LAND OF ST MARY'S, THORNEY. A Benedictine Abbey. It may have originated as an anchorite settlement known as "Ancarig", founded by Saxulf, the first Abbot of Peterborough (654-675). This early monastery was destroyed by the Danes and replaced by a Benedictine Abbey dedicated to St Mary, founded 972-973 by Aethelwold, Bishop of Winchester (963-984), supported by King Edgar who issued a charter of confirmation in 973.
	The abbots who spanned the Domesday period were:
		c. 1068-1084/1085 Fulcard (Folcard), a monk of Saint-Bertin, possibly only acting as abbot
		1085-1112 Gunter of Le Mans, a royal chaplain and Archdeacon of Salisbury, formerly a monk of the Abbey of Saint-Wandrille in Normandy and of Battle Abbey in Sussex.
	See Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, p. 74
	All eight entries in this fief lie in a single hundred: Normancross Hundred.
7,1	YAXLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. The estate included Farcet (TL2094). Its early history is complex and obscure partly because it is based on documents that are self-interested forgeries. Hart (Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 161-65) has attempted a clarification, which nonetheless leaves some loose ends. 10 mansae at Geakeslea and 5 hides at Fearresheafde, which together are equal to the Great Domesday hidage of Yaxley, were said to have been granted by King Eadwig in 956 to his thane Aelfwine: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 595 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 23 no. 8, see pp. 159-65). However, unless this was a temporary confiscation, it contradicts other evidence, for, during the reign of an earlier king, Eadred (946-955), Yaxley was in the hands of Aelfsige (son of Brihtsige) and presumably passed without interruption to his son Wulfstan Uccea, for Yaxley, together with Ailsworth in Northamptonshire, was acquired by Bishop Aethelweald from this Wulfstan Uccea (963 x 975) in exchange for 24 hides in Washington in Sussex: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1377 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 12 = Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. xxxvii pp. 69, 322-24). Wulfstan then apparently tried to undo the transaction, so Bishop Aethelweald bought the estate again.
		In one version of the 'foundation charter' of Edgar (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 792 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 16, see pp. 170, 179) 25 hides called Geakeslea (also called in the same entry aet twam geakeslean and aet farresheafde: 'at the two Yaxleys' and 'at Farcet') were given to Thorney Abbey. In another version the figures are 17 hides in Yaxley and 8 hides in Farcet. These figures are in excess of the combined figure for Yaxley and Farcet in Great Domesday Book, but could be explained by a confusion of figures in copying or 'editing' the charter for the cartulary. Ailsworth, Northamptonshire, rated at 9 hides in Great Domesday, had been part of the exchange for Washington and with this deduction one returns to nearly the 15 hides of Farcet/ Yaxley. One notes that the 9 hides of Ailsworth and 15 hides of Yaxley /Farcet are a fair exchange for the 24 hides of Washington. The significance of the 'two Yaxleys' is unclear; it seems unnecessary to assume (with Hart, Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 161-64) the existence of a separate 10-hide 'fenland manor' of Yaxley whose hidage then disappears. The exact sequence of transactions is also unclear. In one version of the charter Farcet is also said to have been given to Peterborough Abbey (Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 159, 170, 179) and this is borne out by a record of the gifts of Bishop Aethelweald to Peterborough Abbey: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1448 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 13 = Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. xxxix pp. 73, 325-30). These gifts include stock at Yaxley, 16 able-bodied men and 8 young men at Farcet, as well as half of Whittlesey Mere and the tithe of 'the two hundreds that owe suit to Normancross'. Peterborough Abbey's interest in Whittlesey Mere depended on its estate at Farcet, but when Thorney acquired that manor in exchange for land in the soke of Peterborough at Wittering, Oxney and Thorpe, Peterborough's interest was safeguarded by the provisions contained in 7,8; see Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 163-64; King, Peterborough Abbey, pp. 7, 92.
		Yaxley became an important estate of the abbots of Thorney and it is possibly for that reason that it appears first in the fief. The abbots were or were to become the lords of Normancross Hundred whose moot site lay within the manor: see {Introduction: Hundreds}. After 1086, Yaxley with Farcet remained with the abbey until the Dissolution; see Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196; ii. p. 640; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. pp. 598-99, 605, 613; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 166, 241. A market in Yaxley was granted by William Rufus and re-granted by Henry I: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 115 no. 477, ii. pp. 242-43 nos. 1664, 1666; English Episcopal Acta I: Lincoln, p. 165 no. 265.
7,2	STANGROUND. This was an Ancient Parish. It was apparently granted or confirmed by King Edgar, though it is absent from the foundation charter. It continued to be held by Thorney Abbey until the Dissolution and was sometimes said to include Farsheved (Farcet, see 7,1): Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196, ii. p. 645; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 474; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 213.
	3 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	6 SMALLHOLDERS [***]. The scribe left a space of about a quarter of a line after this, almost certainly for the ploughs belonging to the villagers and smallholders; after bord' there is no punctuation.
7,3	WOODSTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was obtained by Bishop Aethelweald from King Edgar in exchange for Paeninctun (Hampshire, unidentified). It was confirmed on the abbey by the latter in 973 (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 179) and held by it until the Dissolution: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196, ii. p. 641; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 474; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. pp. 598-99; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 233.
		Woodston is the modern spelling, replacing an earlier Woodstone.
	1 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
7,4	HADDON. This was an Ancient Parish. The 5 hides here were granted in 951 by King Eadred to his thane Aelfsige: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 556 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 23 no. 6, pp. 155-59). It is unclear how they came into the hands of Thorney Abbey, but it was probably via Aelfsige's son Wulfstan Uccea, and therefore possibly via Bishop Aethelweald, in the same way as Yaxley (6,1). However, it is not certain when the land came to the abbey. The Rotuli Hundredorum, (ii. p. 644) state that it was granted by King Edgar in free and perpetual alms, although it does not appear in the foundation charter: Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 157-58. It continued to be a possession of the abbey until the Dissolution: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 182.
	1 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
7,5	[WATER] NEWTON. This was an Ancient Parish. An estate at Niwantun was granted in 937 by King Athelstan to Sigulf. The identity of this with Water Newton depends on the identification of the river mentioned in the charter: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 437 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 22 no. 4; see p. 153); see also Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 62, and idem, 'Water Newton', pp. 86-87). At all events the history of the estate is unclear until it was confirmed on the abbey by King Edgar, having been obtained by Bishop Aethelweald from a thane Aelfric Cilt (Ealdorman of Mercia in 983): Early Charters of Eastern England, pp. 169, 178; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. pp. 594-99).
		The manor continued to be held by the abbey until the Dissolution and was later combined into a single manor with Sibson and its dependency Stibbington (7,6-7): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 646, 648; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 230.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	ONE CUSTOMARY DUE IN THE ABBOT OF PETERBOROUGH'S WOODLAND. In Domesday Huntingdonshire there are three references to the Abbot of Peterborough's woodland, two relating to Chesterton (9,2. 19,8) and one to Water Newton (7,5). This might be the right to take timber or brushwood to this amount in payment, as VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 345 note. However, in 19,8 there is a slightly longer phrase '1 customary due … which pays 2s', suggesting that this was a payment to the manor from the abbot, perhaps for help with the management and exploitation of the wood. The Peterborough manor nearest to both these places south of the River Nene is Alwalton (8,2). If the woodland was north of the River Nene, in Northamptonshire, the most direct access from Water Newton and Chesterton would be along Ermine Street, crossing the River Nene by bridge or ford at TF116976. This would lead most directly to the woodland at Castor (NTH 6,4) and at Ailsworth (NTH 6,5), but the abbey also had woodland at Thorpe (NTH 6,3), Milton (NTH 6a,2) and at Peterborough itself (NTH 6,1). There was an exceptionally large stretch of woodland (2 leagues by 1 league) at Wittering (NTH 6a,4). See 1,2 where the woodland belonging to Botolph Bridge is in Northamptonshire.
7,6	SIBSON. This was an Ancient Parish. This manor and its dependency Stibbington (7,7) were equally divided between Thorney Abbey and Count Eustace (9,3-4), including the church and mill in Sibson and the villagers' ploughs at Stibbington. The pre-Conquest history of the estate and its outlier is obscure, but both continued to be held by the abbey after 1086, generally as dependencies of Water Newton (7,5): Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 604; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 199 no. 1457; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 217, 219.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
7,7	THIS ENTRY and the next one (7,8, including the assessment of the fisheries and meres, which really forms a separate entry and was written across the foot of both columns on the recto of folio 205) were additions to the text of Huntingdonshire, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left at the end of chapter 7, continuing into the foot margin. The pen and ink used are quite different to those of the surrounding text, but the entries were rubricated. The unusual content of 7,8 may have led to its initial omission. It was a convenient place to add matters concerning the three abbots - of Thorney, Ramsey and Peterborough - after an omitted member of a Thorney manor: the lands of all three abbeys are on this page of the manuscript. It may be that the inclusion of the entry concerning Whittlesey mere in Thorney's chapter is a recognition of Thorney's former pre-eminence; see 7,8 Whittlesey note.
	STIBBINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Although in Great Domesday it is not named as a manor, jurisdiction or outlier, it was certainly a dependency of Sibson (7,6). It had the same later history as its parent manor. The Phillimore printed translation placed an M in the margin beside this entry in error; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
		The estate contained Walmesforde (Wansford, TL0799) and a portion of the latter, held by Peterborough Abbey, was counted in Northamptonshire in the Middle Ages (NTH 6a,4 Wittering note). This was possibly because the settlement of Wansford lay on both sides of the River Nene, which had probably always formed the county boundary at this point; see VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 217. Wansford was thus partly a chapelry of Thornhaugh parish, Northamptonshire, perhaps counted silently in Wittering, Northamptonshire (NTH 6a,4) in 1086, partly in Sibson cum Stibbington, Huntingdonshire.
		Apart from the Stibbington surveyed in Domesday Huntingdonshire as a divided dependency of Sibson, a further 2 hides of Stibbington, seemingly an independent estate, lay in and were assessed in Upton Hundred, Northamptonshire, in 1086 (NTH 59,1) and it is possible that Stibbington itself was the name of an area divided between the counties, or that it really represents part or all of the northern part of Wansford (NTH 59,1 Stibbington note). Alternatively, it could be that the medieval county boundary took the shortest distance across the horseshoe formed by a bend in the River Nene, thus dividing Stibbington between counties. A later unrecorded change would then have put the boundary along the circuitous course of the river. However, if the Stibbington in Northamptonshire lay south of the river, it is difficult to see how Wansford, in origin a very localized name, could have been divided between counties.
	1 ½ PLOUGHS. Another 1 ½ ploughs are on Count Eustace's estate (9,4).
7,8	THIS ENTRY and the previous one (7,7), including the assessment of the fisheries and meres, which really forms a separate entry and was written across the foot of both columns on the recto of folio 205, were additions to the text of Huntingdonshire, written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in a space left at the end of chapter 7, continuing into the foot margin. The pen and ink used are quite different to those of the surrounding text, but the entries were rubricated. The unusual content of 7,8 may have led to its initial omission. It was a convenient place to add matters concerning the three abbots - of Thorney, Ramsey and Peterborough - after an omitted member of a Thorney manor: the lands of all three abbeys are on this page of the manuscript. It may be that the inclusion of the entry concerning Whittlesey mere in Thorney's chapter is a recognition of Thorney's former pre-eminence; see 7,8 Whittlesey note.
	WHITTLESEY MERE. The Phillimore printed translation placed an M in the margin beside this entry in error; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
		Whittlesey itself lay in Cambridgeshire; its mere extended into Huntingdonshire (JRM). On its bounds, see Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, p. 183. The manor was divided between Thorney Abbey and Ely Abbey (CAM 5,44. 8,1), though Ely had the jurisdiction of Thorney's portion.
		The foundation charter of Thorney Abbey records how Bishop Aethelweald acquired Whittlesey for Thorney in three stages together with two-thirds of its lake: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 177. The rights and the bounds were much disputed as recorded in the respective cartularies; see also Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 253 n. 1 and p. 262 no. 62. Conflict probably began early as Peterborough Abbey claimed that part of the mere had been given to it 963 x 984 by Bishop Aethelweald together with tolls over a large area south of the River Nene stretching to the 'king's toll of Normancross': Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version E, for 963 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1448 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 13 = Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. xxxix pp. 73, 328); see also King, Peterborough Abbey, p. 7. This is an abbreviated version of the fabricated foundation charter of 656 attributed to Wulfhere: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, version E, for 656 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 68 = Early Charters of Eastern England, no. 1 p. 21) which awards Peterborough extensive lands, waters, meres and fens which included Whittlesey mere. A doubtful charter of King Edgar (with bounds) awards two-thirds of the mere to Peterborough: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 787 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 15); see Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, pp. 182-83. It appears that Peterborough would have lost its rights in the mere when Farcet (7,1 Yaxley note) went to Thorney Abbey, but they appear to have been safeguarded by giving Peterborough the use of one of Thorney's two boats (see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 183). According to a document of 1020 x 1021 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1463 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 33 no. 32), Aelfsige, Abbot of Peterborough (1006/1007-1042), acquired a quarter of the mere from Thorth, the king's thane, in exchange for Orton (possibly the estate given in 1,4) and money. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 834.
		In 1086 Thorney Abbey, by virtue of its two boats had half the mere and this is confirmed 1148 x 1151 by the Bishop of Lincoln in English Episcopal Acta I: Lincoln, p. 165 no. 205 (see also p. 39 no. 60, p. 169 no. 271).
		In 1279 (Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 646) there was in the mere a fishery 2 leagues long and 1 wide. Ramsey had 1 fishery and 3 boats, Thorney 1 fishery and 2 ½ boats, Peterborough 1 fishery and 2 boats, and the Earl of Cornwall had 3 ½ boats, but by what authority was uncertain. The earl held Glatton (9,1 Glatton. note) at that time. The abbeys retained their interests in the mere until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. pp. 271, 281.
		The mere, centred on TL2290, was of considerable extent and was not drained until the nineteenth century. For its resources, see {Introduction: Geography}.
	HAS. In the manuscript ht' (= habet, 'has'). Farley misprinted hb' (= habebat, 'had') which was followed in the Phillimore printed translation, corrected here.
	MATERIALS. The predominant meaning of Latin materies is wood, but in this context reeds and rushes (for roofing, walling, flooring) may be included.
	STAKES FOR THE ENCLOSURE AROUND THE HOUSE. Classical Latin curia is from postulated coviria, that is from con- and vir, meaning an assembly of men. It is used of meetings of the Roman senate and of the place where they met. In Medieval Latin, as in Domesday Book, it frequently means a court, both a building (like aula, 'hall') and an assembly, as in a manorial court; here with domus it must refer to an area around a building - an enclosure, courtyard, curtilage - which would have been marked and protected by a palisade. Compare OXF 1,13: si quis alicujus curiam vel domum violenter effregerit vel intraverit … ('If anyone violently breaks into or enters anyone's courtyard or house …'). The 'house' intended here is no doubt the Abbey of Thorney itself. Compare CAM 7,4 'wood for the court's (curiê) houses', referring to the 'enclosure' or 'court' of Ramsey Abbey.
8	LAND OF ST PETER'S OF PETERBOROUGH. An early monastery founded at “Medeshamstede” c. 655, allegedly by a monk Saxulf, was destroyed by the Danes in 870, but rebuilt and re-founded as a Benedictine abbey c. 966, dedicated to St Peter, by Aethelwold Bishop of Winchester (963-984) supported by King Edgar (959-973); see NTH 6 Peterborough note.
	Three abbots spanned the period 1066-1086:
		1052-1066 Abbot Leofric. He was nephew of Earl Leofric of Mercia and had previously been a monk of the abbey
		1066-1069 Abbot Brand. He had previously been prior of the abbey. He acknowledged Edgar Aetheling as king in 1066, but was later reconciled to William I
		1070-1098 Abbot Turold. He was a monk of Fécamp Abbey in Normandy, then Abbot of Malmesbury from c. 1066 until 1070. He is sometimes referred to as a nepos ('nephew') of William the Conqueror.
	See Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, p. 60.
	The abbey's only holdings in Huntingdonshire were four in Normancross Hundred which was dominated by Thorney Abbey, though Peterborough had at one time been granted the tithes of its double hundred: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1448 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 25 no. 13); see 7,1 Yaxley note and {Introduction: Hundreds}. For Peterborough Abbey's interest in Whittlesey mere, see 7,8.
		Entries 8,1-2 are lands held in lordship; 8,3 is an outlier of 8,2 as well as a subinfeudation, while 8,4, said to be a manor, is also subinfeudated. This may be a chance arrangement, but the abbey's lands are similarly divided between a lordship group and subinfeudations in Northamptonshire, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire (NTH 6. NTH 6a. LEC 5. LIN 8).
8,1	NORMANCROSS HUNDRED. In the Phillimore printed translation this hundred head was inadvertently put in square brackets, as if the head was restored.
	[OLD] FLETTON. Fletton was an Ancient Parish. The land may have been among the ancient possessions of the abbey, but was recorded as given to it by Leuiva (Leofgifu) of London during Edward the Confessor's reign. The king tried to obtain it, but Abbot Leofric (1052-1066) gave him 8 marks to safeguard it. Later, like Alwalton and Orton Waterville (8,2-3), it appears to have come into the hands of Edward's queen, Edith, and was restored by the king in 1060: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 101 no. 15, p. 247 no. 358. That the tenure had been disputed is vaguely indicated in D28. Nonetheless, the land continued to be held by the abbey and was often later associated with Alwalton (8,2): the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus (Mellows, pp. 40, 67,111); Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 281; Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, p. 165; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 169.
	1 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
8,2	ALWALTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Five hides here were granted by King Eadred to his thane Aelsige Hunlafing in 955: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 566 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 23 no. 7 = Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters no. xxx pp. 57, 311-14). This same land was later given (1017 x 1023) by Ealdorman Leofwine, son of Aelfwine, to Peterborough Abbey, but appears to have been alienated. Later, like Fletton and Orton Waterville (8,1;3), it appears to have come into the hands of Edward the Confessor's queen, Edith, and was restored by the king in 1060: Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 101 no. 15, p. 247 no. 358.
		After 1086 Alwalton descended with Old Fletton (8,1 Fletton note): the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus (Mellows, pp. 40, 68, 111); Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, p. 160; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 281; Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 244 no. 348; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 133.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS IN LORDSHIP. See B21 ploughs note. Latin terram is accusative, so habuit ('he had') is understood.
	[AND] 5s. These 5s are presumably a render of money in addition to the render of eels, unless another resource has been omitted here. There is no mention of this fishery or any render of 5s. in the Descriptio Militum of Peterborough Abbey dating from between 1125 and 1128: Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, pp. 160-61. The fishery was no doubt on the River Nene.
		The Phillimore printed translation omitted the 5s in error; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
8,3	ORTON [WATERVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. For the division of the lands called 'Orton', see 2,6 Orton note and 19,4 Orton note. This 5-hide estate had probably come to the abbey during Edward the Confessor's reign (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 101), though it is mentioned in the doubtful charter of King Edgar. The Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 637, dating from 1279 and presumably referring to this estate, record that 'the abbot and his predecessors were enfeoffed for [military] service from the time of King Edward before the Conquest.' From a text in Stapleton, Chronicon Petroburgense, p. 182, it appears that Abbot Aelfsige (1006/1007-1042) gave Overtune in exchange for a quarter of Whittlesey mere. However, like Fletton and Alwalton (8,1-2) it appears to have come into the hands of Edward the Confessor's queen, Edith, and was restored by the king in 1060: the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus (Mellows, p. 40); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 101 no. 15, p. 247 no. 358.
		There were grants of 4 mansae at Ofaertune in 948 by King Eadred (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 547 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 22 no. 5) and of 5 cassati at Ofertune in 958 by King Edgar (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 674 = Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 24 no. 10), both to laymen, which may well have been part of the early history of both estates, or of one of them twice. After 1086 this estate was combined with the other; a part continued to be held by the abbey, a part was alienated: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 190, 198.
	2 OXEN. They probably combine with the 2 oxen in 8,4 to make an estimate of 5 ½ ploughs for Orton Waterville.
	FOR THE SUPPLIES OF THE MONKS. This information was included because it appears that the abbot had converted land of the monks' into land held by military-service.
	"ANSGERED" [* OF VATIERVILLE *]. The Domesday form of this name, which only occurs in HUN 8,3-4 and OXF 6,13, is Ansgered[us]. It is not certain what name is represented by this form; it does not appear in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. JRM in his HUN 8,3 note cited VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 331, that Ansgered was called Anfredus in a twelfth-century text. The text cited in VCH Huntingdonshire, p. 331 note 1 is from 'Sparke, Histores Varii, p. 61' [= J. Sparke (ed.), Historia Coenobii Burgensis in Historiae Anglicanae Scriptores Varii, p. 61] that is what is known as the Chronicle of Hugh Candidus. In the edition of Mellows (p. 114) his text reads Feodum Ansredi in Ouerton, or Anseredi depending on the manuscript. In the abbreviation of Peterborough lands found in the Book of Robert of Swaffham (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) his name is spelt Angerus. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Ansgered.
		The place of origin of this family was Vatierville in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Dieppe, canton Neufchâtel-en-Bray; see Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 111; Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Waterfield.
		Identified by Edmund King as the ancestor of the Waterville of Orton family: King, Peterborough Abbey, pp. 24, 56. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 154, who identifies the Ansgered of OXF 6,13 as the same man, presumably because the name (in this form at least) is recorded nowhere else (JP). Keats-Rohan calls him Ansered de Walterville. .
	MEADOW. Latin acras is accusative after habet; for a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
8,4	ORTON [WATERVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. This Orton came into the hands of the abbey at a different time. It was possibly granted by William the Conqueror himself, though the passive data est disguises the identity of the giver. There is a reference to these 3 ½ hides in 1,4, where the king is said to have the jurisdiction over them, whereas here it is said merely that the king (Edward) had the jurisdiction over them. For the earlier and later history of this estate, see 8,3 Orton note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 835.
		This holding was omitted in an abbreviation of the lands of Peterborough Abbey preserved in the Book of Robert of Swaffham; see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}.
	GODWIN. On the name Godwin, see 1,4 Godwin note.
	2 OXEN. They probably combine with the 2 oxen in 8,3 to make an estimate of 5 ½ ploughs for Orton Waterville.
	"ANSGERED" [* OF VATIERVILLE *]. See 8,3 "Ansgered" note.
	MEADOW. Latin acras is accusative after habet. The Latin case of the villagers and the smallholders is not indicated but is probably also accusative. For a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
9	LAND OF COUNT EUSTACE. He was married, first to Countess Goda, sister of King Edward (died c.1056), secondly to Ida of Lorraine. Eustace was the brother of Godfrey, Bishop of Paris, and of Lambert Count of Lens, thus uncle of Countess Judith, William the Conqueror’s niece. He played a major part at the battle of Hastings, subsequently rebelled against William but was later reconciled. He died in 1087. By his second wife Ida he was father of Eustace III of Boulogne, Godfrey of Bouillon and of King Baldwin I of Jerusalem. His lands formed the later honour of Boulogne. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 196. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
		All four entries in this fief lie in a single hundred: Normancross Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
9,1	[NORMANCROSS HUNDRED]. All four places in this chapter were in Normancross Hundred. Of them, Chesterton, Sibson and Stibbington (9,2-4) occur elsewhere in groups of places in Normancross Hundred. The scribe may have felt it unnecessary to begin this chapter with a Normancross hundred head as he had written one at 8,1. His practice in this matter was inconsistent.
	GLATTON. This was an Ancient Parish, which, like the 1086 estate, included Holme [TL1887], appearing as Glatton cum Hulmo in the Pipe Roll for 1167: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 576); Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 188. It was held in 1279 by the Earl of Cornwall from the honour of Boulogne. It was then said that he had a fishery attached to the estate and 3 ½ boats on Whittlesey mere (by what authority was not known): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 652; see 7,8 Whittlesey note. The Countess of Cornwall held in 1303 and the Abbot of Thorney (ex dimissione regis: 'by demise of the king') in 1316: Book of Fees, pp. 1428, 1433; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 471, 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 177, 185.
	ULF [* OF GLATTON *]. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 330 note 1: 'He attests as Ulf of Glatton the confirmation by Thurkill of Harringworth of land in Sawtry to Ramsey Abbey'. For that confirmation, see Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 236 no. 325, and 20,2 Sawtry note.
		On his first name, see B2 Fenman note.
9,2	CHESTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 the land was equally divided between Count Eustace and Eustace the sheriff (19,8), each holding half of 9 hides. The estate was later held from Eustace's successors of the honour of Boulogne and formed the manor of Chesterton Vessis or Vesci: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 654; Book of Fees, pp. 1428, 1433; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 471, 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 141.
	ULF [* OF GLATTON *]. On his identity, see 9,1 Ulf note. On his first name, see B2 Fenman note.
	A CUSTOMARY DUE …IN THE ABBOT OF PETERBOROUGH'S WOODLAND. In Domesday Huntingdonshire there are three references to the Abbot of Peterborough's woodland, two relating to Chesterton (9,2. 19,8) and one to Water Newton (7,5). This might be the right to take timber or brushwood to this amount in payment, as VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 345 note. However, in 19,8 there is a slightly longer phrase '1 customary due … which pays 2s', suggesting that this was a payment to the manor from the abbot, perhaps for help with the management and exploitation of the wood. The Peterborough manor nearest to both these places south of the River Nene is Alwalton (8,2). If the woodland was north of the river, in Northamptonshire, the most direct access from Water Newton and Chesterton would be along Ermine Street, crossing the River Nene by a bridge or ford at TF116976. This would lead most directly to the woodland at Castor (NTH 6,4) and at Ailsworth (NTH 6,5), but the abbey also had woodland at Thorpe (NTH 6,3), Milton (NTH 6a,2) and at Peterborough itself (NTH 6,1). There was an exceptionally large stretch of woodland (2 leagues by 1 league) at Wittering (NTH 6a,4). See HUN 1,2 where the woodland belonging to Botolph Bridge is in Northamptonshire.
9,3	SIBSON. This was an Ancient Parish. Sibson had an outlier at Stibbington (9,4) which also became an Ancient Parish. Both Sibson and Stibbington were equally divided between Thorney Abbey (7,6-7) and Count Eustace. They each had half of the church and mill at Sibson and shared a plough at Stibbington and the hamlet of Wansford [TL0798]. The holdings descended to the honour of Boulogne; the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 579); Rotuli Hundredorum, i. pp. 196-97, ii. p. 649; Book of Fees, pp. 1428, 1433; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 217.
	ULF [* OF GLATTON *]. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 330 note 1. On his first name, see B2 Fenman note.
9,4	STIBBINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. See 7,7 Stibbington note and 9,3 Sibson note.
	"LUNEN" <OF GLATTON> HOLDS ALL THESE LANDS. That is, 9,1-4. On his identity, see 6,21 "Lunen" note.
10	LAND OF THE COUNT OF EU. Robert of Eu or his son William of Eu, both from Eu in the French département of Seine-Maritime (arrondissement Dieppe) in Normandy. Robert of Eu was himself son of a William who was count of the Hiémois, and then of Eu and married an heiress Lescaline. Robert was related in some way to William the Conqueror. Robert fought at Hastings and was then given charge of the Rape of Hastings (in Sussex). He had retired to Normandy by about 1080, dying there 1092-1093. His son William appears to have had a fief of his own in England as well as to have been administering his father Robert's English estates in 1086 and he may even have adopted the title count. The exact nature of the holding or holdings and the name of the holder is unclear from Domesday: the formula Robert Count of Eu never occurs there and William of Eu is never called the Count of Eu, but it may well be that that the same fief is involved in every case.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in 'Leightonstone' Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
10,1	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from later evidence.
	BUCKWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. The overlordship of the Counts of Eu lasted here until the late thirteenth century: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 22.
	[* EARL *] TOSTI. The Domesday forms of this name - Tosti, Tostius and, once each, Thostin and Tostillus - represent Old Danish/Old Norse Tosti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 387. The Alecto edition has Tosti.
		The identification with Earl Tosti is probable; see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 347 note, and 20,6 Tosti note. King Edward had held Great Paxton and had probably granted these 10 hides from that estate, unless Tosti had held it all (see 20,8 king note).
	OUTLIER OF. The Latin is BEREW' in ... . This use of in here is idiomatic and implies some longer phrase with a verb or participle such as berewica iacens in hoc manerio ('outlier/berewick lying in this manor'). In the absence of a verb the natural translation is 'an outlier of ... '. The sense seems to be no different from that implied by the use of the genitive case, as in 8,3, BER[EWICA] hui[us] M[anerii] ('outlier of this manor') or by the preposition de as in 4,5 BER[EWICA] de Spalduice ('outlier of Spaldwick'). The Phillimore printed edition has 'outlier in ...'.
	[GREAT] PAXTON. The manor had probably once been the centre of a great multiple estate; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}, and 20,8 Paxton note. Such estates were tending to break up, but the link is emphasised in D23. However, the marginal M[anerium] indicates that Buckworth had become an independent manor by 1086.
	2 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}
	A CHURCH. The possession of land suggests that this was a superior church and might indicate that this was once the minster church of a large royal estate, though Buckworth is closer to Alconbury (1,6) than to Great Paxton, and Great Paxton appears to have its own minster (20,8 church note). This church was later claimed by the canons of the free chapel of St Mary in the castle of Hastings, probably as an alleged gift of the Count of Eu, lord of Hastings Rape: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 26.
11	LAND OF EARL HUGH. Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from c. 1071 to1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (who left his earldom c. 1071 and died in 1085). He came from Avranches in the French département of Manche. He was son of Richard Goz, vicomte of Avranches, and a woman who was possibly a half-sister of King William. His lands became the honour or barony of Chester. Hugh's only son Richard perished with the White Ship in 1120 and the lands passed to a first cousin, Ranulph I Le Meschin, son of Ranulph the vicomte of Bayeux who was married to Hugh's sister Margaret. On the name Hugh, see 6,1 Hugh note.
		This fief consists of two estates, both in 'Leightonstone' Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
11,1	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from later evidence.
	UPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The estate descended within the honour of Chester and was frequently coupled with Coppingford (11,2) which was adjacent on the ground: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 620; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 113.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	FULCWY [* FULCO OF BAINVILLE *]. The Domesday name-forms Fulcui, Fulcoius, Fulcuius, Fulcheius probably represent Old German Fulcwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 257; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 98. The latter also suggested Old French Folcui, which might be more appropriate for those who held in 1086. JRM preferred the second element -wy for the Old German -wig. In the Phillimore printed editions the names Fulcwy, Fulkwy and Fulk appear; these have now been standardized as Fulcwy. The Alecto edition has Fulk, Fulcwig, Fulco, Fulcui, Fulchei etc..	Despite this philology, he may be the same man as the Fulco (Domesday Fulco) of Bainville in CHS 2,19, as, like his fellow tenant, Humphrey of the Cotentin (11,2), he was a tenant of Robert son of Hugh in that county: Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, ii. pp. 26-27; see also Lewis, 'Formation of the Honor of Chester', in Thacker, Earldom of Chester, p. 59. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 201, suggests he may be named from Banville (Calvados: arrondissement Ryes); she does not include the Huntingdonshire holding among his possessions (JP).
11,2	COPPINGFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. The estate continued to be held from the Earls of Chester and was often linked with Upton (11,1): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 619; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 470; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 35.
	½ HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	HUMPHREY [* OF THE COTENTIN *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Hunfrid(us), Humfrid(us) - represent Old German Hunfrid, Humfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 158-59. JRM preferred the modern form of this name. The Alecto edition also has Humphrey. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		He is to be identified as Humphrey 'of the Cotentin' here and in Cheshire (CHS 2,18;21), as, like his fellow tenant, Fulco of Bainville (11,1), he was a tenant of Robert son of Hugh in that county: Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, ii. pp. 27-28; see also Lewis, 'Formation of the Honor of Chester', in Thacker, Earldom of Chester, p. 59. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 275, adds a third Cheshire holding (CHS 9,17) but omits Coppingford. She suggests Humphrey is a Humphrey of Marston, though no Humphrey is recorded as holding land from the earl at Marston (NTH 22,4), who granted land at Damblainville (Calvados: arrondissement Caen) to Saint-Evroult (JP).
12	LAND OF WALTER GIFFARD. He was son of Walter Giffard of Bolbec (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Le Havre) and himself originated from Longueville-sur-Scie (arrondissement Dieppe) in the same département. His children were Walter II Giffard (the first Earl of Buckingham c. 1100-1102), William (Bishop of Winchester 1107-1129) and Rohais wife of Richard I of Clare (= Richard of Tonbridge/ Richard son of Count Gilbert of Brionne).
		The Domesday forms of the name Walter - Walterius, Walterus, Galter(us) - represent Old German Walter, Old French Gaultier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter. His byname (Domesday Gifard, Giffard, Gifart) is perhaps the Old German personal name Gifard, Givard, a patronymic adopted by an earlier generation, or from the Old French common noun giffard ('chubby-cheeked', 'bloated'); see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 220.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Normancross Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
12,1	[NORMANCROSS HUNDRED]. The hundred head is supplied from later evidence.
	FOLKSWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. The land descended to Richard of Clare, Earl of Pembroke, then to the Earls of Gloucestershire, Staffordshire and Buckingham: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 633; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 173. The tithes of the manor were granted to the Cluniac priory of Newton Longueville (Buckinghamshire): Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 1037.
	KETILBERT <OF FOLKSWORTH>. The Domesday forms of this name - Chilbert, Chilb[er]t, Chetelber, Chetelbert, Chetelbert[us], Chetelb[er]t[us], Cheteber, Chelb[er]t[us], Chilb[er]t[us] etc. - apparently represent Keilbert, a hybrid compound of Scandinavian Ketil- and Old German -bert: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 302-304. He remarked that some of the Domesday forms might stand for Ketelbern from Old Norse Ketilbiorn; Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 170-71, agrees with him. There are certainly cases of confusion in Domesday; see WOR 8,10a Ketilbert note. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Ketelbert and, for some of those in Yorkshire, Ketilbjorn; these have now been standardized as Ketilbert. The Alecto edition has Ketilbert.
		The Chetelber in the present entry was probably the same as the Chetelbert who had held and continued to hold the adjacent 'Washingley' (29,1); see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 302 note 7.
	PERCHES. The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 ½ feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, Dictionary of English Weights and Measures, under perch. See also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 120). The pasturable woodland in the adjacent holding of 'Washingley' (19,3) is also measured partly in perches.
	HUGH … WALTER GIFFARD. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	HUGH [* OF BOLBEC *]. On the name Hugh, see 6,1 Hugh note.
		Hugh of Bolbec was a tenant-in-chief in Buckinghamshire (BUK 26), Huntingdonshire (HUN 14) and Oxfordshire (OXF 25), with significant urban holdings in Berkshire (BRK B3;5;9) and Buckinghamshire (B7); but the bulk of his fief, the later barony of Whitchurch, was held as the principal tenant of Walter Giffard in Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire as well as in those counties where he held in chief: Loyd, Anglo-Norman Families, p. 17; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 98; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 261 (JP).
		See also 14,1 Bolbec note.
13	LAND OF WILLIAM OF WARENNE. He probably came from La Varenne in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement, canton and commune Bellencombre. He was son of Ralph II of Warenne and Emma. William was a major force in William I’s England, especially important as the holder of the Rape of Lewes, Sussex. At Lewes, he founded a Cluniac priory 1078 x 1082. He sided with William II against Bishop Odo of Bayeux and Robert Count of Mortain early in 1088 and was appointed Earl of Surrey in mid to late April of that same year. However, he was wounded at the siege of Pevensey, and died in June 1088. He was married first to Gundreda, sister of Gherbod the Fleming, Earl of Chester, and then to the sister of Richard Guet. His successor in England was his son William (II), also Earl of Surrey, who forfeited in 1101. On the name William, see B10 William note.
		All five entries in this fief lie in a single hundred: in 'Leightonstone' Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted; see 13,1 hundred note.
13,1	[* 'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED *]. A hundred head is clearly missing here above Kimbolton. A hundred of Kimbolton is named at 19,11 (above Swineshead, which also occurs at 13,3) and at 20,4 (above Molesworth). Unless a 'Leightonstone' hundred head is inserted at 19,15, the Kimbolton hundred head in that chapter would apparently have governed entries 19,11-22 and would have included places elsewhere listed under 'Leightonstone' Hundred (see 19,11 Kimbolton note). It is significant that two places listed in this chapter, Keysoe and Catworth (13,2;4), appear in 29,2-3 in 'Leightonstone' Hundred (head above 29,2). It seems most probable that 'Leightonstone' Hundred had been annexed to Kimbolton manor and its moot temporarily moved there, perhaps when Earl Harold was its lord, and that 'Leightonstone' and Kimbolton are alternative names for the hundred. In view of this a 'Leightonstone' hundred head has been inserted here. See {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	KIMBOLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it was a multiple estate, the only one in Domesday Huntingdonshire to be laid out with the head manor followed by its named members. This layout was common in circuit VI, but is also found in the entry for Higham Ferrers (NTH 35,1) which is in circuit IV, though the nature of the members is not specified. The members of Kimbolton were Keysoe, Swineshead, Catworth and Little Catworth (13,2-5) which, with Kimbolton itself, totalled 16 hides and 1 virgate. Hail Weston's membership had been disputed (D10). According to Domesday Bedfordshire (BDF 17,3) Hanefelde (3 virgates) 'always lay in Kimbolton (lands), but rightly gave its defence obligations (wara) in Bedfordshire'. This unidentified manor was held by William of Warenne and he also held Tilbrook, which adjoins Kimbolton (and was transferred to Huntingdonshire in 1896), but which is not expressly connected by Domesday with Kimbolton.
		It is probable that the lands listed in HUN 13, together with Hanefelde, were what remained of a larger multiple estate which pre-dated the laying out of the shires and whose operation may have been disrupted by the Danish occupation. The county boundary here seems to have been drawn in such a way as to keep the more integral parts of Kimbolton manor in Huntingdonshire, hence the fact that Swineshead became a detached part of that county within Bedfordshire. It is possible that other parts of Keysoe (29,2), Swineshead (19,11), Catworth and Little Catworth (4,5. 19,12;32. 29,3), making 13 hides and 3 virgates, had been part of Kimbolton, making 30 hides in all or 35 hides if the two Bedfordshire portions of Keysoe were included (BDF 23,1. 44,3). Riseley (BDF 23,2) at 1 hide, was an outlier of Keysoe. The manor would have been even larger if yet other lands in a circle around it were included: Pertenhall (2,9), Hargrave (19,13 Hargrave note), Spaldwick and outliers (4,4; 4,4 Spaldwick note), the Bedfordshire estates called Easton (D19 Easton note) and other Bedfordshire places including Dean, though there is no evidence of a connection other than contiguity. If Hail Weston had indeed been a part of Kimbolton and continuous with it, the manor would have been even more extensive. The same would be true if Molesworth (under a Kimbolton hundred head at 20,4) were also a part. The estate would then have stretched to touch the other putative multiple estates of Alconbury and Great Paxton and could have included the moot-site of the hundred at 'Leightonstone'. However, for lack of firm evidence it would be wise to restrict the compass of Kimbolton, for the connection of Hail Weston was rejected by the sworn men of the shire (D10) and the heading above Molesworth probably shows rather that Kimbolton was an alternative name for 'Leightonstone': see {Introduction: Hundreds}, and 13,1 hundred note.
		Members of the manor are subject to three Declarations (D14;17-18 = 13,3-5). From D14 it appears that Harold's predecessor at Swineshead (and therefore probably at Kimbolton itself) was Earl Siward: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 332 note. D17-18 suggest that King Edward retained control of two of its members (13,4 Catworth note). It is in fact likely that Edward or an earlier king had once held the whole estate before granting most of it (apparently under special terms; see 13,3 Swineshead note) to Earl Siward (probably as part of his earldom) from whom it passed to Earl Harold.
		After 1086, the manor with its jurisdiction went to William's eldest son, William II of Warenne, and descended with his earldom of Surrey, passing to the Bohuns, Earls of Hereford. It became an honour in the middle of the thirteenth century. The members of Kimbolton descended with it. Kimbolton manor itself contained several settlements: Kynebolton' cum hamelettis was held from Humphrey of Bohun in 1279: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 621. Its hamlets were Stonle (Stonely, TL1067), Werkwelle (unidentified), Stowe ('Overstowe', an unlocated part of Stow Longa, the latter lying at TL1070), Wormedik (Wornditch, TL0968) and Newtoun (Newton, TL0968): Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 467, 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 79.
		A priory was founded at Stonely c. 1180 by William de Mandeville, Earl of Essex: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 621; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 395; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 144, 175.
	EARL HAROLD. Harold Godwinson. He was the second son of Earl Godwin and Countess Gytha. He was born c. 1020 and appointed Earl of East Anglia c. 1044. In 1051 he fled with his younger brother Leofwin when his father and brothers Swein, Tosti and Gyrth were banished. The family was restored to power in 1052 and on his father's death in 1053, Harold relinquished his earldom of East Anglia and succeeded to his father's earldom of Wessex. The Earldom of Hereford was merged with that of Wessex under Harold on the death of Earl Ralph of Hereford in 1057. Harold married Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Algar of Mercia. He succeeded Edward the Confessor as king of England on 6th January 1066 by decision of the royal council. On 25th September 1066 he defeated his brother Earl Tosti who was in alliance with King Harold Hardrada of Norway at Stamford Bridge, but was killed at the battle of Hastings on 14th October of that year. The invader, William, Duke of Normandy, claimed that King Edward had promised him the crown of England and that Harold himself had accepted him as future king during a visit to France. He is consistently called Earl Harold in Domesday.
		The Domesday forms of the name Harold - Harold, Haroldus, Heraldus, Herold, Heroldus, Horoldus, Herolt, Herould[us], Eroldus, Eral, Heral - represent Old Danish Harald, Old Norse Haraldr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 284-86. As the name Harold has survived and as King/Earl Harold is known by this name-form, JRM preferred it; the Alecto edition also has Harold.
	HE HAS. In the Phillimore printed translation this was mistranslated as 'he had'; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	ON 5 HIDES. This is a later interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday. On the inclusion of lordship land, see {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	5 OXEN. The remaining oxen are not apparent, though there was 1 ox at Catworth (13,4). See 2,8 plough note.
13,2	KEYSOE. It became an Ancient Parish in Bedfordshire. In 1086 this jurisdiction of Kimbolton probably already lay in Bedfordshire like another portion, surveyed in 29,2, unless it was later transferred to that county by an unrecorded boundary change. Three other parts are listed in Domesday Bedfordshire, held by Hugh of Beauchamp (BDF 23,1-2) and Osbern son of Richard (BDF 44,3). Keysoe followed the same descent as Kimbolton.
	AELLIC <OF KEYSOE>. The Domesday forms Allic (here and in WIL 67,68) and Alich (15,1) represent the hypothetical Old English Ællic: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 182. The Alecto edition has Ællic. The passage in which Aellic occurs in 15,1 was deleted; see 15,1 Aellic note.
		Two individuals are probably represented by these three holdings. The tiny, distant holding in Wiltshire (WIL 67,68) seems unlikely to be connected those in Huntingdonshire (13,2. 15,1) (JP).
	LAND FOR 6 OXEN. The other 2 oxen needed to make one ploughland are probably to be found in another holding in Keysoe (29,2).
	[* EARL HAROLD HELD IT *]. Since Keysoe was a member of Kimbolton, Earl Harold was presumably overlord here before 1066, as in Swineshead (13,3). Where this was not the case, it is noticed in the Declarations; see 13,1 Kimbolton note. Presumably Aellic held from Earl Harold.
13,3	SWINESHEAD. This was an Ancient Parish transferred to Bedfordshire in 1896.
		D14 describes how this estate had been held by Earl Siward with full jurisdiction, then passed to Harold who held in the same way 'except that [its men] paid tax in the hundred and went with them against the enemy'. The implications of this statement are unclear, but it may suggest (1) that Kimbolton itself had been held at one time by Earl Siward, and (2) that Swineshead (and probably Kimbolton) had enjoyed a degree of freedom that made it a partial franchise or Liberty. This in turn may be connected with the annexation of 'Leightonstone' Hundred to the manor of Kimbolton: see {Introduction: Hundreds}.
		Siward perhaps held by virtue of his office, otherwise the land would have been expected to descend to Earl Waltheof and thence to his wife Countess Judith (HUN 20). Swineshead, however, descended with Kimbolton: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 622; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 104.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. He held another part of Swineshead in chief (19,11). See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	[* EARL HAROLD HELD IT *]. See 13,2 Harold note.
13,4	CATWORTH. Catworth was an Ancient Parish, formerly known as Great Catworth to distinguish it from Little Catworth (13,5). Although it is implied here that Earl Harold held T.R.E., it is asserted in the Declarations (D17-18) that both Catworth and Little Catworth belonged to King Edward (see 13,1 Kimbolton note) and D17 expressly states that Earl Harold did not have Catworth. Nonetheless, Catworth descended with Kimbolton: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 29.
		The estates at Catworth and Little Catworth surveyed as part of Huntingdonshire amounted to 15 hides. A further part of Catworth was held by the men of Peterborough Abbey in Northamptonshire (NTH 6a,26). This Northamptonshire portion seems to have been represented on nineteenth-century maps by a scattering of fields which had been fully incorporated into Huntingdonshire by 1890; see {Introduction: The County Boundary}.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. He held other parts of Catworth (19,12;32). See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	½ PLOUGH. See 2,8 plough note.
	^[WULFWIN "CHIT" ... HELD IT]^. The information about Wulfwin's tenure and King Edward's jurisdiction is given in the Declarations where Earl Harold's interest is explicitly denied (D17).
13,5	IN ANOTHER [ESTATE CALLED] CATWORTH [* [LITTLE] CATWORTH *]. Little Catworth was a chapelry of Stow Longa. On the use of alia, see 6,18 another note.
		In D18 it is stated that the land here belonged to King Edward (13,1 Kimbolton note and 13,4 Catworth note) and that, according Countess (Judith)'s men, the king gave it to Earl Waltheof. It should therefore have been in Countess Judith's hands in 1086, and in fact it descended with her manor of Molesworth (20,4): Feudal Aids, ii. p. 470; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 31.
	THORTH. The Domesday forms of this name - Toret, Tored(us), Tord, Tort, Toreth, Thoret, Thored - represent Old Danish Thorth, Old Norse Thorthr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 396-97. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thored and Thorthr; these have now been standardized as Thorth. The Alecto edition has Thorth. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	^[WULFWIN ^["CHIT"]^ HELD IT]^. See D18, where Idem Wluuine refers to Wulfwin "Chit" of the previous declaration (D17).
14	LAND OF HUGH OF BOLBEC. Hugh was a Norman from Bolbec in the French département of Seine-Maritime, arrondissement Le Havre. He was both a Domesday tenant-in-chief and an important tenant of Walter Giffard, whose father also came from Bolbec. Hugh's fief became the honour of Whitchurch (in Buckinghamshire). On the name Hugh, see 6,1 Hugh note. See 14,1 Bolbec note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Normancross Hundred.
14,1	WOODWALTON. This was an Ancient Parish. According to the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 136, 146) Saxi of Walton, kinsman of Leofric, Earl of Mercia, promised 'Walton' to Ramsey Abbey on his death. However, his estates were confiscated in 1066 and Woodwalton was given to Hugh of Bolbec. It was held by Hugh's successors before being given to Ramsey Abbey in 1133 or 1134; it is in the confirmation of Pope Alexander III and remained with the abbey until the Dissolution: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 274); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. pp. 155, 268, ii. p. 136); Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 263, 290 nos. 1766, 1906; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. p. 271; Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 35 no. 40; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 236.
		The grant to Ramsey Abbey was made by Albreda, late wife of Eustace de Scellea and daughter of Reinelm, and included the island of Higney (represented by Higney Grange, TL2083). It is Waltone villa cum manerio de Hyggeneye in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 661-62; see the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, ii. p. 220); Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 194. It is not certain that Higney had always been part of Woodwalton.
		For the possibility that Weletona, among the first endowments of the abbey, was Woodwalton, see 6,21 Gidding note.
	SAXI. The Domesday forms of this name - Saxi, Sexi, Saxo, Sexi[us], Sessi, Sacxe, with the oblique forms Saxa, Saxae, Saxo, Saxonis - represent Old Norse/Old Danish Saxi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 352. The Alecto edition has Saxi.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND …VIRGATES WIDE. Either comparable with the measurement 'acres wide' occasionally used in some counties, or intending virg(ae), rods, rather than virg(atae) (JRM). The virgate is, however, normally a measure of area.
	HUGH OF BOLBEC HOLDS FROM EARL WILLIAM. This is unexpected on two grounds. Firstly, Domesday has made it clear that Hugh holds in chief from King William: his land forms a separate chapter and Hugh appears in the Landholders' List on folio 203b. Moreover, Woodwalton has the expected descent of a manor of Hugh's. However, there are several occasions in Great Domesday where the scribe mistakenly identified as tenant-in-chief someone who was in fact a subtenant. In Middlesex, for example, Aubrey de Vere is given a chapter (MDX 21) and appears in the Landholders' List, but in his only holding in that county it is said that he held from the Bishop of Coutances (who did not otherwise hold in the county). As a subtenant, Hugh of Bolbec usually holds from Walter Giffard. In Domesday Buckinghamshire, for example, he is named in full as Walter's subtenant three times (BKM 14,1-2;16) and the plain Hugh who occurs as a subtenant eleven times there is very probably also Hugh of Bolbec. Likewise the plain Hugh in Walter Giffard's fief in Huntingdonshire is probably Hugh of Bolbec.
		Secondly, apart from the unidentified co[mes] W. in the Yorkshire Summary (YKS SW,An2), no 1086 comes (earl or count) by the name of William is found in Domesday Book. The king's son, William Rufus, was a comes (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 55-56, 73 nos. 206, 281) though never so styled in Domesday Book..	Emendation to King William (VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 348 note) is drastic and otiose. On less than ten occasions in Domesday Huntingdonshire the scribe stated specifically that the tenant-in-chief held from the king; when he did so (as in 17,1) he put plain de rege, as he did everywhere else in Great Domesday.
		William of Warenne has been suggested, perhaps because the present chapter follows that of William of Warenne (HUN 13), although the fiefs were not necessarily in this order in any predecessor document from which the de comite Will'o may have been derived. However, although Willelmo Comite de Warenna appears as a witness to a charter of William I (1070 x 1086), this is assumed to be an interpolation (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 144-46 no. 18), as he was not created earl (of Surrey) until 1088. Chris Lewis ('Earldom of Surrey') and others have suggested that Domesday Book was still being written up in 1088 on the grounds that this sentence in Domesday Huntingdonshire notices William's promotion to earl. Apart from one instance in William of Warenne's own fief in Sussex (12,9) where the scribe wrote that a subtenant held 'from the earl' instead of 'from William' (an error almost certainly induced by the fact that he had repeatedly and rightly written de comite over 200 times throughout the previous three chapters), William of Warenne is not styled comes in Domesday Book. A parallel instance is found in Little Domesday in SUF 6,2 where in the fief of Robert Malet the scribe wrote 'Walter son of Aubrey holds Chilton from the count'. Robert Malet was not a count (nor an earl), but the scribe had just completed four large comital chapters: the Count of Mortain, Count Alan, Earl Hugh and Count Eustace.
		There is a further possibility: William of Eu. It is usually assumed that the 'Count of Eu' who holds in Domesday Book was Robert who was still alive in 1086 and presumably still held the comté. William of Eu occurs as a tenant-in-chief in Domesday Book as does the Count of Eu. However, when the Count of Eu appears, no personal name is given and when William appears he is not styled Count (pace, Phillimore Index of Persons). This has given rise to the notion that Count Robert of Eu held part of the fief and that William was administering other of his father's lands: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 477. This may not have been the case: it is possible that in Domesday William and the Count of Eu were one and the same, and that William had assumed his title early. In Domesday Book, the title of some individuals varies from shire to shire (e.g., Richard of Tonbridge was also styled Richard son of Count Gilbert and Richard of Clare). An authentic writ of William I (1080 x 1086) confirms a grant of land to Battle Abbey by 'William Count of Eu'. Furthermore, in the record of a plea heard by King William in 1086, 'William of Eu' is a witness: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, nos. 21, 146 pp. 158-60, 482-84. It appears that Robert of Eu, who died c. 1093, was active in England until c. 1077, but may have retired to Normandy leaving his son in charge and styled count. In a similar instance, Robert is styled Count of Meulan in Domesday, though his father Roger of Beaumont was still alive. The Count of Eu held land in Huntingdonshire (HUN 10), but if it is he who is intended it would be the solitary example of Count William (of Eu) in Domesday.
		No satisfactory answer to this puzzle has yet emerged, but it is worth considering the only William who is ever styled Earl in Domesday: Earl William son of Osbern. Although he had some responsibility for the defence of the east coast (with headquarters at Norwich), he is generally not considered as a candidate as he had died in 1071and there is no other reference to him in Domesday Huntingdonshire: see {Introduction: History}. Moreover, unless the Latin tense is an error, Domesday clearly says that 'Hugh of Bolbec holds (tenet, rather than tenuit, 'held') from Earl William'. However, in Oxfordshire there is a whole chapter, of 29 entries, (OXF 59) which is headed: 'The following lands are of Earl William's Holding'. Latin feudum is often used in Domesday as a collective noun to describe the 'fief' of a 1086 holder, but there it refers to a group of lands that had once been held by Earl William (prior to his death in 1071) and which, because they had not been dispersed or re-granted as a whole were still known as 'Earl William's fee/Holding'. The lands of Aubrey of Coucy who had abandoned his English fief before 1086 and of the Bishop of Bayeux who was in prison at Rouen at the time of the Survey are similarly treated. It is possible that the main scribe of Domesday, feeling the pressure to shorten as much as possible, and working on one of the earliest counties to be abbreviated failed to see the significance of the Latin before him, something like Hugo de bolebec tenet de feudo comitis Willelmi ('Hugh of Bolbec holds from the Holding of Earl William) and omitted de feudo, an error which has caused confusion to subsequent students of Domesday. An example of the longer statement is BRK 44,4: 'Roger [of Ivry] also holds Harwell of Earl William's Holding' (de feudo Willelmi comitis). It is also probable that in LEC 13,67 (referring to LEC 13,66-67): 'These two lands of Arnold's [Alton and Staunton Harold] are from Earl W[***]'s Holding' (de feudo .W. comitis) the earl is Earl William, rather than Earl Waltheof; see LEC 13,67 earl note.
		On the name William, see B10 William note.
15	LAND OF EUDO SON OF HUBERT. Also known as Eudo the steward, he was son of Hubert de Ryes, named from a place in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Bayeux) in Normandy. He was steward to William I, William II and Henry I. In Normandy he held land of the honour of Préaux. In some of his lands, his predecessor was Lisois of Moutiers, a Breton, who had forfeited in 1075. One of Eudo's 1086 tenants, Osbert, was husband to his sister Muriel. His fief continued to be amplified after 1086, partly by the lands of his brother Adam, a tenant of Bishop Odo of Bayeux, and of Roger and William of Auberville and of Sasselin in Essex. Eudo re-founded the abbey at Colchester (1096-1097). He died in 1120 at Préaux, but was buried at Colchester. His fief escheated to Henry I and was broken up.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in 'Leightonstone' Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
15,1	['LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from later evidence.
	HAMERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Eudo granted two-thirds of the tithes here to Colchester Abbey which he re-founded in 1096-1097; a later holder, William de Saint-Clair, granted the manor's church to the same abbey: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 618; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 66.
	15 {{CARUCATES}} HIDES. Two corrections were made to this. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written .xii. car' (12 carucates) and then altered the .xii. to .xv., using ink of the same colour as the surrounding text; see 15,1 Aellic note. Later, using a dark ink, he interlined hid' ('hides') above car' but failed to delete the car'. His use of car' was most probably a simple error as the other counties in this circuit (VI) were assessed in carucates and bovates, rather than hides and virgates, and hides were used in the next sentence. He made identical mistakes in 17,1, which he corrected, and in 29,6, which he failed to correct. On other meanings of carucate, see B18 carucates note.
	{{AELLIC <OF KEYSOE> … JURISDICTION}}. This phrase was underlined for deletion and this was probably done at the same time as the correction of .xii. to .xv. in the line above (see 15,1 carucates note): the ink is the same colour and the 3 hides difference was the result of this deletion. It may have been included in this entry by mistake, perhaps from a fuller version of some other entry. Or it may have derived from an earlier stage in the process that produced Great Domesday, when this was a piece of royal land: it was possibly part of Alconbury (1,6) in 'Leightonstone' Hundred (see 1,3 hundred note), tenanted by Eudo but before it became a manor and he a tenant in chief. The deletion is not indicated in the Alecto translation published by Penguin.
		On the name Aellic and his identity, see 13,2 Aellic note.
	LEOFWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuuin(us), Leuuine, Lefuuinus, Leuin(us), Liuuin[us] etc. - represent Old English Leofwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English -wine as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.
	LORDSHIP… 3 HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	HOLD. The Latin tenent was rendered in error as 'have' (Latin habent) in the Phillimore printed translation and in the previous version of Domesday Explorer.
16	LAND OF SWEIN OF ESSEX. He was also known as Swein the sheriff, being sheriff of Essex. His father was Robert son of Wiuhomarch, whom Swein had succeeded as sheriff by 1075. Robert's father bore a Breton name, but Robert himself was from Moyaux in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux). Swein’s son, another Robert, had succeeded him by 1114. On the name Swein, see 6,15 Swein note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred
16,1	WARESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. On the name-form given in Great Domesday (Wedresleie here and Wedresle in 19,26), see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 273; the next later forms are Weresle(a) and Wereslai.
		This vill was divided in 1086, other parts being 19,26 and 23,1, amounting in all to 10 hides. Six hides at Waresley were included in the foundation grant to St Neot's but were subsequently lost: the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 102-104, 420); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 27 no. 19; and 28,1 St Neot's note. They may be among the 7 hides of the present entry.
		This holding became known as 'Earl's Manor' in Waresley and was held by Swein's successors, the Mandevilles and Bohuns; see Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 376.
	ROBERT SON OF WIUHOMARCH. That is, the father of the tenant-in-chief, Swein, sheriff of Essex; see HUN 16 Swein note.
		The Domesday forms of Robert - Robert, Rob[er]t[us], Rodbertus, Rotbert(us) - represent Old German Rodbert, Rotbert, Robert etc.: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 216-17; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 349-50. As the name Robert has survived to modern times, JRM chose that form. The Alecto edition also has Robert.
		The Domesday forms of Wiuhomarch - Wimarc, Wimarch, Wimarc(a)e (genitive), Wim', Wicmarc, Witmarce (genitive), and, for 1086 holders, Wihomarc, Wihumar, Wihumarc, Wihunmard[us], Guihu'mar' - represent Old Breton Wiuhomarch, which is both a masculine and feminine name: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 349-50, 415; Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 231; Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Wymark. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Wymarc, Wiuhomarch, Wihomarch; these have now been standardized as Wiuhomarch. The Alecto edition has Wimarc (for Robert son of Wiuhomarch), but generally reproduces the Domesday forms for the 1086 holders, except for Wymarc in Norfolk.
	TUROLD [* SON OF ODO *]. The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - Turold(us), Turald[us], Torold[us] etc. - are a Latinization of the Old Norse Thorvald, which gave rise to the French names T(h)ouroude, Troude etc: Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Thorold, Thorald and Thoraldr appear; these have now been standardized as Turold. The Alecto edition has Turold. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		He was possibly son of Odo and brother of William son of Odo, both tenants of Swein in 1086; he also held land in Essex from Swein (ESS 24,6-7): Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 432.
17	LAND OF ROGER OF IVRY. Roger came from Ivry-la-Bataille, in the French département of Eure (arrondissement Evreux, canton Saint-André-de-L'Eure). He was related in some way to Hugh the butler. He was a close friend of Robert d'Oilly whose lands are often scheduled next to his in Domesday in those counties where they both hold. Roger's wife was Adelina, daughter of Hugh of Grandmesnil. Roger apparently had no sons; his fief passed to his daughter Adelisa and was later granted to Rainald of Saint-Valery.
		The Domesday forms of the name Roger - Rogeri(us), Roger(us), but frequently abbreviated to Rog' - represent Old German Hrodger, Rodger, Rotger, Rog(g)er etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in 'Leightonstone' Hundred.
17,1	COVINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The manor passed to the St Valery family but in 1231 it was granted afresh to Richard, Earl of Cornwall, the second son of King John: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 38.
	ESKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Aschil, Anschil, Anschill(us), Osketel, Osketellus, Oschetel, Aschillus, Aschi, Osketel[us], Oschil - represent Old Danish Eskil, Old Norse Askell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 167-68. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Askell and Asketill; these have now been standardized as Eskil. The Alecto edition has Eskil.
	3 PLOUGHS. This was corrected by the main scribe of Great Domesday from '2 ploughs' by the addition of a third minim. This was probably done at the same time as the next correction (see 17,1 hide note).
	½ {{CARUCATE}} HIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote car' (for carucate) and then underlined it for deletion and interlined hid' ('hide') above it; see 15,1 carucates note. On the inclusion of lordship land in Huntingdonshire, see {Introduction: Lordship Land}, and on the carucate used to describe arable land that does not pay geld, see B18 carucates note.
	2 MEN-AT-ARMS … 2 HIDES. This subinfeudation went to the Bayeux family: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 38.
18	LAND OF ARNULF OF HESDIN. He came from Hesdin in the Pas-de-Calais (arrondissement Montreuil). He was related (brother or brother in law) to Walchelin, provost of Beaurain. Arnulf was granted the lands of the important Saxon thane Wulfward ‘White’ in several counties. He was accused of involvement in a conspiracy led by Robert of Mowbray in 1093, but proved his innocence by judicial combat. He died at Antioch on the first crusade. His heirs were his daughters Matilda whose second husband was Patrick de Caorces (Chaworth) and Avelina, wife of Alan Fitz Flaad and then of Robert Fitz Walter.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred, the heading for which has had to be inserted.
18,1	[TOSELAND HUNDRED]. The heading is supplied from later evidence.
	OFFORD [CLUNY]. This was an Ancient Parish. On the divisions of 'Offord', see 6,19 Offord note. The affix originated in Arnulf's grant to the monks of Cluny. It was confirmed on this abbey by later kings (for example by Henry I: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 254 no. 1721). In 1316 it was in the hands of Walter de Langeton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 198, ii. p. 683; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 319.
	"BULUI". It is not known what name is represented by the Domesday form Bului, which only occurs here in Domesday Book; see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 211. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition have Bului.
19	LAND OF EUSTACE THE SHERIFF. He is evidenced as sheriff of Huntingdonshire in 1080 and 1086. It appears that he was the same man as Eustace of Abbeville suggesting that he came from the place of that name in the French département of Somme. If so, he came over with the Conqueror in 1066. After his death, his fief escheated to the Crown. Roger of Luvetot (founder of the Lovetot barony) was his successor in many of his lands. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
		Eustace belonged to a group of rapacious Norman sheriffs and his fingerprints are all over Domesday Huntingdonshire. Manors he held with doubtful legality are mentioned frequently in the Declarations (D9;11-13;15;21;25;27); in other cases in chapter 19 the estates are not said to be manors, jurisdictions or outliers and may have been alienated in part or whole by him (19,10;21-22;24;26;31-32). Few of the lands in this chapter seem to be legitimately his, though it is possible (as suggested by VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 333) that he was holding some lands in his capacity as sheriff. However, it appears that he was not administering royal lands in Huntingdonshire (HUN 1 land note).
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	19,1-9 Normancross Hundred
	19,10 [`Hurstingstone' Hundred]
	19,11-22 Kimbolton ['Leightonstone'] Hundred
	19,23-31 Toseland Hundred
	19,32 ['Leightonstone' Hundred]. [This final entry is out of sequence; see 19,32 Catworth note].
19,1	SAWTRY. There were later two Ancient Parishes, Sawtry All Saints and Sawtry St Andrew, as well as an extra-parochial area, Sawtry St Judith. In Domesday the several entries for Sawtry, together with that for Glatton, formed a 30-hide unit, but apart from Countess Judith's 10 hides (20,2) they do not form individual round figures nor do they fit easily with the later Ancient Parishes. The present estate formed the later manor of 'Sawtry Beaumes' (named from Eustace's subtenant or his descendants). According to D27, it had been destined for Ramsey Abbey: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 175, 209); the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 234; ii. p. 290); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 235 no. 323). It was however seized by Eustace and it descended with his fief to the Lovetots. The overlordship was sold in 1238 to Richard de Clare, Earl of Gloucester. Within the Lovetot barony Sawtry later paid suit at the court of Southoe (19,29): Rotuli Hundredorum, i. pp. 196-97, ii. p. 660; Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 203, 205.
	TOSTI <OF SAWTRY>. See D27 Tosti note. On the name Tosti, see 10,1 Tosti note.
	WALTER [* OF BEAUMAIS *]. On the name Walter, see HUN 12 Walter note. His byname is evidenced in the Ramsey documents cited in 19,1 Sawtry note. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 457, identifies the Walter of this entry as Walter the monk; she calls him a 'tenant of Adelisa widow of Ralph Taillebois' [a Walter the monk was tenant of Ralph's wife Azelina in CAM 42,1. BDF 55,8). This is clearly in error as elsewhere (Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 448) she identifies the tenant of Eustace the sheriff as Walter de Belmeis, though with only two references to folio 199d (Cambridgeshire) and none to the present holding. She gives his place of origin as probably Beaumais in the French département of Seine-Maritime, canton Duclair. A Walter is certainly a tenant of Eustace of Huntingdon in CAM 30,1;3 (folio 199d), but the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, p. 111) identifies the Walter of CAM 30,3 as Walter de Helmes (an unidentified place: Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 44). Moreover, 'Adelisa' is in error for the wife of Ralph Taillebois: she gives the correct name Azelina on p. 159.
		See also CAM 30,3 Walter note (JP).
19,2	CALDECOTE. Caldecote was an Ancient Parish later combined with Denton Ancient Parish. This manor in Normancross Hundred did not descend in the Lovetot barony, but later formed part of the honour of Huntingdon (descent from Countess Judith: HUN 20), although there is no dispute mentioned in Domesday Book. The honour of Huntingdon also held a second Caldecote (in Toseland Hundred) as part of Eynesbury (20,6). See Book of Fees, pp. 924, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 636; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 136.
	"STRIC". The Domesday form, Stric, could represent Old Norse Strikr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 376, though in note 3 he gave the view of Redin, Studies on Uncompounded Personal Names in Old English, p. 24, that Stric could be the strong variant of Old English Stric(c)a. In view of this uncertainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed edition has Stric for HUN 19,2, but Sihtric for NTH 56,39;51; these have now been standardized as "Stric". The Alecto edition has Strikr. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
19,3	'WASHINGLEY'. This was an Ancient Parish. The village is now abandoned. 'Washingley village' is marked as earthworks on the Ordinance Survey one-inch maps and the first series 1:50,000 at TL136889, but the deserted village is also marked at TL134894 on the six-inch map TL18NW of 1980. Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 191, place it at TL135890; see Beresford, Lost Villages, p. 357. Washingley Lane is the kinked road running through national grid square TL1389 from Lutton to Folksworth.
		This manor became part of the Lovetot barony and a part contributed to the foundation of the manor of 'Ogerston' (TL1290), held by the Knights Templar. This is now an abandoned site. See Book of Fees, p. 923; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 634-35; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 336, iii. p. 227.
	THORI. The Domesday forms of this name - Tori, Thori, Turi(us), Thuri, Thure - represent Old Norse /Old Danish Thorir: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 393. JRM preferred Thori as the Domesday forms lack a final r. However, in the Phillimore printed translations for YKS and LIN the form Thorir appears and for SFK the form Thuri: these have now been standardized as Thori. The Alecto edition has Thorir. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	1 ½ PLOUGHS. The other half does not appear elsewhere.
19,4	ORTON [WATERVILLE?]. Eustace held three lands at 'Orton': one 7 ½-hide manor (19,6); and a 2 ½-hide jurisdiction (19,7), which together made a 10-hide unit, plus a jurisdiction of 8 hides and 1 virgate (19,4). If to these are added the holdings of the Bishop of Lincoln and Peterborough Abbey (2,6. 8,3-4) the grand total is 30 hides. The Lincoln and Peterborough holdings were at Orton Waterville. It has generally been assumed (as in the Phillimore printed translation and the Alecto edition) that Eustace's holdings were all at Orton Longueville. If so, the separate 'villages' do not add up to round figures (see Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 62), nor do the ploughlands (see below). The Lovetot barony held land in Orton Waterville in later times, but the descent is obscure and it has been assumed that the land was acquired after 1086. However, if 19,4 was at Orton Waterville, not only would the hidage of that 'village' be a round 15 hides, but the ploughlands would add up to a whole number: there is land for 2 ploughs and 1 ox in 2,6; for 3 ploughs and 2 oxen in 8,3; for 2 ploughs and 2 oxen in 8,4 and for 5 ploughs and 3 oxen in 19,4. The oxen add up to eight making a normal plough team. It should, however, be noticed that there is only one church mentioned in either of the places called Orton (19,6), suggesting perhaps that the villages had yet to be separated and that the 3 oxen in a plough of 19,4 are completed by the 5 oxen in a plough of 19,7. There are 2 ½ ploughs at 19,6 but no corresponding half appears elsewhere: it might be sought in 2,6 where the villagers are without a plough. Thus, while hides and the ploughlands can be added in such a way as to suggest the emergence of two separate 'villages', the ploughs seem to have been shared between them (the villages are adjacent), as elsewhere in Huntingdonshire.
		Orton Waterville was an Ancient Parish. In Domesday this estate is said to be a jurisdiction of the hundred, rather than of a particular manor such as 'Washingley' (19,3). It is probably the remnant of a royal manor. King Edward had held another part of 'Orton' which had been given to Peterborough Abbey in the time of King William, though the same piece of land is listed as in the king's jurisdiction in 1,4. There may well have been a large royal estate in Normancross Hundred, perhaps centred on the Ortons and guarding the southern approach to the crossing of the River Nene. Eustace as sheriff would have normally been expected to administer royal lands. This jurisdiction may have been one of his depredations which in turn may have led to his replacement in this function by Ranulf brother of Ilger. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 333; and 2,6 Orton note.
		The history and descent of this manor is unclear, but Ov'ton Wat'vill (5 ½ virgates) was held by Roger de Lovetoft from the king in Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 196; see VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 200. This may be the same estate that was said to have been given by William I to William Olifareli for the service of half a knight's fee and which was said to have been bought by Nigel de Lovetoft from King John: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 637. This probably did not comprise all the estate, and Nigel de Lovetoft may have had to re-purchase an estate that had been his. See VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 199.
	A JURISDICTION. Either 'it is' or 'it was' may be understood (JRM).
	IN NORMANCROSS [HUNDRED]. For the restoration of 'Hundred' and the implications of the phrase, see 1,3 hundred note, and, on the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note.
	THERE WERE 7 FREEMEN. This sentence was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday. Presumably they were the T.R.E. holders of the estate; compare 19,15.
	JOHN <OF ORTON>. He was probably the same as the John in 2,6-7 and 19,5: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 284. On the name John, see 2,6 John note.
	3 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The other 5 oxen to make the plough appear to be in 19,7; see 19,4 Orton note.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. As there is no indication of a change in the status of Orton, it was presumably in King Edward's jurisdiction in Normancross Hundred T.R.E.; see 1,9 jurisdiction note.
19,5	ANOTHER JURISDICTION. This probably means it was a jurisdiction in Normancross Hundred, as in 19,4.
	STILTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The three holdings here amounted to 5 hides (see also 1,3 and 2,7). This was probably a piece of royal land that Eustace was holding and therefore a jurisdiction of Normancross Hundred like 19,4 rather than of a particular manor, despite the lack of this phrase (see 1,3 hundred note and 1,9 jurisdiction note). Nonetheless, it descended (as a manor) to the Lovetots: Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 222.
	JOHN <OF ORTON>. He was probably the same as the John in 2,6-7 and 19,4: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 284. On the name John, see 2,6 John note.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. As there is no indication of a change in the status of Stilton, it was presumably in King Edward's jurisdiction in Normancross Hundred T.R.E.; see 1,9 jurisdiction note.
19,6	ORTON [LONGUEVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. For the identification, see 19,4 Orton note. It appears to have been unequivocally Eustace's manor and descended in the barony of Lovetot and was held under the Lovetots by the Longueville family: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 373); Book of Fees, p. 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 190-91; Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 193.
	ALSI. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alsi - Alsi, Alsius, Elsi, Aelsi, Alsicus, Alsidus etc. - could represent Old English Ælfsige, Old English Æthelsige or perhaps Old English Ealdsige, Ealhsige: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 151-52, under Al-sige, see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English -sige, as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alsige. However, in some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alfsi and Alfsige appear for people who in the present edition are now rendered Alsi because the forms of their names lack an -f- or -v- which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 180, under Old English Ælfsige, and on pp. 187-88, under Old English Æthelsige). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English Ælfsige. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
19,7	THERE ALSO. Orton [Longueville] was an Ancient Parish. For the identification, see 19,4 Orton note. It appears to have descended with Eustace's other manor in Orton Longueville (19,6). The marginal S[oca] might indicate that it was a jurisdiction of 19,6, but the 'Jurisdiction in Normancross [Hundred]' suggests rather that it was a soca of the hundred itself (1,3 hundred note and 1,9 jurisdiction note).
	AELFRIC. On this name, see B10 Aelfric note.
	JURISDICTION IN NORMANCROSS [HUNDRED]. For the restoration of 'Hundred' and the implications of the phrase, see 1,3 hundred note, and, on the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note.
	ROGER. On this name, see HUN 17 Roger note.
	5 OXEN. For the other 3 oxen to make up a plough team, see 19,4.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. As there is no indication of a change in the status of Orton, it was presumably in King Edward's jurisdiction in Normancross Hundred T.R.E.; see 1,9 jurisdiction note. Presumably Aelfric held from King Edward.
19,8	CHESTERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The 1086 vill was equally divided with Count Eustace (9,2) making a 9-hide holding. This estate descended in the Lovetot barony with Southoe (19,29); see Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 655; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 139.
	1 CUSTOMARY DUE IN THE ABBOT OF PETERBOROUGH'S WOODLAND. In Domesday Huntingdonshire there are three references to the Abbot of Peterborough's woodland, two relating to Chesterton (9,2. 19,8) and one to Water Newton (7,5). This might be the right to take timber or brushwood to this amount in payment, as VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 345 note. However, the slightly longer phrase here suggests that this was a payment to the manor from the abbot, perhaps for help with the management and exploitation of the wood. The Peterborough manor nearest to both these places south of the River Nene is Alwalton (8,2). If the woodland was north of the river, in Northamptonshire, the most direct access from Water Newton and Chesterton would be along Ermine Street, crossing the River Nene by a bridge or ford at TF116976. This would lead most directly to the woodland at Castor (NTH 6,4) and at Ailsworth (NTH 6,5), but the abbey also had woodland at Thorpe (NTH 6,3), Milton (NTH 6a,2) and at Peterborough itself (NTH 6,1). There was an exceptionally large stretch of woodland (2 leagues by 1 league) at Wittering (NTH 6a,4). See1,2 where the woodland belonging to Botolph Bridge is in Northamptonshire.
19,9	MARGINAL T. This probably abbreviates Terra, and seems to have been used by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he was unsure of the status of a holding.
	"BOTULUESBRIGE". The entry repeats B12, with differing detail. Since the church was in the borough of Huntingdon, the Ouse bridge linking Huntingdon and Godmanchester was evidently named from a chapel of St Botolph (JRM; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition).
		St Botolph was the patron saint of wayfarers. Botolph died in 680 after founding a monastery at Icanho (? Iken, Suffolk) of which Much Wenlock (Shropshire) was at first a dependency. His church was destroyed by the Danes. Bishop Aethelweald of Winchester (963-984) sought his remains and parts of him were buried at Thorney Abbey with the remains of his brother Adulf. The dedication of the bridge was no doubt due to the connection of the land with Thorney Abbey (see 19,9 St Mary's note).
		The interrelated entries (B12. 19,9. D1) make it certain that this 'Botolph's Bridge' was in Huntingdon and not the same as Botolph Bridge of 1,2 despite the Normancross hundred head at 19,1. Botolph Bridge appears as the identification of this place in the Phillimore printed translation and both are indexed together there as the same place in Normancross Hundred. However, JRM clearly had second thoughts and suggested the insertion of a 'Hurstingstone' hundred head at the same time as he added the note (see first paragraph above), but he maintained the identification of Botolph Bridge and did not correct the Places Index, an error rectified in this edition. On the decision not to include his restored hundred head here, see 19,9 St Mary's note paragraph 3. There is medieval evidence for a church (or chapel) of St Botolph in Huntingdon, but not for a bridge so named.
	BURGRED. On this name, see B12 Burgred note.
	THORKIL. On the name Thorkil, see B12 Thorkil note.
	A CHURCH, ST MARY'S. The church and its land originated in the (suspect) foundation grant by King Edgar to Thorney Abbey (HUN 7) of the monasteriolum of St Mary outside the borough, together with 2 hides adjacent and 1 hide at Broughton: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 792 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 26 no. 16, pp. 168, 171). The 1 hide at Broughton was given subsequently to Ramsey Abbey (B21 Broughton note) but at that time Thorney Abbey retained the church of St Mary with its two hides. This church may well have been the mother church or minster for Huntingdon and its environs.
		Church and land were then subject to a complex series of transactions. Thorney Abbey gave them in pledge (1042 x 1066) to the burgesses of Huntingdon (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 35 no. 36), but (according to D1) King Edward gave them to Vitalis and Bernard, his priests, who sold them to Hugh, chamberlain of the same king, and in turn the chamberlain sold them to two priests of Huntingdon (presumably Burgred and Thorkil). By 1086, Eustace the sheriff had interposed himself as overlord. The illegality of this is gently suggested by the word 'now' and the marginal T[erra] indicates the uncertain status of the land. The position is more forcefully stated in D1 ('Eustace now has it without deliverer, without writ and without installer') and in B12 the priests are said to be claiming 'the king's mercy'. On these transactions, see Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingdonshire Domesday, pp. 20-21.
		The land lay geographically, as did Huntingdon itself, in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred, but (at least in later times as probably in 1086) it was appurtenant to the Abbot of Thorney's Hundred of Normancross, where all his other lands lay. A rescript of Henry I makes this clear: praecipio quod soka Sanctae Mariae et canonicorum de Huntendune et duae hydae suae de Normanecros hundredo sint ita quietae de communitate et geldo burgi Huntendone ('I instruct that the jurisdiction of St Mary and of the canons of Huntingdon and their two hides in Normancross Hundred should thus be free of communal obligations and of the geld of the borough'): Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 80; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 179 no. 1359. Thus it is not necessary to supply a 'Hurstingstone' Hundred head above this entry (pace, JRM, cited in 19,9 Botuluesbrige note, and Thorn, 'Hundreds and Wapentakes', Huntingdonshire Domesday, p. 27). With Thorney's holdings at Yaxley and Stanground, this made a notional but not an agricultural 25-hide unit.
		Eustace held on to the church and land and re-founded the monasteriolum as the priory of St Mary for Augustinian canons.
		For the history of this land, see also Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 599; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 393-95, ii. p. 144; Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. xli; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 141, 160; Hart, 'Church of St Mary'; Ladds, 'Borough of Huntingdon'; Noble, 'The Cartulary of the Priory of St Mary in Huntingdon'.
19,10	[`HURSTINGSTONE HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from its presence above other parts of Stukeley at 6,1 and 20,3. It was included in the Phillimore printed translation, but removed by JRM in the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition because of his decision to include it above the preceding entry (see 19,9 Botuluesbrige note); the head did not therefore appear in the previous version of Domesday Explorer.
	[GREAT?] STUKELEY [***]. This was an Ancient Parish. This odd virgate, called neither manor nor jurisdiction, is superfluous to the 10-hide unit formed from the lands of Ramsey Abbey and Countess Judith (6,1. 20,3). It was probably part of one of these, most likely of Countess Judith's, of which Eustace claimed the whole. There is no trace of descent to Eustace's successors: Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 63; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 230-32; and 20,3 Stukeley note.
		In 1107 Henry I granted lands, mills and tithes to 'the monks of La Charité[-sur-Loire] serving god in the church of St Andrew at Northampton': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. no. 833 p. 70. These included part of the tithes of Stukeley. Since the descent of the other parts of Stukeley is clear, it is possible that this fragment of it was then in royal hands. It could however have been part of Countess Judith's estate there (20,3), since in the same document Henry I granted part of the tithes of Stretton (RUT 2,7), also held by her in 1086 and 20s annually from [Great] Paxton (20,8).
		The scribe left a gap after the place-name, possibly for the T.R.E. holder(s).
	TAXABLE. Ad g[e]ld[um] was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday.
	HERBERT <OF HARGRAVE>. See 19,13 Herbert note.
19,11	KIMBOLTON HUNDRED. [* 'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED *]. If Kimbolton Hundred were a unit separate from 'Leightonstone', its lands in this chapter would probably begin here and comprise 19,11-14, which are geographically close, but this is unlikely. Certainly parts of Catworth (13,4-5) were members of the manor of Kimbolton and both Catworth (19,12) and Hargrave (19,13-14) could have been members of a manorial hundred based on it. However, Catworth occurs at 29,3 in a group of places in 'Leightonstone' Hundred. Moreover, the next place detailed after this group (19,11-14), Great Gidding (19,15) is not only remote from Kimbolton, but parts of it appear directly under a 'Leightonstone' hundred head at 6,21 and 26,1; Woolley (19,21) and Grafham (19,22) also appear elsewhere in groups of places in 'Leightonstone' Hundred (29,5 and 1,9 respectively). If 19,11-14 were in a separate hundred of Kimbolton, then a 'Leightonstone' hundred head would need to be inserted above Great Gidding at 19,15. For a fuller discussion, see 13,1 Kimbolton note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	SWINESHEAD. This was an Ancient Parish. The bulk of the vill was a jurisdiction of the manor of Kimbolton (13,3), with Eustace as subtenant. The present ½ hide had perhaps been detached from there (though it is said to be a manor). It was apparently disputed, since a Declaration (D15), which probably refers to it, states that 'it was a jurisdiction of the king'. This (and perhaps the hundred head) suggests that it had belonged to King Edward and came to King William from him via Earl Harold as part of Kimbolton manor (13,1 Kimbolton note). Eustace does not seem to have retained this land, which was probably reunited with the rest of Swineshead and descended (like Kimbolton) to the Bohuns, earls of Hereford: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 104.
		Swineshead was transferred to Bedfordshire in 1896.
	"FURSA". It is not known what name is represented by the Domesday form Fursa, which only occurs in Domesday Book here and in the related entry in the Declarations (D15); see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 257. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition have Fursa.
	½ PLOUGH. There is land for half a plough at the adjacent Pertenhall (2,9) which may complement this.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. The main scribe misplaced this phrase: it should have been entered after '"Fursa" had ½ hide taxable', rather than after the plough estimate. This information is seemingly contradicted by D15 which says that "Fursa"'s land 'was a jurisdiction of the king'.
	RALPH. On this name, see 6,17 Ralph note.
19,12	CATWORTH. Great Catworth was an Ancient Parish. Eustace held 1 hide here as a subtenant (13,4, part of Kimbolton manor) and a further 2 hides had been his (19,32 Catworth note). Though apparently disputed (see 19,12 jurisdiction note) the land became a Lovetot fee: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 625; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 29.
		Eustace held a further portion of Catworth in Northamptonshire from the men of Peterborough Abbey (NTH 6a,26; see Round, Feudal England, p. 138). This Northamptonshire portion seems to have been represented on nineteenth-century maps by a scattering of fields which had been fully incorporated into Huntingdonshire by 1890; see {Introduction: The County Boundary}.
	AEFIC <OF CATWORTH>. The Domesday name-forms Auic and Auitius represent Old English Æfic: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 172. The Alecto edition has Æfic.
		The name occurs on six holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing three individuals, one each in Huntingdonshire (here and 29,3), Derbyshire (DBY 6,37-38;42), and Wiltshire (WIL 68,32). In Huntingdonshire, both holdings lay in the same vill (Catworth); and in Derbyshire the three holdings were in neighbouring vills in the Hundred of `Appletree', making their attribution to a single individual in each case plausible. The distance between the three counties, the modest size of all six holdings (none more than £3), and their acquisition by different Norman tenants-in-chief, makes it likely that the Huntingdonshire, Derbyshire and Wiltshire Aefics were separate individuals (JP).
	THE KING HAS THE FULL JURISDICTION. This seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Eustace's tenure; see 13,1 Kimbolton note.19,32 Catworth note.
19,13	HARGRAVE. Hargrave was an Ancient Parish in Northamptonshire. In 1086, the vill was apparently divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire where a part of Hargrave, as a jurisdiction of Higham Ferrers (NTH 35,15), was held under William Peverel by a Eustace (presumably the sheriff of Huntingdonshire, the tenant-in-chief of this entry and 19,14). For the possible lie of the boundary, see 3,1 Hargrave note.
		The three Huntingdonshire holdings at Hargrave (3,1. 19,13-14) plus Covington (17,1) formed a 10-hide unit. Neither this one nor the one in 19,14 occur subsequently in the Lovetot barony, but they descend, rather, as part of the honour of Kimbolton: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 29. The 1 virgate here is subject to dispute though there is no corresponding declaration. It is possible that all three parts of Hargrave had been temporarily alienated from the manor of Kimbolton.
	"LANGFER" <OF HARGRAVE>. It is not known what name is represented by the Domesday forms Lancfer here and Langfer, Langfere in Northamptonshire and Suffolk; see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 308. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed edition and the Alecto edition have Langfer.
		"Langfer" is a rare name, occurring on four holdings in Domesday Book, only once more outside East Anglia. There is nothing to connect this "Langfer" with his namesake in Northamptonshire (NTH 3,1), though the rarity of the name makes a connection feasible (JP).
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. There is land for another 2 oxen on the Bishop of Coutances' holding in Hargrave (3,1). There is also land for 1 ½ ploughs there in 19,14, so the plough estimate for Hargrave was two, assuming 8 oxen to a ploughland (1,3 oxen note).
	HERBERT <OF HARGRAVE>. The Domesday form of this name, Herbertus (often abbreviated to Herb't', represents Old German Her(e)bert etc., Old French Herbert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 148-49. The Alecto edition also has Herbert.
		The Herberts who held three very modest holdings from Eustace [19,10;13-14] are likely to have been the same individual. No Herbert held from Eustace in any other county; and as far as we know, no tenant-in-chief had two tenants with this name, so the odds against Eustace having two in the same county are high. The closest neighbour of this name was Odo of Bayeux's substantial tenant, Herbert son of Ivo, in Bedfordshire. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 251 (JP).
	HERBERT … PLOUGHS IT WITH ½ PLOUGH. The other holdings in Hargrave record 2 oxen (3,1) and 1 plough (19,14), so (assuming 8 oxen to a plough team) it looks as if 2 oxen are missing.
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. Latin acras, accusative; for a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
	TOVI CLAIMS. The translation in the Phillimore printed edition ('Tovi claims this land from Eustace as unjustly taken from him') fails to see that this is a reported statement, involving an accusative (hanc terram) and an infinitive (ablatam [esse]). This is merely a passive voice version of the statement (correctly translated) in 19,15.
		Tovi presumably held it after "Langfer" and, but for Eustace's theft, would have appeared as a king's thane in chapter 29. It was presumably a different Tovi who was the T.R.E. holder of Stilton (2,7). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 836.
		For the name Tovi, see 2,7 Tovi note.
19,14	HARGRAVE. Hargrave was an Ancient Parish in Northamptonshire. In 1086, the vill was apparently divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire where a part of Hargrave, as a jurisdiction of Higham Ferrers (NTH 35,15), was held under William Peverel by a Eustace (presumably the sheriff of Huntingdonshire, the tenant-in-chief of this entry and 19,13). For the possible lie of the boundary, see 3,1 Hargrave note. For the history of this estate, see 19,13 Hargrave note.
	YOUNG ALWIN. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	LAND FOR 1 ½ PLOUGHS. See 19,13 oxen note.
	1 PLOUGH. See 19,13 plough note.
	HERBERT <OF HARGRAVE>. See 19,13 Herbert note.
	EDMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Edmer, Edmar, Edmar(us), Edmaer, Aetmar[us] etc. - represent Old English Eadmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 232-33. JRM preferred the form Edmer as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadmær. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
19,15	[GREAT] GIDDING. On the possibility that a 'Leightonstone' Hundred head should be inserted here, see 19,11 Kimbolton note.
		Great Gidding was an Ancient Parish. This estate, together with the 7 hides held by Ramsey Abbey (6,25) and the 4 ½ hides of William the artificer (26,1) plus the 4 hides at Coppingford (11,2) would have formed a 20-hide unit.
		Despite the Freemen's claim, Eustace retained the bulk of this jurisdiction which descended in the Lovetot barony before being granted by the subtenant Ingelrann to the priory of St Mary of Huntingdon (19,9 St Mary's note). Gidding Magna, also known as Gidding Prioris, is a Lovetot fee, and is associated with Lolinton' (Luddington-in-the-Brook, 19,19) in 1279: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 626; Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 467, 470, 472; Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. pp. 79-80; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. P. 50.
	ALWOLD. On this name-form, see 6,6 Alwold note.
	^[FROM KING EDWARD]^. As there is no indication of a change in their status, both the royal manor of Alconbury (1,6) and its jurisdiction in Gidding were presumably in King Edward's hands T.R.E.; see also 1,9 jurisdiction note.
	JURISDICTION IN THE KING'S MANOR OF ALCONBURY. This explains the marginal S; see 1,9 jurisdiction note. Another part of Great Gidding was an outlier of the royal manor (1,6).
	INGELRANN [* OF EU *]. See 6,7 Ingelrann note.
	ALWOLD AND HIS BROTHERS. These are the 6 Freemen mentioned above. Their claim is repeated in D21 but was unsuccessful. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 837.
	WILLIAM THE ARTIFICER CLAIMS. On William the artificer, see HUN 26 William note, and on the name William, see B10 William note. He made good his claim and his nephew Vitalis (Viel) gave the land to the priory of St Mary in Huntingdon: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 50; see 19,9 St Mary's note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 177 no. 837.
	OF LAND. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation, as also in the subholding in 6,22.
	[THIS IS] THE WITNESS OF THE WHOLE HUNDRED. Latin Testim' toti' hund' should possibly be expanded to testimonio totius hundredi ('by witness of the whole hundred'), as the final phrase of the previous sentence, though the capital T and the punctuation before it do not support this. It is more likely that Testim' is nominative (= Testimonium) and that est is omitted: 'This is the witness of the whole hundred'. Its origin might thus have been a marginal note ('Witness of the whole hundred'), derived from the circuit volume or an earlier writing-up that was incorporated into the text of Great Domesday. In any case it probably refers to both claims.
19,16	WINWICK. This was an Ancient Parish. The vill was divided between counties in 1086 and other portions were held by Eustace from the men of Peterborough Abbey (NTH 6a,17) and by Eustace in chief (NTH 55,4). The 1086 subtenant of the latter holding, Odilard, is apparently the same as the subtenant of the two Huntingdonshire lands (see 19,16 Odilard note). Further, Eskil, the T.R.E. holder of the present entry, is probably the same man as Aki of NTH 55,4 (see 19,16 Eskil note). The two Huntingdonshire portions of Winwick made up a 5-hide unit and, with Eustace's holding in Thurning (19,18), they formed a 10-hide unit; Winwick and Thurning are coupled in Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472.
		Both parts of Winwick seem to have been wrongfully acquired by Eustace: the status of the first is uncertain (marginal T; see 19,9 marginal note), while the second (marginal S) had probably been a member of Alconbury which retained the jurisdiction. Despite the uncertainty, the lands descended in the Lovetot barony, a portion being subsequently granted to the priory of St Mary in Huntingdon (on which see 19,9 St Mary's note and 19,15 Gidding note): Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 467; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 121.
		An 1895 boundary change placed the whole of Winwick in Huntingdonshire.
	ESKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Aschil, Anschil, Anschill(us), Osketel, Osketellus, Oschetel, Aschillus, Aschi, Osketel[us], Oschil - represent Old Danish Eskil, Old Norse Askell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 167-68. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Askell and Asketill; these have now been standardized as Eskil. The Alecto edition has Eskil.
		Eskil (Aschil) here is probably the same man as Achi, Eustace's predecessor in his holding in Winwick in NTH 55,4, which was held in 1086 by Oidelard, as is the present one (19,16 Oidelard note). The form Achi normally represents Old Danish Aki (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 142), so at some stage in the Domesday process there seems to have been confusion over the forms Aschil and Achi; on the loss of the inorganic final l in Anglo-Norman, see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, § 66.
	2 ½ HIDES. The Phillimore printed translation has '2 ¾ hides' in error; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition. The earlier version of Domesday Explorer also had '2 ¾ hides' in error.
	OIDELARD [* THE LARDERER *]. The Domesday forms of this 1086 tenant are Oilard[us] in this county, Oidelard[us] in other counties, and are accepted by Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 195, as representing Old German Odalhard, Odel(h)ard, Odilard etc. with loss of the dental in the Huntingdonshire form. However, an Old French form, not given by him, is more likely; the Domesday form suggest it was Oidelard, with characteristic Old French differentiation of the initial long vowel. In the Phillimore printed edition the forms Odelard and Odilard appear and these have now been standardized as Oidelard. The Alecto edition has Oilard for the Huntingdonshire tenants and Oidelard for the rest.
		An Oidelard the larderer was Eustace's tenant in Grafham (19,22), almost certainly the same person as the Oidelard here and in 19,17, in view of the comparative rarity of the name in Domesday. It is very likely that the Widelard[us] of NTH 55,4 who was Eustace's tenant in Winwick, probably with the same predecessor (19,16 Eskil note), was also Oidelard the larderer, despite that form representing a different name (Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 253-54). See Round, Feudal England, p. 167 note 21; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 312.
19,17	THERE ALSO. Winwick was an Ancient Parish. The vill was divided between counties in 1086 and other portions were held by Eustace from the men of Peterborough Abbey (NTH 6a,17) and by Eustace in chief (NTH 55,4). On the history of the estate, see 19,16 Winwick note.
	ALWOLD. On this name-form, see 6,6 Alwold note.
	LEOFWIN. On this name, see 15,1 Leofwin note.
	ELAF <OF WINWICK>. The Domesday name-forms Elaf, Eilaf, Ailof, Airaf, represent Old Danish and Old Swedish Elaf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 246.
		Elaf is an uncommon name, occurring on nine holdings in Domesday Book and perhaps representing half-a-dozen individuals, among whom the royal thane at Bengeo (HRT 34,16) and a thane of Earl Tosti in Gloucestershire (who may be the same individual) were substantial landholders. Despite the distances involved, it is therefore possible that the Elaf at Winwick is the same individual as the royal thane of Bengeo, though there is only the slight connection of dependency on a royal manor to support this (JP).
	^[FROM KING EDWARD]^. See 19,15 King Edward note.
	JURISDICTION … ALCONBURY. On the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note. On Alconbury, see 1,6 Alconbury note.
	OIDELARD [* THE LARDERER]. See 19,16 Oidelard note.
19,18	THURNING. This was an Ancient Parish. Thurning was divided between Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire in 1086. The Northamptonshire portion was held by Peterborough Abbey (NTH 6,10b), appurtenant to its manor of Oundle. The county boundary passed through the main street until the change of 1888.
		Eustace's portion of Thurning was a round 5 hides and would have formed a 10-hide unit with Winwick (19,17-18). He was also a subtenant of Crowland Abbey's land here (5,2), whose hidage appears to couple it with Luddington-in-the-Brook (19,19).
		Eustace's holding here descended to the Lovetots and Alfred's subtenancy to the Cloptons of Clapton: Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 108-109.
		Two hides in Thurning had once been held by Ramsey Abbey: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 76-78); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 30 no. 23.
	JURISDICTION IN ALCONBURY. On the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note. On Alconbury, see 1,6 Alconbury note.
	1 ½ PLOUGHS … 2 ½ PLOUGHS. One plough would have been shared between the lordship 'home farm' and the villagers.
	6 VILLAGERS. The Phillimore printed translation has '16 villagers' in error; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	ALFRED [* OF GRANDCOURT *]. The Domesday forms of Alfred - Alured, Aluredus, Aluret, Alueradus, Aluerd, Aluert, Aluer, Eluret - represent Old English Ælfræd: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 175-76. However, he stated that the Old Breton Alfred, Alfret, Alfrit might sometimes be considered, as well as Old German Alverat etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both T.R.E. and 1086 holders. The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		Alfred is identified by King, Peterborough Abbey, pp. 47ff. Apart from Thurning, he and his descendants also held Polebrook and Clopton (NTH 55,3;6) from Eustace and subsequently as a subtenancy from Roger of Lovetot, he holding from Peterborough Abbey. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 141 (JP).
	JOCELYN. The Domesday forms of this name - Gozelin[us], Godzelinus, Goscelinus etc. - represent Old German Gautselin, Gauzlin, Goz(e)lin, Old French Goscelin, Gosselin, Jocelin, Joscelin, Joselin etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 128-29. Jocelyn, which also derives from these names (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition has Joscelin. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	ROBERT THE BURSAR CLAIMS. He was a Norman and the brother of Urso d’Abbetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, who was his heir. He held in Domesday both as a tenant-in-chief and as a subtenant. On the descent of his lands, see Round, Feudal England, pp. 175-76, 190-95; the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 90); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 383. A different Robert the bursar appears in Domesday Nottinghamshire as the tenant of Roger of Bully. On this claim, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, pp. 177-78 no. 838.
		On the name Robert, see 16,1 Robert note.
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. See 19,15 King Edward note.
19,19	LUDDINGTON[-IN-THE-BROOK]. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 the vill was divided between counties, the men of Peterborough Abbey holding a part in Northamptonshire (NTH 6a,16) appurtenant to their manor of Oundle. The whole was transferred to Northamptonshire in 1895.
		The 2 ½ hides here, together with the 1 ½ hides of Thurning (5,2) and Ramsey Abbey's 1 hide holding at Great Gidding (6,21) made a 5-hide unit.
		Luddington-in-the-Brook became part of the Lovetot fee and was given with [Great] Gidding (19,15) by their common subtenant Ingelrann to the priory of St Mary in Huntingdon: Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. pp. 79-80; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 334; VCH Northamptonshire, iii. p. 84; see 19,9 St Mary's note and 19,15 Gidding note.
	JURISDICTION … ALCONBURY. On the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note. On Alconbury, see 1,6 Alconbury note.
	INGELRANN [* OF EU *]. See 6,7 Ingelrann note.
	HERLEWIN <OF LUDDINGTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Herluin(us), Herluin, Erluin(us), Vrleuuine - represent Old German Erlewin, Herlewin etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 79-80; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 248. The Phillimore printed edition has Herlwin, but this has now been changed to Herlewin for the present edition. The Alecto edition has the forms Herlwin, Herlewin, Herluin. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		If Baldwin son of Herlewin is disregarded, the name Herlewin occurs on thirteen holdings in Domesday Book and once more in the Liber Exoniensis, probably representing five individuals. Given the rarity of the name, the Herlewin who held Luddington may have been the same individual as the tenant of Collyweston (NTH 32,1), across the border in Northamptonshire (JP).
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. See 19,15 King Edward note.
19,20	[ALCONBURY] WESTON. It was a settlement in Alconbury Ancient Parish. It was identified as [Old] Weston by JRM, but a note says 'possibly Alconbury Weston'. The link to Alconbury, mentioned in the text and emphasized by the marginal S, together with the later history of the manor and the likelihood that the 1 hide here should be grouped with Upton (11,1) to make a 5-hide unit, suggest that this is indeed Alconbury Weston. It descended within the Lovetot fief and was granted to St Mary's, Huntingdon, after its re-foundation as a priory (see 19,9 St Mary's note) : Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 614; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 8. It is Wodesweston, that is 'Wood Weston' in contrast to 'Wold Weston' (Old Weston) in Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 250.
	JURISDICTION IN ALCONBURY. On the marginal S referring to this, see 1,9 jurisdiction note. On Alconbury, see 1,6 Alconbury note.
	WULFBERT <OF WESTON>. The Domesday name-forms - Vlbert(us), Gulbertus, Wlb[er]t[us] - represent Old German Wulfbert: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 418; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 259. The Alecto edition has Wulfbert for T.R.E. holders, Gulbert for 1086 ones. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		Wulfbert is an uncommon name, occurring on fewer than twenty holdings, none of them close enough, or with tenurial associations or other links, to be plausibly connected with this modest holding at Weston (JP).
	^[KING EDWARD HELD IT]^. See 19,15 King Edward note.
19,21	WOOLLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. On the Domesday form (Ciluelai), see Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 251.
		In 29,5 Golde (see 19,21 Gode note) and her son Wulfric hold 3 hides in Woolley, there described as a manor. It is probable that this ½ hide, not so described, had been removed by Eustace. It was probably soon reunited with the manor as it did not descend to the Lovetots, but descended within the honour of Gloucester: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 125; see 29,5 Woolley note.
	GODE <OF WOOLLEY> AND WULFRIC [* SON OF GODE *]. The form Gode normally represents Old English Goda (masculine) or Gode (feminine) though in Domesday Book the form Gode can represent Goda and vice versa (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 263). However, in 29,5 the T.R.E. and 1086 tenants of 3 hides in Woolley are Golde and her son Wulfric. Golde normally represents Old English Golda (ibidem, p. 273), but in this instance Gode and Golde appear to be the same person; see 29,5 Golde note. The Alecto edition has Goda here and Golda for 29,5.
		The Domesday forms of the name Wulfric - Vluric(us), Vlricus, Vlfric, Wluric(us), Wlfricus, Wlfuricus, Vlfriz etc. - represent Old English Wulfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric.
		A Gode and her son also held jointly in Hertfordshire (HRT 34,4) and the probability of two widows with similar name-forms holding jointly with their sons are extremely slight. Gode and her son had held the Hertfordshire manor from Queen Edith, and Gode alone held three other holdings in the county from the queen (HRT 18,1. 32,2. 42,7) and a fourth from the king (HRT 17,4). The form Gode is thus well-attested in this case; and since Golde is otherwise unrecorded in Domesday Book, Gode has been retained here (JP).
		Between Gode's manors of Welwyn and Woolley lay a tight cluster of manors in Cambridgeshire held by a Goda from Earl Algar (CAM 13,1-7. CAM 26,22), and another from Edeva (14,53), most of which devolved upon Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. It is possible, even likely, that these too had been held by Gode of Woolley though there are no other links to support this; see Palmer, 'Great Domesday on CD-ROM', pp. 147; 149; 214-15, notes 65 and 68 (where references to fief 21 should read 29) (JP).
19,22	GRAFHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. This ½ hide is not designated as a manor or a jurisdiction and, like another part (1,9), it might have been a part of the royal manor of Brampton (1,8) or a dependency of 'Leightonstone' Hundred itself and representing a fragment of another dismembered royal manor. According to D25 Grafham was a jurisdiction of the king and was not legitimately held by Eustace. This ½ hide might duplicate a part of the 5 hides of Grafham (1,9) as there is an extra half-hide in the sum for this hundred (Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 65) but conclusions based on Domesday figures alone are unsafe. It seems that both parts of Grafham descended to the Lovetots, but the five-hide manor was later equally divided between the honour of Gloucester (granted from royal land) and the Abbot of Sawtry (a Lovetot fee deriving from Eustace). It is not clear whether the king ultimately asserted his claim, or whether he had managed to retain some land here throughout. East Perry seems to have been part of the manor; West Perry in Great Staughton was also held by Eustace (19,30): Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 623; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 467; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 61.
	ODILARD THE LARDERER. See 19,16 Odilard note.
	6 OXEN. There is ½ plough (among 2 ½) at the nearby West Perry (19,30). It may be that the 6 oxen and the ½ plough are regarded as approximations or (less likely) that the team here was made up of 6 oxen rather than 8 oxen (see 1,3 oxen note).
19,23	HEMINGFORD [GREY]. This was an Ancient Parish. This estate had once been Ramsey Abbey land (6,16 Hemingford note) but was among a number of hides alienated from it. The estate descended in the Lovetot barony: Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 312.
	ORDWY <OF HEMINGFORD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Ordui, Orduui - represent Old English Ordwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 337. JRM preferred the second element -wy for Old English -wig, as there is no final g in the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Ordwig. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		The name Ordwy occurs on 13 holdings in Domesday Book. There are no apparent links between the Huntingdonshire holding and its only near neighbours, the holdings of Ordwy of Bedford (JP).
	FOLIO <206c>. This was misplaced in the Latin text and translation in the Phillimore printed translation; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	2 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. The other beasts do not seem to appear on any adjacent holding, but it is notable that the holding of 27,1 at Hemingford Grey is waste and no plough is mentioned on the holding of 6,17 at Hemingford Abbots, both occupied by Ralph son of Osmund.
19,24	PAPWORTH [ST AGNES]. This was an Ancient Parish in Cambridgeshire. This entry is not designated as a manor, despite the marginal M in the Phillimore printed translation (corrected here). In 1086 the vill was divided between holders and counties in 1086. In addition to his holding in Huntingdonshire, Eustace had three portions in Cambridgeshire (CAM 30,1-3), and other parts were held in that county by Count Alan, Richard son of Count Gilbert, Gilbert of Ghent, Hardwin of Scales and Picot of Cambridge (CAM 14,53. 19,1. 23,1. 26,44. 32,26.). The whole of Papworth was placed in Cambridgeshire in 1895.
		The present holding was at Papworth St Agnes, named from a twelfth-century holder who has been sainted like Countess Judith at Sawtry (20,2 Sawtry note). The land passed down the Lovetot barony: Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Cambridgeshire, ix. pp. 367-68.
	MEADOW. Latin acras, accusative; for a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
19,25	OFFORD [D'ARCY]. This was an Ancient Parish. The vill that became Offord D'Arcy was divided in 1086 between Ramsey Abbey (6,19), Countess Judith (20,7) and Eustace, making 10 hides in all. This manor became known as 'Moynes' or 'Pabenhams'. Offord was held in the Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928, by William Le Moyne from the Lovetot barony: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 325.
	ALWIN THE SHERIFF. He was not necessarily the sheriff of Huntingdonshire; see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}; and Green, English Sheriffs, p. 48.
		On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	ODO. The Domesday forms of this 1086 holder - Odo, Ode, Oddo, Odonus, Oda - represent Old German Odo, which was also a very common Norman French personal name: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 198-99; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 334. The Alecto edition has Odo, except for most of the occurrences of Odo of Winchester, where it has Oda of Winchester, almost certainly correctly as he was an Englishman who had also held T.R.E. (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 333, note 3). It has been decided therefore to call him Oda for the present edition. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
19,26	WARESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. For the erratic Domesday name-form (Wederesle), see 16,1 Waresley note.
		The present holding is not designated as a manor and does not reappear in the Lovetot barony: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 378. This ½ hide had probably been alienated from one of the other two holdings (16,1. 23,1), almost certainly the latter since its half hide would contribute to a 3-hide unit, making 10 hides with the holding of 16,1. The descent was clearly disputed according to D9, where it is said that Sumarlithi was not the tenant-in-chief T.R.E. but held from Thorulf (who is said to have given it to him) and later from his sons.
	SUMARLITHI <OF WARESLEY>. The Domesday forms of this name - Sum[m]erled, Sum[m]erlede, Sumerlet, Sum[m]erde, Sum[m]erdi (genitive) - represent Old Norse Sumarlithr, Sumarlithi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 377-78; Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 270-71. The forms Summerled and Sumarlithi appear in the Phillimore printed edition; these have now been standardized as Sumarlithi. The Alecto edition has Sumarlithr generally.
		Outside Lincolnshire, Sumarlithi is a rare name, occurring on only single holdings in Devon, Suffolk, and Yorkshire. There are no apparent links between Waresley and the several Lincolnshire Sumarlithis, and it is improbable that there were connections with the small and remote holdings in other counties (JP).
		It may be worth noting that a man called Sumerled held an estate at Witchford in Cambridgeshire at the time of King Edgar (see the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 91)) and that, at the same period, two, apparently separate, men called Sumerlida the priest and Sumerlida of 'Stoke' appear as sureties for Bishop Aethelwold in connection with estates of Peterborough Abbey; see Robertson, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos. xxxix and xl, pp. 72-83, 325-332, dated between 963 and 992. Their connection with each other and with the Sumarlithi of Domesday is unknown.
	ROGER. On this name, see HUN 17 Roger note.
19,27	[HAIL] WESTON. This was a chapelry of Southoe (19,29). The three holdings here (19,27-28. 25,1) together with Great Staughton (2,2) formed a 10-hide unit. Both of Eustace's holdings here, though disputed, were subsequently merged with his manor of Southoe (19,29).
	ALGEAT <OF WESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name-form - Eliet, Aelget, Aliet, Elget - could represent either the hypothetical Old English Æthelgeat or Old English Ælfgeat or, where the sex is unknown (in WOR 26,9, WAR 16,41 and SHR 4,23,3), the Old English feminine names Æthelgyth, Ælfgyth or Ealdgyth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 146, under Al-geat, and also p. 142, under Al-. The Phillimore printed edition has the form Algeat, though some of the above Domesday forms appear as Alfgeat; these have now been standardized as Algeat. The Alecto edition followed von Feilitzen with Algeat.
		The name Algeat occurs on four widely separated holdings in Domesday Book, all of modest value, none close to any other, and each devolving upon a different tenant-in-chief. All four were probably held by different individuals in 1066 (JP).
	LORDSHIP ½ HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	COUNTESS JUDITH CLAIMS THIS LAND. The dispute is tilted in her favour in D11 by recording that the land had been held from Waltheof (her husband). Her claim was unsuccessful. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 839.
		On the name Judith, see B5 Judith note
19,28	THERE ALSO. [Hail] Weston was a chapelry of Southoe (19,29). In a Declaration (D13), the jurors state that this land did not belong to Saxi (who was the predecessor of Robert [son of] Fafiton, HUN 25). This seems to imply that Robert was disputing it, but that it was rightly someone else's, presumably Eustace's. For the descent, see 19,27 Weston note and 19,29 Southoe note.
	GODWIN. He was not 'Godwin of Weston' as in the Persons Index for the Phillimore printed translation; see D13 Godwin note. On the name Godwin, see 1,4 Godwin note.
	EUSTACE HAS ½ PLOUGH. The other half does not appear, though it is possible that a half-plough in lordship has been omitted in 19,27. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	MEADOW … ACRES; PASTURABLE WOODLAND … ACRES. Latin acras, accusative, for both these. For a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
19,29	SOUTHOE. This was an Ancient Parish. It was the most important of Eustace's holdings, which became the head manor of the Southoe Lovetot fee and was known as the manor of Sutho Lovethot (etc.): Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 198, ii. pp. 666, 676; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 468, 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 347.
		This holding at Southoe, together with the two at Diddington (2,3. 20,9), formed a 10-hide unit.
	DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - Dunning, Dunninc, Donning, Dunniht, Donninc - represent Old English Dunning: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 228. The Alecto edition has Dunning. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	1 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	3 PRESENTATIONS A YEAR. These presentationes are possibly the equivalent of the later exenia, that is payments made by tenants to their lords acknowledging their superiority: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 350 note. All the instances in Domesday Book involve places with fisheries and in CAM 1,1 a presentation of fish was made three times a year by 7 fishermen. On a number of occasions the main survey in the Inquisitio Eliensis adds 'of fish' to the 'presentations' in the corresponding entries in Domesday Cambridgeshire. The link between the 'fishery' and the 'presentations' here is made clear in the Alecto translation: '1 fishery [rendering] 1,000 eels and 3 gifts a year worth 49d'. This render may have been a custom of the estate. The payment presumably went to the king and was perhaps, in this instance, also intended to safeguard Eustace's main manor.
19,30	[WEST] PERRY. It was in Great Staughton Ancient Parish. East Perry (in Grafham Ancient Parish) was also held by Eustace (19,22; see 19,22 Grafham note). West Perry descended in the Lovetot barony: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 674; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 468; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 363.
	ALWIN DEVIL. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note. On his byname Deule, see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 34. He is probably the same as the Alwin Devil who had held Pertenhall (2,9. D16) and he may also be the same man as the Alwin who held part of Keysoe T.R.E. and in 1086 (29,2; see 29,2 Keysoe note).
	1 ½ PLOUGHS. The other ½ plough does not appear unless it is at Boughton (19,31).
19,31	BOUGHTON. It was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Southoe. It is not said to be a manor and moreover is subject to a dispute (D12), where it is said that the T.R.E. holder was Earl Waltheof with Godric the priest as his subtenant. Waltheof's heirs (see HUN 20 Judith note) recovered it and it became part of the honour of Huntingdon; see Book of Fees, pp. 923, 928; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 351. Waltheof's tenure suggests that Boughton might once have been a member of Great Paxton (20,8 Outliers note).
		The Grid Reference (TL1964) is to Boughton Lodge Farm. The deserted site of 'Boughton Village' is marked at TL197647 on the Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 map
	GODRIC THE PRIEST. On the name Godric, see 2,5 Godric note.
	½ PLOUGH. See 19,30 ploughs note.
19,32	'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED]. For the restoration of this hundred head, see 13,1 hundred note, 19,11 Kimbolton note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	CATWORTH. Great Catworth was an Ancient Parish. For other parts of Catworth and its relationship to Northamptonshire, see 13,4 Catworth note and 19,12 Catworth note.
		The scribe left two lines blank before this entry, but there is no sign that it was a later addition by him. The space was almost certainly intended to indicate the difference between this estate (no longer held by Eustace) and his preceding holdings. It might, however, have been a later addition to the circuit returns.
		Lands in Kimbolton/'Leightonstone' Hundred have already been entered (19,11 on) and with them 3 hides at Catworth (19,12). The present 2 hides are not designated a manor and Eustace had already been deprived of their use. They had probably been part of the Kimbolton multiple estate of which King Edward had held a part, while Earl Harold held the rest; see D17-18 and 13,1 Kimbolton note and 13,4 Catworth note. This entry is not a late addition to Domesday, but it is possible that it was misplaced in the source used by the Great Domesday scribe.
		This Catworth appears to have had no later independent history but to have been reunited with Kimbolton manor and descended in the barony of that name.
20	LAND OF COUNTESS JUDITH. On the name Judith, see B5 Judith note. She was the daughter of Lambert, Count of Lens, and William’s half-sister Adelaide and thus related to Eustace of Boulogne and the niece of King William. By 1086 she was the widow of Earl Waltheof (see 2,8 Waltheof note) whom she married c. 1070 and who was executed for treason in 1076. She inherited many of his lands. Her main heir was her daughter, Matilda (Maud), who married first Simon I de Senlis, then David I, King of Scotland both of whom were successively Earls of Huntingdon. Judith's lands formed the honour or barony of Huntingdon in later times, held by a line of the Earls of Huntingdon.
		In this chapter only Diddington (20,9) is expressly said to have been held by Waltheof, though the holders of some of the other manors (Thorkil [the Dane], Hunef, Northmann) may have been his 'men' (as suggested by VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 335); see D3 given note. He may have been given King Edward's manors (20,6;8) by King William, unless King William gave them to his favourite niece after Waltheof's execution. Earl Tosti had held Caldecote (20,5) a member of Eynesbury (20,6) and it is possible that Waltheof acquired Caldecote when he was given Tosti's former earldom; moreover, it is possible that Tosti had once held Eynesbury (20,6) and Great Paxton (20,8); see 20,5 Tosti note. Thus Judith may have acquired the fief entire from her husband; on his holding of Leighton Bromswold, which did not pass to her, see 2,8 Thorkil note.
		The entries in this fief are arranged by hundreds as follows:
	20,1-2 Normancross Hundred
	20,3 'Hurstingstone' Hundred
	20,4 Kimbolton ['Leightonstone'] Hundred
	20,5-9 Toseland Hundred.
20,1	CONINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Nine mansae had been granted here in 957 by a genuine charter of King Eadwig to his thane Wulfstan [Uccea]: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 649 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 23 no. 9). Some or all of the land went (1017 x 1035) to Thorney Abbey by the will of Mantat the anchorite: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1523 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 33 no. 31, pp. 204-205). This may have been a grant or a reversion. Later (c. 1060) 6 hides of the land, separately mentioned in the Domesday entry (see also D26), were leased to Thorkil [of Harringworth] with reversion to the abbey, with a promise of 3 hides which he himself held there (and which must have been part of the original grant by King Eadwig): Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 38 no. 46; Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 604. Nonetheless the land went to the honour of Huntingdon: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 652, 654; Book of Fees, p. 923; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 146.
	THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. He was also known as Thorkil of Harringworth; see 2,8 Thorkil note. On the name Thorkil, see B12 Thorkil note.
	2 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	VOLUNTARY PAYMENT. Latin karitas or caritas means 'an act of kindness', 'an act of charity', 'a generous act'. More specific meanings such as 'alms-giving', 'provision of a meal of love and fraternity', 'distribution of food and drink to monks on the occasion of a feast-day' are also possible in Medieval Latin. The translation here seems preferable to the 'allowance' in the Phillimore printed translation and 'paid a payment' in Fleming. This is the only occurrence of the word in Domesday Book. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 840.
20,2	SAWTRY. There were later two parishes, Sawtry All Saints and Sawtry St Andrew, as well as an extra-parochial area, Sawtry St Judith. In Domesday the entries for Sawtry (6,12. 19,1. 20,2. 29,6) together with Glatton (9,1) made a 30-hide unit, but only the present subdivision is a round figure. The T.R.E. holder was Thorkil [the Dane], also known as Thorkil of Harringworth (2,8 Thorkil note). Between 1050 and 1070 he consented to his wife Thurgunt giving the land to Ramsey Abbey: Monasticon Anglicanum, v. pp. 522-23; Ramsey Chronicle, pp. 175-76, 199; Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 236 no. 325. The bequest failed to take effect apparently because Thorkil sided with the Danes, probably in 1069, and his land here went to Earl Waltheof (as did Conington, 20,1): Monasticon Anglicanum, ii. p. 604.
		This estate was said to have been 'especially loved and frequented' by Countess Judith and William I apparently freed it of all Crown dues including murdrum and danegeld (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 523), although there is no sign of this in the Domesday entry. William II and Henry I freed the wood (later known as Monkswood, TL1980) from all interference by royal foresters: Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 523; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 663.
		The manor became known as Sawtry Judith or Sawtry St Judith, the Countess becoming a saint to join St Andrew and All Saints, the other two divisions of Sawtry: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, pp. 195-96. It was given to the Cistercian Abbey of Sawtry at its foundation in 1147 by Simon, Earl of Northampton, the grandson of Earl Waltheof and Judith, and was later known as Magna or Major Sawtry or Sawtry Monachorum: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 663; Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 50; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 391-92, iii. p. 208; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 114, 125.
	THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. He was also known as Thorkil of Harringworth; see 2,8 Thorkil note. On the name Thorkil, see B12 Thorkil note.
	2 ½ HIDES. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
20,3	[GREAT] STUKELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. With the 7 hides of Ramsey Abbey (6,1) these 3 taxable hides formed a 10-hide unit. Despite the respective hidages, this was clearly the larger estate, later known as Stukeley Magna or Major. As it had land for 6 ploughs it appears to have been a manor beneficially hidated or it had been greatly expanded: see {Introduction: Hidage}. It descended in the barony of Huntingdon and was Stivecle Comitis David in 1220 (Book of Fees, p. 333); see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 598-99; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 230-32. For the grant of part of the tithe here to St Andrew's, Northampton, see 19,10 Stukeley note.
		Property in the borough of Huntingdon was appurtenant to [Great] Stukeley; see B14 Hunef note.
	HUNEVA [* HUNEF *] <OF STUKELEY>. On the likelihood that Domesday Hunneue is the same woman as the Hunef of B14 and D3, see B14 Hunef note.
		The form Hunneue occurs nowhere else in Domesday Book but a Hvnef had held Oakley in Kent from Earl Harold (KEN 5,108). In view of the rarity of the name, the handsome scale of Stukeley and the respectable size of Oakley, the two Hunefs may have been the same person; but in the absence of any other connecting link they have been treated as separate individuals here (JP).
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS IN LORDSHIP. For the exemption of this land, see B21 ploughs note. For the Latin terram, accusative, see 4,1 land note.
	A CHURCH. There was a separate church at what became Little Stukeley (6,1).
	THE MARGINAL LETTER is a d with an abbreviation sign and probably abbreviates disputatio ('dispute') or diratiocinandum ('to be determined, proved, established'). It also appears in the margin of Domesday Derbyshire folio 278b opposite a claim for land in Risley (DBY 16,2). Its purpose is similar to the marginal k (for kalumnia or kalumpnia, 'claim'; see 2,6 claims note).
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^ CLAIMS IT. He held 1 virgate here in 19,10 superfluous to the present 10 hides, and probably a fraction of them. The claim is not in the Declarations and was unsuccessful. See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 841.
20,4	KIMBOLTON HUNDRED. [* 'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED *]. See 13,1 hundred note, 19,11 Kimbolton note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	MOLESWORTH. This was an Ancient Parish. Despite the subtenancy of Eustace, presumably the sheriff, this land descended within the honour of Huntingdon: Book of Fees, pp. 924, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 617; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 92.
	NORTHMANN. The Domesday forms of this 1066 holder - Norman, Normann(us), Norman[us], Normandni (genitive) - represent Old English Northmann ('a dweller in the north', a Scandinavian'): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 331-32. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Norman and Northmann for both 1066 and 1086 landholders. For the present edition a distinction has been made between these: Northmann for 1066 holders and Norman for 1086 ones. This is the policy followed by the Alecto edition.
	1 HIDE. See {Introduction: Lordship Land}.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
20,5	CALDECOTE. This holding (Domesday Cotes) was left unidentified by VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 351, but identified by JRM as Cotton which lay in Offord D'Arcy (see 2,1 Weald note). However, the honour of Huntingdon's possession was Caldecote, an outlier of Eynesbury and sharing its descent: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 275-76; Hart, 'Hidation of Huntingdonshire', p. 66. The dependency of Cotes on Eynesbury is mentioned in the entry. Either Caldecote or Eynesbury accounted for Hardwicke (TL2056).
		For the hidage, see 20,6 Eynesbury note.
	EARL TOSTI. He was the third son of Earl Godwin of Wessex and brother of Earl (King) Harold. He succeeded Siward as Earl of Northumbria in 1055 and held other shires, including Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire, and perhaps Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire. He was married to Judith, daughter of Baldwin IV of Flanders, and was exiled with his father Godwin and his brothers Harold, Swein and Gyrth in 1051-1052. His subjects ejected him from his Northumbrian earldom in 1065 and there was unrest in other shires held by him as well; his opponents from the north did much damage in Northamptonshire. They chose Morcar to replace him and this was accepted by King Edward, but Tosti's southern earldom, including Huntingdonshire, reverted to Waltheof, son of its former holder Earl Siward; see B5 Siward note. Tosti went into exile in Bruges then in Saint-Omer. After Edward the Confessor’s death, allied with King Harold Hardrada of Norway, he invaded Yorkshire but was defeated and killed by his brother Earl (King) Harold at Stamford Bridge in 1066. On his rôle in Huntingdonshire, see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 334-35. On the name Tosti, see 10,1 Tosti note.
		In Huntingdonshire Earl Tosti had held Caldecote (20,5) and part of Hail Weston (19,27) according to one of the Declarations (D11). He is most probably to be identified with the Tosti who had held Buckworth (10,1), a member of Great Paxton (20,8. D23),. The fact that Caldecote and Buckworth were both members of larger manors suggested to Stenton (in VCH Huntingdonshire, pp. 334-35) that Tosti had also held the capita (Eynesbury and Great Paxton) themselves. If this is so, then the mention of Tosti in connection with the members is anachronistic, since Domesday states that King Edward held both Eynesbury and Great Paxton, which (on Stenton's hypothesis) he would have resumed after Tosti's loss of the earldom. In support of this, the fact that they were in Countess Judith's hands in 1086 could suggest that Eynesbury and Great Paxton had been part of Tosti's earldom and had come to Earl Waltheof when he acquired the southern portion of it (Morcar being given only Northumbria). On the other hand it is possible that Tosti only ever held the members (Buckworth and Caldecote) and that they were typical grants of a portion of royal manors to support an earl in his office; in which case the grant of Eynesbury and Great Paxton themselves (to Waltheof or to Countess Judith after his death) were quite separate.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. Latin acras is accusative here, probably after habet rather than habentes, as in the subholding here and elsewhere; see also in 26,1. Compare 1,6 villagers note and In the Phillimore printed translation there is a full-stop after 'ploughs' and a new sentence for the meadow 5,2 meadow note.
	ITS VALUATION [IS INCLUDED] IN EYNESBURY. Latin precium is rendered as 'assessment' in the Phillimore printed translation, but this phrase is a substitute for the normal value clause and emphasizes this estate's dependent status.
20,6	EYNESBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. The manor together with the other holding at Eynesbury (28,1) plus the two places called Cotes (2,1. 20,5) formed a 30-hide unit. Eynesbury and Great Paxton, both formerly held by King Edward, perhaps one originally part of the other, would have dominated Toseland Hundred: {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. The manor descended within the honour of Huntingdon: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 669; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 469, 473; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 273.
		This 9-hide manor probably included Abbotsley (TL2256) held from the honour of Huntingdon in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 672; see VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 257. The place-name means 'Ealdbeald's clearing' and is not related to an abbot or abbey: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 252. Further members were possibly Hardwicke (TL2056; see 20,5 Caldecote note); Caldecote (20,5) and Berkiford (?part of Little Barford, Bedfordshire, TL1856): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 669; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 473. Part of 'Beachampstead' (lost in Great Staughton: Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 268) was held from an early date by the honour of Huntingdon and may have been part of this estate: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 363; see 6,20 Dillington note.
		At some stage Picot, the sheriff of Cambridgeshire, had held Eynesbury. CAM 32,10 states that he had 1 hide of his 2-hide holding in (East) Hatley 'in exchange for Eynesbury'. It is unclear whether this was Judith's holding or that of Rohais (28,1).
	KING EDWARD. Caldecote (20,5) was a jurisdiction of Eynesbury, but held by Earl Tosti T.R.E. He might have been granted Caldecote by virtue of his office, and had in fact held Eynesbury as well under King Edward for the same reason. On the name Edward, see 1,1 Edward note.
	LAND FOR 28 PLOUGHS. As a former royal manor, this appears to have been beneficially hidated.
	A SHEEPFOLD WITH 662 SHEEP. The inclusion of this detail is unusual, the only other occurrence of a sheepfold in Domesday being in GLS 60,1 where a sheepfold renders 120 weys of cheese. Livestock were surveyed during the Domesday Enquiry and included in the circuit volumes, but abbreviated out in the process that produced Great Domesday. The sheep may have stayed in the text because of the unusual mention of a sheepfold, which might have been assumed to be a resource in itself like a mill. In Little Domesday Book and the Liber Exoniensis (Exon) sheep, but no sheepfolds, are regularly mentioned. Alternatively it may have been mentioned because it, the sheep and 60 acres of meadow have been given (possibly alienated) to St Helen's of Elstow, thus reducing the value of the manor.
	WHICH. Latin quod is neuter and possibly refers to the sheepfold (ovile), but the position of the clause suggests that it refers to pratum (also neuter) and that therefore the meadow is part of the same resource, that is, it is grazed by the sheep. The correction of the punctuation in the Phillimore printed translation, from a comma to a semi-colon after 'meadow' (see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition), reinforces the view that Countess Judith gave the sheepfold, sheep and meadow to St Helen's. The Alecto edition omits all punctuation after 'meadow', implying that it alone was gifted.
	ST HELEN'S [* OF ELSTOW *]. A Benedictine nunnery, situated in Bedfordshire, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, St Mary and St Helen and founded c. 1078 by Countess Judith, widow of Earl Waltheof and niece of William I; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 253, 258; Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, p. 211; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 509.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 842.
	GILBERT THE PRIEST HOLDS 2 HIDES. This 2-hide holding became the rectory manor attached to the church of Eynesbury which might once have been a superior church or minster: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 273; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 214. The Phillimore printed translation omits 'hides' in error. On the name Gilbert, see B2 Gilbert note.
	HER STEWARD ALAN HAS 2 HIDES. Alan was Countess Judith's tenant here and in 20,9 and in Northamptonshire (NTH 56,47-8). He was lord of Weald in Eynesbury. These unnamed 2 hides were therefore probably in Weald. He was also an early benefactor of St Neot's which was also established in Eynesbury (28,1). His successors were a family called Le Noreis or Noreis: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 130. Another part of Weald was held by the Bishop of Lincoln: 2,1 Weald note.
		The Domesday form of the name Alan, Alan[us], represents Old Breton Alan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 142. The Alecto edition also has Alan.
20,7	OFFORD [D'ARCY]. This was an Ancient Parish. On the two places called Offord (Offord D'Arcy and Offord Cluny), see 6,19 Offord note, 18,1 Offord note and 19,25 Offord note. This Offord was held from the honour of Huntingdon by the Le Daneys family and was known as Offord Daneys or by the fanciful Latin equivalent Offord Daci (compare Dacorum Hundred in Hertfordshire which was 'Danish' Hundred in 1086). Daci has become corrupted to D'Arcy: Book of Fees, pp. 333, 923, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 668; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 322; Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 263.
	NORTHMANN. On this name, see 20,4 Northmann note.
	LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS. The viii was corrected by overwriting from an original iiii by the main scribe of Great Domesday.
	HUGH [* OF HOTOT *] HOLDS FROM THE COUNTESS. This was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday who seems to have had problems with his source here. The identification as Hugh of Hotot is a deduction from the fact that a man with that byname holds from the countess in 'Roteland' (RUT 2,11); see RUT 2,11 Hugh note.
		On the name Hugh, see 6,1 Hugh note.
20,8	[GREAT] PAXTON. This was an Ancient Parish and a major Edwardian manor; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. It descended within the honour of Huntingdon: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 686; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 328. Buckworth in 'Leightonstone' Hundred (10,1. D23) had formerly been an outlier.
		In 1107 Henry I granted various lands, mills and tithes to 'the monks of La Charité[-sur-Loire] serving god in the church of St Andrew at Northampton': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. no. 833 p. 70. These included 20s annually from Paxton to buy wine for masses. On this grant, see 19,10 Stukeley note.
	WITH 3 OUTLIERS. This was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday. He had initially squeezed the iii in between cu' and Bereuuitis, but then had second thoughts and added another .iii. after Bereuuitis. The result is poor as he failed to delete the abbreviation sign over the cu and make the original iii into an m. Farley read cu'm Bereuitis .iii.
		Two of these three outliers were certainly Little Paxton (TL1863) and Toseland (TL2462). Thus the moot-site for the hundred lay in the lands of a major royal manor; see {Introduction: Hundreds}. A third outlier was probably at Agden (in Great Staughton, TL1266). In the early twelfth century 9 virgates in Little Paxton and Accadena held by Paxton Church were exchanged by King David I of Scotland for a grant of 7 virgates in Great Paxton: Parsons, 'Charter of David I', pp. 370-71. Agden is remote from Paxton, but probably provided the manor with pasturage or pannage even if derivation from ac ('oak') can be ruled out (in view of the form cited above) in favour of Acca's 'dene': Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 268. Agden certainly named a (royal) forest: 60 acres in Akeden' 'on the side of Kimbolton' were granted in 1102 to Earl Simon of Senlis 'to assart and to house his man Geoffrey': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 20 no. 578.
		Abbotsley has also been suggested for this third outlier, but it was probably a part of Eynesbury in 1086 (20,6 Eynesbury note). A further possibility is Boughton, held by Eustace the sheriff in 1086 but which descended with the honour of Huntingdon (19,31 Boughton note). However, Boughton's 1 hide formed a 10-hide unit with Dillington (6,20), West Perry (19,30) and one part of Southoe (25,2), and it is associated with Dillington in later times: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 685-86; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472; Hart, Hidation of Northamptonshire, p. 66. Buckworth (10,1. D23) had been an outlier of Paxton T.R.E. but was independent of it in 1086 and is thus unlikely to be the third outlier. On all of this, see Book of Fees, pp. 924, 928; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 671-72, 686; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 469, 472-73; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 352 note, ii. pp. 328, 364-65, 372, 374.
	KING EDWARD HAD. It is possible that the holder until 1065 was in fact Earl Tosti, if he was the Tosti who had held Buckworth (10,1) which was then an outlier of Great Paxton. Tosti was Earl of Northumbria, but had also held at least the Huntingdonshire part of the earldom that became Waltheof's: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 335. Earl Tosti was also Judith's predecessor at Caldecote (20,5); see 20,5 Tosti note. On the name Edward, see 1,1 Edward note.
	60 VILLAGERS … PRIEST. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition, where a semi-colon was given after 'priest', corrected here.
	OTHER WOODLAND. It was perhaps at one of the outliers, possibly Agden because of its woodland connections (see 20,8 outliers note). It is possible, however, that the scribe wanted to distinguish pure woodland from the pasturable woodland previously mentioned; see 1,1 woodland note.
	1 HIDE BELONGS TO THE CHURCH. This formed the later rectory manor (VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 328) and as at Eynesbury (20,6) may be a sign that this had been a minster church. This is given support by the provisions of the charter of David I cited in 20,8 outliers note: the prior and canons are expected to continue to serve in the church, which thus appears to be the successor to an Anglo-Saxon minster; see Ralegh-Radford, 'Great Paxton Church'.
20,9	DIDDINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. The two holdings at Diddington (2,3. 20,9) together with Eustace's at Southoe (19,29) formed a 10-hide unit.
		The estate descended with the honour of Huntingdon: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 685-86; Feudal Aids, ii. p. 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 269.
	EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,8 Waltheof note.
	ALAN [* THE STEWARD *]. See 20,6 steward note.
21	LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT. On the name Gilbert, see B2 Gilbert note. He came from Ghent in Flanders and was son of Ralph, lord of Alost, near Ghent and Gisla. Gilbert married Alice, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, and had several children including Walter, his heir, Emma, who married Alan de Percy, and another daughter who married Ivo of Grandmesnil. Gilbert founded the monastery of Bardney (Lincolnshire) as a cell of Sainte-Foi of Conques. His estates descended through his heirs and formed the barony of Folkingham (Lincolnshire). See Sanders English Baronies, p. 46; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 210.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred.
21,1	FENSTANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. Boxworth (CAM 23,4) and a Cambridgeshire portion of Papworth (CAM 23,1), likewise held by Ulf ^[Fenman]^ in 1066 and by Gilbert of Ghent in 1086, were connected with Fenstanton. Boxworth was a jurisdiction of it and Papworth was said to 'lie in' it. The creation of shires had probably cut through pre-existing tenures.
		15 hides at Stantun and Hiltun had been granted in 1012 by King Ethelred II to Godwine, Bishop of Rochester, but were subsequently alienated. Two hides also appear to have been removed, or the tax-burden reassessed for the Great Domesday hidage is 13: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 926 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 33 no. 30).
		Fenstanton and Hilton (TL2966) descended to Gilbert of Ghent's grandson (also Gilbert), but subsequently escheated to the Crown and were granted out again: Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 198, ii. p. 676; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 468, 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 281, 315.
	ULF ^[FENMAN]^. The byname is supplied from B2; see B2 Fenman note on both this and his first name. Ulf Fenman was Gilbert of Ghent's predecessor also in DBY 13,1, LIN 24,1. CW 17. CK 41 and CAM 23,1-6 (his byname provided by the corresponding entries in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis). He is probably the same man as the plain Ulf who preceded Gilbert of Ghent in BUK 22,2, in RUT 5,15, in some of his Nottinghamshire holdings (NTT 17) and in most of his holdings in Lincolnshire (LIN 24), and as 'Ulf, a thane of King Edward' in BDF 27,1 and BUK 22,1.
22	LAND OF AUBREY DE VERE. He was probably a Breton from Vair, in the commune (and arrondissement) of Ancenis, near Nantes in the French département of Loire-Atlantique, not, as previously thought from Ver, in the French département of Manche (arrondissement Coutances, canton Gavray). In Domesday he was both a tenant-in-chief (CAM 29. ESS 35. MDX 21. SFK 35) and a subtenant of Count Alan (Rufus) of Brittany (ESS 21,3;8). Aubrey died c.1112 and was buried at Colne Priory which he and his wife Beatrice founded as a cell of Abingdon Abbey for the soul of their son Geoffrey. He was ancestor of the Earls of Oxford. His wife holds in her own right in Domesday Essex. On the name Aubrey, see 6,18 Aubrey note.
		The two entries in this fief are in a single hundred, Toseland Hundred.
22,1	YELLING. This was an Ancient Parish. The land had originally been one of two 5-hide manors granted to Ramsey Abbey (6,15 Yelling note) but had been seized by Aubrey de Vere (see 22,2). It had been granted to Ramsey Abbey between 1040 and 1042 by King Harthacnut at the request of his mother Aelfgifu (Emma) and for the soul of his father King Cnut: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 152); the Liber Eliensis (Blake, p. 419); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 235 no. 322. There is a record (c. 1044) of a grant for life of this land (and of 5 hides 'in the eastern land of Hemingford'; see 22,2) by Abbot Aelfwine to Wulfwine, son of another Aelfwine: the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 152-53); Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 36 no. 41.
		This Yelling became known as 'Greys Manor' and like Hemingford Grey (22,2) was held from the Earls of Oxford, successors to Aubrey: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 528); Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 379.
	AELFRIC <OF YELLING>. He was also Aubrey's predecessor at Hemingford [Grey] (22,7); see D7 Aelfric note. On the name Aelfric, see B10 Aelfric note.
22,2	HEMINGFORD [GREY]. This was an Ancient Parish. It was a part of Hemingford Grey ('the eastern land of Hemingford') which like Yelling (22,1) had been granted to Ramsey Abbey by King Harthacnut and confirmed by King Edward, but seized by Aubrey de Vere, being held later, like Yelling, from his successors, the Earls of Oxford: Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 997, 1106 (= Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 34 no. 34, p. 35 no. 38); Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 257 nos. 57-58. See 6,16 Hemingford note.
	AELFRIC <OF YELLING>. He was also Aubrey's predecessor at Yelling (22,1); see D7 Aelfric note. On the name Aelfric, see B10 Aelfric note.
	ABBOT OF RAMSEY. The dispute and the circumstances of the dispossession are given in D7. Ramsey did not renounce its claim, though the land was effectively alienated. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 679 (1279), Reginald de Grey is said to hold from the Earl of Oxford and he from the Abbot of Ramsey. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 843.
	RALPH SON OF OSMUND. He was tenant-in-chief of 1 waste hide at Hemingford Abbots (27,1) and held another hide there under the abbot (6,17), subject to dispute. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 843. On the names Ralph and Osmund, see 6,17 Ralph note.
23	LAND OF WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. He was also known as William of Picquigny from the French place (département Somme, arrondissement Amiens). Ansculf, his father, was sheriff of Surrey under King William, but had died before 1086. William's Domesday fief became the barony of Dudley (Worcestershire) where he had already established a castle (WOR 23,10). His heir was Beatrice, his daughter, who married Fulk Paynel. The barony had devolved to the de Somery family by the late twelfth century.
		On the name William, see B10 William note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred,
23,1	MARGINAL M. The main scribe of Great Domesday should probably have written .II.M beside this manor as it had been held T.R.E. by two people, Magni and Leofa, as he had included .II.M beside Chesterton (19,8) and Hail Weston (25,1), each of which had been held by two people T.R.E.. However, he also failed to write .II.M beside Woolley (29,5), which had been held by Golde [Gode] and her son.
	MAGNI <OF WARESLEY>. The Domesday forms Magne, Magna and Magno represent Old Danish/Old Norse Magni: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 323. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		Magni is a rare name, occurring on only one other holding in Domesday Book. There is nothing to connect this Magni with the tiny and remote Suffolk holding in Benhall (SUF 3,101) or with that in SUR 29,2, with neither of which this holding has discernible tenurial corrections (JP).
	LEOFA <OF WARESLEY>. The Domesday forms Leue and Liofus represent Old English Leofa: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 310. The Alecto edition has Leofa for the 1066 holder here and the man in Somerset (who retained his land after the Conquest), but Leof for the Hampshire 1086 tenant. Von Feilitzen (ibidem) pointed out that, although Old English Leof would be a possible base for the form Liofus it is not evidenced with certainty; he also remarked that the Huntingdonshire form Leue might alternatively go back to the feminine Old English Leofe. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		Leofa is a rare name, occurring on only three holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing three individuals. There is nothing to connect this Leofa with the small, remote properties in Hampshire (HAM IoW8,9) and Somerset (SOM 16,8) (JP).
	WARESLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. On the erratic place-name form (Domesday Wedresleie), see 16,1 Waresley note. The three holdings here (see also 16,1 and 19,26) made a 10-hide unit. The ½ hide 'held' by Eustace the sheriff (19,26) was probably reunited with these 2 ½ hides and the overlordship of the whole manor was held by the Paganells and de Somerys until 1322. The subtenancy passed to the Engaynes and the manor was held by that family as 'Gaynes' or 'Engaynes' manor: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 377.
	2 ½ HIDES. The 7 dim' was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday, the tail of the 7 descending downwards to form an insertion mark.
	RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. See HUN 24 Ranulf note, and, on the names Ranulf and Ilger, see 1,1 Ranulf note.
24	LAND OF RANULF BROTHER OF ILGER. Ranulf was a Domesday tenant-in-chief as well as an undertenant. His place of origin is unknown and the fact that he is identified as 'brother of Ilger' suggests that Ilger himself was an important man. He may have been the Ilger who was tutor to the Conqueror's eldest son Robert Curthose. Ranulf had charge of much of the royal land in Huntingdonshire and was sheriff of that county some time between 1092 and 1100, presumably as successor to Eustace. His wife was a niece of Ralph Taillebois, a pre-Domesday sheriff of Bedfordshire. Ranulf's fief escheated to the Crown c.1100 on his death and was mostly granted to Roger son of Richard of Clare (= Richard of Tonbridge). On the names Ranulf and Ilger, see 1,1 Ranulf note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred.
24,1	EVERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was divided in 1086 between Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire where 7 hides were held by the same Ranulf brother of Ilger under Countess Judith (BDF 53,30). Everton contained Tetworth which was also divided: Everton was an island of Huntingdonshire at the junction of Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Cambridgeshire, whereas Tetworth straddled the main Huntingdonshire border. The whole was placed in Bedfordshire in 1844.
		The portions of Everton in both counties went to the Earls Marshall, Earls of Pembroke: Feudal Aids, ii. p. 469; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 370.
	INGVAR <OF BURSTEAD>. The Domesday forms - Inguar[us], Ineuuar, Inguuar[us], Inguare, Inguuara, Ingeuuar, Ingar[us], Ingara, Inuuari (genitive), Ineuuar[us] - represent Old Danish Ingvar: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 298-99. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		The royal thane Ingvar was the predecessor of Ranulf son of Ilger in Cambridgeshire, Essex, and Huntingdonshire, and of Count Eustace of Boulogne in Cambridgeshire and Essex. The Ingvar who held the large manor of Burstead in Essex which devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux is probably the same man since it is only a few miles from the substantial manor which Ranulf acquired from Ingvar at Mountnessing and it is improbable that two Anglo-Saxon magnates with the same rare name would be such close neighbours. The only other holding of an Ingvar outside Devon, at South Elmham in Suffolk (SUF 19,16), is also likely to have belonged to the same individual since he was a lord of men and no other Ingvar will fit that description. See ESS 18,2 Ingvar note; and see also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 315-16 (JP).
25	LAND OF ROBERT [SON OF] FAFITON. He appears sometimes as Robert Fafiton in Domesday, sometimes, correctly, as Robert son of Fafiton. He was both a Domesday tenant-in-chief and an undertenant. His successors were his son Eustace and grandson Aubin. On the name Robert, see 16,1 Robert note. His father's name (Domesday Fafiton) represents the hypothetical Old French Fafiton; see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 182.
		The two entries in this fief are in a single hundred: Toseland Hundred.
25,1	[HAIL] WESTON. This was a chapelry of Southoe (25,2). The three holdings here (see also 19,27-28) amounted to 4 hides, forming a 10-hide unit with Great Staughton (2,2). The land here passed via Robert's grandson Aubyn to the Mortimer honour of Wigmore: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 302.
		A Declaration (D10) rejects the suggestion (not mentioned here) that Hail Weston had been a member of Kimbolton. It lies to the east of Kimbolton but west of Great Paxton, Eynesbury and St Neots.
	SAXI. On this name, see 14,1 Saxi note.
	AND WULFWIN ^["CHIT"]^. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Vluuin'. He omitted one (or more) of the T.R.E. tenants on several estates in Great Domesday, often leading to a correction to the hidage or carucage, the plough estimate and other details. The error may have been caused by the combining of two or more estates into a single 1086 holding; note the ii above the M (signifying that it had been two manors) in the margin here.
		This man is identified as Wulfwin "Chit" from D10, which stresses that his holding in Hail Weston was a manor in its own right. He was not 'Wulfwin of Weston' as in the Persons Index of the Phillimore printed edition; see D10 Weston note, and, on his byname, see D10 "Chit" note.
		The Domesday forms of the name Wulfwin - Wluuin(us), Vluuin(us), Vluin(us), Oluuin[us], Vlfuuin[us], Wluuine, Wluin[us] etc. - represent Old English Wulfwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 427-28. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English -wine. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Wulfwin and, in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Wulfwine; these have now been standardized as Wulfwin. The Alecto edition has Wulfwine.
	LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. The number .vi. was corrected by the main scribe, probably from .iii., by overwriting. It is likely that this was linked to the added T.R.E. tenant (see 25,1 Wulfwin note).
	VILLAGERS… ACRES. Both are in the accusative case in the Latin after habet. For a list of other occurrences of this, see 5,2 meadow note.
25,2	MARGINAL M. This was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation; see the Additions and Corrections: Huntingdonshire at the end of the Phillimore Staffordshire edition.
	SOUTHOE. This was an Ancient Parish. This particular holding became known as the manor of 'Southoe Ferrers' or 'Southoe Winchester'. The overlordship was held in the thirteenth century by the honour of Mortimer, the subtenant in 1231 being Roger de Quincy, Earl of Winchester. Later in that century, the Quincy lands were divided and part of Southoe went to Margaret de Ferrers, Countess of Derby: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 666; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 469, 472; VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. p. 349.
	SAXI. On this name, see 14,1 Saxi note.
	ROBERT [HAS]. The fact that the Latin acras of the pasturable woodland and of the underwood are accusative implies that the scribe omitted habet after Robertus (see 25,1 acres note); the Latin case of the intervening villagers and of the acres of meadow must also be accusative, therefore.
26	LAND OF WILLIAM THE ARTIFICER. A Norman who is only named as the Domesday holder of this one estate in Huntingdonshire. He is, however, probably the plain William who held Pytchley and Laxton in Northamptonshire (NTH 60,1-2). He was brother of Richard the artificer who was apparently a royal forester in 1086 (see D24), and who held in chief in Buckinghamshire (BUK 42), and as one of the 'king's officers' in Oxfordshire (OXF 58,1), and (as plain Richard) in Northamptonshire (NTH 59) where his predecessor was Alwin the hunter; see VCH Northamptonshire, i. p. 294. The Latin byname ingania is from Classical Latin ingenium (itself from in and genius, related to the root of the verb gigno, 'to beget') meaning 'innate quality', ‘intelligence', or some concrete application of skill or intelligence; see OXF 58,1 Richard note. The English words engine, engineer and gin-trap are all related to it. Here it can carry the meaning of 'engineer', a designer or maker of engines, commonly of war, and of an 'ingenious', 'crafty', or 'tricky' person. The name, if not already a surname in 1086, becomes so as the family of Ingaine or Engaine or Engayne. William’s fief became known as that of Engaine of Pytchley (from NTH 60,1) in contrast to Engaine of Abington (from NTH 59,3) descending from his brother Richard. Nonetheless, William's fief seems to have passed to his brother Richard after 1086 then to Richard's son Viel (Vitalis), who was father of Richard II Engaine and of Fulk of Lisores. The former inherited the Pytchley fee and the latter the Abington fee; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 366-67, 492.
		On the name William, see B10 William note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in 'Leightonstone' Hundred.
26,1	GIDDING. Both Great Gidding and Little Gidding were Ancient Parishes. Three holdings in Gidding (6,25. 19,15 and 26,1) with the 4 hides of Coppingford (11,2) would have made a 20-hide unit. The Ramsey holding (6,25) became Steeple Gidding. Within Great Gidding, Eustace's holding (19,15) became Gidding Prioris (from the grant to St Mary's church (19,9) after it became Huntingdon Priory). The present holding was also at the other [Great] Gidding until a portion was granted out by Vitalis (Viel) Engaine to his younger son Warner to form Little Gidding (and to be held directly from the king). In the Nomina Villarum of 1316 (Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 471-72), William de Engaigne holds in Giddinge Parva which is coupled with Giddinge Abbatis (6,25) while Johannes Engaigne holds in Magna Geddinge with the prior of Huntingdon (19,15). See also Book of Fees, pp. 925, 930; Rotuli Hundredorum, i. p. 197, ii. p. 627; Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 470, 475; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. pp. 48-49, 53.
	BRICTEVA <OF GIDDING>. The Domesday forms of this name - Bricteua, Britheue, Bristiue, Briteua, Bricteua[m] (accusative), and, for the 1086 holders, Bristeua - represent the feminine Old English Beorhtgifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 194. JRM preferred the first element Brict- for Old English Beorht- and the second element -eva for Old English -gifu, as they reflected the Domesday forms. However, the Phillimore printed edition of Lincolnshire has Beorhtgifu; this has now been standardized as Bricteva. The Alecto edition has Beorhtgifu. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
		The name Bricteva occurs on nine holdings in Domesday Book, mostly modest in scale and distant from their namesakes; they may represent seven or eight individuals. Only in Oxfordshire is it probable that two holdings belonged to the same individual (OXF 6,1b;17). The closest namesake to the Huntingdonshire Bricteva was almost 40 miles away at Corby [Glen] (LIN 68,18), with a modest holding which she continued to hold in 1086; a connection is possible but perhaps unlikely (JP).
	"CRESSUUELLE" HUNDRED. Another part of Gidding (1,6) was an outlier of Alconbury and a further part (19,15) was a jurisdiction of it. It is just possible that “Cressuuelle” Hundred was the name of one of the two hundreds forming the double Hundred of 'Leightonstone' and based on Alconbury (1,6). See {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	MEADOW, 22 ACRES. Latin acras is accusative, probably after the habet, rather than the habentes; see 20,5 meadow note.
27	LAND OF RALPH SON OF OSMUND. His father was perhaps Osmund of Vaubadon fromVaubadon in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Bayeux, canton Balleroy). Ralph held in chief in Huntingdonshire and was also a tenant of Aubrey de Vere at Hemingford Grey (22,2) and holder of Ramsey Abbey land at Hemingford Abbots (6,17). Ralph’s heir was Payne of Hemingford (named from those estates). This same Payne was holding three fees of Aubrey III de Vere in 1166; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 340. On the names Ralph and Osmund, see 6,17 Ralph note.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred.
27,1	HEMINGFORD [ABBOTS]. This was an Ancient Parish. The present 1 hide, significantly not called a manor, was disputed (D8) along with another hide, nominally held under the Abbot of Ramsey by the same Ralph (6,17; see 6,17 Ralph note). D8 clearly says that T.R.E. this hide belonged to the lordship of Ramsey Abbey and that Ralph held it against the abbot's will; presumably Alwin Blaec was a tenant of the abbey. Although this land had belonged to the abbey, it went to Ralph's descendants: VCH Huntingdonshire, ii. pp. 304-306.
	ALWIN BLAEC. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note. The Domesday forms of his byname, which is also a first name - Blac, Blach, Blacus - represent hypothetical Old English Blæc ('black', 'dark'): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 203. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Blaec and Black; these have now been standardized as Blaec. The Alecto edition has Blæc as the first name and Black as the byname. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday, though an Alwin in DEV 16,27 is given the byname niger ('black') in the corresponding entry in the Liber Exoniensis; it is very unlikely that he is the same man.
28	ROHAIS WIFE OF RICHARD SON OF COUNT GILBERT. She was the daughter of Walter I Giffard and wife of Richard of Clare, son of Count Gilbert of Brionne. Her husband was also known in Domesday as Richard of Tonbridge and Richard son of Gilbert. Their daughter Avice married Ralph of Fougères; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 332-33, 413. Here and in HRT 42a, Rohais holds in her own right. On the names Richard and Gilbert, see 6,1 Richard note and B2 Gilbert note respectively.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Rohais, Rothais - represent Old German Hrodohaidis, Rothaid, Ruodheid etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 220. However, the Domesday forms suggest a French influence, and this is supported by all but one of the occurrences of this name in Domesday being of the daughter of the Frenchman Walter Giffard. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Rohais and Rothais; these have now been standardized as Rohais. The Alecto edition has Rohais.
		In the Alecto facsimile Latin fl' (filii genitive case) could be misread as .E. On the lack of space for the chapter heads, see {Introduction: The Domesday Format}.
		This fief consists of a single estate, in Toseland Hundred.
28,1	EYNESBURY. This was an Ancient Parish from which the present holding was split off to form the Ancient Parish of St Neots. The 1086 estate held by Rohais appears to have been part of what was once a major royal manor (20,6 Eynesbury note). The church of St Neot was holding part of the present estate in 1086 (it is not certain how much; see 28,1 St Neot's note), but the whole was subsequently given (in 1113) by Rohais to 'St Mary of Bec and St Neot of Eynulfisbury': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 107 no. 1015a. A fair was granted there (1107 x 1122) and a market (1100 x 1135): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 181 no. 1371, p. 300 no. 1966. Subsequently this portion of the vill of Eynesbury became known as St Neots. It lies at TL1860, divided by the Hen Brook from the rump of Eynesbury (TL1859).
		The land will have included Monks (or Hungry) Hardwick [TL2161]. On the possible exchange of this holding for land in Cambridgeshire, see 20,6 Eynesbury note.
	ROBERT SON OF WIUHOMARCH. See 16,1 Robert note.
	15 HIDES … 27 PLOUGHS. The manor appears fiscally underrated, like the other part of the vill (20,6).
	ST NEOT'S. St Neot was possibly related to King Alfred and was a monk of Glastonbury, and later a hermit on Bodmin Moor, Cornwall. He died c. 877 and it is not certain how, when or why a Huntingdonshire house acquired his bones; there was a church dedicated to him in Cornwall (CON 4,28).
		There may have been a monastery here destroyed by the Danish raids of the late ninth century. A Benedictine house was founded c. 974 by Earl Aelfric and Aethelfleda his wife or by Leofric and his wife, assisted by Aethelweald, Bishop of Winchester, as a dependency of Ely, the first monks coming from there and from Thorney. It appears that this house was again destroyed by the Danes in 1010, and the relics of St Neot may have been entrusted to the Abbey of Crowland for safekeeping by Leofgifu, lady of Eynesbury and sister of Abbot Oscytel of Crowland. It was re-founded by Richard (of Clare) son of Count Gilbert c. 1081-1082, or by his wife Rohais, as a dependency of the Norman Abbey of Bec-Hellouin. See VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 385-88; Doble, 'St. Neot'; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 56, 75; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 533.
		The endowment at its foundation (c. 974) had been 18 hides: 2 at Eynesbury, 6 at Waresley and 9 at Gamlingay (Cambridgeshire). These 6 hides at Waresley had been lost and are possibly to be looked for in 1086 among the 7 hides of Swein of Essex (16,1), which had been held T.R.E. by Robert son of Wiuhomarch, who had also held this part of Eynesbury. However, Richard son of Gilbert is named as the despoiler in the Liber Eliensis (Blake, pp. 188, 420): see also Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 51; Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 27 no. 19; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. pp. 385-88, ii. p. 339.
		The monks clearly held part of Eynesbury in 1086. They had 3 ploughs and their supplies were assessed at £4. Whether they had more depends on the interpretation of in ipsa villa; see 28,1 village note.
	IN THE VILLAGE ITSELF. This interlineation by the main scribe of Great Domesday may have been done while he was first writing the county, rather than as a result of a further check. Having written the entry, he probably realized that it was necessary to indicate that the population and resources were in Eynesbury itself and not at St Neots, if a separate settlement called St Neots then existed. More probably the insertion is meant, rather clumsily, to indicate that the church of St Neots did not hold the 19 villagers and other resources, but that they are 'in the village itself', that is they belong to Rohais, the holder of the manor. It would have been clearer if the scribe had removed the 7 linking the 3 lordship ploughs and the 19 villagers.
	FISHERY. Latin piscariam (accusative) is probably an error for the nominative piscaria. Although it could be the object of either habet (despite its being two lines earlier in the text) or of habentes (compare 20,5 meadow note) it is unlikely as the punctus after car' and the subsequent Ibi generally indicate the start of a new sentence.
	WILLIAM THE BRETON. The tenant of Rohais here is identified by the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 111) as the same as the William who held from Rohais' husband Richard of Clare in Cambridgeshire (CAM 19,1); see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 468. On the name William, see B10 William note.
	½ PLOUGH IN LORDSHIP. The other half does not appear.
29	LAND OF THE KING'S THANES. As in other counties, this chapter gathers together lands held by surviving Englishmen, some of which became serjeanties in later times; see Williams, English and the Norman Conquest, chapter 5, especially pp. 111-15.
		The estates in this chapter are not entered by holder as the 'Land of the King's Thanes' sometimes is in other counties. The order appears to be hundredal, and in the same sequence as found in chapters 5, 19-20, but with a final estate out of sequence; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}:
	29,1 [Normancross Hundred]
	29,2-5 'Leightonstone' Hundred
	29,6 [Normancross Hundred].
29,1	[NORMANCROSS HUNDRED]. The heading is supplied from later evidence. 'Washingley' occurs in a group of places in Normancross Hundred at 19,3 (heading at 19,1).
	'WASHINGLEY'. This was an Ancient Parish. For the location, see 19,3 Washingley note. The present part was probably that later held by serjeanty: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, p. 531); Book of Fees, pp. 1173, 1217; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 634-35; VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 336, ii. p. 229. It contributed half of itself to the manor of 'Ogerston' held by the Knights Templar (19,3 Washingley note).
	KETILBERT <OF FOLKSWORTH>. He had also probably held the adjacent Folksworth (12,1). On the name Ketilbert, see 12,1 Ketilbert note.
	THE SAME MAN HOLDS FROM THE KING. Farley omitted de (JRM).
29,2	'LEIGHTONSTONE' HUNDRED. See 13,1 hundred note and {Introduction: Hundreds}.
	KEYSOE ... LIES IN BEDFORDSHIRE. Keysoe was an Ancient Parish lying in Bedfordshire. Another portion (13,2) was a jurisdiction of Kimbolton. Two other parts are listed in Domesday Bedfordshire, held by Hugh of Beauchamp (BDF 23,1) and Osbern son of Richard (BDF 44,3).
		Alwin, the 1066 and 1086 holder of this virgate which is not described as a manor, had probably also held Pertenhall (2,9) which was related to Huntingdonshire and Bedfordshire in the same way. If so, he was Alwin Devil and in 1066 he had presumably also held West Perry (19,30).
		The Bedfordshire Keysoe, which was held by Hugh of Beauchamp (BDF 23,1), was assessed at 5 hides less 1 virgate; the missing virgate may be this present holding. It seems likely that this virgate at Keysoe was merged with the Bedfordshire Keysoe or, as suggested by VCH Bedfordshire, iii. p. 137, with the portion of Pertenhall which was later held by the Peyvre family or with the portion that descended with the manor of Kimbolton; see 2,9 Pertenhall note and 13,2 Keysoe note.
	ALWIN [* DEVIL *]. On this identification, see 29,2 Keysoe note. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. The portion of Keysoe that was attached to Kimbolton (13,2) had land for 6 oxen, together making one ploughland with these 2 oxen.
29,3	CATWORTH. Great Catworth was an Ancient Parish. For other parts of Catworth and its relationship to Northamptonshire, see 13,4. 19,12;32. This part of Catworth had probably been drawn off from Kimbolton (13,1). It seems to have no separate later history, being re-combined with another part or other parts of Catworth: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 29.
	AEFIC <OF CATWORTH>. See 19,12 Aefic note.
	ERIK <OF TEALBY>. The Domesday forms of this name - Erich, Eiric, Aeiric, Eric, Eriz, Arich - represent Old Danish Erik, Old Norse Eirikr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 246. They are rendered Eric and Eirikr in the Phillimore printed edition; these have now been standardized as Erik. The Alecto edition has Erik, except for the present entry where it has Eric and for LIN 28,20 where it has Eadric, probably in error.
		The name Erik occurs on ten holdings in Domesday Book. There are sufficient links between them to suggest that they refer to a single individual, despite being spread between three counties and devolving upon several tenants-in-chief. In Lincolnshire, Laceby and its dependencies (LIN 4,69-71), held T.R.E. by Swein, Erik and Tosti, is connected to another group held by Erik centred on Tealby (LIN 28,20-24) by the intermediate tenure of one Rainer the deacon (CN13;18), the Tealby group in turn being connected to another holding of Erik (LIN 14,7) by soke in Willingham. Keelby (LIN 47,3), the final holding in Lincolnshire held by Erik, is just a few miles away from the main group of his properties. Thistleton [RUT 2,8], by contrast, is some distance from the Lincolnshire holdings; and Catworth and Sawtry in Huntingdonshire (HUN 29,3. 19,1. D27) even more so. But Sawtry provides a possible link between the three counties. The claims for Huntingdonshire state that the Tosti who had held Sawtry was the brother of Erik, a claim confirmed by the Ramsey Chronicle (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 235 no. 323). As already noted, the main group of Erik's holdings in Lincolnshire were entered under the names of Erik, Tosti and Swein. It seems probable that this Erik and Tosti were the same men as the Huntingdonshire brothers. Their extensive properties (and this Tosti may have been the Tosti holding several other Lincolnshire holdings) makes the Ramsey Chronicle's description of Tosti as unus ex baronibus regis Edwardi ('one of King Edward's barons') comprehensible. Thistleton is almost midway between the Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire holdings and would have provided a useful staging point (JP).
	1 HIDE TAXABLE, UNDER THE KING. That is, not part of the land that came to him from Aefic. It does not appear to be a duplication of other land at Catworth, as all the holdings (at Great Catworth and Little Catworth) combined to make 15 hides. Aefic had also held 3 hides in Catworth (19,12).
	MEADOW, 6 ACRES. Latin acras. For other occurrences of this, see the list in 5,2 meadow note.
29,4	BRAMPTON. This was an Ancient Parish. This fragment of 1 hide and 1 virgate, not called a manor, may have been briefly removed from the 15-hide royal manor (1,8). It does not seem to have had a separate later history.
	ALRIC. The Domesday forms of the name-form Alric - Alric(us), Elric(us), Aelric(us), Alrich, Alrist (a scribal error) - could represent Old English Æthelric or Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 150-51, under Al-ric, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition. However, occasionally some of the people here rendered Alric appear in certain Phillimore printed translations as Aelfric or Aethelric, but their name-forms do not include the -u- or -f- required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the -d- or -g- required by him for inclusion under Aethelric. This is the only occurrence of this name-form in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	1 PLOUGH. This was probably used by the smallholders despite the 7 ('and') in place of the usual cum ('with').
29,5	MARGINAL M. This is probably an error for .II.M; see 23,1 marginal note.
	WOOLLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. Eustace had ½ hide here in 1086 with the same T.R.E. holders (19,21) which may have been part of these 3 hides and was possibly recombined with them. The manor descended to the honour of Gloucester: Feudal Aids, ii. pp. 470-71; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 125.
	GOLDE [* GODE *] <OF WOOLLEY> AND HER SON WULFRIC. The joint tenure of a widow and son is more probable than of father and son (JRM). Golde (Domesday Golde) is almost certainly the same person as the Gode (Domesday Gode) who with Wulfric had held other land in Woolley from Eustace the sheriff (19,21); see 19,21 Gode note for both these names.
29,6	[NORMANCROSS HUNDRED]. This entry is out of sequence, a place in Normancross Hundred having been entered at 29,1. However, such chapters concerning lands of the king's thanes and servants are often arranged by subtenants, or occasionally individual estates seem to have been entered out of standard order. In this latter case, the most likely reason for the disorder is that a scribe repeatedly missed what he was looking for either in converting material arranged by hundreds (as in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis) to the feudal arrangement of the circuit volumes (as in the Liber Exoniensis) or in rearranging the entries of the putative circuit volume.
	SAWTRY. There were later two parishes, Sawtry All Saints and Sawtry St Andrew, as well as an extra-parochial area, Sawtry St Judith This land, not described as a manor, had probably been part of the Ramsey Abbey holding at 'Sawtry Moyne' (6,12). Soon after 1086, it was seized by Eustace the sheriff, or by Walter [de Beaumais], his tenant at 'Sawtry Beaumes' (19,1). It was reclaimed by Ramsey Abbey and two writs of William II order its restoration: 'to let the abbot have ½ hide formerly held by Ailwin the reeve and now by Walter de Belmeis': Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 84 nos. 321, 322; the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 234, ii. p. 290); the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, p. 209); VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 205.
	ALWIN [* THE REEVE *]. For the identity of Alwin, see 29,6 Sawtry note. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	½ CARUCATE. This is an error for ½ hide, as evidenced by William II's writ (29,6 Sawtry note). See the Ramsey Chronicle (Macray, pp. 208-209). Compare 15,1 carucates note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. Latin acras, accusative. For a list of other occurrences, see 5,2 meadow note.
D1	[DECLARATIONS]. See {Introduction: Declarations}..
	THIS ENTRY and the next five entries (D2-6) concern estates in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred of which the borough of Huntingdon formed a part; see B15. D5 of Brictmer note and D6 Alwin note.
	THE CHURCH OF ST MARY. Two other entries in the main Domesday Huntingdonshire text refer to these transactions: B12 and 19,9; see 19,9 St Mary's note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 844.
	VITALIS. The Domesday forms of this name - Vitalis, Vitel, Fitel, Phitelet, Fitheus - represent the Latin name Vitalis, from which derives the Old French Vit(t)el: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 405-406. The printed Phillimore edition has Vitalis, except for HAM 23,3 (Vitalet); this has now been standardized as Vitalis. The Alecto edition has Vitalis. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	BERNARD. The Domesday form of this name, Bernard[us], represents Old German Berenard, Bernard, Old French Bernart: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 46. The Alecto edition also has Bernard. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	HUGH, KING EDWARD'S CHAMBERLAIN. On the name Hugh, see 6,1 Hugh note.
	TWO PRIESTS OF HUNTINGDON. They are called Burgred and Thorkil in 19,9.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note
D2	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. He was presumably Eustace the sheriff, here following his predecessor in that office (B10). See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	LEOFEVA'S HOUSE. It must have lain in Huntingdon borough and (assuming that Leofeva is Aelfric's widow) the dispute is more clearly described in B10. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 845.
		The Domesday forms of the name Leofeva - Leueua, Leuefa, Leueue - represent Old English Leofgifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 312. JRM preferred the second element -eva for OId English -gifu as it reflected the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed edition of Lincolnshire the form Leofgifu appears; this has now been standardized as Leofeva. The Alecto edition has Leofgifu. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Huntingdonshire.
	OGER OF LONDON. This is his only appearance in Domesday Book. Nothing is known about him, unless this is an alternative name for Oger the Breton, a Domesday tenant-in-chief.
		The Domesday forms of the name Oger - Ogerus, Ogerius - represent Old German Odger, Og(g)er, Autger etc. and Old French Ogier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 197. Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, has the forms Oger and Ogé, as well as Ogier. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Oger and Odger; these have now been standardized as Oger. The Alecto edition has Ogier.
D3	LAND OF HUNEF <OF STUKELEY> AND "GOS". This land likewise lay in the borough of Huntingdon (B14). The property was appurtenant to [Great] Stukeley (20,3). Countess Judith was holding them as the widowed wife and successor to Waltheof. On the names Hunef and "Gos", see B14 Hunef note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 846.
	ON THE DAY OF HIS DEATH. Literally, 'on the day on which he was alive and dead', that is on 6th January 1066. In the Phillimore printed translation this phrase was rendered 'in 1066' for the sake of brevity, as in D22. This lengthy phrase is found in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon) and may have been the formula used in other circuit returns. It was abbreviated to T[empore] R[egis] E[duuardi] by the main scribe of Great Domesday when he was writing up the south-western counties (circuit II), and it was his normal practice to use T.R.E. when dealing with other circuits for which a circuit volume does not survive. He should probably have abbreviated it here. It may be a sign that the source of these Declarations was a circuit volume; see {Introduction: Declarations}.
	EARL [* WALTHEOF *]. Waltheof succeeded Tosti in 1065 (JRM). See 2,8 Waltheof note.
	SHOULD HAVE GIVEN. Thus in the Alecto edition correctly; alternatively 'ought to have given'. Neither 'was going to give' (in the Phillimore printed translation) nor 'was said to give it' (VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 354 and note) properly translate the Latin debuerit which is perfect subjunctive, correctly and classically, because it is in a subordinate clause in indirect statement. It is not a future perfect, although the future perfect and the perfect subjunctive have the same form.
		Despite the king's apparent failure to give it to Earl Waltheof, the latter's widow, Judith, had 16 houses held by "Gos" and Hunef (B14). This might suggest that the information in D3 preceded that in B14 in time. It is not clear whether Great Stukeley had been a royal manor or was only temporarily in King Edward's hands (perhaps following the death of Hunef and Gos) and had been held by Earl Waltheof as their overlord.
D4	THIS ENTRY appears to interrupt a series of entries relating to the borough of Huntingdon; however, both Broughton and Huntingdon lay in 'Hurstingstone' Hundred (B15;21).
	5 HIDES AT BROUGHTON. The hides were held by Freemen in 6,3. The nature of the dispute (if there was one) is unclear, but there the Freemen appear to be asserting their independence (see 6,3 Broughton note). It is also said there that Eustace claimed the land, but there is no mention of this here. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 847.
	LAND AND THE JURISDICTION OVER THEM. The Latin terram is singular because it refers to the terra sochemanorum ('the land of the Freemen') and the eis is plural because it refers back to the 5 hides.
	ABBOT ALWIN. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	SAXONY. Germany in general; Alwin perhaps accompanied Bishop Aldred of Worcester's embassy to Cologne in 1054, to negotiate the return of Prince Edward (JRM).
	HAS ALWAYS HAD IT. Latin eam refers to the terram (Freemen's land).
D5	COUNTY. This corrects 'country', given in error in the Phillimore printed translation.
	LAND OF BRICTMER BALEHORN. It probably lay within the borough of Huntingdon, the information about it being present in a fuller draft of the borough section but abbreviated out during the compilation of Domesday Huntingdonshire. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 178 no. 848.
	BRICTMER BALEHORN. The Domesday forms of his first name - Brictmar, Brictmar(us), Brismar, Brismer, Brihtmar(us), Bricmar, Bricsmar, Brictmar[us], Britmar, Britmar[us] etc. - represent Old English Beorhtmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 194-96. JRM preferred the first element Brict- for Old English Beorht-, and the second element -mer for Old English -mær, as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms. The Phillimore printed edition has the form Brictmer except in Lincolnshire where Beorhtmaer occurs; these have now been standardized as Brictmer. The Alecto edition has Beorhtmær.
		His byname (Domesday Belehorne) may be identical with the hypothetical Middle English balehorn(e) from Middle English bale (Old English bealu), 'baleful', evil', 'malicious', and Old English/Middle English horn(e), 'horn' (musical instrument or drinking horn): Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 373. The Alecto edition has Belehorne.
		A document dating c. 1060 in the Ramsey Cartulary (Hart and Lyons, i. p. 188, iii. p. 38) mentions a Brihtman Balehorn, apparently the same person as the Brictmer Balehorn here.
	[BOROUGH] REVENUE. This was almost certainly the firma burgi, divided between the king and the earl (B17). This also suggests that this land lay in the borough.
D6	THE LAND OF ALWIN THE PRIEST. This probably lay in the borough, the detail being lost in abbreviation (as apparently in D5). On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note.
	ABBOT. This is presumably the Abbot of Ramsey who had 32 burgesses in the borough. The Abbot of Ely also had a plot there (B3).
	THE PRIEST'S AND THE REEVE'S LAND. The Latin utrunque fuisse terram presbyteri 7 praefecti is not entirely clear; utrunque should strictly be utramque (feminine) referring to 'each' of the two lands (in turn). The clause would have benefited from being ex his altera erat presbyteri, altera praefecti 'of these one was the priest's, the other the reeve's'. It appears to be over-compressed but is a summary of the contents of D5 and D6, to emphasize that the lands were 'priestland' and 'reeveland' with special privileges. Presumably these men were the priest and the reeve of the borough; see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 354. Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 849, renders this as 'Both his holdings were priest-land and reeveland', despite only one 'land' having been mentioned.
D7	THIS ENTRY and the next six entries (D8-13) concern estates in Toseland Hundred.
	THE LANDS OF AELFRIC <OF YELLING> IN YELLING AND HEMINGFORD [GREY]. Latin terra[s] rather than terra[m] in view of eas (JRM).
		The order of the Latin is normal in this type of phrase but misled JRM (Index of Persons in the Phillimore printed translation) into concluding that Aelfric was Aelfric of Yelling. In fact the de Gellinge 7 Emingeforde appears to depend on the terra[s] and to mean 'Aelfric's lands (consisting) of Yelling and Hemingford [Grey]': Aelfric had held land in both Yelling and Hemingford [Grey] (22,1-2). The translation in the Phillimore printed edition ' the lands of Aelfric of Yelling and Hemingford' has therefore been changed for the present edition. In this context Latin can use in, as in D16 ('Alwin Devil's 1 virgate of land in Pertenhall'), which is clearer than, but not different from, the genitive of definition used here and in D10;13;27. On de being used in the same way as in in the headings to fiefs in the Liber Exoniensis, see DOR 47 Roger note. If Aelfric were 'Aelfric of Yelling', he would also have to be 'Aelfric of Yelling and Hemingford [Grey]', which is improbable; it would also leave his estates unnamed, though place-names are often absent in the Declarations. The present edition has differentiated him from other men called Aelfric by attaching the name of one of his holdings, though there is no evidence that he was called 'Aelfric of Yelling'. On the name Aelfric, see B10 Aelfric note.
		The lands had certainly belonged to Ramsey Abbey (6,15 Yelling note; 6,16 Hemingford note), but appear in Aubrey de Vere's fief in Great Domesday (22,1-2). The abbey did not recover them. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 850.
	BOXTED. Probably part of Boxted in Essex (ESS 20,37) held by an Aelfric before 1066 (JRM) and Count Eustace in 1086; see VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 354; VCH Essex, i. p. 465.
D8	2 HIDES ... IN HEMINGFORD [ABBOTS]. The first is a waste hide held by Ralph son of Osmund (27,1). It is there said to have been held by Alwin Blaec (presumably from the Abbot of Ramsey). The other hide (Godric's) is listed in the abbey's fief, but held by Ralph son of Osmund 'but the men of the hundred do not know through whom' (6,16). For the history of Hemingford Abbots, see 6,16 Hemingford note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 851.
	RALPH SON OF OSMUND. On the names Ralph and Osmund, see 6,17 Ralph note.
	HE HOLDS IT. Latin tenere illum is an accusative and infinitive construction for indirect statement. The main scribe of Great Domesday began with a Medieval Latin indirect statement dicunt quod ... followed by a clause, but then continued with an infinitive. Having realized his change of construction he added illum (= Radulfum) to provide the necessary accusative.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 2,5 Godric note.
	ABBOT ... DENMARK ... LOVE FOR THE KING. Probably Abbot Aelfsi, in exile in Denmark about 1070; see Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv. p. 748 (JRM). There is a further reference to this in BRK 46,4: 'Ralph also holds BURGHFIELD, and a man-at-arms from him. Abbot Alsi held it from the old monastery of Winchester church, as the Shire witnesses, before 1066 and afterwards, until he was an outlaw'.
		The traditional date of Abbot Aelfsi's exile is 1070 (as above and see Knowles, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 35-36). However, Aelfsi was not appointed as Abbot of Ramsey until 1080, so he was not in charge of the Ramsey land that was said to have been alienated during his exile. In 1070 he was Abbot of St Augustine's at Canterbury. There is something wrong with the dates or the jurors' memory here.
D9	SUMARLITHI <OF WARESLEY>. His land at Waresley (19,26) was held in 1086 by Roger from Eustace the sheriff. The nature of the dispute (if there was one) is unclear, unless the lands of Thorulf should have gone to a different fief-holder. Eustace (who is not mentioned in this entry) did not retain this land (19,26 Waresley note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 852.
D10	LAND OF WULFWIN "CHIT" IN [HAIL] WESTON. Hail Weston is the name of the estate held by Wulfwin, not his byname; see D7 Aelfric note. The reference is to 25,1 where Hail Weston is listed as a double manor (held by Saxi and Wulfwin in 1066) with no mention of any relationship with Kimbolton. Saxi's holding at Hail Weston was the subject of another Declaration (D13). Earl Harold had held Kimbolton with members in 1066 (13,1-5) and the issue here seems to be whether Wulfwin was a subtenant of Earl Harold or a tenant-in-chief; this is a common problem with 1066 tenures.
		Hail Weston is a considerable distance from Kimbolton, not west of it and therefore not its 'western tun'; it lay in a different hundred and was separated from it by other manors which are presumed not to have been in its jurisdiction. Holdings at Catworth and Little Catworth (which were members of Kimbolton) are also the subject of Declarations (D17-18) where they are also said to have been respectively by Wulfwin "Chit" and 'the same Wulfwin'. The corresponding entries in the main Domesday text (13,4-5) make no mention of a Wulfwin. There may have been some confusion here. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 853.
	WULFWIN "CHIT". Domesday chit here and in D17 and, with 'Wulfwin' attached as Vluuinchit in CHS 9,4, represents the hypothetical Old English cit(t), perhaps identical with modern English 'chit', 'shoot', 'sprout': Tengvik, Old English Bynames, pp. 302-303, though derivation from Middle English chitte ('whelp', 'cub', 'kitten') is also suggested there. In view of the uncertainty, it has been decided for the present edition to keep the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed edition of Huntingdonshire and Cheshire (CHS 9,4) have 'Young Wulfwin', though chit is quite different from the Old English cilt, cild (see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, pp. 243-45; von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 215), which JRM rendered 'Young'. The Alecto edition has Wulfwine Cild. There are no other occurrences of the byname chit in Domesday Book and none of Wulfwin cild/cilt. Scribal error in three entries, covering two counties, is unlikely. VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 354, prints the two occurrences of the name as Chit, without comment. VCH Cheshire, i. p. 356 no. 184, has 'Chit', again without comment. On the name Wulfwin, see 25,1 Wulfwin note..	Wulfwin is not given his byname in 25,1, to which the present entry relates, perhaps because the main scribe of Great Domesday initially omitted his name (25,1 Wulfwin note) and later interlined it: there was no space for a byname either above or beside Vluuin'.
	EARL HAROLD. See 13,1 Harold note.
D11	1 ½ HIDES OF LAND ^[IN [HAIL] WESTON]^. These 1 ½ hides in [Hail] Weston were held by Eustace the sheriff in 1086 (19,27), though Countess Judith was claiming from him. The present Declaration suggests that she rightly held the estate if the lands passed legitimately from Earl Tosti to Waltheof her husband in the transfer of the earldom. This buttressing of Judith's claim might be taken as evidence that this group of jurors pronounced on the issue after the initial proceedings that produced the material for the main Domesday Huntingdonshire text. However, it is more likely that this was part of the initial sworn statement but was abbreviated out in the editing that produced Great Domesday. Judith's claim did not succeed. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 854.
	ALGEAT <OF WESTON>. See 19,27 Algeat note.
	HELD THEM. Latin eam, singular, refers to the 1 ½ hides which is regarded as a singular in Latin. The eâ tenuit was interlined by the main scribe of Great Domesday. Its initial omission is a simple mishandling by him of the arrangement of the sentence that he was composing. He perhaps forgot the verb for a moment or was saving it up, but when the sentence lengthened, as he wrote it, by two phrases 'with full jurisdiction' as well as 'and afterwards from Waltheof', he decided it best to go back and insert it after Algeat. He could have inserted it after de comite Tosti; either position would be normal in Medieval Latin.
		Roffe, 'Introduction', Huntingtonshire Domesday, p. 10, suggests that the scribe had 'misunderstood his exemplar' in implying that Algeat held with full jurisdiction and that it was more likely that it was Earl Waltheof who had full jurisdiction. However, it is more likely to be Algeat who did so, it being unnecessary to specify the nature of Waltheof's tenure in view of his status.
	[* EARL *] WALTHEOF. Waltheof succeeded Tosti in 1065 (JRM). See 2,8 Waltheof note.
D12	GODRIC THE PRIEST. On this name, see 2,5 Godric note.
	LIKEWISE. This probably means 'with full jurisdiction' or perhaps simply 'similarly from Waltheof'.
	1 HIDE OF LAND ^[IN BOUGHTON]^. No dispute is recorded in the corresponding entry in Boughton in the land of Eustace the sheriff (19,31), but the estate went to Waltheof's heir (his wife Judith, then, as expected, to the honour of Huntingdon), from which it would appear that Eustace was holding it wrongfully. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 855.
	EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,8 Waltheof note.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
D13	LAND OF GODWIN IN [HAIL] WESTON. [Hail] Weston is the name of the estate held by Godwin, not his byname; see D7 Aelfric note. On the name Godwin, see 1,4 Godwin note. Another part of Hail Weston, held by Saxi and Wulfwin in 1086 from Robert son of Fafiton (25,1), was the subject of a different sort of query (D10). The statement here that this part of Hail Weston emphatically did not belong to Saxi (and was therefore not part of Robert's fief) is tacitly accepted in 19,28, where the estate appears among Eustace's lands. It descended with them. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 856.
	SAXI. On this name, see 14,1 Saxi note.
	^[ROBERT SON OF]^ FAFITON. See HUN 25 Robert note.
D14	THIS ENTRY and the next eleven entries (D15-25) concern lands in 'Leightonstone' Hundred, of which D14-19 might form a distinct Kimbolton Hundred group, though the hundreds are probably one and the same (see {Introduction: Hundreds} and 13,1 hundred note).
	SWINESHEAD. This declaration concerns a portion of the manor of Kimbolton (13,3) and seems intended to confirm Earl Harold's full and exceptional tenure (13,1 Kimbolton note, D16 Pertenhall note and D17 Catworth note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 857.
		Swineshead was transferred to Bedfordshire in 1896.
	EARL SIWARD. See B5 Siward note.
	[AND] FULL JURISDICTION. Latin soccam 7 sacam are accusative. Assuming that the object of 'gave' is 'Swineshead', the main scribe of Great Domesday either omitted an 7 before soccam 7 sacam or he should have put cum socca 7 saca ('with full jurisdiction'), as rendered in the Phillimore printed translation but without the use of brackets.
	EARL HAROLD. See 13,1 Harold note.
	IN THE SAME WAY. That is, with full jurisdiction, limited by the following double clause concerning tax and military obligations.
	WITH THEM. The Latin is unclear: eis could refer to either Siward and Harold or the men of the county.
D15	"FURSA"'S LAND [* IN SWINESHEAD *]. The corresponding entry is probably 19,11, although there is no clear reference to any disputed tenure. The phrase 'it was a jurisdiction of the king' might suggest that it should not have been part of Eustace's fief and contradicts the implication in 19,11 that "Fursa" had full jurisdiction. On the name "Fursa", see 19,11 "Fursa" note.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 858.
		Swineshead was transferred to Bedfordshire in 1896.
D16	PERTENHALL. In the corresponding entry (2,9) it is said that it 'is situated in Bedfordshire, but it pays tax and service in Huntingdonshire' and that 'the king's officers claim it for his use'. Judging by its geographical position, Pertenhall could once have been part of Kimbolton manor, which appears to have been divided T.R.E. between the king and Earl Harold (13,1 Kimbolton note). This entry also falls within a group of places that did or could have belonged to Kimbolton. On the possibility that Pertenhall was larger than this 1 virgate holding might suggest, see 2,9 Pertenhall note. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 859.
	ALWIN DEVIL. On the name-form Alwin, see 2,9 Alwin note. On his byname, see 19,30 Devil note.
D17	WULFWIN "CHIT" … IN CATWORTH. This probably refers to the entry in 13,4 for Catworth, a jurisdiction of Kimbolton, whose T.R.E. holder is not there given and where there is no note of any dispute. As a part of Kimbolton, it would have been expected to have been held by Earl Harold, but King Edward seems to have retained, or have wished to retain, an interest (see 13,1 Kimbolton note, D14 Swineshead note and D18 Catworth note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 860.
		On the name Wulfwin, see 25,1 Wulfwin note, and on his byname, see D10 "Chit" note.
	EARL HAROLD. See 13,1 Harold note.
D18	LITTLE CATWORTH. Latin parva Cateuuorde here corresponds to alia Cateuuorde of 13,5. The situation appears to be similar to that in D17, with King Edward retaining control over a part of Earl Harold's manor of Kimbolton. There is here an additional claim by Countess Judith which succeeded. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 179 no. 861.
	THE SAME ^[YOUNG]^ WULFWIN. On the name Wulfwin, see 25,1 Wulfwin note, and on his byname, see D10 "Chit" note.
	HE COULD GIVE AND SELL THE LAND TO WHOM HE WOULD. This means that Wulfwin was not bound to a specific lord. This phrase is very common in the counties of circuit III, especially in Domesday Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, but this is its only occurrence in Huntingdonshire. The Phillimore printed translation has 'give or sell' in error.
D19	EASTON ... SPALDWICK. Easton is named as an outlier of Spaldwick in the entry in the main Inquisitio Eliensis survey corresponding to 4,4, but not in the Great Domesday text itself (4,4 Spaldwick note). There is no mention of Eustace's invention either in the Inquisitio Eliensis or in the main Domesday Huntingdonshire text. The obvious Easton, and the only one for which there is any evidence of its existence, is close to Spaldwick (of which it could well have been the 'east tun'; Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 238) and to its two other outliers, Barham and Stow Longa.
		If this Easton is correctly identified with entries for 'Easton' in Bedfordshire, it had ten further parts which are noticed in the Bedfordshire folios (BDF 3,6. 4,2. 17,4-7. 23,24. 35,1. 36,1. 44,1). Three of these Bedfordshire holders (the Bishop of Coutances, the Bishop of Lincoln and William of Warenne), also held land in Huntingdonshire. The present entry does not make clear whether the land actually lay in Bedfordshire, though it paid its tax there. It is likely that the whole of Easton in 1086 formed an island of Bedfordshire or a projection of it but that the Abbot of Ely's Easton had been partially removed from that county because it was a member of Spaldwick. The boundary change which put Easton entirely into Huntingdonshire is not recorded.
		The entries for Easton total almost 9 ½ hides. It may have been a 10-hide manor, the other half-hide being a portion of the Spaldwick outlier which Eustace had not annexed. Identification has been bedevilled by Airy's 1881 emendation of Estone to Westen which he took as meaning 'wasteland' and which he located on 'the high clay table of Little Staughton' which was 'one of a series of westens', including Westoning, similarly amended. In 1904 Round (VCH Bedfordshire, i. pp. 213-15) properly rejected this etymology and the consequent location; he suggested the obvious Easton, noting that William of Warenne's honour of Kimbolton (13,1 Kimbolton note) later retained 1 hide of Easton, where in 1086 he had held over 2 hides (BDF 17,4-7); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 632; VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 42. But the identification with Little Staughton was repeated by the Place-Names of Bedfordshire, p. 20, in 1926 (with sic added) and by the Domesday Gazetteer without qualification (JRM's note to BDF 3,6 in the Phillimore printed edition).
		The Domesday manor was clearly larger than the later parish. In proportion to the acreage, both ploughs and assessed ploughs were four times as numerous as in the neighbouring parishes of Staughton which include the Domesday manors of Dillington and West Perry. Easton therefore probably included part of Great Staughton, now in Huntingdonshire and all or part of Little Staughton, now in Bedfordshire: VCH Huntingdonshire, i. p. 322, iii. p. 42; VCH Bedfordshire, i. p. 215, iii. p. 165; Bedfordshire Historical Records i. p. 70; Curia Regis Rolls, i. p. 146; Close Rolls (Record Commission), i. p. 288 (mostly from JRM's note to BDF 3,6 in the Phillimore printed edition).
		It may be significant that the Domesday form for Great Staughton is Tochestone whereas earlier and later forms are Stoctun, Stottun, Stocton, Stoctona etc. from Old English stoc ('stock', 'stump') and tun ('farm'): Place-names of Huntingdonshire, p. 267. Although not commented on by Place-names of Huntingdonshire, Tochestone might contain the element 'Easton', suggesting that there had been a name change. Since only the Bedfordshire holdings of the Abbot of Ely and of William of Warenne are mentioned as lying in Easton in later times (e.g. in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 615, 632), the other six holdings that lay there in 1086 may well have been in adjacent places and been known by other names.
		The Abbot of Ely recovered this land, which passed as an appendage of Spaldwick to the Bishop of Lincoln in 1109: VCH Huntingdonshire, iii. p. 42; and HUN 4 Ely note. There is an instruction by William II to find out if Easton had lain in the farm of Ramsey Abbey in King Edward's time: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. 84 nos. 321-22. This may have been an attempt to right the present alienation (but with confusion over the identity of the abbey). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 862.
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. See B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
D20	THIS ENTRY and the next five entries (D21-25) are for holdings in 'Leightonstone' Hundred proper, if D14-19 are a separate Kimbolton Hundred group (see {Introduction: Hundreds} and 13,1 hundred note).
	KEYSTON. This land appears in the Terra Regis (1,7) without any mention that Eustace had diverted its revenue. It is possible that the marginal r (for require, 'enquire'), omitted by Farley and not in the previous version of Domesday Explorer, is connected with this. The use by the main scribe of Great Domesday of the marginal letters r (and rq') was sporadic in Great Domesday and only occasionally led to a correction or addition; see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 124 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 863.
	AELFRIC THE SHERIFF. On the name Aelfric, see B10 Aelfric note.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. On the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	NEVER SEEN OR HEARD OF A SEALED [WRIT]. The Latin is nec unquam uiderunt uel audierunt sigillum. The expression seems compressed with the meaning of both sigillum ('seal') and audio ('hear') forced. This verb can mean 'hear about' with words such as 'deeds', where a telling about the deeds to the hearer is implied. However, 'to hear about' is usually constructed with the preposition de and the ablative case as in audire de bello ('to hear about the war'). The accusative is probably used here because it is normal after uidere and the scribe did not think to write nec umquam uiderunt sigillum vel audierunt de eo if that was his intended meaning. However, it is possible that in the present case the sworn men are not reporting hearsay, but that they had not heard a recital of the writ which bore the seal; that sigillum does not mean 'seal' as much as 'writ'. A parallel instance is YKS CE33: testante Wapent' qui breuem regis inde uidit 7 audiuit ('as those of the wapentake testify who saw and heard the king's writ thereon').
D21	ALWOLD AND HIS BROTHERS. Alwold and his five brothers are described as Freemen in 19,15. On the name-form Alwold, see 6,6 Alwold note.
	EUSTACE ^[THE SHERIFF]^. Eustace's tenure is recorded in 19,15; see also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
	FROM THEM. Latin sibi; this was omitted in error in the Phillimore printed translation and in the previous version of Domesday Explorer.
	THEIR LAND ^[IN [GREAT] GIDDING]^. The claim is also found in 19,15 (see 19,15 Gidding note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 864.
	THE COUNTY DENIES. The claim is attributed to 'the men of the hundred' in 19,15. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 864.
D22	IN 1066. Literally 'on the day on which King Edward was alive and dead'; see D3 day note.
	[GREAT] GIDDING. The statement is made, without qualification in 1,6. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 865.
	OUTLIER OF ALCONBURY. On the use of Latin in, see 10,1 outlier note. The Phillimore printed translation has 'in Paxton'.
D23	BUCKWORTH. The statement is also made in 10,1. The essence of the Declaration is that in 1066 Buckworth was a member of Great Paxton (20,8); thus the manor should have descended to Countess Judith (HUN 20). In fact the overlordship descended with the Counts of Eu, who held Buckworth here. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 866.
D24	36 HIDES OF LAND IN BRAMPTON. In 1,8 the king is said to have had 15 hides in Brampton, not 36, which is the number of the villagers. Only a further 1 hide and 1 virgate (possibly a duplicate of part of the 15 hides) occur elsewhere in Domesday Huntingdonshire (29,4).
		If the figure 36 was accidentally transferred from the number of villagers, this suggests that whoever compiled the Declarations had in front of him a full manorial survey (as in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis or a circuit volume), and that he was not recording declarations by jurors made on a separate occasion (see {Introduction: Declarations}).
	36 HIDES. The later interlineation of the hid' by the main scribe of Great Domesday suggests that he may have had problems with his source.
	RICHARD THE ARTIFICER. On the name Richard, see 6,1 Richard note. Richard the artificer was brother of William (HUN 26) and probably a royal forester; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 366, and HUN 26 William note. Richard here was either claiming this as part of his preserve, or was 'farming' the manor (under Ranulf brother of Ilger and he under the king) and trying to avoid payment by pretending that the land was in the royal forest (of Weybridge, see 1,8 Brampton note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 867.
	WERE. This corrects 'was' of the Phillimore printed translation and the previous version of Domesday Explorer.
D25	GRAFHAM. This was held by the king as a jurisdiction of 'Leightonstone' Hundred (1,9). There is no indication there that Eustace held it, though he had ½ hide in 19,22, perhaps a duplicate of part of the royal manor (see 19,22 Grafham note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 868.
	IT. Latin eam is feminine; the obvious preceding feminine word is socam ('jurisdiction'), but eam clearly refers to Grafham which the scribe may have thought was feminine, or it could be that Grafham was described as a mansio ('manor', feminine) in his source (in the Liber Exoniensis mansio is the usual term for manerium).
	EUSTACE [* THE SHERIFF *]. Presumably Eustace the sheriff who held in Grafham (19,22). See also B10 Eustace note, and on the name Eustace, see B1 Eustace note.
D26	THIS ENTRY and the next three entries are for holdings in Normancross Hundred.
	CONINGTON. The Declaration adds to what is said in 20,1. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 869.
	THORKIL [* THE DANE *]. He was also known as Thorkil of Harringworth; see 2,8 Thorkil note. On the name Thorkil, see B12 Thorkil note.
	SHOULD RETURN. Latin debent is the present tense, but the introductory verb dixerunt is past (unusually) and the tenses follow through in the past ('they said that they had heard … that it had been granted'). Debent should logically be the past debuerunt, as in D7, but is the tense that the sworn men would have used in speaking or explaining.
	NOR HAD THEY BEEN INVOLVED IN IT. The Phillimore printed translation has 'and were not present', but this seems unnecessary after non vidisse ('they had not seen this'). There is a Latin verb intersum, interesse, which means 'to be present', but there is also an impersonal verb interest, interesse, derived from it, which means 'it concerns', 'it is important for', 'it matters to', 'it involves', which is surely the sense here.
D27	TOSTI <OF SAWTRY>. Not Tosti of Sawtry (as in the Phillimore printed translation), but 'the land of Tosti consisting of Sawtry', that is 'in Sawtry'. For similar examples, see D7;10;13 and D7 Aelfric note. On the name Tosti, see 10,1 Tosti note.
		Apart from the earl, Harold's brother, the name Tosti is not particularly common, occurring on twenty holdings between Sussex and Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire has the only concentration, and all these devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux, making it likely that they had been held by the individual who can be identified as Tosti, 'one of King Edward's barons', according to the Ramsey Chronicle; see 29,3 Erik note (JP).
	SAWTRY. In 19,1 Walter [* of Beaumais *] held from Eustace the sheriff. The implication of the present entry is that both were holding illegally. This is borne out by its earlier history. Nonetheless it remained with Eustace's successors (19,1 Sawtry note). See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 870.
	ERIK <OF TEALBY>. On the name Erik, see 29,3 Erik note.
D28	[OLD] FLETTON. The Bishop of Peterborough held it (8,1), apparently without contradiction. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 871.
D29	LEOFRIC'S LAND ^[IN ORTON [WATERVILLE]]^. The entry for Orton [Waterville] (2,6) records the king's claim to this land. The present Declaration advances the bishop's cause. See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 180 no. 872. On the name Leofric, see 2,6 Leofric note.
	BUT BISHOP REMIGIUS HAS SHOWN. In the Phillimore printed edition the Latin clause sed Remigius episcopus ostendit has been translated 'but that Bishop Remigius shows', as if it were part of another indirect statement, that is, another subordinate clause after quod depending on dicunt; it is actually a separate clause, co-ordinated by sed with dicunt ('they say ... but he has shown ... '). Latin ostendit is there translated as the present tense, but in fact it is more likely that it is the perfect tense, the present and perfect stems being the same. On Bishop Remigius, see HUN 2 bishop note, and on the name Remigius, see 2,9 Remigius note..
	BISHOPRIC OF LINCOLN. This is anachronistic, but understandably so. The bishopric had been at Dorchester-on-Thames (Oxfordshire) T.R.E.; its transfer to Lincoln was authorized in 1072 (see HUN 2 bishop note).