NOTES
(version 1a)

'ROTELAND'. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title ROTELAND in vermilion capitals across the top of folio 293cd centred above both columns. There is an erasure above this running head: the scribe may have written, or begun, the county head too high on the page. (The instruction on where to find lands in Rutland in Nottinghamshire made by Arthur Agarde, keeper of Domesday Book 1570-1615, would of course not have been there then.) There is no running head on folio 294a, but there is another instruction by Agarde to look in Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire for more lands. On these and other notes written by Agarde in Domesday Book, which are included in the Alecto edition, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 133-34 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 201), and on Agarde generally, see Elizabeth M. Hallam, 'Annotations in Domesday Book since 1100', pp. 140-46 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 211-17).
	The name appears as IN ROTELANDE at the head of the Landholders' List on folio 280d that follows those holding land in Nottinghamshire. It is Roteland in NTH 46,5 and LIN S9 and Rotelande in LIN S13. 56,17-18.

	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.

R1	2 HUNDREDS. These are not given names here nor elsewhere, although Teigh (3,10) is said to be 'in the same hundred'. In the order of Domesday, the places in Alstoe Wapentake fall into geographically coherent groups (1,5-6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10 and 2,11-13. 4,14. 5,15. 6,16 ) and, since Countess Judith appears in both, it is apparent that the lands are listed hundred by hundred within the wapentake rather than by fief (2,11 Alstoe note). Alstoe Wapentake is not found so divided in later documents; its hundreds are named here 'Northern' and 'Southern' for convenience.
		These small hundreds, fiscal divisions of a wapentake, often consisting of 12 carucates, and therefore often known as '12-carucate hundreds', are explained in the Lindsey Survey of c. 1115 and are found also in other Danelaw shires such as Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The twelfth-century Leicestershire Survey also attests their existence in that shire, and it is assumed that they were in fact universal in the Danelaw shires in 1086, though largely unmentioned. See also LEC {Introduction: Small Hundreds}and NTT {Introduction: Small Hundreds}.
	12 CARUCATES. Those in the 'Northern' Hundred (with ploughlands and ploughs actually in use tabulated as well) seem to be:

Place	Carucates	Ploughlands	Ploughs	
1,5 Greetham
1,6 Cottesmore
2,7 Overton/ Stretton
2,8 Thistleton
2a,9 Thistleton
3,10 Teigh	  3
3
3 ½
½
½
1 ½	  8
12
12
1
1
5	 10
24
12
2
1 ½
6	
Totals	 12	 39	 55 ½	

	Not counted are the 2 ½ carucates and 6 bovates included in the unduplicated Lincolnshire entries for Thistleton (LIN 27,49. 51,10. 56,21) which were either omitted from this total, or more likely counted in Lincolnshire, where the lands may also have lain, the vill being divided between Lincolnshire and 'Roteland' in 1086 (2,8 Thistleton note).
		The 12 carucates in the 'Southern' Hundred seem to be accounted for by:

Place	Carucates	Ploughlands	Ploughs	
2,11 Whissendine
2,12 Exton
2,13 Whitwell
4,14 'Austhorp'
5,15 Burley
6,16 Ashwell	  4
2
1
1
2
2	 12
12
3
5
7
6	 13
11
3
6
6
7	
Totals	 12	 45	 46	

		VCH Rutland, i. pp. 122-23, followed by Domesday Geography of Midland England, p. 370, divides the two hundreds differently in order to obtain 42 ploughlands in each. Its first 12-carucate hundred consists of Cottesmore, Overton, two Thistletons, Teigh, 'Austhorp' and Ashwell (1,6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10. 4,14. 6,16) yielding 42 ploughlands and 58 ½ ploughs. The other contains Greetham, Whissendine, Exton, Whitwell, Burley (1,5. 2,11-13. 5,15) amounting to 42 ploughlands and 43 ploughs.
	IN EACH 24 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined in uno quoq[ue] ('in each') to ensure that it was understood that each hundred could provide work for 24 ploughs; the repeat of these words is not strictly necessary.
		In Alstoe Wapentake the number of ploughs and ploughlands are given for each entry and, apart from Cottesmore (1,6), the figures are fairly close. They are, however, in excess of and not related to the figure here of 24 ploughs possible. These 24 ploughlands might be a fiscal assessment, though this is unparalleled in Great Domesday as this phrase is usually an estimate of actual arable capacity, an alternative formula to the 'Land for n ploughs' in the individual entries here. Alternatively, this figure of 24 may be an error, caused by a misreading of xlii as xxiiii at some stage in the Domesday process, or the result of faulty addition. However, the similar phrase of 48 ploughs possible for 'Martinsley' Wapentake agrees with the number of ploughlands recorded in the estates in it (R2 carucates note).
	THURGARTON ... BROXTOWE. These are wapentakes of Nottinghamshire with which Alstoe Wapentake had no geographical connection. The use of Latin in is not to be understood geographically, but fiscally. Thurgarton Wapentake contained about 82 carucates and Broxtowe about 87. The addition of 12 from each hundred of Alstoe Wapentake would produce a figure closer to the expected 96. See VCH Rutland, i. pp. 126-27; Hart, Danelaw p. 409; Roffe, 'Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 18-19; and R3 Nottingham note and {Introduction: Carucation}.
R2	ONE HUNDRED. It is not named and was apparently co-extensive with 'Martinsley' Wapentake. A wapentake so small is anomalous: {Introduction: Hundreds and Wapentakes}.
	12 CARUCATES ... 48 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. The 12 carucates are accounted for by:

Place	Carucates	Ploughlands	Ploughs
(king)	Ploughs
(others)	
1,17 Oakham
1,19 Hambleton
1,20 Ridlington	 4
4
4	16
16
16	 2
5
4	 37
40
32	
Totals	12	48	11	109	

	The one carucate held by Leofnoth at Oakham was possibly included in the four there (1,18 carucate note). Again the number of possible ploughs here seems artificial, being duodecimal and four times the carucation, but, unlike in R1, they are the same number (48) as the ploughlands listed in the entries. However, this figure contrasts with the 120 ploughs actually on the land.
	THREE LORDSHIP MANORS. These were Oakham, Hambleton, Ridlington (1,17;19-20). The Latin phrase exceptis tribus dominicis regis maneriis ('apart from the king's three lordship manors') ostensibly means those where he has land in lordship, contrasting with other royal manors which are totally subinfeudated. However, these three are the only manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake, 1,18 apparently being part of Oakham (1,17) and 7,21 really being part of Ridlington (1,20). In this context the phrase is compressed and stands for 'apart from on the lordship land of the king's three manors', the number of these possible ploughs (14) contrasting with the number on the non-lordship land of each manor.
	14 PLOUGHS CAN PLOUGH. 'Possible ploughs' are not given in the entries, except for Albert the cleric's land (7,21) where there are 8 ploughs possible but 16 present, and for Oakham (1,17), where there are 2 ploughs 'at the hall' (that is, in lordship: 1,17 hall note) but there could be another 4.
R3	ATTACHED TO THE SHERIFFDOM OF NOTTINGHAM. Domesday says (R1) that Alstoe Wapentake's two hundreds are part of Thurgarton Wapentake and Broxtowe Wapentake. The attachment of 'Martinsley' Wapentake is not stated. Oswaldbeck Wapentake has been suggested, but only, it appears, on the basis of its carucage (about 43 in Domesday). Without the 12 carucates of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, it is a small half-wapentake; with them it is an oversize one (see Roffe, 'Introduction', Nottinghamshire Domesday, pp. 18-19). It is possible that the revenue from 'Martinsley' Wapentake by-passed the Nottinghamshire wapentakal system and went straight to the sheriff.
		The attachment of these wapentakes with their hundreds may not be ancient; see {Introduction: History} and {Introduction: Carucation}. The arrangement must have been purely fiscal (as Domesday says: Alecto makes it clearer with '[for the purposes of] the king's tax'), since both the wapentakes of 'Roteland' would have had their own courts and the inhabitants of the wapentakes could not be expected to travel to Nottinghamshire, especially as Thurgarton and Broxtowe were not its most southerly wapentakes; see VCH Nottinghamshire, i. pp. 239-40.
	THE KING'S TAX. That is, the payment of geld on each of the 36 carucates: a render of 72s if the payment was made at 2s to the carucate; see VCH Rutland, p. 123.
R4	£150 BLANCHED. This appears to be a different render, not related to the payment of the geld, but typical of the yield from a borough or a group of royal manors. It may therefore represent a payment from the three royal manors of 'Martinsley' Wapentake (1,17;19-20. 7,21; only for the last of these is a 1086 value given), with or without a sum from Greetham and Cottesmore, the royal manors of Alstoe Wapentake (1,5-6; their value in 1086 totalled £21, or £20 if the value of Geoffrey's subtenancy in 1,6 is counted in with the main holding). The royal estates of 'Martinsley' Wapentake were worth £140 T.R.E. (or £141 if the value of 1,18 is not counted in with that for 1,17), Greetham was then worth £7 and Cottesmore £7. The total value of all the manors in Alstoe Wapentake and 'Martinsley' Wapentake T.R.E. was £200 or £201, of which £150 could represent a 25% reduction. Either of these is more likely than that the figure represents the value of Queen Edith's manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake and in Witchley Wapentake, then in Northamptonshire: VCH Rutland, i. p. 128; Cain, 'Introduction', Northamptonshire and Rutland Domesday, pp. 26-27.
		Domesday 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). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (as 16d in 7,21) and above a pound in shillings (for example, 60s in 2a,9).
		'Blanched' translates albas, also candidas and blancas in Domesday. A sample of coin was melted as a test for the presence of alloy or baser metal. Money could also be said to be blanched when, without a test by fire, a standard deduction was made to compensate for alloying or clipping; see Richard Fitz Nigel, Dialogus de Scaccario (Johnson, p. 125). See also Grierson, 'The Monetary System under William I', p. 76 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 113-14).
1	[LAND OF THE KING]. The heading is inserted to explain the marginal figure I; see 1,5 margin note.
		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 from 1035 to 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).
1,5	IN THE MARGIN next to this entry the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote I in vermilion, as it was royal land. This corresponds with the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d.
	MARGINAL M'. As he did in the other counties in circuit VI and in those in circuit I (which was probably the second circuit to be written up), the main scribe of Great Domesday included M' for Manerium beside all the estates in 'Roteland'. Compare 2,11 2M note and 2,7 outlier note.
	ALSTOE WAPENTAKE ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED]. The estates in 'Roteland' are arranged by hundred in the order Alstoe Wapentake ('Northern' Hundred), Alstoe Wapentake ('Southern' Hundred), 'Martinsley' Wapentake. Within each hundred or wapentake, the arrangement is feudal, the king's lands being placed first. The normal Great Domesday arrangement is by fief, and within each, by hundred or wapentake, often in a standard sequence. See {Introduction: Writing}.
	GREETHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was a royal manor in 1086, granted, probably by William II, to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick (1089-1119) and subsequently held by that earldom: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 54; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 208; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 135.
	GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Goda, Gode - represent the feminine Old English Gode: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 263. Goda is a masculine Old English name, but as it is obvious that in Domesday the two names coalesced and as the countess is regularly called 'Goda', it was decided by JRM and accepted by JMcND that she should be called Countess Goda. The Alecto edition has Countess Gode, except in Buckinghamshire, where it has Countess Goda, probably in error.
		It is possible that Latin comitissa ('countess') has been omitted here and in 1,6. Countess Goda, sister of King Edward, had elsewhere held lands in 1066 which were held by King William in 1086 (for example, DOR 1,30-31. DBY 3,2, though see DBY 3,2 countess note). It is also possible that Domesday Goda here might be a mistake for one of the Domesday forms representing Old Danish Gytha (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 281), as happens occasionally elsewhere in Domesday (see NTT 10,5 Gytha note). There were two countesses called Gytha: Earl (King) Harold's mother, the wife of Earl Godwin, who was King William's predecessor in many lands in Devon, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Hampshire and Gloucestershire; and Gytha, wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford, whose lands did not pass to the king.
		Gytha on a number of occasions is rendered Goda by the Domesday scribe (e.g., BDF 22,2. NTT S5. NTT 10,5. NTT 23,1). Given the substantial nature of the holdings attributed to 'Goda' in 'Roteland' - 33 plough-teams with Cottesmore (1,6) - she is likely to be one of the countesses rather than an unidentified Goda with no other holdings in the area. Of the two, Countess Gytha is the more probable, as only one of Goda's properties lay further north than Buckinghamshire. This holding, Appleby in Derbyshire (DBY 3,2), quite possibly involved another scribal confusion, this time between Countess Goda and Countess Godiva; see DBY 3,2 countess note (JP).
		If either Countess Goda or Countess Gytha (Earl Harold's mother) is accepted, the lands may well have been royal for some time, but there is no documentary evidence to support either or any identification. See VCH Rutland, i. p. 134; Williams, 'King's nephew'.
	TAXABLE. Latin ad gld' (= ad geldum) is translated literally 'to the geld' in the Alecto edition, but really means 'for the geld', 'for tax', a common meaning of ad. In the counties of circuit VI this phrase takes the place of the present participle geld[ans] (singular) or geld[antes] (plural) used in circuit V. In other circuits this information is conveyed by the verbs geldare and se defendere with the preposition pro, meaning 'to pay tax for' and 'to answer for': e.g., geldabat pro vi hidis ('it paid tax for 6 hides') and se defendebat pro ii hidis ('it answered for 2 hides') with the subject being the estate understood.
	THE KING HAS ... IN LORDSHIP; 33 VILLAGERS ... MILL ... MEADOW. The Latin cases of uill', bord' and molin' are not clear, but may be accusative (uillanos, bordarios, molinum) after h[abe]t Rex because ac[ra]s in the measurement of the meadow is accusative. In 1,19-20 the accusative is clearly shown in h[abe]t Rex ... uill[an]os. However, it is possible, though unlikely, that the meadow acres are accusative because they are the object of h[abe]ntes, the villagers and smallholders having the meadow and, presumably, the mill. See also 5,15 meadow note and 6,16 meadow note. The woodland is detailed in a separate phrase, as usual, as is the meadow in 1,6 (1,6 meadow note). The punctuation here seeks to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. Latin silua per loca past[ilis] is translated in the Phillimore printed edition as 'woodland, pasture in places' and the same in the Alecto edition. Elsewhere the Phillimore printed edition has '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') meaning that some of the wood is too dense to allow grass to grow and grazing to take place. The evidence of Domesday is in favour of the former: that the woodland is scattered over the estate but has been combined into a single square or rectangle by Domesday; see DBY 1,12 woodland note. It seems as if per loca is expendable, since for 2,7 (Market Overton and Stretton) Domeday has 'pasturable wooldland in [various] places', whereas the duplicate entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,11) simply has 'pasturable woodland'. It must often have been the case that the woodland was scattered over the estate, whether Domesday say so or not.
		For the interpretation of the phrase 'pasturable woodland', see 4,14 woodland note.
	FURLONGS. Domesday quarentina, a subdivision of the league (see 1,6 league note), reckoned at 40 perches (which the Latin word implies) or 220 yards, an eighth of a mile.
1,6	COTTESMORE. This was an Ancient Parish. A possible fragment of this estate's earlier history is contained in the will of Aethelmaer, Ealdorman of Hampshire, in which he bequeathed Cottesmore to his youngest son (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 107 no. 151 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1498). If the identification is correct, this would be a long way from Aethelmaer's other estates.
		Cottesmore was a royal manor in 1086. The major part was granted with Greetham (1,5), probably by William II, to Henry of Beaumont who was Earl of Warwick 1089-1119. His son Roger de Newburgh inherited the earldom in 1119. Cottesmore, like Greetham, descended in the earldom of Warwick: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 208; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 120.
		Part of the manor lay in Barrow (SK8915), which was a chapelry of Cottesmore (Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 374), and in 'Wenton' (a lost place: Place-Names of Rutland, p. 16); see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 54; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35.
		In the Alecto facsimile the final E of COTESMORE resembles a P. According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of most counties, this phenomenon was caused by 'the continuous-tone process of reproduction employed for the facsimile ... where the red of the rubrication is either contiguous with or superimposed over the dark browns of the lettering'. In 'Roteland' similar misreadings of place-names could occur in two other entries; see 2,8 Thistleton note and 1,20 Ridlington note, and compare 3,10 Teigh note.
	GODA [* COUNTESS GYTHA *]. See 1,5 Goda note.
	FREEMEN. Domesday sochemannus is sometimes translated as 'sokeman'. Freemen were men liable to attend the court of a lord who exercised soca ('soke' or 'jurisdiction') and serve him there. They were free from many of the burdens of villagers and before 1066 they often had more land and higher status than these. They were bracketed in the Commissioners' brief with the liberi homines ('free men'); see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 66-79.
	MEADOW, 40 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote 7, but immediately corrected it to Ibi ('there'; omitted in this translation). He did not usually put the meadow in a separate phrase (this is the only occurrence in 'Roteland') but linked it by the use of 7 to the population, often using the accusative case (1,5 king note), so this correction may have significance.
	LEAGUE. Domesday leuga, leuua, leuuede, is a measure of length, usually of woodland and pasture, traditionally reckoned at a mile and a half. If so, some woods will have been of enormous length; see Round in VCH Northamptonshire, i. p. 280; and WOR 1,1c leagues note. The league is used regularly as a linear measure, two measurements being given for the land, as here.
	A CERTAIN GEOFFREY HAS ½ CARUCATE. The Latin quidam indicates either that the main scribe of Great Domesday had no further information on this man, or that he wished to distinguish him from Geoffrey, Gilbert of Ghent's man (5,15). The ½ carucate was probably part of the overall 3 carucates allotted to the manor. This portion seems to have had a separate later descent, being held in 1200 by Guérin de Glapion, seneschal of Normandy. He lost it in 1203 and it was granted by King John to Geoffrey de Gamaches, from whom it descended in the Gamages family: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 805); Book of Fees, p. 1151; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 122.
		The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - Goisfridus, Gosfridus, Gaufridus, Gaufridus, Gaosfridus - 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 Middle English Geffrey, from Old French Geuffroi, Jeufroi or Old French Jefroi (Reaney, ibidem). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', Index of Persons, p. ix.
2	THE MARGINAL II, written in vermilion by the main scribe of Great Domesday, corresponds to the second entry (for Countess Judith) in the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d.
	[LAND OF COUNTESS JUDITH]. She was the daughter of Lambert, Count of Lens, and of 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 2,7 Waltheof note) whom she married c. 1070 and who was executed for treason in 1075. 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.
		The Domesday forms of the name Judith - Iudita, Iudit, Gudeta - represent the biblical name Judith, meaning 'Jewess' or 'woman from Judea'.
2,7	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.
	[MARKET] OVERTON … STRETTON. The affix Market probably distinguishes this place from Cold Overton, just over the border in Leicestershire. Market Overton and Stretton were both Ancient Parishes. Both the manor and its outlier descended from Countess Judith in the honour of Huntingdon: Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 141, 146. However, 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 Stretton.
		The entry is duplicated in LIN 56,11, but with different detail: Stretton is not said to be an outlier; Countess Judith's 3 ploughs are specifically said to be in lordship; the wood is merely 'pasturable' not 'pasturable in places'. The current value is £40 not £20 (though corrected: LIN 56,11 value note) and there is no mention of Alfred's claim on Stretton. These discrepancies are tabulated in {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}. The relation of Stretton to Market Overton is relevant to the reconstruction of the 3-carucate units which in this hundred seem to be the underlying structure: {Introduction: Carucation}.
		There was a 2-carucate jurisdiction (soca) of this manor at South Witham (LIN 56,20) and a 6-bovate part of Thistleton lying in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,21) was also a jurisdiction of this manor (2,8 Thistleton note).
	OUTLIER. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined BER[EWICA] here; in other counties with the marginal letters indicating the status of the holding (1,5 marginal note) he put B' in the margin, either with an M' or on its own if the adjacent entry was only of an outlier. There is no marginal B' beside the M' in the duplicate entry (LIN 56,11), however.
	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 Earl Roger 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.
	COUNTESS JUDITH. See RUT 2 Judith note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.
	ALFRED OF LINCOLN CLAIMS. Alfred held land at Thistleton (2a,9) adjacent. On this claim, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 223 no. 1305. She translates: 'Alfred of Lincoln, however, claims the fourth part in Stretton'. There is nothing in the Latin to represent 'however'. On the fourth part, see 2,7 fourth part note.
		On Alfred himself, see RUT 2a Alfred note.
		The Domesday forms of his name - 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. This is certainly likely in the case of Alfred of Lincoln as he was a Breton (RUT 2a Alfred note). 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.
	A FOURTH PART IN STRETTON. This is probably a rough measure as the total of Market Overton and Stretton is 3½ carucates. It is not clear whether Alfred is claiming the whole of Stretton and that this is a quarter of the whole manor of Overton-Stretton, or a quarter of Stretton itself. The Alecto edition has 'a fourth part of Stretton'.
2,8	THISTLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. There are two entries for this vill in 'Roteland' (2,8. 2a,9) amounting to 1 carucate and included in the assessment of Alstoe Wapentake (R1 carucates note). Both parts are duplicated in Lincolnshire (respectively LIN 56,12. 27,48): {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}. The second entry (LIN 27,48) adds that Thistleton was assessed in South Witham (Lincolnshire); see 2a,9 there note.
		Three other parts of Thistleton, amounting to 2 ½ carucates and 6 bovates, seem to have lain in Lincolnshire and also to have been assessed there. The first of these three is for 1 carucate in alia Tisteltune (LIN 27,49) held by Alfred of Lincoln, a jurisdiction, probably of South Witham (LIN 27,47). Latin alia does not imply a separate vill or village, but is an editorial device to draw attention to the second occurrence of the same place-name within a fief (Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'). This particular Lincolnshire entry follows that for Thistleton (LIN 27,48) which is duplicated as 2a,9.
		Secondly, there is an entry for 1 ½ carucates of undefined status at Thistleton (LIN 51,10), and thirdly (in LIN 56,21) for 6 bovates which are said to be 'a jurisdiction also of this manor' (eiusdem manerii). The previous entry (LIN 56,20) is for South Witham, itself said to be a jurisdiction of Market Overton; prior to that entry is one for Coleby (LIN 56,19) far away in another wapentake (the end of this chapter is a miscellany). It is thus likely that the words eiusdem manerii in LIN 56,21 refer to Market Overton (held by Countess Judith in LIN 56,11, duplicated in RUT 2,7) as does the entry for South Witham (56,20).
		It is possible that the vill of Thistleton had been divided between counties according to tenure at some time, although by 1086 Alfred of Lincoln and Countess Judith held parts in both counties. It is more likely that the division was made to produce fiscally round figures when 'Roteland' became a separate taxable entity: {Introduction: History}, {Introduction: Carucation}and {Introduction: County Boundary). There is certainly no room for the carucates of the Lincolnshire entries for Thistleton in Alstoe Wapentake's carucage (R1 carucates note). Thistleton is not counted in Lincolnshire after 1086 and it is possible that there has been an unrecorded boundary change, or that the Lincolnshire portions became merged with South Witham (2a,9 there note).
		The Lincolnshire entry corresponding to the present one (LIN 56,12) only differs in calling Hugh 'the countess' man'. Although the next Lincolnshire entry (LIN 56,13) also has 'Hugh, the countess' man' and the corresponding 'Roteland' entry (2,11) has 'Hugh of Hotot', the Hugh in 2,8 is unlikely also to have been Hugh of Hotot in view of the descent of Thistleton. See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor followed the expected descent in the honour of Huntingdon, being undertenanted by a family named de Bussey/, de Busey/, de Bushey or de Bucy, of which Hugh was possibly the ancestor: Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 156.
	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 HUN 29,3 where it has Eric and for LIN 28,20 where it has Eadric, probably in error.
		The name Erik occurs on ten holdings in circuit VI of 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).
	HUGH [* OF BUCY *]. Hugh of Bucy; see 2,8 Thistleton note. He is presumably the same as the Hugh who holds another part of Thistleton (LIN 56,21).
		The Domesday form, 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.
2a	[LAND OF ALFRED OF LINCOLN]. He was a Breton, probably from the seigneurie of Montfort-Gaël, near Rennes. He was probably married to a daughter of William Malet; another of William's daughters was married to Turold the sheriff of Lincolnshire. Alfred's title 'of Lincoln' does not appear to relate to any office he held there, although he was an important landholder in the county. Alfred’s sons were (1) another Alfred, possibly the Alfred ‘nephew of Turold’ of Domesday Lincolnshire (LIN C23) who married (before 1093) the widow of Hugh son of Grip or her daughter, thus acquiring Hugh son of Grip's fief; and (2) Alan of Lincoln who inherited his father’s Lincolnshire holdings before 1100. See Round, Feudal England, pp. 327-28; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 141-42.
		On the name Alfred, see 2,7 Alfred note.
2a,9	MARGINAL III. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote III in vermilion next to the second line of this entry, apparently to indicate a new landholder. However, in the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d, there is no mention of Alfred and the number III is allotted to Robert Malet. It is possible that when the scribe first looked through the material for 'Roteland' as he was preparing to write the Landholders' List for it in Nottinghamshire, he missed the mention of Alfred of Lincoln in the information on Thistleton (which was possibly contained in a composite entry similar to those in the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis) or thought that Alfred was a tenant of Countess Judith. The fact that his source for the 'Roteland' entry did not mention Alfred's subtenant Gleu (see {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}) makes this confusion more understandable.
	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.
	THERE ALSO ^[THISTLETON]^. That is, the previous entry for Thistleton (2,8). This estate is among Alfred's lands in the corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 27,48) which is part of his fief. There the actual tenant is not Alfred himself, but Gleu, Alfred's man: {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}; see also 2a,9 Siward note. For the relation of Thistleton to lands in Lincolnshire, see 2,8 Thistleton note.
		In both the 'Roteland' and the Lincolnshire surveys of this estate, this Thistleton is said to be a manor. However, the Lincolnshire entry contains no value clause, but instead says 'its valuation [is included] in [South] Witham'. This clause in itself does not necessarily suggest subordinate status; for example, Hagworthingham (LIN 12,85) is a manor but the value clause is replaced by 'its valuation is [included] in other manors'. However, against this Lincolnshire entry for Thistleton, there is a marginal SOCA ('jurisdiction'), apparently intended to gloss this statement. Thus doubt is cast on the marginal M[anerium] in both the Lincolnshire and 'Roteland' entries. There is also a difficulty with the value: the 1066 and 1086 values of South Witham (LIN 27,47) are 40s and 50[s] respectively, of Thistleton alone, in the 'Roteland' entry, the values are 20s and 60s; see VCH Rutland, i. p. 130. It is possible that there are figure errors in one or both of these entries. However, as it is possible for a jurisdiction to grow into a manor, it is likely that the two different surveys of the estate at Thistleton, by being done at different times, record the change of status, or that the jurors in 'Beltisloe' Wapentake, Lincolnshire, corrected the information or took a different view of an uncertain relationship between the estates. The Lincolnshire version is probably right as this estate was later known as being 'in South Witham in Thistleton' or 'in South Witham lands', and was held in the thirteenth century by the Colville family of Castle Bytham (Lincolnshire).
		South Witham contained two manors of 4 carucates and 5 carucates (LIN 27,47. 56,1); also a jurisdiction of Market Overton (LIN 56,20), 2 carucates, and another piece, 6 bovates of undefined status (LIN 68,25), making in all 11 carucates and 6 bovates, suggesting that South Witham was a 12-carucate hundred.
	SIWARD. A man of the same name was the predecessor of Alfred on some of his Lincolnshire estates, including South Witham (LIN 27,47) where Alfred's subtenant was also his man Gleu.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Siuuard, Seuuard(us), Seuuar, Seiard(us), Seiar - represent either Old English Sigeweard or, probably in most of the Danelaw counties, the Old Danish Sigwarth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 361-63. JRM preferred the form Siward as it is in regular use. The Alecto edition also has Siward.
3	[LAND OF ROBERT MALET]. He was son of William Malet of Graville-Sainte-Honorine (in the French département of Seine-Maritime, commune of Le Havre) and Esilia Crispin of Tillières. William was also prominent in England, in the early years of the Conqueror's reign. Robert' s large English fief, which he inherited from his father, was centred on Eye in Suffolk (briefly held by Roger of Poitou after 1087) where he began the foundation of a cell of the Abbey of Bernay. He was recorded as sheriff of Suffolk in 1071 possibly in succession to his father. He went on to be chamberlain to Henry I. He died after 1107. He was probably father of William II Malet (who forfeited Eye in 1109) and Robert Malet, ancestor of the Mallets of Curry Mallet (Somerset).
		The origin of the byname Malet is unclear. Tengvik, Old English Bynames, pp. 350-51, suggests Old French malet, a diminutive of mal (from Latin malus), meaning 'bad', 'wicked' or 'evil'. The force of the diminutive is unclear, whether 'quite evil', 'rather wicked' or 'a little naughty'. A related possibility, due to Ekwall (Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names, 1936 edition) is that Malet is from Old French maleit, past participle of the verb maleir, meaning 'cursed'. Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Mallett suggests two further possibilities. The first is that the name is a patronymic, a diminutive of French Malo, derived from the sixth-century Breton Saint Maclovius, represented in the place-name Saint-Malo. His second suggestion is based on the fact that Orderic Vitalis calls William Malet Gulielmus agnomine Mal(l)eto ('William with the surname Malletum') suggesting that he connected the name with Old French maillet, mallet, a diminutive of Old French mail, mal from Latin malleus ('hammer'). Maillet in Medieval French is a mace. Support for this comes from the fact that when William Malet was banished in 1109, his son Hugh took the name Fichet. Fichet is a diminutive of Old French fiche ('iron point') probably used of a lance or javelin. Thus Hugh Malet in becoming Hugh Fichet may have wished to retain the warrior connections of his name in changing it..
		The Domesday forms of his first name - 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.
3,10	MARGINAL IIII. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote IIII in vermilion next to the second line of this entry. In the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Robert Malet is number three. The scribe's mistake here was caused by his insertion of III next to the previous entry (2a,9), apparently due to his discovery of a further tenant-in-chief, Alfred of Lincoln.
	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['NORTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. See 1,5 Alstoe note.
	IN THE SAME HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday often included this phrase when he did not have the location of a holding, as here initially (3,10 Teigh note), though it ended by being redundant.
	TEIGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined In TIE, using a capital I for In and extending it down to form an insertion mark. The rubrication is faint and is not reproduced in the Alecto facsimile. There is no duplicate entry for this estate in Lincolnshire.
		Teigh was an Ancient Parish. The estate descended to the honour of Leicester, being held by John de Folevile in 1305; see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 151.
	GODWIN <OF TEIGH>. The man is unidentified, but a Godwin was Robert Malet's predecessor in his manors in Lincolnshire.
		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.
	4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined ii above the ii in the text, as often elsewhere; there is no sign that it was a later insertion.
2	This heading has been inserted by the editors to indicate that the main scribe of Great Domesday, following the order of the hundreds within Alstoe Wapentake now began to enter the lands in the second (southern) hundred. Countess Judith held lands in the first (northern) hundred beginning at 2,7 where the scribe entered a marginal II.
		On Countess Judith, see RUT 2 Judith note.
2,11	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. Lands held by Countess Judith have already been entered in 2,7-8. It is therefore likely that the contents of the second 12-carucate hundred begin here, especially as the separate groups 1,5-6. 2,7-8. 2a,9. 3,10 and 2,11-13. 4,14. 5,15. 6,16 are territorially compact; see R1 hundreds note.
	2M. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote .II. above M[anerium]. This normally indicated that the manor had been held by two people T.R.E. but had been combined in 1086. However, he did not include a .II. above the M' in the duplicate entry in Lincolnshire, and only Earl Waltheof is mentioned as having held Whissendine. A marginal II might be expected here as Countess Judith is number two in the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d, and it is just possible that there was confusion over the significance of the figure in an earlier draft. On the other hand the scribe might not have felt it necessary to insert a chapter number, as it might have been thought already present at 2,7: there is no other case in 'Roteland' where a number is repeated when the landholder recurs (for example the king at 1,17).
		There were two manors here later (2,11 Whissendine note), but the division could have occurred after 1086, and such evidence cannot be used to deduce the number of T.R.E. manors.
	WHISSENDINE. This was an Ancient Parish. The entry is duplicated in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,13). Apart from indicating only a single manor, the Lincolnshire entry describes Hugh of Hotot simply as Hugh, but calls him 'the countess' man'. The 5 ploughs are said to be 'in lordship'; the number of smallholders is seven, not six; meadow 10 furlongs long and 8 furlongs wide is mentioned. The value is omitted. See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon, and passed from the subtenant Hugh to the Wake family. There was a Wake (or Powis) manor here in later times. In 1316 (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 204) the estate was held in halves, one half by Thomas Wake and Robert de Helewelle, the other by Richard de Harington and John de Wyttelbury; see Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 157.
	EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,7 Waltheof note.
	HUGH OF HOTOT. He probably came from Hotot-en-Auge in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Cambremer), rather than from Hottot-les-Bagues in the same département (arrondissement Bayeux, canton Caumont-l'Eventé). His lands were held by Hugh de Moreville by 1130 (Pipe Roll); see Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, ii. p. 356; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 264. The latter gives different arrondissements and cantons for the two places.
		On the name Hugh, see 2,8 Hugh note.
2,12	EXTON. This was an Ancient Parish. There is a duplicate entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,17) which gives the same information. It is entered under the heading IN ROTELANDE. See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon; see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 128.
	EARL WALTHEOF. See 2,7 Waltheof note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.
2,13	WHITWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding entry in Lincolnshire (LIN 56,18) describes Herbert as 'the countess' man'; the woodland is simply 'pasturable', not 'pasturable in places'; only the 1086 value (40s) is given. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Similit[er] In Rotelande ('Likewise in 'Roteland'') in the margin next to the Lincolnshire entry, following on from the IN ROTELANDE heading above the previous entry there (Exton: LIN 56,17 = RUT 2,12). See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor descended with the honour of Huntingdon, but by the thirteenth century was held by the prior of the hospital of St John of Jerusalem; see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 208; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 165.
	"BESI". The Domesday forms - Besy here and in the duplicate entry in LIN 56,18, Besi in OXF 35,19, Beso in SUF 6,216 and 35,7 - might represent Old Danish Bøsi, according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 201, but he mentions other possibilities. In view of the uncertainty it has been thought best to retain the Domesday form Besi for all these occurrences. The Phillimore printed translation has Besi here and in Oxfordshire and Suffolk, Bøsi in Lincolnshire; these have now been standardized as "Besi". The Alecto edition has Besi here, in Oxfordshire and in Lincolnshire, but Bosi in Suffolk.
		The Oxfordshire "Besi" was a predecessor of Miles Crispin who was also preceded on two of his holdings by a Bisi (BUK 23,32) and a Bosi (BRK 33,8) which makes it probable that all three forms, which occur only seven times between them in Great Domesday, represent one name and a single individual. Miles' predecessor in Buckinghamshire is described as a royal thane, as is the Bisi who preceded Hugh of Bolbec (BUK 26,8). The Bisi who preceded William son of Ansculf (BUK 17,21) was also an overlord and a close neighbour of the Bisi on the Crispin fief. The Besi, man of Alsi, with two small holdings in neighbouring vills in Hartismere Hundred in Suffolk, is likely to be a second individual (JP).
		The Domesday form Bisi occurs three times in Domesday Buckinghamshire (BUK 17,21. 23,32. 26,8) and represents Old Norse/Old Danish/Old Swedish Bisi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 202, who rejected it as representing the forms Besi, Besy, Beso (p. 201). The Alecto edition has Bisi. This makes it unlikely that any of these people is the same individual as the "Besi" in the present entry or elsewhere. Likewise the form Bosi in BRK 33,8, as well as the forms Bose and Boso, represents Old Norse/Old Danish Bosi: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 207.
	HERBERT. 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.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.
	PERCHES. Domesday pertica or perca 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).
	VALUE 40s. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote xx, but corrected it to xl by superimposing an l on the second x. There is no T.R.E. value in the duplicate Lincolnshire entry (LIN 56,18). The Phillimore printed translation has '20s' for the 1086 value. The Alecto edition has '40s'.
	40[s]. Latin sol[idos] ('shillings') was probably omitted through lack of space, as elsewhere in Great Domesday.
4	[LAND OF OGER ^[SON OF "UNGEMAR"]^]. He was also probably the same man as Oger the Breton, who held in chief in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. He became Lord of Bourne in Lincolnshire, an estate which he held in 1086 (LIN 42,1-2). Part of one of his lands in Lincolnshire (LIN 42,9) had been held by a Hereward and from a Lincolnshire Claim (CK48) it is apparent that one of his predecessors on another land (LIN 42,13) had been the English rebel Hereward the Wake. It is possible that Oger married Hereward's daughter, though she was later married to Hugh of Envermeu; the presence of a Baldwin Wake among the later holders of 'Austhorp' supports this (see 4,14 'Austhorp' note). Oger had sons named Ralph and Conan of whom Ralph succeeded him. See VCH Rutland, i. p. 132; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 311.
		The Domesday forms of his name - 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.
		The Domesday form of his father, Vngemar, which only occurs in this entry in Domesday, might represent the hypothetical Old Western Scandinavian Ungemann-, Ungmathr-: Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 202 (who gives Radulfus in error for Ogerus); see Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 197 note 4. However, this implies that the Domesday form is miswritten. As Oger's name is either Old German or Old French, it is likely that his father's name was also. The note (by JMcND) in the Phillimore printed edition (at R14) suggests a hypothetical Old High German Jungemar. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 311, refers to a Gingomar father of Haimo of Sougéal, fl. 1060. In view of the uncertainty it has been thought better to keep the Domesday form. The Phillimore printed translation has Ungomar; the Alecto edition has Ungemar.
4,14	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. The main scribe of Great Domesday continued entering lands in the 'southern' hundred of Alstoe Wapentake, begun at 2,11. This heading has been included here to indicate the continuing territorial arrangement of the entries which the scribe attempted to overlay with feudal chapters; see 2,11 Alstoe note and {Introduction: Writing}.
	'AUSTHORP'. The Domesday form is Alestanestorp, later Al(e)storp(e), Al(e)sthorp(e). This place lay in Burley Ancient Parish. It had disappeared by the sixteenth century. It is marked at a point midway between Cottesmore and Burley on Speed's map of 1610 (from which the name-form is taken) and is placed at SK891124 by Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 383, and at SK891123 by Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 247; see Place-Names of Rutland, p. 11; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 131-32.
		One carucate in Alestorp is held of the fee of Baldwin Wake by the Abbot of Bourne in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 54; see also Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 371. This suggests that Oger son of "Ungemar" is identical with Oger the Breton, Lord of Bourne in Lincolnshire (LIN 42,1-2): Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 311. At the same time, the Nuneaton Priory held 1 carucate by the gift of Simon de Aneseye. This is twice the assessment of Domesday 'Austhorp' and it is possible that, if it is not a re-rating, the 1 carucate actually lay in Burley (5,15 Burley note). See Feudal Aids, iv. p. 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 131-32.
		There is no duplicate entry for this estate in Lincolnshire.
	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.
	OGER. In the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Ogerius is entered in the fourth place. However, as the main scribe of Great Domesday had already written IIII in the margin beside the holding of Robert Malet (3,10 marginal note) he seems to have decided to abandon the practice, which in any case was of little use as 'Roteland' is arranged by wapentakes and hundreds, not by fiefs.
	MEADOW. Latin ac[ra]s is accusative after h[abe]t.
	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 evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded silua pastilis ... 7 alia silua ... ('pasturable woodland ... other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable. 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. For a fuller discussion, see DBY 1,1 woodland note and for the related 'pasturable woodland in [various] places', see 1,5 woodland note.
5	[LAND OF GILBERT OF GHENT]. He held in chief in thirteen counties apart from here. 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.
		The Domesday form of his 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.
		In the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Gilbert of Ghent is entered in the fifth place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see 4,14 Oger note.
5,15	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. On this insertion, see 4,14 Alstoe note.
	BURLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 24,80) describes Geoffrey only as 'Gilbert's man': there was no need for 'of Ghent' as Gilbert of Ghent was the fief-holder. There are 7 not 8 smallholders and no mention that the woodland is pasturable. See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor descended in the barony of Ghent and was held under it by the de Armenters/ Ermenters family (from Armentières near Lille in Flanders). David de Armenters gave a church at Burley to Nuneaton Priory 1174 x 1188; the nuns also held land said to be at 'Austhorp' but which perhaps actually lay in Burley (4,14 'Austhorp' note); see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 113, 119.
	ULF [* FENMAN *]. 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.
		He is probably Ulf Fenman (Fenisc), one of the predecessors of Gilbert of Ghent in Lincolnshire, Derbyshire and Huntingdonshire, though a plain Ulf was his predecessor in several other counties. Sometimes the main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after the name Ulf, probably for his byname; see NTT 17,1 Ulf note. According to Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 135, fenisc is Old Scandinavian fjonski ('from Fjon' = Fűnen, a Danish island), quoting EHR 25 (1910), p. 594 (a review by Jón Stefánsson of Nordische Personennamen in England in alt- und frühmittelenglischer Zeit); Tengvik rejects derivation from Scandinavian fe-niskr ('niggard'). However, fenisc may be 'Fenish', 'from the Fens', though this may imply more than 'from the fens', possibly that he was an expert on water-flow or drainage.
	GEOFFREY [* OF AALST *]. This Geoffrey may have come from Aalst in Flanders (Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 233) and may have been the ancestor of the de Armenters family (see 5,15 Burley note) On the name Geoffrey, see 1,6 Geoffrey note..
	MEADOW. Latin ac[ra]s is accusative probably after h[abe]t, rather than after h[abe]ntes (1,5 king note). The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 24,80) has ac' which would normally be extended to the nominative acrae.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.
6	[LAND OF EARL HUGH]. Hugh of Avranches, also known as Hugh the fat, was second Earl of Chester from c. 1071 to 1101 having succeeded William's first earl, Gherbod (left his earldom c. 1071; died 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.
		In the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Earl Hugh is entered in the sixth place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see 4,14 Oger note.
6,16	[* ALSTOE WAPENTAKE, ['SOUTHERN' HUNDRED] *]. On this insertion, see 4,14 Alstoe note.
	ASHWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 13,38) has 2, not 3, smallholders. See {Introduction: Duplicate Entries}.
		The manor descended within the honour of Chester, and the subtenancy to the Tuschet family. Markeaton (DBY 4,1) held by Earl Hugh, also passed to the Tuschets; see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 204, 208; Farrer, Honours and Knights' Fees, ii. p. 28; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, p. 35; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 108.
	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.
	JOCELYN [* OF TUSCHET *], EARL HUGH'S MAN. Earl Hugh appears to have had two different people called Jocelyn among his tenants: Jocelyn Brito (the Breton) and Jocelyn de Tuschet. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 236, identifies the Jocelyn who holds from Earl Hugh in Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Cheshire and 'Roteland' as Jocelyn de Tuschet, which in this instance is very likely because of the descent of the manor: 6,16 Ashwell note.
		The Domesday forms of his 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.
	MEADOW. Latin ac[ra]s is accusative probably after h[abe]t, rather than after h[abe]ntes (1,5 king note). The corresponding Lincolnshire entry (LIN 13,38) has ac' which would normally be extended to the nominative acrae.
1	[LAND OF THE KING]. Having finished entering lands in Alstoe Wapentake, the main scribe of Great Domesday turned to those in 'Martinsley' Wapentake.
	THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday did not repeat the vermilion I beside this continuation of the king's lands; see 4,14 Oger note.
1,17	'MARTINSLEY' WAPENTAKE. This was the kernel of 'Roteland', held T.R.E. by Queen Edith as her dowry and by King William in 1086. See R2 and {Introduction: History}. The numbering adopted by the Phillimore printed edition (R17-21) and here repeated (as 1,17-20. 7,21) obscures the fact that there are only three manors in this wapentake: Oakham (1,17-18), Hambleton (1,19) and Ridlington (1,20. 7,21). There was dependent land in Stamford ({Introduction: Boroughs}).
	OAKHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held, like Hambleton and Ridlington (1,19-20) by Queen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland' (that is, probably, 'Martinsley' Wapentake), which her husband, King Edward, intended should pass at her death to Westminster Abbey. William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. Although Westminster had an interest in 1086 (1,17 jurisdiction note), and acquired more later, it never held the whole manor. After 1086 the abbey gained a member, Barleythorpe, and the manor known as 'Deanshold' (presumably from the Deans of Westminster), possibly under William II, and by the sixteenth century it had the rectories of Langham, Egleton, Brooke and Barleythorpe (Valor Ecclesiasticus, i. p. 416). However, the bulk of the 1086 estate was held by the Crown or a succession of laymen. It was granted, probably by William II, to Henry of Beaumont or his son Roger of Newburgh (successive Earls of Warwick); see 1,6 Cottesmore note. In the mid-twelfth century, it was re-acquired by the king in exchange for Sutton Coldfield (Warwickshire), and then held of the Crown by the Ferrers family until forfeited in 1204. It was granted by King John to Isabella (sister of Henry of Ferrers) and her husband Roger of Mortimer for life in 1207, then by Henry III in 1252 to his brother Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Thereafter, it grew into a barony, a private borough and ultimately (from the fifteenth century) a soke, at first a distinct part of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, then a jurisdiction of its own: Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, p. 149; and {Introduction: Wapentakes and Hundreds}.
		Thus the components of the 1086 manor of Oakham (1,17 outliers note) were divided. The lordship land of this lay estate consisted of 'Lordshold' (in Oakham, contrasting with 'Deanshold', held by Westminster Abbey), Langham and Egleton; there were knight's fees in Oakham, Clipsham, Braunston, Pickworth, Belton and Wardley in 'Roteland' and in Knossington, Thorpe Satchville and Twyford in Leicestershire. There were estates held in socage in Gunthorpe and Braunston. Some of these estates were not part of Oakham in 1086. Twyford (in Leicestershire) was part of the royal manor of Rothley (LEC 1,3) and there is no mention of a connection with 'Roteland', unlike Knossington (see 1,17 outliers note). Belton and Wardley were outliers of Ridlington (1,20) and Clipsham and Pickworth were perhaps originally part of Hambleton (1,19). A castle was built at Oakham (first evidenced in 1150: VCH Rutland, i. p. 168), although King, Castellarium Anglicanum, ii. pp. 416-17, regards it as fortified after 1075 under William I. The lay manor came to be the most important in Rutland, eclipsing Hambleton, which may have been the original chief place. On the whole manor, see the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 805); Book of Fees, p. 1151; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; Oakham Survey Research Group, Oakham Survey, pp. 6, 26-27, 33-34; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; Valor Ecclesiasticus, i. pp. 416, 423; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 10-14; Harvey, Westminster Abbey Estates, pp. 356-57; Donnelly, 'Westminster Abbey's Oakham Manor'.
	WITH 5 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined cū .v. Bereuuitis, possibly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
		It is likely that four of the five outliers were:
		Brooke (SK8405). It became part of the later lay manor, but was given by Hugh de Ferrers to the priory (later abbey) of Kenilworth: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 38.
		Egleton (SK8707). This was also part of the later lay manor: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 45.
		Gunthorpe (SK8605). This was another part of the later lay manor: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 17.
		Langham (SK8411). This was a further part of the later lay manor: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 49.
		All these places were chapelries of Oakham. The fifth outlier (pace VCH Rutland, ii. p. 15) might well be Barleythorpe (SK8409), another chapelry of Oakham, or possibly Knossington in Leicestershire (LEC 1,11). Barleythorpe did not follow the descent of the other outliers but was held by Westminster Abbey (Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207). The name itself has nothing to do with barley and therefore with berewick, both words deriving from Old English bere ('barley', 'corn'). Thee first element is manorial, from John de Bolour (who held c.1200) or his family: Place-Names of Rutland, pp. 64-65. Three carucates in Knossington (LEC 1,11) 'belong to the jurisdiction of Oakham', probably meaning that they were a Jurisdiction (soca) of Oakham, but the size sits uncomfortably with Oakham's total assessment of 4 carucates. Knossington is therefore probably a Jurisdiction of Oakham, perhaps an ancient one, rather than an outlier of it. Land there was still included in Rutland in the time of Edward III: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 50-51.
		On the possible relation of Oakham to Clipsham and Pickworth, see 1,19 Hambleton note.
	CHURCH JURISDICTION. This refers to Oakham, not the 5 outliers: the interlination of the latter interrupts the sense. The exact meaning is unclear, but it appears to refer to an interest, here unspecified, that Westminster Abbey had in these three estates (1,17;19-20). Edward the Confessor had intended the whole wapentake, conferred on Edith, his queen, to be granted to Westminster Abbey on her death. The Conqueror did not permit the grant to take full effect. According to Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 52, the advowsons of the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and Uppingham (part of Ridlington: 1,20) were in the hands of William I, though Westminster Abbey later acquired them. It may well have received unspecified dues in 1086, as later. See VCH Rutland, i. p. 133, ii. p. 10; Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 223 no. 1306; and {Introduction: History}.
	QUEEN EDITH. She was the daughter of Godwin, Earl of Wessex and married King Edward the Confessor in 1045. 'Roteland' may have been her husband's gift as it was of earlier kings to their queens. When her father and brothers (Swein, Harold, Tosti, Gyrth and Leofwin) were oulawed in 1051 she shared their disgrace and was sent to the nunnery at Wherwell (Hampshire). However, she returned to the king’s favour with their restoration in 1052. She died in 1075 at Winchester; see Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 559.
		The Domesday forms of her name - Eddid, Edid, Eddied, Ediet, Edied, Edded, Edged, Edit, Eddiet - represent Old English Eadgyth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 231-32. JRM preferred the modern name Edith, as does the Alecto edition (except for KEN D25, where it has Eadgyth, perhaps in error).
		'Roteland' (presumably meaning 'Martinsley' Wapentake), was her special possession and she held land and residences in Stamford (Lincolnshire) attached to it: LIN S9; see {Introduction: Boroughs}. She also appears to have held Ketton and Barrowden in Witchley Wapentake (Northamptonshire) nearby (NTH 1,1-2): {Introduction: History}.
	2 PLOUGHS AT THE HALL. This apparently means the same as '2 ploughs in lordship', the hall being the administrative centre of the estate, where dues and geld were collected and justice dispensed and it would probably have been surrounded by some or all of the lordship land. The Alecto edition has '2 ploughs [belonging] to the hall'.
	ANOTHER 4 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. See R2 ploughs note.
	A PRIEST AND A CHURCH. This was a superior church (see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}), held by Albert the cleric (see 7,21), though he is probably not the 'priest' of this entry and his holding of land was separate (1,19 bovate note). On the advowson, see 1,17 jurisdiction note. It is likely that there were dependent chapels in the outliers of Langham, Egleton, Brooke and Gunthorpe: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iv. pp. 416, 423; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 14.
	4 BOVATES. This is ½ carucate. Albert has another 3 bovates attached to the churches of Hambleton (1,19) and St Peter of Stamford (7,21 St Peter note).
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 4,14 woodland note.
1,18	THERE ALSO … 1 CARUCATE. Ostensibly this carucate is additional to the 4 carucates held by the king in Oakham (1,17), but this would upset the otherwise neat arrangement of 'Martinsley' Wapentake, consisting of 12 carucates composed of three manors of 4 carucates each (R2 carucates note). Although the marginal M[anerium] implies that this is a separate holding, it is likely that it is in error and that this is a subholding of 1,17 and that Fulcher Malsor (who does not appear in the Landholders' List on folio 280d) held from the king. The main scribe of Great Domesday should thus have written De terra huius manerii ('Of the land of this manor') as in 1,6, rather than Ibidem. The inclusion of the extent of the whole of Oakham at the end of this entry also suggests that it was merely a subholding of the main manor: 1,18 manor note.
	LEOFNOTH. The Domesday forms - Leuenot, Leuenod, Leueno - represent Old English Leofnoth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining third of the first line of this entry. The reason for this is unclear; in other counties the hundred or wapentake head occupied this place, but the gap cannot have been left for this here.
	FULCHER MALSOR. He appears to have been a Fleming or a Norman by origin. His nickname mala op[er]a here (compare Adam son of Durand malis operibus in ESS 63) corresponds to Old French malesoeuvres, ('bad works') though the significance is unclear. He was succeeded by his son Simon. His descendants named Milton Malsor (NTH 44,1a) and Thorpe Malsor (NTH 18,76). The latter was held by an undifferentiated Fulcher in 1086, who may have been the same as the present holder. See Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 349; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 201.
		The Domesday forms of his first name - Fulcher(us), Fulcher - represent Old German Fulcher: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 256. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Fulcher and Fulchere; these have now been standardized as Fulcher. The Alecto edition has Fulcher.
		Farley misprinted opa for op'a: he failed to see the line through the descender of the p denoting er.
	5 OXEN IN A PLOUGH. Three oxen were probably borrowed from elsewhere in Oakham (1,17) since the usual number of oxen to a plough-team is eight, but see CON 5,2,19 plough note.
	[VALUE]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have initially briefly omitted the value statement which lacks a verb and is partially interlined.
	THE WHOLE MANOR. This formula, applied to a whole vill or to a single manor where it forms the vill, is common in Little Domesday. In a territorially-arranged schedule, such as the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, the arrangement is by hundreds and within them by vills. At the end of the details of each vill a dimension for the whole (usually x leagues by y leagues) is given. In Little Domesday the dimensions appear, but nonsensically after only one estate or manor in the vill, since the estates that composed the vill have been divided among the various feudal schedules. 'Roteland' is arranged by wapentake, hundred and vill, but in Alstoe Wapentake these villar dimensions are absent. They are given for all three manors in 'Martinsley' Wapentake'.
1,19	HAMBLETON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held by Queen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland' (that is, presumably, 'Martinsley' Wapentake), to pass on her death to Westminster Abbey. Although the church, and its daughter in Stamford, passed to Westminster Abbey (1,19 churches note), William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. He or William II granted the central manor to William Barba, predecessor of the Umfraville family in which the manor and one of the outliers, Normanton, descended: the Red Book of the Exchequer (Hall, ii. p. 534); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 67-68.
		The main settlement was at 'Upper Hambleton', but there was also a 'Middle Hambleton' and a 'Nether Hambleton'; these last two are beneath the water of Empingham Reservoir, now called Rutland Water. Nether Hambleton was probably one of Hambleton's outliers: Place-Names of Rutland, p. 179.
		Hambleton had an important link with Stamford and contained the wapentake moot (which lay in Martinsthorpe, one of its outliers); it is possible that Hambleton was once the chief place in 'Martinsley' Wapentake and perhaps in a greater 'Roteland', though later displaced in importance by Oakham; see Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', pp. 75-76; and {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. On a possible relation with Empingham, see Place-Names of Rutland, p. 179; and 1,19 outliers note.
	7 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined cū .vii. Berew[itis], possibly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
		These outliers were probably at:
		Braunston (SK8306), later attached to Oakham (1,17 Oakham note) and held by Walchelin de Ferrers in 1167: Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 206-207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 33.
		Nether Hambleton (SK8906) identified by Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 80 note 17.
		Lyndon (SK9004), granted to the Earl of Warwick by William I or William II, subtenanted by the Montfort family: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 206; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 73. In Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207, it is associated with Uppingham and Wing (members of Ridlington, 1,20, itself held by the Earls of Warwick).
		Manton (SK8804). This outlier was divided after 1086. Henry I gave half to the Abbey of Cluny together with Tixover in Northamptonshire, part of Ketton (NTH 1,1); the other half went to William Mauduit, the king's chamberlain, and was held by serjeanty with Barrowden, South Luffenham and Morcott (all in Northamptonshire): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. pp. 234, 254 nos. 1618, 1721; Book of Fees, p. 1151; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 205, 207; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 77-79, 228.
		Martinsthorpe (SK8604). This was held by the Montforts under the Earls of Warwick (see Lyndon above) and was apparently joined to their manor of Preston, having the same descent as Uppingham (both were outliers of Ridlington: 1,20): Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 206-207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 84.
		Normanton (SK9306). This place was acquired with Hambleton by the Umfravilles and followed its descent: Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 206-207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 86. The shape of the parish boundary strongly suggests that it was once a part of Edith Weston.
		Edith Weston (SK9205) which preserves the name of the T.R.E. holder Queen Edith. It was given by Henry I to his chamberlain, William de Tankerville (Tancarville), who himself gave it to the Abbey of St George de Boscherville which he founded in Normandy: Book of Fees, p. 1151; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, i. p. 163, ii. p. 362. As a western tun, Edith Weston presumably related originally to the royal manor of Ketton (NTH 1,1) which has some significance for the development of the estate of Hambleton and for the history of Rutland; see Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 69; Place-Names of Rutland, p. 221; and {Introduction: History}.
		Market Overton is considered as a possible outlier in VCH Rutland, pp. 68, 141-42, but it is separately mentioned in Great Domesday (2,7) and had no apparent connection with Hambleton at that date.
		Detached from the body of the wapentake and probably belonging at first to Hambleton (though possibly to Oakham) were Clipsham (SK9616) and Pickworth (SK9913): VCH Rutland, ii. p. 265. These may represent outlying, possibly woodland, resources. The woodland here assigned to Hambleton appears to be too large to be contained within the stated dimensions of the manor. Alternatively this link may recall a time when the intervening parts of Alstoe Wapentake were also part of an estate based on Oakham-Hambleton-Ridlington. On Clipsham (held in the twelfth century by Ralph de Fre(s)ney - also called de Fra(i)sneto and de Fraxineto - the holder of Belton: 1,20 outliers note), see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 205, 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 42. On Pickworth, see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 205, 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 265. See also {Introduction: Manorial Organization}. It is suggested by Place-Names of Rutland, p. xlviii, that Clipsham was detached as a source of iron-working for the whole of 'Martinsley' Wapentake.
		In Northamptonshire, part of Empingham (NTH 46,5) held by Gilbert of Ghent and assessed at 7 ½ hides and 1 bovate, is said to be 'of the king's Jurisdiction of 'Roteland' '. This may be an ancient connection pre-dating the break-up of a larger 'Roteland' or its creation, or it may be a more recent arrangement. The nearest royal holding to Empingham is Hambleton; see {Introduction: History}.
		On the manor as a whole, see Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. pp. 67-68; Phythian-Adams, 'Rutland Reconsidered', p. 80.
	CHURCH JURISDICTION. See 1,17 jurisdiction note.
	QUEEN EDITH. See 1,17 queen note.
	3 CHURCHES. These are presumably one at Hambleton and one each at two of the outliers. One of these may have been at Manton for the advowson of a 'church' there was given to Richard, Earl of Cornwall by Henry III: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 52.
		One at least of these churches, presumably at Hambleton itself, was superior for St Peter's Church in Stamford belonged to it, held by Albert the cleric; see 7,21; LIN S13; and {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. On the advowson of Hambleton church, see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
	WHERE. This correctly renders Latin ubi, but ubi itself, which is equivalent to in quibus ('in which') is awkward here. It is possible that the main scribe of Great Domesday intended to write ubi ... sunt ('where there are ... '), but changed his mind and used the verb p[er]tin[ent] instead. The normal construction with the latter would be with ad ('to') and he should strictly have written ad quas if the lands were attached to the churches (aecclesiae is feminine), as in 1,17, or ad quos if the lands belonged to the priests (presbiteri, masculine). The Alecto edition has 'to which'.
	1 BOVATE AND 8 ACRES BELONG. Land (4 bovates) also belonged to the church at Oakham (1,17). These apparently straightforward statements are complicated by the entry at 7,21 where it is said that Albert the cleric has the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and St Peter of Stamford with the lands attached to them, 7 bovates. The entry for Oakham refers to 'a priest and a church' and that for Hambleton to '3 priests and 3 churches'. It seems likely that Albert's lands, though belonging to the churches of Oakham, Hambleton and St Peter of Stamford, were separate from the lands held by the four priests. An entry in Lincolnshire (LIN S13) appears to assign to Albert ½ carucate (4 bovates) and this may belong to the church of St Peter in Stamford; see 7,21 St Peter note.
	FERTILE UNDERWOOD IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. The Latin is silua minuta fertilis per loca. Silua minuta is perhaps a spinney or wood for coppicing, contrasting with silua elsewhere in 'Roteland'. Latin fertilis is from the verb fero, one of whose meanings is 'to produce, yield'. Here, however, the phrase fertilis appears to be a mere variant on pastilis ('pasturable': 4,14 woodland note): productive woodland can be grazed and grazing is only possible if the woodland is pasturable. The Alecto edition has 'bearing mast' for fertilis, but beech-trees seem improbable in a silua minuta and if fertilis is a variant for pastilis the phrase concerns grass-grazing, not pannage. On the phrase 'in [various] places', see 1,5 woodland note.
		For the possibility that this large wood (almost too large to fit within the dimensions of the manor and crowding out a large arable area represented by the 45 ploughs at work, as well as the 40 acres of meadow) was detached at Clipsham and Pickworth, see 1,19 outliers note. In Pickworth is Turnpole wood (TF0013), probably containing Old English thorn ('thornbush'); see Place-Names of Rutland, p. 158. Thorns were a valuable resource, and it may be that it was being exploited by the three royal manors of 'Martinsley' Wapentake.
	THE WHOLE MANOR. See 1,18 manor note.
1,20	RIDLINGTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It was held, like Oakham and Hambleton, by Queen Edith in 1066 as part of her dowry of 'Roteland' (that is, presumably, 'Martinsley' Wapentake), to pass on her death to Westminster Abbey. William I did not allow the grant to take full effect. He or his successor (William II) granted the main manor and four outliers to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick (1089-1119). The estate passed to Henry's son, Robert of Newburgh, also Earl of Warwick (1119-1153). Their subtenants were the Montforts: Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 206; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 92.
		In the Alecto facsimile the IN of REDLINCTVNE resembles a UI; see 1,6 Cottesmore note.
	7 OUTLIERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined cū .vii. Berew[itis], possibly not at the time of writing the text beneath; see 1,17 jurisdiction note.
		These outliers were probably at:
		Ayston (SK8600) which was granted with the main manor to Henry of Beaumont, and, like it, was held by the Earls of Warwick: Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 206-207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 59. Although Ayston will probably have been held by Queen Edith or by her predecessor, Aethelred's queen, as part of Ridlington, King Edward granted 3 cassati here (presumably for life with reversion to the queen) to his minister Aethelstan (who probably named the estate: Place-Names of Rutland, p. 171) in 1046 (Early Charters of Eastern England, p. 108 no. 161 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1014). The grant appears to be genuine and is significant since the 3 cassati seem to represent a hidation that was effaced by a systematic carucation after this date and before 1066; see {Introduction: Carucation}.
		Belton (SK8101). This was held from the manor of Oakham (1,17) by the twelfth century, by Ralph de Fre(s)ney (also called de Fra(i)sneto and de Fraxineto), who also held Clipsham (1,19 outliers note): Feudal Aids, iv. p. 206; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 28.
		Leigh (SK8204). This is now represented by Leigh Lodge and the Civil Parish of Leighfield created in 1858 from an extra-parochial area (Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 375). By the fifteenth century the forest of Rutland had shrunk to become Leighfield Forest, named from this manor: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, i. pp. 251-56, ii. pp. 15-16; Cantor, 'Medieval Hunting Grounds of Rutland', p. 16.
		Preston (SK8702). This was granted with the main manor to Henry of Beaumont and, like it, subtenanted by the Montfort family. Preston grew into a manor with members drawn from Ridlington (Uppingham, Wing) and Hambleton (Lyndon, Martinsthorpe): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 49; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 205, 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 88.
		Uppingham (SK8699). This was granted with Ridlington itself to Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick, and descended with it, likewise tenanted by the Montforts: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 96.
		Wardley (SK8300). This was later attached to the barony of Oakham: Feudal Aids, iv. p. 207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 53.
		Wing (SK8903). This was granted to Henry of Beaumont with the main manor and later merged with Preston. In the twelfth century part of the manor was given to Thorney Abbey (Cambridgeshire) and part to the priory of St Neots (Huntingdonshire); see Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 206-207; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 104.
		On the manor as a whole, see VCH Rutland, ii. p. 92.
	CHURCH JURISDICTION. See 1,17 jurisdiction note.
	QUEEN EDITH. See 1,17 queen note.
	3 CHURCHES. These were probably at Uppingham, Wardley and Belton, all to the south of Ridlington. These feature in a notification of William I that he has given the churches of these three places 'to St Peter and the monks of Westminster', with all their liberties and appurtenances as in the time of King Edward: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, no. 335 pp. 971-72 (= Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum. i. no. 275 p. 72); see Monasticon Anglicanum, i. p. 301 no. xlii; VCH Rutland, i. p. 133, ii. pp. 56, 91, 101; Mason, Westminster Abbey Charters, pp. 163-65; Mason, 'Westminster Abbey's Rutland Estates'; Harvey, Westminster Abbey Estates, p. 404. The document itself is a forgery, but may well contain authentic material. On the advowson of Uppingham church, see 1,17 jurisdiction note. Preston is 'the tun of the priests' (Place-Names of Rutland, p. 204).
		Of these churches, Uppingham was certainly important later (1,17 jurisdiction note). In the Taxatio Ecclesiastica of 1291 (p. 66) the Church of Uppingham is worth £28 and has portiones ('payments') from Wing, Ridlington, Preston Leigh, Bisbrooke and Martinsthorpe. Of these, Bisbrooke was a part of Barrowden in Northamptonshire (NTH 1,2e) in 1086 and perhaps is a further example of the intimate connection between Oakham-Hambleton-Ridlington and Barrowden-Ketton.
		The Abbot of Westminster also had a payment (pensio) for Uppingham rated at £2 (see Valor Ecclesiasticus, i. p. 414). A church of Wardley and Belton is separately named, as is a church at Ridlington.
	2 MILL-SITES. The Latin is ii. sed[es] molin[orum] and this unusual detail explains why no value is given, though the mill in Greetham (1,5) has no value recorded for it.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND IN [VARIOUS] PLACES. See 1,5 woodland note.
	THE WHOLE MANOR. See 1,18 manor note.
7	[LAND OF ALBERT THE CLERIC]. He was also known as Albert of Lorraine and Albert the chaplain. Like Bishop Giso of Wells and others he was a Lotharingian (Lorrainer) recruited for the English church by Edward the Confessor. He served that king and his successor, William I, as chaplain. In Domesday he is both a tenant-in-chief and subtenant. His Bedfordshire fief (BDF 49) passed to the barony of Beauchamp, but the undertenants were surnamed Loereng, Lohareng or Loring, which suggests that they were Albert's descendants. Albert appears to have died between 1086 and 1096; possibly between 1086 and 1087, that is, after the Domesday Survey but before the death of William I if the writ of 'King William' granting Westminster Abbey 'the churches of 'Roteland' and the lands belonging to those churches as Albert the Lotharingian had them' (Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, no. 336 p. 973) is related to a writ granting 'the tithe' of 'Roteland' to Westminster Abbey (Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, no. 334 p. 970) which is definitely a writ of William I. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 133.
		The Domesday form of his name, Albertus (regularly abbreviated to Alb[er]t[us]) represents Old German Albert: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 143; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 19-20.
		In the Landholders' List for Rotelande included at the end of the Landholders' List in Nottinghamshire on folio 280d Albert the cleric is entered in the seventh place. On the apparent decision by the main scribe of Great Domesday not to continue including fief numbers in the margin here, see 4,14 Oger note.
		Although the scribe had included Albert the cleric as a landholder in the List, it appears that Albert's holding of 1 bovate was part of the manor of Ridlington (1,20), so he did not hold in chief but as a subtenant of the king. The rest of the entry records his holding from the king of three churches and lands attached to them.
7,21	IN THE AFORESAID LAND. Latin terra is singular, so must refer to Ridlington only. The main scribe of Great Domesday could have written De terra huius/eiusdem/predicti manerii ('Of the land of this/the same/the aforesaid manor'); see RUT 7 Albert note.
	CHURCH OF OAKHAM … STAMFORD. Albert did not, apparently, hold the church or churches of Ridlington (which were actually at Uppingham, Belton and Wardley). For the record of a grant by William I to Westminster Abbey of churches in 'Roteland' with attached lands 'as Albert of Lorraine held them', see {Introduction: History}.
	ST PETER OF STAMFORD. LIN S13 states 'Albert [has?] 1 church, St Peter's [of Stamford], with 2 messuages and ½ carucate of land which lies in 'Roteland', in Hambleton'. The messuages mentioned there were clearly in Stamford, but Domesday clearly says that the ½ carucate lay in Hambleton - the Latin quae refers to terra ('land') - which is where the present entry says he held land. 'Lies in' (iacet in) gives the actual location and is not the same as iacet ad ('is an adjunct of') which does not. However, there is some difficulty in reconciling the figures for the amount of land that he and the priests held: 1,19 bovate note and 7,21 bovates note.
		St Peter's was probably the oldest church of the borough of Stamford, but it was a daughter church of Hambleton. The connection between Stamford and Hambleton (which may be part of a larger relationship between the borough and 'Martinsley' Wapentake, or 'Roteland') may well have been ancient; see {Introduction: History}
		On Stamford, see {Introduction: Boroughs}.
	THE LANDS ATTACHED TO THESE CHURCHES. The Latin eisdem ęcclesiis is in the dative case, as expected after the verb adiacere ('to belong to'). In the Phillimore printed edition it was mistranslated as 'the attached lands of these churches', as if the Latin were earumdem ęcclesiarum (genitive), though the meaning is essentially the same.
	7 BOVATES. It would appear that these are separate from the 4 bovates belonging to the church at Oakham in 1,17 and the 1 bovate and 8 acres belonging to Hambleton in 1,19; see 1,19 bovate note and 7,21 St Peter note.
	8 PLOUGHS POSSIBLE. See R2 ploughs note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the scribe left blank the remainder of folio 294: only the first nine lines had been used, but the whole folio had been ruled, as had folio 295, similarly left blank; see {Introduction: Writing}.