NOTES
(version 1a)

STAFFORDSHIRE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the running title STATFORDSCIRE. in vermilion capitals across the top of folios 246ab-248ab, folio 249abcd and folio 250cd, centred above both columns. He wrote STATFORTSCIRE. on folio 248cd and folio 250ab. There are no running titles on the last folio of the quire, folio 250, because it is blank. He used the form STADFORDSCIRE. in the Landholders' List on folio 246a.
	When quoting from the text, the abbreviated forms are retained wherever possible, or the extensions to them are enclosed in square brackets; only where there is no doubt is the Latin extended silently. The Anglo-Saxon letters thorn (þ) and eth (ð) are reproduced as th.

B1	THIS SECTION on the borough of Stafford (B1-17) was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday using a paler ink and pen with a fatter point than he used for the Landholders' List later on folio 246a and chapter 1 beginning in the opposite column (folio 246b). In several counties in Great Domesday the borough section was not written using the same pen and ink as the material succeeding it, suggesting it was a slightly later insertion. Compare L1 section note.
	[* BOROUGH *]. This heading has been inserted to indicate that Stafford is not apparently in any hundred; see B1 Stafford note.
	THE BOROUGH OF STAFFORD. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 93, reckoned it in Pirehill Hundred. Certainly, the single Ancient Parish of St Mary extended beyond the borough to include a number of Domesday estates: Enson (1,43), Marston (8,9), 'Coton' (8,14), Burton (11,6), 'Silkmore' (11,6), Hopton (11,11) and Salt (11,12). It also contained the township of Castle Church in which lay Rickerscote (11,67) and "Monetvile" (11,68); see 11,6 Bradley note. The parts of this Ancient Parish which lay outside the borough were in Pirehill Hundred, but the borough itself paid an annual lump sum as most other boroughs do, and there is no reason to think that it was involved in any way with a hundred.
		The name Stafford is from Old English staeth and ford, meaning 'landing-place at the ford'. The ford was probably in the River Sow on the western approach to Stafford. Stafford is a low-lying and marshy site, not at an ancient crossroads and it appears that the place had no particular importance until Aethelflaed built a burh there in 913; see the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under 913 and {Introduction: History}. Thereafter, it appears from excavations that it was a place where pottery was manufactured and grain stored and processed. A minster church was established here at an unknown date. It shared the dedication to Saint Bertelin with Runcorn in Cheshire and both may have been the work of Aethelflaed early in the tenth century. A mint was established in Stafford under King Athelstan (924-939) and continued to function until the reign of Henry II (1154-1189).
		William defeated the Staffordshire rebels in 1069 and passed through the shire again in 1070, when, it appears, a castle was built; see {Introduction: History}. William's castle was built on land belonging to Chebsey (10,9), but its location is uncertain, unless it was the predecessor of the castle that William Pantulf held for the king against Robert of Bellême in 1102, and was the same as the castle outside the borough later occupied by the lords of Stafford; see {Introduction: Castles}.
		In 1086 it was the only borough in Domesday recorded as paying less after the Conquest than before, which is a reflection of the poverty of Staffordshire as a whole.
		On the early history of Stafford, see Carver, 'Underneath Stafford Town'; Gelling, West Midlands, pp. 153-55; VCH Staffordshire, vi. pp. 186-245.
	8 UNOCCUPIED MESSUAGES. The Latin is uastę. Although the word is often translated by 'waste', both of buildings and of rural estates, the real sense is 'unoccupied', 'empty', 'abandoned' and, in rural areas only, 'uncultivated'. In the absence of other evidence the notion of 'wasted', 'damaged' is not necessarily implied. See 8,18 waste note.
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'dwellings'. The Latin is mans[iones], which is difficult to differentiate in meaning from ma[n]surae. Because of its occasional association with domus ('house', 'dwelling') mansio is clearly more than a house; it is probably a house-site, that is, a messuage, which might contain one or more dwellings. In Nottingham, for example, Roger of Bully has 3 mansiones in which there are 11 houses (B8). The Alecto edition has 'messuages'.
	OF THE EARLS' HONOUR. Honor is equivalent to feudum, 'Holding'; in Domesday it is mainly, but not always, used for the holdings of earls and great magnates (JRM).
		The Phillimore printed translation has 'of the Earl's Honour' both here and in B6. However, the Latin comitu[m] is clearly plural (the singular is comitis) and means 'of the earls'. The same sense seems intended by the phrase de comitatu ('of the earldom') in B8. The earls could be Edwin, Earl of Mercia (see 8,5 Edwin note) and Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury. However, in 1086, although Roger was holding an important part of the Earldom of Mercia, he was not holding the whole of it: Earl Hugh of Cheshire held another part. Moreover, the notion of an 'Earldom of Mercia' was anachronistic in 1086. In addition, the holdings of Robert of Stafford 'of the earls' honour' (B6) and William son of Ansculf's holding 'of the earldom' (B8) involve estates that were not held by Earl Roger. It seems most likely that the earls in question are the English Earls of Mercia, that is, in succession, Earls Leofric, Algar and Edwin.
B2	THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. That is, the diocesan bishop, formerly of Lichfield; see STS 2.
	14 MESSUAGES. These were presumably attached to one or more of the bishop's rural manors. This arrangement is made clear in WAR B2: 'These messuages belong to the lands which these barons hold outside the borough and are there assessed'.
B3	BURTON ABBEY. That is, the Benedictine Abbey of Burton; see STS 4.
	5 MESSUAGES. These were presumably attached to one or more of the abbot's rural manors.
B4	EARL ROGER. That is, Earl Roger of Shrewsbury; see STS 8.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Rogeri(us), Roger(us), but frequently abbreviated to Rog' - represent Old German Hrodger, Rodger, Rotger, Rog(g)er etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 317-18. The Alecto edition also has Roger. On the erroneous form Reger, see 8,10 Roger note.
	ARE AN ADJUNCT OF SHERIFFHALES. The Phillimore printed edition has 'lie in' which more correctly translates iacent in.
		For Sheriffhales, Earl Roger's manor, see 8,5.
	WITHIN THE WALLS. Strictly the Latin intra murum means 'within the wall' which formed a single circuit enclosing the borough. The date at which Stafford became a walled town, as distinct from a fortified burh, is uncertain, but these walls may have been associated with the erection of the Norman castle outside; see {Introduction: Castles}.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote murum in slightly darker ink over an erasure, which was probably of a longer word than murum as he wrote that larger than the surrounding text to fill the space.
B5	HUGH [* OF MONTGOMERY *]. He was the son of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury; for his small fief, see STS 9.
		The Domesday form of his first name, Hugo (as it is regarded as a third declension noun in Latin the genitive is Hugonis, the accusative Hugonem, the dative Hugoni and the ablative Hugone), represents Old German Hugo, Old French Hugon, Huë: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 157-58. Hugh, which also derives from the Latin Hugo (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Hugh.
	FROM THE EARLDOM. Comitatus, normally used in Domesday for English 'shire'; here in the continental sense of the holdings of a count or earl, Latin comes. (JRM). Here is probably refers to the Earldom of Mercia; see B1 honour note. Worfield (9,1) had been held T.R.E. by Algar, Earl of Mercia.
	THEY BELONG TO WORFIELD. That is, to Hugh's holding there (9,1).
B6	ROBERT OF STAFFORD. For his fief, see STS 11.
		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.
	OF THE EARLS' HONOUR. That is, of Earl Edwin's honour of Mercia. As in B1, the Latin comitu[m] (' of the earls') is plural and appears to refer to the 'honour' held by successive earls of Mercia, that is by Earl Leofric, Earl Algar his son and Earl Edwin, Algar's son; see B1 honour note. A distinction is clearly drawn between the messuages that Robert of Stafford holds 'from the earls' honour' (B6) and those that he holds 'of his own Holding' (B7). The Phillimore printed translation has 'earl's' as if from the Latin comitis, singular, and referring to Earl Roger, who, however, did not hold Bradley.
	THEY BELONG TO BRADLEY. Robert of Stafford's lordship manor there is 11,6, held T.R.E. by Earl Edwin. Tenements in Stafford still belonged to Bradley in 1372.
B7	ROBERT ^[OF STAFFORD]^. The Latin Idem Robertus indicates that this Robert is the same person as in the previous entry. For his fief, see STS 11, and for his name, see B6 Robert note.
	OF HIS OWN HOLDING. The Latin is de feudo suo, that is 'of his own fee/fief'; see B1 honour note. These 41 messuages contrast with the 13 which he holds 'of the earls' honour' (B6).
B8	WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. For his fief, see STS 12.
		The Domesday form of William, Willelmus (often abbreviated to Will's), represents Old German Willihelm, Willehelm, Willelm, Rom. Guill[i]elm: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 255-57. JRM preferred the common name William, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has William.
		The Domesday forms of his father's name - Ansculfus, Ansculf, Anscul, Anscholfus, Ascolf - represent Old German A(n)sculf, the form with n being the Romance variant: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 161. According to Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 171, Ansculfus is the Old French form of this name. The Alecto edition has Ansculf.
	4 MESSUAGES OF THE EARLDOM. The Latin is de comitatu, and the meaning is essentially the same as de honore comitum ('from the earls' honour') in B1;6; see B1 honour note.
	WHICH BELONG TO PENN, A MANOR OF THE EARLS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote comit' over an erasure, using slightly darker ink; the original word was shorter as he had to compress its replacement.
		The Latin M' comit' could be extended to manerium comitis or manerium comitum ('a manor of the earl' or 'a manor of the earls'), although the abbreviation line over the t regularly indicates an omitted m (here um), whereas the singular comitis is generally indicated by the 'lightning' abbreviation sign as in B12. In view of the occurrence of the plural comitum in B1;6, it is probably more likely to be comitum ('of the earls' ) here. One place called Penn (12,6) had been held by Earl Algar, father of Earl Edwin, and the other Penn (12,5) by Countess Godiva, wife of Earl Leofric; they were the parents of Earl Algar. However, if comit' is singular, it could refer to one of the earls of Mercia. The only earl in 1086 was Earl Roger, but he did not hold Penn, so the single manor intended is presumably the Penn of 12,6, held by Earl Algar and presumably before him by Earl Leofric. Thus, comit' could be singular or plural. Penn (12,5-6) may have been a single comital manor out of which Earl Leofric had granted a part (12,5) to his wife. For a similar situation, see B6 honour note, and for the interpretation of 'earls', see B1 honour note. The Alecto edition translates comit' as singular and identifies Penn as Upper Penn (12,6).
	INHABITED. The Phillimore printed translation has 'habitable' for the Latin hospitata. However, the Latin for that is hospitabilis or (in)habitabilis. The word hospitata is a past participle from the verb hospitor which is itself derived from hospes ('guest', 'tenant', 'occupier'); the participle means 'having received a guest/tenant/occupier'. The sense appears to be no different from that of the participle inhabitata ('inhabited') derived from the verb inhabito, which is found in aliae inhabitantur ('the others are inhabited') in B1.
B9	HENRY OF FERRERS. For his fief, see STS 10.
		The Domesday form of his first name, Henric(us), represents Old German Heinric, Henric, Old French Henri: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 147; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 289. JRM preferred the common name Henry, which has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Henry, except for the only T.R.E. holder (NFK 32,7) where it has Heanric.
B10	THE PRIESTS OF THE BOROUGH. These are no doubt the same as the 13 prebendary canons of 6,1. The 14 ^[messuages]^ (understood from mans[ionem] uastā earlier in the line) allows them one each with one perhaps for their praepositus, later known as a dean. On their church, see 6,1 canons note. This should not have been made a separate entry in the Phillimore edition.
B11	ALL OF THESE HAVE FULL JURISDICTION. That is, the major lay and ecclesiastical holders mentioned in B2-9: the Bishop of Chester, Burton Abbey, Earl Roger, Hugh of Montgomery, Robert of Stafford, William son of Ansculf and Henry of Ferrers. The king himself had more than 'full jurisdiction'. The priests of the borough (B10) who served in the king's church (6,1) are probably excluded by their subordinate status. These other holders probably exercised their jurisdiction in the manors (not all are named) to which their holdings in Stafford were appurtenant.
		The Latin sacha 7 socha is from Old English sacu ('cause', affair', 'matter in dispute') and socn (a 'seeking'). The two terms only make full sense if taken together, and the presence of sacha in the phrase implies one particular meaning of socha. Essentially these two words refer to the lord's right to have a court, to compel suit (attendance) at it and his right to investigate and hear cases. It is often translated as 'with sake and soke'. By the eleventh-century, the lord's powers seem to have extended from jurisdiction and justice and the right to receive fines to the right to have other dues and services, or money in their place. Men with full jurisdiction seem to have been able to grant portions of their estates to tenants.
	THE KING HAS TAX FROM THEM. These individual payments along with the payments from each burgess will have amounted to the firma burgi and will have been additional to those that each magnate could get from men subject to him.
	EACH YEAR. This is the only explicit statement that geldum was levied annually by 1086; though originally and formally imposed only in emergency, it had become virtually annual. (JRM).
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a space equivalent to two lines of writing in order to separate the account of the messuages in Stafford (B1-11) from the payments received from this borough in 1066 and 1086.
B12	£9 OF PENCE. The phrase 'of pence' in Domesday Book occurs some sixteen times, often in connection with a payment 'at 20 to the "ora", that is, at the 20d rate, rather than the usual rate of 16d to the "ora"; it also occurs as '18 "ora" of pence' (see SHR 4,1,21 due note) and '3 (or 2) "ora" of pence', as well as simply so many pounds of pence, as here. However, in KEN 1,1 the reeve in 1086 pays from Dartford '£70 weighed (pensatas) and 111s of pence at 20 to the "ora", and £7 and 26d at face value (ad numerum)'. Dover also made payments 'at face value' to the earl and 'of pence, which are at 20 to the "ora" ' to the king (KEN D7). As the separate payments from Dover represent the usual split between the king and the earl, a distinction is probably being made in the Dartford entry between a payment 'of pence at 20 to the "ora" ' and one that had been 'weighed'. It is possible that the £9 in the present entry were reckoned 'at face value'. On the "ora", see NTT S1 hundreds note.
		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 as £(ibrae), s(olidi)and d(enarii). Domesday often expresses sums above a shilling in pence (for example, 30d in 1,22) and above a pound in shillings (for example, 70s in 1,1).
	FROM ALL THE CUSTOMARY DUES. These were the payments and obligations placed on a burgess or on his tenement. Principal among them was land tax (landgabulum), but there were also tolls and judicial forfeitures. Some customary payments varied from borough to borough, but payments for brewing ale and tithing penny were common. Personal obligations, such as town watch, carrying or carting duties, working in the town fields, feeding prisoners and walling could be commuted into money payments. See Tait, Medieval English Borough, pp. 96-98.
	TWO PARTS WERE THE KING'S, THE THIRD [PART WAS] THE EARL'S. Here the Latin comit' abbreviates the singular comitis, as the reference is to the division of the revenues at a particular time. The last Earl of Mercia was Earl Edwin; see 8,5 Edwin note. This division of a borough's revenues between king and earl on the basis of two-thirds to one-third, is normal. There being no Earl of Stafford in 1086, the king should receive the whole sum, but in this case has given part of his share to Robert of Stafford, the sheriff.
	KING WILLIAM. For the name William, see B8 William note.
	ROBERT. For this name, see B6 Robert note.
	HAS HALF THE KING'S OWN PART. According to this entry, the king received £7 from the borough representing both his part and the earl's part; furthermore, it is said that Robert [of Stafford] has half the king's 'own part'. The king's own part was two-thirds of the £7, the earl's part being one-third. At 11,7, however, Robert is said to receive 70s which is not half of the king's part but half of the king's total revenue of £7.
	SO HE SAYS. The Phillimore printed translation has 'as he says', but there is probably an element of surprise and doubt in the Latin ut dicit.
		See also Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 239 no. 1465.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left about a third of a column blank before writing the Landholders' List (STS L) towards the bottom of the space allotted to writing.
L1	THIS SECTION on the landholders (L1-17) was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday using a darker ink and a different pen to those used by him for the borough section earlier in this column (folio 246a); see B1 section note. He used a less dark ink for chapter 1, beginning on the next column (folio 246b) and probably a different pen. This suggests that the contents of this page were written on three different occasions, as happened in some other counties in Great Domesday.
L6	THE CANONS OF STAFFORD AND OF WOLVERHAMPTON. In the text on folio 247d chapter 6 (which has no chapter heading) contains only the holding of the 13 prebendary canons of Stafford. Chapter 7, which succeeds it, has the heading 'Land of the Clerics of Wolverhampton', but also contains the single holding of Samson [the cleric] (7,13), who in the Landholders' List here on folio 246a is allotted a separate number, VII. Such discrepancies between the List and the text are common in Great Domesday Book and were sometimes caused by the List not being written at the same time as the rest of the county.
		There is no obvious reason why the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a large capital N in HaNdone (Wolverhampton); it is not over the erasure of several letters, a frequent reason why he wrote larger (see B4 walls note).
1	LAND OF THE KING. King William. He was born in 1027 or 1028, the son of Robert I, Duke of Normandy, and Arlette daughter of Fulbert the tanner of Falaise. Duke of Normandy 1035-1087, William seized the English throne in 1066 having defeated the uncrowned English King Harold, son of Godwin, at the battle of Hastings. William himself was crowned in Westminster Abbey on 25th December 1066 and ruled England until his death in 1087. In 1050 or 1051 he married Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V, Count of Flanders; she predeceased him. Among his children were Robert Curthose, William Rufus, Henry, Cecilia (Abbess of Caen), and Constance (married to Count Alan of Brittany). He was succeeded in Normandy by his son Robert Curthose and in England first by his son William Rufus (William II, 1087-1100), then by his son Henry (Henry I, 1100-1135).
	The Terra Regis is divided, it appears, into three sections. The first (1,1-10) probably contains the land held T.R.E. by King Edward, although only two estates are actually attributed to him (1,1;7), the entries are muddled and it is not certain how many manors there were, as opposed to dependencies. The second section (1,11-32) consists of land held T.R.E. by Earls Algar and Harold, although the latter only held one of the estates (1,12). The third section (1,33-64) contains 'waste' or abandoned land in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds, the entries for which are very brief.
	Although the main scribe of Great Domesday included hundred heads at 1,1;8;11;33;48, the last two are erroneous and there are thirteen others missing. When these are restored, the arrangement within the first two sections appears a jumble, with portions of the same hundred appearing several times, even though the T.R.E. holder was the same. It is as if the list of royal manors was not drawn up from material arranged by hundreds. It is possible, however, that a royal reeve provided a check-list divided only into the three broad categories and that the full manorial detail was inserted into it from just such a territorially-arranged schedule.
		The 'arrangement' of this chapter appears to be as follows:
Chapter and Section references and Hundreds	T.R.E. holders	
1,1-4 Seisdon Hundred
1,5-6 [Offlow Hundred]
1,7 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
1,8 Pirehill Hunded
1,9-10 [Offlow Hundred]	King Edward (1,1). Not stated (1,2-4)
(not stated)
King Edward
(not stated)
(not stated)	
1,11-12 Offlow Hundred
1,13-16 [Pirehill Hundred]
1,17-19 [Totmonslow Hundred]
1,20 [Offlow Hundred]
1,21 [Totmonslow Hundred]
1,22 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
1,23 [Totmonslow Hundred]
1,24-25 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
1,26 [Offlow Hundred]
1,27-28 [Seisdon Hundred]
1,29-32 [Offlow Hundred]	Earl Algar (1,11). Earl Harold (1,12)
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar
Earl Algar	
1,33-47 Cuttlestone [actually Pirehill] Hundred
1,48-64 Pirehill [actually Totmonslow] Hundred	Various
Various	

	The first section may well have been intended to consist of land held by King Edward. If some estates, though listed separately, were in fact parts of others, the arrangement may be slightly simpler:
		1,1 Kingswinford
		1,2-5 Tettenhall
		1,6 Wednesbury
		1,7 Penkridge
		1,8 Trentham
		1,9 Wigginton
		1,10 Willenhall
	The final section consists of land in Pirehill and Totmonslow Hundreds that was not under cultivation in 1086. As such only the barest details are available. The only personal names are of those who had held the land, perhaps in 1066, or perhaps the last holders T.R.W. before abandonment who could have also held T.R.E. and stayed on before the fighting round Stafford and the great re-distribution of lands early in William's reign. Sometimes a hidage is given, suggesting that it was still a matter of record or of memory. In other cases, perhaps those abandoned earliest, the land is assessed in carucates, which are probably a more recent assessment to replace a forgotten earlier one in hides; see 1,5 carucate note and compare 1,47 carucate note.
		The information varies. Sometimes there are hides and a plough estimate, but in all cases but one (1,47) land assessed in carucates is not accompanied by a plough estimate. Sometimes only a plough estimate is given and in a few cases there is hesitation about the number of ploughs in it. There is also a difference between the survey of the two hundreds, that for Totmonslow containing no assessments in hides and either an assessment in carucates or an estimate in ploughs, but not both.
		In cases where (as in 1,33) there is a hidage ('1 hide') and a plough estimate ('Land for 3 ploughs') it is natural to assume that the latter is the normal plough estimate as elsewhere in Domesday (1,1 ploughs note). However, in the list of lands in Totmonslow Hundred (1,48-64) where no entry contains both an assessment in carucates and the 'land for n ploughs' formula, it is possible that the latter is equivalent to the former; in other words, that 'land for 1 plough' is there the same as '1 carucate'; see 1,56 carucate note. Likewise in the list of members of Lichfield (2,16) three are described as having 'n carucates of land' and two have 'land for n ploughs'. A study of the phrasing in some entries in the south-west counties of Great Domesday and in their corresponding entries in the Liber Exoniensis, the direct predecessor of these counties, certainly suggests that the two statements were interchangeable; see DEV 1,1 carucates note. In other entries, such as those for the members of Eccleshall (2,11;21 and probably 2,20) and Lichfield (2,16;22), there is no assessment in hides or carucates so the 'land for n ploughs' statement may represent this assessment, rather than being an estimate of potential exploitation.
		The source of the account of these 'waste' lands is unlikely to have been a geld list in the sense of a list containing only place-names, holder and taxable hidage, because many entries contain a plough estimate, which is unlikely to have formed part of a geld list and is probably a T.R.W. measure. The reasons for their abandonment are unclear. Staffordshire was much damaged in 1069 and in 1070 by William's army; see {Introduction: History}. In itself the land would soon have recovered, but not if its cultivators had been killed or fled. Shrinkage of the population for whatever reason is the likeliest cause of abandonment. It is significant that other parts of the villages listed here were under full exploitation in 1086.
		The origin of these abandoned estates is unclear. Some of them may in 1066 have been held from the king and in other circumstances would either be silently included in the details of a royal manor or be found in the final chapter, 'Land of the King's Thanes'. Other lands will no doubt have come to the king on the death of their holder or possibly by forfeiture or banishment. Some lands are evidently parts of royal manors: for example, Endon (1,61), Rudyard (1,63) and Rushton (1,64) had probably been part of the manor of Leek (see 1,21 dependencies note); Bucknall (1,34) and Shelton (1,38) of Penkhull (1,16) or of Trentham (1,8; see 1,8 Trentham note). These may have been listed separately from the head manor because they were waste or they were parts of the manor that had been held by a 'thane' and would have been included in chapter 17 if the land were still under the plough and had a holder. Compare the account of the royal lands in Domesday Yorkshire which were originally omitted and then written on two inserted half-sheets, folios 300-301; although not 'waste', they may have been initially omitted because they were in the process of being re-allocated or because the main scribe of Great Domesday originally intended to put them in the chapter on the thanes' lands and then changed his mind.
	On the possibility that royal land at Wolverhampton was omitted from Domesday, see 7,1 hide note.
	The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the figure I beside the chapter heading, as he did for the Terra Regis section in several counties; the reason for this is not known.
1,1	KINGSWINFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9,15. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Old Swinford was in Worcestershire. The county boundary had presumably divided an ancient land-unit.
		Kingswinford acted as a collection point for certain royal revenues. An entry in Domesday Worcestershire (WOR 1,4) reports 'From Kinver, he [the sheriff] pays 100s at 20 [pence] to the "ora". This land is in Staffordshire. Also Kingswinford is likewise. From this manor and from another 2 which are in Worcestershire - that is, Tardebigge at 9 hides and Clent at 9 hides - from these 3 manors the sheriff pays £15 of pence at 20 to the "ora".'. The entry for Tardebigge in Worcestershire (WOR 1,5) records that 'The sheriff of Staffordshire receives and pays the revenue of this manor in Kingswinford, that is £11 of pence at 20 to the "ora" '. Of Clent, also in Worcestershire (WOR 1,6) Domesday says: 'The revenue of this manor, £4, is paid in Kingswinford in Staffordshire'.
		These three entries come at the end of the survey of royal land in Worcestershire together with mention of some particulars of Droitwich (WOR 1,3a-3b;7). They are probably placed there because of their exceptional or miscellaneous nature. JRM in the Phillimore printed edition (1,27 note) suggested that they had once had the same holder. This would be the most probable reason for the concentration of these renders on one manor. However, in 1066 Kingswinford, Clent and Tardebigge were held by King Edward and Kinver by Earl Algar. Nonetheless, the grant to Algar or his predecessors as earl could have been of a royal estate or from one. JRM further added that: 'Both Worcestershire manors lie south-east of Kingswinford, 15 and 7 miles distant, all three on the line of a probable Roman road from Greensforge in Kingswinford to Alcester'. This might have significance if Kingswinford had once been the centre of a multiple estate whose members (possibly whose lordship land) had included Kinver, Tarbebigge and Clent, and which had partially disintegrated and been severed by the later county boundary.
		There is, indeed, evidence that the three estates, Kingswinford, Clent and Tardebigge, had been linked, at least from the time of King Ethelred (978 or 979 to 1016). Hemming, Chartularium, pp. 276-77, under the heading DE STAEFFORD SCIRE, recorded how he had learnt from Bishop Wulfstan of Worcester (1062-1095) that a dean of the monastery called Aegelsius, who was also wealthy and among the royal counsellors, had purchased these three vills from King Ethelred. He had them for his lifetime but intended them for the monastery. In the chaos that followed King Ethelred's death, with King Edmund Ironside warring with the Danish king Cnut, a sheriff of Staffordshire called Aevic seized them on Aegelsius' death. Hemming added: 'As a result, until now all these vills are in the hands of the sheriff of Staffordshire, although certain of them are situated in this sheriffdom [Worcestershire]'.
		The church lost the manors and these unusual arrangements were destined to endure: in 1086, Clent and Tardebrigge were already fiscally in Staffordshire. They were not considered to be parts of Worcestershire again until the nineteenth century. Clent returned to Worcestershire from Staffordshire in 1844. Tardebrigge was in Staffordshire until 1266, then in Warwickshire until 1844 when it returned to Worcestershire; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 276-277, 326, 352; VCH Worcestershire, iii. p. 3; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. pp. 475, 490.
		After 1086, Kingswinford was granted away by the Crown and in 1254-55 together with the manors of Clent and Meretown (1,24) was in the hands of Roger de Somery, holder of the barony of Dudley; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116. No church is mentioned as existing in 1086, but in later times it was held by the king; see Book of Fees, p. 1331.
	KING EDWARD. The Domesday forms of Edward - Eduuard(us), Eduardus, Eaduuardus, Edw[ardus], Euuard[us] etc. - represent Old English Eadweard: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 237-38. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- and the second element -ward for Old English -weard, as they reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edward has survived into modern times and the king is known as Edward. The Alecto edition also has Edward.
	LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. This is an estimate of the number of ploughs that Kingswinford could support. It may be an answer to the final question included in the 'terms of reference' for those carrying out the Domesday Survey recorded in the Liber Eliensis (Hamilton, Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, p. 97): et si potest plus haberi quam habeatur ('and if more can be assessed than may [currently] be assessed'). This plough estimate is not the same as an assessment in hides (or carucates) and it is often not the same as the number of ploughs recorded as actually at work.
	IN LORDSHIP 1; 1 SLAVE; 14 VILLAGERS ... . JRM decided to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin punctuation here by putting a semi-colon after the slave - the villagers and smallholders with their ploughs are not separated from the lordship plough and slave by a verb, though it is very unlikely that they were regarded as part of the lordship. This occurs in many entries in Domesday, though the alternative formula, where the statement on the villagers and smallholders forms a new clause with the verb habent ('they have') replacing cum (as in 1,29: '33 villagers and 7 smallholders with a priest have 11 ploughs'), may not reflect a real difference, but merely a variation in phrasing.
	A MILL AT 2s. Mills (water-mills) occur in fifty-five entries in Domesday Staffordshire, mostly one per entry, though 2 mills are recorded on eight estates and 3 mills appear at Worfield (9,1). As here they are given a money render (with a render of eels too in 1,24), though three times no render is mentioned. They are generally listed at the start of the resources. On the mill specifically said to be in lordship, see 1,31 mill note.
	TO THIS MANOR BELONGS. In the Danelaw counties places are systematically designated as manors, outliers or jurisdictions. In Staffordshire, however, and in most other counties, the mentions of manor are incidental; see B8. 1,1;6-7;30;32. 2,2;9;11;16;20-22. 8,5;9;29;31. 10,9. 11,6;37;56. 12,1;22. 14,1. However, estates can generally be assumed to be manors in the absence of indications to the contrary; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
	'CROCKINGTON'. This was a former settlement in the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish.
		The name 'Crockington' survives as that of a lane, between Trysull and Seisdon: VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 38 note 5 (JRM). Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 35, left this place unidentified, but Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, suggested 'Crockington'. The site of the lost village is given as SO843943 in Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. This grid reference is the same as that for the location of Crockington Lane on the Ordnance Survey 1:10,000 sheet SO89SW of 1967.
		A further 1 ½ hides, waste, are listed in the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,16), but it is said that (in 1066) the king had the jurisdiction over its holders; see 12,17 jurisdiction note. The 1 ½ hides had probably been alienated from this estate and therefore from Kingswinford.
1,2	TETTENHALL. This small estate of 1 hide was what was left to the king after another hide here had been granted to found a collegiate church here (7,5). The royal estate had perhaps once been larger, if the contents of the later Ancient Parish are any guide: it contained Compton (1,2), Wightwick (1,3), [Old] Perton (3,1), Trescott (7,4), Bilbrook (7,5), Oaken (11,45), Wrottesley (11,46), Pendeford (12,20) and Codsall (17,1). It is possible that Wolverhampton (7,1) had also been granted out of Tettenhall, that Bilston (1,4) had once been part of it and that the royal land in 1086 was a mere fragment of a once great multiple estate.
		The layout of this part of the Terra Regis with the major manors introduced by Rex tenet (Kingswinford, 1,1; Tettenhall, 1,2; Wednesbury, 1,6; Penkridge, 1,7) and dependencies by In ... suggests that not only did Wightwick (1,3) belong to Tettenhall (as Domesday expressly says) but also Bilston (1,4) and Bescot (1,5). Wightwick was a member of Tettenhall Ancient Parish, and Bilston of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter, but Bescot lay at a distance and like Wednesbury (1,6) was in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew); Walsall like Bescot and Wednesbury also lay in another hundred (Offlow). As Bescot directly precedes Wednesbury in the text, it is easy to connect the two, but it may be that Tettenhall was the mother settlement, that Wednesbury too had once belonged to it and that it was only later that Bescot and Wednesbury became directly linked through the growing importance of Walsall.
		Tettenhall is recorded by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the year 910 as the site of a major defeat of the Danes. The battle appears to have actually taken place in Uodnesfelda campo, that is, near Wednesfield (Aethelweard, Chronicle, pp. 52-53) and this might suggest that Wednesfield (1,6. 7,7) also was once part of Tettenhall; see Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 323-24.
		After 1086, administratively this was regarded largely as a collegiate area, dependent on the church holding (7,5, a gift of the king in alms), then an Ancient Parish. Ecclesiastically it was sometimes known as Tettenhall Regis from the royal holding here; civilly it was known as plain Tettenhall. The ecclesiastical portion is Tetenhale decen' clericorum in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. Tettenhall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, a portion (1,2) is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. For another part, see 7,5. The present estate, known as 'Tettenhall Regis', consisted of two detached parts and was in and out of royal hands for the next two centuries; see Book of Fees, pp. 143, 384; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 113; VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 15-16.
	COMPTON. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. For the latter's administrative status, see 1,2 Tettenhall note. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Compton is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
1,3	WIGHTWICK. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish; see 1,2 Tettenhall note. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086, like Tettenhall itself.
		This estate appears to have formed the nucleus of the holding of a family named from the place, the de Wightwicks; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 18.
	IT BELONGS TO TETTENHALL. That is, to the estate of 1,2.
1,4	BILSTON. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred, as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Domesday does not say if this was an independent estate, nor who held it T.R.E.. It could also, like Wightwick (1,3), have belonged to Tettenhall (1,2); see 1,2 Tettenhall note.
		Bilsetnatun was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380). If it ever came into the hands of the monastery it was subsequently lost to it.
1,5	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Bescot and Wednesbury (1,5-6). However, it is not certain that a head was missing here; see 1,6 [***] note.
	BESCOT. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Walsall St Matthew. In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as Walsall did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 14.
		It seems very likely that Bescot, or possibly Wednesbury (1,6), accounted in 1086 for Walsall. Walsall is unlikely, however, to be the Walesho of the will of Wulfric Spot, though so identified by VCH Staffordshire, xvii. p. 169. That place is more probably Wales in Yorkshire: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-6 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi).
		Unless Walsall has been accidentally omitted from Domesday (as VCH Staffordshire, xvii. p. 169, suggests) it is probable that it gradually displaced Bescot in importance. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it was listed as Walshale cum membris ('Walsall with members') being Ancient Demesne of the Crown, and is coupled with Wednesbury (1,6). Walsall was granted by King Henry II in 1159 to Herbert le Rous (Ruffus). In the early thirteenth century, the holder was William Ruffus: Book of Fees, pp. 142, 348, 593, apparently by archery-service. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries Walsall was held by the de Morteyn family; see Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 14. Under the Crown they also held Bescot, which was by that time a separate manor within Walsall and they also held Bloxwich (1,6). Walsall included Goscote (SK0102). On Wallsall, see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. On the estate as a whole, see VCH Staffordshire, xvii. pp. 169-73.
		No church is mentioned in Domesday either at Bescot or at Wednesbury. However, there was one at Walsall in later times, held in 1226-28 by Magister Serlo, by gift of King John; see Book of Fees, p. 384.
		Domesday does not indicate the nature of the estate nor its T.R.E. holder. As it appears to have lain in Offlow Hundred, at first sight it appears not to belong to Tettenhall (1,2) but to be either an independent, but abandoned, estate, or a portion of Wednesbury (1,6) to which it is close and with which it had a parochial connection, both Bescot and Wednesbury being in the Ancient Parish of Walsall St Matthew. However, the layout of the Domesday text here strongly suggests that it was a dependency of Tettenhall; see 1,2 Tettenhall note. It had probably been held by King Edward T.R.E..
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. The genitive, terrae ('of land'), is used to distinguish car[ucatae] from car[ucae] (' ploughs') here and elsewhere (JRM, note to 1,58).
		In the shires of the Danelaw (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire) and occasionally on their fringes, the carucate is the normal taxable measure of land, equivalent to the hide of the counties of Wessex and Mercia. Its subdivision was the bovate. In Wessex and Mercia, some land that had never been hidated, and therefore not taxed, was measured in carucates; this particularly applied to some royal estates in Wessex. Those carucates appear to have been an attempt to assess the taxable extent of land, or possibly its plough potential, should it have been decided to tax it. The present instance and others elsewhere in Staffordshire appear to be a variation of this latter use of the term: they are an assessment of the taxability of land. Here, however, it is unlikely that the land has never been hidated, but that the hidage is unknown because the land has been abandoned. Carucates are largely mentioned in Domesday Staffordshire in connection with 'waste' land, and where they are not, it is possible that the land had formerly been waste but had been re-cultivated. Sometimes carucates (not said to be waste) and hides and virgates appear in the same entry (as in 1,47. 11,8;36-37;57. 17,17), but in these instances it may be assumed that the carucates represent land that had been waste. In the first and last of these entries it might appear that the carucate had a subdivision, a virgate, but see 1,47 carucate note. In other counties, the carucate appears to be applied to new land in hidated areas. On this, see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 18; Round, 'Domesday Measures of Land', pp. 199-204.
		On the apparent equivalence of 'n carucates' and 'land for n ploughs' in some entries, see STS 1 king note.
		Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172, sees this carucate as an error for hide and points out that Wednesbury and Shelfield (1,6) together with a hide here would make a five-hide unit.
1,6	WEDNESBURY. Wednesbury St Bartholomew was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew). In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Wednesbury is classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. The earlier pattern may have been that Wednesbury was part of Tettenhall (1,2) and had Bescot (1,5) as its member. Walsall may have been a dependency of Bescot (possibly the site of the church for this area of the manor), but in time came to dominate both Wednesbury and Bescot.
		The 1066 holder of this estate is not given. However, in the first section of the Terra Regis only King Edward is named as a holder (1,1;7), so he was possibly the holder of Wednesbury.
		After 1086, Wednesbury partly passed out of Crown hands: Wednesbr' was held by William de Heronville as a fee of the Earl of Warwick, barony of Henry d'Oilly. It was an exchange for Stonesfield in Oxfordshire extra parcum de Wudestok' ('outside Woodstock park'); see Book of Fees, pp. 142, 544, 595, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 8.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These are not explicitly stated, although Bloxwich and Shelfield named in the entry may be included in the term dependencies.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the line blank after appendiciis, as if he expected he would need to insert a hundred head, a common reason for such spaces at the end of the first line of an entry (see 1,7 hundred note). This head would probably have been for Offlow Hundred. In the present edition an Offlow hundred head has been placed before the previous entry, for Bescot (1,5). If however, as seems likely, Bescot was a member of Tettenhall (see 1,2 Tettenhall note), then the scribe would not have indicated that Bescot lay in a different hundred to Tettenhall, in common with his practice elsewhere in Great Domesday.
		It is less likely that the space was left for the later insertion of the T.R.E. holder of Wednesbury, as it seems that King Edward had held all the estates in this section of the Terra R egis (1,1-10); see STS 1 king note. It is also unlikely that the space was left for the names of the dependencies, as elsewhere in Domesday Staffordshire in the phrase 'with dependencies' they are not named immediately (see 1,13;15-18;20-21;23-25;27;29-30 etc.) or the names and assessments are given later in the entry (as in 2,16. 11,6).
	A MILL. The Abbey of Bordesley (in Worcestershire) held a mill at Finchespath' [unidentified] in the manor of Wednesbury in later times (Book of Fees, p. 1291) though it is not certain that this was the location of the Domesday mill.
	BLOXWICH. At the time of Domesday, this was only an area of woodland, though it later became a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew). In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred like Wednesbury itself and like Walsall, which was not named in Domesday Book but was probably included in Bescot (1,5). Walsall was held by the de Morteyns in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries; see 1,5 Bescot note. Domesday Blocheswic is represented by Bloxwich (SJ9901) and Little Bloxwich (SK0003).
	SHELFIELD. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Walsall (St Matthew). Like Bescot (1,5), which probably represents Walsall, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086; see 1,5 Bescot note.
1,7	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Penkridge.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space at the end of the first line of this entry, almost certainly for the later inclusion of the hundred head, as on many other occasions in Great Domesday, and in this county probably in 1,6. 7,7. 8,4;7-8 and possibly in 4,10 (but perhaps not in 10,6).
	PENKRIDGE. Like Tettenhall (1,2), this estate had once been larger, but by 1086 at least, part had been granted to the collegiate church here (7,17) and was held by nine clerics. As a result, after 1086, Penkridge was regarded as a chapelry in the collegiate church of Penkridge, then an Ancient Parish by 1551: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 419. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2,16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. Cuttlestone Bridge which represents the moot-site lay within the bounds of the manor; see {Introduction: Moot-sites}.
		Penkridge had probably been an ancient and important royal estate; an assembly took place there in 958; see Sawyer, 'Royal Tun', p. 295. It is mentioned in a charter: Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 384 no. II (= Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, no. 1041 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 667). It is difficult to discover its original extent, but Domesday itself lists as its members, Wolgarston?, Drayton, Congreve, Dunston, Cowley and Beffcote. The disposition of these on the ground, with many other, apparently unconnected, estates lying between them and Penkridge suggests that the manor of Penkridge had once embraced all the territory between itself and its named members. The manor's extent may also be discernible in those Domesday estates that lay in Penkridge Ancient Parish: Whiston (4,9), 'Bedintone'/ Pillaton (4,10), Mitton (11,6), Stretton (11,57), Water Eaton (11,58), Gailey (11,59), Otherton (11,60), Great Saredon (11,61), Coppenhall (11,63), Shareshill (11,64), Levedale (11,66), Rodbaston (13,9), Little Saredon (17,2) and Bickford (17,3). Even these may not exhaust the members of Penkridge. Cannock was possibly granted out of it (1,25 Cannock note) as perhaps was Brewood (2,1 Brewood note). One of Penkridge's members (Cowley) was in Gnosall Ancient Parish, and it is possible that that area was once part of Penkridge. Gnosall Ancient Parish also contained Beffcote (1,7), Knightley (8,6), Moreton (8,7), Walton (8,11), Brough Hall (11,5) and Wilbrighton (11,54). Other Ancient Parishes (including Bradeley, Haughton, Ranton, Lapley, Church Eaton and Blymhill) stood between Penkridge and Gnosall. The likelihood is that Penkridge once dominated the area from the borough of Stafford to the border with Shropshire; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
		After 1086, the manor presumably lay in the hands of the Crown for a time, but by 1156 it was held by Walter Hussey. It was again in the hands of the Crown from 1173 to 1206, but in 1207 it was given to Hugh Hussey, son of Walter. In 1215 Hugh conveyed the estate to Henry of London, Archbishop of Dublin (1213-28), who had formerly been Archdeacon of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 143, 384, 593, 970; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 108.
	KING EDWARD. See 1,1 Edward note.
	[***]. On the space left here, see 1,7 hundred note.
	THE WOODLAND HAS [IS] 1 LEAGUE LONG AND 1 WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Silua h[abe]t. i. leuu[a] l[on]g[a] 7 una lat[a]. He began by writing habet ('has') and would naturally have continued '1 league in length (in longitudine)' and '1 in width (in latitudine)'. However, as he wrote, he slipped into the common '1 league long (long') and 1 wide (lat')', but failed to alter the habet to est ('is'). For further examples involving woodland, see 1,13;20. In 12,2 he used the correct formula: Silua longit[udinem] h[abe]t .ii. leuu[arum] 7 t[a]nt[un]dem lat[itudinem]. Similarly in 12,18 he wrote Silua h[abe]t .iii. q[ua]rent[inas] in l[on]g[itudine] 7 lat[itudine]. For an example involving the dimensions of an estate, see DBY 10,16. Compare 1,9 meadow note.
	WOLGARSTON?. The Domesday form is Turgarestone. Following VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 38, and the Phillimore printed edition, it is tempting to identify this place with Wolgarston (which was a settlement in Penkridge Ancient Parish), but it is difficult to explain the difference of the initial letter. Place-Names of Staffordshire, p. 93, regards the initial letter as an error and appears to suggest that the T- has become attached from Old English aet ('at'): the phrase aet wulfgares more occurs in 993. This misdivision occurs several times in Domesday (for example, Addelam for Delam, that is Deal, in KEN M17), but does not involve the replacement of the initial letter of the place-name. However, in one of the predecessor documents it is possible that a misshapen runic wynn ('w', which resembled a P) was mistranscribed as a T.
		Like Penkridge itself (1,7) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		Wolgarston was a distinct member of the manor of Penkridge until 1372, after which it apparently merged with it; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 125.
	DRAYTON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 89. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		After 1086, Drayton, like Dunston, passed to the barony of Stafford (descent from Robert of Stafford); see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 263-65; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 113.
		Drayton is represented by Drayton Manor and Drayton Home Farm (SJ9216), and Lower Drayton (SJ9315).
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote T[er]ra ç with no punctuation after it, so that he could insert the number of ploughs in the estimate at a later date. It would seem that the details of the plough estimate were important as he often left room for their completion; see also here in 1,14. 2,10. 8,29. In circuit I he left over 150 such spaces, ninety or so in Kent alone. Obviously this information was missing in his source, but he was inconsistent in his policy over it as the plough estimate is completely missing in a large number of entries in Great Domesday. Sometimes the information was found to complete the estimate, though not in Staffordshire.
	CONGREVE. This was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 89. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		Congreve descended as a member of Penkridge until at least 1372; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 112.
	DUNSTON. This was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. Like Penkridge itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. After 1086 it appears to have become a member of the manor of Bradley (11,6); see 11,6 dependencies note; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 144. As a result, the estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	COWLEY. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 156. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. It is represented by Lower Cowley (SJ8218) and Upper Cowley (SJ8219).
		The estate descended with Penkridge itself. Cunteleg' is held from the barony of Stafford in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 1); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 118.
	BEFFCOTE. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 154.
		The estate descended with Penkridge; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 117.
	1 THANE. Thanes are usually only found in Domesday as T.R.E. holders or as men who hold from the king in the 'Land of the King's Thanes', usually the final chapter in a county, or occasionally elsewhere (see 2,20-21). The position of this thane after the lordship ploughs and before the villagers and smallholders with their ploughs (although the thane may have shared in the ploughs) is also unusual. In the Phillimore printed edition there is a full-stop after '1 thane', which links him even more closely with the lordship; this has been changed to a semi-colon for the present edition. The Alecto edition has 'In demesne are 2 ploughs, and 1 thegn and there are 16 villans ... '. Normally in Domesday Staffordshire slave(s) are listed between the lordship plough(s) and the villagers, smallholders and their ploughs, but emendation of tain' to seru' ('slave') seems rather drastic.
1,8	TRENTHAM. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred, and it did so later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but it is probable that this initial section of the Terra Regis is devoted to estates that had been held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.
		It is difficult to perceive the original extent of the royal manor of Trentham. In later times there were two detached portions of the Ancient Parish adjacent to the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which itself abutted the royal (but formerly comital) estate of Wolstanton (1,15). The detachments seem to have been caused by the creation of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, long before the emergence of the great industrial town there. Stoke-upon-Trent is only represented in Domesday by half a church there, attached to Caverswall (11,36). The other half is not mentioned, but it may have belonged to Trentham, or more particularly to Penkhull, another comital estate (1,16), which had probably originated as a grant out of Trentham. It may be that the estate of Trentham, held by King Edward in 1066, had once been more extensive. Not only was the castle, manor and borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme probably built upon its land and Penkhull and Stoke-upon-Trent carved out of it, but a number of other nearby estates could have originated from it. These could have included Wolstanton (an Ancient Parish), but also perhaps Caverswall, another Ancient Parish.
		The growth of Newcastle-under-Lyme (from the thirteenth century) and the much later expansion of Stoke-upon-Trent have greatly altered the administrative topography in this part of Staffordshire, which in 1086 consisted mainly of the contiguous royal manors of Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham. With the post-1086 creation of Newcastle-under-Lyme and the growth of Stoke-upon-Trent, the dependencies (named and unnamed) of Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham, became, in some cases, chapelries or townships of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, or dependencies of Newcastle-under-Lyme manor, itself a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. Stoke-upon-Trent church was mother of a large parish, which included the Domesday estates of Clayton (13,6), Whitmore (13,2), Burslem (11,22), Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19), Bucknall (1,34), Fenton (17,21), Bradeley (11,28), Abbey Hulton in Burslem chapelry (11,21), Rushton in the same chapelry (1,64), Penkhull (1,16) and Shelton (1,38) plus a number of places not named in Domesday; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 188; and 11,36 Stoke note. Trentham, as an Ancient Parish, retained Hanford and Hanchurch (13,4-5) and Wolstanton included Dimsdale (13,7), Knutton (13,8) and Thursfield (13,1). It seems very likely that Wolstanton, Penkhull and Trentham with their various dependencies had all been members of a single ancient royal estate.
		Newcastle-under-Lyme, it appears, grew up on the land of Trentham. The castle here was in existence by 1149 when King Stephen granted to Ranulf de Gernon, Earl of Chester, the novum castellum de Staffordshira ('the new castle of Staffordshire'); see Tait, Medieval Manchester, pp. 136-74. A settlement grew up around this new castle and it is mentioned, among other lands, in a grant to Trentham Priory in 1162: Trentham cum omnibus pertinenciis, scilicet Berlaston, Betteleya, dimidia Baltredeleye, quid[am] viculus Novi Castelli qui est de territorio parochie de Trentham ('Trentham with all its appurtenances, namely Barlaston, Betley, half of Balterley, a certain small settlement, [the] New Castle, which is on the land of the parish (church) of Trentham'); see Parker, 'Trentham Priory Cartulary', p. 303. Barlaston (11,24), Betley (17,10) and Balterley (17,11-12) appear in Domesday which makes no connection between them and Trentham. Barlaston itself was an Ancient Parish and close enough to Trentham to have once been within its compass. Betley and Balterley, however, are on the edge of the shire and if they were ever connected with Trentham, they must have been detached parcels of the manor, unless Trentham had once occupied the northern part of what became Pirehill Hundred.
		Newcastle-under-Lyme grew into a manor, first mentioned in 1215, and into a borough; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. pp. 11-12. It was subject to tallage in 1173, there was a jury for the borough in 1203 and there was a borough charter in 1235; see Beresford and Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs, p. 163. Burgages are mentioned in villa Novi Castri in 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) and the [villa] Novi Castri was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
		A member of Trentham, not mentioned in Domesday, and later a part of Newcastle-under-Lyme manor, was Hanley (SJ8847); see Book of Fees, pp. 143, 594; VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 142. It is possible that the estate of Chesterton (SJ8349) which was said to be royal demesne in 1212 (when Henry de Walerton' was holding by charter of King Henry) was originally part of Trentham: Book of Fees, p. 143. A further estate was probably Keele (SJ8145), held in 1212 as a member of the manor of Newcastle by the fratres miliciae Templi (the knights templar) by gift of King Henry (Book of Fees, p. 143) and listed as Ancient Demesne in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		Trentham itself remained an estate and was held (together with Newcastle-under-Lyme) by the Earls of Chester. An Augustinian priory was established here, apparently by Ranulf de Gernon, Earl of Chester, who died in 1153, although in Book of Fees, p 1285, the foundation was attributed to Hugh 'the old Earl of Chester' (that is Hugh of Avranches, the Domesday tenant-in-chief) in the time of William II. Trentham itself was among its possessions; see Book of Fees, p. 142; Feudal Aids, v. p. 12.
	5 VILLAGERS WITH 1 SMALLHOLDER ... HAVE 3 ½ PLOUGHS. ... 3 VILLAGERS AND 6 SMALLHOLDERS WITH 1 PLOUGH. It is unusual for there to be two mentions of villagers and smallholders with their ploughs in one entry. It is possible that in a document preceding Great Domesday the second set of villagers and smallholders were either added or misplaced and the main scribe of Great Domesday did not notice this. The correction concerning the reeve (1,8 reeve note) may indicate imperfections in his source. Alternatively the apparent sharing of the 3 ½ ploughs, but not the single plough, by the reeve may have been the reason why the scribe did not combine the two mentions of villagers and smallholders with their ploughs. It is also possible that the 3 villagers and 6 smallholders with their plough were on a dependency of Trentham, separately treated in the source, and that Domesday scribe had decided not to mention the dependency and had failed to combine its details properly with those of the manor. The entry for Baswich and its dependency Walton-on-the-Hill (2,2) shows how the present entry might have looked if he had decided to include the dependency.
	AND A REEVE. After bord', h was first written, evidently for h[abe]nt, ('have'), and 7 was written over the letter, presumably when the reeve was noticed (JRM). Such immediate corrections by the main scribe of Great Domesday were quite common.
		Reeves (Old English gerefa, usually rendered as Latin praepositus) played an important administrative role, particularly for the king. There were reeves in charge of boroughs, in charge of counties (the 'shire-reeve' or 'sheriff') and of individual or groups of several royal manors. This is the only occurrence of a reeve in Domesday Staffordshire.
	A PRIEST. There had possibly been a minster church here; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 255; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 484.
	AFTER THE WOODLAND the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the line blank before entering the value on a new line. This space, and others like it (1,13;17-19;26. 2,10;16. 3,1. 4,4-5. 12,14;19) might have been for the later inclusion of other resources, as seems to have been the case in Domesday Shropshire (see SHR {Introduction: Content and Layout of Entries}), though in Staffordshire the scribe did not always leave such spaces when just woodland was recorded. His omission of any punctuation after the woodland in 1,17 may be relevant, while the woodland is missing altogether in 1,26 and 2,10, and he wrote just Silua. with no dimensions in 12,14. In 2,5 he did not leave a space after the mill for the other resources and these were then written four entries further on; see 2,5 mill note. These spaces are similar to those left for other apparently missing details, such as hundred heads (1,7 hundred note), hidages (2,3 hides note), plough estimates (1,7 land note), the ploughs used by the villagers and smallholders etc. (4,6 villagers note) and the resources as a whole in 7,15;17.
1,9	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Wigginton and Willenhall.
		According to JRM 'the Hundred heading has been inserted in the wrong place'. He was referring to its appearance above Alrewas (1.11), instead of here. Both Wigginton and Willenhall (1,9-10) appear to have lain in Offlow Hundred, but the schedule of the Terra Regis appears to have been put together from at least three sources and the Offlow hundred heading at 1,11 marks the beginning of one of them; see STS 1 king note.
	WIGGINTON. This was a chapelry of Tamworth Ancient Parish. In 1086 it probably lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 8, it is held with half of Tamworth and in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 77, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Then its apparent members were Hopwas (1,31), Coton (SK1805) and Comberford (SK1910). In 1254-55 it was held by Robert Walerand as ward during the minority of Henry of Hastings: Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. According to Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 116 (1274-75), it had been given by the 'last King Henry' (presumably Henry III) to the father of Henry of Hastings for part of the land that he held in Cheshire, but had later been given by the same King Henry to Philip Marmiun. It is Philip Marmiun who holds Wigginton together with half of the borough of Tamworth in Feudal Aids, v. p. 8. The same man holds the castle of Tamworth in Book of Fees, pp. 1275, 1280, and the barony of Tamworth in Book of Fees, pp. 829, 841, 1275, 1280.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but it is probable that this initial section of the Terra Regis is devoted to estates held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.
	TAMWORTH. The borough is not entered in Domesday Book. Four of its burgesses are entered here, a mile to the north, with eight more burgesses three miles to the south at Drayton Bassett (1,30), where they 'work like other villagers', and 10 burgesses at Coleshill in Warwickshire (WAR l,5), nine miles to the south (JRM).
		The omission of a survey of Tamworth is curious, though not unparalleled; a number of other boroughs are missing from Domesday Book, including Bristol from Gloucestershire, London from Middlesex and Winchester from Hampshire, though spaces had been left by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the manuscript for the last two of these. It is possible that the area, in view of its history and important church, was an area of special privilege and so not hidated. Tamworth was partly in Staffordshire and partly in Warwickshire, but it cannot be that the commissioners surveying Warwickshire left Tamworth to those handling Staffordshire and vice versa (so Desborough, 'Introduction', Staffordshire Domesday, p. 4) since both counties are members of the same Domesday circuit (see {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}.
		Tamworth was a borough and an Ancient Parish. The borough lay on the Staffordshire-Warwickshire border and until a series of boundary changes, beginning in the nineteenth century, the castle was in Warwickshire and the church in Staffordshire. The boundary ran from the River Tame up Holloway, turned right along Church Street and then left along Gumpegate. The Ancient Parish included land in Staffordshire (the township of Syerscote (11,48), the chapelry of Wigginton (1,9), and the hamlet of Hopwas or Hopwas Hays (SK1704)) and in Warwickshire (the chapelry of Wilnecot (WAR 16,24) and the township of Amington (WAR 28,1) and Stoneydelph (SK2302) and the township of Bolehall (SK2103) and Glascote (SK2203)); see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 425. The Staffordshire portion of Tamworth probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In 1284-85 half of the borough of Tamworth appears in Offlow Hundred in Staffordshire coupled with Wigginton, held by Philip Marmiun from the king (Feudal Aids, v. p. 5), while the other half appears in 1316 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 179) as Tammeworth medietas cum membris held by the king in the Warwickshire hundred of Hemlingford. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), pp. 277, 320, the borough of Tamworth appears in both counties.
		Tamworth, like Tamhorn (2,22), is named from the River Tame. It is probably the Tomtun that was mentioned in a charter of 675 x 692 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1804) which was the confirmation of a sale of land to the monastery at Breedon-on-the-Hill (Leicestershire). This lay in the province of the Tomsaetan and it is possible that the names Tomtun and Tomsaetan are also connected. Tomtun will have become Tamworth by the substitution of Old English worthig for tun; see Gelling, West Midlands, p. 146. It had been an important royal site, where the kings of Mercia had their palace, counterbalanced by their religious centre and mausoleum at Repton in Derbyshire. It was at the centre of 'Mercia proper' and it was probably King Penda (?626-641) who established his power-base here. A series of charters, beginning with that of 675 x 692 referring to Tomtun and extending to the year 857, refer to it as a royal vill or as the place of an assembly; in date order, they are Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, nos. 843, 239, 259, 293, 326, 350, 430, 432-34, 436, 450, 455 (2), 488, 492 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos. 1804, 120, 133, 155, 163, 172, 192, 196, 195, 193-94, 198-99, 207-208; see Sawyer, 'Royal Tun', pp. 296-97. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Aethelflaed died here in 918 and Tamworth was the meeting place of King Athelstan of Wessex and the Scandinavian King Sihtric of York in 926 when Athelstan gave his sister Edith to Sihtric in marriage; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 8-10; Sawyer, 'Royal Tun', pp. 296-97. There was a mint at Tamworth in the reign of King Athelstan.
		The Mercian site was fortified and consisted of a ditch and palisade forming a three-sided enclosure facing the River Tame. The ditch and palisade were found during excavation lying under the defenses built for the burh constructed by Aethelflaed in 913. The enclosure contained the church of St Edith and the site of the later castle. For the excavation of Tamworth, see the papers by F. T. Wainwright, J. Gould, K. Sheridan and P. Rahtz in Transactions of the Lichfield and South Staffordshire Historical and Archaeological Society, vols. 9 (1967-68), 10 (1968-69), 13 (1871-72), 14 (1972-73) and 16 (1974-75); there is a convenient overview in Gelling, West Midlands, pp. 146-52.
		About the year 940, according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (D version), 'Olaf [a Dane from Ireland chosen by the Northumbrians as their king] took Tamworth by storm and the losses were heavy on both sides and the Danes were victorious and took away much booty with them. Wulfrun was taken captive in that raid' (the translation is by Whitelock and others, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 71). Wulfrun was the mother of Aelfhelm, Ealdorman of Northumbria (c. 993-1006), and of Wulfric Spot, and the foundress of the abbey at 'Hampton' to which was added her name to give Wolverhampton.
		Wulfrun's son, Wulfric Spot, gave land in Tamwurthin to his daughter in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 13). It is possible that she had some connection with the religious community there (see Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xxii). To the community at Tamworth, Wulfric Spot also gave Langandune [Longdon], 'just as they had leased it to him'. He also gave half the usufruct to that community and half to Burton Abbey, his foundation: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxiv no. 78). Longdon is not included in Domesday, perhaps, as Sawyer suggests, because Tamworth had special privileges and was not hidated.
		The collegiate church of St Edith, which may have been preceded by a nunnery, was possibly a royal foundation of the tenth century for St Edith may be the Edith who was sister of King Athelstan who was married at Tamworth in 926 (see above) and widowed in 927; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 309-10; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 483.
		Tamworth castle may have been in existence in 1086. The castle and barony of Tamworth were held by Robert the bursar (brother of Urso, sheriff of Worcester) in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, since c. 1141 they were given by the Empress Matilda to William de Beauchamp 'to hold as freely as Robert the bursar held it': Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae, ii. p. xcix; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, iii. no. 68, pp. 26-27. Robert was a Domesday holder, though not of Tamworth. However, it appears that between Robert the bursar and William of Beauchamp, the castle and honour had been held by Robert Marmiun, having been granted to him by King Henry I (1100-1135) late in his reign. Subsequently Tamworth was restored to Robert Marmiun by King Stephen in 1153 and confirmed by King Henry III to Philip Marmiun; see Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae, ii. p. xcvii; see VCH Staffordshire, i. pp. 355-56. See {Introduction: Castles} and 1,9 Wigginton note.
	MEADOW, 6 FURLONGS IN LENGTH AND 2 FURLONGS WIDE. Measurement in acres is much more usual for meadow in Domesday Staffordshire and elsewhere. Moreover, when two measurements are given for meadow elsewhere in Great Domesday the formula is usually 'x leagues/furlongs long and y leagues/furlongs wide'. Here p[ra]ti is in the genitive case, though the Phillimore printed edition did not indicate this with a comma after 'meadow' as it normally did. Compare 1,7 woodland note.
	VALUE ... £4. The main scribe of Great Domesday added the value statement in three lines in the outer margin of folio 246b level with the entry for Wigginton. He drew lines round three sides of it to indicate even more clearly that it belonged to the adjacent entry. He boxed in some 36 other additions of his, though sometimes these boxes were little more than double 'gallows' signs. The fact that the T.R.E. in the present addition are lined through in red shows that he wrote it before the county was rubricated.
1,10	WILLENHALL. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. For another part, held by the canons of Wolverhampton and no doubt originating as a grant out of this royal manor, see 7,8. Wolverhampton itself probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 and Willenhall is also evidenced there later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. However, there are grounds for thinking that the church of Wolverhampton later managed to create for itself a large discontinuous and scattered parish which in effect produced islands of Seisdon Hundred within the hundred of Offlow. This was probably not the case in 1086; see 7,7 Offlow note. If this is so, the both parts of Willenhall were, in 1086, in Offlow Hundred, their natural geographical location.
		No T.R.E. holder is given for this estate, but it is probable that this initial section of the Terra Regis is devoted to estates held by King Edward; see STS 1 king note.
		Willenhall had probably been a royal estate, or part of one, from early times, as an assembly was held there probably in 733; see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 86.
		It is probable that the royal manor of Willenhall included the later manor of 'Bentley': Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 59. This was held by a serjeantry connected with the forest of Cannock, that of guarding the 'hay' and 'foreign' wood of 'Bentley'; see Book of Fees, pp. 7, 348, 594, 1186, 1291, 1331. 'Bentley' is marked at SO984994 on the nineteenth-century six inches to the mile Ordnance Survey map, but has since been lost to colliery workings; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279 note 2.
1,11	IN OFFLOW HUNDRED. On this head, which marks the beginning of a new section of the Terra Regis, see STS 1 king note and 1,9 Offlow note.
	ALREWAS. This was an Ancient Parish which included the chapelries of Edingale (in Derbyshire in 1086: DBY 6,15), Pipe Ridware (2,22) and the townships of Fradley (SK1613) and Orgreave (SK1416); see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 401. It lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 14. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Alrewas was still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
		Land at Alrewasse with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). The other places were Bromleage (Bromley Abbots and/or Kings Bromley), Barton (Barton-under-Needwood), Tatenhyll (Tatenhill), Brontiston (Branston), Stretton (Stretton), Rothulfeston (Rolleston-on-Dove), Clyfton (Clifton Campville), Hagnatun (Haunton in Clifton Campville).
		Hart in Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 91-92, identifies these 40 hides with the following Domesday places:

Place	Hides	
*1,11 Alrewas
*1,12 Kings Bromley
*1,20 Barton-under-Needwood
*1,29 Clifton Campville
 1,32 Harlaston
 4,1 Burton-upon-Trent
*4,2 Branston
 4,3 Wetmore
*4,4 Stretton
*10,3 Rolleston-on-Dove
 11,49 Wychnor
 16,1 Thorpe Constantine
 plus
 3 hides at Abbots Bromley (4,5)+
 3 carucates at Chilcote (DBY 1,25)	3
3
3
8
4
1 ½ 
1 ½ 
1 ½ 
1 ½ 
2 ½ 
2
3

3
(3 carucates)	
TOTAL	37 ½ hides and 3 carucates	
	* Places mentioned in the charter.
	+ see 4,5 Bromley note.

	Of the places not mentioned in the charter, Harlaston was a chapelry of Clifton Campville (1,29)), Burton-upon-Trent was the parish in which Branston and Stretton lay, and so might be silently included in one or other and Wychnor was in Tatenhill Ancient Parish. Tatenhill is mentioned in the charter and also contained Barton-under-Needwood, which is separately mentioned there. It is assumed that Haunton (SK2310) was included in the 8 hides that Domesday allots to Clifton Campville. However, there are some difficulties with this attempt to reconstitute the 40 hides. Firstly, it is not obvious why Thorpe Constantine and Wetmore have been included, except to make up the numbers. Secondly, the identification of the holding at 4,1 with Burton-upon-Trent is not entirely secure since Domesday calls the place Stafford. Thirdly, the three hides at 'Bromley' seem to have been counted twice: in Domesday the total for Kings Bromley and Abbots Bromley is 3 ½ hides, not the six included in Hart's analysis; see 4,5 Bromley note. Further, if the Newanbold also given to Wulfsige the black by King Edmund (Hart, Early Charters of Northern England, p. 92 no. 83 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 484) was Newbold in Barton-under-Needwood, then only part of the 3 hides assessed there by Domesday will have been given by the present charter. However, that Newbold may have been in Derbyshire; see 1,20 Barton note and DBY 1,1 Newbold note. Finally it has been assumed that the 3 carucates of Chilcote are equivalent to 3 hides, yet it is far from evidenced that existing hidage figures were simply converted to carucates in the Danelaw counties; see {Introduction: Carucation}. This being the case it is unwise to base much on these figures.
		Alrewyz, presumably this place, was held as a fee of Roger de Somery with Barre [Great Barr] in Book of Fees, p. 543. However, in Book of Fees, pp. 545, 593, 970, and Feudal Aids, v. p. 8, it appears in the hands of the Somerville family, holding by a charter of King John; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. Some pieces of land in Tamworth were said to belong to Alrewas in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 116. This may have been an ancient arrangement.
	EARL ALGAR. He was the son of Earl Leofric and Countess (Lady) Godiva and father of Earl Edwin of Mercia and of Earl Morcar of Northumbria. Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052 in place of Harold during the exile of the Godwin family and from 1053-1057 on Harold's appointment to the Earldom of Wessex in succession to his father. Outlawed in 1055 he formed an alliance with the Welsh King Gruffydd ap Llywelyn (of Gwynedd and Powys), routed an English force and pillaged Hereford. Restored, he was Earl of Mercia 1057-1062, but was banished in 1058 and again regained his position with Gruffydd's help. He died before 1066. Although Edwin succeeded to the earldom of Mercia, it is Algar rather than he who is often recorded in Domesday as the T.R.E. holder.
		The Domesday form, Algar(us), is used throughout Domesday for the earl. This form together with the other forms - Elgar, Aelgar, Alger(us), Aelger - could represent Old English Ælfgar, Æthelgar or Ealdgar or even Old Norse Alfgeirr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 144-46, under Al-gar, and also p. 142, under Al-. However, he included all the references to the earl under Old English Ælfgar (ibidem, pp. 172-73). JRM, however, preferred to keep to the base form for the earl as it reflected the consistent Domesday spelling, which might suggest that the earl was actually known as Algar in 1086. The Alecto edition has Earl Ælfgar.
	MEADOW, 24 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres. It would seem that after the xx. he began to write a v, but then realized it should be a minim and tried to make the stroke more upright; as the result was less than clear he interlined or (the last two letters of quattuor, '4') in clarification (compare 8,13 ploughs note, 1,32 slaves note and 2,18 meadow note).
	A FISHERY. Alrewas lay on the River Trent. Only one other fishery is recorded in Domesday Staffordshire, in Worfield (9,1) and it rendered 15s, rather than the eels in this entry.
	WOODLAND. Together with the woodland at Barton-under-Needwood (1,20) this probably formed the nucleus of the later forest of Needwood.
1,12	[KINGS] BROMLEY. This was a chapelry of Alrewas Ancient Parish, centred on the later Alrewas Priory, then a separate Ancient Parish following the Dissolution of the monasteries; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 405. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086, like Alrewas itself, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 14. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
		After 1086, 'Bromley Regis' continued to be held by or from the Crown. Baldwin de Hodenet held it in 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) and Thomas Corbet of Hetleg' [Hatley] in 1236 (Book of Fees, p. 593); see Book of Fees, p. 545. In 1254-55 it was held by Roger Corbet (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108) and in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 9) a Thomas Corbet held it and, in 1316, (another) Roger Corbet (Feudal Aids, v. p. 14).
		Land at Bromleage with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). It is sometimes said that Bromleage may have accounted for both the later Bromleys, Abbots Bromley (4,5) and Kings Bromley, although they are some distance apart and the names may have evolved quite separately; see 4,5 Bromley note. For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Earl Leofric of Mercia died in 1057, and John of Worcester, Chronicle, ii. pp. 582-83, in his enlarged version adds in propria villa quae dicitur Bromleaga ('in his own vill, called Bromley'. Leofric was buried at Coventry in the abbey he had founded.
	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.
		This was Harold's only Staffordshire manor, formerly held by Earl Leofric, which Harold probably acquired on his marriage to Ealdgyth, granddaughter of Earl Leofric and sister of Earl Edwin; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 39; Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xxix.
		The Domesday forms of 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, as did Alecto.
1,13	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four estates: Sandon, Chartley, Wolstanton, and Penkhull (1,13-16).
	SANDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Sandon is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
		Sandon and Chartley (1,14) did not long remain in royal hands, but were granted to the Earl of Chester according to Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 75. They were both Ferrers fees in Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969, 975, and Feudal Aids, v. p. 6. In this last the place is 'Sondon with appurtenances at Linespel [unidentified]'. Sondon is part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
		The modern village of Sandon lies at SJ947295. There is an isolated church at SJ954294 and the moated site of Sandon Old Hall lies at SJ956295. Sandon Hall is at SJ956286. The village has possibly migrated: the Deserted Medieval Research Group places (Great) Sandon at SJ955296, that is adjacent to Sandon Old Hall; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 36. For 'Little Sandon', see 11,10 Sandon note.
	1 HIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote hida slightly askew, the d on the vertical score delimiting the outer edge of the column (folio 246b), but it is not a later addition. In the Alecto facsimile the word looks blurred.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. These are likely to have lain within the present parish, such places as Romer, Smallrise, Twirlow and Hardewick; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 75.
	THE WOODLAND [HAS] IS. See 1,7 woodland note. On the space left after these details, see 1,8 after note.
1,14	CHARTLEY. This was an extra-parochial area, then, from 1858 a separate Civil Parish known as Chartley Holme. It was adjacent to the Ancient Parish of Stowe, sometimes known as Stowe-by-Chartley; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 407. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 6, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		For the descent of the manor, see 1,13 Sandon note.
		The grid reference is to Chartley Hall (SK006284). Chartley Castle is at SK101285.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space at the beginning of the second line of this entry for the later inclusion of the number of ploughs in the estimate, though the information was never forthcoming. On such spaces, see 1,7 land note.
1,15	WOLSTANTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. Judging by the lie of the boundary of the Ancient Parish, Wolstanton may have originated as a grant to an ealdorman or earl of Mercia from the royal manor of Trentham. For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon-Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note and 11,36 Stoke note.
		A member of Wolstanton was probably Tunstall (SJ8651), held with Chaderleg' [Chatterley, SJ8451] and Normannecot' [probably Normacot, 13,3] by Henry de Verdun in right of his wife in Book of Fees, p. 143. It is distinct from the Tunstall (2,20) held by the Bishop of Chester in 1086.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
1,16	PENKHULL. This was a township of Stoke-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. Like Stoke-upon-Trent itself, it had probably originated as part of the royal manor of Trentham (1,8), having been granted out of it to an ealdorman or earl of Mercia. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is coupled with Shelton (SJ 8748, possibly the Domesday estate of 1,38), Clayton (13,6), Seabridge (SJ8343) and Wolstanton (1,15). It declined in importance, however, after 1086 and was regarded, from the middle of the thirteenth century, as part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which probably originated in the royal manor of Trentham (1,8); see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 184. Half of the church of Stoke-upon-Trent belonged to Caverswall (11,36). It seems likely that the unmentioned other half was at Penkhull. The later borough of Stoke-upon-Trent probably arose on the land of Penkhull; see VCH Staffordshire, viii p. 173. For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note and 11,36 Stoke note.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. One of these may have been at Longton (SJ9143), which was later part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and a chapelry of Stoke-upon-Trent; see 11,36 Stoke note. In the thirteenth century it was held by serjeanty, the service being that of finding an armed man to serve the king at Novum Castrum subtus Limam [Newcastle-under-Lyme]; see Book of Fees, pp. 143, 594, 1185, 1245, 1285; VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 230.
		Mixon (SK0458) was also probably part of Penkhull. According to Book of Fees, p. 1286, referring to 1251-52, it was given to Hulton Abbey (together with Bradnop, a part of the manor of Leek, 1,21) by Henry de Audley after the death of Ranulph de Blundeville, Earl of Chester. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118), it is recorded that Mixene was held by Hulton Abbey and had formerly been held in fee-farm from the king 'by service of five shillings, a cartload of hay and an iron fork paid to the manor of Penkhull'. Mixon is remote from Penkhull, but it may well have been an estate established to supply iron to a royal manor. A disused mine is recorded there on the Ordnance Survey map.
1,17	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. The head is supplied from the probable location of Rocester, Crakemarsh and Uttoxeter (1,17-19).
	ROCESTER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		It appears that T.R.E. the manor of Rocester had dependencies in Derbyshire: the jurisdiction of three bovates in Snelston (DBY 6,53) belonged to it, as did 1 carucate in Roston (DBY 6,57), and the two villages of Wyaston and Edlaston (DBY 6,59), less one bovate, were in its revenue. The holder of these last two had been Earl Edwin, son of Earl Algar the holder of Rocester. It is not certain how old these arrangements were, but they could have preceded shiring, with the portions that were later in Derbyshire being originally measured in hides, but later carucated along with all land in the other Danelaw shires; see DBY {Introduction: Carucation}. It appears that a multiple estate had broken up.
		After 1086, Rocester passed to the Earls of Chester, and an abbey for Augustinian canons was founded there between 1141 and 1146 by Richard Bacon, the nephew of Ranulph le Meschin, Earl of Chester; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) the Abbey of Rocester was held from the king in free alms and recorded as having been a fee of the Earl of Chester; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. Bradley-in-the-Moors and Waterfall were chapelries of Rocester Ancient Parish. Of these, Bradley-in-the-Moors (15,1) was an apparently independent estate in 1086. Waterfall may well have been a dependency of Rocester in 1086; see 11,4 Cauldon note.
		At its foundation, Rocester Abbey was endowed with the church of Rocester and its dependent chapels in Bradley-in-the-Moors and Waterfall and various other nearby lands including the vill of Rocester and Combridge (SK0937) with the lordship land there and at Wootton (either Wootton in Ellastone, SK1045, or Woottons in Croxden, SK0738), as well as appurtenances in Nothill (in Croxden, SK0737), Denstone (in Alton, SK0940), Quixhill (in Rocester, SK1041), part of Roston (in Derbyshire, DBY 6,57, a dependency of Rocester in 1086), Bradley-in-the-Moors, Waterfall and Calton (SK1050, a chapelry divided between Blore, Mayfield and Waterfall Ancient Parishes); see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. Those places that lay in Rocester Ancient Parish were probably among its unnamed 1086 dependencies. It is less certain whether the 1086 manor extended into the land of the manors of Croxden (17,18) and Alton (1,54). However, Rocester gives the impression of having once been a larger and more important manor and it is possible that a number of estates that were separately listed and apparently independent in 1086 had originated in it.
	WOODLAND ... WIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a punctus after lat' and left the rest of the line blank before entering the value on a new line. For such spaces, see 1,8 after note.
1,18	CRAKEMARSH. This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish and, like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
		Crakemarsh became a Ferrers fee and in Book of Fees, p. 969, it appears as Krakemerz together with Cracton' [Creighton, SK0836] and Strongeshul [Stramshall, SK0735] which were presumably the dependencies mentioned but not named by Domesday, or were among them; see Book of Fees, p. 542. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) Crakemerch and Crethton were held from Edmund 'Crouchback' (Earl of Lancaster), brother of King Edward I, by John de Verdun and were recorded as a member of the manor of Uttoxeter (1,19). This connection with Uttoxeter may have originated much earlier.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the mill detail and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
1,19	UTTOXETER. The Domesday form is Wotocheshede. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Uttoxeter was held from Edmund 'Crouchback' (Earl of Lancaster), brother of King Edward I, in 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) and was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 19, and had probably been part of the Ferrers barony before that. On the descent of Henry of Ferrers' lands, see STS 10 Henry note.
		The manor of Kingstone (SK0629) probably originated as part of Uttoxeter. In the thirteenth century it was held by the Gresley family; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118; Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	FOR THE SPACE left between the woodland details and the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
1,20	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Barton-under-Needwood.
	BARTON[-UNDER-NEEDWOOD]. This was a chapelry of Tatenhill Ancient Parish. Tatenhill is not itself mentioned in Domesday, but Wychnor (11,49) also lay within its parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Land at Barton with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). The fact that the next entry in that charter is for Tatenhyll [Tatenhill], suggests that Tatenhill (not named in Domesday) was then a part of Barton. The relationship was later reversed. For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		In a charter dating from the same year (942) King Edmund also gave land in Newanbolde to Wulfsige the black: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 92 no. 83 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 484 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 10-12 no. 6). If this place is Newbold in Barton-under-Needwood, then it appears to have been an additional estate which is, nonetheless, probably included in Barton-under-Needwood in Domesday. However, in this charter all the other places given were in Derbyshire, though close to each other and to Burton. The possibility that this place was Newbold in Derbyshire (DBY 1,1) cannot currently be ruled out. Burton Abbey later held land in Tatenhill (by 1185, see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 202), but the origin of this estate is uncertain.
		Barton-under-Needwood passed to the Earls of Ferrers and was held as Barton in Offlow Hundred as part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 15.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These dependencies probably included Tatenhill (SK2021), which named the later parish, and Dunstall (SK1820); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 39 note 14. Tonstal [Dunstall] and Neubold [Newbold, SK2019] were a Ferrers fee in Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969.
	THE WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note. The woodland here no doubt contributed to the later forest of Needwood; see {Introduction: Forest}.
1,21	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Leek.
	LEEK. This was the township of Leek and Lowe in Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Most or all of the manor was granted in 1093 by the king to Earl Hugh of Chester and descended in that earldom. In 1232 part was granted to the abbey of Dieulacres by Ranulph 'de Blundeville' (i.e. of Oswestry), a later Earl of Chester. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) the manor of Leek was held by the Abbot of Dieulacres and recorded as formerly belonging to the 'Liberty of Chester'. It remained a possession of that abbey until its dissolution in 1538. The rest of the manor reverted to the Crown in 1237 together with the Earldom of Chester. See Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 100-102.
		No churches in the manor of Leek are mentioned in Domesday, but it seems probable that the church at Leek was pre-Conquest. There were also churches at Cheddleton (8,30, originally a member of Leek Ancient Parish), Horton (SJ9562) and Ipstones (SK0249); see VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 78, 132.
		A borough had been established at Leek by c. 1207, together with a weekly market; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. p. 80.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. The later medieval estate of Leek consisted of 12 townships: Leek and Lowe (SJ9955), Bradnop (SK0155), Endon (SJ9253), Heaton (SJ9562), 'Leekfrith' (SJ9861), Longsdon (SJ9654), Onecote (SK0455), Rudyard (SJ9557), 'Rushton Jones' (possibly now Rushtonhall, SJ9261), Rushton Spencer (SJ9362), Stanley (SJ9352) and Tittesworth (SK0058). Of these, Endon (1,61), Rudyard (1,63) and both parts of Rushton (1,64) were listed in Domesday as separate estates, but probably only because they were waste. All these may well have been parts of the pre-Conquest estate of Leek. After 1086, Heaton and 'Leekfrith' were given with the bulk of Leek itself to Dieulacres Abbey; Bradnop and Onecote were separated and granted to Henry de Audley. Henry de Audley gave Bradnop to Hulton Abbey: Book of Fees, p. 1286. The core of Rudyard remained a separate estate (1,63 Rudyard note) and the Audleys created a manor named Horton, which included Horton (SJ9457), Endon (1,61), part of Rushton (1,64) - that is, 'Rushton Jones' -, Longsdon (SJ9654), Stanley (SJ9352) and Bagnall (SJ9250), this last being in the parish of Stoke-upon-Trent; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118; VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 69-70, 78-80, 171, 187, 196, 205. The honour of Chester continued to hold part of Leek. In Book of Fees, p. 970, it holds Longesdon' [Longsdon], Ruston' [Rushton, 1,64], altera Longesdon [another estate in Longsdon] and half of Ipstan [Ipstones, SK0249] .
	AS MANY WIDE. That is, 4 leagues wide. In the Phillimore printed edition the Latin totid[em] is translated as 'as wide', as if the word were tantum.
1,22	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Rugeley.
	RUGELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		After 1086 it remained in royal hands until 1189 when it was granted (with the manor of Cannock, 1,25) to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, by King Richard I; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 154. As Ruggele, it forms part of the Liberty of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 17, together with Canokbury [Cannock, 1,25]. There was a serjeantry here in the thirteenth century held for guarding the 'hay' of Rugeley in Cannock Forest by a family called de Puz or de Puteo who held from Hugh de Loges, the chief forester of Cannock, the overlord having been the king before the Bishop of Chester; see Book of Fees, pp. 7, 594.
		A member of the manor, not mentioned or named in Domesday, was Brereton (SK0516). A further member, retained by the Crown when Rugeley was granted away, was Hagley (SK0418), held by the keepers of the 'hay' of Rugeley; see VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 154-55.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	THE FIFTH PART OF 1 HIDE. No corresponding fifths of a hide occur on estates near Rugeley. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have briefly omitted the s on pars as it almost touches the h of hidę.
	WOODLAND. It appears to have been drawn into the royal forest of Cannock; see 1,25 woodland note.
1,23	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Mayfield.
	MAYFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Matherfeld was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 14, and had probably been part of the Ferrers honour of Tutbury before that. On the descent of Henry of Ferrers' lands, see STS 10 Henry note. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 118) it was recorded that the prior of Tutbury had gallows at Mathelefelt.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not evident what or where these were.
1,24	THIS ENTRY and the next four (1,25-28) were written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, perhaps after a break, using a different pen and a paler ink to those he had used earlier in the column (folio 246c). His writing became smaller too, especially for the last of these entries (1,28). The fact that the ink for the entries in the next column (1,29 on) is darker means that he decided the pale ink was not adequate; he also wrote larger there, though still smaller than in the early part of chapter 1 (before 1,24). It is unlikely that he left a space for these five entries and returned later to insert them: they had been held by Earl Algar like those in the next column (1,29-32) and Elford (1,26) was in Offlow Hundred as were those four entries, so it is hard to see how they could have not been found during editing.
	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Meretown.
	MERETOWN. This was a settlement in Forton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17. It may have stood for Forton (SJ7521) in 1086, the latter later becoming the more important place: Meretown and Forton are coupled in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. The church of Forton was said to be in the king's gift in 1198-99: Book of Fees, p. 1331.
		Meretown continued in the hands of the Crown until 1204, when it was given to Ralph de Somery along with the manors of Kingswinford (1,1) and Clent (WOR 1,6) in exchange for Wolverhampton (7,1); see Rotuli Chartarum, p. 136; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 105.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is probable that Forton was among them; see 1,24 Meretown note.
	A MILL AT 3s AND 4000 EELS. The eels, from the mill-pond, formed part of the mill's render. In the Phillimore printed edition the semi-colon after '3s' makes this unclear. Although this is the only mention of eels in connection with mills in Domesday Staffordshire, such renders were common in Domesday; see SHR 4,3,52 mill note.
	WOODLAND ... 2 FURLONGS. In the Alecto facsimile only the first minim of the ii. is reproduced; in the manuscript it is fainter than the first. However, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile it is the same colour as the first, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand there; compare 1,26 smallholders note, 1,26 mills note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.
1,25	CANNOCK. The Domesday form is Chenet, contrasting with later forms such as Cnot (1156), Canot (1157), Canoc (1198), although the identity is not in doubt; see Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names, under Cannock. Domesday appears to contain the first mention of Cannock. The form Canuc found in a charter of 956 (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 609) and often quoted as the earliest form and, furthermore, as proof of a Celtic origin of the name, does not appear to belong here; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 56.
		This Cannock was an Ancient Parish, perhaps only from the time of the Dissolution; earlier it was probably in Penkridge Ancient Parish as a dependency of Penkridge collegiate church; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 407; and 7,17 Penkridge note. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, see 17,5.
		In 1086, Cannock consisted of this hide and a carucate at 17,5. Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 162, would be inclined to couple the 1 hide here with the three at Hatherton (7,13) and the one at "Estendone" (13,10) to make a five-hide unit, ignoring the carucate in 17,5.
		The estate was granted to Ranulph de Gernon, Earl of Chester, by Henry Plantagenet (the future King Henry II) in 1153 and was given in the same year by Ranulph to the Cistercian Abbey of Radmore; its monks transferred to Stoneleigh (in Warwickshire) in 1155. Cannock appears to have returned to royal hands before being given (with Rugeley, 1,22) to the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield in 1189 by King Richard I; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 53. It is Kanoc cum membris in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114. As Canokbury, it forms part of the Liberty of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 17, together with Ruggele [Rugeley, 1,22].
		On the important forestership of Cannock and the forest serjeantries, see Book of Fees, pp. 142, 348, 1331.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. One of them will have been Great Wyrley (SJ9907), of which the king was overlord until 1487. Although the dependency is not named and no tenant given, it seems probable that it was held from the king both in 1066 and in 1086 by Richard the forester (see STS 13 Richard note), descending both with the office of royal forester and with Richard's manor of Chesterton (WAR 44,8). It therefore passed to his daughter Margery, the wife of William Croc, and descended in that family until, after a later William Croc was hanged in 1170, the king gave his lands and his sister (another Margery) to Robert de Brok. His successor was Peter de Brok who became a monk, after which, by 1195, the land went to Hugh de Loges who was husband of Robert de Brok's daughter (a third Margery); see Book of Fees, p. 7; VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 5, 77-79. For Little Wyrley, see 2,16.
		A further dependency was probably Cheslyn Hay (SJ9707) which was guarded in the thirteenth century by Robert Trumwine and then William Trumwine as a serjeanty for which they held 1 virgate in Cannock (Kanok, Kanocksbur') and for which Robert Trumwine had formerly paid a mark to Hugh de Loges; see Book of Fees, pp. 594, 1186, 1246; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115.
		Another dependency may have been Huntington (SJ9713), which was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish. Huntington is identified by some with "Estendone" (13,10); see 13,10 "Estendone" note.
	WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote a b above and slightly to the left of iiii. and an a above the vi. to correct their order. It is not entirely clear whether he intended the whole of the width to be transposed (so that the length preceded the width, as usual) or whether it was just the figures that he wanted to alter (so the width was 6 leagues and the length 4 leagues. However, elsewhere in Great Domesday, as well as in some of the ecclesiastical manuscripts in which he worked, he used such letters to correct the order of phrases rather than figures (which he could easily have corrected by erasure or overwriting). The Phillimore printed translation merely included (b) and (a) where they occurred in the manuscript, but the Alecto edition corrected the order of the width and length and that has been followed in the present edition.
		This woodland no doubt formed the nucleus of the later royal forest of Cannock; the woodland at Rugeley (1,22) probably formed a northern extension of it; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 40; VCH Staffordshire, ii. p. 338, v. p. 58; and {Introduction: Forest}.
		According to the Book of Fees, p. 1275, 'King William enfeoffed a servant Richard Chenvin with land to guard the forest of Cannock'. The land was held by Hugh de Loges in or before 1246; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 79; and STS 13 Richard note.
1,26	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Elford.
	ELFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Land at Elleforda was given by Wulfric Spot to his daughter, with reversion to Burton Abbey, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 11). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.
		After 1086, this estate passed to the barony of Chester (descent from Earl Hugh): Book of Fees, pp. 545, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	8 SMALLHOLDERS. In the manuscript the first minim of viii is faint (the smooth, shiny parchment here meant that the ink did not take well), probably the reason why in the Alecto facsimile the number appears as v.ii. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, however, all the minims appear the same, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 mills note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.
	2 MILLS. In the manuscript the first minim of ii is faint (the smooth, shiny parchment here meant that the ink did not take well), probably the reason why in the Alecto facsimile the number appears as i. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile, however, both minims appear equally clear, suggesting that it may have been touched up by hand; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 smallholders note, 1,27 Kinver note and 2,5 Haywood note.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
1,27	[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Kinver and Pattingham (1,27-28).
	KINVER. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Kinfare. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 15. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Kinver is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is coupled with Halfcot (SO8685) and Compton (SO8284).
		The woodland of Cynibre was first mentioned in 736 (Early Charters of the West Midlands, p. 91 no. 211 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 89). This is a grant by Aethelbald, King of Mercia, to his comes Cyneberht of land at Ismere [in Churchill, Worcestershire] by the River Stour and at Brochyl in Morfe Forest, for the construction of a monastery. The wood is also mentioned in the grant of 2 mansiunculae, at Cookley in Wolverley (Worcestershire), in 964 (Early Charters of the West Midlands, p. 112 no. 288 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 726). The land granted is said to be bounded in the north by the forest of Cynefarestan and in the west by the forest of Morfe. The estate of Kinver is not attested until Domesday.
		It appears that after 1086 Kinver was farmed by Urso of Abetot, sheriff of Worcestershire, and then by his son Roger who succeeded him as sheriff. The estate was granted before 1168 by Henry II together with the keepership of Kinver Forest to Philip son of Helgot, great grandson of Helgot the 1086 holder of Bobbington (11,43); see Book of Fees, pp. 142, 348, 594; Feudal Aids, v. p. 9; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. pp. 161-62; and see VCH Staffordshire, ii. p. 343. It was later known as the manor of Kinver and Stourton of which the king retained the overlordship. The manor contained the estates of Stourton (SO8585), Dunsley (SO8583) and Whittington (SO8582). See Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116; VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 129, 134-35.
		Stourton Castle was erected on the land of Kinver. It originated as a royal hunting lodge which had been built by the late eleventh century as William II stayed there. The castle was in existence by 1222 and became the residence of the lords of Kinver. The borough of Kinver was in existence c. 1221 when a market was granted. See VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 130-31, 143.
		In the Alecto facsimile the second E and the R of the Domesday form CHENEVARE have not been reproduced satisfactorily, the E appearing as an L and the R hardly appearing at all. Both are faint in the manuscript. However, in the Ordnance Survey facsimile they appear clearly, suggesting that they may have been touched up by hand there; compare 1,24 furlongs note, 1,26 smallholders note, 1,26 mills note and 2,5 Haywood note.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. For Compton, Dunsley, Halfcot, Stourton and Whittington, see 1,27 Kinver note. An outlying part of Kinver was Kingsley in Tettenhall Ancient Parish; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 21.
	7 SMALLHOLDERS. In the Alecto facsimile the number of smallholders appears as ii, not the vii which is clearly the reading in the manuscript and which is reproduced clearly in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other poor reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	A PRIEST. The church remained in the king's gift and in 1226-28 was held by Gilbert of Lacy: Book of Fees, p. 384.
	WOODLAND. This was no doubt the nucleus of the later Kinver Forest. Kinver Forest is first so named in 1168 but it seems probable that it was the unnamed forest that impinged on the holdings of "Haswic" (7,6), Chasepool (12,3), Enville (12,10) and "Cippemore" (12,11); see {Introduction: Forest}.
	THE VALUE WAS AND IS 100s. An entry in Worcestershire Domesday (WOR 1,4) reports 'From Kinver, he [the sheriff] pays 100s at 20 [pence] to the "ora". This land is in Staffordshire'; see 1,1 Kingswinford note.
1,28	PATTINGHAM. This was an Ancient Parish, which included the Shropshire township of Rudge. Pattingham became a separate Civil Parish in 1866, confined to Staffordshire; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 419. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		After 1086 this estate was given to Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester, and descended within that earldom; see Book of Fees, p. 544; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 175. An undertenancy, not mentioned in Domesday, appears to have passed to the Bassets of Weldon, being held under them in Feudal Aids, v. p. 9, by Roger de Somery. In 1254-55 however, Patingham was held of the fee of Roger de Somery (that is, from the barony of Dudley); see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	A PRIEST. His church was given to Launde Priory (in Leicestershire), c.1120 at its foundation; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 180.
1,29	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four places (1,29-32).
	CLIFTON [CAMPVILLE]. This was an Ancient Parish. For civil purposes, it was known as Clifton Campville with Haunton; ecclesiastically it was Clifton Campville with Chilcote. Chilcote was a settlement in Derbyshire and remained there for civil purposes. Clifton Campville probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Land at Clyfton with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). It seems probable that the next entry in the grant (Hagnatun, that is Haunton (SK2310) in Clifton Campville, was one of the dependencies of the estate in 1086. For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		Clifton passed to the Ferrers barony, becoming part of the honour of Tutbury (see STS 10 Henry note). It was held by Richard de Kaunvill' in 1242-43: Book of Fees, p. 975; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 15.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. Staffordshire Domesday does not specify. However, Chilcote in Derbyshire (DBY 1,25) is said to belong to Clifton Campville. Chilcote was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Burton-upon-Trent which itself lay in Staffordshire in 1086 and later, although Chilcote was in Derbyshire in 1086, being transferred to Leicestershire in 1897. In the Derbyshire text, the layout of Domesday, with its marginal letters B and S, gives the impression that DBY 1,21-26 are outliers or Jurisdictions of the manor of Repton (DBY 1,20) which Ingleby, ending the list at DBY 1,26 is expressly said to be. Therefore the information that Chilcote belongs to Clifton Campville is surprising. The position of the sentence 'this belongs to Clifton [Campville] in Stafford' could suggest that this is a statement in support of a claim: that Chilcote is not an outlier of Repton (where the king's agents in Derbyshire have scheduled it) but a dependency of Clifton Campville in Staffordshire; see DBY 1,25 belongs note. Another claim relating to Clifton Campville (16,1) may illuminate the present entry. It reads 'Nicholas claims this land for the king's revenue in Clifton [Campville]'. This interpretation is more likely than that Clifton Campville is a dependency of Repton and Chilcote of Clifton Campville, and therefore of Repton; see 16,1 claims note.
		A further dependency was probably Haunton; see 1,29 Clifton note.
1,30	DRAYTON [BASSETT]. This was an Ancient Parish, part of which was in Warwickshire. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		After 1086, this estate passed to the barony of Chester (descent from Earl Hugh); see Book of Fees, p. 544. Ralph Basset holds in 1242-43: Book of Fees, p. 970; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what or where these were.
	8 BURGESSES IN TAMWORTH. See 1,9 Tamworth note.
	BELONG TO THIS MANOR. Staffordshire is one of many counties where the status of a holding (manor, outlier, Jurisdiction) is not normally given.
	WORK THERE LIKE THE OTHER VILLAGERS. The 'there' is presumably Drayton Bassett. Many burgesses in Domesday are linked to rural manors, on behalf of which they may be trading in the borough and enjoying the merchant's rights of being a burgess. Sometimes, the details of these links are given in the borough entry itself. That these burgesses sometimes worked on the manors to which they belong can always be assumed, but is here explicitly stated, as also in SHR 3h,1, WOR 19,12 and compare SUS 5,2. Thus these are not resident burgesses; see DBY B1 resident note.
		'Villagers' is here being used in its general sense of the inhabitants of a village, including smallholders and other inhabitants.
	KING HAS 2 MILLS ... AND MEADOW, 20 ACRES. WOODLAND. The Latin ac[ra]s is accusative after habet rex ('the king has'), but the woodland is in a separate sentence. The punctuation in the Phillimore printed edition does not make this clear. On the possibility that the meaning is that the mills and meadow were part of the lordship, but the woodland was for general use, see 1,31 mill note.
1,31	HOPWAS. This was a hamlet civilly and ecclesiastically in Wigginton which itself was a chapelry of Tamworth Ancient Parish. There was also a hamlet called Hopwas Hayes. Like Wigginton (1,9) Hopwas probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Hopwas is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown.
	IN LORDSHIP A MILL. The mills of Domesday are usually listed among the resources of the estate and therefore, probably, available to all; see 1,1 mill note. Occasionally, as here, the mill is the lord's or 'serves the hall'; for the former, see BUK 14,46. DEV 23,22. NFK 20,22, and for the latter, see CHS 1,1. 9,25. SHR 2,1. SUS 9,2, WOR 8,10a. 26,3. etc. The phrasing of the entry for Drayton Bassett (1,30) - 'In the manor the king has 2 mills ... and meadow ... ' - may also suggest that they were part of his lordship, though the woodland there, which is in a separate sentence, apparently was not. In KEN 5,2 there is a fishery 'which serves the hall'. On meadow as part of the lordship, see DBY 16,8 meadow note.
1,32	HARLASTON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Clifton Campville. Like Clifton Campville itself (1,29), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Land at Heorlfestun was given by Wulfric Spot to his brother Aelfhelm in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 5).
		Harlaston passed to the Ferrers barony; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. pp. 8, 15.
		It is represented by Harlaston and Little Harlaston, both at SK2110.
	4 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not write the plough estimate immediately after the hidage but left a space because of the overrun of the value in the previous entry (1,31), although he had separated it from the present entry by his use of a 'gallows' sign. On spaces that were left for the later inclusion of missing material, see 1,7 hundred note, 1,7 land note, 1,8 after note, 2,3 hides note and 4,6 villagers note.
	2 SLAVES. These are misplaced: normally in this county they are entered after the lordship ploughs before the villagers. They were not a later addition to the text, but may have been misplaced or added in the source used by the main scribe of Great Domesday. He also originally wrote iiii for the number, but later erased the first and last minims and the punctus after and then interlined o (the last letter of duo, '2') in clarification (compare 2,18 meadow note and 1,11 meadow note).
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	THESE 4 MANORS, AS ALSO THOSE ABOVE. The four manors are Clifton Campville, Drayton Bassett, Hopwas and Harlaston (1,29-32). 'Those above' are the others in this section of the Terra Regis (1,11;13-28), the intervening manor (11,12) being held by Earl Harold.
1,33	THIS ENTRY begins the final section of the 'Land of the King' and consists of abandoned estates in the hundreds of Pirehill and Totmonslow. See STS 1 king note.
	IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. [* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. The manuscript has IN CVDOLVESTAN h[undre]d[o], but this is clearly an error, as the settlements listed in 1,33-47 must have been in Pirehill Hundred. The next heading, (above 1,48) is for Pirehill Hundred, but that is an error for Totmonslow Hundred.
	BIDDULPH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Like a number of royal estates it passed to the de Verduns and was held by Theobald de Verdun in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 5).
		The grid reference (SJ8960) is for both Biddulph and 'Over Biddulph', the former represented by Biddulph Old Hall and the latter by Over Hall Farm and Over Biddulph. Biddulph Grange is at SJ8959.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what or where these were.
	GRUFFYDD. The Domesday forms - Grifin, Grifinus - represent Old Welsh Griffin, a pet form of Old Welsh Gruffudd with the Romance suffix -in: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 275. JRM preferred the modern spelling Gruffydd and this is the form used for the Welsh King Gruffydd in the Handbook of British Chronology. The printed Phillimore edition of Cornwall has Griffin; this has now been standardized as Gruffydd. The Alecto edition has Gruffydd, except for Cornwall where it has Griffin.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
1,34	BUCKNALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Like a number of royal estates it passed to the de Verduns and was held with Biddulph (1,33) by Theobald de Verdun in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 5). For a possible further portion of Bucknall, see 11,21 Hulton note.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. This odd fraction is probably complemented by the third part of a hide at Abbey Hulton and 'Rushton' (11,21) and by the third part of a hide at Burslem (11,22), neither of which were waste. All these places are adjacent.
	KETIL <OF BUCKNALL>. The Domesday forms of this name - Ketel, Chetel, Kitel, Chitel, Ketellus etc. - represent Old Norse Ketill, Old Danish Ketil: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 304-305. Although Ketel may have been JRM's preferred form, he chose Ketil- in compounds, so it has been thought best to use the Old Danish form of the name here. The Alecto edition has Ketil.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		It is just possible that this is the same man as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in Derbyshire, who also held an estate retained by the king (see DBY 1,32 Ketil note), but this is a tenuous connection given the large number of waste estates in royal hands. The Cheshire Ketils were too distant, and too poor, to be plausibly linked with Bucknall (JP).
1,35	OAKLEY. This was a settlement in Mucklestone Ancient Parish. Like Mucklestone itself (17,8), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		Land at Acclea was given by Wulfric Spot to his daughter, with reversion to Burton Abbey, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 12). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.
	AKI. The Domesday forms of this name - Achi, Achi(us), Achil, Aki, Aki[us] - represent Old Danish Aki: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 142. The Alecto edition has Aki.
1,36	HEIGHLEY. This was a settlement in Audley Ancient Parish. Like Audley itself (17,13) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		On modern maps Heighley appears as an area name at SJ7747. Heighley Lane and the remains of Heighley Castle are at SJ772467. Heighley Castle Farm is at SJ772465.
	ALWARD. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluuard(us), Eluuard(us), Aeluuard(us), Aluuart, Aluard[us], Awart - could represent Old English Ælfweard or Old English Æthelweard, or even Old Danish Halwarth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 155-57, under Al-weard, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -ward for Old English -weard, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alward, Alfward, occasionally Aethelweard, and in Yorkshire Alweard; these have now been standardized as Alward. The Alecto edition has Alweard for those appearing under Al-weard. Some of those called Alward in the present edition appear under Old English Ælfweard in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 181, but only because the forms in the Liber Exoniensis suggest this, or because of other evidence. Some also appear under Old English Æthelweard in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 188-89, as they do in the Alecto edition, but their Domesday forms lack the medial -d- or -g- that JRM thought necessary for inclusion under that form.
1,37	MILLMEECE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		In Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, Mulneceyeys is held by the Bishop of Chester. It is possible that this was a later royal gift, but it may be that it had been alienated to the Crown in 1086 for it was surrounded by lands belonging to the bishopric.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space for the assessment of this holding to be added later; he did not put a punctus after MESS.
	WULFHERE. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlfer, Vlfhere, Wlfhere - represent Old English Wulfhere: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 421. The Alecto edition has Wulfhere.
		There are only four occurrences of this name in Domesday Book, the others being in SUS 10,10;66 and, described as Godman's man, in SUF 2,17. There is no evidence linking these 1066 holders.
1,38	SHELTON. The Domesday form is Scelfitone. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. Like Stoke-upon-Trent itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. There is another Shelton in Pirehill Hundred, Shelton-under-Harley, which was a settlement in Swynnerton Ancient Parish (SJ8139). The identification with Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent is due to Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 77, and table between pp. 74-75. It was Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 168, who suggested Shelton-under-Harley. In favour of Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent is the fact that in the Book of Fees, p. 594, Selton' is held by William Muriel in the manor of Newcastle[-under-Lyme] by service of guarding the king's 'hay' of Clive [unidentified]. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, land at Shelton' is recorded as Ancient Demesne of the Crown and is a member of the royal manor of Penkhull (1,16). This makes it more likely that this Shelton lay in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent, unless it was silently included by Domesday under some other estate. This was apparently the identification of Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names, under Shelton. It had perhaps originated as a part of Penkhull, and is only separately listed here because it was waste.
		An apparent difficulty with an identification of Scelfitone with Shelton-under-Harley is that Shelton-under Harley is chosen by Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, to represent Chauelesdon and by Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279, to represent the similar Chaueledon', which are both places in Pirehill Hundred. However, Chauelesdon and Chaueledon' seem unlikely early forms of Shelton; Gelling, Place-Names in the Landscape, p. 187, evidently regards Shelton-under-Harley as a 'shelf-settlement' from Old English scelf or scielf or scylfe and tun; see Duignan, Staffordshire Place-Names, p. 134. In fact, Chauelesdon and Chaueledon' look like the same place as Cerueledone (2,11), a member of the Bishop of Chester's manor of Eccleshall (2,10), which is usually identified with Hill Chorlton or Chapel Chorlton, for one of which Domesday supplies the form Cerletone (2,11). However, Cerletone and Cerueledone do not appear to be the same name, and it seems likely that Hill Chorlton and Chapel Chorlton are divisions of a single 'Chorlton'. It seems therefore that either Domesday Cerueledone is Shelton-under-Harley or it is an unidentified place and Shelton-under-Harley does not appear in Domesday (it could be silently included in Swynnerton, 11,18), unless Wedgwood is right in identifying Domesday Scelfitone with it. See 2,11 Chorlton note.
		It should be noted that in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, Chauelesdon is held from the barony of Stafford, which itself holds it from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. This clinches the identification with Cerueledone (2,11), held in Domesday by the Bishop of Chester; previously the bishopric was based at Lichfield and later at both Coventry and Lichfield.
	ALFGEAT. The Domesday forms - Aluiet, Aluied, Aluet, Alued[us] - represent Old English Ælfgeat: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 173, who stated that where the sex of the tenant could not be ascertained, as here, derivation from Old English Ælfgyth was possible. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for the Old English Ælf-, as the Domesday forms have no initial diphthong. The Alecto edition has Ælfgeat.
1,39	HATTON. This was a settlement in Swynnerton Ancient Parish. Like Swynnerton itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. It was left unidentified by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table vi, facing p. 75. On the identification, see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 168; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 40 note 17.
		It is represented by Upper Hatton (SJ830373) and Lower Hatton (SJ828367).
	ALFGEAT. On this name, see 1,38 Alfgeat note.
1,40	FULFORD. This was a chapelry of Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself is not named in Domesday Book, but a number of Domesday places were in the Ancient Parish: Fulford (1,40), Hilderstone (1,44. 11,27), Aston-by-Stone (1,47. 11,9;23), Cotwalton (1,45. 8,21), Normacot (13,3), Darlaston (4,6), Meaford (5,1. 8,24), Moddershall (8,21), Walton (11,8), Stoke(11,9), and Tittensor (11,33). Fulford probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Fulford appears to have been acquired by Westminster Abbey after 1086. In 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 5) it was held by Richard de Lee from the prior of Malvern who held from the Abbot of Westminster.
	ALMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Almar(us), Almer(us), Elmer(us), Elmar(us), Aelmar(us), Aelmer(us), Aelmaer(us), Almaer(us), Elmaer(us) - could represent either Old English Ælfmær or Old English Æthelmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 147-48, under Al-mær, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær as more of the Domesday forms had -mer than -maer. The Alecto edition has Almær for those listed in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 147-48, under Al-mær. However, a number of names rendered in the present edition as Almer (generally because under Al-mær in von Feilitzen) appear in the Phillimore printed translations as Aelmer, whereas JRM apparently intended to reserve that name for those Domesday forms beginning Aeil-, Ail-, Eil-, Ai-, which represent Old English Æthelmær. Some also appear under Old English Æthelmær in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 184-85, but their forms lack the -d- or -g- that JRM regarded as a prerequisite for inclusion under Aethelmer.
1,41	MILWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12 (Meluyz, Mulewich); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. In 11,30 Swein and "Rafwin" are given as the 1066 holders of '3 parts of 1 hide' in Milwich. According to VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 40 note 18, it is possible that "Rafwin"'s portion of the 3 parts of one hide (probably 1 virgate) is duplicated here. On the other hand, this 1 virgate is waste and the land of "Rafwin" and Swein in 11,30 is cultivated by Osbern under Robert of Stafford. The present virgate is probably separate, and with the '3 parts of 1 hide' (that is, ¾ hide) makes a former single holding at Milwich of 1 hide.
	"RAFWIN". The name represented by the Domesday forms Rafuuin[us] and Rafuuin, which only occur in STS 1,41;45. 11,30, is unclear, though the second element is Old English -wine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 345-46. It has therefore been decided to keep to the Domesday form. The printed Phillimore edition has Rafwin, as does the Alecto edition. However, see 2,22 Raven note.
1,42	COTON?. This was perhaps the settlement in Milwich Ancient Parish which, like Milwich itself (1,41), probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 40 note 19.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. The identity of these is not known.
	YLVING <OF COTON?>. The Domesday forms of this name - Eluing here, Eluuinc for DBY 6,77, Iluingus for the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 - represent Old Norse Ylfingr, Old Swedish Ylving: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 429. The Phillimore printed translation for NFK 9,152 has Ylfing, but Ilving for the DBY and STS occurrences; these have now been standardized as Ylving. The Alecto edition has Ylving for the DBY and STS examples, but Ylfing for the NFK one.
		It is unlikely that Ylving is the same individual as Henry of Ferrers' predecessor in DBY 6,77 or as the 1086 holder in NFK 9,152 (the fief of Roger Bigot).
1,43	ENSON. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was combined with Salt (11,12) to form a single township; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 423. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
	WULFHEAH. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlfac, Vlfah, Vlfeg, Vlfech, Vlfag, Wlfah(us), Vlfeih, Vlfegh - represent Old English Wulfheah: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 420-21. The Alecto edition has Wulfheah.
1,44	HILDERSTONE. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. At 11,27 Dunning and Wulfric are given as the 1066 holders of 'the fifth part of 1 hide' in Hilderstone. According to VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 40 note 20, it is possible that Wulfric's portion of the one-fifth of a hide is duplicated here as a ½ virgate. On the other hand the estate at 11,27 is under full cultivation and not waste, so it is probable that the present ½ virgate is a separate holding. Wulfric was a very common name, so it is not even certain that the Wulfric here is the same individual as the one in 11,27.
	WULFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Vluric(us), Vlricus, Vlfric, Wluric(us), Wlfricus, Wlfuricus, Vlfriz etc. - represent Old English Wulfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 423-24. The Alecto edition has Wulfric.
1,45	COTWALTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Like other settlements in that Ancient Parish (for example, Hilderstone 1,44) it probably lay in Pirehll Hundred in 1086. For another part, which appears to be part of an estate cultivated in 1086, see 8,21.
		Min lyttle land on Cotewaltune ('my little land at Cotwalton') was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28) and probably never reached it. There were apparently two estates at Cotwalton in 1086 (1,45. 8,21). The first was of 1 virgate, while the size of the other is not stated. It is not certain how Wulfric Spot's 'little land' relates to these.
	"RAFWIN" AND ALWIN. On the name-form "Rafwin", see 1,41 "Rafwin" note.
		The Domesday forms of the name-form Alwin - Aluuin(us), Aluuine, Aeluuin(us), Aeluin(us), Aluin(us), Eluuine, Eluuin(us), Eluinus - could represent Old English Ælfwine, Old English Æthelwine, Old English Ealdwine or even Old English Ealhwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 158-60, under Al-wine, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -win to Old English -wine, as it reflected the form of the majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alwine for those appearing under Al-wine. Some of those called Alwin in the present edition appear under Old English Ælfwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 181, but the Domesday forms (Aluuinus, Aluinus, Eluuius) do not contain the -f- or –v- that JRM thought was necessary for inclusion under that name. Some also appear under Old English Æthelwine in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91, but the Domesday forms (Aeluuinus, Aluuine, Aluuin(us), Aluinus) do not contain the -d- or -g- which JRM thought was the requisite for inclusion under that name. In some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alwine and A(i)lwin appear, but these have now been standardized as Alwin.
1,46	HILCOTE. This was a settlement in Chebsey Ancient Parish. Like Chebsey itself (10,9), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		The grid reference is to Hilcote itself (SJ8429). Hilcote Hall is at SJ847296, Hilcote Farm at SJ842300 and Hilcote Cottages at SJ840301.
	THORBIORN. The Domesday forms of this name - Turbern(us), Turber, Torber, Torbern, Torbern[us], Thurb[er]n[us] - represent Old Danish Thorbiorn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 392. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Thorbern and Thorbjorn; these have now been standardized as Thorbiorn. The Alecto edition has Thorbiorn.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
1,47	ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish and is sometimes known as plain Aston. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. For other parts, both fully cultivated in 1086, see 11,9;23.
		On modern maps Aston-by-Stone is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND AND 1 VIRGATE ... LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This is unusual in two ways. Firstly, it is the only case among this group of 'waste' estates (1,33-64) where assessment in carucates is combined with a plough estimate. Other entries here have one or the other, which tends to suggest that they are equivalent formulae. In the present entry, however, there seems to be no reason for both formulae, unless the 'Land for 1 plough' is a true plough estimate, referring only to the virgate, and that the carucate represents a more recent assessment of land for which the hidage has been lost (see 1,5 carucate note). Secondly, it combines a carucate and a virgate. In the Danelaw areas, the bovate is the subdivision of the carucate; in Wessex and Mercia where the carucate is used to assess lands that have not been hidated, there is no subdivision; see 1,5 carucate note. However, it is more likely that the virgate here was a separate piece of land which survived from the assessment in hides, but that the former assessment was unknown for the rest of the estate, which perforce was assessed as a carucate. In 17,17 Stramshall, although it is not waste, is assessed at '2 carucates and 1 virgate of land'. If this too had once been partly waste land, it is likely that the interpretation would be the same as that of the present entry. It is unlikely that the carucate has crept in as an error for hide.
	ODA. The Domesday forms of this 1066 holder - Ode, Odo, Oda - probably represent Old English Od(d)a, though according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 333, these forms could also represent Old Norse/Old Danish Oddi (Old Swedish Odde) or Old German Odo. The Phillimore printed edition has Oda for the earl and for STS 1,47. 11,29 (as has the Alecto edition), Odda for BRK 6,1 (Alecto Oda), Oddi for the YKS examples (as Alecto except for 14E49 (Otti). It also has (plain) Odo for HAM 1,W1-2. 23,25. 51,2. WAR 22,22. WIL 66,6. WOR 12,2. BUK 26,5, for Odo, Brictric's man (BUK 26,5) and for Odo of Winchester (who also held in 1086), Odo (son of Edric/the Englishman: DEV 52,22-25), Odo the steward (HAM 6,16, perhaps a scribal error for Eudo the steward), Odo (the treasurer: DOR 1,21) and for Aldred's brother Odo; for these the Alecto edition has Oda, except for BRK 65. 10,1 (Odo of Winchester) and WAR 22,22 (Old). These Phillimore forms have now been standardized as Oda.
1,48	IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. [* IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED *]. The manuscript has IN PEREOLLE h[undre]d[o] which is an error, bearing in mind the location of the following places (1,48-64).
		It appears that King Edward had no estate in Totmonslow Hundred so it is probable that the following estates were held from Earl Algar and after him from Earl Edwin.
	WOTTON. This was a township of Ellastone Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Wootton-under-Weaver. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For Ellastone, see 2,15. 11,39.
	LAND FOR 2, OR 3, PLOUGHS. Similar indecisions are noted at 1,51-53;61;63. They may be rough estimates applied to abandoned land, in which case it could suggest that no official survey was made on which to base a proper assessment for tax. Alternatively, the reading in the source used by the main scribe of Great Domesday may have been unclear: this is supported by his use of vel ('or') elsewhere in Great Domesday (e.g., LIN 4,35. HAM IoW 2,1), though see 2,22 outliers note. Although these interlineations here were not later additions, many of those including vel were done during a check of his source.
		This is not a plough estimate, but the equivalent of '2, or 3, carucates of land' and an assessment of the tax liability of this piece of waste land; see STS 1 king note.
	SWEIN. The Domesday forms of this name - Suain, Suen(us), Suuen, Suein, Suuain, Suan(us), Suuan, Suin[us] etc. - represent Old Norse Sveinn, Old Danish/Old Swedish Sven: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 380-81. JRM preferred the form Swein. In the Phillimore printed editions of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire this name appears as Sveinn, but has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition also has Swein.
1,49	STANTON. This was a township of Ellastone Ancient Parish. Like Ellastone itself (2,15. 11,39), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	ARNKETIL. The Domesday forms of this name- Archil, Archel, Archetel, Archillus - represent Old Danish Arnketil, Old Norse Arnkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arkell, Arketel and Arnketill (the last, in YKS and LIN, following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 14-16); these have now been standardized as Arnketil. The presence in Domesday Book of so many occurrences of the forms Archil and Archel may, however, suggest that these men were known by the Old Norse name. The Alecto edition has Arnketil.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
1,50	MUSDEN. Musden Grange was an extra-parochial area; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 417. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
		The Domesday name is represented by Upper Musden (SK122504) and Musden Grange (SK124513).
	UHTRED. The Domesday forms of this name - Vctred(us), Uthret(us), Huthradus, Vstredus, Uthredus - represent Old English Uhtræd: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 398. JRM preferred the second element -ed for Old English -æd, as it reflected the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Uhtræd.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
1,51	SHEEN. This was perhaps originally an Ancient Parish, but later became a chapelry of Ilam; see 4,8 dependencies note; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 414. Sheen probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		One hide at Sceon was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28) and probably never reached it. However, according to the Bull of Pope Lucius III (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 42) Wulfric Spot's gift was of the capella de Scona cum tota decima ('the chapel of Sheen, with the whole tithe'). This presumably reflects Burton Abbey's acceptance that it had lost the estate of Sheen, while retaining its chapel. This chapel depended on Ilam, a possession of the abbey; see 4,8 Okeover note; Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 224; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 202, vii. p. 246.
		After 1086 it presumably remained in the hands of the Crown, possibly as part of the manor of Leek, but like Rudyard (1,63) was held by Bertram de Verdun in the late twelfth century and descended in his family; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. p. 243.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space between the place-name and the plough estimate. It is not clear what this was for, though he may have wanted to list these estimates under each other in these brief entries in Pirehill Hundred (1,48-64); compare his separation of the values in the similar entries in the king's land in Yorkshire (folios 300d-301c).
	LAND FOR 2, OR 1, PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have originally interlined [ve]l ii. here and then erased the first minim, as there is the remains of something before the existing i. which is not a punctus. In four of the six occurrences where he was unsure of the number, he decided on '1' with 'or 2' as a possibility. See 1,48 land note.
	ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note.
1,52	STANSHOPE. This was a settlement in Alstonefield Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		After 1086, the estate remained in royal hands until granted, in 1227, to Henry de Audley; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. p. 17.
	LAND FOR 1, OR 2 , PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.
	WUDIA <OF STANSHOPE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Wodi, Wodie - represent Old English Wudia: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 417. In the Phillimore printed translations the name appears as Wodi. The Alecto edition has Wudia. This name only appears in DBY 6,56 ('Fenton' and Sturston) and in STS 1,52, so it is possible that the same person had held them: 'Fenton' and Sturston are adjacent and Stanshope just over six miles from them.
1,53	FARLEY. This was a township of Alton Ancient Parish. Like Alton itself, it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.
	ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially omitted the d at the end of Aluuard, but later inserted it using the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 2,5 holds note and 11,48 slave note.
1,54	ALTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. Alton included the township of Cotton which is not mentioned in Domesday.
		In the mid-thirteenth century, Alton was held from the king by Roissa de Verdun (Book of Fees, p. 545), later by John de Verdun and in 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) it was in the king's hands following John's death. Theobald de Verdon held Alveton in Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
		Alverton Hall Farm (SK0941) presumably represents the early spelling of the name, Domesday Elvetone.
	IWAR <OF ALTON>. The Domesday form of this 1066 holder, who only occurs twice (1,54-55), Juuar, represents Old Danish Iwar (Old Norse Ivarr, Old Swedish Ivar): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 300. The 1086 tenant in SHR 4,27,34 (Iward[us]) probably shares this name: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 286. The printed Phillimore edition has the form Ivar, though JRM's policy was to prefer the Old Danish over the Old Swedish name-form; it has therefore been altered for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Iwar.
		It is likely that the Iwar here is the same man as the Iwar who had held the adjacent estate of Denstone (1,55), but the Shropshire subtenant of Earl Roger is almost certainly a different person.
1,55	DENSTONE. This was a township of Alton Ancient Parish. Like Alton itself, it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	IWAR <OF ALTON>. See 1,54 Iwar note.
1,56	CONSALL. This was originally an Ancient Parish, later a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish but a township of Cheddleton Ancient Parish; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 408. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems originally to have written t'ra uni' carucatê ('land consisting of 1 carucate'), but during a check he jotted something in the centre margin next to this entry and later erased it when he corrected his original to t'rae una carucata ('1 carucate of land'). On these marginal notes, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91). For other corrections with erased notes in the margin next to them, see 2,21 villagers note, 2,22 leagues note, 7,2 plough note, 11,9 meadow note, 11,15 held note, 11,39 value note, 11,68 from note, 15,1 Ralph note. There is also an erasure of something interlined above the una carucata which also removed the top of the r in it, perhaps connected with this correction and done by the main scribe. The erasure at the end of this entry after tenuit seems to be the top part of an erasure at the end of the next two entries.
		This phrase appears to be the equivalent of the 'land for n ploughs' formula used in some entries in Domesday Staffordshire; see STS 1 king note. It might be relevant that at the end of two of the three entries in this section of waste lands (1,48-64) that are described in terms of carucates of land (whereas the rest have 'land for n ploughs') there are erasures; these erasures might have been of 'Land for n ploughs' which, it was realized, were redundant because the 'carucate(s) of land' conveyed the same information; see 1,57 erasure note and 1,58 erasure note.
	WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.
1,57	CHEADLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For other parts, both under cultivation in 1086, see 11,42 and (if correctly identified) 17,19.
		Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37 and table viii facing p. 96, identified Domesday Cedla with Checkley, as he did the estate with the same name-form held by Otto in 1086 (17,19). For the identification with Cheadle, see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 119; Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills' pp. 35-41; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 41 note 24. See also 17,19 Cheadle note.
		Cheadle is probably the Chedle held by Ralph Basset in Totmonslow Hundred in 1316 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 13).
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This appears to replace the plough estimate; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,47 carucate note.
	WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.
	THERE IS AN ERASURE at the end of this entry, after tenuit, but none of the words originally there is now visible. On what they might have been, see 1,56 carucate note.
1,58	NEWTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Draycott-in-the-Moors. Draycott-in-the-Moors (SJ9840) does not appear in Domesday, but Newton may stand for it. Newton itself is represented by Lower Newton Farm (SJ987387), Upper Newton Farm (SJ987389) and Newton Park Farm (SJ988398). Totmonslow, the meeting place of the hundred, lies in the same Ancient Parish (SJ9939). Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37, did not identify this place; the identification is due to Burne, 'Domesday Niwetone'; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167.
		This estate appears to have passed to the Domesday holder William Malbank (on whom, see 8,28 William note) or to his heirs. It was granted c. 1160 by a later William Malbank to Hugh son of Nicholas of Draycott along with Draycott-in-the-Moors itself, Consall (SJ9648, part of Cheddleton, 8,30, held by William [Malbank] in 1086) and Leye [unidentified], together with a salt-house in 'Wick Malbank' [Nantwich in Cheshire; see CHS 8,16]; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 223-24.
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND. This appears to replace the plough estimate; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,47 carucate note.
	WULFGEAT. The Domesday forms of this name - Vluiet, Vlfiet, Vluuiet, Ouiet, Wluiet(us), Wluiat, Vluied, Vuiet, Oluiet - represent Old English Wulfgeat: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 419-20, though he suggested that derivation from the feminine Old English Wulfgyth was formally possible for those people not identified as masculine. The Alecto edition has Wulfgeat.
	ALWARD. On this name, see 1,36 Alward note.
	THERE IS AN ERASURE at the end of this entry, after tenuit, but none of the words originally there is now visible. On what they might have been, see 1,56 carucate note.
1,59	"LUFAMESLEG". Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37, left this unidentified, but Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 41-44, following Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested Paynsley (in the Ancient Parish of Draycott-in-the-Moors, at SJ9839) and he was followed in this by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 41 note 26, and by the Phillimore printed edition. However, Bridgeman's case is not compelling. It partly rests on the assumption that Lufamesleg following, as it does, Newton in Draycott-in-the Moors should be close to it, but it largely rests on the notion that Lufamesleg shares the element -ley with his proposed identification. In fact, -ley is too common a termination for this to be decisive.
		In the Alecto facsimile this place-name appears as LVFAMESLES, though the final letter is clearly a G in the manuscript. According to the Editors' note at the end of the Places Index in the Alecto edition of Staffordshire (Staffordshire Domesday, p. 40), mis-reproductions such as this were 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'. For other instances of misleading reproductions of Staffordshire place-names and hundred names in the Alecto facsimile, see 5,1 Meaford note, 7,5 Tettenhall note, 11,2 Totmonslow note, 11,65 Levedale note, 12,4 Sedgeley note, 12,21 Moseley note, 12,23 Offlow note, 12,26 Rushall note, 12,29 Handsworth note, 13,1 Pirehill note, 13,7 Dimsdale note, 13,9 Cuttlestone note and 13,10 "Estendone" note. On other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,13 hide note, 1,27 smallholders note, 2,6 [***] note, 2,10 villagers note, 11,66 him note, 12,8 £3 note, 17,1 Cynewin note and 17,15 land note.
		In the Ordnance Survey facsimile the last letter could be read as either a G or an S. Farley, however, misread it as an S. For other misreadings by Farley in this county, see 2,11 Chatcull note, 2,22 Yoxall note and 11,19 free note and compare 16,2 entry note.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
1,60	FORSBROOK. This was a settlement in Dilhorne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
	SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
1,61	ENDON. This was a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Endon almost certainly originated as a part of Leek (1,21) and is only given a separate listing because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and been reabsorbed by the manor and was granted as part of it in 1093 to the Earl of Chester. It was in the part of Leek that reverted to the Crown together with the Earldom of Chester in 1237 and subsequently became part of the manor of Horton created by the de Audleys; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 78-80, 181; and 1,21 dependencies note. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) Endone was held with Aldithelee [Audley, 17,13] by Henry de Audley from the king. It was then said to be held of the manor of Alton (1,54).
	LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.
	DUNNING. The Domesday forms of this name - Dunning, Dunninc, Donning, Dunniht, Donninc - represent Old English Dunning: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 228. The Alecto edition has Dunning.
1,62	ROWNALL. This was a settlement in Cheddleton Ancient Parish. Like Cheddleton itself (8,30), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	WULFMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlmar(us), Vlmer(us), Wlmer(us), Wlmar(us), Vlmaer(us), Wulmarus, Vlfmer, Wlmaer etc. - represent Old English Wulfmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 421-22. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær, as it reflected the spelling of the Domesday names. The Alecto edition has Wulfmær.
1,63	RUDYARD. This was a township of Leek Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. The grid reference (SJ9557) is to the settlement of Rudyard. Rudyard Hall is at SJ963597.
		Rudegeard was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 52). However, it was not confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28) and probably never reached the abbey.
		Rudyard which, on the ground, is surrounded by members of the manor of Leek (1,21) almost certainly originated as a part of it, and probably never left it as Wulfric Spot's grant did not come to fruition. It is probably only given a separate listing in Domesday because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and it was probably reabsorbed by the manor for a time, before being acquired (by the mid-twelfth century) by the de Verduns of Alton; see 1,21 dependencies note; VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 78-80, 217.
	LAND FOR 1, OR 2, PLOUGHS. See 1,48 land note.
	WULFMER. On this name see, 1,62 Wulfmer note.
1,64	RUSHTON. This was a chapelry of Leek Ancient Parish. In later times the chapelry contained separate townships called Heaton, Rushton Jones and Rushton Spencer; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 415. Like Leek itself, Rushton probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Rushton almost certainly originated as a part of Leek (1,21) and is only given a separate listing because it is waste. It appears to have recovered and been reabsorbed by the manor and was granted to the Earl of Chester in 1093, but was in that part of Leek that was not granted to the Abbey of Dieulacres. It reverted to the Crown in 1237 together with the Earldom of Chester and it was later divided into 'Rushton Jones' and Rushton Spencer. The southern half of Rushton ('Rushton Jones') became part of the separate manor of Horton created by the de Audleys; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 78-80, 221; and 1,21 dependencies note.
		Representing Rushton on modern maps are Rushton Spencer and Rushton Bank (both at SJ9362) and Rushtonhall (SJ928614). This last is probably the site of 'Rushton Jones'.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	ALL OF THIS LAND OF THE KING IS WASTE. This refers only to the estates listed in 1,33-64. Had the main scribe of Great Domesday wished to refer to all of the Terra Regis, he would have left a line's space before this sentence, rather than writing it on a new line. It is not clear, however, why he wrote Regis in capitals and rubricated it, unless to emphasize that the king held all the land in this unusual section, as none of the entries in it begins Rex ten[et].
2	LAND OF THE BISHOP OF CHESTER. The see of Mercia was fixed at Lichfield in Staffordshire by Ceadda (St Chad), bishop of the Mercians, the Lindisfari (the inhabitants of Lindsey, later in Lincolnshire) and the Middle Angles between 664 and 672. The church was built on land that had apparently been given earlier by King Wulfhere of Mercia (657-674) to Bishop Wilfrith of York for the foundation of a monastery. St Chad's original diocesan church was on a site adjacent to the later cathedral. A new church was constructed by Bishop Headda and consecrated in 700. It was apparently dedicated to St Mary, although Bede (Ecclesiastical History, iv. 3, pp. 344-45) gives St Mary as the dedicatee of the original church and St Peter as that of the new one. It was later dedicated to St Chad. In 822 there were 20 canons including a provost, that is 11 priests and 9 deacons. They were then living in accordance with the rule of Bishop Chrodegang of Metz.
		The work of the bishops will have been disrupted by the Danish marauding and settlement of the late ninth century, since Lichfield itself would have lain just within the Danish part of Mercia, if the boundary between the kingdoms was Watling Street; see {Introduction: History}.
		The see was transferred by Bishop Peter to Chester in 1075. The cathedral church there was the church of St John the Baptist, a secular college, possibly founded by King Ethelred of Mercia in 689; more likely by the earl of that name in 906. It was repaired and endowed by Earl Leofric under Edward the Confessor. The see was moved to Coventry in 1102 by Bishop Robert de Limésy who had been consecrated in 1086, at which point the church of Chester reverted to being a college. Canons are mentioned in Domesday. See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 413, 422.
		Unless there is other evidence, it is likely that the estates listed in Domesday had been held by the see from much earlier times. The initial endowment of the see, like the gift of Lichfield itself, was probably due to King Wulfhere of Mercia; see {Introduction; Ecclesiastical Organization}; 2,16 Lichfield note; VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 140-41.
	At first sight this chapter seems to be in some disarray. There is no sign of any later additions or of transposition signs linking scattered pieces of material together, yet the hundredal sequence is repetitive:
		2,1-4 Cuttlestone Hundred
		2,5-9 Pirehill Hundred
		2,10-14 Pirehill Hundred
		2,15 Totmonslow Hundred
		2,16 Offlow Hundred
		2,17-21 [Pirehill Hundred]
		2,22 [Offlow Hundred]
	The Pirehill hundred heading at 2,10 is repeated without cause. Moreover, the survey of Lichfield is split into two portions (2,16;22) and there are signs that those of Haywood (2,5) and Eccleshall (2,10) are also in two parts. It is almost as if the main scribe of Great Domesday were working from loose parchment sheets or was abbreviating, but not editing, a confused exemplar. The number of spaces left for missing information - hidage on three occasions (2,3;6;8) and a plough estimate in 2,10 - also suggest that his source was far from perfect.
		Closer inspection suggests that an originally straightforward survey of six manors has become confused:
		Cuttlestone Hundred
			2,1 Brewood
			2,2-4 Baswich
		Pirehill Hundred
			2,5-9;17-19 Haywood
			2,10-14;21 and probably 2,20 Eccleshall
		Totmonslow Hundred
			2,15 Ellastone
		Offlow Hundred
			2,16;22 Lichfield.
	The detailed arguments for this proposed structure are given in the notes. The essential point is that section 2,17-22 contains material that should have been inserted earlier. Possibly in an attempt to clarify the layout the scribe a space (after 2,20), it would have been clearer if he had left spaces after 2,16 and after 2,21.
2,1	BREWOOD. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. Brewood may well have been among the earliest grants to the see of Lichfield and may itself have originated in the royal manor of Penkridge (1,7).
		The estate was held by the bishops of Coventry and Lichfield until 1852; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 17; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 25. A part was situated at Broom Hall (SJ8710) and this was granted to the dean and chapter of Lichfield between 1155 and 1159; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 27. Further members were Engleton (SJ8910), Gunstone (SJ8704), The Hattons (SJ8804), Horsebrook (SJ8810) and Somerford (SJ8908); see Book of Fees, p. 969; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282; VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 31-34.
		It seems very likely that Chillington (SJ8607) had been part of this estate. In 1086 it was entered in error in the Warwickshire folios (WAR 28,19), though under the heading of a Staffordshire hundred (Cuttlestone). It was then held by William son of Corbucion, though claimed by the Bishop of Chester. It appears to have been restored to the bishopric; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		No church is mentioned at Brewood in 1086, but one there had been appropriated to a prebendal stall in Litchurch Cathedral before the last quarter of the twelfth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 40.
	THE CHURCH. That is St Chad's of Lichfield, the cathedral of the see until its removal to Chester in 1075; see STS 2 Bishop note. In this fief the choice of 'the church' or of 'St Chad's' as 1066 holder appears to depend on the hundred: places in Cuttlestone Hundred (2,1-2) and Offlow Hundred (2,16) are said to have been held by 'the church', those in Pirehill Hundred (2,5;10) and Totmonslow Hundred (2,15) by 'St Chad's'.
	WOODLAND. In later times a forest named from the manor was attached to it; see {Introduction: Forest}.
2,2	BASWICH. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known for ecclesiastical purposes as Berkswich with Walton; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 403. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		The estate continued to be held until 1546 by the bishopric whether based at Lichfield or at Coventry; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 4.
	THE CHURCH HELD IT. See 2,1 church note.
	A PRIEST. The church of Bednall (2,4), which is said to belong to Baswich, had (by 1255) been appropriated to the prebend of Baswich in Lichfield Cathedral; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 7.
	WALTON[-ON-THE-HILL]. This was part of the township of Baswich, Milford and Walton in Baswich Ancient Parish. The Ancient Parish was sometimes known for ecclesiastical purposes as Berkswich with Walton; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 403. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Walton was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	VALUE. This refers to both Baswich and Walton-on-the-Hill.
2,3	ACTON [TRUSSELL]. This was a chapelry and township of Baswich Ancient Parish It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but as Brocton and Bednall (2,4) are said to belong to Baswich (2,2) it is possible that Acton Trussell, which is adjacent on the ground, was also part of Baswich and had therefore belonged to the bishop. Like Brocton and Bednall, it was later regarded as being part of the episcopal manor of Haywood (2,5) and the bishop remained overlord into the sixteenth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 13.
	ROBERT [* OF STAFFORD *]. The identity of this Robert is shown by the fact that his successors, the barons of Stafford, held under the bishop in later times; see Red Book of the Exchequer, ii. p. 263; Book of Fees, pp. 967, 975; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 13.
		On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote it over the erasure of a slightly longer name; the d of de looks as if it may have been overwritten because of the erasure.
	[*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Ibi and then left a space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later, as he also did in 2,6;8;19 and 17,7. In the left, inner, margin, level with it, he wrote r (for require, 'enquire'); on these requests for information, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 190-91). See also 2,6 hides note and 8,29 land note. As often happened, the missing material was never found or entered.
2,4	IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. [* IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED *]. The heading for Pirehill Hundred belongs above the next entry (2,5) and should have been written at the end of its first line or on the final line of the present entry (2,4). However, there was no room in this entry and the fact that it overran onto some of the space occupied by the first line of 2,5 probably persuaded the main scribe of Great Domesday to write this hundred head in a convenient space at the end of the entry for Acton Trussell (2,3). This 'misplacement' of a hundred head occurs elsewhere in Great Domesday; compare 11,34 Totmonslow note and 17,6 Pirehill note; see also NTH 2,7 Hartwell note. In the Phillimore printed edition this head appears above 2,5 with a note; in the Alecto edition its position is as in the manuscript.
		A Cuttlestone hundred head has been inserted because that was where Brocton and Bednall lay, terminating a list of places in that hundred that began at 2,1.
	BROCTON. This was a township of Baswich Ancient Parish. Like Baswich itself (2,2) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		After 1086 Brocton recovered from its waste state and formed part of the bishop's manor of Haywood (2,5). The bishop's overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 4-5. It is held as Brocton' with Bodenhale [Bednall] by the bishop in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	BEDNALL. This was a chapelry and township of Baswich Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		After 1086 Bednall recovered from its waste state and formed part of the bishop's manor of Haywood (2,5). The bishop's overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 4, 13. It is held as Bodenhale with Brocton' [Brocton] by the bishop in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	THEY BELONG TO BASWICH. That is, to the estate at 2,2.
2,5	[* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. On the misplacement of this head in the manuscript, see 2,4 Pirehill note.
	HOLDS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the n of ten' in the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 1,53 Alward note and 11,48 slave note. The n was not over an erasure (see 2,5 Haywood note) and as there is no obvious reason for its initial omission and as the abbreviation sign after it is not in darker ink too, it is possible that there was an n here originally, but for some reason it was very faint and that he overwrote it.
	HAYWOOD. Great Haywood and Little Haywood were settlements which lay in the Ancient Parishes of both Colwich and Stowe. Neither Colwich nor Stowe appears by name in Domesday. The Ancient Parishes of Colwich and Stowe also shared Hixon (2,6). In addition Colwich Ancient Parish contained the Domesday settlements of Wolseley (2,7), Fradswell (2,8), Coley (2,17), Moreton (2,18) and Bishton (17,6), while Stowe Ancient Parish contained Drointon (2,19) and Amerton? (8,13).
		In 1086 Haywood lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5, 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. The Pirehill hundred head was written at the end of the entry for Acton Trussell (2,3); see 2,4 Pirehill note. According to 2,9, Haywood was a manor.
		After 1086, the estates of Acton Trussell, Brocton and Bednall (2,3-4) were regarded as part of the bishops' manor of Haywood. The episcopal overlordship continued into the sixteenth century; see Book of Fees, p. 968; Feudal Aids, v. pp. 6, 13; VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 4-5, 13. However, in Book of Fees, p. 975, the Bishop of Chester is said to hold Heywod' from the Earl of Ferrers, a descendent of Henry of Ferrers.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote HAIWODE over the erasure of a longer place-name: he made the middle bar of the E longer and continued the red-lining up to the end of the original name to cover the erasure. Neither of these devices appears in the Ordnance Survey facsimile, presumably because the red-lining was applied to it by hand as a separate exercise. This replacement was done before he rubricated the county.
	ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.
	A PRIEST. His church may have been at Colwich; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 172.
	A MILL AT 5s. Following this would normally be details on meadow and woodland. They were evidently omitted by accident and then added by the main scribe of Great Domesday in 2,9 during his initial writing up of this county. Similar brief omissions occur elsewhere in this chapter, such as the dimensions of the woodland of Eccleshall given within the entry for Seighford (2,21), though a space may have been left in 2,10 for them, and the woodland and further members of Lichfield in 2,22 (rather than in 2,16).
	THE FOLLOWING LANDS BELONG TO HAYWOOD. This refers to the estates listed in 2,6-8.
2,6	HIXON. This was a township of Stowe Ancient Parish according to Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes, but it also extended, like Haywood (2,5), into Colwich Ancient Parish. Neither Stowe nor Colwich appear in Domesday. Hixon probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		This was a member of Haywood (2,5).
	PICOT. The Domesday forms of this name - Picot, Picotus - derive from the Old French word picot. This is probably a diminutive of Old French pic ('a point', 'pointed object', 'pointed weapon' or 'pointed tool'), from Latin pica. As a nickname it was 'perhaps metaphorically applied to a (tall and) thin person': Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 379. However, examples in Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Pic, Pique, Pichon, all suggest that it is an occupational name, sometimes affectionate, sometimes demeaning: 'a man who uses a pic' ('pickaxe', 'crowbar' etc.). This seems inappropriate to a man of Picot's status, a subtenant. Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Pike, mentions another Old French pic (Latin picus), 'a woodpecker', perhaps applied to physique or a personal mannerism; under Pickett he suggests that Picot may well be a diminutive of pic, already used simply as a personal name, without association with a weapon, tool, trade or bird; see Hanks and Hodges, Dictionary of Surnames, under Pike. The Alecto edition also has Picot.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The Domesday form of this name, Nigell(us), is a Latinization (by an incorrect association with niger, 'black') of the Old Irish Niall, which was 'carried to Iceland by the Scandinavians as Njall, taken to Norway, then to France and brought to England by the Normans. It was also introduced direct into north-west England and Yorkshire by Norwegians from Ireland' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Neal). The Alecto edition also has Nigel.
		The likelihood that this Nigel is Nigel of Stafford rests on the assumption both that the holder of Moreton (2,18) under the bishop is the same man (Nigel of Stafford) who holds the other part on chief (16,3) and that all the subtenants of the bishop called Nigel in this chapter (2,6-7;17-19;22) are the same man. For Nigel of Stafford's fief in this county, see STS 16.
		Nigel holds from Picot who holds from the bishop. It is rare for the main scribe of Great Domesday to include such a lower level of tenancy, though they were probably quite common. It is interesting that in another occurrence of this in Domesday Staffordshire (15,2) Nigel (of Stafford) also held land from a tenant of Ralph son of Hubert. See also 2,20 men note and LEC 2,2 Herbert note.
	[*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Ibi and then left a small space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later. In the left, inner, margin, level with it, he wrote r q[uan]t[um] t[er]rae ('enquire into how much land'). The Alecto facsimile does not reproduce this marginal note at all, though it is actually clearer than the marginal r next to the space left for the hidage in Acton Trussell (2,3) further up this column; on other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note. On these requests for information, see 2,3 hides note.
2,7	WOLSELEY. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday; see 2,5 Haywood note. In 1086 Wolseley probably lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		Wolleleg, presumably this place, was held from the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	WHICH BELONGS TO HAYWOOD. That is, to the manor surveyed at 2,5.
2,8	FRADSWELL. This was a chapelry of Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday; see 2,5 Haywood note. Fradswell probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		After 1086, this estate continued to be held by and from the church together with 'Tymmor' (2,22) and Freeford (2,22), these last two being parts of Lichfield in Domesday; see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 253, and for Fradswell, see Feudal Aids, v. p. 7, where Tymmor, Frest and Frodeswell are held from the bishop. Frest could be a misreading of an abbreviated form of Freeford.
		There is no village of Fradswell. Fradswell Hall is at SJ991313, with the church adjacent. Fradswell Hall Farm is at SJ990311. Fradswell Lower Farm is at SJ993305.
	ALFHELM. The Domesday forms of this name - Aelfhelm[us], Elfelm[us], Alfelm[us] - represent Old English Ælfhelm: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 174. JRM preferred the first element Alf- for the Old English Ælf-, as it reflected the spelling of more of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Ælfhelm.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	[*** HIDES]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Ibi and then left a space for the hidage of this holding to be inserted later before continuing the sentence on its belonging to Haywood. He did not jot down an r (for require, 'enquire') in the margin next to it, as he did for the other two spaces left for the hidage in this column (2,3 hides note and 2,6 hides note), though not for the space left in 2,19.
	WHICH BELONG TO HAYWOOD. That is, to the manor surveyed at 2,5.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
2,9	IN THE MANOR OF HAYWOOD. The details of meadow and woodland which follow were omitted from the main entry for Haywood (2,5); see 2,5 mill note.
2,10	IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. This head is unnecessary because the main scribe of Great Domesday had already provided one at 2,4. If this survey of Eccleshall were on a separate sheet, the hundred might have been transferred mechanically from it.
	ECCLESHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5,13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. The estate is described as a manor in 2,11.
		It seems likely that Eccleshall, which was the head of a large parish, had been part of the endowment of the see of Lichfield since early times. The first element of the name is probably ecles ('church'), the second element halh ('a corner' or 'angle' or 'hidden place'). However, in the will of Wulfric Spot, founder of Burton Abbey (Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 = Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29), he gave to his foundation an estate called Eccleshale, which is taken by Sawyer in Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xxxiv, to be Eccleshall in Staffordshire. Further, an entry in the Burton Annals (Annales Monastici, i. p. 185) reads: 1087. Obiit Willelmus rex Bastardus. Hic dedit nobis videlicet monasterio Burtoniensi Ufram majorem et minorem, tempore suo, cum tota terra de ultra Dova et Eccleshall ('1087. King William the bastard died. In his time, he gave to us, that is to the monastery of Burton, greater and lesser Over [Mickleover and Littleover] with all [its] land on the other side of the [River] Dove and Eccleshall'). The 'land on the other side of the Dove' clearly lay in Derbyshire, and probably stands for the dependencies of 'Over' already mentioned, which was the only Derbyshire estate given to Burton Abbey by King William. It is across the river from Burton-upon-Trent. However, the annalist did not locate Eccleshall. There are at least three other places in England, not all sharing the same etymology but of which Eccleshale might be an early form: one (Ecclesall) in the West Riding of Yorkshire and two (Exhall) in Warwickshire. The Yorkshire place is not in Domesday Book, nor, apparently is Exhall near Coventry, but Wulfric Spot's estate could be Exhall near Alchester in Warwickshire (WAR 28,12). If so, it was among the several estates that never reached its destination, or was subsequently alienated. See STS 4 Burton note.
		Eccleshall and its members are surveyed in two parts (2,10-14;21 and probably 2,20). In addition to these extensive named estates, later evidence suggest that Eccleshall accounted also for Pershall (SJ8129); see Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 5. Standon (SJ8134) was probably another member; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 7. For Eccleshall itself, see Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5, 13.
	ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after T[er]ra ç for the later insertion of the rest of the plough estimate. On such spaces, see 1,7 land note.
	14 VILLAGERS. In the manuscript the number of villagers is clearly xiiii with no ink blots or other marks. In the Alecto facsimile it appears as xiui, as it also does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. On other misleading reproductions in the Alecto facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note. Although the Ordnance Survey facsimile was touched up by hand occasionally (compare 1,24 furlongs note and 1,27 Kinver note), in this case the odd mark may have been caused during the curing of the photographic plates outside in Southampton.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
2,11	[BISHOPS] OFFLEY. This was a township of Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Bishops Offley was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975 (Offele, Offileg' Ciprian), and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5 (Bissopst[o]ffeleg).
		The members of the manor of Eccleshall given next are waste and only plough estimates are provided for them. However, although Bishops Offley which also belongs to Eccleshall, is cultivated, no hidage is given.
	LEOFNOTH. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuenot, Leuenod, Leueno - represent Old English Leofnoth: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 313. The Alecto edition has Leofnoth.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	IN LORDSHIP HE HAS LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote 'In lordship he has 3 ploughs', which is the expected information at this point in an entry, though the plough estimate which normally precedes it is missing. Scribe B then interlined T[er]ra[m] above the .iii., extending the T down before it to make the reading In dominio habet terram .iii. carucis. He used a pen with a fine tip and ink that was darker than that used by the main scribe; both pen and ink were used for his other correction in this entry (2,11 ploughs note). There is an erasure at the end of the previous line of this entry, which may have been done by scribe B. The main scribe may have written T[er]ra there, leaving the rest of the line for the later insertion of the estimate: the plough estimate of the manor to which Bishops Offley belonged was similarly missing and he left a space for its later completion (see 2,10 land note).
		This is the first of eight contributions by scribe B to Domesday Staffordshire, five of which are concerned with the size of the holding, one with the resources, this one with the demesne and one is the provision of brief details of a holding; see 2,11 ploughs note; 2,16 hides note; 5,1 hide note; 7,11 entry note; 11,48 hides note; 11,64 hides note; 12,2 woodland note. It would seem from the differing pens and ink used that they were not done in one campaign of addition, but perhaps on as many as four or five occasions.
		This apparent conversion of a statement about the ploughs in lordship apparently into one about land in lordship is unusual, as the scribe did not regularly give the amount of land held in lordship, though it was recorded in the Liber Exoniensis, the direct predecessor of Great Domesday for the south-west counties, and was probably in the other putative circuit volumes. In DOR 2,2 Alton Pancras paid tax for 6 hides T.R.E. and there was land for 6 ploughs, but besides this the Bishop of Salisbury has 'land for 2 ploughs in lordship which has never paid tax'. The fact that in Sherborne (DOR 2,6) the bishop also has ('besides the said land') 'in lordship 16 carucates of land' suggests that the 'land for 3 ploughs' in the present entry is another way of saying '3 carucates of land', like the 'land for n ploughs' that are given after the other members of Eccleshall listed in this entry (see STS 1 king note). See also DOR 3,10-11. SOM 2,1 etc. That this is not an attempt by scribe B to turn a lordship plough statement into a plough estimate is further supported by the entry for Wistow in HUN 6,4 where the Abbot of Ramsey has 'besides these [9 taxable] hides land for 3 ploughs in lordship', yet land for 16 ploughs is recorded there, as well as 2 ploughs in lordship; see also HUN 6,5-6. BDF 19,1 etc. and LEC 44,1 land note.
	ALSO TO THE MANOR ^[ECCLESHALL]^. The layout and translation of eund[em] m[anerium] in the Phillimore printed edition might suggest that the manor was Bishops Offley, but that is explicitly said to belong to Eccleshall (2,10), to which also belong the following members. Normally the emphatic adjective idem is translated as 'this/he also' in the Phillimore edition, following its most common use at the beginning of an entry referring to the previous holder. See 2,20 belong note.
	FLASHBROOK. This was a township of Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Flashbrook was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. This is probably not an estimate of plough potential, but the equivalent of '2 carucates of land'; see STS 1,1 king note and compare 2,11 land note. Similarly for all the other 'land for n ploughs' statements after the names of the other members of Eccleshall here.
	CHARNES. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Charnes was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	CHATCULL. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Half of Clutculne, held by William of Chatkulne, was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
		In the manuscript Chatcull is clearly Cetquille. Farley read the q as er (Ceteruille), but there is a small, smudged 'tick' on the descender of the q and the main scribe of Great Domesday did not extend his rs so far below the line and they always extend to the right at the top. Moreover, the forms of Chatcull given above support the manuscript reading. For other misreadings by Farley, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	'DORESLEY'. This lay near Sugnall and Little Sugnall, and the name survived at least until the late sixteenth century; see Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred with Notes' (part 2); Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 32-35; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 42 note 33. The site of the lost village is given as SJ800333 in Bate and Palliser 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35.
		The estate of Derweslowe is a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	"CERUELEDONE" ... CHORLTON. The Domesday name-forms are successively Cerueledone and Cerletone and Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 36, hesitated as to whether the first was an unidentified place or whether both were forms of Chorlton. Chapel Chorlton and Hill Chorlton were chapelries of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. They probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. If each Domesday form refers to a different Chorlton it is not possible to say which form refers to which place. However, since it is likely that Chapel Chorlton and Hill Chorlton are differentiated parts of the same 'Chorlton', it would be expected that the Domesday forms of each would be similar, if indeed they represent them.
		The fee of the Bishop of Chester at Cherlecot' (Book of Fees, p. 968), is presumably the same as that at Charlton' in Book of Fees, p. 975, and at Cherleton in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, that is, at Chorlton. However, the Chaueledon' of Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, which is the Chauelesdon of Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, appears to be a different name and to correspond to the Cerueledone of Domesday because the latter is held from the barony of Stafford which itself holds from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1,38 Shelton note). On the face of it, the name-form makes it unlikely that it is Shelton-under-Harley (as identified by Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281, following the index of Feudal Aids, which identifies 'Shilton in Swynnerton' (the same place as Shelton-under-Harley). Shelton-under-Harley looks like a proper scylf-tun ('farmstead on a shelf'). It is not certain, however, whether the Domesday Scelfitone (1,38) is Shelton-under-Harley or Shelton in Stoke-upon-Trent Ancient Parish, though the latter seems more likely; see 1,38 Shelton note. The matter requires further investigation; meanwhile "Cerueledone" has been left as an unidentified place.
	COTES. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. A separate Ecclesiastical Parish (Cotes Heath) was formed in 1844; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 410.
	COLDMEECE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
	COLDMEECE LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote 'land for 1 plough', but scribe B added an extra minim with a punctus after the .i. to make .ii., but did not remove the original punctus written by the main scribe. He used the same pen and ink that he had used for his other correction to this entry (2,11 land note). For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note. On the phrase 'land for 2 ploughs' being the equivalent of '2 carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.
	BADEN HALL. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Baden Hall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	SLINDON. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Slindon was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975.
	BROCKTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
	ALL THESE LANDS. That is, presumably, the 'members', beginning with Flashbrook, at the end of whose list this sentence is written.
2,12	BROUGHTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. It was presumably a member of Eccleshall (2,10), like Bishops Offley (2,11) and Aspley (2,13).
		The church stands isolated on the B5026 road at SJ765337. Broughton Hall is at SJ766339.
2,13	ASPLEY. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday should have written this place-name earlier in the entry and then rubricated it; the plough estimate should then have followed, as in the next entry (2,14). His source may have been confused or the wording of this member of Eccleshall may have been different.
	IT BELONGS TO ECCLESHALL. That is, to the manor there (2,10). Aspley was later a part of the manor of Coven (11,62); see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 27.
2,14	CROXTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
	IT BELONGS TO ECCLESHALL. That is, to the manor there (2,10).
2,15	ELLASTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, see 11,39.
		Ellastone was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7. It is represented by Ellastone itself (SK1143), Upper Ellastone (SK1143) and Lower Ellastone (SK1142).
	ST CHAD'S [* OF LICHFIELD *]. See 2,1 church note.
	THE FOURTH PART OF 1 HIDE. This presumably means a virgate. There is a further virgate here (11,39).
	LAND FOR 5 PLOUGHS. This appears to be a beneficial hidation.
	VALUE 12s; VALUE BEFORE 1066, 9s. The main scribe of Great Domesday normally gave the T.R.E. value before the 1086 value; he may have initially thought that only the 1086 value was provided for this holding, but then discovered his error at once. The Phillimore printed edition fails to translate the ualebat.
2,16	LICHFIELD. There were two Ancient Parishes here, Lichfield St Chad and Lichfield St Mary; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 416. In 1086 Lichfield lay in Offlow Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 15. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, it is classed as a borough.
		The early history of Lichfield connects it with the Roman fort of Letocetum, sited at SK0806 in what is now the village of Wall, close to the important junction of Watling Street and Ryknild Street. Letocetum is a Latinization of Celtic Letocaiton ('grey wood'), which latter name evolved to give Luitcoit whch is the first element in Lichfield. The second element is Old Englsh feld ('open land') and the name Lichfield appears to mean 'open land near the grey wood' or 'open land related to Letocetum'. There was a seventh-century battle at Caer Lwytgoed, which may have been in this area.
		It appears that Wulfhere, King of Mercia (657-674), gave land here and in other places to Wilfrith, Bishop of York (664 x 669 to 678) who had some responsibility for the Christianization of Mercia. On these lands, Wilfrith founded a series of monasteries. Lichfield was possibly chosen because there was no settlement there (only woods and fields) yet it was close to major lines of communication. When Ceadda was appointed Bishop of the Mercians, the Lindisfari and the Middle Angles in 669, he chose Lichfield as his seat, possibly for the same reasons, and additionally, perhaps, because there was already a church there. Ceadda's church was probably on a site adjacent to the present cathedral, but he was also reputed to have preached regularly at Stowe, half-a-mile to the north, where a medieval church was dedicated to St Chad. In his cathedral church King Wulfhere was probably buried, and King Ceolred certainly was.
		Lichfield would have lain on the Danish side of Watling Street if that formed the late ninth-century line of division between the English and the Danish parts of Mercia. It is possible that the cathedral was despoiled by the Danes and the episcopal succession disrupted. However, the church and the diocese will have recovered in the tenth century. Bishop Peter (1072-1085) moved his seat to Chester in 1075 and his successor Robert of Limésy (1085-1117) transferred it to Coventry in 1102. After 1075 the church became a minster, but a major rebuilding was begun by Robert of Limésy and completed by Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148).
		There is no sign that Lichfield was other than a rural estate in 1066 and 1086. However, a town was laid out there in the twelfth century and it is first described as a borough between 1149 and 1159; see Savage, 'Lichfield Cathedral Register', p. 87 no. 186; Thorpe, 'Lichfield'; Taylor, 'Origins of Lichfield'; Gelling, West Midlands, p. 152. On the history of the town of Lichfield and of the diocese, see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. pp. 1-9, 57, 67-73, 134-35.
		The survey of the manor here omits woodland and a number of dependencies which are included in a continuation in 2,22.
		Lichfield continued to be held by the Bishops of Chester; see Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 14-15.
	WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Two groups are listed, one here and one in the continuation of Lichfield in 2,22. Within the area occupied by the multiple estate were no doubt other settlements that Domesday does not name, but which had some importance later: VCH Staffordshire, xxiv. p. 135, names Haselour (SK2010), Statfold (SK2307), Whittington (SK1608), Farewell (SK0811), Chorley (SK0710) and Longdon (SK0814); see Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975; Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7-8, 14. All these dependencies owed dues to Lichfield in the Middle Ages. Further estates were Pipa (Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975), divided into Magna Pipa and Parva Pipa in Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7-8, that is presumably Pipehill (SK0908) and Little Pipe (SK0710), also La Wal [Wall, SK 0906], Coldecote [unidentified], Curbor' [Curborough, SK1212], Esmeresbrok [unidentifdied], Stowe [Stowe, SK1210], Elinhurst or Elmehurst [Elmhurst, SK1112] and Fisareswik [Fisherwick, SK1709]: Book of Fees, pp. 968-69; Feudal Aids, v. p. 8. A considerable number of them were later regarded as members of Longdon which became a manor, and displaced Lichfield which itself became a town and borough. The members of Longdon listed in the Offlow Hundred Roll of 1254-55 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108) are: Fisherwick (see above), 'Horton' (2,22), Handsacre (2,22), Whittington (see above), Hints (2,22), Tipton (2,22), Packington (2,16;22), Weeford (2,22); Haselour, (see above), Statfold (see above), Tamhorn (2,22), Little Wyrley (2,16), Freeford (2,22), Harborne (2,22), Hammerwich (2,16) and Pipe (see above).
	THE CHURCH. That is, St Chad's of Lichfield; see 2,1 church note.
	25 ½ HIDES AND 1 VIRGATE OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote xxv. hidê 7 una v[irgata] t[er]rê and then scribe B interlined 7 dimid[ia] in correction; he extended the 7 down after the hidê to indicate that the 'half' referred to the hides not the virgate. He did not use the same pen and ink that he had used for his two previous corrections to Staffordshire (2,11 land note and 2,11 ploughs note), but a pen with a thicker point and paler ink, the latter similar to the ink used by the main scribe here. This correction was probably done at the same time as his interlined hidages in 11,48;64 (11,48 hides note and 11,64 hides note). For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.
	5 CANONS HAVE 3 PLOUGHS THERE. These will have been members of the cathedral church of St Chad. Their holding appears to be a five-fold division perhaps in the form of prebends of what had formerly been communal property. There were five prebends in the sixteenth century (Freeford, Stotfold, Longdon, Handsacre and Weeford), but it is uncertain how ancient these were; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 140-41.
	2 MILLS. On these, see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 114.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and mills details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
	PACKINGTON. This was a hamlet lying in Weeford Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 8; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. For another part, which similarly has 'land for 4 ploughs' and may be a duplicate, see 2,22.
		Packington was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 8.
		The grid reference is to Packington Hall (SK163062). Packington Moor is at SK147057 and Packington Hall Farm at SK158064.
	LAND FOR 4 PLOUGHS. This is the equivalent of '4 carucates of land', and is not a plough estimate; see STS 1 king note. The fact that three of the members of Lichfield here are described as having 'n carucates of land', while two have 'land for n ploughs' strongly suggests that the phrases meant the same.
	THE TWO [ESTATES CALLED] HAMMERWICH. Hammerwich was a chapelry within the chapelry of Lichfield St Michael, which itself lay in the Ancient Parish of Lichfield St Mary; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 412. Like Lichfield (2,16), Hammerwich probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		The 'two Hammerwiches' were probably two estates at Hammerwich, rather than two separate settlements there. The alternative in Latin would be Humeruuich et alia Humeruuich, ('Hammerwich and another Hammerwich') with alia used to mean 'another estate called Hammerwich'; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'.
		Like other 1086 members of Lichfield, Hammerwich was later regarded as part of the manor of Longdon. Part was given to Farewell Priory by Bishop Roger de Clinton (1129-1148); see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 262.
	5 CARUCATES OF LAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday seems to have begun to write t[er]ra (.v. car[ucis]) ('land for 5 ploughs'), the formula he had used for the preceding member, Packington, and was to use for the next one, Stytchbrook. For some reason he changed his mind and added a diphthong squiggle to the a of t'ra to make it genitive ('of land'). As elsewhere in Staffordshire where land was abandoned, carucates were probably used to replace a forgotten hidation; see 1,5 carucate note.
	STYTCHBROOK. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Lichfield St Chad. Like Lichfield itself (2,16), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.
	LAND FOR 1 PLOUGH. This is the equivalent of '1 carucate of land'; see STS 1 king note.
	NORTON [CANES]. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Norton-under-Cannock. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Norton Canes is at SK0208. Also embraced by the name are Norton East (likewise at SK0208) and Norton Green (SK0107).
	[LITTLE] WYRLEY. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Norton Canes. Like Norton Canes itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 8; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 8, Wirley is coupled with Longenouere [Longnor, SJ8614] and held from the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. Great Wyrley lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, and was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish. It is presumably included silently in Cannock (1,25. 17,5) by Domesday; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
	ROWLEY. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Hamstall Ridware. Like Hamstall Ridware itself (5,2. 8,26. 11,50), it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Rowley Farms (SK118212) and Lower Rowley (SK119206).
2,17	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next five places (2,17-21). Lands in Pirehill Hundred have already been entered (in 2,5-14) among them estates held under the bishop by Nigel [of Stafford]. These present estates are not additions to Great Domesday, but they could have been misplaced in a precursor document. For none of these places is a T.R.E. holder given. This may be a simple omission, or a sign that these estates were in fact members of others. Certainly Coley, Moreton and Drointon (2,17-19) look as if they were or had been parts of Haywood (2,5) because of their location and their parochial connection (see 2,5 Haywood note). Seighford and the other estates in 2,21 are said to be part of Eccleshall (2,10) and it is possible that the situation of Sugnall (2,20) was similar; see 2,20 Sugnall note.
	COLEY. The Domesday form is Scoteslei which Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37, left unidentified. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 168, suggested Coley. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself does not appear in Domesday. However, Coley probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086, like Haywood, another part of Colwich Ancient Parish; see 2,5 Haywood note.
		The link with Haywood suggests that this may not be an independent estate but like Moreton and Drointon (2,18-19) should join the list of members of Haywood given in 2,6-8. Those estates (Haywood, Hixon, Wolseley and Fradswell) are interlaced with the present three on the ground.
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND. These carucates are not waste, but under cultivation. If it is correct to say (see 1,5 carucate note) that these carucates are an assessment of land whose earlier hidage has been lost because it was abandoned for a substantial period, then this land must have been waste but has begun to recover. For a similar occurrence, see 2,18. It is perhaps for this reason that in this case only one value (the present one) is given, though a single value (for 1086) is not uncommon in Domesday Staffordshire (see {Introduction: Layout and Content}).
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined car[uca] because no plough estimate was provided for this entry, to which the una would refer back: without this correction, the meaning would be 'In lordship 1 [carucate]'. In the next entry (2,18) he included car[uca] at the outset in the lordship statement.
2,18	MORETON. Like Coley (2,17) and Haywood (2,5), this was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish (see 2,5 Haywood note) and probably, like them, lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. Another holding in Moreton appears in 16,3.
		No T.R.E. holder is given and this was probably not an independent estate, but part of Haywood itself; see 2,17 Pirehill note and 2,18 Coley note.
		Moreton was held from the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	2 CARUCATES OF LAND. See 2,17 carucates note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from '1' by turning the i of Ibi into a minim and adding a new punctus before it and then inserting a rather kinked and tall new i for Ibi. He then interlined e (the last letter of duae, '2') in clarification; compare 1,32 slaves note and 1,11 meadow note.
2,19	DROINTON. This was a settlement in Stowe Ancient Parish. Stowe itself is not named in Domesday, but Drointon, like Hixon (2,6), another member of that Ancient Parish (though shared with Colwich Ancient Parish), was probably in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see 2,5 Haywood note.
		No T.R.E. holder is given and this was probably not an independent estate, but part of Haywood itself; see 2,17 Pirehill note and 2,18 Coley note.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. On the name Nigel and his identification, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the subtenancy, almost certainly for the hidage or carucage to be inserted later. However, he did not jot down an r (for require, 'enquire') in the margin next to it as he had done beside the similar spaces left in 2,3;6 (though not 2,8); see 2,3 hides note.
2,20	SUGNALL. Great Sugnall and Little Sugnall were townships of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), Great Sugnall and Little Sugnall probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5-6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		No T.R.E. is given by Domesday, but Sugnall may well not have been an independent estate, but a part of Eccleshall. This notion is supported by the fact that this section of the fief (2,17-22) appears to consist of additions to manors previously entered (see 2,17 Pirehill note), the next entry (2,21) contains further members of Eccleshall and Sugnall itelf was in the Ancient Parish of Eccleshall.
		Sogenhul was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5-6, two estates (Magna Sennhall and Parva Segenhull) are distinguished.
	FRANI. The Domesday forms of this name - Frane, Fran, Frano, Frani - represent the hypothetical Old Norse Frani: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 252. In the printed Phillimore edition the forms Frani and Fran appear; these have now been standardized as Frani. The Alecto edition has Frani.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	FARGRIM. The Domesday forms of this name - Fargri[m] for YKS 13E5, Fragrin for STS 2,20 - represent the hypothetical Old Norse Fargrimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 250, though he mentioned that the Staffordshire example stood for the hypothetical Fargrin. JRM preferred not to include the final -r in Old Norse names, as it did not appear in the Domesday forms. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Fargrimr and Fragrin; these have now been standardized as Fargrim.
	THESE MEMBERS ALSO BELONG TO THE MANOR. The layout of the text might suggest that the 'manor' is Sugnall (2,20). In a parallel instance, the estate of Bishops Offley (2,11) is followed by a list of estates headed by 'Also to the manor belong these members'. However, there the text has explicitly said of Bishops Offley itself that it belongs 'to this manor', referring to Eccleshall, the previous entry. In both cases, the main scribe of Great Domesday used a part of Latin idem ('the same'; see 2,11 manor note) not a part of hic ('this'): ad eundem manerium pertinent haec membra (2,11), and haec membra pertinent ad eundem manerium (2,20). However, when introducing the members of Lichfield (2,16) he wrote Ad hoc manerium pertinent haec membra. Both eundem and hoc are translated by 'this' in the Phillimore printed edition for these three entries, but the distinction is crucial: eundem amounts to 'previously mentioned' and excludes a manor mentioned immediately before, while hoc is used for a manor just described, as in the case of Lichfield (2,16) and of Bishops Offley itself (2,11). (It should be noted in passing that the scribe treated manerium as both masculine and neuter.) Thus it seems that the members here are not those of Sugnall (2,20) which is in the same entry, but of a manor mentioned earlier. Logically, this manor could be Lichfield (2,16), or Haywood, to which the estates listed in 2,17-19 probably belonged. However, the location of the members in the present entry and the fact that the lands in 2,21 belonged to Eccleshall suggest that the manor is Eccleshall and that a sentence such as 'It belongs to Eccleshall' was omitted from the details of Sugnall. See Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 79. Even if Sugnall was by this time a manor, it probably originated as a grant out of Eccleshall and its members were likely to be of Eccleshall. Moreover, the fact that the dependencies of Eccleshall (2,10-14) and Sugnall and these members (2,20) are interlaced on the ground further strengthens the argument that they were most probably members of the same manor (Eccleshall) in 1086. The use of the term bereuuicae ('berewicks', 'outliers') for these members emphasises the fact that these are the scattered lordship of a great estate: not of Sugnall, which was of minor importance, but of Eccleshall.
	[GERRARDS] BROMLEY. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12 (Bromleye Bagot); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
	PODMORE. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 5, Poddemer was a fee of the Bishop of Chester.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other members, are the same as 'n carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.
	TUNSTALL. This was a settlement in Adbaston Ancient Parish. Like Adbaston itself (2,20), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Tunstall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
		There was another Tunstall in this hundred at SJ8651. It lay in Wolstanton Ancient Parish and was probably part of Wolstanton (1,15) in 1086. It was incorporated into the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent in 1910; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 80.
	SWINCHURCH. The Domesday form is Suesneshed and the form 'Swineshead' survived until the nineteenth century, but was replaced by Swynchurch or Swinchurch; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 42 note 40. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		The grid reference is to Swinchurch Farm (SJ809371).
	ELLENHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Ellenhall was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	WALTON. This was a township of Eccleshall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The grid reference is to Walton Farm (SJ859279).
	ADBASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
	WOOTTON. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
	KNIGHTON. This was part of the township of Knighton with Adbaston in Adbaston Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Like Adbaston itself (2,20) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		Knytton was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
	4 FRENCHMEN. These Frenchmen (francigenae), like the thanes, were not part of the village population, but were presumably subtenants of the bishop. They are comparable to the thanes, Frenchmen etc. who hold directly from the king in the final chapters of many Domesday counties.
	THESE 8 OUTLIERS. There are nine names here, but Gerrards Bromley and Podmore formed a single estate. The use of bereuuicae ('berewicks', 'outliers') gives the status of these members: these were outlying pieces of lordship land of the great estate of Eccleshall.
	OTHER MEN FROM THEM. On this rare lower level of tenancy, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	BETWEEN THEM ALL. Despite the fact that the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the i of inter omnes as a small capital and put a punctus after the preceding word, car' ('ploughs'), this phrase probably refers to the villagers and smallholders: they shared the ploughs. There are many other instances of this in Domesday and this is the translation in the Phillimore printed edition and in the Alecto edition. It is just possible, however, that the omnes refers to the outliers (two lines previously in the text) and that the details of the lordship ploughs, the population with their ploughs and, probably, the meadow were a combined figure for these outliers; compare 2,20 all note and 2,22 all note.
	BETWEEN THEM ALL. The Latin is inter omnes and presumably refers to the berewicae ('outliers') in the text three lines above: the 1086 value is that of the members, as is the T.R.E. value, though the inclusion of totum ('the whole') with that means the inter omnes is redundant. It may have been automatically transferred from the predecessor document by the main scribe of Great Domesday, which is especially likely if there the 1086 value was given before the T.R.E. value (as in the Liber Exoniensis, the direct predecessor of the south-west counties in Great Domesday).
2,21	THIS ENTRY is marked off from what precedes by a space equivalent to a line or so of text, the only such space between entries in this fief. Its significance is unclear, but see STS 2 bishop note. This account of some dependencies of Eccleshall and of the woodland of that manor is misplaced: it should have been written with the main manor (2,10) and with its other members (2,11-14).
	SEIGHFORD. The Domesday form is Cesteforde; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 79. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		This is not a manorial entry in which Seighford is a caput with members, but a further list of dependencies of Eccleshall (2,10).
	ASTON AND DOXEY. Both were settlements in Seighford Ancient Parish, and, like Seighford, both probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		Doxey was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968; Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
		On the modern map, Aston, Aston Hall and Aston Hall Farm are at SJ8923; Lower Aston Farm is at SJ8823.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other estates belonging to Eccleshall, are the same as 'n carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.
	BRIDGEFORD. Great Bridgeford and Little Bridgeford were settlements in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself, they probably lay in Pirehll Hundred in 1086 as they did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. Little Bridgeford is at SJ8727; Great Bridgeford at SJ8826. Bridgeford Hall is at SJ8827.
	COTON [CLANFORD]. This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish, and, like Seighford itself, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
	LAND FOR 2 OXEN. That is, land for a quarter of a plough, assuming there were eight oxen to a plough-team. On this phrase, see 2,21 land note.
	2 FRENCHMEN. See 2,20 Frenchmen note.
	THEY BELONG TO ECCLESHALL. The 'they' is probably the has terras 'these lands' rather than the men. The lands belong to the bishop's manor (2,10).
	10 VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the number of villagers over an erasure. In the central margin level with this he had jotted down this replacement figure and then erased it when he had inserted the .x. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	THEY HAVE MEADOW, 5 ACRES. It is unusual for the meadow to be the preserve just of the villagers and smallholders.
	THE WOODLAND OF THIS MANOR, ECCLESHALL, HAS [IS]. Woodland is missing from the details of the manor of Eccleshall given at 2,10 and is inserted here at the end of the survey of its dependencies, none of which has any woodland attributed to it. This vast area is therefore a notional rectangle composed of many smaller and dispersed pieces.
		For the use of habet ('has') instead of est ('is'), see 1,7 woodland note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote Echeshelle; he then altered the first h to make an l by erasure, but failed to make a foot for it.
2,22	[* IN OFFLOW HUNDRED *]. This heading is deduced from the location of Lichfield and its identifiable members. Lichfield itself appears below an Offlow hundred head at 2,16.
	LICHFIELD. See 2,16 Lichfield note.
	IT HAS ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED BEFORE. That is, at 2,16. Only the woodland and additional members are given here.
	WOODLAND. As with Eccleshall (2,21), this woodland is no doubt an engrossment of all the individual woods attached to the manor and its members; see 2,21 woodland note.
	8 ½ LEAGUES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the 7 d of viii. leuu' 7 dim' over erasure; in the central margin level with this something has been erased, perhaps a note. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	TO THE MANOR ITSELF BELONG THESE MEMBERS. These are additional to those given in 2,16 and not waste. The Latin ipsum ('itself') is rendered by 'this' in the Phillimore printed edition. However, it does not refer to the mention of Lichfield here (2,22) but to that at 2,16. In this, its usage is similar to that of eundem; see 2,20 belong note.
	'HORTON'. JRM in the Phillimore printed edition identified it as 'Horton' and noted: 'near Tamhorn, perhaps in Fisherwick'. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table facing p. 59, stated that it lay in St Michael's Lichfield and in Fisherwick. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 168, has it 'attached doubtfully to either Endon or Leek'. Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35, place it near Tamhorn. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43, has it as 'now lost'. The place survived into the Middle Ages. It appears in Offlow Hundred as Herton' in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279, coupled with Tamhorn, by which it may have been subsequently absorbed.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. On the likelihood that this statement, and similar ones after the names of the other members, are the same as 'n carucates of land', see STS 1 king note.
	ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note.
	BEFORE EACH of the subsequent members of Lichfield the main scribe of Great Domesday drew a 'gallows' sign, probably because of his inclusion of their 1086 holders, who might otherwise be taken to be the holders of the estate mentioned next in the list.
	PACKINGTON. This was a hamlet lying in Weeford Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 8; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. For another part, which similarly has 'land for 4 ploughs' and which may be a duplicate, see 2,16.
		Packington was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 8.
	ULFKIL. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlchil, Vlchel, Vlchetel, Vlchet(e), Ulketel, Vlketel(l)us, Ulfchetel, Ulfketel, Olketel, Ofchetel etc. - represent Old Norse Ulfkell, Old Danish Ulfkil: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 399-400. As the Phillimore printed translations include Ulfkell, Ulfketel, Wulfketel and Ulfketill, it has been decided for the present edition to use the Old Danish form for them all, although the presence of -chetel and -ketel in a number of Domesday forms may suggest that the name Ulfketil or Ulfketel was also current then. The Alecto edition has Ulfkil.
	TAMHORN. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 425. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Like other parts of the 1086 manor of Lichfield, Tamhorn is later regarded as part of the manor of Longdon, promoted to manorial status from a part of Lichfield unnamed in 1086; see 2,16 dependencies note; VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 246.
		Tamhorn was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
		The grid reference is to Tamhorn Park Farm (SK180071). Tamhorn Cottages are at SK178074.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. This identification is drawn from the fact that Nigel of Stafford's successors, the de Gresleys, held this estate until at least 1241; see VCH Staffordshire, xiv. p. 246. On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	HANDSACRE. This was a settlement in Armitage Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280
		Handsacre was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	ROBERT. On this name, see B6 Robert note.
	HINTS. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Hints was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, pp. 968, 975, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	OSWALD. The Domesday forms of this name - Osuuold(us), Osuuald, Osuuald[us], Osuuol - represent Old English Osweald: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 340. As this name has survived into modern times, JRM preferred the form Oswald. The Alecto edition has Osweald.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	YOXALL. Farley transcribed this place-name as Locheshale, but in the manuscript it is clearly Iocheshale: the initial letter has no foot. He mistook an I for an L elsewhere in Domesday Book. For his other misreadings in Staffordshire, see 2,11 Chatcull note. In Book of Fees, p. 969, Yoxall is spelt Iokeshale.
		Yoxall was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Yoxall later appears among estates held of the Ferrers barony; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 15.
	RAVEN. The Domesday forms of this name - Rauen(us), Rauene, Rauan, Rauuen, Rauaius etc. - represent Old Norse Hrafn, Old Danish Rawn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 292-93, though Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 210-12, gives the Old Danish form as Rafn. JRM preferred Raven as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Rawn.
		The printed Phillimore edition has Rafwin here, but that does not seem to be the same name; see 1,41 "Rafwin" note. However, Raven's co-tenant in Yoxall is Alwin, and a person with that name had held Cotwalton with "Rafwin" in 1066 (1,45). It is possible that Rauen here is a corruption of Rafuuin(us) or vice versa.
	ALWIN. On this name, see 1,45 Alwin note.
	[PIPE] RIDWARE. This was a chapelry of Alrewas of Ancient Parish. Like Alrewas itself (1,11) it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Ridware was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968. There it is coupled with Acovere [Okeover, 4,8] held by Burton Abbey in 1086 and apparently later.
	ALRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Alric(us), Elric(us), Aelric(us), Alrich, Alrist (a scribal error) - could represent Old English Æthelric or Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 150-51, under Al-ric, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition. However, occasionally some of the people here rendered Alric appear in certain Phillimore printed translations as Aelfric or Aethelric, but their name-forms do not include the -u- or -f- required by JRM for inclusion under Aelfric, or the -d- or -g- required by him for inclusion under Aethelric.
	WEEFORD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Weford' was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 7, it is Weford and Thykbroum [Thickbroom, SK1303].
	"BUROUESTONE". Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 34, left this place unidentified, but suggested that it lay near Weeford. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, suggested that the name was represented by Borrowcop hill near Lichfield. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43, followed Eyton and has the place as 'now lost'. It was identified as 'Burweston' in the Phillimore printed edition, but this may simply be an updating of the Domesday form. According to Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34, it lay near Swinfen or Longdon.
	"LITELBECH". The site is unknown. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 34, left this place unidentified, as "Litelbech", but suggested that like "Borouestone" it lay near Weeford. He was followed by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43, which has the place as 'now lost'; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 35.
	RALPH. The Domesday forms of this name - Radulfus, Radulf, Radolf - represent Old German Radulf, from which Norman Radulf and Old French Raoul were derived: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 345. Ralph, which also derives from Radulf and Raoul (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames), was chosen by JRM. The Alecto edition also has Ralph, for both 1086 and 1066 holders, except for the T.R.E. holders in WIL 55,2 and CON 5,1,6 where it has Radulf, perhaps in error.
	FREEFORD. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 411. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Freeford was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968. It is represented by Freeford Manor (SK135076), Freeford Farm (SK129077) and Freeford Home Farm (SK143071).
	LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. There is an erasure between t'ra and vi, probably of an ink blot, as also after Horeborne two lines below in the manuscript. They were presumably done by the main scribe of Great Domesday as he wrote round them. Another ink blot, imperfectly erased, obscures the first two letters of car' in t'ra .i. car' in the next line.
	RANULF. The Domesday forms of this name - Ranulf(us), Rannulf(us) - represent Old German Ran(n)ulf: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 211-12. The Alecto edition has Ranulph. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	'TYMMOR'. Shaw, History of Staffordshire, i. p. 375, locates 'Tymmor' 'on the right side of the road between Whittington and Elford, opposite to Fisherwick Park'. It is left unlocated by Beresford, Lost Villages of England, p. 386, and Beresford and Hurst, Deserted Medieval Villages, p. 203. In the latter it is tentatively suggested that it is Tamhorn. This is unlikely to be so as Tamhorn is Tamahore in Domesday and 'Tymmor' and Tamhorn occur separately as Tymmor and Tamenhorn in in Feudal Aids, v. p. 57. The site of the lost village is given as SK178082 in Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 36.
		Tymmor is held from the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	HARBORNE. For the erased blot after Horeborne in the manuscript, see 2,22 land note.
		Harborne was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. It included, in Warwickshire, the chapelry of Edgbaston (WAR 27,4), which became a separate Ancient Parish before 1658; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 413. Harborne was taken into Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912.
		Harborne was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7. In 1166 it was held by Henry Fitz Gerold from the bishop. The heir of his son Warin was Warin's daughter Margaret, who gave Harborne to Halesowen Abbey which held it until the Dissolution, notionally under the bishop; see VCH Warwickshire, vii. p. 72.
	ROBERT. On this name, see B6 Robert note.
	SMETHWICK. This was a settlement in Harborne Ancient Parish. Like Harborne itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. It remained with the Bishops of Coventry and Lichfield until 1546; see VCH Staffordshire, xvii. p. 98. Together with Harborne it was taken into Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1912.
		Smethwick was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	TIPTON. The Domesday form is Tibintone and the fuller form 'Tibbington' lasted until modern times; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43 note 46. Tipton St Martin was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Tipton was a fee of the Bishop of Chester in Book of Fees, p. 968, and in Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	WILLIAM HOLDS IT. Either 'it', referring to Tipton, or 'them', referring to Smethwick and Tipton (JRM), as no 1086 holder is given for Smethwick.
		On the name William, see B8 William note.
	IN THESE LANDS OR OUTLIERS. They have already been described as 'members'. It is possible that not all were outliers, so the main scribe of Great Domesday used the alternative, lands or outliers. It is more likely that Latin vel (connected with the verb volo and having the meaning 'if you like') introduces a more precise word in substitution: 'In these lands or rather outliers'. On the scribe's use of vel where he was unsure of the reading in his source, see 1,48 land note. If all were outliers, then Lichfield like Eccleshall had a very large and dispersed lordship; see 2,20 outliers note.
	BETWEEN THEM ALL, MEADOW ... MILL. The Latin omnes refers to the 'lands or outliers' of the previous line and emphasises that the meadow and mill details are those of these members of Lichfield, like the details of lordship ploughs and population which are prefaced by 'in these lands or outliers are'. Because mills and meadow are recorded in Lichfield itself (2,16) it was especially necessary to clarify that the meadow and mill were in its members. Thus, Inter omnes does not refer to the villagers and smallholders as it probably does in its first occurrence in 2,20 (see 2,20 between note).
	THE VALUE [OF THESE MEMBERS] IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN [THAT OF] THE MANOR. This sentence replaces the usual value clause (which uses the Latin valet 'it is worth'), because this composite entry is really an appendix to that for Lichfield at 2,16 where a value (£15) is given. The Latin valentia is simply the noun derived from valeo (probably via its present participle valens). Valentia is wrongly taken to be a place-name in Domesday Geography of Midland England, pp. 164, 169, 170; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43 note 47.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining third of the column (folio 247b), perhaps in case further members of the multiple manors should be found later. With one exception he did not leave such large spaces between fiefs in this county and he could easily have written at least the land of St Peter's of Westminster (STS 3) here.
3	LAND OF ST PETER'S OF WESTMINSTER. This was the Benedictine Abbey of St Peter refounded by Dunstan c. 959 in succession to a church or monastery that was perhaps founded in the seventh century and destroyed by the Danes in the ninth. It was richly endowed and rebuilt by Edward the Confessor.
	Westminster Abbey held a single estate in Staffordshire, in Seisdon Hundred
3,1	[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Perton.
	[OLD] PERTON. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. The affix 'Old' is recent, provoked by the growth of (New) Perton at SO8699. Old Perton, Perton House, Perton Court and South Perton Farm are all at SO8598.
		Perton was given to Westminster Abbey by King Edward the Confessor late in his reign (on 28th December 1065) and had probably been a part of the royal manor of Tettenhall originally. For the grant, see Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 100-101 nos. 29-30, 90-98 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, nos. 1040, 1043, 1140). Of these charters, one addressed to Bishop Leofwine, Earl Edwin and all his thanes in Staffordshire (Early Charters of Northern England, p. 100 no. 97 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1140 = Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 96, pp. 360-61, 516) is regarded as authentic. The others are forgeries. Perton was also confirmed on Westminster Abbey by King William between 1066 and 1071: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 883 no. 292. That confirmation is similarly addressed among others to Bishop Leofwine of Lichfield and Earl Edwin and confirms Perton on the monks 'as fully as King Edward held it'. Perton is also among the possessions of Westminster Abbey confirmed in a forged writ of William I: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 945-55 no. 324.
		The monks lost Perton in 1162 but it was restored to them by King Richard I in 1189-90. However, they immediately farmed it to Hugh de Nonant, Bishop of Coventry, for his lifetime and it ceased thereafter to be in the abbey's lordship, and was held by a lay tenant by military service. In 1198 (Book of Fees, p. 7) it was a serjeantry, held by Ranulf of Perton by archery service. By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 142) it was another serjeantry, held for serving the king with horses and arms in Wales; see also Book of Fees, pp. 348, 382, 594, 1185, 1245, 1331; Feudal Aids, v. p. 9; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114. By 1236 (Book of Fees, p. 594) it had absorbed Trescott (7,4). However, it was still notionally held by the monks at the Dissolution; see Valor Ecclesiasticus, i. p. 417; Harvey, Westminster Abbey Estates, p. 357; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 24.
	3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote .iii. h of the .iii. hidę over an erasure.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow and woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 4).
4	LAND OF ST MARY'S OF BURTON. This was the Benedictine Abbey of St Mary and St Modwen at Burton-upon-Trent in Staffordshire, founded c.1002 by Wulfric Spot, a king's thane.
		The first known church here was dedicated to St Andrew and situated on an island in the River Trent which was subsequently called 'Andresey' ('Andrew's island'). Legend has it that St Modwen, returning to Ireland from a pilgrimage to Rome, built this chapel dedicated to St Andrew, and lived on the island for some years as an anchoress. Though she died in Scotland, she is said to have been buried on 'Andresey'. She was also credited with building a second church, on the east bank of the river. It is not known to which century Modwen belonged, and it is more likely that this church was established by Wilfrith I, who before and after his appointment as Archbishop of York (in 669) had some responsibility for Mercia and who is credited with founding various unnamed monasteries. It is likely that the establishment was sacked by the Danes in the late ninth century. It is not certain whether any church was re-established here in the tenth century, before Wulfric Spot founded a Benedictine Abbey in Burton, on the west bank of the river, at the beginning of the eleventh century. The abbey was dedicated in 1008 to St Benedict and All Saints but by 1086 to St Mary, and by the late twelfth century to St Mary and St Modwen. The supposed bones of Modwen were subsequently brought from 'Andresey' to be buried in the new abbey. The first abbot and monks came from Winchester.
		The abbots who spanned the period from 1066 to 1086 were:
	?1051-1066 Leofric (who seems to have been Abbot of Peterborough at the same time)
	1066/1067-?1085 Brihtric II; he had previously been Abbot of Malmesbury
	1085-1094 Geoffrey de Mala Terra, a monk of Winchester
	On Burton Abbey, see VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 199-201; Knowles &: Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 52, 61; Knowles, Brooke and London, Heads of Religious Houses, pp. 30-31.
		The majority (4,1;4-10) of the nine estates listed in Domesday were given to the abbey by Wulfric Spot, its founder and a king's thane, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29). Others were intended for the abbey but either did not reach it or were alienated from it by 1066. In Staffordshire these estates were Elford (1,26) and Oakley (1,35) which Wulfric gave to his daughter but with reversion to Burton Abbey, as well as Gailey (11,59), Rudyard (1,63), Cotwalton (1,45 or 8,21), Cauldon (11,4) and Sheen (1,51). Wulfric Spot also gave an estate called Eccleshale, which is taken by Sawyer in Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xxxiv, to be Eccleshall in Staffordshire (2,10). It is more probably Exhall near Alchester in Warwickshire (WAR 28,12); see 2,10 Eccleshall note. According to an excerpt from the Burton Annals printed in Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 43 (see Annales Monastici, i. p. 185), Wulfric gave to the abbey all of his paternal inheritance: deditque ei omnem haereditatem paternam appretiatam septingentas libras ('and he gave it all his paternal inheritance valued at £700'). However, his will does not allude to this and the will contains, moreover, a number of estates that were not intended for his abbey. Wulfric himself died in 1010 and was buried in the abbey cloister. See VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 29, 199-201, ix, pp. 106-09, xx. pp. 4-6; Deanesby and Jeayes, Burton Abbey.
	The estates in this fief lay in four hundreds, although none of these is provided in the text, and are entered as follows:
		4,1-4 [Offlow Hundred]
		4,5-6 [Pirehill Hundred]
		4,7-8 [Totmonslow Hundred]
		4,9-10 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
4,1	IN THE MANUSCRIPT a bracket or excerpting mark, resembling a misshapen c, was written in very pale black ink at the beginning and end of this entry, as also, in darker black ink, at the beginning and end of 6,1. Both entries are apparently concerned with Stafford, although Stadford in the present entry is an error for Burtone (see 4,1 Burton note). There is also a set of these marks in the very pale black ink next to the reference to Stafford in 8,19 (8,19 Stafford note), but two small crosses are written in the margin next to it in the same ink as well and in the margin next to a further reference to Stafford in this county (11,7) is another cross in the same pale black ink, though there is no sign of the excerpting marks there. The crosses probably had the same function as the other marks. It is impossible to tell exactly when in the Middle Ages these and other marginal marks and signs were made or by whom, although the present marks might have been done by someone making a copy of entries for Stafford. However, there are no marks beside the references to Stafford in Marston (8,9) or in Chebsey (10,9). On such checking marks, see Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', pp. 131-33 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, pp. 197-99). These excerpting marks are only sometimes visible in the Alecto facsimile, but do not appear at all in the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the three estates, Branston, Wetmore and Stretton (4,2-4) and assumes that in 4,1 Stafford is an error for Burton-upon-Trent; see 4,1 Burton note.
	IN THE VILLAGE OF STAFFORD [* BURTON-UPON-TRENT *]. The attribution by the main scribe of Great Domesday of this land to Stafford cannot be dismissed out of hand. There was certainly agricultural land at Stafford, held by the canons of that place (6,1). Stafford is there described as a civitas ('city') but as a burgus ('borough') at B1. At first sight villa is inappropriate for a borough or city, but Stamford (in Lincolnshire) is alternatively described as a burgus (LIN S1) or a villa (LIN S7). Moreover, in the bull of Pope Lucius III confirming the possessions of Burton Abbey (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 42) is a list of the gifts made by King William I, which include the terram quam habet in Staffordia ('the land which it [the abbey] has in Stafford'). Further, if no mention were made of land in Burton-upon-Trent, this could be because its land was a tax-free area of special privilege like those of the abbeys of Ramsey, Thorney and others, similarly not mentioned in Domesday.
		However, there is no other mention of Burton Abbey land in Stafford (see VCH Staffordshire, vi. p. 206) and the five abbreviations of the abbey's lands (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) are unanimous in placing this land not in Stafford but in Burton-upon-Trent, and in citing either Domesday or a Liber Regis in doing so. The Latin, checked against the manuscripts or a facsimile of them, in the relevant parts of these texts has been expanded silently and the tironian nota (7) has been replaced with Latin et; the pencil foliation has been used for the Burton Cartulary extracts:
		Burton Cartulary, folio 10ra (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112; Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 7):
	Sic continetur super Domusday apud Wintoniam.
	Ecclesia sancte mariae de Burtune in Staffordsire.
	In ipsa uilla habet unam hidam et dimidiam. Terra est .ii. carucis. valet .xl. solidos.
	(' This is what is contained in Domesday at Winchester.
	The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire.
	In the vill itself it has 1 ½ hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 40s.')
		Burton Cartulary, folio 36v (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
	Ecclesia sancte marie de Burtona in Staffordscira. In ipsa villa Burtone habet unam hidam et dimidiam. Terra est .ii. carrucis. Valet .lxx. solidos.
	('The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] itself it has 1 ½ hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')
		Peniarth Cartulary, p. 362 (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
	Ecclesia sancte marie de Burthune in Staffordscire. Sic scribitur in Domusday. In ipsa villa habet unam hidam et dimidiam. Terra est .ii. carucis. Valet .lxx. solidos.
	('The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. This is what is written in Domesday. In the vill itself it has 1 ½ hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')
		Burton Muniment 1, endorsement (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
	ECCLESIA SANCTAE MARIAE DE BIRTONE IN STADFORDSCIRE. In ipsa uilla habet unam hidam et dimidiam. Terra est .ii. carucis. Valet .lxx. solidos.
	('The land of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill itself it has 1 ½ hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.')
		Burton Muniment 1925, a roll fragment (Walmsley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 112):
	SCRIPTURA SICUT CONTINETUR IN LIBRO REGIS. ECCLESIA SANCTAE MARIAE DE BERTONE IN STADFORDSCIRE. In ipsa uilla BERTONAE habet unam hidam et dimidiam. Terra est .ii. carrucis. Valet .lxx. solidos.
	('A written entry as it is contained in the 'King's Book'. The church of St Mary of Burton[-upon-Trent] in Staffordshire. In the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] itself it has 1 ½ hides. There is land for 2 ploughs. It is worth 70s.
		The unanimity and the close relationship of these texts is striking; for the discrepancy in the value of the first text, see 4,1 value note.
		The same land reappears in the two surveys of Burton Abbey lands dating from the twelfth century ((see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}).The Latin has been expanded silently and the tironian nota (7) has been replaced with Latin et; the pencil foliation has been used:
		Survey A, folio 28ra (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 212):
	In Burtona est Inlanda ad .ii. aratra in dominio; terra hominum se defendit pro hida et dimidia ...
	(' In Burton[-upon-Trent] is Inland for 2 ploughs in lordship. The men's land answers for 1 ½ hides ... ')
		Survey B, folio 32ra (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 212):
	In Burtona est inlanda aratrorum .ii. ... Terra hominum se defendit pro hida et dimidia.
	(' In Burton[-upon-Trent] is Inland for 2 ploughs ... The men's land answers for 1 ½ hides ... ')
		Finally, the bull of Pope Lucius III confirming the possessions of Burton Abbey (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 42) is: locum ipsum in quo idem monasterium situm est cum omnibus pertinentiis suis et villam de Burthonia cum ecclesia et omnibus pertinentiis suis ('The actual place in which this same monastery is sited, with all its appurtenances and the vill of Burton[-upon-Trent] with the church and all its appurtenances').
	Byrtun 'on which the monastery stands' was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 30). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28). The land granted probably corresponded to the areas of Burton and Burton Extra; see VCH Staffordshire, ix. p. 46.
		A charter of 1012 by which King Ethelred gave 5 cassati aet Burtune to his man Theodulf is unlikely to refer to Burton-upon-Trent, which by that time was held by Burton Abbey, but possibly to Burton Hastings in Warwickshire; see Early Charters of Northern England, p. 85 no. 70 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 929).
	An early name for Burton was Modwennestow, named from St Modwen, who was said to have established a church there; see STS 4 Burton note. The name Burton ('fortified farm' from Old English burh and tun) is first attested in the eighth century. The establishment of the abbey here early in the eleventh century seems to have led to the growth of a town, which became a borough by 1197. The Historia Fundatoris et Abbatum of the abbey (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 48), says of Abbot Nicholas (1187-97): Hic fecit primum burgum de Burton videlicet villam et novum vicum de Burton ('He made the first borough of Burton [-on-Trent], that is, the town and the new street of Burton'). Of his successor, William Melburne (1200-1213) it is said that: Hic burgum a magno ponte de Burtone usque ad novum pontem versus Horninglowe fecit et dedit burgensibus cartam inde et tenuit ibidem forum et feriam ('He made the borough from the great bridge of Burton[-upon-Trent] as far as the new bridge towards Horninglow and gave the burgesses a charter about this and held a market and a fair there'). Burton-upon-Trent survived as a possession of the abbey until the Dissolution; see Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
		The enormous growth in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has led to the town's expansion across the River Trent into what was Derbyshire; Winshill and Stapenhill, which were Domesday estates (DBY 3,3;5, both held by Burton Abbey) were transferred to Burton-upon-Trent and so to Staffordshire in 1894; see VCH Staffordshire, ix. pp. 4, 31, 46.
		Eyton (Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 49-50 and table between pp. 58-59) was inclined to identify Burton-upon-Trent with the Burtone held by Henry of Ferrers (10,2), and even to attribute it a castle on the basis of that entry. Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 176, while accepting that Stafford (4,1) was an error for Burton[-upon-Trent] included the half-hide of 10,2 in their total for Burton-upon-Trent. However, that Burtone appears to have been adjacent to Tutbury; see 10,2 "Burtone" note.
		Burton was a lordship estate of the abbots; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 116; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108. The abbey held it until its dissolution.
	VALUE BEFORE 1066, 60s; NOW 70s. In the first abbreviation of this entry in the Burton Cartulary (see 4,1 Burton note) the (1086) value is given as 40s (.xl. solidos). It seems likely that this is a miscopying of the T.R.E. value in Domesday (.lx. solidos) - such reversals of lx and xl are very common - rather than a revised figure. The other four abbreviations have '70s' as in Domesday.
4,2	BRANSTON. This was a township of Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		This appears to have been the only Staffordshire estate that the abbey did not hold before the Conquest. Land at Brontiston with other places amounting to 40 hides had been granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). Although Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot, it seems that this particular estate did not pass to him, or if it did, he did not himself give it to Burton Abbey. It appears to have come to the abbey after the abolition of the Earldom of Mercia or after Countess Godiva's death, that is, during the reign of King William I; see VCH Staffordshire, ix. p. 167. It was held by the abbey until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 18-19; 25 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 215-17); Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
		For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
	COUNTESS GODIVA. Countess (Lady) Godiva was the wife of Leofric, Earl of Mercia 1018-1057, mother of Earl Algar and grandmother of Earls Edwin and Morcar; she died some time between 1066 and 1086.
		The Domesday forms of Godiva - Godeua, Godeue, Godiua, Godgeua etc. - represent Old English Godgifu: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 264. JRM preferred the form Godiva as it reflected most of the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Godgifu.
	IN LORDSHIP 1 ½ . The Phillimore printed edition has 'In lordship 1 ½ ploughs', though the 'ploughs' are only implied from the ploughs in the preceding plough estimate.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry (the verb valet is missing from the value statement in the first abbreviation in British Library, Loan 30, folio 10ra). In the Burton Abbey surveys for Branston (folio 28rb for Survey A and folio 32va for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 215) the men's holding is given as 1 ½ hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'inland, ½ hide, where there can be 3 ploughs'; there is land for 5 ploughs in Domesday and 1 ½ ploughs in lordship.
4,3	WETMORE. This was a settlement in Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. Like Burton-upon-Trent itself, it probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.
		An estate of 1 ½ mansae at Withmere was purchased in 1012 by Wulfgeat, the Abbot of Burton, from King Ethelred for £70 in gold and silver: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 94 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 930 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 67-69 no. 35). The charter is spurious, but Burton Abbey certainly held this estate at the Conquest, and the information it contains may be genuine. It included the estate of Horninglow (SK2425); see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 20, 26 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 219-22 = Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', pp. 118-19); Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 201, ix. p. 181.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
	WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Among them were probably Horninglow (SK2425) and Anslow (SK2125); see Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 219 (= Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 41); Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; and VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 43 note 50. Wetmore, Horninglow and Anslow all survived as possessions of the abbey until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
	WOODLAND 1 LEAGUE. The main scribe of Great Domesday's interlineation of una may have been done during the initial writing of this entry as it is in the same colour ink as the rest of it.
	LATER 20s. The questions purported to have been those asked by the 'king's barons' in their enquiry, which are given in the Inquisitio Eliensis (Hamilton, Inquisitio Eliensis, p. 97), state that the answers should be for three periods: 'in the time of King Edward, when King William gave it and as it is now'. Great Domesday generally has very little information at two dates, let alone at three, though the value was usually given for when King Edward held it (or at an undisclosed time in the past) as well as 'now' and sometimes an intermediate value was given, such as 'later' or 'when acquired', especially in the returns for circuits I and III, but see also SHR 4,3,9 acquired note. (On the use of 'when acquired' in the Liber Exoniensis for the value 'formerly' in the corresponding entries in Great Domesday - usually when acquired by the tenant-in-chief but occasionally by his subtenant - see CON 1,4 value note and DEV 2,14 formerly note.) In Domesday Staffordshire the only occurrences of this intermediate value are here and in 4,4;6 and 8,4. It is possible that his source had these values, but that the main scribe of Great Domesday abbreviated them out. It is perhaps interesting that the value at three dates here and in 4,4;6 contrasts with that at only one date in 4,8-9.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Wetmore (folio 29ra for Survey A and folio 33ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 219) the men's holding is given as 1 ½ hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 very strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 3 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 7 ploughs and 2 ploughs in lordship).
4,4	STRETTON. This was a township of Burton-upon-Trent Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Land at Stretton with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot who subsequently gave Straet[tu]n to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxviii no. 31). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).
		After 1086, Burton Abbey continued to hold Stretton until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 19, 25-26 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 217-19 = Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', pp. 117-18); Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; VCH Staffordshire, ix. p. 192.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
	MEADOW, 28 ACRES. There is a black ink blot on the second x of xxviii in the manuscript, but the reading is clear.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
	LATER 20s. See 4,3 later note.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Stretton (folio 28va for Survey A and folio 32vb for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 217) the men's holding is given as 1 ½ hides (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 very strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 3 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and 1 plough in lordship).
4,5	[" IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. Both Abbots Bromley (4,5) and Darlaston (4,6) were later in Pirehill Hundred, and although Abbots Bromley lies on the Pirehill-Offlow border, Darlaston is far from there. They were probably both in Pirehill Hundred in 1086; see {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds}.
	[ABBOTS] BROMLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		Land at Bromleage with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). In this charter, Bromleage may have accounted for both the later Bromleys, Abbots Bromley and Kings Bromley (1,12), although they are some distance apart and the names may have arisen independently. For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		An estate here was later held by Wulfric Spot's mother (which suggests that Wulfsige and Wulfric Spot were related) and given by her to Wulfric Spot, a gift confirmed as his own by King Ethelred to Wulfric, described as his minister, in 996: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 91 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 878 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 45-48 no. 27). It is said in the charter that this estate had been held by Wulfsige the black. The size of the estate given in the latter charter, regarded as authentic, is 3 hides, though the bounds are evidently those of Abbots Bromley alone which in Domesday is assessed at ½ hide. There may have been a reduction in the tax liability (and thus of the hidage) between 996 and 1066, or the 3 hides could be the assessment of the other part of Bromley (King's Bromley, 1,12) carried over in error, or a rough assessment of both estates, which in 1086 amounted to 3 ½ hides.
		Bromleage was subsequently given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see pp. xxviii-xxix no. 32). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
		After 1086, Burton Abbey continued to hold Abbots Bromley until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 20, 26-27 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 222-23); Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144. It is possible that Bagot's Bromley (SK0625) began as a subinfeudation to the earls of Stafford, or that the estate was included under some other entry or omitted from Domesday. It is said to be part of the barony of Stafford in Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966, 975, and Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. At the Dissolution Burton Abbey held Bentilee (SK1122) and Bromley Hurst (SK0822-SK0922). These were probably among the dependencies; see Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the woodland details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Abbots Bromley (folio 29rb for Survey A and folio 33rb for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 222) the men's holding is given as ½ hide (as here), but Survey A has 'inland for 2 ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 1 plough and 1 plough in lordship).
4,6	DARLASTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself is not named in Domesday, but a number of Domesday estates lay in its large parish; see 1,40 Fulford note. Darlaston probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. Another place of the same name, not mentioned in Domesday, was an Ancient Parish which lay in Offlow Hundred: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Deorlafestun was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 51). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).	An earlier stage of Darlaston's history is given by a charter of 956 in which King Edwy grants the estate to Aethelnoth described as his faithful minister ('assistant', 'servant'), translated by Hart as 'faithful thegn': Early Charters of Northern England, p. 94 no. 86 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 601 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 26-29 no. 17). An endorsement says that 1 hide was at Darlaston and 1 hide at Stableford (SJ8138); see Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 176-77. The Domesday assessment of Darlaston is 3 virgates. The charter is not regarded as authentic and, if it contains no authentic information, it may have been invented to reinforce Burton Abbey's claim to the estate.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
		Burton Abbey continued to hold Darlaston after 1086 and until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 227-228); Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
		The grid reference is to Darlaston Home Farm (SJ8834). Darlaston Grange is at SJ885339.
	2 VILLAGERS [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put any punctuation after uill[an]i, but left blank the rest of the line, presumably for the later inclusion of the villagers' ploughs or any smallholders too. See also in 4,10 and 17,19.
	VALUE BEFORE 1066, 30s; LATER 10s; NOW 27s 4d. In the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, the (1086) value is given as 30s (the solidos is missing in the first abbreviation in B.L. Loan 30, folio 10ra). The abbreviator probably gave the T.R.E. value instead of the 1086 one, rather than that this is a revised figure. On 'later', see 4,3 later note.
	THE DETAILS of hidage and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Darlaston (folio 304a for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227) the men's holding is given as 3 virgates (as here), but Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'there is as much inland where there can be 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and no lordship ploughs are recorded).
4,7	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Leigh and Okeover (4,7-8).
	LEIGH. This was an Ancient Parish and incorporated the settlements of Upper Leigh (SK0136), Lower Leigh (SK0136), Church Leigh (SK0235) and Dods Leigh (SK0134); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 44 note 52. Leigh probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. It later included the township of Field (SK0233) not mentioned in Domesday, but its relationship to Leigh is mentioned in Burton B (Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227): Felda se defendit pro i carrucata et iacet ad Lege hidam (' Field answers for 1 carucate and is an adjunct of the hide at Leigh'). This feld ('open land') was probably created and put under cultivation after 1086.
		Lege and 'all that pertains thereto' was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see pp. xxxi-xxxii no. 54). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
		Leigh and Field continued to be held by the abbey after 1086 and until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 21, 27 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 225-27); Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
		After the account of Field in Burton A there are details of a holding in Dadesleia (Dods Leigh), but its connection with Leigh and Field is not mentioned (Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 21 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 227). However, it seems probable that this is a later subinfeudation of Leigh.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Leigh (folio 29vb for Survey A and folio 33vb for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 225-26) the men's holding is given as 3 virgates (as here) but for 'Leigh and Field' (see 4,7 Leigh note) in Burton A, but as '1 hide, less the fifth part' in Burton B (the quinta perhaps a scribal error for quarta, 'fourth'). Survey A has 'there is as much inland as is enough for 2 strong ploughs in lordship' and Survey B has 'inland which can be ploughed by means of 2 ploughs' (in Domesday there is land for 3 ploughs and 1 plough in lordship).
4,8	OKEOVER. This was a chapelry, probably of Ilam Ancient Parish, possibly of Blore Ancient Parish; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 418. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Acofre 'with all that pertains thereto, that is Hilum [Ilam, SK1350] and Celfdun [Cauldon, SK0749; see 11,4] and Caetesthyrne [Castern, SK1252] was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxii nos. 55-58). According to the Bull of Pope Lucius III (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 42), the gift of Ilam included its church, and that of Okeover, its chapel. In the same source, the gift of Castern included the chapel of Blore (SK1349) and its appurtenances. Okeover and Ilam were confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28). It seems probable that in Domesday Okeover alone stands for Okeover and Ilam and possibly for Castern; see VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 201. However, Cauldon (11,4), appears to have been alienated; see 4,8 dependencies note.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066. The abbey continued to hold it until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144.
		The grid reference is to Okeover Hall (SK158481).
	WITH ITS DEPENDENCIES. Okeover will have included Ilam because their later joint assessment (3 virgates) is the same as that given for Okeover alone in Domesday: terra hominum et in hilum et in acoura se defendit pro .iii. virgatis (' the land of the men both in Ilam and in Okeover answers for 3 virgates'); see Walmesley, 'Another Domesday Text', p. 120 (= Wrottesley, ' Burton Chartulary', pp. 21, 27 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 224-25); see also VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 44 note 53. Cauldon and Castern were given by Wulfric Spot at the same time and said to be parts of Okeover. Castern is not in Domesday but may have been included under Okeover. Cauldon, however, may never have reached the abbey as it was held by Godiva in 1066 and by Robert of Stafford in 1086 (11,4). In the Bull of Pope Lucius III (Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 42), Wulfric Spot's gift is said to consist only of the chapel of Cauldon.
		In later times Ilam grew to pre-eminence and had as its chapelries Okeover, Cauldon and Sheen (1,51).
	EDWULF. The Domesday forms of Edwulf - Eddulf(us), Iadulfus, Edulf, Edeulf, Hedul - represent Old English Eadwulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 240. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- as it reflected more closely the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Eadwulf.
	FOR RENT. The Latin is ad censum. It appears that Edwulf is a censarius, that is, a 'tributary' or 'rent-payer': he pays 'rent' or 'tribute', in place of labour-service. These rent-payers are rare in Domesday and may be an alternative for, or a sub-category of, the liberi homines ('free men'), but censarii are later common on the Burton Abbey estates, and there were possibly more in 1086 than Domesday mentions; see DBY 1,37 tributaries note. It was translated as 'at dues' in the Phillimore printed edition and as 'at rent' in the Alecto edition.
	THE DETAILS of hidage, plough estimate and 1086 value given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Okeover (folio 29va for Survey A and folio 33va for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 224) the men's holding (in Okeover and Ilam; see 4,8 dependencies note) is given as 3 virgates (as here), but Survey A has 'there is inland for 1 plough' and Survey B has 'as much inland where there can be 1 plough' (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and no lordship ploughs are recorded).
		However, in Burton B there is a second mention of Okeover, after the details of the holding in Ilam (folio 33va = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 225): 'Okeover, with its dependencies, answers for ½ hide and 1 virgate. Orm holds this for 20 "orae" and with it, Ilam, except for [its] church and the land attached to it, which church and land is the abbot's'. The roll fragment, which perhaps contains the working copy of Burton B (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}), breaks off after the account of Ilam. There is no second mention of Okeover in Burton A, but the last sentence in the first account is 'Orm holds this land, that is Okeover and Ilam, ad firmam for 26s 8d'.
4,9	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Whiston and 'Bedintone'.
	WHISTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. For the identification, see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167.
		Witestan was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 35). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066. It continued to be held by the abbey until the Dissolution; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228); Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1 (where is appears as Weston); Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 144; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 12.
	"NAWEN". The Domesday form of this 1086 subtenant, who only appears in STS 4,9. 5,1, is Nawen. JMcD suggested in the Phillimore Index of Persons that it might be an error for Hawen, deriving from Heahwine. The Alecto edition has Nawen. However, he may be the same as the holder recorded in the Burton Abbey surveys: Nablus in Burton B and Nauenus in Burton A; see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228); VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 123.
	VALUE 4s. The value in all five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, is given as '5s'. This is probably a scribal error on the part of the abbreviator, rather than a revised figure.
	THE DETAILS of hidage and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for Whiston (folio 30ra for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228) the men's holding is given as 1 hide (as here). In Survey A there is no mention of ploughs on the inland, but on the 1 hide of warland which consists of 6 warae, three of the six are in lordship and on them there can be 2 ploughs; similarly for Burton B (in Domesday there is land for 1 plough and 1 plough 'is there').
4,10	'BEDINTONE'. In the twelfth century Bedintona is coupled with Pilatehala (Pillaton, SJ9413); see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', pp. 22, 28 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 228-29). It seems probable that 'Bedintone' was adjacent to Pillaton and was either depopulated or merged with it; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 44 note 54; Place-Names of Staffordshire, pp. 91-92; and 4,10 details note.
		Pillaton was a settlement in Penkridge township in Penkridge Ancient Parish. Both 'Bedintone' and Pillaton probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as Pillaton itself did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115, Palateh' is held from the barony of Burton. The Phillimore printed edition simply identifies Beddintone as Pillaton.
		Bendintun was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60) = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 33). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28).
		There also exists a charter purporting to be of King Ethelred and dating from 996 in which he gave land at Bedintun to his faithful minister ('assistant', 'servant') Wulfric [Spot]: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 92 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 879 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 43-45 no. 26). This charter appears to have been forged to replace one that had been lost and to lend authority to an unattached but authentic set of bounds.
		No T.R.E. holder is given, but the estate appears to have been in the abbey's hands in 1066.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the hidage. The reason for this is unclear, unless it was for the later insertion of a hundred head, which in Staffordshire was regularly entered at the end of the first line of the entry which it governs; on such spaces, see 1,7 hundred note.
	1 VILLAGER [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the remaining half a line before writing the woodland on the next line. Despite the punctus after uills', the space was probably left for the details of the villager's plough(s) and/or of another category of population, as in 4,6 and 17,19.
	VALUE ... NOW 7s 4d. The (1086) value in all five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, is given as '10s'.
	THE DETAILS of hidage and plough estimate given in the five abbreviations of Burton Abbey lands, cited in 4,1 Burton note, agree with those in this entry. In the Burton Abbey surveys for 'Bedintone' (folio 30ra for Survey A and folio 34ra for Survey B = Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 228) the assessment of Bedintona et Pilatehala (see 4,10 'Bedintone' note) is given as ½ hide (as here); there is no mention of a plough estimate in Burton B, but in Burton A there is 'inland for 1 plough, that is 8 bovates' in Bedintona and likewise for the warland in Pilatehala (in Domesday there is land for 2 ploughs and no lordship plough is recorded).
		Burton B says: Bedintona et Pilatehala se defendit pro dimidia hida. hanc quia uasta est tenet Edwinus pro .iiii. solidis, que si esset hospitata redderet .v. horas. Alteram quia hospitata est habet idem Edwinus pro .vi. horis. (' 'Bedintone' and Pillaton answers for ½ hide. This, because it is waste, Edwin holds for 4s, but if it were inhabited it would render 5 "orae". The other, because it is inhabited, the same Edwin has for 6 "orae"'). Strictly speaking, hanc should refer to the nearest place-name (Pilatehala) and mean 'the latter'. However, the use of alteram ('the other', 'the second') rather than illam ('the former') suggests that it is Bedintona that is waste and Pilatehala that is inhabited. If this is so, it explains the disappearance of 'Bedintone'. It may be that the scribe used hanc because he momentarily thought that he was referring to the last noun, the (half) hide, which is the combined extent of both Bedintona et Pilatehala. There is no mention of any of this in Burton A which merely records that 'Edwin has this land (referring to Bedintona et Pilatehala) ad firmam ('at a revenue', 'at farm') for 20s'.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 5).
5	LAND OF [THE CHURCH OF] SAINT-REMY. This was the cathedral church of St Remigius at Reims (formerly known as Rheims) in the French département of Marne. The church also held Lapley (including Wheaton Aston) in Cuttlestone Hundred and Marston (in Church Eaton) in the same hundred, but, probably as a result of misallocation of estates to counties in the circuit volume, they are entered in the folios for Northamptonshire (NTH 16,1-2); see {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County} and {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 94.
		It is unusual for a foreign church to be found holding English land before the conquest, but the Annals of Lapley appear to give an authentic explanation: Edward the Confessor had intended to visit Rome, but in the event sent Archbishop Aldred of York who took with him some English nobles. Among them was Burchard, son of Earl Algar of Mercia, who on his return fell ill and died in Rheims, but not before asking to be buried in the church of Saint-Rémy and granting it land out of his patrimony in England. Archbishop Aldred reached England in 1061 and these gifts were subsequently approved by Earl Algar and King Edward; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 42. In a charter of c. 1061 of doubtful authenticity, but whose content is probably authentic, Earl Algar [of Mercia] gave Lapley to St Remigius of Rheims: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 100 no. 96 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1237). The church of Saint-Rémy eventually established a priory at Lapley; see NTH 16,1 Lapley note.
	The two estates entered in this chapter lay in two hundreds, both provided in the text:
		5,1 Pirehill Hundred
		5,2 Offlow Hundred.
	Two further estates in Cuttlestone Hundred, Lapley and Marston, are entered erroneously in the Northamptonshire folios (NTH 16,1-2).
5,1	HOLDS ½ HIDE. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably wrote ten' .i. hid' here, but scribe B erased the en' as well as the .i. to make room for the insertion of the longer dimd'; there was no space for him to interline anything here because of the closeness of the rubricated chapter head to this first line of the entry. He wrote the abbreviation dimd', rather than the usual dimid', elsewhere when he was short of space, as in his correction to the tax assessment of Sompting (SUS 13,40) and to the hidage in Charwelton (NTH 18,36). Because this correction was written over an erasure it is hard to tell whether the pen and ink used for it were used for any of his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, on which see 2,11 land note.
	MEAFORD. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12. For another part, held by Earl Roger see 8,24.
		This place-name is lined through in vermilion in the manuscript, but this does not appear in the Alecto facsimile. For other misleading or poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	"NAWEN". On this name-form, see 4,9 "Nawen" note.
5,2	[HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. For other parts, held by Earl Roger and Robert of Stafford, see 8,26. 11,50.
		Hamstall Ridware followed the descent of Lapley, the head manor (NTH 16,1): it was held by the prior of Lapley in 1254-55: Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	GODRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Godric(us), Goddric, Gadric, Codricus - represent Old English Godric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 266-69. The Alecto edition has Godric.
	EARL ALGAR GAVE THESE 2 LANDS TO SAINT-REMY. On Earl Algar, see 1,11 Algar note. On the gift of these two lands, see STS 5 Saint-Rémy note. See also, Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 239 no. 1466.
6	[THE CANONS OF STAFFORD]. There is no chapter heading in Domesday although 'The Canons of Stafford and of Wolverhampton' appear in the Landholders' List next to the figure VI on folio 246a. Here the same chapter number (VI) is placed against the first line of the first entry. The main scribe of Great Domesday appears to have hesitated about how to deal with the holdings of these two sets of canons. It would have been better if he had included them in a single chapter with a more general title since chapter 7 also contains lands held by Samson and by the collegiate churches of Tettenhall, Penkridge and Gnosall; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. In the Landholders' List Samson appears next to number VII; on these discrepancies between List and text, see L6 canons note.
		In fact it seems probable that the contents of chapters 6 and 7 were originally in a single schedule, arranged hundredally: Pirehill Hundred (6,1); Seisdon Hundred (7,1-6); Offlow Hundred (7,7-11); Cuttlestone Hundred (7,13-18). This schedule would have been similar to the one entitled 'Land (sic) which have been given to the Saints in Alms in Somerset' in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon folios 196a-198b) which groups together the lands held by various churches in 1086 and some almslands and which the main Domesday scribe separated into five chapters (SOM 11-13;15-16). These Somerset lands generally have in common the fact that they originated in grants from royal lands and a number were collegiate foundations, mostly royal. The case of Wolverhampton is more complex since it was founded by Wulfrun, though from a grant of royal land, possibly from the king's estate of Tettenhall (1,2). By the time of King William and perhaps of King Edward, it was regarded as a royal church; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. Two at least of the holdings in these chapters (6,1. 7,5) were royal grants of almsland and others might also have been.
		The church of Stafford was collegiate. Though first evidenced in Domesday Book, it was no doubt founded well before 1066; see 6,1 canons note.
6,1	FOR THE excerpting marks written at the beginning and end of this entry, see 4,1 manuscript note.
	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This heading depends on the location of the land of the canons of Stafford and the court to which it answered; see 6,1 hides note.
	IN THE CITY OF STAFFORD. Stafford has earlier been called a borough (burgus) at B1. The latter is a better designation, since civitas is normally applied to more ancient (especially Roman), larger and more important places. In 4,1 Stafford is ostensibly called a villa ('village'), though the place-name is probably an error for Burton-upon-Trent; see 4,1 Burton note.
	13 PREBENDARY CANONS. These canons are presumably the same as 'the priests of the borough' (B10) and would have served the collegiate church. The existence of this church is first implied by Domesday, but its dedication to St Bertelin (later to St Mary) suggests that it was a pre-Conquest foundation, perhaps the work of Aethelflaed ('Lady of the Mercians', sister of King Alfred) who constructed the burh at Stafford in 913. The parish of this church occupied most of the borough of Stafford, leaving only a small area, east of Greengate Street, for the parish of St Chad which was probably carved out of that of St Mary after 1086. St Bertelin-St Mary was an important mother church: in the early fifteenth century, the dead of the parishes of Cresswell, Ingestre, Tixall and of the townships of Marston, Salt, Coton and Whitgreave (all in the parish of St Mary) were buried at St Mary's. See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 418, 483; VCH Staffordshire, vi. p. 238.
		The church was given by King Stephen to Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1129-48). See VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 303. In 1226-28, it was held by Bartholemew, archdeacon of Winchester, by gift of King John (Book of Fees, p. 385). It remained collegiate until the Dissolution; see VCH Staffordshire, vi. p. 239.
	3 HIDES. Domesday says that the canons were 'in' Stafford, but does not say that the hides were. Many boroughs in Domesday have agricultural land in them or attached to them. It seems, however, that the three hides held by the canons in alms may were actually situated at Whitgreave (SJ8928) and Butterton (SJ8242). This becomes apparent from an Assize Roll of 21 Edward I where it was presented that after the church of Stafford had become exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, by the consent of King Henry III, the vills of Whitgreave and Butterton, amounting to three hides, had withheld payments due to the king and to the bailiff of the Hundred of Pirehill; see Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls of the Reign of Edward I', p. 287; Swynnerton, 'Domestic Cartulary', pp. 219-222; and see also Feudal Aids, v. p. 12; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 303, iv. p. 44 note 60. By the mid-thirteenth century, the church had tenants in Stafford, 'Orberton', Worston (SJ8727) and Whitgreave in its own parish as well as at Butterton in Trentham parish; see VCH Staffordshire, vi. pp. 238-39.
		The implication of this is that the three hides do not contribute to the borough's revenue (and are not therefore 'in' the borough) but were in the hundred of Pirehill.
	IN ALMS. Like most almslands this is a portion of royal land (of STS B 1-12) granted by the king for the sustenance of an individual or group, without the obligations normally associated with the tenure of land.
	NOW 60s. The main scribe of Great Domesday initially wrote xx and then imperfectly erased the first x and wrote l over the right-hand half of it in darker ink.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 7).
7	LAND OF THE CLERICS OF WOLVERHAMPTON. The monastery of 'Hampton', dedicated to St Mary, and from the twelfth century to St Peter, was founded or refounded and endowed by Wulfrena or Wulfrun. Her name was later prefixed to it, giving 'Wulfrunhampton' or Wolverhampton. She was possibly the mother of Wulfric Spot and the same person as the Wulfrun captured by the Danes at Tamworth in 943; see Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, pp. 45, 152. In 985 Wulfrun had received 10 cassati from King Ethelred (7,1 hide note) and her endowment of her monastery, totalling three times this amount, was confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380 = Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 105-15). In her endowment, Wulfrun gave 10 jugera cassatorum (that is, '10 hides') for her soul and that of her husband, ten more for her kinsman Wulfgeat and a further ten for her daughter Aelfthyth. The lands listed correspond to the Domesday estates of Bilston (1,4), Upper Arley (7,2), "Haswic" (7,6), Wednesfield (7,7), Willenhall (7,8), Pelsall (7,9), Hilton (7,10), "Hocintune" (7,11), Hatherton (7,13), Kinvaston, (7,14) a second Hilton (7,15) and Featherstone (7,16). Only one estate (Bilston, 1,4) had certainly been alienated from this endowment, although it is possible that another part of Willenhall (1,10) had as well.
		Under Edward the Confessor, this monastery became a collegiate church. A dubious writ of 1053 x 1066 addressed to Bishop Leofwin and Earl Leofwin grants to the priests of Wolverhampton freedom for their minster with jurisdiction as full as he himself had once possessed it: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 95 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1155 = Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, pp. 403-407). See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 419, 444; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 321.
		The heading of the chapter is 'Land of the Clergy of Wolverhampton'. However, in 1086, Samson, the future Bishop of Worcester, held 1 hide (in Wolverhampton) (7,1) and some of its lands and the canons had other estates. Domesday does not make entirely clear the division of tenure nor the relation between Samson and the canons nor who actually controls the lands of Wolverhampton church. Leaving aside the estates that belonged to the collegiate churches of Tettenhall, Penkridge and Gnosall (7,5;17-18), it could be that Samson was head of the church of Wolverhampton, and controlled its lands and that all others were holding from him. A genuine writ of William I to 'Samson the chaplain' survives (Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, p. 796, no. 265). It can be dated between 1072 and 1085 and is addressed to 'Archbishop L[anfranc], G[eoffrey] Bishop of Coutances, Bishop P[eter of Lichfield], and to R. the sheriff and all his other faithful men of Staffordshire'. The crucial passage runs: Sciatis me dedisse Sampsoni capellano meo ecclesiam sancte Marie de Wlurenehamtona cum terra et omnibus aliis rebus et consuetudinibus sicut melius predicta ecclesia habuit tempore regis Edwardi ('You should know that I have given to Samson, my chaplain, the church of St Mary of Wolverhampton with [its] land and all other things and customs, as prosperously as the aforesaid church had it in the time of King Edward'). Unfortunately it is not clear from this whether Samson was being given only the church of Wolverhampton with the land appurtenant there (terra is singular) or whether he is being given the church and all its possessions in several different vills. On the face of it, the former may be more likely, despite the assertion of VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 322, that William I gave the church and its possessions to his chaplain, Samson, and the priests hold ten estates from him. William's writ does not appoint Samson to head the church. Thus the situation could be exactly as Domesday says: Samson holds Wolverhampton and Hatherton only (7,1;13), probably as a personal favour of the king to give his chaplain an income, while the canons are the holders of all the other estates with which they were credited: Upper Arley, Bushbury, Trescott, "Haswic", Wednesfield, Willenhall, Pelsall, Hilton and "Hocintune" (7,2-4;6-11). They also hold Tettenhall (7,5) which is not rightly theirs and Lutley in Worcestershire (WOR 13,1). All these estates, except Lutley, are given a global value at 7,12. Whether or not Samson was head of the church, it could be that in effect there had been a division of income, some going to Samson, some remaining with the canons. A parallel case could be the several cathedral churches in Domesday where the bishop holds some estates and the canons or monks others, although all the lands belong to the same establishment, the church.
		There exists a writ of King Edward granting protection to his priests of Wolverhampton: Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 114, pp. 403-407. The writ is unlikely to be genuine, but it may have been composed after 1086 to provide a form of proof that the church was royal (it later became a royal free chapel, although it was not founded as such) and that it was the priests of Wolverhampton who had held the church under King Edward, a fact that had become confused by the grant to Samson.
		It certainly does not look as if the church of Wolverhampton was going through difficult times, as its endowment was almost completely intact.
		Samson was appointed Bishop of Worcester in 1096 and gave the church of Wolverhampton to Worcester Cathedral. Before 1139 however, it had been seized by Roger, Bishop of Salisbury. It was granted by King Stephen to the church of Lichfield, but had been restored to the church of Worcester by 1152. Soon afterwards, however, it was lost to Henry Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, the future King Henry II, and it soon became a royal free chapel; see Monasticon Anglicanum, vi. p. 1443; Shaw, History of Staffordshire, ii. p. 152; Book of Fees, p. 384; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 419, 444; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 322.
		The later history of this holding is involved with Wolverhampton itself; see 7,1 hide note.
	This chapter is numbered VII in the text but is in fact a continuation of chapter VI which appears in the Landholders' List on folio 246a as 'The Canons of Stafford and of Wolverhampton'; see L6 canons note and STS 6 canons note.
		Even so, the headings are misleading as chapters 6-7 are really part of a composite schedule which consists of:
		Land of the canons of Stafford (6,1)
		Land of the canons of Wolverhampton (7,1-4;6-12). The first of these (7,1) is held by them from Samson, the others are ostensibly held entirely by them. They also hold land belonging to the priests of Tettenhall (7,5), a quite separate foundation.
		Land held by Samson himself and from him by two priests Edwin and Alric. In 1086 it belonged or had belonged to the church of Wolverhampton (7,13).
		Lands apparently held by the canons (7,14-16); one estate (7,14) is said to have belonged to the church of Wolverhampton T.R.E., but all three had, in fact, been part of its endowment.
		Land in Penkridge held by the clerics of Penkridge (7,17)
		Land in Gnosall, held by the clerics of Penkridge or of Gnosall (7,18).
	The cause of this confusion of holders is that the estates in this chapter are arranged in hundredal groups:
		7,1-6 [Seisdon Hundred]
		7,7-11 [Offlow Hundred]
		7,13-18 Cuttlestone Hundred
	Thus it seems that hundredal arrangement is likely to have been the main principle although the hundreds and the holders happen largely to coincide. It was natural to begin with land in Wolverhampton, which presumably led to the rest of the holdings in Seisdon Hundred being inscribed. Samson holds Wolverhampton, but also Hatherton (7,13). Thus the arrangement is by hundred not by holder. On the division of lands between Seisdon and Offlow Hundreds, see 7,7 Offlow note.
	On the copy of this chapter that appears in Hemming's cartulary, see {Introduction: Related and 'Satellite' Texts} and, for the three discrepancies between it and Great Domesday, see 7,17 villagers note, 7,18 virgates note and 7,18 smallholders note.
7,1	[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from the location of Wolverhampton (7,1) and the following four places.
	1 HIDE [* IN WOLVERHAMPTON *]. This unnamed hide evidently lay at Wolverhampton itself; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 44 note 61. Wolverhampton St Peter was originally the parish of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton and continued as the parish of the succeeding royal free chapel. It subsequently became an Ancient Parish. Wolverhampton probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		It is not certain if any religious foundation preceded Wulfrun's. Traditionally it is said that Wulfhere, King of Mercia (657-674), founded a monastery here in 659. He is certainly recorded as founding monasteries in Mercia, but the locations are unknown. There was also a tradition that King Edgar granted the land in 963 to Wulfgeat a kinsman of Wulfrun, but it seems more likely that the grant was in fact made in 985 when King Ethelred gave to the lady Wulfrun 10 cassati in two places, 9 aet Heantune [Wolverhampton, named from her] and 1 aet Treselcotum [Trescott, 7,4]: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 97 no. 89 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 860 = Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 101-104). The charter does not say that the land was given to Wulfrun to found or refound a monastery, but she used it for that purpose. In Domesday, Wolverhampton is only rated at 1 hide, but the other 8 hides may have lain at places named in the confirmation charter of Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 994. Possibly the 1 hide of Domesday was an act of beneficial hidation, bearing in mind the number of ploughs that the estate supported. See STS 7 Wolverhampton note; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 321; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 419, 444. The royal grant of Wolverhampton may have been made from the manor of Tettenhall (see 1,2 Tettenhall note).
		A provision of the will of Wulfgeat of Donington (in Shropshire) dating from the late ninth century (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1534 = Early Charters of the West Midlands, no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 19, pp 55-56, 163-67) was the gift of 4 bullocks to Heantune, presumably Wolverhampton. The will cannot be dated precisely so it is uncertain whether the gift was to Wulfrun's church or to a preceding establishment, if one existed.
		Domesday does not mention any royal land in Wolverhampton itself in 1086, but several authors have asserted that there was such an estate in existence though it had been omitted from Domesday Book. This, it is stated, was the land recognized in later times as Ancient Demesne of the Crown; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Pipe Rolls', pp. 131, 133; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 44 note 61. In 1242 (Wedgwood, 'Liberate Rolls', p. 11) and again in 1249 (Wedgwood, 'Inquisitions', pp. 143-44) surveys were made of Wolverhampton which the king had assigned to Henry of Hastings and his wife Ada. Dunstall, Willenhall and Bilston were among its dependencies. Of these, Dunstall (SJ9000) does not appear in Domesday, while Bilston appears there (1,4) to be associated with Tettenhall (1,2; see 1,2 Tettenhall note); Willenhall (1,10) is not there related to any other estate, and appears to have lain in the adjacent hundred of Offlow. In 1254-55 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', pp. 115-16) Wolverhampton was held in chief from the king by Guy de Roches by reason of the minority of Henry of Hastings. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 15, Wolverneh(a)mton is held by John de Everdon, presumably from the king, but the estate is not listed as Ancient Demesne among others in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. Instead it appears there (p. 283) as Wolvernehampton cum membris in Seisdon Hundred, the members being: Pelshall (7,9), Wednesfield (7,7), Bilston (1,4), Willenhall (1,10, 7,8), Hatherton (7,13), Featherstone (7,16), Kinvaston (7,14), Hilton (7,10 or 7,15) and Codsall (17,1). Most, but not all, of these lands were held by the church of Wolverhampton in 1086, but by 1334 Wolverhampton was a royal free chapel, so the distinction between royal holdings and church holdings may have become blurred. Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', pp. 167-68, 170, also suggest that a royal estate was omitted from Domesday and allocate 3 hides to it. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 133, suggested that Wolverhampton like Upper Arley (7,2) came to the crown 'by early deprivation of the Church of Wolverhampton'.
		The difficulty is that it is not certain whether a royal manor is missing or whether it was surveyed in Domesday under other places such as Bilston or Willenhall or whether the Crown subsequently resumed the present 1 hide. For the moment it seems more likely that a king acquired the lands of the church of Wolverhampton after 1086 than that a royal manor of Wolverhampton was in existence in 1086 but omitted from Domesday. It would appear from his grant of the 'church of Wolverhampton' to Samson before 1086, that even then King William was controlling some or all of its lands. Moreover, Wulfrun had founded her church on what had been royal land and it appears that King Edward or King William regarded the church as, in effect, a royal foundation; see STS 6 canons note. However, the matter requires further investigation.
		This and the following estates (7,1-11) are given a single value at 7,12.
	SAMSON ^[THE CLERIC]^. Chaplain to King William, later Bishop of Worcester, 1096-1112 (JRM). He is called 'Samson the cleric (clericus)' in the Landholders' List on folio 246a. He had been a canon and treasurer of the church of Bayeux and held Templecombe (SOM 4,1) under Bishop Odo of Bayeux. The title capellan[us] appears in a repeat of that entry in the section in the Liber Exoniensis entitled 'Lands of French Thanes in Somerset' (Exon folio 467a); see SOM {Exon Appendix} 4,1 Samson note. His brother was Archbishop Thomas of York.
		JRM added to his note: 'He was probably the editor, compiler, and writer of the Domesday Book' and cited Galbraith, 'Samson, Bishop of Worcester', p. 86, and Galbraith, Domesday Book in Administrative History, pp. 50, 110. There is little of any consequence to support this supposition and more recently William of St Calais, Bishop of Durham has become a more probable candidate for 'the man behind the Survey' and the writer of Great Domesday might have been either his scribe or was later associated with the Durham scriptorium; see Chaplais, 'William of St Calais'; Thorn, Thorn and Gullick, The Scribal History of Great Domesday Book (forthcoming). (This corrects SOM 4,1 Samson note.)
		The Domesday forms of this name - Sanson, Sansone (ablative) - represent the Old French Sanson, Samson, 'the name of a Welsh bishop (fl. 550) who crossed over to Brittany and founded the abbey of Dol. ... Whether his name is the Biblical Samson or one of Celtic origin is uncertain': Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames. The Alecto edition has Samson.
	BEFORE 1066 THERE WERE 8 PLOUGHS. The Phillimore printed translation ('Before 1066, 8 ploughs') might mislead since it follows 'land for 3 ploughs'. These 8 ploughs were the number present T.R.E. not an estimate of plough-potential; see LEC 9,1 1066 note. The phrasing in 10,2 ('½ hide ... on which there were 12 ploughs before 1066') further supports this view. See also 14,1 'There were 11 ploughs'.
7,2	THEMSELVES. This indicates that they do not hold this estate from Samson, whereas they hold 1 hide (in Wolverhampton) (7,1) from him. This may suggest that Samson was not head of the collegiate church of Wolverhampton and all its lands, but has merely been given some of its land and revenues; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note.
	[UPPER] ARLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday failed to rubricate ERNLEGE, as he did with the place-name MORTONE on folio 248a (8,7) and sometimes elsewhere in Great Domesday.
		This was an Ancient Parish, usually known as plain Arley for ecclesiastical purposes. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. It was transferred to Worcestershire in 1895. The affix 'Upper' is probably to distinguish this place not from some adjacent lost 'Nether' or 'Lower Arley' but from Areley Kings or Nether Areley, close to Stourport, part of the royal manor of Martley in 1086 (HEF 1,39. WOR X 3); see Place-Names of Worcestershire, pp. 29-30; VCH Worcestershire, iii. p. 5.
		In 963 King Edgar, by a charter thought to be authentic, gave to his minister ('assistant', 'servant') Wulfgeat three cassati at Duddestone [Duddlestone, Warwickshire] and three at Ernlege [Arley]. The latter was thought by Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names, under Arley, to be Arley also in Warwickshire, but the bounds show that the estate was at Upper Arley: Early Charters of the West Midlands, pp. 111-112 no. 287 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 720). It seems probable that Wulfgeat was a kinsman of Wulfrun who inherited Upper Arley from him and gave it to her foundation at Wolverhampton. Earnleie appears among the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as her endowment of Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380). On the kinship of Wulfgeat and Wulfrun, see Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, pp. 164-65; Early Charters of Northern England, p. 366; Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, p. xl.
		After 1086 Upper Arley was held by the king. In 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) it was held by Thomas de Burgo from the king and recorded as an ancient escheat of Adam de Port, and as a gift of King John. Henry de Burgo held from the king in Book of Fees, p. 384, and John de Burgo similarly in 1254-55; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 114.
	IN LORDSHIP 1 PLOUGH. It would seem that the main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote In d[omi]nio s[un]t .ii. car[ucae] ('In lordship 2 ploughs'), but then during checking he jotted down the correct number of lordship ploughs in the central margin level with this statement and erased s[un]t .ii.. Later, when the surface of the parchment had been re-prepared (though it might not have been, or was done poorly, as the writing is blurred), he wrote ç and the u of una (most of which is in the inner margin) over the erased s[un]t. He also overwrote the o of d[omi]nio. He then erased his memo; on these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	ANOTHER ARLEY. According to VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45 note 63,
	this Arley is 'Lower Arley', a place no longer extant. However, this may be a guess based on the twin assumptions that the existence of the name Upper Arley requires there to be or to have been a Lower Arley and that Latin alia ('another') refers to a separate settlement. However, Upper Arley seems to be so named to distinguish it from Areley Kings (7,2 Upper note) and alia means another estate called Arley, rather than a separate settlement or village; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. It seems most likely that this ½ hide was in fact part of Upper Arley. Osbern son of Richard appears to have held nothing nearby in Worcestershire to which this part of Arley could have been annexed.
	OSBERN SON OF RICHARD. Osbern son of Richard was son of a Norman, Richard Scrob or Richard Scrope, who settled on the Welsh border in the time of Edward the Confessor and who built Richard's Castle in Herefordshire. This is his only appearance in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The Domesday forms of Osbern - Osbern(us), Osber - represent Old Norse Asbiorn (Old Danish Esbiorn) normanized or anglicized, or Old Low German Osbern: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 338-39. The Alecto edition has Osbern. The Domesday forms of his father Richard - Ricard(us), Ricard - represent Old German Ricard, Richard: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 213-14; see also von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 349. The Alecto edition also has Richard.
	HAS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE CANONS ^[OF WOLVERHAMPTON]^ BY FORCE. The Latin is compressed. Tollit means 'to lift' (in both the normal and colloquial senses), 'to remove' or ' to take away'. It is in the present tense ('is taking away') but clearly implies a past event ('has taken away') and the vi ('by force', 'by violence') probably refers to the moment at which Osbern son of Richard took the estate. Thus the Latin implies; 'Osbern son of Richard has taken away another [holding in] Arley by force from the canons and continues to withhold it from them'. On this idiomatic use of the present tense, see HUN 1,2 and LEC 42,5.
		The Phillimore printed edition has 'took' for the Latin tollit, but tollit is the present tense, although in a context such as this it suggests the continuation of a past action: 'has taken away [and continues to take away]'.
		The immediate outcome of the dispute is not clear, but neither the canons nor the barons of Richards Castle retained Upper Arley which was an escheat to the Crown in or before the reign of Henry II, being granted to Adam de Port. On this, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 239 no. 1467.
7,3	BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. For another part, held by William son of Ansculf, see 12,19.
		The name means bishop's byrig ('bishop's fortified place'), and had presumably been, at some time, a possession or part of a possession of the bishops of Lichfield although it is not evidenced as such. The grid reference is to Bushbury Hall (SJ925024).
	1 FREE MAN WITH 1 PLOUGH. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote lib[er] hō over an erasure; it is compressed, so the original details must have taken less space. He overwrote the un (but not its abbreviation sign) before it and the cû after it in darker ink. In the central margin next to this correction is an erased memo; on these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
7,4	TRESCOTT. The Domesday form is Cote. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 35, left this place unidentified, but in a subsequent note suggested that it was 'Cotes' on the boundary of Penn. It was identified by Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', p. 105, and by Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 171, as 'Trescott in Wrottesley near Little Penn'. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish, later in Wrottesley Civil Parish when that was created out of Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086.
		In 985 King Ethelred gave to the lady Wulfrun 10 cassati in two places, 9 aet Heantune [later Wolverhampton, named from her] and 1 aet Treselcotum [Trescott, 7,4]: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 97 no. 89 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 860). The charter does not say that the land was given to Wulfrun to found a monastery, but she used it for that purpose.
		By 1236, if not earlier, Trescott had become part of Westminster Abbey's estate of [Old] Perton (3,1); see Book of Fees, p. 594; VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 25-26.
7,5	TETTENHALL. This was originally a collegiate area, dependent on the church holding (7,5, a gift of the king in alms), then an Ancient Parish. Ecclesiastically it was sometimes known as Tettenhall Regis from the royal holding here; civilly it was known as plain Tettenhall. The ecclesiastical portion is Tetenhale decen' clericorum in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. Tettenhall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, a portion is still classed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. For this other part, see 1,2.
		This estate, known as 'Tettenhall Clericorum' was no doubt granted out of the royal manor of Tettenhall (1,2) for the endowment of the collegiate church and royal free chapel of St Michael here. This church is first mentioned in Domesday, but its establishment was ascribed in an Inquisition of 1401 (Calendar of Miscellaneous Inquisitions, vii. p. 821) to King Edgar (959-975) who was said to have endowed it with 100 acres and a rent of 10 shillings. The manor included Aldersley (represented by Aldersley Farm, SJ899012) and 'Barnhurst' (lost). As an ecclesiastical estate it continued until its dissolution in 1548; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 418, 441; VCH Staffordshire, iii. pp. 315-16, xx. pp. 18-19.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly TOTENHALE, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as TOTENHOLE; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	THIS LAND DOES NOT BELONG TO ^[THE CANONS OF]^ WOLVERHAMPTON. That is, it is not a possession of the church of Wolverhampton. However, it is not clear whether this corrects the opening statement ('In Tettenhall they (the canons) have 1 hide'), as Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 46, appeared to think or whether the canons are in fact holding Tettenhall, although it is not theirs. In favour of this second interpretation is that the first eleven entries in this chapter appear to be lands of the canons of Wolverhampton of which the annual value is totalled at 7,12. Thus this land may have been seized by the canons of Wolverhampton or they have asserted mother-church rights over Tettenhall, which was adjacent.
	BUT IS [A] ROYAL [GRANT OF] ALMS. The Latin is sed est elemosina regis, translated literally in the Phillimore printed edition as 'but is the King's alms'. 'Royal' has been preferred here, as no specific king seems intended. An alternative would be 'but is a king's [grant of] alms'. The Alecto edition has 'but it is [part of] the king's alms'.
	TO THE CHURCH OF THIS VILLAGE ^[TETTENHALL]^. The Phillimore printed translation has 'town' for uillae, possibly implying Wolverhampton (7,1). The first edition of Domesday Explorer has '[Wolverhampton]' inserted after 'town'. The place is, however, clearly Tettenhall. The church was still described as being 'in the king's gift' in 1226-28: Book of Fees, p. 384.
		In the copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) there is no sign of eiusdem uillę ('of this village').
	BILBROOK. This was a settlement in Codsall chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Codsall (17,1) and Tettenhall (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086.
7,6	"HASWIC". This estate is no doubt the Eswich given by Wulfrun to endow the church of Wolverhampton. Trysull (12,15), which lay at SO8594, is mentioned in its bounds. The estate was waste in 1086 and had been taken into a royal forest (presumably that of Kinver) which no doubt accounts for its failure to survive. Although the area where "Haswic" lay is known, attempts to connect it with Ashwood (SO8788) near Kinver and Kingswinford (Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 111-12; Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', pp. 168-69; Wrottesley, 'Pleas of the Forest: Staffordshire', pp. 158-60; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 321, iv. p. 45 note 65) are speculative and essentially based on the fact that Haswic and Ashwood may share the same first element, Old English aesc ('ash tree'), which is very common. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 36-37, left this place unidentified. Erdeswick, Survey of Staffordshire, placed it near Newcastle-under-Lyme.
		Eswich was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
	BECAUSE OF THE KING'S FOREST. Forest is not necessarily wooded. The word derives from Medieval Latin foresta, itself originating from Classical Latin foris, meaning land 'outside [the manor]' although royal forests increasingly intruded on the land of manors. Foresta is in effect a royal chase and an area subject, in due course, to forest-law.
		This is the royal forest of Kinver, which had also intruded on Chasepool (12,3), Enville (12,10) and "Cippemore" (12,11). The woodland of Kinver is mentioned as early as 736 (see 1,27 Kinver note), but the forest was probably established by William I; see {Introduction: Forest}.
	HALF OF THE WOODLAND, WHICH IS IN THE FOREST, BELONGED THERE. This sentence could be read in several different ways. It could mean, as in the Phillimore printed edition (which does not translate quæ ç, 'which is'), 'half of the woodland in the Forest belonged there', in other words that half of all the woodland in the forest had been part of "Haswic". Alternatively, the clause 'which is in the forest' could be parenthetical: 'half of the wood(land) belonged there; it is (now) in the forest'. In this case, there was a wood split between adjacent estates in 1066 and the part belonging to "Haswic" was subsequently taken into the forest. If this interpretation is correct, the other half does not appear. Moreover, the fact that "Haswic" has not been identified makes it difficult to identify another estate with which it might have shared a wood. A third possibility, and the simplest one, is that there was still woodland in "Haswic", but only half of what there had been, as half had since been taken into the forest. The translation could then be 'The half of [its] woodland, which is [now] in the forest, belonged there'. Once the main scribe of Great Domesday had begun Ibi pertinuit he was forced into writing an opaque sentence; it would have been better (assuming this is the meaning) if he had written Ibi silua cuius mediatas modo est in foresta ('There is woodland, half of which is now in the forest'). For this last meaning there are parallels (but involving land of the manor rather than its woodland) in WIL 27,27 and WIL 67,79 ('Half of this land is in the king's forest'), referring to two separate estates in Milford, and in WIL 13,20 ('A quarter of this land is situated in the king's forest'), referring to Laverstock.
		On the forest, see 7,6 forest note.
7,7	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. The four identifiable places (7,7-10) before the Cuttlestone hundred head at 7,13 later lay in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter and in Seisdon Hundred. While Willenhall and Wednesfield lay near the boundary of Offlow and Seisdon Hundreds, Pelsall and Hilton did not. Later in the Middle Ages it is not unusual for most or all the holdings of a church to have been drawn out of their original hundreds and placed in an ecclesiastical hundred that consisted of disconnected pieces. The actual process of creating such a scattered one-owner hundred can be seen in the lands of the church of Wells in Somerset in 1086 (SOM 6). On the other hand, in the majority of cases where such a dispersed hundred is found later, it is not evidenced in Domesday Book. In the present case, there is no evidence either way: the estates could have been in a Seisdon Hundred (head supplied at 7,1) that had detached parts or they could have been in the hundred where they lay geographically, that is in Offlow Hundred. A straw in the wind is that the other part of Willenhall (1,10) may well have lain in Offlow Hundred in 1086. In favour of the opposite view, that these places (7,7-10) like those in 7,1-6 lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086, is that 7,1-11 are treated as a unit and given a joint value (in 7,12) whereas the estates of the canons in Cuttlestone Hundred (7,13-18) are given individual valuations. On balance it has been preferred to place an Offlow hundred heading here, following VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45.
	WEDNESFIELD. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. Like Wolverhampton itself (7,1) it may have in lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. However, it lies on the Offlow Hundred side of the putative boundary; see 7,7 Offlow note.
		Wodnesfeld was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of the entry after the plough estimate, probably for the later insertion of a hundred head (one for Offlow Hundred is required: 7,7 Offlow note). The space is rather small but the inner margin could have been used. On other spaces left for hundred heads, see 1,7 hundred note.
	6 PLOUGHS. [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the villagers and smallholders and their ploughs, perhaps for the later inclusion of details of other resources, such as meadow or mills; compare 1,8 after note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. In the Phillimore printed edition, this phrase is translated as 'woodland pasture', as it is in the Alecto edition. However, this is to reverse the force of the Latin where silua is a noun and pastilis an adjective. The main scribe of Great Domesday was here writing primarily about woodland, then adding details that described or defined it. This is obvious when in DBY 1,13 he recorded silua pastilis 7 minuta iii leugas longa 7 ii lata ('pasturable underwood 3 leagues long and 2 wide'); see also in YKS 11E1 and LIN 13,4. In these cases both pastilis and minuta are adjectives that describe the silua, literally 'woodland, pasturable and low-growing'. It is also evident where he noted different types of woodland as in HUN 20,8 where he recorded silua pastilis ... 7 alia silua ... ('pasturable woodland ... and other woodland ... '): clearly the other woodland was not pasturable. Pasture (pastura) was not recorded as such in Domesday Staffordshire (but see 12,30 pasture note) and the nine occurrences of 'pasturable woodland' go some way towards rectifying its omission (quot pascuorum, 'how many grazing-lands', was among the questions thought to have been asked for the Domesday Survey, as reported in the Inquisitio Eliensis; see Hamilton, Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, p. 97). See DBY 1,1 woodland note.
7,8	WILLENHALL. This was a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. Like Wolverhampton itself (7,1) it may have lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. However, it lies on the Offlow Hundred side of the putative boundary and another part (1,10) may have been there in 1086; see 7,7 Offlow note.
		Willenhale was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380). It is not certain whether the whole of Willenhall was then given and part subsequently alienated, or whether only a part was in the original grant. For this other part of Willenhall see 1,10.
7,9	PELSALL. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (see 7,7 Offlow note) though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 2.
		Peoleshale was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
7,10	HILTON. This was a township of Shenstone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (see 7,7 Offlow note) though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The canons of Wolverhampton held two places called Hilton (7,10;15) both of which were part of Wulfrun's foundation grant; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note. In her grant they appear as Hiltun and Alia Hyltun. Latin alia ('another') means 'another estate called ... ' and draws attention to two estates of the same name in a list. It can refer to two estates that share the name of the same vill of which they are parts or estates in quite different places with the same name; see Thorn, 'Manorial Affixes'. In this case, there seem to have been two quite different places called Hilton in different hundreds, one in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter, the other in the Ancient Parish of Shenstone, respectively in Cuttlestone Hundred and Offlow Hundred originally, though both were later in the scattered hundred of Seisdon. The present Hilton will have been the Hilton in Shenstone, since Shenstone (8,32) is geographically and tenurially in Offlow Hundred and entries 7,7-11 seem to have lain in that hundred; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45 note 67, citing Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 112-113). However, Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table facing p. 70, has both Hiltons as parts of the same place in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 169.
		Hiltun was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
	HAVE. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) has the present participle hn'tes (= habentes) for the main verb h'nt (= habent); the scribe was probably influenced by h'ntes in several of the previous entries (7,5;7-8).
	
7,11	THIS BRIEF ENTRY was inserted by scribe B in a space left by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the entry for Hilton (7,10). He wrote larger than he normally did and not well; none of his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire (see 2,11 land note) were done at the same time. For entries added by the main scribe to this county, see 12,30 entry note.
	"HOCINTUNE". Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 35, left this place unidentified, pointing out that it was waste and without value and it may simply have disappeared. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 169, and Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', p. 112, suggested Ogley Hay, followed without comment by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45; see also VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 321. The identification rests on the possible similarity of the first element in each name, but there is insufficient place-name and other evidence to clinch the identification. For the bounds of Ogley Hay given in a perambulation of the Forest of Cannock in 1300, see Wrottesley, 'Pleas of the Forest: Staffordshire', pp. 177-78.
		Since the place is unlocated, its hundred is uncertain. It seems probable, however, that the entry at 7,12 sums up the value of the lands in the two hundreds in which they apparently lay, and that "Hocintune" was in the second of these, Offlow Hundred. If "Hocintune" was indeed in the Forest of Cannock, the bulk of that lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, though its eastern part was in Offlow Hundred.
		Ocgintun was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
		In the Penguin edition of the Alecto translation this place-name appears incorrectly as "HOCINTURE".
7,12	VALUE OF THE WHOLE OF THIS LAND OF THE CANONS. This is clearly meant as a summing up of the value of the preceding holdings of the canons, but it is complicated by the fact that Wolverhampton (7,1) is not held directly but from Samson, part of Upper Arley and the whole of Bushbury and Trescott (7,2-4) are given values and Tettenhall (7,5) really belongs to the canons of that place.
7,13	IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. This heading governs the final batch of estates that had belonged to the church of Wolverhampton (7,13-16). It is repeated above 7,17. Like the places that have been assumed to have been in Offlow Hundred in 1086 (7,7-10), this group is later listed in Seisdon Hundred which seems to have been enlarged so that the estates of that church could be in a single hundred. Two of the estates, Kinvaston and Featherstone (7,14;16), could never have been in Seisdon Hundred, unless they were detached parts of it. See 7,7 Offlow note.
	SAMSON [* THE CLERIC *] HOLDS. His holding begins the account of this hundred as another of his did Seisdon Hundred at 7,1. However, according to 7,14, the land had belonged to the collegiate church of Wolverhampton, even though Domesday expressly says that Samson is holding from the king.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Samson's name in capitals and rubricated it, as he did for the first entry in a new fief. This, and the position of the Cuttlestone hundred head at the end of an otherwise blank line and the space left before that line, as well, perhaps, as the inclusion of de rege (normally used for the first entry in a fief), suggest that the scribe initially thought this holding was the start of a new chapter (as indeed it appears in the Landholders' List on folio 246a). He obviously changed his mind as he did not write TERRA SANSON CLERICI in vermilion in this space when he rubricated the rest of Staffordshire. This may have been because he realized that Samson only held one estate, the places in the succeeding entries (7,14-18) being held by canons/clerics.
		On the name Samson and his title, see 7,1 Samson note.
	HATHERTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it is clearly designated as lying in Cuttlestone Hundred. However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Hagenthorndun was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
	THE PRIESTS. Canonici and presbyteri are sometimes interchangeable; for example the canons of St Petroc's Church in Bodmin (in the Liber Exoniensis entry corresponding to CON 4,4) are the same as the priests of Bodmin (DEV 51,15-16). These two priests could be canons of Wolverhampton who are holding this estate from Samson, rather than having a share in the other estates belonging to that church; see 7,13 Samson note.
	EDWIN AND ALRIC. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined these names using a finer pen than he had used for the main body of this entry.
	EDWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - Eduuin(us), Eduin(us), Eduuine, Aeduuinus, Eaduinus, Edduinus, Eduun[us] etc. - represent Old English Eadwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 238-40. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- and the second element -win for Old English -wine, as they were closer to the Domesday forms; moreover, the name Edwin has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edwin.
	ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.
7,14	THEY THEMSELVES HOLD. As the land held jointly by the canons of Wolverhampton seems to have been summed up at 7,12, the 'they' of this entry could be the priests Edwin and Alric, who may nonetheless be canons, but only two of a corporation. On the other hand, the 'they' are here represented by Latin ipsi which in 7,9-10 clearly means ipsi canonici ('the canons themselves'). Domesday does not say that whoever 'they' are were holding from Samson as it does for the priests in 7,13; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 45 note 68.
		Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 46, suggested that this apparent holding of four estates by two priests under Samson may have represented a project for a new collegiate church, although none was founded. This appears to be a mere guess and assumes, contrary to what is said in Domesday Book, that the priests were holding from Samson.
	KINVASTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred (hundred head above 7,13). However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Kinwaldestun was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
		The grid reference is to Kinvaston Hall Farm (SJ908122).
	VALUE NOW 10s. The Phillimore printed edition fails to translate ual[et], probably because the verb is regularly not given in the 1086 value statement if it appears in the T.R.E. one.
	ST MARY'S OF WOLVERHAMPTON HELD THESE 2 LANDS. That is, Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14). Both appear in Wulfrun's grant (STS 7 Wolverhampton note).
7,15	THEY THEMSELVES HOLD. That is, probably the canons of Wolverhampton;; see 7,14 they note. It is not said that they hold from Samson.
	HILTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred (hundred head at 7,13). However, it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Like Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14) Hilton had also been part of Wulfrun's grant to found a monastery at Wolverhampton, Alia Hyltun being one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380). The monastery was given two places called Hilton and the church was holding them both in 1086; on the distinction, see 7,10 Hilton note.
		The grid reference (SK9505) is to the moated site in Hilton Park.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space after the villagers and their plough and before the value statement, probably for the later insertion of the resources of this holding, as he also did in 7,17. On spaces left before the value statement in other entries, see 1,8 after note.
7,16	THEY HAVE. That is, probably the canons of Wolverhampton; see 7,14 they note.
	FEATHERSTONE. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 (hundred head at 7,13), though it was later with other of the canons' holdings in an enlarged and scattered Seisdon Hundred: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Like Hatherton and Kinvaston (7,13-14) Featherstone had also been part of Wulfrun's grant to found a monastery at Wolverhampton; see STS 7 Wolverhampton note.
		Feotherstan was one of the estates confirmed in 994 by Sigeric, Archbishop of Canterbury, as Wulfrun's endowment of her monastery at Wolverhampton: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 97-98 no. 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1380).
7,17	THIS ENTRY has no place among the lands of the canons of Wolverhampton. Like Tettenhall (7,5) this was the land of a separate collegiate church. Unlike Tettenhall, there is no reason to believe that it was subject to Wolverhampton in 1086.
	IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. The heading is unnecessarily repeated, since 7,13-18 were all in this hundred (JRM). However, such repetition of a hundred head is not uncommon when information is combined from different sources at some stage in the Domesday process. The previous four entries for this hundred (7,13-16) have related to lands of Wolverhampton Church, whereas the present entry for land of the church of Penkridge is entirely unconnected; see 7,17 entry note.
		In the Phillimore printed edition this hundred head appears above the entry for Featherstone (7,16) and JRM's note is at 7,16. In the manuscript it occupies the rest of the line after the details of Featherstone and clearly relates to the next entry, Penkridge (7,17). On the position of hundred heads in Domesday Staffordshire, see 11,34 Totmonslow note.
		The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) has ... Ferdestan .i. hidā wastā in coluestan hund' (' ... Featherstone 1 hide, waste, in Cuttlestone Hundred'). As Featherstone was in Cuttlestone Hundred (head at 7,13) the meaning has not been altered.
	PENKRIDGE. This was originally a chapelry in the collegiate church of Penkridge, then an Ancient Parish by 1551: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 419. In 1086 it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, from which this portion probably originated, see 1,7.
		The collegiate church of St Michael at Penkridge, a royal free chapel, was reputed to have been founded by Edred, King of the West Saxons (946-955), or by King Edgar (957-975). It was certainly in existence by the late ninth century when, under the terms of the will of Wulfgeat of Donington (Shropshire), the church received two bullocks (Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1534 = Early Charters of the West Midlands, no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 19, pp 55-56, 163-67); see Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', pp. 119-120; and 7,1 hide note.
		This estate at Penkridge, given to the church of Wolverhampton, had no doubt been granted from the royal manor of Penkridge (1,7). It was given in 1136 by King Stephen to Roger de Clinton, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield. The college survived until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 99. See Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 417, 434; Sayles, 'Early History of Penkridge Church', p. 3 note 1; VCH Staffordshire, iii. 298, v. p. 130.
		The church of Lapley had been dependent on that of Penkridge before the former was given to Saint-Rémy of Rheims; see NTH 16,1 Lapley note.
	9 CLERICS. These are the clergy of the collegiate church of Penkridge.
	FROM THE KING. This makes it clear that there is no connection between the church of Penkridge and that of Wolverhampton or with Samson the chaplain. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined de Rege during the initial writing of this county.
	7 VILLAGERS. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) has .iii. uillani 7 .i. bord' ('3 villagers and 1 smallholder'). JRM, in his note to chapter 7 in the Phillimore printed edition, suggested that the iii was a misreading of vi, giving 6 villagers and 1 smallholder for the 7 villagers of Great Domesday.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the details of the population, probably for the later inclusion of the resources; compare the similar space in 7,15.
7,18	THE CLERICS THEMSELVES. The Latin ipsi strongly suggests that these are the clerics of Penkridge (7,17), though not necessarily nine in number. It is not certain if there was a collegiate church in Gnosall in 1066 or in 1086, or whether the priests of Penkridge were holding this land as part of their endowment of Penkridge. Certainly a secular college with a dean and four prebendaries existed here at the time of King Henry I. King Stephen granted it to the church of Lichfield; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 414, 426; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 113. The latter is inclined to the view that there was probably a small Anglo-Saxon minster church here by 1066 and suggests that the four prebendaries evidenced later might be the successors to four priests, each with one of the four ploughs; see also VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 128. This assumes that the clerici here are not the same as the nine clerici who held Penkridge and that they numbered four.
	3 VIRGATES. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) has .i. uirgam, though the manuscript is discoloured by smoke at this point and not all of this is visible, but that is what is in the transcript that Hearne used, which was made before the fire.
	GNOSALL. This was an Ancient Parish, originally a Norman free chapel and then a collegiate church; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 412. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate passed to the bishops of Coventry and Lichfield, successors to the bishops of Chester. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, Gnousal cum membris was assessed at 6 carucates and did not pay tax. It was then held by the bishop and had formerly been a royal chapel. The college survived until the Dissolution: Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 99.
	4 SMALLHOLDERS. The copy of STS 7 included in Hemming's cartulary (see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}) has .iii. bord'. There is no sign in the manuscript that the 'first stroke of the iiii' was inserted in correction, pace JRM's note for chapter 7 in the Phillimore printed edition.
8	LAND OF EARL ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note. He was the son of Roger I of Montgommery, which is represented by the adjacent settlements of Sainte-Foy de Montgommery and Saint-Germain de Montgommery, in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot). The name was transferred by Earl Roger to Montgomery now in Powys (SO2296) just over the Welsh border. In 1086 it was the name of a castle, the centre of an important group of Earl Roger's lands; see SHR 4,1,15. 4,1,35-36, and 4,1,15 Montgomery note. Roger is never called Roger of Montgommery or of Montgomery in Domesday, though his son Hugh was; see STS 9.
		In Normandy Roger was vicomte of the Hiémois. He was married to Mabel, daughter of William Talvas of Bellême. His children by Mabel were Robert of Bellême, Roger of Poitou, Hugh, Arnulf, Philip, Matilda (who married Count Robert of Mortain), Mabel (who married Hugh of Châteauneuf) and Sibil (married to Robert son of Hamo). After Mabel's murder c. 1077 Roger married Adelaide du Puiset and by her had a son, Everard.
		Roger supplied ships for Duke William's invasion of England, but did not come himself until 1067. He was a loyal supporter of Duke and King William to whom he was related by the marriage of his father to a niece of Gunnor(a), William's great-grandmother. In England he was granted the Rapes of Arundel and Chichester in Sussex and had a castle at Arundel, but there is no reason to think that he was ever styled Earl of Arundel. On the death of Earl Edwin of Mercia c. 1071, he received most of Shropshire, becoming Earl of Shrewsbury. Roger founded the Abbeys of Saint-Martin de Sées and of Almenesches (both in Normandy) and also St Peter's of Shrewsbury.
		He rebelled against William II in 1088 but managed to extricate himself. In 1094 he retired to his abbey in Shrewsbury Abbey just before his death. His English lands passed to his second son, Hugh of Montgomery, and on Hugh's death in 1098 to Roger's eldest son, Robert of Bellême, who forfeited the fief in 1102 for rebellion. His third son, Roger of Poitou, was given an important fief of his own by the Conqueror.
		See VCH Middlesex, i. p. 110; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 68; Keats- Rohan, Domesday People, p. 399.
	The chapter begins with the lands that Earl Roger held in lordship, then takes the land of each of his tenants in turn, under whom the lands are grouped hundred by hundred. The result is that some hundreds appear four times:
		8,1-3 [Seisdon Hundred] lordship land
	___________________________________
		8,4 place unidentified, hundred uncertain. Reginald
		8,5-8 Cuttlestone Hundred. Reginald (8,5-6); Benedict (8,7); Saint-Evroult (8,8)
		8,9 [Pirehill Hundred]. Saint-Evroult
	___________________________________
		8,10-11 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Roger
		8,12-16 Pirehill Hundred. Robert (8,12); Wulfric and Gosbert (8,13); Ascelin (8,14-
			16)
		8,17 [Offlow Hundred]. Ascelin
		8,18 [Totmonslow Hundred]. Ascelin
	____________________________________
		8,19-25 [Pirehill Hundred]. William Pandolf (8,19-22); Henry of Ferrers (8,23);
			Helgot (8,24); Geoffrey (8,25)
		8,26 [Offlow Hundred]. Walter
	____________________________________
		8,27 [Pirehill Hundred]. Roger
		8,28-31 [Totmonslow Hundred]. William
		8,32 Offlow Hundred. Robert d'Oilly
		If, as seems likely, in the putative circuit volume Earl Roger's holdings were listed hundredally (as was the case with the Count of Mortain's large fief in Cornwall in the Liber Exoniensis, the direct predecessor of Great Domesday for the south-west counties), rather than by subtenant, the main Domesday scribe's procedure appears clear. He began with the land of the first of Earl Roger's subtenants in his source (Reginald) and gave his holdings which were only in Cuttlestone Hundred; he then continued with the other two subtenants in that hundred (Benedict and Saint-Evroult), but the latter's lands were also in Pirehill Hundred, so, as subtenant took precedent over hundred, he put them next. He then returned to Cuttlestone Hundred for the subtenancy of Roger [of Lacy]. It would seem that lands in Pirehill Hundred followed those in Cuttlestone in his source, for the Domesday scribe next gave the holdings of Robert, Wulfric and Gosbert, and Ascelin, but because Ascelin held in two other hundreds he did not return to Pirehill Hundred until he had dealt with them. The remaining subtenants with land in Pirehill Hundred were then recorded, after which the scribe went on to the account of the next hundred, Offlow, for Walter's holding. He then seems to have found a further holding of Roger [of Lacy] in Pirehill Hundred, which should have been entered at 8,12 after Roger's other lands. The next hundred (after Offlow) in his source would seem to have been Totmonslow, so he wrote William's subtenancy there, though it is possible that William's four lands were later additions in the putative circuit volume. The final entry, for Robert d'Oilly, in Offlow Hundred may also, like that for Roger at 8,27, be the result of an immediate check of his source as he had already given the subtenant in that hundred (8,26). It is possible, however, that the holdings of both Robert d'Oilly and Roger [of Lacy] were additions to his source out of hundredal order.
		Earl Roger held a large fief in Shropshire, where his position was quasi-palatine, and there too the arrangement in Domesday was by subtenant after Roger's lordship land, and within each subtenancy largely by hundred; see SHR 4 arrangement note. However, there is some similarity between the two accounts in the order of subtenants, although it is not always possible to identify Roger's Staffordshire tenants who have common names such as Robert or William, with the identifiable individuals in Shropshire. Thus the order in which four subtenants common to both counties (Reginald the sheriff, Roger of Lacy, William Pandolf and Helgot) are listed is the same, as the table below shows. Only the land of William [Malbank] in STS 8,28-31 is not in the same relative position as in Shropshire, but it is among a group of holdings which may have been misplaced or added to his source. This similarity might suggest that in his return Earl Roger (or those acting for him) had listed his lands by subtenant across these two counties, Reginald the sheriff's holdings in Shropshire followed or preceded by those in Staffordshire, for example. A resumé of this schedule may have survived and been used by the Domesday scribe, or he may have looked back at the order of tenants in Shropshire (assuming that it was written up before Staffordshire; see {Introduction: Circuit and Layout}) and reproduced it where the tenants were common to Staffordshire. Alternatively, the order in which Roger listed his subtenants in his own return may have largely survived intact the process of conversion to a hundredal arrangement needed for the county court sessions (which was retained for the circuit volume) and the subsequent reversion to an arrangement by tenant for Great Domesday.

Shropshire	Staffordshire	
4,1* lordship land of Earl Roger
4,2* Earl Hugh [of Chester]
4,3* Reginald the sheriff

4,4* Roger son of Corbet
4,5* Robert son of Corbet
4,6* Robert the butler
4,7* Roger of Courseulles
4,8* Roger of Lacy

4,9* Robert son of Theobald
4,10* Ranulf Peverel
4,11* Ralph of Mortimer
4,12* Richard [of Montgaroult]
4,13* William of Warenne
4,14* William Pandolf

4,15* William Malbank
4,16* Walkelin
4,17* Osbern [son of Richard]
4,18* Odo [of Bernières]
4,19* Thorold [of Verley]
4,20* Picot [of Sai]
4,21* Helgot ^[of Holdgate]^

4,22* Hugh son of Thorgisl
4,23* Gerard [of Tournai-sur-Dive]
4,24* Nigel [the doctor]
4,25* Norman [the hunter]
4,26* Roger the hunter

4,27* Various minor French and English tenants
4,28* Further lands held by Earl Roger
	8,1-3 lordship land of Earl Roger

8,4-6 Reginald [the sheriff]
8,7 Benedict
8,8-9 Saint-Evroult

8,10-11 Roger [of Lacy]
8,12 Robert 
8,13 Wulfric and Gosbert
8,14-18 Ascelin

8,19-22 William Pandolf
8,23 Henry of Ferrers

8,24 Helgot ^[of Holdgate]^ 
8,25 Geoffrey
8,26 Walter

8,27 Roger† [of Lacy] 
8,28-31 William† [Malbank]
8,32 Robert d'Oilly†
	
* Chapter 4 is divided into 28 sub-chapters according to tenant, with almost every sub-chapter having a number of entries within it; see SHR {Introduction: Content and Layout of Entries}.
† The Roger who holds 8,27 appears to be Roger of Lacy, two of hose lands have already been entered (8,10-11), while the identity of William (8,28-31) can be deduced from later evidence as William Malbank. William Malbank's lands are certainly not in the same relative place in the sequence to those that he held in Shropshire. It could be that these entries were late additions to the circuit volume.
		Between 1086 and the forfeiture of the earldom in 1102 Earl Roger or his sons, drew a number of manors into Shropshire, perhaps attempting to consolidate for themselves a semi-kingdom dependent on the Shropshire manors of Morville and Eardington (SHR 4,1,5;32) with the boroughs and castles of Quatford and Bridgnorth. Eardington, in the south-east of Shropshire, had been acquired by exchange with Wenlock Priory and was a focal point of their power: within its bounds Quatford borough had been established by 1086 on the Staffordshire side of the river. The great manor of Morville with its numerous dependencies (including Chawson in Worcestershire and Bridgnorth borough and castle) lay not far to the north-west. The Staffordshire manors drawn into Shropshire were Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley and possibly "Cobintone" (8,1-4) held by Earl Roger, and Worfield (9,1) held by his son Hugh of Montgomery, and to these were added Quatt, Romsley, Rudge and Shipley, also held by Earl Roger and also in Staffordshire in 1086, though listed erroneously in the Warwickshire folios (WAR 8-11). These eight or nine manors were interlaced on the ground. In addition part of Sheriffhales (8,5), which formed a separate pocket of land on the border, was transferred, no doubt at the same time. The rest of the Ancient Parish of Sheriffhales, however, which included Brockton Grange, held in Staffordshire in 1086 by the Shropshire sheriff, Reginald [of Bailleul] (14,1), was only transferred to Shropshire in 1895; see VCH Shropshire, iii. p. 43; VCH Staffordshire, iv. pp. 1, 45-46, 48.
8,1	[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. Claverley, Kingsnordley and Alveley (8,1-3) were early transfers to Shropshire, so their Staffordshire hundred is unknown. However, they lay on the western edge of the area occupied by Seisdon Hundred, and there is no other hundred in which they could have lain in 1086.
	CLAVERLEY. Claverley lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish in that county. Its chapelry, Bobbington (11,43; see also 8,4 "Cobintone" note), was long divided between Staffordshire and Shropshire; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 383. Claverley is perhaps entered first as being Earl Roger's largest and most important Staffordshire manor.
		After 1086, this estate was sometimes treated as a separate manor, sometimes as a member of Bridgnorth Liberty, sometimes as a part of Brimstree Hundred (Shropshire). Earl Roger had given the tithes of the church to his church at Quatford (SHR 4,1,32 Quatford note) before his son Robert forfeited the fief. From the time of Henry II onwards the manor was gradually broken up. Robert de Girros was enfeoffed in a part of the manor called Burctone or Buretone’ [Broughton?, SO8091] by 1210-1212 (Red Book of the Exchequer, ii. p. 511; Book of Fees, p. 146) and he gave it to Haughmond Abbey before 1235. In 1255 (Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 61) Claverlag’ was surveyed as a composite manor. Claverley itself was held by John son of Philip; Peter de Rivall' held ½ hide in Luddesdon’ [Ludstone, SO8094]; William de Mortuo Mari held 1 hide in Schipleg’ [Shipley, WAR 12,11]; John son of Philip 1 hide in Witim’e [Whittimere, SO8292]; the Abbot of Haughmond held 1 hide in Bebrug’ [Beobridge, SO7991] and 1 ½ virgates in Burcton’; Peter de Rivall’ held 1 ½ virgates in Witim’e and in Burcton’, while Stephen de Gatacre held 1 hide in Gatacre [Gatacre, SO7990] and Lucton [unidentified]; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 59, 88, 90, 91; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, ii. no. 17, iii. no. 565, iv. no. 355, v. no. 594, vi. no. 428, viii. nos. 400, 469; and Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. pp. 62-65. It appears that the main manor of Claverley was only 'farmed' by John son of Philip as it is said to be in the king's hands in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 88, and in Feudal Aids, iv. p. 234.
		Whittimere had originally been a member of Bobbington (11,43; see 8,4 "Cobintone" note). On Bobbington also see VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 64, 70; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 160. Whittimere came into Shropshire while part of Bobbington itself stayed in Staffordshire.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	WOODLAND. This extensive tract was later considered part of Morfe Forest; see {Introduction: Forest}.
8,2	KINGSNORDLEY. Kingsnordley lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and was later recorded as a settlement in Alveley Ancient Parish in that county. 'Kings' distinguishes this Nordley from one that was part of Morville (SHR 4,1,5) in 1086.
		After 1086 Kingsnordley was counted variously as a part of Stottesdon Hundred or of Bridgnorth Liberty or as independent manor. It went to the king when Roger's son Robert forfeited the earldom in 1102. One part of Nordley called Estleye [Astley, SO7885] was given to a family named from the place: in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 73, Book of Fees, p. 144, and Feudal Aids, iv. p. 219, John de Estleg' held ½ hide there by serjeantry and he also held Northlegh’ by fee farm; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 88; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 219, 231; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, ii. no. 103; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 146.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
8,3	ALVELEY. Alveley lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish in that county.
		In 1102 Alveley was forfeited to the Crown by Robert of Bellême's rebellion. Although Kingsnordley (8,2) was part of Alveley Ancient Parish, manorially Alveley was considered to be a part of Kingsnordley and was given by King Henry II to Guy Lestrange, being held under the Lestrange family by various tenants including the Hospitalers of Bridgnorth and the Abbot of Haughmond; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 73, 83; Red Book of the Exchequer, i. p. 276; Book of Fees pp. 147, 384; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 231, 242; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iii. no. 565, iv. no. 87; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 121.
		The Forest of Morfe was appurtenant to this estate according to Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 212.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
8,4	[* ? IN *** HUNDRED *]. Since "Cobintone" has not been identified it is not certain whether it lay in Seisdon Hundred (head inserted in 8,1) or in some other hundred; 8,4 "Cobintone" note and 8,4 [***] note.
	"COBINTONE". Cobintone is possibly Cubbington in Warwickshire, near Leamington (WAR 6,7. 16,53. 20,1). It is not however listed in Earl Roger's Warwickshire lands, and the three Warwickshire entries between them constitute two 5-hide units. It might be a lost place in Staffordshire, though probably not Kibblestone (JRM).
		The identification with Kibblestone (in Stone Ancient Parish) is due to Harwood, Survey of Staffordshire, p. 36 (based on Erdeswick, Survey of Staffordshire), followed by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 30, 82. However, Eyton cites as a later form of Cobintone the name Cublesdon, which, while it may be a predecessor of Kibblestone, does not look like a descendant of Cobintone. Moreover, as Eyton himself points out, there is no trace of Kibblestone's following other lands held by Reginald into the hands of the Fitz Alans. Kibblestone may well have been part of Moddershall (8,21) in 1086; see 8,21 Moddershall note.
		Cubbington was proposed in Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 169; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 46 note 76; Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. However, there seems to be no trace in the later history of Cubbington of any estate that might have been held by Earl Roger; see VCH Warwickshire, vi. p. 75. It is worth noting that apart from the initial letter Cobintone could be the ancestor of Bobbington, which lay in Claverley Ancient Parish (see 8,1) and was divided between Staffordshire and Shropshire, and therefore lay in the same area as these other estates that were soon transferred to Shropshire. However, the change of initial consonant needs an explanation; it is unlikely that a B could have been misread as a C. Moreover, the space left at the end of the first line of this entry may be for a hundred head (8,4 [***] note), suggesting that "Cobintone", unlike Bobbington, was not in Seisdon Hundred. An estate in Bobbington (Domesday Bubintone) was held in 1086 by Robert of Stafford (11,43). It remained in Staffordshire.
		In view of these difficulties it seems safest to leave this place unidentified. This means that it was not necessarily in Seisdon Hundred (hundred head inserted at 8,1) and the space left by the main scribe of Great Domesday at the end of the first line of this entry (8,4 [***] note) suggests that he might have intended to insert a different hundred head.
	REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. This man is Reginald of Bailleul, the sheriff of Shropshire; see STS 14 Reginald note.
		The Domesday forms of his name - Rainaldus, Renoldus, Raynold[us], Reinaldus - represent Old German Raginald, Reginald, Rainald etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 208. Although the majority form, Rainaldus, suggests that in 1086 the person was called by the Old French Rainald, JRM preferred the name Reginald, as it has survived into modern times. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Reginald, Rainald and Reynold; these have now been standardized as Reginald. The Alecto edition has Reginald, except for the present entry, where it has Reynold.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the details of Reginald's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, the most likely reason for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar positions, see 1,7 hundred note.
	ALMUND [* FATHER OF ALWARD *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Elmund, Elmund[us], Almund, Almund[us], Aelmund - could represent either Old English Æthelmund or Old English Ealhmund: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 149, under Al-mund, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, as does the Alecto edition.
		It appears that this Almund was the same as the predecessor of Reginald of Bailleul, Earl Roger's tenant, in SHR 4,3,45;47-48;63;67 and in WAR 12,3-4;7 and that he was the father of Alward who was also one of Reginald's predecessors in Shropshire (SHR 4,3,68;70) as well as holding five other estates from the earl there, once with Almund (SHR 4,27,17-21); see Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, p. 90. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 188, who gives just one folio reference, corresponding to SHR 4,27,17. It is not certain that the other predecessors of Earl Roger called Almund (8,11;14-15;23, the only other occurrences of this name-form in Domesday Staffordshire) were the same as Almund father of Alward, as Reginald was not Roger's subtenant in those entries and at least one other Almund was Earl Roger's predecessor according to Williams (SHR 4,20,3). However, see von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 149, note 2.
	LATER 2s. See 4,3 later note.
8,5	SHERIFFHALES. The Domesday form is Halas. The affix refers to Reginald of Bailleul, Earl Roger's subtenant here and the sheriff of Shropshire, or to his predecessor Warin; see Place-Names of Shropshire, i. p. 262.
		Sheriffhales lay in Staffordshire in 1086. Part of it was transferred to Shropshire (to 'Bradford' Hundred) almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish which was sometimes known as Sheriff Hales and which was partly divided in the Middle Ages between Shropshire and Staffordshire, then placed entirely in Shropshire in 1895; see VCH Shropshire, ii. p. 204, iii. p. 43, xi. p. 95; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 46; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 383. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred, in Staffordshire, as part did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. The part that remained in Staffordshire included Brockton Grange (14,1) which was only transferred to Shropshire in 1895, but since a 1965 boundary change is again in Staffordshire; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 56 note 87.
		Sheriffhales, like other of Reginald's lands, went to the Fitz Alans. It is held in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iii. no. 172, from Richard, Earl of Arundel, and is Shireshales with Brokeston [Brockton Grange] in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Old Series iii. p. 223; see Book of Fees, pp. 969, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114.
		Land at Halen was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxxi no. 46). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28). Halen has sometimes been identified as Sheriffhales (as hesitantly by Hart in Early Charters of Northern England), but is more probably Halesowen in Worcestershire where the settlement Hawne (SO960848) preserves the name; see Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. xxx-xxxi.
	REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. See 8,4 Reginald note.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	MEADOW, 8 ACRES. [***]. WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for six or so letters after the meadow details and before the vertical score delimiting the inner edge of the column (folio 248a). This may have been for the later inclusion of another resource such as a fishery, or he might have preferred to give the woodland details on a new line. He left a similar space in "Burtone" (10,10).
	[THE ABBEY OF] SAINT- EVROULT. This was a Benedictine Abbey refounded c. 1050 by the future King William and Robert of Grandmesnil, farther of Hugh of Grandmesnil, the Domesday tenant-in-chief. It lay at Saint-Evroult-Notre-Dame-du-Bois in the French département of Orne, in Normandy. The chronicler and historian Orderic Vitalis entered the abbey as an oblate and remained there.
	A PRIEST. The historian Ordericus Vitalis was born and baptized at Atcham, by the Roman town of Wroxeter, east of Shrewsbury, and entered the monastery of Saint-Evroult, near Lisieux, in youth. The priest at Sheriffhales, 13 miles east of Atcham, was the only dependent of the monastery in the locality, and may therefore have influenced the decision of Ordericus and his father to send the boy there (JRM).
		The fact that the abbey of Saint-Evroult had a plough with a priest who had 2 oxen makes it probable that the abbey also held the church at Sheriffhales and this supposition is supported by the fact that Warin, (Reginald's predecessor as sheriff of Shropshire, gave the church of Sheriffhales to Saint-Evroult's with the consent of Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by the king in 1081: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 770-73, no. 1081; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35). It is just possible that the church itself was superior; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
		The holding remained a possession of the Abbey of Saint-Evroult; see Round, Calendar of Documents, France, p. 228 no. 652. Further holdings by Saint-Evroult in this fief are 8,8-9.
	2 OXEN. That is, a quarter-share in a plough at 8 oxen to the plough.
	THE SHERIFF CLAIMS THIS MANOR FOR THE KING'S REVENUE. The sheriff's argument is presumably that the manor belonged in the king's hands along with others held by Earl Algar (1,11;13-32). Earl Algar's manors had briefly passed to his son Earl Edwin before the Conquest, but in many instances it is Earl Algar who is said to have held them T.R.E., although Earl Edwin is mentioned in the present entry. The manors will have passed to the king c. 1071 after Earl Edwin's death although they may have been forfeited shortly before because of his rebellion. What the sheriff appears to ignore is that King William had granted a number of Earl Algar's manors to others; in Staffordshire alone six or seven other estates (8,1-3. 9,1. 12,1;6;14, the last held by two of Earl Algar's men) were not in the king's hands, yet there is no suspicion of encroachment. It may be that documentary evidence was lacking for this particular transaction.
		The sheriff is presumably the sheriff of Stafford, rather than the sheriff of Shropshire, who was the subtenant of this estate, that is Reginald [of Bailleul]. It is not clear who the sheriff was in 1086, although he is probably the same as the Nicholas who is claiming 3 hides in Thorpe Constantine for the king's revenue in Clifton Campville (16,1). This Nicholas may in turn be the son of Robert of Stafford, himself possibly a former sheriff; see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
	EARL EDWIN HELD IT. He was the son of Earl Algar and grandson of Earl Leofric. He succeeded his father as Earl of Mercia on his death at some date between 1062 and 1066. He rebelled and made peace with King William at least twice and was finally killed by his own followers c. 1071. Although he inherited his father's estates and title, it is Algar who is often said to be the T.R.E. holder. However, Edward the Confessor's writ granting [Old] Perton to Westminster Abbey, and King William's confirmation are both addressed, among others, to Earl Edwin; see 3,1 Perton note. As Edwin held briefly in succession to his father Earl Algar (see 8,5 claims note), the 'county' does not appear to be contradicting the sheriff concerning the pre-Conquest tenure of the manor. It appears that whether Algar or Edwin is said to hold a manor T.R.E. depends on the particular fief: Earl Algar is credited as the T.R.E. holder in chapters 1, 5, 8, 9 and 12 and Earl Edwin in chapter 11.
		JRM noted that 'Tenuerit may be an error for tenuerat, or may be intended to mean that Edwin, Earl Algar's son, should have held the place, but did not'. Leaving aside the possibility of scribal error as unlikely, that note is based on a misunderstanding of the Latin. 'Should have held' or 'might have held' would be rendered by a pluperfect subjunctive (tenuisset). Tenuerit here is a perfect subjunctive, the subjunctive being required in Medieval Latin for an indirect statement after quod (the Classical usage was accusative and infinitive). The subjunctive is frequently used here throughout Medieval Latin as well as by the Domesday scribe himself. It is a mark of subordination or harks back to the Classical use of the subjunctive in any subordinate clause that is in oratio obliqua ('reported speech'). It has exactly the same meaning as the perfect indicative (tenuit): 'he held'.
		Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 239 no. 1468, perhaps influenced by JRM's note translates: 'The sheriff, however, claims this manor for the King's farm, and the county attests that Earl Edwin may have held it'. There is no word corresponding to 'however' in the Latin, but the translation of tenuerit, apart from being erroneous, gives a curious sense: that the county is testifying to a possibility, rather than to a fact.
		On the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.
8,6	KNIGHTLEY. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 156. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of Bellême, Earl Roger's son, it appears that the subtenant, Reginald of Bailleul may have become tenant-in-chief as he seems to have done on those manors that he held from Earl Roger in Shropshire. The estate descended to his successor as sheriff of Shropshire, Alan Fitz Flaad, ancestor of the Fitz Alans; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 119. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, it appears as held from the barony of Stafford (descent from Robert of Stafford, STS 11), but by service at the Fitz Alan castle of Album Monasterium [Oswestry]. This is possibly an error; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 107.
	REGINALD [* THE SHERIFF *]. See 8,4 Reginald note.
	BERNWULF. The Domesday form of this name, Bernulf(us), probably represents Old English Beornwulf, though derivation from Old Norse Biornulfr is possible: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 200. JRM preferred the first element Bern- for the Old English Beorn-. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Bernwulf and, in YKS, Bjornulfr (following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 55-56); these have now been standardized as Bernwulf. The Alecto edition has Beornwulf.
8,7	MORETON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended to Alan FitzFlaad, ancestor of the FitzAlans; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 969, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 120. In Book of Fees, p. 544, Morton' is coupled with Kingesley which might be a confusion for Knightley (8,6), though in Book of Fees, pp. 969, 975, the Fitz Alan holding is at Kingeston' [Kingstone, SK0629], presumably part of Uttoxeter (1,19) in 1086. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, Morton' is held from the Fitz Alan barony of Oswestry.
		This descent might suggest that Benedict forfeited the estate at the time of Robert of Bellême's rebellion and that it was granted to Alan Fitz Flaad, or that Benedict was in fact holding it from Reginald the sheriff, the tenant of Earl Roger in 8,4-6, whose lands passed to Alan Fitz Flaad, his successor as sheriff; see 8,4 Reginald note and 8,7 Benedict note.
	BENEDICT <OF DAWLEY>. The Domesday form of this name, Benedict[us], is from the Latin adjective meaning 'blessed'. He was probably named after St Benedict, the founder of the Benedictine order of monks.
		Apart from Abbot Benedict of Selby, the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday is as a subtenant of the sheriff Reginald of Bailleul, who held from Earl Roger in Dawley (SHR 4,3,28), probably the same man as the Benedict here. If so, he may have been holding under Reginald the sheriff here, rather than directly under Earl Roger. For examples of the rare inclusion of a lower level of tenancy, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the details of Benedict's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, the most likely reason for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar positions, see 1,7 hundred note. However, Moreton appears to have been in the same hundred (Cuttlestone) as 8,5-6. Compare 8,8 [***] note.
	ALFGEAT. On this name, see 1,38 Alfgeat note.
	WITHOUT FULL JURISDICTION. The phrase does not mean that he had partial jurisdiction, but that he had none. It probably indicates Alfgeat did not have a hall and a court and that Moreton was not a manor. On 'full jurisdiction', see B11 jurisdiction note.
8,8	SAINT-EVROULT'S CHURCH. See 8,5 Saint-Evroult note.
	[HIGH] ONN. The Domesday form (Otne) is erratic, as is that for Little Onn (Anne, 17,16); see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 141.
		High Onn and Little Onn (17,16) were settlements in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 141. Like Church Eaton itself (11,65) they probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		High Onn was given to Saint-Evroult by Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by King William in 1081: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 770-73 no. 255; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35).
		On the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of Bellême, Earl Roger's son, in 1102, the Abbey of Saint-Evroult became the tenant-in-chief. In later times High Onn was held of the manor of Ware in Hertfordshire from which Saint-Evroult's English estates were managed; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (where the prior of Ware holds from the barony of Bellême); VCH Hertfordshire, iv. pp. 455-57; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 94.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the details of Reginald's tenancy. As the hidage and plough estimate are given in the next line, the most likely reason for this space was so that a hundred head could be added at a later stage. On other spaces left for hundred heads in similar positions, see 1,7 hundred note. However, High Onn appears to have been in the same hundred (Cuttlestone) as 8,5-8. Compare 8,7 [***] note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
8,9	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Marston (8,9).
	THIS CHURCH ^[OF SAINT-EVROULT]^. See 8,5 Saint-Evroult note.
	MARSTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. This place in Pirehill Hundred is surrounded by places that lay in Cuttlestone Hundred. From this point of view, Marton in Church Eaton would suit better. However, the identity is established from the entry in Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, where Merston juxta Staff[ord] in Pirehill Hundred is held by the prior of Ware by gift of Robert of Bellême, Earl of Shrewsbury. Ware belonged to Saint-Evroult and its English estates were administered from there. However, this chapter is not arranged by hundred, but by subtenant; see STS 8 Roger note.
		Marston was in fact given to Saint-Evroult not by Robert of Bellême but by his father, Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by King William in 1081: Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 770-73 no. 255; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35).
	WULFGAR. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlgar, Wlgar - represent Old English Wulfgar: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 419. The Alecto edition has Wulfgar.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	18 BURGESSES IN STAFFORD. That is, in the borough of Stafford (STS B). These non-resident burgesses will have benefited their manor by having a number of rights including the right to trade. Even c.1199, 2 burgages in Stafford were still described as of the fee of Saint-Evroult. The prior of Ware, Saint-Evroult's representative in England, held the lordship of the Foregate of Stafford (near the north gate) in 1306; see VCH Staffordshire, vi. p. 206.
	ONE WALTER. The Latin quidam ('a', 'a certain') indicates that nothing more is known about this individual. There is no evidence of a link between him and Earl Roger's subtenant of that name in 8,26.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Walterius, Walterus, Galter(us) - represent Old German Walter, Old French Gaultier: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 243-44. The Alecto edition has Walter.
8,10	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Norbury and Walton (8,10-11).
	NORBURY. The Domesday name means the 'northern fortified place' and might be so by reference to Stafford if the name originated after the construction of a burh at the latter in 913; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. pp. 173-74; and{Introduction: History].
		Norbury was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of Bellême, Earl Roger's son, it appears that the subtenant, Roger [of Lacy], became the tenant-in-chief, for the manor descended within the Lacy family; see Book of Fees, p. 967 (one knight's fee held by Walter of Lacy); Book of Fees, p. 545; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 156. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, Norbur' is recorded as held from the barony of Stafford, but this is presumably an error; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 107. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 71, shows that the undertenants were the de Kilpecks who were the royal foresters of Herefordshire and successors to Roger the hunter, who was also a tenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,26). They held, however, under the de Lacys.
	ROGER [* OF LACY *]. Of the Domesday form Reger, JRM said; 'perhaps in error for Roger, as in 8,11'. It would have been very easy for an o to be misread as an e at some stage in the Domesday process, especially if poorly-written. The descent of Norbury shows that not only was Reger a Roger, but Roger of Lacy, a Domesday tenant-in-chief in his own right and a named subtenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,8); see 8,10 Norbury note.
		Roger of Lacy was son and heir of Walter of Lacy (died 1085) and his wife Ermelina (Emma). They originated from Lassy, in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Vire, canton Condé-sur-Noireau). Roger's brother, Hugh of Lacy, and his nephew, Ilbert of Lacy, were both Domesday tenants-in-chief. Both the lands he held in chief and those he held under Earl Roger became part of the Lacy barony whose caput was Weobley in Herefordshire and whose chief Shropshire manor was Stanton Lacy (SHR 7,4). As a supporter of Robert Curthose against William II, he rebelled in 1088 and in 1094, lost his English lands and was banished. He returned to Normandy where he served Robert until his fall in 1106. His forfeited lands passed to his brother, Hugh, then to Roger's son Gilbert of Lacy, descending in the Lacy family until the death of another Walter of Lacy in 1241.
	AUTI <OF LEEBOTWOOD>. The Domesday forms of this name - Auti, Outi, Alti[us], Alti - represent Old Danish Auti: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 169. The Alecto edition has Auti. This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The name Auti occurs on 39 holdings spread mainly across Midland England; but the Auti holding the six holdings in Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire can be identified with a degree of confidence as one individual (SHR 4,5,3. 4,27,12-13. 7,4. STS 8,10. WAR 12,8). Five of the six people called Auti held from Earl Roger of Shrewsbury or his tenants; in three instances an Auti held both in 1066 and 1086 (JP).
		Leebotwood in Shropshire is one of Auti's holdings (SHR 4,27,13).
	2 PRIESTS. They were possibly resident in a small minster church; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
8,11	WALTON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Walton Grange. Like Gnosall itself (7,18), it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. For the identification, see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 70-71. The 'Grange' element of the place-name is derived from the later possession by the Shropshire Abbey of Buildwas; there never appear to have been separate settlements of Walton and Walton Grange. The name is represented by Walton Cottages (SJ809170), Walton Grange (SJ808171), Walton Wood (SJ806167) and Walton Fields (SJ813165).
		Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 84-86, has shown how Walton, like Norbury and Blithfield (8,10;27), must have descended from Roger of Lacy; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 156. Early in the twelfth century it was held by Herman, then by William Fitz Herman and subsequently a relative, Walter Fitz Herman, gave a half of it to Buildwas Abbey, his son Hamo later giving the other half; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 122.
	ROGER [* OF LACY *]. See 8,10 Roger note and 8,11 Walton note.
	ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.
8,12	YARLET. This was an extra-parochial area which became a Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 430. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12 (Erlyde).
		Yarlet lies at SJ9128. Yarlet Hall is at SJ913292.
	ROBERT. The descent of Yarlet is unclear and the identity of this Robert unknown. If the correspondence between the order of Earl Roger's subtenants in Shropshire and those in Staffordshire can be relied on (STS 8 Roger note), then this Robert would be Robert son of Theobald whose four Shropshire lands (SHR 4,9,1-4) fell to the Crown and were granted to two different families.
		On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. None is known.
	LAND FOR 6 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally gave the number of ploughs as iiii, but then erased the first three minims and wrote a large v in darker ink over them; he retained the original punctus before and after the iiii.
8,13	GAYTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Gayton appears to have come into the king's hands after 1086. It was held from him by six men in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 4).
	AMERTON?. The Domesday form is Mersetone which might be expected to yield 'Marston'. It was identified with the Marston near Stafford (that is the same Marston as 8,9) by Eyton. Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 83-84; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 46 note 87. However, Amerton is close to Gayton (8,13) although it was in Stowe Ancient Parish. Stowe itself does not appear in Domesday but the Ancient Parish contained Drointon (2,19) and part of Haywood (2,5).
		Amerton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. If the identification is correct, it assumes that the Domesday form has lost an initial A-.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday had initially omitted this place-name, but probably as a result of a check later interlined it, at the same time as he added its tenant, Wulfric, and probably corrected the number of villagers and their ploughs and the number of smallholders.
	GOSBERT. The Domesday forms of this name - Goisb[er]t(us), Gosb[er]t, Gosb[er]t[us] - represent Old German Gosbert, Gausbert, Gautbert etc., Romance Josbert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 124. The Alecto edition has Gosbert.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note. On the later interlineation of this name by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 8,13 Amerton note. The Phillimore printed edition reversed the order of Gosbert and Wulfric, but it is clear from the additions of 7 Mersetone and 7 Vluricus that Wulfric held Amerton? in 1086.
	10 VILLAGERS HAVE 4 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the number of villagers over the second half of an erasure, perhaps of an original vi or vii; the x is in darker ink and written emphatically. He also corrected the number of their ploughs, probably from ii to iiii by adding a third and fourth minim and inserting a new punctus after them, as well as interlining or (the last two letters of quattuor, '4') above it in clarification (compare 1,11 meadow note); the final minim is in darker ink than the third minim and the or, suggesting that he had to dip his pen in ink again for it, rather than that it was an even later addition. These alterations were part of a series of corrections and additions in this entry; see 8,13 Amerton note.
	6 SMALLHOLDERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably altered their number from v by adding a minim. This was part of a series of corrections and additions in this entry; see 8,13 Amerton note.
	ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.
	ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.
8,14	'COTON'. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary, forming part of the township of Hopton and Coton there. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 4; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		This estate passed to the Fitz Alans; it is Kotes juxta Stafford in Book of Fees, p. 544; see Book of Fees, p. 969. It is presumably the Coten' Mauveysin of Book of Fees, p. 974, and the Coton that is held by Serle Mauverys (i.e. Mauveysin) from Richard Fitz Alan in Pirehill Hundred in Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
		The place has since disappeared but was represented by Coton Hill Farm (SJ9323) and Coton Field (SJ9324) on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).
	ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'> HOLDS. Nothing is known about this tenant of Earl Roger, but his lands appear to have passed to the Fitz Alans and in the case of 'Coton' here and Mavesyn Ridware (8,17) to have been held under the Fitz Alans by the Mavesyn family, although it is not certain what connection, if any, Ascelin had with them. It is likely that all Earl Roger's tenants called Ascelin (8,14-15;17-18) were the same individual: this chapter was arranged by subtenant (STS 8 Roger note) and there are no other people with this name in this county. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 159, links this Ascelin in Staffordshire with the only occurrence of the name in Shropshire (SHR 7,4), but he is a tenant of Roger of Lacy, not of Earl Roger of Montgomery, and it is very unlikely that he is the same individual.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Azelin(us) and (once) Aselinus - represent Old German Azelin, Old French Ascelin: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 38-39. The Old French form seems more likely, despite the predominance of -z- in the Domesday forms. In the Phillimore printed translations both Ascelin and Azelin occur, but here they have been standardized as Ascelin. The Alecto edition has Azelin.
	1 PLOUGH AND 6 OXEN. That is one plough and two-thirds of a plough at 8 oxen to the plough. The remaining 2 oxen do not appear.
	ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.
8,15	COLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. For another part see 11,29.
		It might be expected that this estate would descend to the Fitz Alans, as 'Coton' (8,14) and Mavesyn Ridware (8,17) did. It might be the Kouton of Book of Fees, p. 544, a fee of John Fitz Alan, the -u- representing a 'dark -l-', although that Kouton might be 'Coton' (8,14). Colton was held in two parts in Domesday (8,15. 11,29) and the present part is presumably that held from the heir of John de Marchall in Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, with no mention of a Fitz Alan overlordship; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 12.
	ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.
	ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.
	MEADOW, 19 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote xiiii ('14') for the number of acres of meadow, but later joined the first two minims to form a v and interlined another two above the remaining two minims, to make xviiii. He used a pen and ink very similar to those he had used for the rest of the entry, suggesting that this correction may have been immediate.
8,16	"COLT". JRM noted: 'probably Littlehay in Colton'. This appears to be derived from a more cautious statement in VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 46 note 90, which says: 'this possibly represents the manor of Littlehay within the manor of Colton', citing Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred' (part 2), pp. 153-156. This, however, appears to be a conjecture based only on the facts that "Colt" was associated with Colton in Domesday and the manor of Littlehay has no other Domesday representative. The flaw in this reasoning is that many later manors arise by the partitioning of existing estates. For the present, "Colt" is best left unidentified as it was by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37.
	BELONGS TO COLTON. That is, to the preceding estate there (8,15).
	ALMER HELD IT. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.
8,17	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Maveysyn Ridware.
	[MAVESYN] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		This particular Ridware can be identified because the Mavesyn family were Ascelin's successors and they held from the Fitz Alans who were the later holders of some Montgomery lands; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 969, 974, 975; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 47 note 91.
	ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.
8,18	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Loxley.
	LOXLEY. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote LOCHECLEI and then corrected the second C to an S; the result is poor with the lower bowl of the S below the rest of the line. He made the same mistake and corrected it in the same way in 11,44 (Pecleshella).
		This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish, represented by Loxley and Lower Loxley. Like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Loxley Green (SK066307), Upper Loxley Farm (SK066309), Loxley Bank (SK067313) and Lower Loxley (SK056320).
		The estate appears to have passed to the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby; see Book of Fees, p. 542. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117), it was held by Thomas de Ferars from Edmund (Earl of Lancaster), the king's brother, and was recorded as a member of the manor of Uttoxeter, a connection that may have dated from much earlier.
	ASCELIN <OF 'COTON'>. See 8,14 Ascelin note.
	IT WAS AND IS WASTE. This is the only occurrence in Domesday Staffordshire of land being described as waste previously as well as in 1086. Despite the estate being waste it has most of the usual manorial resources, though no population is recorded. Generally only the assessment and, often, the 1066 holder is provided in entries said to be waste in 1086, though occasionally (as in 12,2. 13,4) woodland is mentioned and the land is given a value twice (11,53. 13,4). On the use of the word vasta in Domesday, see B1 unoccupied note.
	EDMUND HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Edmund(us), Aedmund(us) - represent Old English Eadmund: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 233. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead- as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; moreover, the name has survived into modern times. The Alecto edition also has Edmund.
8,19	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next seven places (8,19-25). Of these Meaford (8,24) is directly under a Pirehill Hundred head at 5,1.
	CRESWELL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem: Book of Fees, pp. 545, 970, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	WILLIAM PANDOLF. On the name William, see B8 William note. His byname, probably a patronymic - Pantul, Pantulf - represents Old German Pandulf, Pandolfus: Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 223; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 203.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined pantul using a slightly paler ink than he had used for the rest of this entry and writing quickly and not very well: he misjudged his space as the descender of the p is obscured by the W of Will's in the line below.
		William Pandolf also held from Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,14) and was one of his principal tenants in that county. In Staffordshire, the tenants called William in 8,20-22 are probably William Pandolf, but those in 8,28;30 are a different man.
		William was lord of Noron in the Hiémois in Earl Roger's vicomté of the Oximin. Noron is now Noron-L'Abbaye, in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Falaise-Nord). He was a great benefactor of the Abbey of Saint-Evroult , to which in 1073 he gave, among other things, St Peter's Church and Priory at Noron which he had founded; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, iii. pp. 154-59). Saint-Evroult is where he sought refuge after he was accused by Earl Roger's son, Robert of Bellême, of the murder of Earl Roger's first wife, Mabel; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, iii. pp. 160-63). He was reinstated by King Henry I. His English lands formed the barony of Wem and passed to his second son Robert in 1112, then continued in the family to William Pandolf (died 1233) whose heirs were Maud and Elizabeth. Elizabeth's share went on her death to Maud who married Ralph Butler, then Walter de Hopton. After her death the barony descended in the Butler family. See Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 94-95; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 76; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 494.
	IN STAFFORD. That is, in the borough (B1-12). In the outer margin of folio 248b are written two small crosses, the first level with the statement on Stafford, the second just below it. There are also a set of the excerpting marks, the first superimposed on the 7 In before Stafford and the second after the fuit at the end of the entry. It would appear that both these are a form of excerpting or checking mark, similar to the cross beside 11,7 and the marks in the margins on folio 247c,d beside other entries mentioning Stafford; see 4,1 manuscript note.
	1 UNOCCUPIED MESSUAGE. The Latin is masura, apparently no different from the mans[iones] mentioned frequently in the borough entry (B1-9). In both cases, the meaning is of a messuage or house-site, with or without an actual house.
	GODWIN HELD. 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.
8,20	DERRINGTON. The Domesday form is Dodintone. This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself (2,21), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 11, where it is Dodinton, Dodyton; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279, where it is Dodynton'. The change to Derrington appears to be quite late; see Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names, under Derrington.
		The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem; see Book of Fees, pp. 545, 970, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	WILLIAM [* PANDOLF *]. Because of the descent of Derrington and because this chapter is arranged by subtenants, it is probable that this William is the same man as the Williams in 8,19;21-22, that is William Pandolf; see 8,19 William note.
	WITH 1 PLOUGH. There is an ink blot on the cû in the manuscript, but the reading is clear. In the Alecto and Ordnance Survey facsimiles most of this word is obscured.
	SWEIN HELD. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
8,21	MODDERSHALL. This was a township in Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Stone itself is not named in Domesday, though several parts of the later Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. Moddershall probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		The Pandolf barony of Wem later held Klissbillesdun' or Cublesdon [Kibblestone, SJ9136], which was probably part of Moddershall in 1086; see Book of Fees, p. 545; Feudal Aids, v. p. 6.
	WILLIAM. [* PANDOLF *]. See 8,20 William note.
	COTWALTON. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Like other settlements in that Ancient Parish (for example, Hilderstone 1,44) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. For another part, see 1,45. For Wulfric Spot's gift of his 'little land' here to Burton Abbey, see 1,45 Cotwalton note.
	WHICH BELONGS THERE, [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote ē t'ra (= est terra: 'there is land') after p[er]tin[et], probably intending to give a plough estimate for this dependency of Moddershall, but he later erased the words imperfectly (the t'ra is clearer than the ç) and put a punctus after p[er]tin[et]. Presumably the 5 ploughs in the plough estimate earlier in the entry covered Cotwalton. Compare 8,29 land note. However, as in Staffordshire the phrase 'land for n ploughs' sometimes seems not to be a true plough estimate, but the equivalent of 'n carucates of land' (see STS 1 king note), it is possible that the scribe originally intended to provide an assessment for Cotwalton.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note.
		The holdings held by a Godiva around Moddershall have the appearance of having belonged to one individual. They form a group; and apart from Moddershall itself, all devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief. Moddershall was held by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury, the predecessor of Countess Godiva in Shropshire; but the Godiva at 11,37 'could not withdraw', and she of 11,13 was bound to make a customary payment. It seems unlikely these Godivas were the countess. Clarke, English Nobility, p. 218, assigns Cauldon (11,4) but not Moddershall to the countess (JP).
		See also 11,37 Godiva note.
8,22	ALMINGTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Drayton-in-Hales, also known as Market Drayton. The majority of the Ancient Parish, including Market Drayton itself, lay in Shropshire (SHR 4,14,9). Almington probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 5, 11, where it appears as Alkmounton.
		The estate descended in the Pandolf barony of Wem; see Book of Fees, pp. 970, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 5.
		Adjacent to Almington, but lying in Shropshire in 1086, was Tyrley (SHR 4,14,5) also held by William Pandolf. Tyrley, now represented by Tyrley castle (SJ 6733), was subsequently transferred to Staffordshire, probably in the reign of King Henry I, to join Almington. The exact lie of the 1086 boundary between Almington and Tyrley cannot now be certainly determined as the modern civil parish of Tyrley incorporates both Tyrley and Almington. It seems likely, however, that the Coal Brook marked the 1086 boundary between them.
	WILLIAM [* PANDOLF *]. See 8,20 William note.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not clear what these were.
	GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
8,23	TIXALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. For another part, held by Robert of Stafford, see 11,31. No trace of a descent of this estate within the Ferrers barony has been found and it is possible that it was absorbed by Robert of Stafford's estate after 1086; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 84.
	HENRY OF FERRERS. He is a tenant-in-chief in STS 10; see STS 10 Henry note. On the name Henry, see B9 Henry note.
	ALMUND. On this name-form, see 8,4 Almund note.
8,24	MEAFORD. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Stone itself is not in Domesday, although various other members of the Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. In 1086, Meaford lay in Pirehill Hundred; another portion (5,1) is directly below a Pirehill hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12.
	HELGOT <OF HOLDGATE> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Helgot, Helgod - represent Old German Helgaud, Old French Helgot: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 146. The Alecto edition has Helgot, except for SHR 4,11,1, where it has Helgod, the same as the Domesday form there.
		This man is no doubt the same as the subtenant of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,21; see also 4,11,1 Helgot note). Helgot probably came from Résenlieu in the French département of Orne (arrondissement Argentan, canton Gacé), close to Earl Roger's vicomté of the Hiémois. His lands went on to form the barony of Castle Holdgate, named from Holdgate in Shropshire (Domesday Stantune: SHR 4,21,5-6) which is itself named from him. On Helgot and the barony, see Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iv. p. 52; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 28; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 246.
		The Helgot who was a tenant of Robert of Stafford in this county was a different person; see 11,24 Helgot note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
	HE WAS FREE. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined lib[er] fuit (as also in 8,25), perhaps at a later stage, as both he and scribe B did with other phrases concerning the type of T.R.E. tenure (possibly having received instructions on the importance of this information). The interlined lib[er] ho[mo] ('a free man') in 11,8;52 might also have been later additions.
8,25	ASHLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Asseley is held by Philip de Burwardesl' in Book of Fees, p. 594, by service of finding a horse-soldier for service at the castle of Shrawardine (Shropshire). Shrawardine (SHR 4,3,50) was held in 1086 by Reginald the sheriff under Earl Roger, and later by the Fitz Alans. The same estate probably appears as Asseleg in Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	GEOFFREY [* THE SHERIFF *]. He could be the same person as the Geoffrey who held under two of Earl Roger's tenants in Shropshire (SHR 4,3,27. 4,4,20) and might be the same as the Geoffrey of SHR 6,8 , one or more of whom may have been Geoffrey the sheriff; see SHR 4,3,27 Geoffrey note. However, according to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 227, he is the same person as Geoffrey de Ria, 'probably named from Ri, Orne, canton Putanges-Pont-Ecrepin'. She calls him a tenant of Roger of Poitou and also has references to the two occurrences of Geoffrey in CHS R1,43 and R5,6 (where he is a tenant of Roger of Poitou). She does not have any references to the subtenants of Earl Roger in Shropshire who are called Geoffrey, who are more likely to have been the same person as the present Geoffrey than Roger of Poitou's tenants.
		The Domesday forms of Geoffrey - Goisfridus, Gosfridus, Gaufridus, Gaufridus, Gaosfridus etc. - represent 'two or, possibly, three Old German names usually latinized in early documents as Galfridus or Gaufridus and Goisfridus and Gosfridus' (Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Jeffray etc.). Goisfridus and Gosfridus represent Old German Gosfrid, Romance Josfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 125-26. Gaufridus apparently could represent one of a series of Old German names such as Gaufrid, Gautfred, Waldfrid, Walfrid: ibidem, pp. 101-102. Forssner commented on the confusion of these two names and also that between the latter and Old German God(e)frid (on whom, see ibidem, pp. 118-19). The modern name Geoffrey, chosen by JRM and also used in the Alecto edition, derives from ME Geffrey, from Old French Geuffroi, Jeufroi or Old French Jefroi (Reaney, ibidem). See also Dodgson and Palmer, 'Introduction', Index of Persons, p. ix.
	2 HIDES [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a punctus after the hidę and left the rest of the line blank (suitable for only three or four letters), either an error or the space was left for a fraction or one or more virgates.
	2 VILLAGERS AND 2 SMALLHOLDERS [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not put a punctus after bord' and left the rest of the line blank, probably for the later insertion of their ploughs; although there was room for only about six letters before the vertical score delimiting the outer edge of the column (folio 248b) he could have used the margin.
	WULFMER HELD. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.
	HE WAS FREE. On the interlineation of lib[er] fuit by the main scribe of Great Domesday, see 8,24 free note.
8,26	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Hamstall Ridware and from the fact that another part (5,2) is directly below an Offlow hundred head.
	[HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred; another portion (5,2) is directly below a Offlow hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. For other parts, held by the church of Saint-Rémy of Rheims and by Robert of Stafford, see 5,2. 11,50.
		This particular holding appears to have been at Nethertown (SK1017); see Jeayes and Wrottesley, 'Rydeware Cartulary', pp. 231-32, 234-35, 260, 263; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 47 note 1.
	WALTER HOLDS. His identity is unknown. On this name, see 8,9 Walter note.
	EDMUND HELD. On this name, see 8,18 Edmund note.
8,27	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of Blithfield.
	BLITHFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. The grid reference is to Blithfield Hall (SK044239) and Blithfield Park (SK046237).
		Land at Hampton in Blithfield was given to Burton Abbey in the twelfth century by one Meriet, according to Burton B: Hamptona quam dedit Ecclesiae nostrae Meriet pater noster ('Hampton which Meriet, our father, gave to our church'): Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', pp. 223-24 (= Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 20); VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 202. Wrottesley has presbyter ('priest') in error for pater, which is written in full in the manuscript (B.L. Loan, 30, folio 29va). In his transcription of a later agreement concerning Hampton, which mentions Meriet, Wrottesley ('Burton Chartulary', p. 32) extended pr' nr' to presbiter noster. Although the usual abbreviation of presbiter is p'b'r, the description of Meriet as a priest makes better sense and it is possible that pater was a wrong extension by the scribe of the Burton Abbey survey. It is not certain whether the grant of Hampton was of part of this estate.
		The overlordship of Blithfield appears to have passed to the Earls of Ferrers: Book of Fees, p. 542; Feudal Aids, v. p. 5. However, in Book of Fees, p. 969, following a list of holdings of the barony of the Earl of Derby (a Ferrers fee), is an entry to the effect that Jacob de Blithfeud holds ½ fee in Blithefeud, of the fee of Warin de Montekainisio. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 84-86, established a connection between this Warin (de Munchensi) and Roger of Lacy.
		Since lands held by Roger of Lacy under Earl Roger have already been entered (8,10-11), it appears that this entry is displaced; see STS 8 Roger note.
	ROGER [* OF LACY *]. For the identification, see 8,27 Blithfield note, and for Roger of Lacy, see 8,10 Roger note. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.
	THE WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.
	EDMUND HELD. On this name, see 8,18 Edmund note.
8,28	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This hundred head has been supplied from later evidence for the location of the next four places (8,28-31)
	ALSTONEFIELD. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		It is possible that Alstonefield was first given by King William to Hugh of Avranches, Earl of Chester, who was the son of William's half sister; see Wrottesley and Eyton, 'Liber Niger Scaccarii, Staffordscira', p. 231. However, by 1086 it was held by Earl Roger of Shrewsbury. After the forfeiture in 1102 of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of Bellême, Earl Roger's son, the overlordship of the estate was in the hands of the Crown until 1215. Alstonefield appears to have passed to the Ferrers barony and it ultimately became part of the Earldom of Lancaster; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; VCH Staffordshire, vii. p. 12; and STS 10 Henry note.
		Alstonefield comprised 7 townships, three of them being Alstonefield itself, Longnor (SK0864) and the joint township of Warslow (8,29) and Elkstones (represented by Upper Elkstone, SK0659 and Lower Elkstone, SK0758). The remaining four townships lay in the forest of Alstonefield, first mentioned in 1227, and also known as the forest of Mauban from the Malbank family, descendants of the Domesday subtenant William (Malbank). These townships were Fawfieldhead (SK0763), 'Heathylee' (now a Civil Parish named from a settlement represented by Heathylee House at SK054656 on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map), Hollinsclough (SK0666) and 'Quarnford' (now only the name of a Civil Parish, Quarnford on the first series Ordnance Survey one-inch map at SK001662 being now called Manor Farm ). Although Warslow was listed separately in Domesday (8,29) it was a part of Alstonefield manor until the sixteenth century and Domesday appears to give them a joint value. See VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 1-5, 58. In Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281, Stanshope is regarded as a member of Alstonefield; it is separately listed in Domesday (1,52).
		No church is mentioned in Domesday, but it appears that the church of Alstonefield is pre-Conquest; see VCH Staffordshire, vii. p. 21.
	WILLIAM [* MALBANK *]. The identity of this William is established by the fact that he and his son Hugh Malbank gave half of Alstonefield to Combermere Abbey, probably the estate that became known as Gateham Grange (SK1156); see VCH Staffordshire, vii. pp. 12, 17.
		William Malbank was a tenant of Earl Hugh of Chester in Cheshire (CHS 8), and probably also in Dorset (DOR 27,2-11) and of Earl Roger in Shropshire (SHR 4,15). His heir was his son Hugh who founded the Cistercian Abbey of Combermere in Cheshire in 1133 (Monasticon Anglicanum, v. p. 321) as a dependency of the Abbey of Savigny; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 112, 117. William's lands formed the barony of Wick Malbank, later Nantwich. See Farrer, Honors and Knight's Fees, ii. pp. 261-68; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 492. On the byname 'Malbank' (Great Domesday Malbedeng from Old French mal banc: 'bad bench') see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, pp. 349-50. On the name William, see B8 William note.
	[VALUE ***]. The value given at 8,29 is almost certainly for both Alstonefield and for Warslow; see 8,29 meadow note.
8,29	R. See 8,29 land note.
	WARSLOW. This was part of the chapelry and part of the township of Warslow and Elkstones in Alstonefield Ancient Parish; see 8,28 Alstonefield note. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 28.
		Warslow had no descent separate from that of Alstonefield; see 8,28 Alstonefield note.
	A rare appearance of the estate in later records is in Book of Fees, p. 1331, where half of Werfelaw' (presumably an error for Werselaw') was held by the wife of John de Cumbray, probably from the Earl of Lancaster.
	BELONGS TO THIS MANOR ^[ALSTONEFIELD]^. That is, to the manor surveyed at 8,28.
	LAND [FOR *** PLOUGHS]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote ē T'ra (= est terra: 'there is land') and then a space for the rest of the plough estimate to be inserted later; see 1,7 land note. When he came to rubricate this county he noted the missing information and wrote in vermilion a large r (for require, 'enquire') beside it in the outer margin of folio 248b. On these marginal requests for information, see 2,3 hides note.
	MEADOW ... WOODLAND. These are almost certainly the resources of Alstonefield (8,28) as well as of its dependency Warslow. The main scribe of Great Domesday had probably got as far as detailing the villagers of Alstonefield before he found details of Warslow and then decided to include Alstonefield's resources (or combine them with Warslow's) after giving the population of Warslow. The details of value and T.R.E. holder also almost certainly relate to both places. In the next two entries (8,30-31) which are similarly those of a manor and its appurtenance, he separated the manorial details, but gave a joint value and details of their T.R.E. holder.
	VALUE 40s. This is probably the joint value of the manor of Alstonefield and its appurtenance at Warslow; see 8,29 meadow note..
	GODWIN HELD IT. No T.R.E. holder is given for Alstonefield, so it is probable that Godwin held both; see 8,29 meadow note.
		On the name Godwin, see 8,19 Godwin note.
8,30	CHEDDLETON. This was an Ancient Parish in Tudor times; however, before 1535 it was a chapelry in Leek Ancient Parish: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 408. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
	WILLIAM [* MALBANK *]. It seems likely that this is the same William as the man who held Alstonefield from Earl Roger, that is William Malbank; see 8,28 William note. The descent of Cheddleton is unclear, but its association with Leek (1,21) granted to the Earl of Chester after 1086, suggests that on the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury by Robert of Bellême, Cheddleton and Basford went to the king and were then granted to the Earl of Chester and joined to Leek, the undertenants remaining the Malbanks.
		On the name William, see B8 William note.
8,31	BASFORD. This was a settlement in Cheddleton Ancient Parish. Like Cheddleton itself (8,30), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. There is another Basford (SJ8646) in Wolstanton Ancient Parish in Pirehill Hundred.
		This Basford is represented by Basford Hall and Basford Hall Farm (both at SJ9851). Basford Green is at SJ9951.
	BELONGS TO THIS MANOR ^[CHEDDLETON]^. That is, to the estate surveyed at 8,30.
	VALUE OF THE WHOLE, 15s. In view of the Latin totum ualet, this is no doubt the joint value of the manor of Cheddleton and its appurtenance at Basford. Compare 8,29 meadow note.
	GODWIN HELD IT. No T.R.E. holder is given for Cheddleton, so it is probable that Godwin held both. Like the value, this information is probably intended for the manor and its appurtenance. Compare 8,29 meadow note.
		On the name Godwin, see 8,19 Godwin note.
8,32	SHENSTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		For the possibility that land granted in 957 aet Eastun was at Aston in Shenstone, see 12,25 Barr note.
	ROBERT D'OILLY. He came from from Ouilly-le-Basset, in the commune of Pont-d'Ouilly in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Caen, canton Falaise-Nord). He was a close friend of Roger d'Ivry and he distinguished himself at the battle of Hastings. By his marriage to Aldith, daughter of Wigot of Wallingford, he acquired many of Wigot's estates and his holding was increased by the Conqueror. He was castellan of the castles of Oxford and Wallingford which he built, and sheriff of Berkshire and of Oxfordshire and Warwickshire. He died c. 1091-1092 and was buried at Abingdon Abbey. His daughter Matilda married the Domesday tenant-in-chief Miles Crispin. His wife's estates later formed part of the honour of Wallingford; his own became the barony of Hook Norton (Oxfordshire) and went to his brother Nigel of Ouilly. These estates subsequently became part of the honour of Warwick. See Farrer, 'The Honour of Wallingford'; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 378.
		Probably following the forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury, Robert d'Oilly, the subtenant of Shenstone, became a tenant-in-chief, for the manor was later held by his successors, the earls of Warwick; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 970; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 197-98. In Book of Fees, p. 544, it is coupled with Stanhale [Upper Stonnall, SK0603, and Lower Stonnall, SK0803] held by the Abbot of Osney. In Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 197-98, it is coupled with Swinfen (SK1305). Stonnall and Swinfen were no doubt unnamed parts of the estate in 1086.
		On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
	21 VILLAGERS. The Latin uill[anu]s is singular as it always is after '21', '31' etc. The main scribe of Great Domesday, however, briefly forgot this: he added the s rather hurriedly over a punctus after the original uill'.
	GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
9	LAND OF HUGH OF MONTGOMERY. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote .VIII. in vermilion beside the chapter heading, in error for IX. He perpetuated his mistake with the next fief (writing IX for X), but then realized this and omitted the number X and put XI correctly beside the 'Land of Robert of Stafford' on folio 248d. He made similar mistakes in several other counties and often corrected them, sometimes by omitting a number, as here and in Nottinghamshire and Devon. He used new ink with a denser structure for this chapter.
		On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note. He was the second son of Roger of Montgommery and Mabel of Bellême and was himself Earl of Shrewsbury from 1094 until his death in 1098. Though he supported Robert Curthose against William Rufus in 1094, he was pardoned. His heir was his elder brother Robert of Bellême who forfeited the fief for rebellion in 1102. Whereas Earl Roger, Hugh's father, was from Montgommery in France (see STS 8 Roger note), it is not certain if Hugh was named from Montgommery or from its namesake, Montgomery (Castle), established by his father in Wales just over the Shropshire border. In favour of the latter is that after Earl Roger's death in 1094, his elder son (Robert of Bellême) appears to have inherited his possessions in France and his younger son, Hugh, his English fief. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 266.
		In 1086, his fief consisted of a single estate.
9,1	[IN SEISDON HUNDRED]. Like Claverley, Kingsnordley and Alveley (8,1-3), held by Hugh's father, Earl Roger, Worfield was an early transfer to Shropshire, so its Staffordshire hundred is unknown. However, it lay on the western edge of Seisdon Hundred, and there is no other hundred in which it could have lain in 1086.
	WORFIELD. Worfield lay in Staffordshire in 1086, probably in Seisdon Hundred. It was transferred to Shropshire, almost certainly before 1102 (see STS 8 Roger note) and became an Ancient Parish in that county; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 398.
		After Robert of Bellême's forfeiture of the Earldom of Shrewsbury in 1102, Worfield was in the hands of Henry II and Richard I and was given by the latter to Henry of Hastings' wife Ada, in partial satisfaction of claims on the honour of Chester. It descended in the Hastings family and was counted both in Brimstree Hundred (Shropshire) and in the Liberty of Bridgnorth (likewise in Shropshire) in the Middle Ages; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. pp. 59, 88; Feudal Aids, iv. p. 234; Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iv. no. 354, v. no. 412, vi. no. 612; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 104. Half a virgate at Roughton (SO7594) was part of the manor, held for keeping part of the forest of Morfe: Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vi. no. 15, ix. no. 152; see Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. p. 114. The church with tithes and half a fishery in the River Severn was granted to the Abbey of La Sauve Majeure between 1095 and 1098: Round, Calendar of Documents, France, p. 447 no. 1238.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	A FISHERY. This was no doubt the fishery on the River Severn, half of which was given to the Abbey of La Sauve Majeure (9,1 Worfield note). The River Severn forms the western boundary of the estate. The only other fishery recorded in Domesday Staffordshire was in Alrewas (1,11) with a render of 15,000 eels, rather than the money render here.
	WOODLAND. This large wood was later considered part of Morfe Forest; see {Introduction: Forest}.
10	LAND OF HENRY OF FERRERS. On the misnumbering of this chapter by the main scribe of Great Domesday as IX instead of X, see STS 9 land note.
		Henry came from Ferrières-Saint-Hilaire, in the French département of Eure, arrondissement Bernay, canton Broglie. In Normandy he was lord of Longueville. His father, Walkelin de Ferrières, died before 1040. In England Henry held a large fief in more than a dozen counties. His principal English manor was at Tutbury (in Staffordshire) where, with his wife, he founded a priory dependent on Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy. He died c. 1101. His third son Robert inherited and became first Earl of Derby in 1138. His descendants held the honour of Tutbury and were Earls of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. After Robert II of Ferrers lost the barony in 1266, it passed to Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, then to Thomas, likewise earl. Following his execution in 1322 the castle of Tutbury and the honour were granted to John, Earl of Cornwall, younger son of King Edward II. See VCH Leicestershire, i. p. 292; Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 42; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 247. On the name Henry, see B9 Henry note.
		The chapter begins with two unusual entries, for the castle of Tutbury and for the land of "Burtone" on which, ostensibly, it was built. However, the broad division of estates in this fief is between those held in lordship (10,1-5) and those that were subinfeudated (10,6-10).
		The entry at 10,10, apparently for another part of "Burtone" (in Offlow Hundred), appears misplaced. It is not postscriptal in Great Domesday, but in a precursor document it is possible that it did not lie in the schedule of Offlow Hundred, but with the details of Tutbury Castle (10,1-2). The main scribe of Great Domesday had already entered both the lordship land and the subinfeudations for Offlow Hundred at 10,1-8.
	The order of the chapter is:
		10,1-2 [Offlow Hundred]. The manuscript has Pirehill Hundred in error. These two
			entries concern Tutbury Castle and are in lordship.
		10,3-8 Offlow Hundred. Lordship land (10,3-5) is followed by subinfeudations (10,6-
			8).
		10,9 [Pirehill Hundred]. A subinfeudation.
		____________________________________________
		10,10 [Offlow Hundred]. Further land (subinfeudated) connected with Tutbury Castle.
10,1	IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. This heading is clearly an error, in view of the location of Tutbury (10,1). The cause of the mistake is not entirely obvious, as the hundreds in Staffordshire do not appear to be entered in each fief in a standard order, although Pirehill Hundred does sometimes come first; see {Introduction: Standard Order of Hundreds}. However, the next fief (that of Robert of Stafford, STS 11) begins (correctly) with the same heading, and the main scribe of Great Domesday may have glanced ahead in the bare list of holders, hundreds and villages that he may have been using to convert and abbreviate his material.
	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading has been inserted to replace the erroneous IN PIREHOLLE HVND[REDO] of the manuscript; see 10,1 Pirehill note. The correct hundred head appears above Rolleston-on-Dove (10,3), the first two entries in this fief being unusual. In some counties, for example Herefordshire, castles and their associated land appear to stand outside the hundredal administration. The borough of Tutbury (10,1) renders £4 10s from its merchants and "Burtone" (10,2) has ½ hide (which no doubt paid tax) and a valuation, so the borough (possibly) and the ½ hide (probably) were involved in a hundred. If that is so, then, on geographical grounds, the hundred can only have been Offlow Hundred. In the schedules of land that preceded Domesday, however, these two places may have been listed separately and so were not available to be abstracted from places that were listed in Offlow Hundred and which were abbreviated into Great Domesday at 10,3-9.
		It cannot, however, be assumed from the presence of a hundred head (though erroneous) in the text that the main scribe of Great Domesday was allocating Tutbury Castle to a hundred. It may be that the castle should be treated separately (and [castle] inserted above it in the translation), with the 'In Offlow Hundred' being inserted above "Burtone" at 10,2.
	TUTBURY CASTLE. Tutbury was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. Tutbury Castle is at SK209291.
		It appears that the estate on which the castle was built had originally been called "Burtone" (see 10,2 "Burtone" note) and that in the course of time Tutbury effaced the former name. According to Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, ii. pp. 264-65), King William had initially given Tutbury to Hugh of Avranches (later Earl of Chester) and it was he who had founded the castle: Henrico Gualchelini de Ferrariis filio castrum Stutesburiae, quod Hugo de Abrincis primus tenuerat, concessit ('he granted to Henry, son of Walkelin of Ferrers, the castle of Tutbury which Hugh of Avranches had first held'). It is not certain that this is true, but Domesday only says of Henry of Ferrers that Tutbury is 'his castle' not that he built it.
		If the estate was originally called "Burtone", Tutbury presumably already lay within it. The name means 'the stronghold of a man called Tutta (or Stut)' and contains Old English burh and an uncertain personal name; early forms begin both with Tut- and with Stut-. Tutbury was thus a fortified site already.
		In the castle at Tutbury, Henry of Ferrers established a church dedicated to St Mary which became Tutbury Priory. Its initial endowment consisted of two estates in Derbyshire, the manors of Marston[-on-Dove] and Doveridge (DBY 6,24-25) which are both said to be held by 'monks' in 1086. Tutbury Priory was colonised from Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives in Normandy but it is not certain when the priory itself was founded. The foundation charter itself dates from after the Conqueror's death: it was made in the presence of William II at Marlborough (Wiltshire) and is assigned the dates 1087 x 1100 in the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, p. 63). Even so, some sort of monastic establishment may have been in existence here for a few years previously. See Monasticon Anglicanum, iii. p. 391 no. I; VCH Derbyshire, i. pp. 302-303; the Tutbury Cartulary (Saltman, pp. 62-66 nos. 51-52); Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 57, 78; VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 331; and DBY 6,24 monks note. The Derbyshire Domesday entries (DBY 6,24-25) are possible evidence for the existence of the priory in 1086. However, it is not certain whether there were yet monks at Tutbury in 1086 or whether the monks of the Abbey of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives were merely enjoying the profits of the estate from a distance and only came to Tutbury a few years later. Thus the monks mentioned by Domesday might be 'of Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives' or 'of Tutbury'.
		Tutbury became head of the barony of that name held by the earls of Derby; see STS 10 Henry note; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 15.
	IN THE BOROUGH. This is the first mention in history of a borough at Tutbury, which had probably, as Domesday implies, grown up around the Norman castle. On its regulation, see Bateson, 'Laws of Breteuil'.
	BY THEIR TRADING. The Latin is de mercato suo. Mercatum is a neuter noun of the second declension derived from the deponent verb mercor ('I trade'). It is used in Domesday as ' a market', but here it appears to need the verbal force of its fourth declension relation mercatus ('trading'). This is partly because Latin suo ('their') would be unlikely to be used if mercato were a 'market' since the market would almost certainly belong to Henry of Ferrers. Secondly, the actual market occurs later in the sentence in cum foro ('with the market'), forum being the Classical Latin word for a market among other things.
10,2	"BURTONE". JRM's note in the Phillimore printed edition reads: 'Burtone might conceivably be an error for Burg Tone, the 'town' of the castle of Tutbury: VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 48 note 7. But since the castle itself has already been distinguished from its surrounding burgus (as with other newly founded castles, e.g. Rhuddlan (CHS FT2), Berkhamstead (HRT B11) and elsewhere, with varying terms for burgus), the description of a cultivated tun, 'village', around the castle walls, within the Borough, seems improbable. It is possible that Henry also had a castle at Burton-upon-Trent, with the land entered in 10,10, or possibly at another Burton'.
		Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table facing p. 59, identified "Burtone" with an outlying part of Burton-upon-Trent. Despite these suggestions, the natural interpretation of this entry is that "Burtone" was the name of the estate on which Tutbury castle was built and that, by its building, the estate was reduced to a rump, here held partly by Henry of Ferrers himself and partly by a subtenant (10,10). If this is so, the effacement of "Burtone" would be similar to that of "Merestun" in Herefordshire by Wigmore castle (HEF 9,1).
	ON WHICH THERE WERE. The Latin In qua refers to the dimidia hida (feminine), not the castellum (neuter). The Phillimore printed edition has 'where'.
	12 PLOUGHS BEFORE 1066. See 7,1 ploughs note.
10,3	ROLLESTON[-ON-DOVE]. This was an Ancient Parish. A portion, lacking population, lay in Derbyshire in the nineteenth century and probably earlier. That portion was transferred to the Derbyshire Ancient Parish of Marston-on-Dove in 1903, so that Rolleston-on-Dove was entirely in Staffordshire after that; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 420. In 1086 Rolleston-on-Dove lay in Offlow Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Land at Rothulfeston with other places amounting to 40 hides was granted to Wulfsige the black (Wulfsye prenomine Maur') by King Edmund in 942: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 90-91 no. 82 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 479 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 9-13 no. 5). For an attempt to identify the 40 hides, see 1,11 Alrewas note.
		Wulfsige appears to have been a kinsman of Wulfric Spot to whom the land probably passed and who gave land at Rolfestun to his brother Aelfhelm in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no 4). In 1008 it was given to Burton Abbey in exchange for two of the abbey's remote estates (Aldsworth and Arlington) in Gloucestershire when it was rated at 2 ½ hides: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 93 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 920 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 58-60 no. 31). It was not in the abbey's hands in 1066 or in 1086.
		Rolleston-on-Dove descended in the Ferrers barony and was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	EARL MORCAR. He was the son of Algar and his wife Aelfeva, grandson of Earl Leofric and brother of Earl Edwin. Algar was Earl of East Anglia 1051-1052, later of Mercia from about 1057. Morcar was chosen as earl by the Northumbrians when they had deposed Earl Tosti (King Harold's brother) in 1065. He submitted to King William, but rebelled twice and was in custody in Normandy at the time of the Domesday Survey.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Morcar(us), Morcharus - represent Old Swedish Morkar: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 329-30. JRM preferred the form Morcar as it reflected the majority of the Domesday forms; also the earl's name is normally spelt that way now. The Alecto edition has Morcar.
	2 ½ HIDES. This is a very small assessment in view of the number of ploughs at work (4 in lordship and 14 for villagers); see 10,3 arable note. It is, however, the assessment given in the charter.
	LAND FOR 8 PLOUGHS. There is an erasure in the manuscript above the .viii., but it is unclear whether it was of a figure or word or of a blot. A dot before the erasure is still visible.
	1 FEMALE SLAVE. This is the only mention in Staffordshire.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	ARABLE LAND 2 LEAGUES LONG AND 1 WIDE. This is an unusual, but not unparalleled, mention. In the context, it appears to be an assessment of the whole arable of the estate and to be an explanation of the discrepancy between the hidage and the number of ploughs.
10,4	MARCHINGTON. Marchington was a chapelry of Hanbury Ancient Parish and Marchington Woodlands was a township of the same Ancient Parish. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday, but a number of constituents of the later Ancient Parish do so: Marchington, Agardsley, Draycott-in-the-Clay, Fauld and Moreton (10,4-8). Marchington probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Land at Maercham was given in 951 by King Edred to the thane Wulfhelm: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 93-94 no. 85 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 557 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 17-18 no. 11. The same man appears to have been the recipient of land in 'Aston' (possibly Aston in Birmingham, SP0889) and in Barr (12,25;28); see 12,25 Barr note. It seems likely that this estate passed to Wulfric Spot for land at Maerchamtune was given by him to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 7).
		Marchington descended in the barony of Ferrers; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969. It was part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	AGARDSLEY. This was a settlement in Newborough which was a chapelry carved out of Hanbury Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086. Newborough has effectively replaced Agardsley as the administrative name; see Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. The name Agardsley survives in that of Agardsley Park (SK134273) and Agardsley Farm Cottages (SK138269).
	WULFRIC <OF SUDBURY>. This predecessor of Henry of Ferrers may be the same as his predecessor Wulfric in Derbyshire (DBY 6,26;30;46;50), one of whose holdings was Sudbury. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
10,5	DRAYCOTT[-IN-THE-CLAY]. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Draycott-in-the-Clay probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.
		Newborough (SK1325) was held as part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 15, and had presumably earlier been a Ferrers fee. It was a chapelry in Hanbury Ancient Parish and was perhaps established within the bounds of Draycott-in-the-Clay.
10,6	FAULD. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Fauld probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. The grid reference is to Fauld Manor (SK 181285). Fauld Hall is at SK185289 and Fauld House at SK178286.
		Fauld descended in the barony of Ferrers; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969.
	HUBERT [* OF COURSON *]. The Domesday form of this name, Hubertus (often abbreviated to Hub't') represents Old German Hugubert, Hubert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 156. The Alecto edition also has Hubert.
		For his identification, see Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 37; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 256 [under Hubert De Curcun] and VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 256 (JP).
		His place of origin is said to be Notre-Dame-de Courson, in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Lisieux, canton Livarot). Some families called Curzon, Curson, Cursons, Corson probably derive from this place, but there is also a French nickname Old French courson ('the foreshortened, truncated, lopped, little one'), a diminutive of curt from Latin curtus; see Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Curzon.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the first line of this entry after the hidage. Often spaces left in this position in an entry were for the later insertion of a hundred head; see 1,7 hundred note. However, in 1086 Fauld was probably in the same hundred as it was later, Offlow, and the scribe had entered an Offlow hundred head three entries before (10,3).
10,7	IN THE SAME VILLAGE ^[FAULD]^. See 10,6 Fauld note.
		Fauld here probably stands for part of Hanbury. On this apparent alienation, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1469.
	ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.
	A PRIEST. His church may have been at Hanbury; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172.
	1 HIDE THERE, WHICH THESE 2 HOLD. 'These 2' might be the 2 smallholders just mentioned. In the Liber Exoniensis, the direct predecessor of the south-west counties in Great Domesday, the total hidage for the estate is regularly broken down into hides in lordship and hides held by the 'men' (the villagers, smallholders etc.) and it is possible that this statement is a chance survivor from the source of the counties in circuit IV. However, the hide that 'these 2' hold exceeds the total for the estate (½ hide). Thus, for this interpretation of the holders' identity to be correct, this would have to be additional land or the '1 hide' is a mistake for '1 virgate'.
		An alternative is that the hide is made up of the two half-hides in Fauld (10,6-7), held respectively by Hubert and Roger from Henry of Ferrers. It is possible that in the putative circuit volume the details for Fauld were combined and this statement was inappropriately transferred from that text. This might be supported by the appearance of Latin isti which was rarely used by the main scribe of Great Domesday, who preferred to use hic or ipse as a demonstrative adjective or pronoun. However, isti is more commonly used in Little Domesday, a circuit volume.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	ST WERBURGH'S OF CHESTER. This church in Chester was founded as a college for secular canons probably by Aetlhelflaed, the wife of Ealdorman Aethelred of Mercia and the daughter of King Alfred of Wessex, shortly after 907 when the town of Chester was itself being rebuilt. The remains of St Werburgh were enshrined there. Werburga or Werbyrgh or Werburgh was traditionally said to be the daughter of King Wulfhere of Mercia (657-674). After his death, she became a nun at Ely but was recalled by her uncle, King Aethelred of Mercia (674-716), to occupy herself with some nunneries in the West Midlands. She is credited with founding, or reforming, Hanbury in Staffordshire, Threekingham in Lincolnshire and Weedon in Northamptonshire. At her own request, she was buried at Hanbury, but her remains were enshrined in the college at Chester after its foundation. See Bradshaw, Life of St Werberge, pp. xii-xx; Tait, Chester Abbey Cartulary i. pp. viii-xi; Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, pp. 53, 62, 413, 422; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 48 note 11; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 518.
	THE WHOLE OF THIS VILLAGE. That is, both parts (10,6-7).
10,8	MORETON. This was a township of Hanbury Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Hanbury does not appear by name in Domesday; see 10,4 Marchington note. Moreton probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086.
		Moreton descended in the barony of Ferrers; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969.
	ALCHERE <[OF ASTON]>. The Domesday form of this name, Alcher(us), represents Old English Ealhhere: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 242. JRM preferred Alchere as it reflected the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ealhhere.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. However, a man called Alchere was also Henry of Ferrers' subtenant in DBY 6,28 (Aston); 30;32;50: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 134, though she has two references to folio 275a when there is only one (DBY 6,50) on it (on her system of referencing, see 11,11 Gilbert note). She also includes a reference to ESS 27,11 (folio ii. 053b) where the tenant-in-chief is Hugh of Montfort, not Henry of Ferrers, as she states.
		The name Alchere occurs 15 times in Domesday Book, probably representing four individuals. The five holdings held by Alchere from Henry of Ferrers form a group on either side of the county boundary between Derbyshire and Staffordshire and almost certainly belonged to the same individual (JP).
10,9	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from later information concerning the location of Chebsey.
	CHEBSEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Included in Chebsey was Cold Norton (SJ8732); see Parker, 'Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred', pp. 64-65; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 48 note 12.
		Chebsey descended in the barony of Ferrers; see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4. It is part of the Liberty of the Earl of Lancaster in Feudal Aids, v. p. 13.
	HUMPHREY [* HASTANG *]. He can be identified from a royal writ of c. 1120-1133 (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 280 no. 1857) where it is stated that the churches belonging to St Oswald's of Nostell [Nostell Priory, West Yorkshire] held by Salomon the cleric, son of Humphrey Hastang, are to be free from gelds, pleas and all customs as they formerly were. The churches concerned were Chebsey in Staffordshire and Leamington Hastings in Warwickshire (WAR 39,1).
		The Domesday forms of this name - Hunfrid(us), Humfrid(us) - represent Old German Hunfrid, Humfrid: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 158-59. JRM preferred the modern form of this name. The Alecto edition also has Humphrey.
	A PRIEST. On his church, see 10,9 Humphrey note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	TO THIS MANOR BELONGED LAND AT STAFFORD. Chebsey is 5 miles from Stafford and other named estates intervene, especially parts of the great episcopal manor of Eccleshall (2,21), so this land must have been an outlying portion of the manor. However, if Chebsey had once been head of a multiple estate that had broken up by 1086, its lands might once have stretched to the outskirts of Stafford; see {Introduction: Manorial Organization}.
		The Latin terra de Stadford ('land of Stafford') is idiomatic. The de does not mean 'belonging to' (since it belongs to Chebsey), nor does it mean 'land in', since the castle was constructed outside the borough; see 10,9 castle note. In fact the de indicates only a loose association with Stafford, and it was no doubt for that reason that JRM in the Phillimore printed translation used the phrase 'Stafford land', rather in the way that one would use 'Stafford castle'. The Alecto edition has 'the land of Stafford'.
		Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1470, has: 'Land in the borough of Stafford, upon which the King ordered a castle to be built belonged to this manor. The castle is now destroyed'. 'Land in the borough of Stafford' is rather definite for the Latin terra de Stadford.
	A CASTLE ... IT HAS NOW BEEN DESTROYED. It seems probable that the three castles evidenced at Stafford (King William's, the one held by William Pandolf for the king against Robert of Bellême in 1102 and the later castle of the earls of Stafford) were all on the same site; see {Introduction: Castles}.
		The Latin est destructum is the opposite of est constructum ('has been constructed') and does not necessarily imply violent destruction through siege or assault. It could simply mean 'dismantled' or 'demolished'. The circumstances are unknown.
10,10	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading has been suggested by the probable identity of "Burtone".
	"BURTONE". Identification with Burton in Castle Church was suggested by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table 4 facing p. 70. A second possibility is identification with a part of Burton-upon-Trent. In neither place, however, is there evidence of a Ferrers' holding later. The absence of hidation and value suggested to the editor of VCH Staffordshire that this land was an encroachment, and the mention that it was a villa was felt to lend some support to the notion that this was a part of Burton-upon-Trent, since Burton in Castle Church chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary (11,6) was not a village, but an outlier of Robert of Stafford's manor of Bradley. Further, the use of villa was felt to rule out identification of this Burtone with the Burtone that was the site of Tutbury castle; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49 note 13.
		However, there is no reason to think that villa is used here (or often elsewhere) as a technical term. This being the final entry in the fief, it could well have been an addition out of sequence to the putative circuit volume. In fact it could well refer to the subinfeudated part of the "Burtone" of 10,2. It is argued there (10,2 "Burtone" note) that "Burtone" was the estate on which Tutbury castle was built and which was in part effaced by the latter. However, the castle will not have occupied the whole estate; there was still ½ hide there and ploughs working the land (10,2). It is possible that this man-at-arms (who may have had some responsibility for castle-ward) was also cultivating a portion of the same rump estate. Apart from the absence of a value (perhaps accidentally omitted, as elsewhere) the entry reads like one of many for a rural estate. It has also been suggested (10,1 Offlow note) that the first two entries of the fief were scheduled separately in a predecessor document. This portion of "Burtone" may have been missed, or held back because it was a subinfeudation, as some fiefs (for example, STS 11 and the present one) are divided into land held in lordship and land subinfeudated.
	RALPH. On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note.
	MEADOW, 20 ACRES. [***]. WOODLAND. The main scribe of Great Domesday left a space suitable for ten or so letters after the meadow details before the vertical score delimiting the inner edge of the column (folio 248c). This may have been for the later inclusion of another resource such as a mill or a fishery, or he might have preferred to give the woodland details on a new line. He left a similar space in Sheriffhales (8,5).
	[VALUE ***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended to return later to insert the value statement after the details of woodland, which do not occupy the whole line.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the column (folio 248c), room for about seven lines of text, before beginning the large fief of Robert of Stafford (STS 11) at the top of the next column (folio 248d).
11	LAND OF ROBERT OF STAFFORD. He was the younger son of Roger of Tosny and brother of the Domesday tenant-in-chief Ralph of Tosny, who himself was the standard-bearer of Normandy at the battle of Hastings. The family came from Tosny in the French département of Eure (arrondissement Les Andelys, canton Gaillon-Campagne). In Normandy Robert founded the Abbey of Conches, also known as St Peter's de Castellione. In Domesday he is known as Robert of Stafford to distinguish him from a relative Robert of Tosny who was lord of Belvoir in Leicestershire. His estates descended in his family and formed the barony of Stafford. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 381. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
		In Staffordshire he had more extensive estates than any other holder. His estate of Bradley (11,6) with its many appendages gave him a vast tract of territory near the borough of Stafford; he held 54 messuages in the borough and had part of its revenue (B6-7;12). There is no reason to think, however, that he was Earl of Stafford. The first earl with that title took office in 1351.
	In this chapter the estates held in lordship (11,1-7) are entered first, then those that were subinfeudated. The order of those hundreds that appear in both halves is the same:
		11,1 Pirehill Hundred
		11,2-4 Totmonslow Hundred
		11,5-6 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
		11,7 Robert's revenue from the borough of Stafford
	___________________________________________
		11,8-33 Pirehill Hundred
		11,34-42 Totmonslow Hundred (the heading is at the end of 11,34, but appears to				govern it).
		11,43-46 Seisdon Hundred
		11,47-50 [Offlow Hundred]
		11,51-68 Cuttlestone Hundred.
11,1	TILLINGTON. This was an extra-parochial area which became a separate Civil Parish in 1858; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 426. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49, places it in the parish of Stafford St Mary. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 4; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		After 1086, Tillington descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4. It seems to have been regarded as a member of the manor of Bradley; see 11,6 Bradley note.
		Tillington has now become a suburb of Stafford but was represented by Tillington Cottage (SJ9124), Tillington Ley (SJ9025) and Tillington House (SJ9025) on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).
	THOLF. The Domesday forms of this name - Tol, Toul, Tolf, Tou, Toulf, Tulf, Tof, Thol - represent Old Norse Tholfr, Old Danish Tholf : von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 389-90. Some of the people named Tholf in the present edition appear as Tholfr, Tulf and Toli in some of the Phillimore printed translations; these have now been standardized as Tholf. The Alecto edition has Tholf.
11,2	TOTMONSLOW. In the manuscript this hundred is clearly TAMENASLAV, as it is the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as TAMENISLAV; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	TEAN. The Domesday estate is represented by Lower Tean and Upper Tean which were settlements in Checkley Ancient Parish. In 1086 Tean lay in Totmonslow Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	WULFMER. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.
	WITH 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote 7 ('and') before the number of ploughs, but then erased it and interlined cū. The ink of the iii. is dark, so he may have overwritten it at the same time.
	VALUE 30s. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the id' of solid' over an erasure. He could not provide the T.R.E. value, however.
11,3	GRINDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974. In Book of Fees, p. 543, Blore [Blore, 11,40] and Grenedun' [Grindon] and Adlacston' [Ellastone, 11,39] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.
	THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. It would be expected that the other two-thirds would appear. However, of the nearest estates to Grindon, that is, Warslow (8,29), Sheen (1,51), Alstonefield (8,28) and Stanshope (1,52), the assessment is missing from Warslow, Sheen is waste and assessed only at 'land for 2 or 1 ploughs', Alstonefield consists of 3 virgates and Stanshope is also waste and is assessed only at 'land for 1, or 2, ploughs'.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,4	CAULDON. This was a chapelry of Ilam Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 28. The connection with Ilam, concealed in Domesday under Okeover (4,8), may originate from the fact that Okeover, Ilam and Cauldon were all granted to Burton Abbey in the will of Wulfric Spot (1002 x 1004), see 4,8 Okeover note. However, Cauldon either did not reach the abbey or was subsequently alienated and after 1086 descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966, 974.
		In later times Burton Abbey held Waterfall (SK0851), 2 bovates, adjacent to its land at Ilam. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 168, regarded it as a Domesday omission, but it possibly originated as a grant out of Cauldon; see Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 44. However, it is more likely to have been part of the royal manor of Rocester (1,17) of which it was a chapelry; see 1,17 dependencies note. It was given to Burton Abbey in the twelfth century by Aschetill dispensator ('the bursar'); see Wrottesley, 'Burton Chartulary', p. 21 (= Bridgeman, 'Burton Abbey Surveys', p. 225); VCH Staffordshire, iii. p. 202.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.
11,5	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the presumed location of Brough Hall (11,5) and Bradley (11,6).
	BROUGH HALL. The Domesday form is Bughale. Like Halstone to which it belonged, it was left unidentified but located in Totmonslow Hundred by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 37. Eyton rejected the view of Erdeswick, Survey of Staffordshire, that the place was Brough Hall, but his reasons were not compelling. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested that Bughale was an error for Rugehale, that is, Rownall (SJ9549). Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', pp. 157-58, and Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 44, resurrected Brough Hall from Erdeswick. Philologically, there is not a serious problem with the identification if it is assumed that Domesday Bughale is an error for Burghale; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 155. Brough Hall was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish. Like Gnosall itself (7,18) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
	WHICH BELONGS TO HAUGHTON. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 167, suggested that this was Alton, but Alton appears in Domesday as Elvetone (1,54). On the identification with Haughton, see Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 41. For Haughton, see 11,52.
	WULFMER. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.
11,6	BRADLEY. This was an Ancient Parish sometimes known as Bradley or Bradeley near Stafford or Bradley or Bradeley by Stafford. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 2, 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. See also B6.
		The manor of Bradley corresponded to Bradley Ancient Parish, but also with the township of Castle Church which was part of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. Burton (11,6), 'Silkmore' (11,6), Rickerscote (11,67) and "Monetvile" (11,68) were in Castle Church which was named from the castle of the Stafford barony which was constructed on one of these lands, possibly in "Monetvile"; see 11,68 "Monetvile" note. Bradley and its members (11,6) together with Rickerscote and "Monetvile" (11,67-68) made a 20-hide unit, and formed the later Liberty of Bradley. This was Robert of Stafford's principal manor in the shire and his castle, not mentioned in Domesday, was built on a part of its lands. This castle may have been on the same site as King William's 'destroyed' castle and the one held by William Pandolf for the king against Robert of Bellême in 1102; see {Introduction: Castles}and 10,9 Stafford note.
		This castle is represented by the remains of a motte and bailey castle (at SJ901221). It contained a chapel; see Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls temp. Henry III', p. 113; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 95. The advowson of this chapel had originally belonged to the royal free chapel of St Mary in Stafford, but was given in the reign of Henry II by Robert of Stafford to Stone Priory; see VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 355, v. p. 84. The castle with its chapel named the township of Castle Church. The estate was called 'Castell' by 1208 and known as Stafford Manor or Forebridge or Castle-near-Stafford or Castle Manor; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 86. The area near the Meece Brook which would be crossed by those passing the castle and arriving at Stafford from the west is now known as Castletown.
		The estate with many of its members descended within the barony of Stafford; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. pp. 76-77.
	WITH [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. This phrase is often used in Domesday without specifying the dependencies. However, in this instance, they appear to be the same as the 'outliers' and 'members' and to be listed beginning with Barton.
		Bradley is a rare example in Staffordshire of a multiple estate. It remained a large manor with many members, although with some change of composition. In 1372 the members were Barton (11,6); Billington (11,6); Longnor (11,6); Shredicote (SJ8716, not named in Domesday; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77); Woollaston (11,6) with Castle Forebridge (SJ9123, not named in Domesday); tenements in Stafford (B6); Tillington (11,1); Coppenhall (11,63), including The Hyde (represented by Hyde Lea, SJ9119) and Butterhill (SJ8919, not named in Domesday); Dunston (1,7); and Stretton (11,57); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 76. Of these, Tillington and Dunston seem to have been added to the manor after 1086. Stretton and Coppenhall (11,57;63) were, however, held by subtenants and may well have been part of the manor in 1086, though separated from it by the division of this chapter between land in lordship and land subinfeudated. This same division of material seems to have separated Rickerscote and "Monetvile" (11,67-68) from their parent manor. A further member was probably Reule, represented by Upper Reule (SJ8420) and Lower Reule (SJ8419); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 82.
	EARL EDWIN. See 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.
	IN BRADLEY 1 HIDE ONLY. This is a commentary on the previously mentioned 'land for 44 ploughs'. That figure is the total capacity of the multiple estate, whereas the hidage is distributed among the dependencies.
	A MILL. It was possibly situated near marshland in 'Holney', in Reule, more precisely near Reulemill pools (SJ842190) in Lower Reule; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 84.
	BARTON. The Domesday form is Bernertone. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 35, left it unidentified, but judged it to be near Bradley. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49, following Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 169, identified it as Barton. This Barton was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish. Place-names in Barton usually develop from Old English bere and tun, but Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 134, accepts that the derivation must be different, though itself uncertain. Later forms are Becterton (1242), Bertherton (1305-1423) and variants. Berton occurs first in 1472 and Barton in 1695. It seems that an obscure name has been assimilated to a well-known one. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 2 (where the form is Bertherton); VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77. It is represented by Upper Barton and Lower Barton (both at SJ8718).
	APETON. This was a settlement now in the Civil Parish of Church Eaton, the successor to the Ancient Parish of that name. However, Alstone (in Bradley Ancient Parish) and Apeton were regarded as a division of Bradley Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Apeton lies close to the boundary of Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 134. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 974; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 116.
	LITTYWOOD. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 135. Like Bradley itself (11,6) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77.
	BILLINGTON. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 135. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford see Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 10; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 2, Billington is coupled with Bradeleg [Bradley, 11,6], Mutton [Mitton, 11,6], and La Hide [probably represented by Hyde Lea, SJ9120].
	BURTON. This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 75. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 967; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 88.
	'SILKMORE'. This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church in the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 75. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. It has now been absorbed by the growth of Stafford and is represented only by Silkmore Lane, Silkmore Drain and Silkmore Crescent. Silkmore and Silkmore Farm appear on the first series Ordnance Survey map (sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970).
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 89.
	LONGNOR. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 136. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77.
	MITTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 86. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. Mitton itself, Upper Mitton Farm and Lower Mitton Farm are all at SJ8815.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 116.
	ALSTONE. This was a settlement in Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 133. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 16.
		On the modern map Alstone and Alstone Hall Farm are at SJ8518; Lower Alstone, Alstone Farm and Alstone Cottages are at SJ8618.
	WOOLLASTON. Lower Woollaston (SJ8516) and Upper Woollaston (SJ8515) were settlements in Bradley Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 137. Woollaston probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 77.
11,7	[* BOROUGH *]. This entry concludes the lordship of Robert of Stafford, by giving his revenue from the borough of Stafford. There is no reason to think that Stafford lay in any hundred; see B1 Stafford note.
	IN THE CENTRAL MARGIN next to this entry is a small cross written in pale black ink; see 8,19 Stafford note.
	STAFFORD. The borough is surveyed on the first folio of the county, folio 246a (B1-12).
	70s FROM HALF OF THE KING'S PART. See B12 part note.
11,8	WALTON. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, it is Waleton juxta Stanes ('Walton near Stone').
		Walton has greatly expanded in recent years, but the nineteenth-century centre was at SJ899330: Ordnance Survey map sheet 72 of 1836, reprinted as sheet 34 in 1970.
	ARNOLD <OF WALTON> HOLDS. Arnold's son, Enisan of Walton, gave the church of Stone with some land in Waletone to Geoffrey de Clinton under Henry I; see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, ii. p. 259 no. 1744; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 199-210; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49 note 18. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 191, who also has a reference to the Arnold of WOR 17,1.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Ernald(us), Ernold, Arnald[us] - represent Old German Arnald, Arnold, Arnolt etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 33-34. For the only occurrence of this name as a T.R.E. holder (KEN 5,203), von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 248, gives the Old German Ernald. The Alecto edition has Arnold, except for KEN 5,203 and DEV 23,4 (Ernald).
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	A PRIEST. His church may have been at Stone; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 172. There had been a secular college at Stone c. 670, and a pre-Conquest establishment for nuns. An Augustinian priory was established there c. 1135; see Knowles and Hadcock, Medieval Religious Houses, p. 483.
	AKI, A FREE MAN, HELD IT. On the name Aki, see 1,35 Aki note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined lib[er] ho[mo], perhaps at a later stage, though the pen and ink are very similar to those of the rest of the entry; see 8,24 free note.
	HE GAVE 1 CARUCATE OF THIS LAND TO HIS SISTER. This carucate might be new land, obtained by clearance of woodland or scrub, or it might be waste land whose former hidage was unknown; see 1,5 carucate note.
		Aki's sister may have been connected with the community of nuns established at Walton at about this time; see Monasticon Anglicanum, vi (I). p. 226; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49 note 20. On the gift, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1471.
11,9	ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish and was sometimes known as plain Aston. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. For other parts, see 1,47. 11,23. On modern maps Aston is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).
		For the possibility that land granted in 957 aet Eastun was at this Aston, see 12,25 Barr note.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10. In three of these sources, it is coupled with Burexton' or Boreyeleston' or Bureweston [Burston, SJ9330] presumably a member.
	STOKE. Stoke, including Stoke Grange (both SJ9133) and Little Stoke (SJ9132), were settlements in Stone Ancient Parish. They probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 with other parts of the later Ancient Parish; see 1,40 Fulford note. Stoke is sometimes known as Stoke-by-Stone to distinguish it from Stoke-upon-Trent.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined 7 Stoca, but did not rubricate it, probably because it was a subordinate holding rather than that it was added after the county had been rubricated.
	MEADOW. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote p'ti over an erasure, perhaps of sil' as there would not have been room for siluê ('of woodland') in full. Although he had already given the woodland, his source may have detailed the meadow before the woodland. In the central margin level with it he had probably jotted down the replacement word and then erased it when he had inserted p'ti. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	THREE PARTS OF 1 HIDE. There is a further hide at Aston-by-Stone (11,23) and a virgate (coupled with a carucate) at 1,47. If the 'three parts' are in fact three-quarters, as they are frequently in Great Domesday (compare 11,30 parts note), they make up a second hide here
	CADIO <OF ASTON> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Cadio, Gadio, Cadiou - probably represent the Breton diminutive name Cadio, Cadiou, which derives from the word cad ('combat'), the owner of the name being either 'a minor fighter' or 'not very aggressive': Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Cadiou (2). The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Cadio, Cadiou, Gadio; these have now been standardized as Cadio. The Alecto edition has Cadio, except for OXF 27,7, where it has Gadio, reflecting the Domesday form, though, as Gadio was a subtenant of Robert of Stafford, like Cadio here and in 11,10, Gadio is probably a scribal error for Cadio. The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday are as a subtenant of Baldwin the sheriff in DEV 16,16 and of Count Alan in LIN 12,47, almost certainly different people.
11,10	'LITTLE SANDON'. It is no longer known as such. Since Cadio held it, it probably adjoined his Aston-by-Stone and Stoke holdings, north-east of modern Sandon. Sandon may therefore be the Domesday 'Little Sandon' (parua Sandone), and Sandon Hall the site of Domesday Sandon (1,13) (JRM); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49 note 23. Despite his note, JRM located Sandon at SJ9524 and 'Little Sandon' at SJ9429, which does not lie to the north-east of Sandon.
		'Little Sandon' lay in Sandon Ancient Parish and like Sandon itself (1,13) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. However, there is no other evidence of its location. In Sandon Ancient Parish there are the village of Sandon, an isolated church, a moated site which was Sandon Old Hall and Sandon Hall. There is also a Sandy Leys Farm at SJ949310 which may or may not be a 'Sandon' name. One of these may have been 'Little Sandon' or its site may have entirely disappeared; see 1,13 Sandon note
	CADIO <OF ASTON> HOLDS. See 11,9 Cadio note.
	ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note.
	^[ANOTHER]^ ALWIN. On this name-form, see 1,45 Alwin note. The succeeding statement that 'two of them were free' means that there were two T.R.E. holders called Alwin, rather than that Alwin had held two parts of 'Little Sandon'.
	WIHTRIC <OF SUNDON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Wihtric(us), Wictric, Wicstricus, Wistricus, Wistrinc, Witric - represent Old English Wihtric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 414. In the Phillimore printed translation for DBY 6,7 and for BRK 31,6 the form Wictric was used; it has been standardized for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Wihtric.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		Note on his identification to be supplied (JP).
	COULD NOT LEAVE WITH HIS LAND. In other words he was tied to his lord and could not commend himself to another, in contrast to the two holders called Alwin.
11,11	HOPTON. This was part of Hopton and Coton township of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	ALWARD HELD THEM. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.
	A WOOD OF MEDIUM-SIZE [TREES]. The Latin silua modica is infrequent in Domesday. It occurs in CHS 8,43. DOR 3,7;9. SHR 4,3,21. STS 11,11. 13,4. SOM 1,26. 5,12;17. YKS 5W30. 25W9. 28W33. Silua pastilis modica is found in YKS 3Y10-11. Ibi modicum siluae occurs in CHS 2,23 and siluae minutae modicum in NTT 1,10.
		The use of modicum as a substantival adjective should be distinguished from that of modica, simply used adjectively. The former (modicum), followed by a partitive genitive means 'a modest or moderate amount of' and is in a sequence with such uses as siluae aliquantulum ('some small quantity of woodland') in GLS 30,3, siluae minutae aliquantulum ('some small quantity of underwood') in NTT 1,3, paululum siluae ('very little woodland') in HEF 9,3 and parum silvae minutae ('a small amount of underwood') in DBY 1,32;34.2,2. 6,60;80;94. 9,1;4. 10,18. 17,15-16.
		On the other hand, modica, like minuta, seems to refer to the size of the trees. That minuta has this meaning is shown firstly by the occasional appearance of separate details for silua and for silua minuta in the same entry (for example in DEV 1,3;43. 12,1. DOR 3,13. SOM 5,16. 8,1); secondly, by the fact that the dimensions of silua and of silua minuta cover the same range and the extent of some siluae minutae is large as in DEV 1,43. 52,34 where in each case a silua minuta is 1 league by ½ league; many siluae are measured in small numbers of acres. In SOM 5,17 there is a silua modica ½ league by ½ league and in the same entry there is a silua 1 furlong by 1 furlong. Moreover, in three entries for which there are corresponding entries in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon), that is, SOM 1,26. 5,12;17 (= Exon folios 113a, 140a, 141a) the term used in Exon is nemusculum, which was more normally converted to silua minuta by the main scribe of Great Domesday (on over 70 occasions in Somerset alone). The Liber Exoniensis also contains two entries relating to the same estate of Abbas Combe (SOM 4,1). In one of them (Exon folio 467a) an Exon scribe uses nemusculum, in the other (Exon folio 153b) which was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday, silua minuta is used.
		Theoretically minuta and modica have different meanings ('small', 'thin' for the first, 'of moderate, medium, average size' for the second). However, since it is unlikely that the main scribe of Great Domesday was able to find out whether any particular nemusculum had small trees in it or medium-size ones, it looks as if the two terms are equivalent. They have, however, here been distinguished in translation, silua minuta as 'underwood' and silua modica as 'a wood of medium-size[trees]'.
		Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 86, refers modica to the size of the trees, suggesting that they are larger than 'underwood' but not full grown. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 49, translates silua modica as ' Wood(land) of small trees', but this was altered for the Alecto edition to 'scrubland', its usual translation of silua minuta (translated in Phillimore by 'underwood'). The Phillimore printed edition has 'a small wood', the translation usually reserved for silua parua, where the parua describes the extent of the woodland, not the size of the trees in it (see SHR 4,1,4 wood note).
	GILBERT <OF ASTON> HOLDS. The Domesday form of this 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.
		This man is probably the father of a Robert and a William and of Ilbert Fitz Gilbert, also known as Ilbert of Tean, named from Tean (11,2) although Gilbert did not hold it in 1086; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', p. 217; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 215. She has four references to folio 248d, but Gilbert was Robert of Stafford's subtenant only in 11,11-13 on this folio, though he was also his subtenant in 11,53. It is possible that, despite her assertion on p. 121 ('Several references to the same folio may be given, but each will relate to a separate occurrence of the subject in the Domesday text'), the extra reference is to Robert's holding in Cheswardine and Chipnall (11,13), as would also seem to be the case for her three references to this folio for Robert's subtenant Brian (Domesday People, p. 171, under Briend) in 11,15-16.
		Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 215, does not include the Gilbert who was Robert of Stafford's subtenant in Middle Aston (OXF 27,10), although this was held by the only other Gilbert on the 116 tenanted holdings of Robert of Stafford (JP).
11,12	SALT. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary. In the time of Queen Elizabeth I it was combined with Enson (1,43) to form a single township; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 423. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	BISHOP LEOFWIN. He was Bishop of Lichfield 1053-1067 (JRM). He was presumably holding his part of this joint tenure in a personal capacity.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Leuuin(us), Leuuine, Lefuuinus, Leuin(us), Liuuin[us] etc. - represent Old English Leofwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 317-19. JRM preferred the second element -win for Old English -wine as it is closer to the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Leofwine.
	ORDMER. The Domesday forms of this name - Ormar(us), Ordmaer(us), Ormer, Ordmer, Ordmar - represent Old English Ordmær: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 336. JRM preferred the second element -mer for Old English -mær as it reflected most of the Domesday spellings. The Alecto edition has Ordmær.
	THESE. Has, referring to the hides (JRM). The Phillimore printed edition has 'them'.
	BUT THE KING HAD THE FULL JURISDICTION OF THIS ORDMER. Full jurisdiction ('sake and soke') normally applies to the relationship of a lord to his land, and by extension to his tenants. It is possible that the scribe has mechanically written sacam 7 socam instead of plain socam ('jurisdiction', 'soke'), and that this man was subject to the king's jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was perhaps exercised in the royal borough of Stafford itself. On 'full jurisdiction', see B11 jurisdiction note.
	AND 2 [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote 7 ii. and then left a space before giving the mill details. The '2' may be the number of slaves or of another category of population and he may have hoped to add the ploughs of the 'villagers' too, despite the size of the gap.
11,13	CHESWARDINE AND CHIPNALL. Because of the order of estates here and on geographical grounds, it seems probable that both were in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. Cheswardine later became an Ancient Parish in Shropshire and Chipnall a township within it. Both estates passed into Henry I's hands, then to Henry II under whom they were granted to John Le Strange (Extraneus) and probably at about the same time were moved from Pirehill Hundred, Staffordshire, to Bradford Hundred, Shropshire; see VCH Shropshire, iii p. 49; and {Introduction: County Boundary}.
		The manor of Cheswardine, like Ness (SHR 4,1,17) with which it is associated in Book of Fees, p. 146, continued to be held by the Lestrange family; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 58; Book of Fees, p. 964; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 222, 237; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, x. p. 28; Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 7. The Bradford Hundred Roll (p. 114) gives the members of the manor as Magna Sowdeley and Parva Sowdeley (Great and Little Soudley, SJ7128, SJ7228 respectively), Westumscete (Westcott? SJ7028), Chepernoll' (Chipnall) and Hull ('Hill Hall', SJ7230 on the first edition Ordnance Survey one-inch map, now Cheswardine Hall). Little Soutley is held from John son of Roger Lestrange in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, iv. no. 200, and Cheseworthyn and Westanescote in Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, vi. no. 439. For an extent of Cheswardine (with half of Childs Ercall, SHR 4,3,23), taken in 1280, see Fletcher, 'Extent of the Manor of Cheswardine', pp. 361-67.
	GILBERT <OF ASTON>. See 11,11 Gilbert note.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY> HELD IT. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.
	TO ST CHAD'S CHURCH. That is, to the cathedral church at Lichfield; see STS 2 Bishop note and {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. This probably indicates that this was church land leased to Godiva, but subsequently alienated.
11,14	[HIGH] OFFLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford, being held from it by the de Halcton, de Halghton [Haughton] family; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3 (Hosyleye). It is Alta Offyleye in Feudal Aids, v. p. 11.
	"URFER" <OF HAUGHTON> HOLDS. It is not certain what name is represented by the Domesday form Vrfer, which only occurs as the name of a 1086 subtenant of Robert of Stafford here (11,14;51-52) and in WAR 22,24. It is not in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. The Alecto edition has Urfer.
		The Warwickshire "Urfer" is probably the same individual as the Staffordshire one. He has been 'identified' as <of Haughton> because his holdings in 11,51-52 (the latter in Haughton) were later held by the Haughton family, as was the present estate.
		See also WAR 22,24 "Urfer" note (JP).
	WULFRIC HELD. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.
11,15	STANDON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974. In Book of Fees, p. 967, it is held with Weston' [Weston, 11,16]
	RUDGE. This was a settlement in Eccleshall Ancient Parish. Like Eccleshall itself (2,10) it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
	BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY> HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Brien, Brienus, Briend, Brienz - represent the Breton surname Briand, Briant: Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France. JRM preferred the modern form Brian. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Brian, Bryant; these have now been standardized as Brian. The Alecto edition has Brian.
		A Brian is also Robert of Stafford's subtenant in 11,16;66 and in WAR 22,16 and is called Robert's man in LIN 59,14 (Rauceby) and 59,15.
		The name Brian occurs without a byname on a dozen holdings in Domesday Book. Given the uncommon name and the geographical and tenurial patterns, there were probably three individuals bearing the name, the tenant of Robert of Stafford, ancestor of the de Stanton family, being one of them. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 171 (JP).
	SIWARD. The Domesday forms of this 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.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	HELD. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote tenuit over an erasure. Level with it in the central margin is also an erasure, almost certainly of a note jotted down concerning this correction. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	A GROVE. Apart from in Domesday Oxfordshire, where it occurs in 16 entries, Latin graua ('a grove') occurs only here and once each in Hampshire and Warwickshire (HAM 4,1. WAR 29,1). Normally two dimensions are given, except here and in HAM 4,1 and OXF 6,13. 35,23. Woodland is not recorded in any of the entries containing 'a grove'. The Phillimore printed edition translates graua as 'copse', but that implies that the trees in it were coppiced, whereas graua is merely a relatively small wood. The Alecto edition has 'grove'.
11,16	WESTON. This was a settlement in Standon Ancient Parish. Like Standon itself (11,15), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 4. There Weston is held from Robert de Standon who holds from the barony of Stafford; see also Book of Fees, p. 967; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
		Weston is represented by Weston Hall (SJ803367), Weston House Farm (SJ806365), Weston House Cottages (SJ808364).
	BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY> HOLDS. See 11,15 Brian note.
	GODWIN HELD. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	VILLAGERS. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote uill'i over an erasure: he probably originally wrote another category of population here, perhaps bord' ('smallholders') and discovered this during checking.
11,17	MAER. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, it is More juxta Weston, that is, near Weston (SJ8036).
	WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,18	SWYNNERTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
		No church is mentioned here in Domesday, but in a deed of 1155 x 1159 one is mentioned as subject to the priory of Stone; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', p. 185.
	ASLEN HOLDS. This name only occurs here; it is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday form Aslen, unless it is a corrupt or abbreviated form of Aselinus (= Ascelin). The Alecto edition has Aslen.
	BROTHIR <OF OAKEN> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Broder, Brodre, Brodor, Brotho - represent Old Danish Brothir: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 208. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Broder and Brother; these have now been standardized as Brothir. The Alecto edition has Brothir.
		Brothir was also Robert of Stafford's predecessor in Patshull (11,44) and Oaken (11,45).
		The name occurs seven times in Domesday Book and was probably borne by four individuals. The Staffordshire holdings were probably held by one man. Apart from the rarity of the name and the descent of all three properties to a single tenant-in-chief, two also devolved upon the same tenant and were a few miles apart, while the third, Swynnerton, was about twenty miles from them, though still within easy reach (JP).
11,19	NORTON[-IN-THE-MOORS]. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 3, it is Norton super le Mores.
	IN [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. It is not certain what or where these were.
	GODRIC AND WULFGEAT HELD THEM AND THEY WERE FREE. The manuscript has Godric' 7 Vluiet tenuer' lib'iq; fuer', the semi-colon abbreviation mark after the q indicating the enclitic -que meaning 'and'. Farley misread this abbreviation sign as an elongated 3-shape and left a space before it, which led to the translation in the Phillimore printed edition 'who were free', as it had previously in VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 50. The main scribe of Great Domesday used both these abbreviation marks after a q for an omitted ue in words such as usque ('until'), neque ('nor') etc. but he did not abbreviate the relative pronoun qui. The Alecto edition has 'and they were free'. On other of Farley's rare errors in this county, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
		On the name Godric, see 5,2 Godric note. On the name Wulfgeat, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,20	MADELEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 3, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. The Domesday name is represented by Madeley (SJ775443), formerly Great Madeley, Little Madeley (SJ778453), Middle Madeley (SJ775451), Madeley Heath (SJ783457) and Madeley Manor (SJ775459). The remains of Old Madeley Manor are marked at SJ772422. JRM appears to be in error in saying (note to 11,37 in the Phillimore printed edition) that Madeley Holme was also known as Little Madeley; see 11,37 Madeley note.
		Three mansae at Madanlieg were granted in 975 by King Edgar to Bishop Aethelwold of Winchester: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 95-97 no. 88 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 801). The bounds are more or less those of the parish. Lands granted by King Edgar to Bishop Aethelwold were usually employed to found monasteries or to amplify the endowments of monasteries. The intended destination of this land is unknown. Domesday only records 1 hide here, though there was land for 4 ploughs.
		Robert of Stafford held two places called Madeley (Madelie): the present one in Pirehill Hundred (11,20) and one in Totmonslow Hundred (11,37). The order of Domesday Book allows them to be distinguished. Both holdings descended within the barony of Stafford. For the present Madeley, held by the barony of Stafford in Pirehill Hundred, see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3. The other Madeley was held by the Bassets under the de Staffords in Totmonslow Hundred.
	WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	SWEIN HELD IT. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
11,21	THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. The other two-thirds are probably at Bucknall (1,34) and Burslem (11,22), both of which are adjacent to the present holding.
	[ABBEY] HULTON. This was a settlement in Burslem chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3; VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 249. It was among the gifts of a subtenant of the barony, Henry de Audley, to the abbey that he founded here; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}. A further gift by Henry de Audley was of Bucknall, probably not of the royal estate there (1,34), which had a different holder, but perhaps of a portion that was an unnamed part of (Abbey) Hulton in Domesday.
	'RUSHTON'. This was a settlement in Burslem which was itself a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 3. 'Rushton' is represented by Rushton Grange.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3; VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 116. Like Hulton, it was among the gifts of a subtenant of the barony, Henry de Audley, to the abbey that he founded there; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
	WULFGEAT HOLDS. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,22	THE THIRD PART OF 1 HIDE. There is a further third of a hide at Abbey Hulton and 'Rushton' (11,21) and a further third at Bucknall (1,34), making a full hide. All these places are adjacent.
	BURSLEM. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3; VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 116.
	ALWARD HELD IT. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.
	ALDER-GROVE, 2 ACRES. There are only six occurrences of Latin alnetum and one of silua alnorum in Domesday; where dimensions are given they are always in terms of acres. The pliancy of alder wood make it ideal for basket-making among other things.
	WULFGEAT HELD IT. The T.R.E. holder has already been given as Alward, so it is possible that Wulfgeat was the 1086 subtenant and that tenuit ('he held') should read tenet ('he holds'). Wulfgeat is a 1086 holder in 11,20. This is particularly likely, as in this section of Robert of Stafford's fief, the scribe was dealing with subinfeudations.
		On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,23	ASTON[-BY-STONE]. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish and was sometimes known as plain Aston. Stone is not mentioned in Domesday, but several members of the Ancient Parish are; see 1,40 Fulford note. Aston-by-Stone probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. For other parts, see 1,47. 11,9. On modern maps Aston-by-Stone is represented by Aston Farm (SJ912314), Aston Hall (SJ915317) and Aston House (SJ913319).
		For the possibility that land granted in 957 aet Eastun was at this Aston, see 12,25 Barr note.
		On the descent of the manor within the barony of Stafford, see 11,9 Aston note.
	AND [ITS] DEPENDENCIES. These are unidentified, but presumably included parts of the Ancient Parish of Stone.
	ALGOT FROM HIM. The Domesday forms of this name - Algod, Alcot, Algolt, Aelgotus, Algot(us) - represent Old Danish Algot: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 146, though he stated that derivation from Old German Adalgot etc. was theoretically possible. The last three forms are of 1086 tenants. The Alecto edition has Algot for both T.R.E. and 1086 holders.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. JRM's note reads 'Possibly identical with Helgot', though that is a different name (8,24 Helgot note). There is nothing in the descent of the manor of Aston-by-Stone to show that Algot was the same as the Helgot of 11,24;43.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.
	EDRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Edric(us), Aedricus, Edericus, Eadricus, Headricus etc. - represent Old English Eadric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 233-36. JRM preferred the first element Ed- for Old English Ead-, as the vast majority of Domesday forms have Ed-. In the Phillimore printed translations of LIN and YKS, however, the form Eadric was used; it has now been standardized as Edric. The Alecto edition has Eadric, except for SUF 6,203 (where it has Edric, perhaps an error).
11,24	BARLASTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		Land at Beorelfestune was given by Wulfric Spot to his nephew Wulfheah (son of his brother Aelfhelm) in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxiv no. 6). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28). The identity of the place is not certain as it could be Barlestone in Leicestershire (LEC 13,46. 17,10); see LEC 13,46 Barlestone note.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3. In Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974, Barlaston and Bobbington (11,43), both held by Helgot from Robert of Stafford in 1086, are held by the heir of John son of Philip [son of Helgot]; see 11,24 Helgot note.
	HELGOT <OF BOBBINGTON> FROM HIM. He is a different man from Earl Roger's tenant (Helgot <of Holdgate>, 8,24) and is 'identified' from his larger holding in Bobbington (11,43). This Helgot was succeeded by his son Guy, by another Helgot, then by Philip Fitz Helgot who c. 1166 became the hereditary forester of Kinver Forest; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 247-52; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 32; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 247; and 1,27 Kinver note and 11,43 Bobbington note. On the name Helgot, see 8,24 Helgot note.
	AUGUSTINE HELD IT. The Domesday form of this name, Augustin[us], is Latin. Although the Old French name Austin (Domesday Austin, Austin[us]) derives from it (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 169), it is likely that both the Latin and Old French forms co-existed in 1086, rather than that Austin, Austin[us] were the result of scribal abbreviation. The Alecto edition has Augustine and Austin, as has the printed Phillimore edition, and this has been retained.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
11,25	RANTON. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Ronton. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
	WHO ALSO HELD IT AS A FREE MAN. The Latin qui 7 tenuit ut liber homo. The 7 (et) in this position means 'also'; that is, he was similarly (like Augustine in 11,24) holding it as a free man .
11,26	COOKSLAND. This was a settlement in Seighford Ancient Parish. Like Seighford itself (2,21), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		The Domesday place is represented by Cooksland itself (SJ8825), by Lower Cooksland Farm (SJ 877256) and by Cooksland Hall Farm (SJ877255).
		The estate descended in the barony of Stafford as can be seen from its appearance in a memorandum of c. 1150-60 and a deed of c. 1181-1184: Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 219-20, 256-57.
	HELIO <OF OAKLEY>. The Domesday form of this 1086 subtenant of Robert of Stafford here and in Oakley (11,47) is Helio. It is not clear what name is represented by it; it is not in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. It might be related to the French name Elion, which is a diminutive of the accusative form of the predecessor of the modern French names Elie, Hélie (hence the -n), from biblical Elias; see Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France. The Alecto edition has Helio.
	TOKI. The Domesday forms of this name - Tochi, Toka, Toche, Toke, Tocha, Tochil, Thoka, Toca, Toco, Tocho, Tohe, Toc etc. - represent Old Norse/Old Danish Toki: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 385-86.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	AELFRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluric(us), Alebric, Aeluric(us), Alfric(us), Alfriz, Aluuricus, Aelfric, Aluriz, Eluric(us), Alberic, Alebrix etc. - represent Old English Ælfric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 176-80. The Alecto edition has Ælfric.
11,27	THE PARCHMENT in this entry and the first line of the next one (11,28) was repaired expertly by John Abbott of the Public Record Office during conservation work on the manuscript in connection with the last rebinding in 1984-86. He applied a patch from the recto of folio 249. The main scribe of Great Domesday had already written around the tear in the skin and its three associated holes, breaking the place-name after HELDVLVES and drawing a link-line to join it to the TONE; most of this link-line is now under the new repair. Farley showed this break, but not those in the next lines, which occur after lib'i, bord', dimid' and, in 11,28, after hid'.
	THE FIFTH PART OF 1 HIDE. There appears to be no answering 'fifths' in the vicinity, although there is a further ½ virgate in another part of Hilderstone (1,44).
	HILDERSTONE. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. For another part, see 1,44.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	DUNNING. On this name, see 1,61 Dunning note.
	WULFRIC. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin una ac[ra] may be either ablative singular after cū (implying that the meadow belonged to the villagers etc.) or nominative singular, making it part of the general manorial resources as was the woodland, which was, however, put in a new sentence (as often). The Phillimore printed edition opts for the latter, but it seems better to preserve the ambiguity of the Latin and put a semi-colon after the villagers' plough and have the woodland in a new sentence, as in the Alecto edition. A similar ambiguity occurs in 16,2. 17,2;14.
	VITALIS <OF HILDERSTONE> HOLDS. It appears that his son, Arnold of Hilderstone, was a benefactor of the priory of Stone in 1136; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 33; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 443.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Vitalis, Vitel, Fitel, Phitelet, Fitheus - represent the Latin name Vitalis, from which derives the Old French Vit(t)el: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 405-406. The printed Phillimore edition has Vitalis, except for HAM 23,3 (Vitalet); this has now been standardized as Vitalis. The Alecto edition has Vitalis.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
11,28	BRADELEY. This was identified by Wrottesley, 'History of the Bagot Family', pp. 11-12, with Bagots Bromley, with the suggestion that Domesday Bradelie was a mistranscription of Bramelie. This seems improbable. Bradley Green in Burslem was proposed by Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 169. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 51 note 30, leaves the place unidentified (and this was not altered for the Alecto edition) as do Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. However, JRM suggested Bradeley (an area of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent) with the note: 'the only known place with this name in Pirehill Hundred'. The only difficulty with this identification is that there is no known descent within the Stafford barony. However, it is possible that the place originated in and was reabsorbed by the adjacent Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19).
	TANIO. The Domesday form of this name, which only occurs here in Domesday Book, is Tanio. It is not clear what name is represented by it; it does not appear in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, nor in Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France. The Alecto edition has Tanio.
		For the patched tear in the parchment just before this statement, see 11,27 parchment note.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	ALWARD. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.
11,29	COLTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 4, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. For another part, held by Earl Roger, see 8,15.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	GEOFFREY <OF DENTON> HOLDS. On the name Geoffrey, see 8,25 Geoffrey note.
		On his identification, see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 232 (JP).
	ODA. On this name, see 1,47 Oda note.
	WULFRIC. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
11,30	3 PARTS OF 1 HIDE. If '3 parts' means three-quarters (that is, '3 virgates'), as regularly elsewhere in Great Domesday (compare 11,9 parts note), then there is a complementary virgate in another part of Milwich (1,41) to make up a full hide.
	MILWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 4, 12 (Meluyz); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. For another part, held by the king, see 1,41.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 4. No church is mentioned in Domesday, but the church of Milwich was given to Stone Priory by Nicholas de Milwich between 1138 and 1147. A later Robert of Stafford was among the witnesses; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 217-18.
	OSBERN. On this name, see 7,2 Osbern note.
	SWEIN. On this name, see 1,48 Swein note.
	"RAFWIN". It is possible that Rafwin's holding, if it was 1 virgate, also appears under the land of the king at 1,41; see 1,41 Milwich note. On the name-form "Rafwin", see 1,41 "Rafwin" note.
11,31	3 PARTS OF 1 HIDE. There appears to be no answering 'part' of a hide in the vicinity, although there is a half-virgate in another part of Tixall (8,23).
	TIXALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. For another part, held by Earl Roger, see 8,23.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	HUGH [* SON OF CONSTANT *] FROM HIM. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note.
		The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined de eo above Hugo and put a thin 'gallows' sign to separate that name from Alric'. Before that it read that Hugh, Alric and Ordmer held the 3 parts of 1 hide.
		On the identification, see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 268 (JP).
	ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.
	ORDMER. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.
11,32	INGESTRE. The Domesday form Gestreon has lost an initial In- probably through misunderstanding a clause such as Robertus tenet Ingestreon as Robertus tenet in Gestreon. Ingestre was not divided between holders, so Robert held the whole rather than an estate 'in it'. This mistake could have occurred at any stage in the Domesday Survey. Ingestre was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 12; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 544, 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	HUGH [* SON OF CONSTANT *]. See B5 Hugh note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	VITHGRIP [* VILGRIP *] <OF WYTHEFORD>. The Domesday form, Widegrip, which only occurs here, represents Old Norse Vithgripr, according to von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 407. JRM did not keep the final -r in Old Norse names. His note implied that von Feilitzen thought that this Domesday form was a misspelling for Wilegrip, which is one of the Domesday forms for Old Danish Vilgrip (von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 407; see 11,65 Vilgrip note), but this is not so. However, it may well be a scribal error, as Vilgrip (Domesday Wilegrip, rendered Wilgrip in the Phillimore printed edition, as in the present entry) was Robert of Stafford's predecessor in Church Eaton (11,65). The Alecto edition has Vithgripr here, but Vilgrip for 11,65.
		The name occurs five times in Domesday Book, twice in Shropshire and Staffordshire and once in Suffolk. The two Staffordshire properties were held from the same tenant-in-chief who is unlikely to have had two tenants with this rare name. The four Shropshire and Staffordshire holdings form a crescent, each holding being within easy reach of its nearest neighbour, so all four may have belonged to the same individual. It is unlikely that the distant and modest Suffolk holding did so too (JP).
		[Great] Wytheford is in Shropshire, one of the two estates held by Vilgrip in 1066 (SHR 4,3,4).
	ONE PART OF A MILL. The rest does not appear in Domesday.
11,33	TITTENSOR. This was a settlement in Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself is not named in Domesday, though various parts of the later Ancient Parish are there; see 1,40 Fulford note. Tittensor probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 3, 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 3. In Book of Fees, p. 544, it is Titneshovere coupled with Bleche [Beech, SJ8538?].
	STENULF <OF TITTENSOR>. The Domesday forms of this name - Steinulf, Stainulf(us), Stenulf(us) and Stemulf (an error for Steinulf) - represent Old Norse Steinolfr, Old Swedish Stenulf: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 373-74. JRM preferred the Old Swedish form as it is closer to the Domesday forms. In some Phillimore printed translations, however, the forms Steinulf and Steinulfr appear; they have here been standardized as Stenulf. The Alecto edition has Stenulf.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		Note on his identification to be supplied (JP).
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
11,34	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. The main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended this hundred head, written at the end of this entry, rather than at the end of the first line of it, to refer to Weston; see 11,34 Weston note. In the Phillimore printed edition it is assumed that it governs Gratwich (11,35). Elsewhere in this county he wrote such heads either in the first line of an entry (or, if it was the first entry in the chapter, in the line above, next to where he then wrote the chapter head in vermilion) or at the end of an entry, governing the next entry; on a couple of occasions he wrote it on a blank line above the entry. It is possible that here he had already written the first line of the entry before he realized that he had omitted the hundred head. As this was the first entry in the column he could have written the head in the top margin of folio 249b, but may not have wanted to do so because of the presence of the interlineation de hesding and the fact that this first line was written on the horizontal score delimiting the top of the writing area of this page (folio 249ab). Compare 2,4 Pirehill note and 17,6 Pirehill note. See VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 51 note 36.
	WESTON [COYNEY]. This was a township in Caverswall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Caverswall itself (11,36) probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 and it seems likely that Weston Coyney did as well though it was adjacent to the putative border between the hundreds of Pirehill and Totmonslow. If that is the case, the Totmonslow Hundred head in the last line of this entry refers to Weston Coyney.
		Although Weston Coyney might be expected to descend in the barony of Stafford, Weston', Caverswall' [Caverswall, 11,36] and Focbroc [perhaps the adjacent Forsbrook, 1,60] are held by John Coyne from John Fitz Alan in Book of Fees, p. 975. This suggests that the land descended not from Robert of Stafford but from his tenant, Arnulf of Hesdin; see 11,34 Arnulf note and STS 8 Roger note.
	ARNULF OF HESDIN. He came from Hesdin in the Pas-de-Calais (arrondissement Montreuil). He was related (brother or brother-in-law) to Walchelin, provost of Beaurain. He was granted the lands of the important Saxon thane Wulfward 'White' in several counties. Arnulf was accused of involvement in a conspiracy led by Robert of Mowbray in 1093, but proved his innocence by judicial combat. He died at Antioch on the first crusade. His heirs were his daughters Matilda, whose second husband was Patrick de Caorces (Chaworth), and Avelina, wife of Alan Fitz Flaad (ancestor of the Fitz Alans) and then of Robert Fitz Walter. See Loyd, Some Anglo-Norman Families, p. 5; VCH Middlesex, i. p. 114; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 192.
		The Domesday forms of Arnulf - Ernulf(us), Arnulf[us], Hernulf(us) - represent the very common Old German name Arnulf, Arnolf etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 35-36. The forms Arnoulf, Arnulf(e) are recorded in Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, under Arnou. In the printed Phillimore edition for NTT 9,89 the form Ernulf appears, whileYKS 9W54 has Earnwulf; these have now been standardized as Arnulf. The Alecto edition has Ernulf.
	WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	LAND FOR 3 PLOUGHS. The main scribe of Great Domesday erased the number of ploughs that he had originally written, perhaps v as part of the original is still visible. He had to interline the replacement as the original was shorter and there was no room for the .iii. on the line itself.
11,35	IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED. It is not certain that this hundred head, written at the end of the last line of the entry for Weston Coyney (11,34), governs Gratwich; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have intended it to relate to that entry (see 11,34 Totmonslow note).
	GRATWICH. This was an Ancient Parish. It almost certainly lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086; for the ambiguous position of the hundred head, see 11,34 Totmonslow note. Gratwich was certainly in Totmonslow Hundred later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966, 974.
	WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.
	GODING HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Goding, Goding(us), Godinc, Godincus, Godin - represent Old English Goding: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 265. The Alecto edition has Goding.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
11,36	CAVERSWALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		Although Caverswall might be expected to descend in the barony of Stafford, Weston' [Weston Coyney, 11,34], Caverswall' [Caverswall] and Focbroc [perhaps the adjacent Forsbrook, 1,60] are held by John Coyne from John Fitz Alan in Book of Fees, p. 975. This suggests that the land descended not from Robert of Stafford but from his tenant Arnulf [of Hesdin]; see 11,34 Arnulf note and STS 8 Roger note.
	ARNULF [* OF HESDIN *]. The identification is proved by the rarity of the name and the descent of the estate of Caverswall. See also 11,34 Arnulf note.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	A HALF OF STOKE[-UPON-TRENT] CHURCH. The other half does not appear in Domesday, but was probably omitted from the survey of the interrelated royal manors of Trentham (1,8) and Penkhull (1,16), most probably from the latter; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 12-13. Penkhull itself had probably originated as a grant to an earl of Mercia out of Trentham. To the half-church in the present entry was attached half a carucate of land. In 1341 the endowment of the whole church was a full carucate (see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 186). The same was probably the case in 1086, the other half of the church being attached to Trentham-Penkhull. This church was probably a minster. The present half was confirmed on Stone Priory by Robert (II) of Stafford c. 1155; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 236-38; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 51 note 40. The other half of the church remained part of the manor of Penkhull and went with it into the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme which was held by the Earl of Chester. In view of the relationship of Stoke-upon-Trent both to Trentham and to Caverswall, it is possible that Caverswall itself also originated as a grant out of Trentham, though it was in a different hundred. Stoke-upon-Trent probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086. For the interrelation of Trentham, Wolstanton, Penkhull, Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-upon Trent, see 1,8 Trentham note.
		In the Phillimore printed edition, JRM noted: 'The entry for Stoke-on-Trent, mentioned only here, is missing'. However, there is no reason to think that there was anything at Stoke-upon-Trent in 1086 other than its church. No manor is evidenced and there was originally no township of Stoke-upon-Trent. Nonetheless, the church was mother of a large parish, which included Newcastle-under-Lyme (which was established after 1086 on the land of Trentham, 1,8), Clayton (13,6), Seabridge (SJ8343), Whitmore (13,2), Burslem (11,22), Hanley (part of Trentham, 1,8), Longton (SJ9143), Norton-in-the-Moors (11,19), Bucknall (1,34), Bagnall (SJ9250), 'Lane End' (SJ9144, in Longton), Fenton (17,21), Bradeley (11,28), Abbey Hulton in Burslem chapelry (11,21), Rushton in the same chapelry (1,64), Penkhull (1,16) and Shelton (1,38); see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 188. The later borough of Stoke-upon-Trent arose here, on land that probably belonged to Penkhull. Stoke-upon-Trent itself grew in importance over the centuries, especially from the time of the Industrial Revolution. It became a county borough in 1910 when it consisted of six 'towns': Tunstall (which originated as part of Wolstanton), Burslem, Hanley, Stoke, Fenton and Longton. Parts of some of these had been absorbed by Stoke-upon-Trent earlier and there were further extensions of the borough boundary to the south and east in 1922; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 260 and map.
	WITH ½ CARUCATE OF LAND. Rather than being waste land whose hidage has been lost, this may have been land free of geld; see 1,5 carucate note.
11,37	MADELEY. This was a settlement in Checkley Ancient Parish, sometimes identified as Madeley Holme. It was long known as Madeley Ulfac or Madeley Alfac. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. The Domesday estate appears to be represented both by Madeley Farm (SK054369) and by Madeleypark (formerly Madeley Holme) at SK063382.
		Robert of Stafford held two places called Madeley (Madelie): the present one in Totmonslow Hundred and one in Pirehill Hundred (11,20). The order of Domesday Book allows them to be differentiated. Both holdings descended within the barony of Stafford. For the present Madeley, held by the Basset family under the barons of Stafford in Totmonslow Hundred, see Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 13. In this last it appears as Madeleye Alphon. It is Maddeleye Alfegh' in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. It is not (pace JRM in the Phillimore printed edition) sometimes known as Little Madeley; see 11,20 Madeley note.
	WULFHEAH. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY> HELD THIS ALSO AFTER KING WILLIAM'S ARRIVAL. The Phillimore printed translation has 'Godiva held it even after King William's arrival', as does VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 51 (which was retained in the Alecto edition). Certainly the position of etiam (apparently connected with post aduentum rather than with tenuit) suggests such a translation, but it is not evident why there should be such an emphasis. There are many English holders who not only retained their lands after the Conquest but held them in 1086 or had passed them on to relatives. So the significant fact may be, in this case, her inability after 1066 'to withdraw with [her] land' (and seek another lord) which is a limitation common in Domesday for the T.R.E. period and probably applied to her then too. A Godiva, presumably not the countess of that name, is a T.R.E. holder elsewhere in this fief (11,4;13;23;42). In 11,13 a Godiva had held Cheswardine and Chipnall, but it would appear that she had held Chipnall from St Chad's of Lichfield, presumably a case where she could not 'withdraw with her land'. At 11,42, of Cheadle it is said 'Godiva held it; she was free', and at 11,23 Godiva and Edric were free and held Aston-by-Stone. It is likely that the mentions of Godiva in this fief refer to more than one person; Clarke, English Nobility, p. 218, identifies the Godiva of 11,4 as the countess. However, see JP's note (8,21 Godiva note).
		Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1472, translates etiam as 'even'.
		On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note.
	IN THE SAME VILLAGE OF THE SAME LAND TWO ENGLISHMEN HOLD. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this on a new line and rubricated the I of In, as he did for other 'entries'. The fact that the value is then given 'of the whole manor' was probably the reason why it was not given a separate number in the Phillimore printed edition. However, that edition fails to translate de ead[em] t[er]ra ('of the same land') and has 'of this land' for plain t[er]rê after '1 ½ carucates'.
		The de eadem terra implies that the two Englishmen had a subholding in the manor of Madeley, rather than that they held land in their own right which happened to be in Madeley too. This is lent support by the value being of the whole manor.
	1 ½ CARUCATES. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote .ii. caruc' t'rê 7 dimid', but the second minim was later erased, possibly by him.
	1½ CARUCATES OF THE SAME LAND. This is marked by the main scribe of Great Domesday as a separate entry; see 11,37 village note. These carucates are presumably former waste land that has recovered; see 1,5 carucate note.
	THE WHOLE MANOR. That is, the half-hide and the 1 ½ carucates.
11,38	BRAMSHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966.
	A HALF OF THIS VIRGATE IS THE KING'S. This ½ virgate was subsequently added to the royal manor of Uttoxeter (1,19) and became known as 'Little Bramshall' according to Wrottesley, 'History of the Bagot Family', p. 3. If this is largely true, it is more likely that the whole of Bramshall had originated as a member of Uttoxeter and that the 1086 holder or a predecessor had encroached on land that had not been part of the grant.
	AS THE ROAD DIVIDES IT. This sort of information, giving the disposition of land in relation to a topographical feature, is extraordinarily rare in Domesday. The intention here must be to identify the exact location of the king's half-virgate and to show that it is not intermixed with other land. The whole virgate lies either side of a road, divided into exact halves. It is possible that there was more information in the putative circuit volume. The road is difficult to identify on a modern map, but the king held Uttoxeter (1,19) to the east of Bramshall and Robert held Gratwich (11,35) to the west so it is probable that those with local knowledge would be able to pinpoint the royal half-virgate.
	ROBERT HAS SEIZED THIS KING'S PART AND MAKES HIMSELF ANSWERABLE [FOR IT]. The Latin inuasit ('step into', 'invade') is rather more than 'annexed' (as in the Phillimore printed edition for Staffordshire, though elsewhere this verb is translated as 'encroach' and 'seize'). Although evidently Robert has combined the two half-virgates, inuasit cannot mean 'joined'. Compare DEV {Exon Appendix} 34,5 seized note.
		The Latin se defensorem facit should not imply that Robert is waiting on the half-virgate armed and ready to fight off claimants, but is probably to be read as connected with the formula se defendit pro n hidis used of a manor ('it answers for n hides'). In other words, Robert is actually paying tax on the land he has taken. Rather than mitigating his crime, this may compound his felony.
		In Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1473, the whole passage is translated: 'Half of the virgate is the King's because the road divides it. But Robert annexed the King's part and makes himself answerable for it'. The translation of sicut by 'because' is an error; see 11,38 road note.
	?A? Marginal abbreviation placed against disputed tenure, standing for some verbal form of adiudicatio ('judgement'), arbitratio ('decision') or other relevant word (JRM). This .A. was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in the right margin of folio 249b level with the details of Robert's seizure of the king's half-virgate. It is allied to the marginal letters k and d, written by him next to claims and disputes. See Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', Domesday Studies, pp. 124-26 (= Erskine and Williams, Story of Domesday Book, pp. 188-90). He also wrote .A. beside two entries in Hertfordshire (HRT 20,2. 36,13; Farley did not print an A next to the latter).
		Perhaps influenced by JRM's note, Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1473, points out that the A written in this margin may be an abbreviation for adiudicate. This is a plural command and would mean 'judge' or 'settle'. However, if the verb is correctly identified, the full form is more probably a singular rather than a plural command (adiudica as in require) or the present passive infinitive (adiudicari: 'to be brought to judgment').
	BAGOT HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, which only occurs in this entry, is Bagot. According to Reaney, Dictionary of British Surnames, under Baggett etc., it is a diminutive of Old German Bago, although there is no mention of this in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. The Alecto edition has Bagot.
		This Bagot was ancestor of a family who took his name as a surname; see Wrottesley, 'History of the Bagot Family'; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 160.
	WULFGEAT HELD IT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
11,39	ELLASTONE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred, another portion (2,15), held by the Bishop of Chester, being directly beneath a Totmonslow hundred head. It was in the same hundred later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974. In Book of Fees, p. 543, Blore [Blore, 11,40] and Grenedun' [Grindon, 11,3] and Adlacston' [Ellastone] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.
		It is represented by Ellastone itself (SK1143), Upper Ellastone (SK1143) and Lower Ellastone (SK1142).
	WOODMAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Vdeman, Odeman, Wodeman - represent Old English Wudumann, meaning 'woodman': von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 418. JRM preferred the translation of this name. The Alecto edition has Wudumann.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	ALSI. The Domesday forms of this name - Alsi, Alsius, Elsi, Aelsi, Alsicus, Alsidus etc. - could represent Old English Ælfsige, Old English Æthelsige or perhaps Old English Ealdsige, Ealhsige: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 151-52, under Al-sige, see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -si for the Old English -sige, as that is what is found in the vast majority of instances in Domesday. The Alecto edition has Alsige. However, in some of the Phillimore printed translations the forms Alfsi and Alfsige appear for people who in the present edition are now rendered Alsi because the forms of their names lack an -f- or -v- which JRM thought was necessary for it to be included under Alfsi (a few of them appear in von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 180, under Old English Ælfsige, and on pp. 187-88, under Old English Æthelsige). The Alecto edition has Alsige for those that appear there under Old English Ælfsige.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	MEADOW, 12 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote .xii. over the erasure of a number occupying more space; it is not clear why he wrote the number so close to the Ibi when there was such a large space (it extends almost to the ac').
	VALUE 30s. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote solid' over an erasure; he may have originally written libras ('pounds') or denarios ('pence') here. In the outer margin level with his correction is an erasure, perhaps connected with the correction. On such marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
11,40	BLORE. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known ecclesiastically as Blore Ray. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086. There is now another Blore in Staffordshire, at SJ7234, which in 1086 was no doubt part of Tyrley (SHR 4,14,5) in Shropshire; see {Introduction: County Boundary}.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 966, 974. In Book of Fees, p. 543, Blore and Grenedun' [Grindon, 11,3] and Adlacston' [Ellastone, 11,39] are all held by William de Audley from the barony of Stafford.
	EDRIC. On this name, see 11,23 Edric note.
	SPINNEY, 2 FURLONGS. Latin spinetum is 'a wood of thorns'. The thorn with its pliant branches and its spikes was used for wattles and fencing.
		Unless another dimension has been omitted, the furlong is here apparently being used as a square measure ('1 furlong by 1 furlong') as at 11,51 ('woodland, 1 furlong'). It is normally a linear measurement as in 1,6 ('woodland 3 furlongs long and 1 wide') or 1,17 ('woodland 1 furlong long and wide'). Elsewhere in Domesday spinney is generally measured in terms of acres, though in OXF 7,53 'spinney, 1 furlong' occurs and seven of the twenty-two occurrences of spinney in Domesday have two dimensions involving furlongs.
11,41	DILHORNE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 966.
	WALBERT. The Domesday form of this name, Walb[er]t[us], represents the very common Old German Walbert: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 238-39. The Alecto edition has Walbert.
		William son of Ansculf has a subtenant called Walbert on three of his estates (12,7;17;23), who might be the same as Robert of Stafford's subtenant here. The only other occurrences of this name in Domesday, as the Bishop of Durham's man (LIN 3,6-7;40), are unlikely to be the same individual as the Staffordshire Walbert(s): the descent of the holdings is different as is the 1086 tenant-in-chief. However, Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 444, suggests that William son of Ansculf's tenant in Staffordshire might possibly be the same as the Bishop of Durham's man; she does not mention Robert of Stafford's tenant, but includes a reference to him.
		The present holding lies between the two groups of estates attributed by Keats-Rohan to the tenant of William of Picquigny (JP).
	GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	TOGETHER WITH 2 OTHERS. This looks like an afterthought, probably in the putative circuit volume, as it is not an addition to Great Domesday. The main scribe of Great Domesday would normally have given the three names and then said qui [or 7] liberi homines fuerunt ('who [or 'and'] they were free men').
11,42	CHEADLE. The Domesday form is Celle; for the identification, see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table viii facing p. 96; Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 35-41. The form Celle is accepted by Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names, as a precursor of Cheadle, but it also seems likely that Cheadle is represented by Cedla (1,57. 17,19). This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		That Robert of Stafford held Cheadle is established by a deed of 1253 cited by Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', p. 37; in it Ralph Basset holds a knight's fee under a later Robert of Stafford. The deed is calendared in Wrottesley, 'Final Concords temp. Henry III', p. 245; see also Book of Fees, p. 543 (Chedlhe Basset) and p. 966 (Chedle); Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Chartulary III', pp. 225-26.
	ROBERT HOLDS. On this name, see B6 Robert note.
	GODIVA <OF MADELEY>. On the name Godiva, see 4,2 Godiva note. On the possible identification by JP, see 8,21 Godiva note. See also 11,37 Godiva note.
11,43	BOBBINGTON. This was a chapelry, partly in Staffordshire and partly in Shropshire, of Claverley Ancient Parish (Shropshire). Bobbington was placed entirely in Shropshire in 1895; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 404. In 1086, it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110. In the 1166 Pipe Roll it was held by Philip, son of Helgot and grandson of the 1086 holder, together with the manor of Kinver (1,27); see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 67. In Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974, it is held with Barlaston by the heir of John son of Philip [son of Helgot]; see 11,24 Barlaston note.
	HELGOT <OF BOBBINGTON> HOLDS. See 11,24 Helgot note, and on the name Helgot, see 8,24 Helgot note. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 246, apparently identifies him as Helgot De Castello (Helgot <of Holdgate>) by her inclusion of folio 249b in her references.
	VITHFARI HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Wifare, Wiuara, Wiuar - represent Old Norse Vithfari: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 406. The printed Phillimore edition has the form Wivar, but this has been altered to the Old Norse form for the present edition, as JRM did not pronounce on it. The Alecto edition has Vithfari.
		It is possible that the Vithfari who was William son of Ansculf's predecessor in Rushall (12,26) was the same as this individual as both had held 'with full jurisdiction'. There is no known link, tenurial or geographical, between the Staffordshire T.R.E. holders called Vithfari and the only other occurrence of this name in Domesday, one of the predecessors of Earl Roger in Ryton (SHR 4,17,3).
		However, the three holdings are within a day's journey of each other so it is possible that they were held by one individual T.R.E., despite devolving upon three different tenants-in-chief (JP).
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
11,44	PATSHULL. The main scribe of Great Domesday originally wrote PECLECHELLA and then corrected the second C to an S; the result is poor with the lower bowl of the S below the rest of the line. He made the same mistake and corrected it in the same way in 8,18 (Locheslei).
		Patshull was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 163.
		The grid reference is to Patshull Hall (SJ802009).
	HUGH <OF MORTON>. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note.
		See VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 32 (JP).
	BROTHIR <OF OAKEN>. See 11,18 Brothir note.
11,45	OAKEN. This was a township in Codsall chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Codsall was later an Ancient Parish in its own right: Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 408. Oaken probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford. The barons were overlords of part of the estate in 1242-43 (Book of Fees, p. 974), but the Crown was holding part of the estate from the late twelfth century. An undertenant, Bertrand de Verdun, lord of Alton in Farley, gave 4 hides here to Croxden Abbey in the late 1170s, the barons of Stafford remaining as overlords. See Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 115; Feudal Aids, v. p. 16; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 83.
	HUGH <OF MORTON>. On the name Hugh, see B5 Hugh note. On his identification, see 11,44 Hugh note.
	BROTHIR <OF OAKEN>. See 11,18 Brothir note.
11,46	WROTTESLEY. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. The grid reference is to Wrottesley Hall (SJ849016).
		In the tenth century this estate was held by one Aelfhild and it was arranged that it should pass to her kinsman Wulfgeat of Donington (in Shropshire) if he should outlive her; see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1534 (= Early Charters of the West Midlands, no. 122, pp. 60, 118, 143, 149 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 19, pp 55-56, 163-67). The process by which the estate reached Hunta, the T.R.E. holder, is unclear.
		Robert of Stafford gave the estate to Evesham Abbey in 1072 (Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 178-82; Wrottesley, 'Family of Wrottesley', pp. 4-6), but he may have failed to complete the grant, or cancelled it following the death (in 1077) of the Abbot (Aethelwin) to whom he gave it. In 1088, Robert of Stafford, by then a monk and dying, granted this estate again, together with Loynton (11,53), to Evesham Abbey; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85; Wrottesley, 'Family of Wrottesley', pp. 6-7; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 158. Although it was claimed by Robert II of Stafford in 1166 and said to be held of the barony of Stafford in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 10) it was held by Evesham Abbey at the Dissolution (Valor Ecclesiasticus, iii. p. 253); see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 26.
	CLODOAN HOLDS. The Domesday forms, Glodoen here and Clodoan at 11,60, apparently represent the Breton name Clodoan: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 174, who cites a Clodouan described as episcopi telonarius ('the bishop's toll-gatherer') from the Cartulary of the Abbey of Sainte-Croix in Quimperlé (c. 1074-76), but it is improbable that he is the same individual. This Breton name does not, however, appear in Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, though other Breton names are included in it. The printed Phillimore edition has Clodoen, altered to Clodoan for the present edition. The Alecto edition has Glædwine for STS 11,46 and Clodoan for STS 11,60.
	HUNTA HELD IT. The Domesday form of this name, Hunta, represents Old English Hunta, meaning 'a huntsman': von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 296. The Alecto edition has Hunta.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire, and its only other occurrences in Domesday Book are in HAM NF9,22;26.
11,47	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This heading is supplied from later evidence of the location of the four places listed in 11,47-50.
	OAKLEY. This was a settlement in Croxall Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. Croxall itself lay in Derbyshire in 1086 and was surveyed there (DBY 6,14). It was transferred to Staffordshire in 1895. The grid reference is to Oakley Farm (SK192132).
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 267-70; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
	HELIO <OF OAKLEY>. See 11,26 Helio note.
	WULFWIN. The Domesday forms of this name - Wluuin(us), Vluuin(us), Vluin(us), Oluuin[us], Vlfuuin[us], Wluuine, Wluin[us] etc. - represent Old English Wulfwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 427-28. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English -wine. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Wulfwin and, in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, Wulfwine; these have now been standardized as Wulfwin. The Alecto edition has Wulfwine.
11,48	2 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the hidage of Syerscote and Scribe B later interlined .ii. hidas. above FRICESCOTE. He used the same pen and ink (a pale one, similar to the one used by the main scribe here) when he made a very similar insertion in 11,64 (11,64 hides note) and also corrected the hidage in 2,16 (2,16 hides note). The main scribe corrected part of the word seruo later in this entry (11,48 slave note), but presumably could not add the hidage. For scribe B's other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.
	SYERSCOTE. The Domesday form is Fricescote. The philological connection of the two names is uncertain, though if the initial letter F was a miscopying of an S at some stage in the Domesday process the connection is clearer. The identification of this place, however, seems established by the fact that Syerscote was later held by the Stafford barony; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 62. Syerscote was a township of Tamworth Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Syerscote and Wychnor (11,49) are held from the barony of Stafford in Book of Fees, p. 967. However, the same two places (or parts of them) are also among fees of the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby (descent from Henry of Ferrers, STS 10); see Book of Fees, p. 542; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7. In all cases where the subtenant is named, it is a member of de Somerville family. It is possible that there was some confusion about the overlord.
		The grid reference is to Syerscote Manor (SK223075). Syerscote Barn is at SJ2206.
	THORKIL [* OF WARWICK *]. The Domesday forms of Thorkil - Turchil, Torchil, Turchill(us), Turchetel, Torchetel, Turketel, Torchill[us], Torchel, Thurchill[us] - represent Old Danish Thorkil, Old Norse Thorkell: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 394-95. The Phillimore printed edition has the forms Thorkell, Thorketel and Thorketill (the last following Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 309-11); these have now been standardized as Thorkil, although the presence in Domesday of a few -chetel and -ketel endings suggests that there might have been two forms of this name current then. The Alecto edition has Thorkil for T.R.E. holders, but both Thorkil and Turchil (as here) for 1086 holders.
		On his identification, see VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 34 (JP).
	THE KING'S TOLL. The Latin is de theloneo regis. Theloneum was a levy on trade, usually on the transport and sale of goods, payable to the king. This particular toll may be connected with Syerscote's proximity to the borough of Tamworth.
	THEY HAD THE REST OF THE JURISDICTION. The Latin is alia[m] soca[m] habeb[ant], aliam being used here, as not uncommonly, for ceteram ('the rest of'). Latin alius often has this meaning when two situations or figures are compared. Thus in the Liber Exoniensis, the circuit volume for circuit II, the lordship hidage of an estate is separated from the hidage held by the 'men' (villagers, smallholders etc.) and, especially in the Cornwall section, aliam terram was regularly used for the men's holding, meaning that they held all the other/remaining land (of the total given) that was not in lordship. The Alecto edition has 'they had the rest of the soke'.
		The Phillimore printed edition has 'they had a different jurisdiction' which is nowhere explained in a note. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 52, translates as 'jurisdiction of another kind', which may have influenced the Phillimore translation. The sentence looks as if it should be read with that preceding, the two together giving the sense that the four thanes had full jurisdiction except that involving the toll. They could also commend themselves and their land to whomsoever they wished. In such a context, soca alone (the power to compel their men to do suit and service at the manor's court) makes little sense without saca (the right to adjudicate, judge, fine and punish in that same court) and it is likely that soca stands for both sac and soc in its widest sense (see B11 jurisdiction note), as sometimes elsewhere. The king presumably reserved the toll to himself because he was lord of the adjacent Wigginton (1,9); see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 62-63.
	PLOUGH[S?] POSSIBLE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Ibi poss' e[ss]e .car'. JRM's note reads: 'The c of car' is written over a figure i. It may be that the regional return read possunt esse i car' ('1 plough are possible'), and that the compiler noticed the error, but had no further information'. The scribe only started a i and turned it into a c at once; the punctus before it is the usual one after the abbreviation for esse (compare HEF 10,6).
		This formula appears to replace the normal plough estimate ('Land for n ploughs'), but is one that was used in Domesday Yorkshire and Shropshire (together also with the 'Land for ... ' formula; see SHR 1,5 land note). In the present case it may have been in the putative circuit volume and the scribe failed to convert it to the normal formula (such oversights can be seen sporadically throughout Great Domesday). The poss' could abbreviate posset, third person singular present subjunctive ('there could/might be': a 'potential' subjunctive), rather than possunt (third person plural, present indicative): 'there can be'). This would fit with '1 plough', if that had been the reading in the scribe's source.
		At the end of his note JRM added: 'It had' is a possible alternative to 'they had'. This appears to be a comment on the previous sentence, Latin aliâ socâ habeb' (see 11,48 jurisdiction note), which has nothing to do with the ploughs possible and appears to be a fragment of a note not printed.
	SLAVE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the o of seruo in the same dark ink he used for two other minor corrections in this county; see 1,53 Alward note and 2,5 holds note. There is a punctus visible almost under the o as well, perhaps the expected one at the end of a sentence, but because it was written too close to it he added another one. The lack of an abbreviation sign after the original seru is odd.
11,49	WYCHNOR. This was a chapelry of Tatenhill Ancient Parish; it is sometimes written as Wichnor. Tatenhill itself is not named in Domesday, though another member of the Ancient Parish (Barton-under-Needwood) was; see 1,20 Barton note. Wychnor probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 7; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		Wychnor and Syerscote (11,48) are held from the barony of Stafford in Book of Fees, pp. 967, 974. However, the same two places (or parts of them) are also among fees of the honour of Tutbury, held by the Ferrers, Earls of Derby (descent from Henry of Ferrers, STS 10); see Book of Fees, pp. 542, 969, 975; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7. In all cases where the subtenant is named, it is a member of de Somerville family. It is possible that there was some confusion about the overlord.
	ROBERT. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
11,50	[HAMSTALL] RIDWARE. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Offlow Hundred; another portion (5,2) is directly below an Offlow hundred heading. It was in the same hundred later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280. For other parts, see 5,2. 8,26.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 543 (Hamstede Ridewale) and p. 967 (Media Rideware). According to Shaw, History of Staffordshire, i. p. 152 (see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 52 note 50), this particular estate may have been at Cowley (SK1018) near Nethertown. However, in a deed of 1157 x 1160, Robert of Stafford describes this estate as Rydeware; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 240-41; see also Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 247-52.
	HERMAN. The Domesday forms of this name - Herman, Heremann(us), Herman[us], Hermen - represent Old German Her(e)man: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 290; Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 149-50. The Alecto edition also has Herman.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WOODLAND ... IN WIDTH 1 LEAGUE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote the .i. , either over an erasure or an imperfection in the parchment. His use of 'in width' rather than 'wide' here is odd in view of his use of 'long' earlier in the woodland details.
11,51	IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote this hundred head, which governs the remaining entries in this fief (11,51-68), at the end of the first line of this entry, as usual. In the Phillimore printed edition it is not treated as a heading but incorporated in the first sentence of the entry: 'Robert himself holds in CUTTLESTONE Hundred 2 hides'. This might have been because of the omission of the location of the 2 hides.
	2 HIDES. They were probably at Weston Jones (SJ7624) in Norbury; see Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, iii. pp. 25-26; Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 72 and table iv facing p. 70; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 52 note 51. The identification depends on the fact that this unnamed estate and Haughton (11,52) were both held by "Urfer" in 1086 and Weston Jones and Haughton were later held by the Haughton family, the probable descendants of "Urfer". Both estates were held from the barons of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 159. The Book of Fees, p. 543, identifies the place as Weston' Johannis, and it is assessed at 2 hides both in Domesday and in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114.
		With Norbury (8,10) and Loynton (11,53) this estate combines to make a unit of five hides; see {Introduction: Hidation}.
	"URFER" <OF HAUGHTON>. See 11,14 "Urfer" note.
	WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	WOODLAND, 1 FURLONG. The furlong is here apparently being used as a square measure; see 11,40 furlongs note.
11,52	HAUGHTON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (where it is misprinted as Hasenton'); VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 138.
	"URFER" <OF HAUGHTON>. See 11,14 "Urfer" note.
	WULFRIC, A FREE MAN. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined lib[er] ho[mo], perhaps later, though the pen and ink are very similar to those of the rest of the entry; see 8,24 free note.
11,53	LOYNTON. This was a settlement in the township of Weston Jones which lay in Norbury Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 176. Norbury itself (8,10) probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086, and the sequence of estates here suggests that Loynton was probably in that hundred as well although it is listed in Pirehill Hundred in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. It is adjacent to the putative boundary of the two hundreds.
		This estate, together with Wrottesley (11,46), was granted in 1088 by Robert of Stafford to Evesham Abbey; see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 158.
	GILBERT <OF ASTON>. See 11,11 Gilbert note.
	AELRIC. The Domesday forms of this name - Ailric, Ailricus, Aeilric, Aelric[us], Eilric, Alricus, Aeilric, Eilricus etc. - represent Old English Æthelric: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 186-87. As these forms did not include the medial -d- or -g-, JRM did not accept them as representing this name. In several counties in the Phillimore printed edition they appear as Alric and in others as Aelfric. The Alecto edition has Æthelric, although not for 11,62, where it has Alric, though the Domesday form is Aelric[us].
	ORDMER. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.
11,54	WILBRIGHTON. This was a settlement in Gnosall Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 157. Like Gnosall itself (7,18) it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. The grid reference is to Wilbrighton Hall (SJ794186).
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 123.
	LAURENCE. The Domesday form of this name, Laurenti[us], is Latin and the name of a third-century saint. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Laurence and Lawrence; these have now been standardized as Laurence. The Alecto edition has Laurence.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire, but a Laurence was Robert of Stafford's subtenant in Berkshire (BRK 42,1). As this name only occurs once elsewhere in Domesday (LEC 16,7) as a subtenant of Robert of Vessey, the Staffordshire and Berkshire tenants called Laurence may have been the same person (though the estates are far apart), though it is unlikely that the Leicestershire man was too. However, Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 289, includes a reference to the Laurence in Leicestershire, but does not mention that he did not hold from Robert of Stafford.
		See VCH Staffordshire, i. p. 33 note 10 (JP).
11,55	BRINETON. This was a settlement in Blymhill Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 129. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 68.
	WARIN [* "MALICORNE" *]. The Domesday forms of this name - Warin[us], Garin(us) - represent Old German Warin, Werin, Old French Guarin, Garin etc: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 246-47. The Alecto edition has Warin here.
		He is identified as Warin Malicorne who witnessed a charter of Robert of Stafford in 1088: Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', pp. 182-85. See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 460, who suggests he was also Robert's tenant Warin in Warwickshire (WAR 22,17), though she does not include a folio reference for this holding.
11,56	BLYMHILL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 65.
	WARIN [* "MALICORNE" *]. See 11,55 Warin note.
	"RUSCOTE". It clearly lay near Blymhill. It is identified as Brockhurst in the Phillimore printed edition, following VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 53 note 54, which was based on Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History' p. 170, and Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 31-32. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 35-36, left this place unidentified. The evidence presented by Bridgeman is suggestive but does not seem to clinch the identification, since, although Brockhurst descended within the barony of Stafford (VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 69), it could have arisen by the later division of Blymhill or of Brineton, rather than be the successor of "Ruscote". Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 160, identify "Ruscote" with Brockhurst and place it in a ten-hide unit otherwise consisting of Blymhill (11,56), Brineton (11,55), Sheriffhales (8,5), Weston[-under-Lizard] (14,1), Beighterton and Brockton Grange (14,1). The proximity to Blymhill is established by Domesday itself, but that does not prove the identity with Brockhurst. Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 129, notes the identification but does not include "Ruscote" among early forms of Brockhurst. The derivations are quite different, from Old English rysc and cot(e) ('rush cottage' or 'cottage near rushes') and Old English brocc and hyrst ('badger copse') respectively.
		It is left unidentified in the Alecto edition.
11,57	STRETTON. The Domesday form Estretone shows the Norman prosthetic E- prefixed to the difficult Old English consonantal group Str- to aid pronounciation.
		Stretton was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (mistranscribed as Preston'); Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 164. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 16, the Bishop of Chester is recorded as holding Stretton in Cuttlestone Hundred. If this is not an error, he was presumably holding from the Stafford barony.
	HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Herveus, Hervicus, Herveius, Hervicius - represent Old German Herewig, Herewicus, Romance Her(e)veus, Old French Hervieu, Hervi: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 150-51. JRM preferred the modern English name Hervey, but in the Phillimore printed edition of Kent it appears as Harvey and in Yorkshire as Herewig; these have now been standardized as Hervey. The Alecto edition also has Hervey.
		It is likely that all Robert of Stafford's subtenants called Hervey in this county (11,57-59;61;64, the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Staffordshire) are the same person, as is probably his tenant Hervey in Warwickshire (WAR 22,23).
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. This is presumably land that was formerly waste (but has now recovered) and whose assessment in hides was unknown; see 1,5 carucate note.
	WOODLAND HAS [IS]. See 1,7 woodland note.
11,58	[WATER] EATON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 2, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. This place is distinguished from Church Eaton (11,65) in the same hundred by its etymology: it is ea tun ('farmstead by the river') rather than eg tun ('island farmstead'); see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. pp. 92, 140. The two Eatons are also differentiated by the descent of the manors and Church Eaton is named from the church of the priest who is mentioned in Domesday.
		This estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Feudal Aids, v. p. 2; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 122. It is coupled with Duneston' [Dunston, 1,7] and Drayton' [Drayton, 1,7], both parts of Penkridge Ancient Parish, in Book of Fees, p. 543. It is held from Richard de Stretton in Book of Fees, p. 967, and Feudal Aids, v. p. 2, and from the same man with Streton' [Stretton, 11,57] and Mulewyz [Milwich, 11,30] in Book of Fees, p. 974.
	HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.
	ORDMER HELD IT. On this name, see 11,12 Ordmer note.
	VALUE 8s. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of shillings by joining together the first two minims to form a v.
11,59	GAILEY. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 87. Like Penkridge itself (1,7. 7,17) and other members of its later parish, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		Gageleage was given by Wulfric Spot to Burton Abbey, his foundation, in his will (1002 x 1004): Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxix no. 34). It was confirmed on the abbey by King Ethelred in 1004: Early Charters of Northern England, p. 99 no. 40 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 906 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 48-53 no. 28). If it ever reached its destination, it had been alienated by 1066.
		After 1086 Gailey descended in the barony of Stafford and was given 1158 x 1165 with the consent of Robert II of Stafford to the nuns of Blithbury (in Mavesyn Ridware); see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 244-45. From them it passed to the nuns (Black Ladies) of Brewood. It was in the hands of the king (Richard I) in 1189 and in 1200 King John gave Broom (in Worcestershire) to the nuns in compensation. By 1247, Gailey was the name of a hay in Cannock Forest: VCH Staffordshire, v. pp. 113-14.
	HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.
	BODIN HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Bodin, Bodin(us), Boding - may derive from the Old German Baudin, the hypothetical Romance Bodin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 204, and see Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 50-51. The Alecto edition has Bodin. The form Boding, used for the constabularius in BUK 27,1-2, is an error for Bondi; the Alecto edition has Bondi the staller for these two occurrences.
11,60	OTHERTON. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 91. The Domesday name Orretone stands for Old English other tun ('another' or 'second farmstead') and distinguishes this tun from one adjacent; to the south-west lies Rodbaston (13,9), to the north-east 'Bedintone' (4,10). Otherton probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 117.
	CLODOAN. See 11,46 Clodoan note
	AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.
11,61	[GREAT] SAREDON. Saredon, represented by Great Saredon and Little Saredon, was originally a township in Shareshill chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish; it was a separate Ancient Parish by 1551; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 421. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 3, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. Robert's Sardone was Great Saredon. For another part (Little Saredon), see 17,2.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 175. It is Magna Sardon' in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, and Heresardon' in Feudal Aids, v. p. 3.
	HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.
11,62	COVEN. This was originally a settlement in Brewood Ancient Parish; later it was an extra-parochial area, then, from 1858, a Civil Parish; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 409. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 30.
	BURGRED <OF COVEN>. In 1166 his land was held by Geoffrey of Coppenhall (named from Coppenhall, 11,63). It is not certain if Burgred was an ancestor of that family; see Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 171.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Burred, Borred, Borret, Burgered, Borgeret, Burret, Burgret, Borgred, Borgret, Borgretus, Burgeret, Borgered, Borgaret, Bugered, Bughered, Burredus, Bored, Boret, Buered, Bueret etc. - represent Old English Burgræd: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 212. JRM preferred the second element -ed for the Old English -æd. The Alecto edition has Burgræd.
		Robert of Stafford's tenant in Coppenhall (11,63) was almost certainly the same man. These are the only occurrences of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.
	THIS WOODLAND IS IN THE KING'S LORDSHIP. Woodland was usually a resource enjoyed by the whole village, rather than being the preserve of the lord of the manor or the king; compare 1,31 mill note. It probably formed part of what became the Forest of Brewood; see {Introduction: Forest}; compare 7,6 forest note.
	VALUE OF THE LAND, 16s. That is, the arable land and the meadow to support the oxen, but not including the woodland that was in the king's lordship.
11,63	COPPENHALL. This was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 139.
	BURGRED <OF COVEN>. See 11,62 Burgred note.
11,64	3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted the hidage of Shareshill, but scribe B later interlined .iii. hidas. above SERVESED, extending the long s of hidas down after the place-name. He used the same pen and ink (a pale one, similar to the one used by the main scribe here) when he made a virtually identical insertion in 11,48 (11,48 hides note) and corrected the hidage in 2,16 (2,16 hides note), though the surface of the parchment in the present entry has absorbed more of the ink so the words look fatter. For his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.
	SHARESHILL. The Domesday form is Servesed which shares the same first element with Shareshill and is probably to be identified with it. However, the second element is not found among any of the later forms although these fluctuate between derivation from Old English hyll ('hill') and Old English scylf ('shelf', 'site on shelving terrain'); see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. pp. 115-16.
		Shareshill was a chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish, then, from 1551, a separate Ancient Parish; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. pp. 420-21. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (where the name is printed as Farnsulf); Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 174.
	HERVEY <OF STRETTON>. See 11,57 Hervey note.
11,65	[CHURCH] EATON. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		A charter of King Athelstan dated 850 [for 940] grants 5 cassati at Eatun to the thane Brihthelm: Early Charters of Northern England, p, 90 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 392 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 7-9 no. 4). The charter is in the Burton archives, but no 'Eaton' was held by the abbey, and there is no reason to think that a place in Staffordshire was meant. The same is true of the fabricated grant purporting to date from 949 of 10 manentes at Eatun by King Edred to his faithful thane Athelstan: Early Charters of Northern England, p, 92 no. 84 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 545 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 15-16 no. 10. However, Hart in Early Charters of Northern England, p. 92, maintains that the 10 manentes are equivalent to the assessment in hides of Church Eaton (11,65), Lapley (NTH 16,1) and High Onn (8,8). However, the Domesday assessments of these places amount to 8 hides (3 hides in Church Eaton, 3 hides in Lapley and 2 hides in High Onn).
		The Domesday estate descended within the barony of Stafford (see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 92) and included the settlement of Orslow (SJ8015); see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 96. It is distinguished from the other Eaton (Water Eaton, 11,58) by being held by the de Brinton family. It is coupled with Orselawe [Orslow] in Book of Fees, p. 967, and with Levedenhal' [Levedale, 11,66] and Pateshull' [Patshull,11,44] in Book of Fees, p. 974.
		This place is also distinguished from Water Eaton (11,58) in the same hundred by its etymology: it is eg tun ('island farmstead') rather than ea tun ('farmstead by the river'); see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. pp. 92, 140. The distinction of Church Eaton from Water Eaton is also due to the descent of the respective manors and to the presence of a priest here, whose church gave this Eaton its distinctive affix. This church was given to the Benedictine Abbey of Polesworth (Warwickshire) between 1166 and 1185; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 98.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
		This undertenancy had passed via one Edelina to her son Hamon, lord of Longford (Shropshire), by 1166; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 93.
	VILGRIP <OF WYTHEFORD> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Wilegrip, Willegrip, Wilgripus - represent Old Danish Vilgrip: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 405. The printed Phillimore edition has Wilgrip; this has now been changed to Vilgrip. The Alecto edition has Vilgrip. See 11,32 Vithgrip note.
	WOODLAND. This became the area known as Wood Eaton; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 94.
11,66	LEVEDALE. The Domesday form is Levehale, meaning Leofa's halh, that is Leofa's 'nook of land' or 'water-meadow'. The later spellings are influenced by Middle English levedi; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 90. This was a settlement in Penkridge township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 89. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 967, 974; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (mistranscribed as Lonedil); Feudal Aids, v. p. 1; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 114.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly LEVEHALE, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the second L appears as a b; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	BRIAN <OF RAUCEBY>. See 11,15 Brian note.
	DROGO <OF WHITLEY>. A possible successor was a Matthew of Whitley who was named from Drogo's holding under Robert of Stafford in Warwickshire (WAR 22,25) and who attested a charter of Nicholas of Stafford to Kenilworth Priory (Warwickshire); see Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary I', p. 194; Eyton, 'Staffordshire Chartulary II', pp. 195-98; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 181.
		The Domesday form of this name, Drogo, represents Old German Drogo, Norman French Dru, Driu, Dreu: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 60-61. The Alecto edition has Drogo.
	FROM HIM. In the manuscript this is clearly de eo, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as de co; on other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
11,67	RICKERSCOTE. This was a settlement in the chapelry of Castle Church of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 75. Castle Church became a separate Ancient Parish in the sixteenth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 82; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 407. Rickerscote probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		The estate descended within the barony of Stafford; see Book of Fees, p. 967; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 89.
	ROBERT. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
	EARL EDWIN. See 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note. That Earl Edwin was the T.R.E. holder of Rickerscote (and of "Monetvile", 11,68) suggests that both were part of Bradley (11,6) also held by him in 1066. They are only not listed with Bradley in Domesday because they were subinfeudated; see STS 11 Robert note and 11,6 Bradley note.
11,68	"MONETVILE". It was probably in Castle Church near Stafford. The ending vil(l)e marks a recently established French place-name; the prefix suggests that it may have been connected with Stafford mint, Latin moneta (JRM). Castle Church was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stafford St Mary and became a separate Ancient Parish in the sixteenth century; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 82; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 407. "Monetvile" may be represented by the later manor of 'Castel' or 'Castle' where the castle of the barons of Stafford was sited; see Mazzinghi, 'Manor and Parish of Castre', pp. 14-20; Carter, 'Monetville'; Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 36; Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 53 note 60, v. pp. 82-89; Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 75. If "Monetvile" is a post-1066 place-name, it is possible that this hide had another name, or that it was a part of the manor of Bradley, and was granted out of it to a particular individual who perhaps was a moneyer. On this and on the castle, see 11,6 Bradley note.
	WALTER. On this name, see 8,9 Walter note.
	ANSGER. The Domesday forms of this name of 1086 tenants - Ansger, Ansgerus, Ansgerius - represent Old German Ansger: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 167, at the end of his account of Old Norse Asgeirr, Old Danish Esger for T.R.E. holders. See also Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 31-32. The Alecto edition has Ansgar and Ansger.
	FROM HIM . The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote de eo over an erasure. In the central margin level with this there is an erased note, probably connected with this correction and also with one later in the line; see 11,68 are note. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	EARL EDWIN. On this T.R.E. holder, see 8,5 Edwin note, and on the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note. On the relationship of "Monetvile" to Bradley, see 11,67 Edwin note.
	THEY ARE THERE. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote sunt over the erasure of something occupying the same amount of space, possibly a figure. In the central margin level with this there is an erased note, probably connected with this correction or with one earlier in the line; see 11,68 from note. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left a small space before beginning the next chapter (STS 12).
12	LAND OF WILLIAM SON OF ANSCULF. On the name William, see B8 William note. On the name of his father, see B8 Ansculf note. He was also known as William of Picquigny from the French place (département Somme, arrondissement Amiens). Ansculf, his father, was sheriff of Surrey under King William, but had died before 1086. William's Domesday fief became the barony of Dudley (Worcestershire) where he had already established a castle (WOR 23,10). His heir was Beatrice, his daughter, who married Fulk Paynel. The barony had devolved to the de Somery family by the late twelfth century. See Sanders, English Baronies, p. 113; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 484.
	In this fief, lands held in lordship are entered first (12,1-3), followed by those that are subinfeudated (12,4-29). The transition from one to the other takes place in a group of estates in Seisdon Hundred (12,1-21). For the two entries added after rubrication on folio 250b, which were numbered as part of this fief in error, see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note.
		12,1-21 Seisdon Hundred. Lordship land (12,1-3); subinfeudations (12,4-21)
		12,22 Cuttlestone Hundred. Subinfeudation
		12,23-29 Offlow Hundred. Subinfeudations.
		_____________________________
		12,30-31 Added entries for land actually in Oxfordshire; not part of the fief of William son of Ansculf.
	In addition to the lands listed in William son of Ansculf's fief in Staffordshire Domesday, he also held West Bromwich in that county. This is entered erroneously in the Northamptonshire folios (NTH 36,3); see {Introduction: Places Entered in the Wrong Domesday County}.
12,1	SEDGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. For another part, also held by William son of Ansculf, see 12,4.
		Sedgley descended within the barony of Dudley; in Feudal Aids, v. p. 9 it is coupled with Dudley itself, Roger de Somery holding the castle of Duddel' and the manor of Seggesley; see also Feudal Aids, v. p. 9; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 116.
	EARL ALGAR. See 1,11 Algar note.
	THE PRIESTS OF WOLVERHAMPTON CLAIM. There is no estate belonging to the church of Wolverhampton that is adjacent to Sedgley. However, it is possible that the woodland of one of the Wolverhampton manors was detached and lay near Sedgley.
		On this claim, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1474.
12,2	MORFE. This was a settlement in Enville Ancient Parish. Like Enville itself (12,10), it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. Today Morfe itself is at SO8288, Morfe House Farm is at SO824884, Little Morfe at SO829881 and Morfe Hall Farm at SO828877.
		This settlement probably named or was named from the Forest of Morfe. Morfe itself had extensive woodland, but the bulk of the future forest seems to have lain further to the west and south, in Shropshire and in the manors of Claverley, Kingsnordley, Alveley (8,1-3) and Worfield (9,1) held by Earl Roger and his son Hugh; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 51; and {Introduction: Forest}. These four manors were moved to Shropshire soon after 1086.
		Morfe itself appears to have descended within the barony of Dudley, being subinfeudated for a long period to the de Sutton family; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 105.
	THE WOODLAND HAS 2 LEAGUES LENGTH AND AS MUCH WIDTH. The main scribe of Great Domesday omitted what measured 2 leagues by 2 leagues, but scribe B later interlined Silua above longit[udinem]. His pen and ink are similar to those used by the main scribe here, but the form of the S is definitely that of scribe B. For his other contributions to Domesday Staffordshire, see 2,11 land note.
		The sentence Silua longitudinem habet. ii. leuuarum 7 tantundem latitudinem is unusual, standing for the more normal Silua habet .ii. leuuas in longitudine 7 latitudine (as in 12,18, though with a change in dimension) or Silua .ii. leuuas in longitudine 7 latitudine (as in 12,11, but with a change of figure) or Silua ii leuuas longa 7 tantundem lata (as in 11,54 with a change of figure). It is possible that 7 t'ntd' lat' should be expanded to 7 tantundem lata ('and as wide'), the scribe having forgotten that he had begun with habet ('has') rather than with est ('is').
12,3	CHASEPOOL. This was a settlement in Swindon Liberty in the Ancient Parish of Wombourne. Swindon itself (SO8690) is not named in Domesday. The village of Chasepool seems to have been lost in the royal forest. A hay was named after it, but it is represented only by Chasepool Farm, formerly Chasepool Lodge; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 54 note 65, xx. p. 208. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table facing p. 67, suggested an identification with Gospel End, following Erdeswick, Survey of Staffordshire, but it was identified by Wrottesley, 'Final Concords temp. Henry III', p. 253, with Chasepool; see Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 171.
		The grid reference is to Chasepool Farm (SO8589).
	IN THE KING'S FOREST. That is, in what became known as Kinver Forest.
12,4	SEDGLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. For another part, which is directly beneath a Seisdon hundred head, see 12,1.
		For the descent of Sedgley, see 12,1 Sedgley note.
		In the manuscript this place-name appears clearly as SEGLESLEI, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the G appears as a C; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	GEOFFREY <OF SEDGLEY>. On the name Geoffrey, see 8,25 Geoffrey note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. Latin ac[ra]s is in the accusative case, the object of Goisfridus ... habet in the previous line. This means that uill' should be extended to the accusative uillanos. The Phillimore printed edition fails to indicate this, though the Alecto edition does.
12,5	PENN. Lower Penn (SO8795) and Upper Penn (SO8696) were separate townships in Penn Ancient Parish. Penn probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Both Penne Buffard and alia Penne were fees of Roger de Somery (barony of Dudley) in Book of Fees, p. 543. Penne Buffard appears again in Book of Fees, p. 968, and as Penna Inferior held by Robert Buffar[i] from Roger de Somery in Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16. Alia Penne is coupled with Bissopesbr' [Bushbury, 12,19] in Book of Fees, p. 543, and these reappear as Bissebur[i] and Penne Superior in Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', pp. 112-13. Bushbury (12,19) and the Penn of 12,6 are held by a Robert under William son of Ansculf in 1086, and it is possible therefore that the Penn of 12,6 is Upper Penn, leaving the present holding, with Gilbert as subtenant, as Lower Penn.
	GILBERT <OF PENN> HOLDS. His successor was Ralph de Euenefeld, according to Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 215. A Gilbert is also a tenant of William son of Ansculf at Enville (12,10), whose Domesday form (Efnefeld) is the same as Euenefeld, suggesting that he is the same as this Gilbert, as is William's other tenant Gilbert (12,13). On the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.
	COUNTESS GODIVA HELD. See 4,2 Godiva note.
12,6	PENN. Lower Penn (SO8795) and Upper Penn (SO8696) were separate townships in Penn Ancient Parish. Penn probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		Both estates called Penn descended in the barony of Dudley. On the possible identity of the present one, see 12,5 Penn note.
	ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. It would seem that Robert here was the same person as William's subtenant of Bushbury (12,19) which was later linked with Penn; see 12,5 Penn note. By the folio references she provides, Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 395, suggests that all the tenants of William son of Ansculf in Staffordshire (12,6;9;18-19;24-25) as well as in Buckinghamshire (BUK 17,21) were the same person. However, the Robert in 12,24-25 is almost certainly Robert d'Oilly (see 12,25 Barr note) and the only evidence linking William's other tenants with this name is mentioned above. Robert was a very common name.
	EARL ALGAR HELD. See 1,11 Algar note.
12,7	3 HIDES. The main scribe of Great Domesday probably corrected the hidage from an original .i. by adding a minim at the beginning and end and a new punctus before the new first minim very close to the place-name, but not one after the new third minim.
	ORTON. This was a settlement in Wombourne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		After 1086, Orton descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 202.
	WALBERT <OF FULSTOW>. See 11,41 Walbert note.
	WULFSTAN <OF ORTON> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlstan(us), Vlestan(us), Vltan(us), Vlfstan, Wlstan(us), Vltainus, Vstanus etc. - represent Old English Wulfstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 425. The Alecto edition also has Wulfstan.
		William son of Ansculf was preceded by a Wulfstan on three estates (12,7;12;20), but Wulfstan was a very common name and there are no other links to suggest that they were the same individual.
		The name Wulfstan occurs on three holdings in Staffordshire, all acquired by the same tenant-in-chief and all lying within a few miles of each other; it is probable that they were all held by the same individual. No other Wulfstan had tenurial associations with William son of Ansculf or held land within 40 miles of these holdings (JP).
12,8	THE MAIN SCRIBE of Great Domesday wrote around the diagonal tear in the parchment in this entry, breaking the place-name after WAMBVR, but drawing a line linking it to the last two letters (NE), and leaving a space after saca, serui, ii and lib' in the following lines. Farley did not indicate these spaces, though he did for the place-name in 11,27, where the other side of the tear occurs. For the neat patch applied to this tear on the recto of folio 249, see 11,27 parchment note.
	WOMBOURNE. This was an Ancient Parish, sometimes known as Wombourn. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		After 1086, Wombourne descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 202. Swindon (at SO8690 in Wombourne Ancient Parish), not mentioned in Domesday, appears to have been part of this estate; it is coupled with Womburne [Wombourne] and Oxeleg' [Oxley, 12,9] in Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 10. VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 207, couples it with Himley (12,12).
	RALPH <OF WOMBOURNE>. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 346, points out that this Ralph's successor in the twelfth century was Guy de Offeni and that Ralph was possibly his ancestor. The place of origin might be Offignies, in the French département of Somme (arrondissement Amiens, canton Poix-en-Picardie).
		On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note.
	THORSTEN HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Turstan, Turstan[us], Turstin(us), Tursten, Turstane, Turtin - represent Old Danish Thorsten, Old Norse Thorsteinn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 396. In the printed Phillimore edition this T.R.E. holder appears as Thurstan and (for YKS) as Thorsteinn; these have now been standardized as Thorsten. The Alecto edition has Thorsten.
	A PRIEST. The church appears to have been pre-Conquest as it is dedicated to St Benedict Biscop; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 217.
	£3. In the Alecto facsimile there is a v-shaped mark between lib' and the punctus after it, perhaps the bottom edge of the third of a series of three holes and a tear in the parchment, round which the main scribe of Great Domesday wrote; see 11,27 parchment note. On other unusual reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
12,9	OXLEY. This was a settlement in Bushbury Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968.
	ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
		On the identification by Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 395, see 12,6 (JP).
	GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.
12,10	ENVILLE. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The Domesday form is Efnefeld, and later forms include Evenefeld (Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283) and Evenefeud (Feudal Aids, v. p. 15; Book of Fees, p. 968), meaning 'smooth/ level piece of open land'. The change in the second element to 'vill' was comparatively late.
		This estate descended within the barony of Dudley and included Lutley (SO8188); see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 96, 103.
	GILBERT <OF PENN>. See 12,5 Gilbert note, and on the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.
	ALRIC. On this name-form, see 2,22 Alric note.
	WITH JURISDICTION. If this were a Danelaw county, the Latin cum soca could mean 'with a Jurisdiction', 'with jurisdiction-land', 'with sokeland'. Here it most probably stands for cum saca et soca ('with full jurisdiction'). On the meaning of this phrase, see B11 jurisdiction note. The Phillimore printed edition has 'with the jurisdiction'; the Alecto edition has 'with the soke'.
	IN THE FOREST. That is, presumably, the royal forest of Kinver; see {Introduction: Forest}. The wood of Enville was probably the nucleus of the later Enville Chase.
12,11	"CIPPEMORE". Like the surrounding entries it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086. JRM's note reads: 'Probably between Enville and Kinver, VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 54'. In fact, apart from deducing the hundred in which it lay, there is no certainty as to its location. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 35, left it unidentified but suggested that it lay in the forest of Kinver and that 'the king or his successors appropriated and afforested the whole manor after Domesday'. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, says that 'the map shows a Combere close by Kinver'; he is referring to Comber, SO842835. Bridgeman and Mander pp. 164-65, 170, were inclined to locate it near Great Moor in Pattingham. The fact that both names share the same common element, Old English mor ('moor'), is not a convincing argument, but their main reason is their reconstruction of five-hide units in the shire: the three hides at "Cippemore" together with 2 hides at Pattingham (1,28) make a five-hide unit. However, an identification that rests solely on this is not secure. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 54 note 70 argues for a site 'in Kinver or in the south part of Enville' on the grounds that Cippemore is grouped with Enville, Himley, and Amblecote (12,10-14), moreover that, like Enville and Chasepool, Cippemore was partly in the king's forest, and that 'the wooded upland area to the south of Enville contains 2 pools named 'The Moors' and a tract of land named 'The Sheepwalks', possibly the Scipricg of Wulfrun's gift to Wolverhampton' (Bridgeman, 'Staffordshire Pre-Conquest Charters', p. 107). VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 107, locates it 'possibly in the Sheepwalks area' (SO8185). None of these arguments is strong. It is true that in Staffordshire, estates that shared the same later Ancient Parish are often grouped together in a fief, but Enville, Himley and Amblecote were Ancient Parishes themselves and there is no reason to think that Domesday is geographically arranged at this level. However, Cippemore might have been in the Ancient Parishes of Enville or Himley to which the entries surrounding it refer. The woodland of Cippemore lay in the king's forest, but that does not necessarily locate it very close to other places that were partly or wholly in the forest, whose 1086 extent is unknown. Identification of Cippemore with 'The Moors' encounters the same difficulty that undermines Bridgeman and Mander's identification with Great Moor: 'Moor' is too common an element in place-names for it to clinch a particular identification. The relation to 'The Sheepwalks' and Scipricg assumes that the first element of Cippemore is Old English sceap, scep, scip ('sheep') which requires emendation of the Domesday form.
		Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34, sensibly record it as a 'lost Domesday vill' probably in Kinver Forest'.
	ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.
	EDWIN HELD IT. On the name Edwin, see 7,13 Edwin note.
	TH KING HAS IT IN THE FOREST. That is, presumably, the royal forest of Kinver; see {Introduction: Forest}.
12,12	HIMLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		There were two estates in Himley (12,12-13), the present one held T.R.E. by two men (Wulfstan and Ravenkel) and the other by one (Lovet). The two estates appear to be related by a ratio of roughly two to one: 2 hides (less ½ virgate) and 1 hide, two holders and one, land for 3 ploughs and land for two, 8 villagers and 3 smallholders with 2 ploughs and 3 villagers and 2 smallholders with 1 plough, 2 acres of meadow and 1 acre. The estate of Himley had presumably been divided on a two-thirds/one third basis, perhaps between heirs; see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 54 note 71. It descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10. In this last it was still divided into two-thirds/one third as in Domesday.
	ARNI. The Domesday forms of this name - Erne, Erni, Arni, Earne - represent Old Danish/Old Norse Arni: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 163. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Arni and Earne; these have now been standardized as Arni. The Alecto edition has Arni.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>. See 12,7 Wulfstan note.
	RAVENKEL <OF HIMLEY> HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Rauenchil, Rauenchel, Rauechil, Ramechil, Ranchil, Rauechetel, Rauechet, Rauecate, Rauechel - represent Old Norse Hrafnkell, Old Swedish Ramkel: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 293. JRM preferred Raven- for the first element as it reflected most of the Domesday forms, and -k- for -ch-. The form Rafnketill, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Yorkshire, following the form given in Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, pp. 212-13; it has now been standardized as Ravenkel. The Alecto edition has Ramkel.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The closest other holdings are some 40 and 60 miles distant respectively, small properties with no tenurial associations with this Ravenkel (JP).
	WOODLAND. Silva, not silvae. Dimensions not stated (JRM).
12,13	IN THE SAME VILLAGE ^[HIMLEY]^. See 12,12 Himley note.
	GILBERT <OF PENN> HOLDS. See 12,5 Gilbert note, and on the name Gilbert, see 11,11 Gilbert note.
	LOVET HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Louet, Luuet, Loueth, Luueth - appear to represent the Anglo-Norman byname Luuet, Louet, a diminutive of Old French lou, leu ('wolf'): von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 322; Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 363, who added Old French louet, leuet ('wolf cub'). The printed Phillimore edition has the form Lovett; this has now been altered to Lovet as there are no occurrences of -tt in the Domesday forms. The Alecto edition has Lovet, except for William Lovett in NTH 37.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire. It raises a difficulty noted by JRM in the Phillimore printed edition, that a name of Anglo-Norman origin is unexpected for a T.R.E. holder. JRM suggested 'Since Luuet was an English free man before 1066, the spelling may represent a regional pronunciation of Leuiet (Leofgeat), as with Luuare (12,27) for Leofwara [Leofwaru]. It is likely that two similar sounding names of different origins combined to give a common later form'.
12,14	AMBLECOTE. This was a settlement in Old Swinford Ancient Parish. Amblecote lay in Staffordshire in 1086, but Old Swinford lay in Worcestershire (WOR 23,11). Amblecote probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283; VCH Worcestershire, iii. pp. 217-18.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 111; Feudal Aids, v. p. 9.
		In 1966 Amblecote was divided between the boroughs of Stourbridge and Dudley and was wholly in Dudley from 1974; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. pp. 49, 53-54.
	PAYNE <OF HOGGESTON>. The Domesday forms of this name - Pagan(us), Pagen - represent the medieval Latin word paganus, Old French paien, 'a heathen; rustic; child whose baptism has been put off': von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 343. The name occurs quite frequently in Domesday Book, mostly as that of a 1086 tenant, and it is unlikely that it had retained its original meaning. JRM decided to render it as the modern name Payne. The Alecto edition has Payne, Pain and, once, Paganus, irrespective of whether the person held in 1066 or 1086.
		See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 321 (JP).
	TWO [***] OF EARL ALGAR'S MEN. There is a very neat erasure between Duo and hōes; the main scribe of Great Domesday may have originally written lib[er]i ('free') here.
		On Earl Algar, see 1,11 Algar note.
	WITHOUT JURISDICTION. In other words, without full jurisdiction, meaning that they did not have saca et soca, as in 8,7; see 8,7 jurisdiction note and, on the meaning of 'full jurisdiction', see B11 jurisdiction note.
	WOODLAND. [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday did not give any dimensions for the woodland and put a punctus after Silua, suggesting he did not intend to add them later. However, he left blank the rest of the line, before entering the value on the next line; on such spaces, see 1,8 after note.
12,15	TRYSULL. This was part of the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 15; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10.
	BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. According to VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 188, Baldwin is the same as the man who holds Frankley in Worcestershire (WOR 23,3) from William son of Ansculf, both Trysull and Frankley being held in the mid-twelfth century by Giles of Trysull.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Balduin(us), Baldeuin[us], Baldeuuin[us] - represent Old German Baldwin: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 191. The Alecto edition has Baldwin.
		Baldwin's father, Herlewin, came to England even before the reign of Edward the Confessor. Baldwin himself had a substantial holding before the Conquest and survived to hold under the Conqueror. The bulk of his holdings can be established from his distinctive pre-Conquest name and the links which this establishes. His holdings in 1086 were significantly different from those in 1066, only two being in his hands at both dates (BUK 17,15;24). Broadly speaking, his pre-Conquest lands were re-distributed to Hugh of Grandmesnil and William son of Ansculf, with Miles Crispin obtaining three holdings and several other tenants-in-chief a manor apiece. William son of Ansculf then re-endowed him with the bulk of his post-Conquest fee. See Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest'; Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 257-58; both lists include only Baldwin's pre-Conquest holdings (JP).
	THORGOT HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Turgot, Turgod, Turgotus - represent Old Danish Thorgot, Old Norse Thorgautr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 393. The Old Norse forms appear in the printed Phillimore edition of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, and the form Thurgot appears in Norfolk; these have now been standardized as Thorgot, as in the other Phillimore counties. The Alecto edition has Thorgot.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the mill and meadow details and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
12,16	'CROCKINGTON'. See 1,1 'Crockington' note.
	BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 12,15 Baldwin note.
	BUT THE JURISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. That is, probably over the three free men, rather than over 'Crockington'; for the phrase see 12,17 jurisdiction note. 'Crockington' was a detached part of the royal manor of Kingswinford (1,1). It is possible that this land has been alienated.
12,17	SEISDON. This was part of the chapelry of Trysull and Seisdon in Wombourne Ancient Parish. In 1086, it no doubt lay in Seisdon Hundred, which it named. It remained in that hundred; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10.
	WALBERT <OF FULSTOW>. See 11,41 Walbert note.
	THEIR JURISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. That is, the king had jurisdiction over them. The Latin is soca eorum regis erat. Since eorum is plural, it must refer to the men and not to the place. For a similar (though singular) phrase, see 17,2. The sentence seems to be parallel to and explained by that in 11,12: 'the king had the full jurisdiction of this Ordmer'.
		Like 'Crockington' (12,16), Seisdon may be alienated, royal land and was perhaps, like it, originally part of Kingswinford (1,1), of which it would have been a detached part.
	SERVANTS. Servientes regis, the King's Servants (or 'Serjeants'), occur at the end of several counties, in a separate chapter, individually named, with or instead of the King's Thanes or Almsmen. Unnamed Servientes are also sometimes listed in villages, as, for example, in LEC 13,63: T'ra est vi car'. In d'nio sunt ii car' cum i servo et xi vil'li et iiii soch'i cum iiii bord' et ix francig' servientibus habent x car' int' omnes. Though the Latin
	is ambiguous, the Servientes of Seisdon were probably, as in Leicestershire, not in lordship. They may or may not be comparable with the west-country radchenistre or radmans, 'riding men', and may or may not have anything but the name in common with later 'serjeantries' (JRM). See LEC 13,63 Frenchmen note.
		The 'servants' recorded among the other population in CHS 3,8. SHR 4,4,25 and WIL 12,4 were definitely not in lordship.
12,18	ETTINGSHALL. This was a settlement that was counted predominantly as part of Sedgley Ancient Parish. An Ecclesiastical Parish of Ettingshall was created in 1837 from parts of Sedgley Ancient Parish, Wolverhampton Ancient Parish and from Bilston which was originally a township and chapelry of Wolverhampton Ancient Parish; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 411. Ettingshall probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086
	ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
		On the identification by Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 395, see 12,6 (JP).
	THORSTEN HELD. On this name, see 12,8 Thorsten note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	THE WOODLAND HAS 3 FURLONGS IN LENGTH AND WIDTH. Here the main scribe of Great Domesday finally managed to get the formula of this detail correct; see 1,7 woodland note and compare 12,2 woodland note.
12,19	BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. For another part, see 7,3.
		The name means bishop's byrig, ('bishop's fortified place') and had presumably been, at some time, a possession or part of a possession of the bishops if Lichfield although it is not evidenced as such. The grid reference is to Bushbury Hall (SJ925024).
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10, 16.
	ROBERT <OF PENN>. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note. It would seem that he is the same person as the subtenant of Penn (12,6); see 12,5 Penn note.
	WULFRIC HELD. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	FOR THE SPACE left after the meadow detail and before the value statement, see 1,8 after note.
12,20	PENDEFORD. This was a settlement in Tettenhall Ancient Parish. Like Tettenhall itself (1,2. 7,5) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		Pendeford descended in the barony of Dudley. In the thirteenth century it was treated as a member of Sedgley (12,1); see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 112; Feudal Aids, v. p. 10; VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 23. In 1316 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 16) it was held by the prior of St Thomas' near Stafford, presumably from the barony of Dudley.
		Pendeford is represented by Pendeford Hall and Upper Pendeford Farm, both at SJ8903.
	ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.
	WULFSTAN <OF ORTON>. See 12,7 Wulfstan note.
	GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
12,21	MOSELEY. This was a settlement in Bushbury Ancient Parish. Like Bushbury itself (7,3. 12,19) it probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086. It is represented by Moseley itself at SJ9303, apparently an area name, Moseley Hall at SJ930040 and Moseley Old Hall at SJ934044.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, p. 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 110.
		This place-name appears clearly in the manuscript as MOLESLEI, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as MOLESLBI; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.
	COUNTESS GODIVA HELD IT. See 4,2 Godiva note.
12,22	THE ENTRY is duplicated in WAR 27,6, where Godiva is omitted (JRM); see VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 55 note 76.
		The corresponding entry in the Warwickshire folios is the last in the fief of William son of Ansculf and is headed 'In Cuttlestone Hundred', although that was not a Warwickshire hundred and the head itself was a later addition to the entry. Essington was almost certainly included there because in the putative circuit volume William's holdings in four of the counties in circuit IV were probably not perfectly divided between these counties; see {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}. It would seem that by the time he wrote up Staffordshire (assuming this was done after Warwickshire) the main scribe of Great Domesday had discovered that the holding was in Staffordshire, though he did not then return to delete it from the Warwickshire folios. (He also failed to transfer another holding wrongly entered there - for Chillington, WAR 28,19 - which also had a Cuttlestone hundred head written above it.) Apart from the omission of the T.R.E. holder in the Warwickshire version, there are a few other differences between it and the present entry, such as 'land' instead of the more exact 'manor', 'with' for 'have' and the omission of omnino ('completely'). However, the source of both entries would have been the same.
		In the central margin next to this entry several words have been erased. It is not clear what they were, as only isolated parts of letters are now visible, but other such erasures in Great Domesday were often connected with corrections to the adjacent text; see 1,56 carucate note. As nothing was corrected within this entry, it is possible that they were connected with this duplicate entry.
	ROGER. On the name Roger, see B4 Roger note.
	ESSINGTON. This was a township of Bushbury Ancient Parish. Although Bushbury itself (7,3. 12,19) probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086, Essington is indicated by Domesday as lying in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, p. 543; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (where it is printed as Elington'); Feudal Aids, v. p. 1.
	BUSHBURY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 10, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282. For other parts, see 7,3. 12,19.
	WHICH BELONGS TO THIS MANOR. That is, to Essington. On the use of the word manor, see 1,1 manor note. In the duplicate entry in WAR 27,6 (see 12,22 entry note) terra ('land') is used, which is a loose term, sometimes used when 'manor' is meant, sometimes when the status of the land is uncertain.
	COUNTESS GODIVA HELD IT. See 4,2 Godiva note.
12,23	OFFLOW. In the manuscript this hundred head is clearly OFFELAV, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile it appears as OFFCLAV; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	WALBERT <OF FULSTOW> HOLDS. See 11,41 Walbert note.
	BRADLEY. This was a settlement that lay in Bilston, a chapelry and township of the Ancient Parish of Wolverhampton St Peter. Both Bilston (1,4) and Wolverhampton (7,1) appear to have lain in Seisdon Hundred in 1086 and Bradley is certainly in that hundred later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283. However, Bradley is clearly placed by Domesday in Offlow Hundred. The place lay on the border between Seisdon and Offlow Hundreds and it could have been drawn into Bilston or Wolverhampton after 1086. On this, see Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation, pp. 164, 171. They show that Ettingshall (12,18), Bilston (1,4) and Bradley make a five-hide unit in Seisdon Hundred. Against Bradley's being in Seisdon Hundred it can be said that land in that hundred had already been entered (12,1-21) and there is no reason to think that the present entry is out of sequence.
		The Domesday name is represented by the settlements of Bradley and Lower Bradley, both at SO9595.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, p. 543.
	"UNTAN" <OF COUGHTON> HELD. The Domesday form, Vntan, which only occurs here, might represent Old Norse Otamr, Old Swedish Otam, or it might derive from Old English Wulfstan like the forms Vltan, Vlstan in 12,7;12;20, or it might represent Old English Hunstan: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 402. The printed Phillimore edition has Untan, but in view of the uncertainty, it has been decided to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Untan. The Domesday name-forms Vntain of WAR 17,13 and Vntoni[us] of WAR 17,69, both rendered Untan in the Phillimore printed edition, might represent any of the same names, but they also have been retained in their Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Untan for WAR 17,13 and Unton for WAR 17,69.
		As there are no other holdings of people with Domesday name-forms resembling Untain, Untan and Unton and as the land of "Unton" in Coughton (WAR 17,69) passed to Robert d'Oilly like the present land, it is likely that the names "Untain" and "Unton" represent the same individual, despite Coughton and Dosthill (WAR 17,13) being 25 miles apart. It is also likely that the present holder "Untan" was the same person, though his land passed to William son of Ansculf and Bradley is 22 miles from Coughton and 17 miles from Dosthill.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	MEADOW, 2 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday briefly omitted this detail when entering the woodland on the previous line; it may have been misplaced in his source.
12,24	ROBERT [* D'OILLY *] HOLDS. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note, and on his identification, see 12,25 Barr note.
	ALDRIDGE. The Domesday form is Alrewic. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. For the descent, see 12,25 Barr note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	THE KING HAD THE JURISDICTION. That is, over the two thanes, rather than over the 3 hides; see 12,17 jurisdiction note.
12,25	HE ALSO ^[ROBERT [* D'OILLY *]]^ HOLDS. On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note, and on his identification, see 12,25 Barr note.
	BARR. Great Barr was a chapelry and township of Aldridge Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 6, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. There was a 'Little Barr' which is said to be lost; see Bate and Palliser, 'Suspected Lost Village Sites in Staffordshire', p. 34. They suggest that 'Little Barr' was depopulated in the fourteenth century.
		On the Ordnance Survey first series one-inch map (sheet 62 of 1834 reprinted as sheet 42 in 1970), Great Barr is situated at SP049958, opposite the church at the northern entrance to Great Barr park. The Old Hall is at SP056962; Barr Hall is at SP056953 and Barr Mill is at SP057945. On modern maps, the settlement of Great Barr has shifted and is centred on SP043955; the Old Hall is still marked, Barr Hall (which subsequently became St Margaret's hospital) is no longer recorded and Barr Mill has disappeared. There is no trace of 'Little Barr'. There are streets called Great Barr Street and Little Barr Street leading into Lawley Street in Bordesley, just to the east of Birmingham city centre, but they have no antiquity or significance. In fact 'Little' Barr is not a lost place but is what is now known as Perry Barr, because of its long association with the Domesday estate of Perry (12,27); see VCH Warwickshire, vii. p. 71; and 12,27 Perry note .
		In 957 King Edred gave 5 mansiunculae aet Eastun and aet Bearre to his thane Wulfhelm: Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 94-95 no. 87 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 574). The term mansiunculae is a diminutive of mansa or mansus or mansio, and in the context is self-deprecating and mock-modest ('five minor holdings'), when there is no reason to think that the size was smaller than that of a mansa or mansus, that is a hide. Bearre could well be Barr and three of the five mansiunculae could be represented by one or other of the three-hide holdings here in Domesday (12,25;28). Eastun is impossible to identify with certainty. Ekwall, 'Some Old English Charters', suggested Little Aston (in Shenstone, SK0900) not mentioned in Domesday Book, though Shenstone itself is (8,32). This identification was adopted by Hart in Early Charters of Northern England, pp. 94-95. There are estates totalling 2 hides less 1 virgate at Aston-by-Stone and Stoke (both 11,9) and at Aston-by-Stone itself (11,23); with three hides at one of the places called Barr, this would amount to 4 ¾ of the 5 mansiunculae. However, a better identification might be with Aston in Birmingham (SP0889) not far from Barr, though in Warwickshire (WAR 27,1), which was held in 1086 by William son of Ansculf. However, if this is so, the 5 mansiunculae of the charter can only refer to part of the later estates which amount to 14 hides.
		There are two holdings at Barra or Barre in the present fief (here and in 12,28). They are both the same size (3 hides), so if, between them, they account for Great Barr and 'Little Barr' it might seem either that one or both of the 'Barr' estates had expanded or contracted, so that the relative sizes changed or that 'Little Barr' was a subdivision of one of the three-hide 'Barr' estates or of their combined total. The two entries are not duplicates of one another, since they have different T.R.E holders and discrepant detail. Alternatively, 'Little Barr' may have arisen as a post-Domesday division of Perry (12,27).
		VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 55 note 79, identifies the holding at 12,28 with 'Little Barr', apparently ignoring the question of the relative size of the holdings. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 63 and table facing p. 59, identified both these entries as being parts of Great Barr. The Phillimore printed edition identifies the first holding (12,25) as (Great) Barr and the second (12,28) as (Great?) Barr.
		Two places called 'Barr' descended in the barony of Dudley. In Book of Fees, p. 543, Barre is coupled with Alrewyz [Alrewas, 1,11], as a fee of John de Somery, and Parva Barre appears in the same list. In Book of Fees, p. 968, Richard de Parva Barra holds 1 fee in Barra, evidently 'Little Barr'. Barr and Parva Barr are separate holdings in Feudal Aids, v. pp. 6, 9: Felicia, mistress of Barr, holds the first from William de Plesi, and Richard de Barr holds Parva Barr from William de Wurmincham [for Burmincham, that is Birmingham]. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 14 Barre Magna is held by John de Someri and Parva Barre is held by John de Parva Barre. This division might reflect the Domesday situation with different subtenants (William and Drogo) for 12,25 and 12,28, but there would have had to have been some change in the size of the holdings to produce a Great Barr and a 'Little Barr'.
		There is some evidence that 'Little Barr' was later a two-hide estate (Wrottesley, 'Plea Rolls temp. Henry III', pp 156-57), suggesting that Great Barr was a four-hide estate if Great and Little Barr arose from the combined total of the two places called 'Barr' in Domesday. Perry (12,27) was a three-hide estate, and 'Little Barr', if it arose from Perry, seems to be an overlarge subdivision. However, Perry and 'Little Barr' were tenurially associated: in Feudal Aids, v. p. 9, 'Little Barr' is held by William of Birmingham, and he also holds Piri [Perry] in Feudal Aids, v. p. 6. This does not necessarily suggest that 'Little Barr' arose from Perry, for both Perry (12,27) and the 'Barr' of 12,28 were held by Drogo in 1086, which might suggest that his 'Barr' became, with adjustments, 'Little Barr'. But no descent from Drogo to William of Birmingham has been traced and the latter also later held Rushall (12,26) which was held by Thorkil in 1086.
		In 1254-55 'Great Barr' was held with Aldridge (12,24) from the heirs of d'Oilly, suggesting not only that Robert, the subtenant here and in 12,24 was Robert d'Oilly, but that the present holding at least became 'Great' Barr; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	BUT ONLY 1 VILLAGER THERE. On an estate of 3 hides, with no lordship land or ploughs, a population larger than two (1 villager and 1 smallholder) would be expected. Compare Perry Barr (12,27), also 3 hides, where there was a population of at least seven (4 villagers, 3 smallholders); see 12,25 [***] note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the villager and smallholder, before entering the woodland on the next line. It is not clear whether this was for the later insertion of any more population or their ploughs, though he wrote a punctus after bord'.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	VAGN <OF WOLFORD> HELD. The Domesday forms of this name - Waga (T.R.E.), Vaganus (1086) - represent Old Danish Vagn: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 402-403. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Waga and Wagen, but these have now been altered to Vagn, as von Feiltitzen explained the Domesday form Waga, and the form Vaganus obviously represents Vagn. The Alecto edition has Vagn.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The name Vagn occurs nine times in Domesday Book, eight times in the Midlands and once in East Anglia, a distribution which may indicate two individuals. The seven Warwickshire holdings form a group and devolved upon the same tenant-in-chief making it probable that this Vagn (Waga) was a single individual. The Staffordshire holding, though acquired by a different tenant-in-chief, lay just across the county boundary, its proximity to the Warwickshire holdings of the man with this uncommon name suggesting that this, too, had belonged to the same person in 1066 (JP).
		Wolford is one of the estates that Vagn had held in Warwickshire (WAR 22,1).
12,26	THORKIL <OF SYERSCOTE> HOLDS. On the name Thorkil, see 11,48 Thorkil note.
	RUSHALL. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 7, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley: Book of Fees, p. 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Feudal Aids, v. p. 7.
		This place-name is clearly RISCHALE in the manuscript, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the second letter appears as a U; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	PASTURABLE WOODLAND. See 7,7 woodland note.
	VITHFARI HELD IT. On this name, see 11,43 Vithfari note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
12,27	DROGO <OF EDGBASTON> HOLDS. On the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note. All the subtenants of William son of Ansculf called Drogo were probably the same person (12,27-29), as no doubt was his tenant Drogo in Warwickshire (WAR 27,4: Edgbaston). See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 181.
	PERRY . The Domesday form is Pirio, but the administrative area is now known as Perry Barr. This area is a fusion of two separate estates, Perry and Perry Barr, formerly 'Little Barr', which have different histories. In the Phillimore printed edition Pirio is identified as Perry Barr; it is correctly printed as Perry (Barr) in the translation but wrongly indexed as (Perry) Barr. On modern Ordnance Survey maps Perry is marked at SP068920 and Perry Barr at SP071913. On the first edition one-inch Ordnance Survey map (sheet 62 of 1834, reprinted as sheet 62 of 1970) the main settlement is known as Perry, but there is a Perry Hall at SP061919. Perry Barr itself does not appear. What is now known as Great Barr Station was then called Perry Barr Station. On modern maps, the flight of locks on the Tame Valley canal are marked as Perry Barr Locks, even though they are closer to Perry than to Perry Barr. Perry Barr possibly arose by an early division of Perry, or its origin is to be sought in the estates called Barre, Barra in Domesday (12,25;28); see 12,25 Barr note.
		As an administrative area, Perry Barr, which incorporated both Perry and Perry Barr, lay in Handsworth Ancient Parish. Perry probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. In the Lay Subsidy Roll it is Pirye coupled with Parva Barre (Perry and 'Little Barr'). For 'Little Barr', see 12,25 Barr note. Perry Barr was created a separate Civil Parish in 1894 and in 1928 that was divided between the borough of West Bromwich (Staffordshire), the Municipal Borough and Ancient Parish of Sutton Coldfield (Warwickshire) and the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire); see VCH Warwickshire, vii. pp. 23-25, 69-71; Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 419.
		Pirihe descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968. In Feudal Aids, v. p. 6, Piri and Humstud [Hamstead, SP0492] are held from John of Somery; see Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108.
	MEADOW, 4 ACRES. The main scribe of Great Domesday corrected the number of acres from .iii. by adding a fourth minim over the original punctus and adding a new one after it (written higher than usual to avoid the bowl of the a of ac').
	LEOFWARU HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuuare, Leuiara, Liuuara, Luuare - represent the feminine Old English name Leofwaru: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 316. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Leofwaru and Leofwara; these have now been standardized as Leofwaru. The Alecto edition has Leofwaru.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
12,28	HE ALSO ^[DROGO <OF EDGBASTON>]^ HOLDS. See 12,27 Drogo note, and on the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note.
	BARR. See 12,25 Barr note.
	ALFRED HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Alured, Aluredus, Aluret, Alueradus, Aluerd, Aluert, Aluer, Eluret - represent Old English Aelfraed: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 175-76. However, he stated that sometimes the Old Breton Alfred, Alfret, Alfrit might sometimes be considered, as well as Old German Alverat etc., especially for Normans and 1086 landholders. JRM preferred the modern form Alfred for both T.R.E. and 1086 holders. The Alecto edition has Alfred and Alvred, the latter most often for 1086 holders.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
12,29	DROGO<OF EDGBASTON> ALSO HOLDS. See 12,27 Drogo note, and on the name Drogo, see 11,66 Drogo note.
	HANDSWORTH. This place-name appears clearly in the manuscript as HONESWORDE, as it does in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the R appears as an E; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
		Handsworth St Mary was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 9, 14; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279. Handsworth was transferred to the borough of Birmingham (Warwickshire) in 1911.
		The estate descended within the barony of Dudley; see Book of Fees, pp. 543, 968; Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 116; Feudal Aids, v. p. 9; VCH Warwickshire, vii. pp. 23, 68.
		William son of Ansculf also held 5 hides at a place called Hunesworde in the Oxfordshire folios (OXF 21,1). It has not been certainly identified and has been taken to be a further part of Handsworth; see VCH Warwickshire, vii. p. 68. However, Hunesworde appears in Domesday Oxfordshire under the name of an Oxfordshire hundred, Dorchester Hundred, and probably lay in that county.
	AELFRITH. The Domesday forms of this name - Ailuert, Ailuerd, Aeluert, Aieluert - represent Old English Æthelfrith: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 183, which also includes the form Aluerd, Aluert because of the corresponding form in the Liber Exoniensis and because the occurrences refer to Aethelfrith minister (ibidem, note 2). The Domesday forms lack the medial -d- or -g- which JRM thought was the requisite for including them under Aethelfrith, but elsewhere he dealt with names beginning Ail-, Ael-, Aiel- etc. under the form 'Ael-' (see Aelred, Aeleva, Aelmer etc.). In the printed Phillimore edition of STS 12,29 the form Alfward appears, while Aethelfrith occurs in that for SOM and DOR; these have now been standardized as Aelfrith. The Alecto edition has Æthelfrith for all these.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	ALWIN. On the name-form Alwin, see 1,45 Alwin note.
	WITH FULL JURISDICTION. See B11 jurisdiction note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY, which was the only one then on folio 250b, the main scribe of Great Domesday left the rest of the column blank before beginning the fief of Richard the forester on the verso (folio 250c). The reason for this exceptionally large space is unclear, but proved useful for the later insertion, after rubrication had taken place, of the holdings of William son of Corbucion and "Turstin"; see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note.
12,30	THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in very dark ink in part of a large space left by him after the end of the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,29 after note). It was added after rubrication had taken place and at the same time as the entry for a holding in Drayton written below it (12,31 entry note). They were numbered by Phillimore as part of the chapter on William son of Ansculf, though they are quite separate from it and from each other: the scribe left blank two lines after chapter 12 and a further line between the two entries. Moreover, the size of the initial letters of the names of both holders (W and T) are commensurate with those of the name in the first entry in a fief rather than with those in subsequent entries. Both entries are probably single-entry fiefs and the chapter heads for them would have been added when the scribe returned to rubricate them and the two other added entries in this county (16,2 entry note and 16,3 entry note). For the same reason there are no fief numbers. William son of Corbucion does not appear in the Landholders' List on folio 246a and no holding of his is recorded elsewhere in Staffordshire. Sibford Gower is in Oxfordshire and it is very probable that this entry was added by mistake to the Staffordshire folios. Another estate in 'Sibford', Sibford Ferris, held by Henry of Ferrers, was correctly recorded in the Oxfordshire folios during the initial writing up of that county (OXF 24,3), while a further holding in Sibford was entered in the Northamptonshire folios in the fief of Hugh of Grandmesnil, as the last of four entries for places that lay in Oxfordshire in 1086 (NTH 23,19). The main scribe jotted down the word Siboford in the top margin of folio 160ab, which contained a number of other short fiefs and where that of William son of Corbucion would naturally belong. This memorandum was probably to alert himself to the misplaced addition in the Staffordshire folios, as there was no room there for the fief to be added, rather than that the present addition was in response to that note (albeit in the wrong county folios); this corrects Thorn, 'Marginal Notes and Signs', p. 128, note 1 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 19, note 68). However, a holding of William son of Corbucion in Chillington should have been entered in the Staffordshire folios, but was in fact entered in those for Warwickshire (WAR 28,19), though under a Cuttlestone hundred head (as was a holding in Essington; see 12,22 entry note). These errors were almost certainly caused by confusion in the feudally-arranged circuit volume; see {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}.
		For a reproduction of this entry for Sibford, see Gullick, 'Great and Little Domesday', Fig. 13.
		For the addition by the main scribe of two other entries after the rubrication of this county, see 16,2 entry note. He did not, however, add any entries before rubrication; the only other counties where his only added entries were unrubricated ones are Kent in circuit I and Leicestershire in the same circuit (IV) as Staffordshire. For his addition of the fief of Reginald [of] Bailleul before rubrication, see STS 14 chapter note. For the addition of a brief entry by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.
	^[OXFORDSHIRE]^. [* IN BLOXHAM HUNDRED *]. These headings are supplied from the location of Sibford Gower; see 12,30 Sibford note.
		There are very few hundred heads in Domesday Oxfordshire, but in any case the main scribe of Great Domesday almost always omitted such heads when he added entries after rubrication of a county had taken place; see LEC 1,12 entry note.
	WILLIAM SON OF CORBUCION HOLDS. On the name William, see B8 William note. The Domesday forms of his father's name - Corbucion, Corbuzon, Corbucio, Corbutio, Corbucun, Corbucinus (the last four being for Robert son of Corbucion) - may represent the Old French hypothetical name Corbucion, derived from the hypothetical Vulgar Latin Corbutio, Corvutio, from Classical Latin corvus ('raven'). The Alecto edition has Corbucion.
		William son of Corbucion had a small fief in Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire. His father was perhaps Corbutio of Falaise, named from the place in the French département of Calvados (arrondissement Caen). His successor in 1166 was Peter Corbucion, also known as Peter of Studley, named from Studley in Warwickshire (WAR 28,16), held by William in 1086.
	SIBFORD [GOWER].This was a township in Swalcliffe Ancient Parish in Oxfordshire.
		The estate passed to William son of Corbucion's successors and c. 1190 was held by Peter Corbucion. By 1222 the overlord was Henry of Beaumont, Earl of Warwick, and the estate then passed down the line of the Earls of Warwick; see Book of Fees, pp. 449, 454, 614, 823, 837; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 166, 178, 179; VCH Oxfordshire, x. p. 235.
	RALPH. On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note. In about 1190 the undertenancy was held by a Norman family called Goher, who gave their name (as Gower) to the manor; see VCH Oxfordshire, x. p. 235.
	PASTURE 7 FURLONGS LONG AND WIDE. This is the only mention of pasture in the Staffordshire folios, though pasturable woodland occurs in nine entries (see 7,7 woodland note). In Domesday Oxfordshire, however, in which this entry belonged, pasture was recorded far more often.
12,31	THIS ENTRY was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday in very dark ink in part of a large space left by him after the end of the fief of William son of Ansculf (12,29 after note). It was added after rubrication had taken place and at the same time as the entry for a holding in Sibford Gower written above it (12,30 entry note). They were numbered by Phillimore as part of the chapter on William son of Ansculf, though they are quite separate from it and from each other: the scribe left a gap equivalent to two lines of writing after chapter 12 and a slightly smaller gap between the two entries. Moreover, the size of the initial letters of the names of both holders (W and T) are commensurate with those of the name in the first entry in a fief rather than with those in subsequent entries. Both entries are probably single-entry fiefs and the chapter heads for them would have been added when the scribe returned to rubricate them and the two other added entries in this county (16,2 entry note and 16,3 entry note). There is no mention of "Turstin" in the Landholders' List on folio 246a and he holds no other land in Staffordshire. Drayton is in Oxfordshire and this entry would seem to be a duplicate of a chapter already recorded in that county (OXF 57). However, the fief-holder there is named as Thorkil [of Warwick/Arden], an Englishman who, unusually, still held land in chief in 1086, and the descent of Drayton was to the Earls of Warwick; see 12,31 "Turstin" note. The similarity between the forms of the two names - Turchil and Turstin - may have caused this discrepancy (the only other one is the inclusion of 'from the king' after Drayton in OXF 57,1), which led to the duplication, albeit in the wrong county. There are a great many instances of entries for places included in the wrong county in Circuit IV, of which Staffordshire was part; see 12,30 entry note and {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}. On the omission of the hundred head for this entry, see 12,30 Bloxham note.
		For the addition by the main scribe of two other entries after the rubrication of this county, see 16,2 entry note. He did not, however, add any entries before rubrication; the only other counties where his only added entries were unrubricated ones are Kent in circuit I and Leicestershire in the same circuit (IV) as Staffordshire. For his addition of the fief of Reginald [of] Bailleul before rubrication, see STS 14 chapter note. For the addition of a brief entry by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.
	"TURSTIN" [* THORKIL OF WARWICK *] HOLDS. It is not clear what name is represented by the Domesday forms of the 1086 holder given in this entry, Turstin[us]. The name is not mentioned in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, states that Tostain, Toustain are the archaic forms of the Norman names Totain, Toutain, deriving from the Nordic baptismal name Thor-steinn. Thorsteinn is the Old Norse form of the Old Danish Thorsten, used here for the T.R.E. holders (called Thurstan in the printed Phillimore edition), but has come into England by a different route, not directly from Scandinavia, but via Normandy, though retaining the medial -r-. The printed Phillimore edition has Thurstan, but this has been altered here to "Turstin". However, as there is doubt as to whether the Domesday form represents a "Turstin" or a Thorsten (it is probably a mistaken extension of an original Tur'), it has been decided for the present edition to leave it in the Domesday form. The Alecto edition generally has Turstin for the 1086 holders, though Thorsten for the present entry.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		On the likelihood that TVRSTIN' here is an error for TVRCHIL, the tenant-in-chief of the duplicate fief in OXF 57, see 12,31 entry note. He was Thorkil of Warwick, also known as Thorkil of Arden, and the son of Alwin the sheriff of Warwickshire who died in the 1080s. Thorkil himself may have succeeded him as sheriff. His estates, mostly inherited, made him unusually wealthy for an Englishmen; among his subtenants were a number of his relatives. His fief was added under William Rufus to the newly-formed earldom of Warwick given c. 1089 to Henry of Beaumont, the brother of the Domesday tenant-in-chief, Count Robert of Meulan.
	DRAYTON. This was an Oxfordshire Ancient Parish. The estate passed to the Earls of Warwick (see 12,31 "Turstin" note) and was held under them by the de Arden family; see Book of Fees, p. 317; Feudal Aids, iv. pp. 166, 179; VCH Oxfordshire, ix. pp. 104-106.
13	LAND OF RICHARD THE FORESTER. On the name Richard, see 7,2 Richard note.
		Richard the forester held land in Staffordshire and in Warwickshire in Domesday Book. In Staffordshire he has a chapter of his own, while in Warwickshire he shares a chapter with the king's thanes and servants and holds six manors (WAR 44,1-6). He may be the same man as Richard the hunter who also holds the next two manors in that chapter (WAR 44,7-8). Of these, Chesterton (44,8) was later held by service of guarding the forest of Cannock and this may have been the case in 1086 and that Richard the forester/ Richard the hunter held his Staffordshire fief and his Warwickshire lands by forest-serjeantry. The office was probably hereditary. A number of his Staffordshire estates (Knutton, Dimsdale, Hanford, Clayton, Hanchurch, Whitmore) were held later by Randulf of Cnoton' (Knutton) and the tenure was said (Book of Fees, p. 143) to be de antiquo iure, scilicet de conquestu Angliae ('by ancient right, that is from the conquest of England'). Randulf of Knutton clearly inherited some of Richard the forester's lands and was perhaps his descendant; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 53. Other lands went to Hugh de Loges. On the descent of these lands and on the possible identity of Richard the forester, Richard the hunter and Richard Chenvin, see WAR 44,1 Richard note and Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 365.
	The arrangement of this fief is by hundred:
		13,1-8 Pirehill Hundred
		13,9-10 Cuttlestone Hundred
	Within these hundreds, land apparently held in lordship (13,5;7-10), is intermingled with land that is subinfeudated (13,1-4;6).
13,1	PIREHILL. In the manuscript this is clearly PEREHOLLE, but the H (a large h) is miswritten so that the bowl of it is rather close to the tick at the foot of the ascender. In the Ordnance Survey facsimile and the Alecto facsimile, however, the small gap between the bowl and the ascender is not visible so the H appears as a b. On other misleading reproductions in the latter facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	THURSFIELD. This was a township of Wolstanton Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. It was also a chapelry, later known as Newchapel; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 87-88; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 56 note 83. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred, as probably did Wolstanton itself (1,15).
		In later times the manor of Thursfield accounted for Tunstall, Chatterley, Chell and Bradwall which were all members of the same Ancient Parish according to Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 88. However, the Domesday estate is a single virgate and the later manor may have grown at others' expense. According to the Book of Fees, pp. 143, 594, Henry de Audley held as part of the manor of Newcastle[-under-Lyme] Tunstal' [Tunstall, SJ8651], Chadderleg' [Chatterley, SJ8451], Bradewell' [Bradwall], Turvedesfeld [Thursfield] and Normannecot [probably Normacot, 13,3] by serjeanty. Of these Tunstall, Chatterley and Normacott had probably been part of the royal manor of Wolstanton (1,15); see 1,15 Wolstanton note.
		The grid reference is to Thursfield Lodge (SJ861550).
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. The identity of this Nigel is shown by Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, pp. 53, 87-88. He is a tenant-in-chief in Staffordshire (STS 16).
		On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	BERNWULF. On this name, see 8,6 Bernwulf note.
13,2	WHITMORE. This was a chapelry of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Witmor', were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	WULFHEAH HELD IT. On this name, see 1,43 Wulfheah note.
13,3	NORMACOT. This was a township of Stone Ancient Parish. Stone itself does not appear in Domesday, but a number of the constituent parts of the later Ancient Parish do so; see 1,40 Fulford note. Normacot probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086, as it did later.
		This estate appears to have descended differently from others in this fief. According to Book of Fees, p. 1285, for the years 1251-52, Normauncote in Pirehill Hundred had been held by Henry de Bidulf in chief from the king by service of castle ward at Newcastle[-under-Lyme]. This Henry sold it to Henry de Audeley who gave it in alms to the Abbot of Hulton; see {Introduction: Ecclesiastical Organization}.
	ALMER. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.
	WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	WULFMER HELD IT. On this name, see 1,62 Wulfmer note.
13,4	HANFORD. This was a settlement in Trentham Ancient Parish. Like Trentham itself (1,8) and the surrounding entries here, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Honeford', were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'
		Hanford is represented by Hanford itself (SJ8642) and South Hanford Farm (SJ8742).
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	THOLF HELD IT. On this name, see 11,1 Tholf note.
	A WOOD OF MEDIUM-SIZE [TREES]. See 11,11 wood note.
	PERCHES. The perch is a linear measure, usually reckoned as 16 ½ feet, 40 of them making a furlong, though a 20-foot perch was in use for measuring woodland until last century; see Zupko, Dictionary of English Weights and Measures, under perch; see also Grierson, 'Weights and Measures', pp. 80-81 (= Erskine and Williams, The Story of Domesday Book, p. 120). Perches also occur in 17,17 in connection with the woodland and as here both length and width are the same.
13,5	HANCHURCH. This was a township of Trentham Ancient Parish; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. Like Trentham itself (1,8) and the surrounding entries here, it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Hanchurche, were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.
	"PATA" HELD IT. The name represented by the Domesday form, Pata, which only occurs here, is unclear, perhaps a weak equivalent of the obscure Pat: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 343. In view of the uncertainty it has been decided to retain the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Pata.
	3 PARTS OF ½ HIDE. That is 1 ½ virgates, assuming that a 'part' is a quarter.
13,6	CLAYTON. This was a township of the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent; see Kain and Oliver, Historic Parishes. The Civil Parish of this name was created in 1896 from Stoke Rural Civil Parish and Trentham Ancient Parish. Clayton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 like the surrounding entries. It formerly consisted of 'Great' Clayton and 'Little' Clayton. For the identification, see Parker, ' Chetwynd's History of Pirehill Hundred (part 1)', p. 69 note.
		By the middle of the thirteenth century, this estate had been divided into 'Great' Clayton and 'Clayton Griffith' or 'Little' Clayton. Great Clayton, the southern part, was absorbed by the royal manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which accounts for the fact that in Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277, Clayton is listed as Ancient Demesne of the Crown. 'Little' Clayton continued as an independent estate and was held by the Griffin family of the lord of Knutton in Wolstanton; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 77. Thus, by 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Claiton', were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. See 13,1 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	SEGRIM HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Sagrim, Segrim, Sacrimus - represent Old Danish Segrim and the hypothetical Old Norse Sægrimr: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 353. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Saegrim, Segrim and Saegrimr; these have now been standardized as Segrim. The Alecto edition has Segrim.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
13,7	DIMSDALE. This was a settlement in Wolstanton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
		By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Dimesdal', were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see STS 13 Richard note.
		The grid reference (SK8448) is to Dimsdale Hall Farm.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly DVLMESDENE, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as DVLMELDENE; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	GLADWIN <OF DIMSDALE>. The Domesday forms of this name - Gladuin(us), Gladuine, Gleduin[us] - represent the hypothetical Old English Glædwine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 261-62. JRM preferred the form Gladwin as it reflected the Domesday forms more closely. The form Gladwine, however, appears in the Phillimore printed translation for Lincolnshire; it has now been standardized as Gladwin. The Alecto edition has Glædwine.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The small, shared holding at Dimsdale was over 50 miles from any other property held by a Gladwin and without tenurial associations with any of them. It was probably the sole property of this man (JP).
	GODWIN. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
13,8	KNUTTON. This was a settlement in Wolstanton Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 12 (Nonton); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		By 1212 (Book of Fees, p. 143) six estates in this fief (13,2;4-8), including Cnoton', were in the hands of Randulf de Cnoton' holding de antiquo jure ('by ancient right') from the king 'from the conquest of England'; see Book of Fees, pp. 593, 1285; see STS 13 Richard note.
	GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	4 VILLAGERS WITH 1 SMALLHOLDER HAVE 1 PLOUGH. The Latin is Ibi sunt .iiii. uillani cum .i. bordario habent unam carucam; habent perhaps for habentes (JRM). Alternatively, the main scribe of Great Domesday may have omitted 7 before habent ('There are 4 villagers with 1 smallholder; they have 1 plough'), which is assumed in the Alecto edition. VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 56, translates habent as habentes.
13,9	CUTTLESTONE. In the manuscript this is clearly CVLVESTAN, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, it appears as CVbVESTAN and the A is not the same shape as it is in the manuscript; on other misleading reproductions in this facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	RODBASTON. This was a township of Penkridge Ancient Parish; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 102. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. The grid reference is to Rodbaston College (SJ9211).
		After 1086, this estate followed the descent of Great Wyrley (see 1,25 dependencies note), ending up in the hands of Hugh de Loges who in 1195 held it (along with Chesterton in Warwickshire, WAR 44,8) by serjeantry, of guarding the forest of Cannock, presumably as chief forester; see Book of Fees, pp. 6, 594; VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 120. In Book of Fees, p. 594, the serjeantry includes part of Wyrle [Great Wyrley]. In Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115, Hugh de Loygis holds pro ball'ia de Kanock' custodienda ('in return for guarding the bailiwick of Cannock').
	ALLI <OF RODBASTON>. The Domesday form of this name, Alli, represents Old Danish Alli: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 146-47. The printed Phillimore edition has the forms Alli and Aellic; these have now been standardized as Alli. The Alecto edition has Alli.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		The Alli of this tiny holding at Rodbaston was remote from all his namesakes with whom he had no tenurial or other associations. This is likely to have been his sole property (JP).
13,10	"ESTENDONE". Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 36, left this place unidentified, but tentatively suggested that it might be a part of Essington before pointing out that it would more likely be a 'Stendon' or a 'Standon' though there was 'no such vill in Cuttlestone hundred'. Certainly the Domesday name-form appears to contain the Norman French prosthetic E- prefixed to the initial group ST- to make it pronounceable. Wedgwood, 'Early Staffordshire History', p. 170, suggested Standon House in Haughton (marked on the Ordnance Survey six-inch map at SJ872198), which, if the name has an early history, would have the double virtue of an easy descent from the Domesday form and being in the right hundred. This suggestion has not, however, been pursued, perhaps because no early history is known, it is not certain that there was ever a vill or manor of Standon, as a house name it could have been transferred from elsewhere and its one hide does not fit into the hidation of the area near Haughton which appears to be accounted for by 3 hides at Haughton (11,52) and 2 hides at Billington (11,6), making a five-hide unit; see Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', pp. 159, 161. They tentatively include the 1 hide at "Estendone" with the three at Hatherton (7,13) and the 1 hide at Cannock (1,25), ignoring the 1 carucate at Cannock (17,5), to make a five-hide unit: Bridgeman and Mander, 'Staffordshire Hidation', p. 162. However, Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 24-31, suggested Huntington (SJ9713), which was a township of Cannock Ancient Parish and which, like Cannock itself (1,25. 17,5) probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. This identification is essentially circumstantial, tied in with the disappearance of "Estendone" and the appearance of Huntington among forest tenures. It is most unlikely that Huntington derives from "Estendone" despite Bridgeman's suggestion that Estendone is a scribal error for Entendone.
		By 1198 Huntington was held as 1 carucate by Henry de brok (lord of Pillaton in Penkridge) by service in the forest of Cannock; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 75. In Book of Fees, p. 594, for the year 1236, it is said that Robert del brok held Huntendon' in Cannock [Forest] from the Bishop of Chester as he had previously from the king for guarding the king's 'hay' of Teddesle' [Teddesley, SJ9516] and he made an annual payment to Hugh de Loges; see also Book of Fees, pp. 6, 1185, 1245; Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115. There is nothing here to connect Huntington with "Estendone" and the fact that Huntington was 1 carucate, when the Domesday assessment of "Estendone" was 1 hide casts further doubt on the proposed identification . It seems more probable that Huntington was a member of the royal manor of Cannock (1,25) and that "Estendone", while probably in the same area, was depopulated by afforestation: Domesday says that 'it is waste' and gives no manorial appurtenances. Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 68, probably influenced by the above authorities accepts Estendone as an earlier name for Huntington, but points out that it is 'an older form based on eastan and dun ('hill to the east'). However, although they share the same final element Estendone and Huntington may have no other connection.
		In the manuscript this place-name is clearly ESTENDONE, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the second letter resembles an O rather than an S; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
	AFTER THIS ENTRY the main scribe of Great Domesday left blank a small space equivalent to about three lines of writing before the next fief (STS 14).
14	THIS CHAPTER, including the rubricated head, was largely written over erasure by the main scribe of Great Domesday. After the fief of Richard the forester (STS 13) he had written details of a fief occupying less space than this one, but then erased them rather roughly: the erasure extends up unevenly towards chapter 13 and also into the outer margin of folio 250c. He maintained the space he had originally left after chapter 13 when he began Reginald's fief, but this was ill-judged, as he needed to compress his writing, especially for the second entry in it. Part of the second line and the last two lines of the second entry were not written over the erasure, as they occupied the space he had originally left before the fief of Ralph son of Hubert (STS 15), as well as where he would have written the heading for that fief during rubrication: this heading then had to be squeezed in so it was not level with the Totmonslow hundred head he had already written above the first line of 15,1. This proves that the erasure and the addition of the present chapter were done after he had written STS 15 and probably the rest of the county. There seems to have been a further stage of correction in Reginald's fief; see 14,1 nine note. For the probability that other entries added by the main scribe were of fiefs, see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note. For his addition of other entries, see 16,2 entry note, and for one by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.
	LAND OF REGINALD [OF] BAILLEUL. In Domesday he is called Reginald Balgiole (in the Landholders' List on folio 246a), Bailgiole in STS 14 chapter head and de Balgiole in 14,1. He came from Bailleul (sometimes known as Bailleul-en-Gouffern) in the French département of Orne (arrondissement Argentan, canton Trun), near Exmes which was caput of Earl Roger's vicomté in Normandy ((VCH Shropshire, i. p. 296, but see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 70). Although his name has sometimes been anglicized as Balliol, like the thirteenth-century founder of Balliol College, Oxford, the latter came from a different Bailleul (in Picardy) and there is no connection between them. Reginald's wife Amieria was the niece (nepta) of Roger of Montgomery, so he was very much the earl's official. She had previously been married to Warin the bald, Reginald's predecessor as sheriff of Shropshire. The transfer of power took place c. 1085 and involved a large amount of land, which may have been held in trust for Warin's son Hugh who held both the land and perhaps the sheriffdom briefly after 1102. Reginald returned to Normandy in 1102 when Earl Roger's son, Robert of Bellême, forfeited the fief. See Mason, 'Officers and Clerks', pp. 245-47; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 70; Eyton, Antiquities of Shropshire, vii. pp. 203-11; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 348.
		As Reginald's lands appear to have come to him with the shrievalty, they subsequently came into the hands of the sheriff Alan Fitz Flaad, then descended to the Fitz Alans and to their barony of Oswestry. See SHR {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}; STS 8 Roger note.
		Elsewhere in Staffordshire, as in Shropshire, Reginald is a tenant of Earl Roger (8,4-6). In Cheshire, the only other county in which he held, he was a subtenant of Earl Hugh.
	Both the entries in this fief were held in lordship and lay in two hundreds:
		14,1 Cuttlestone Hundred
		14,2 Pirehill Hundred.
14,1	REGINALD OF BAILLEUL HOLDS. As late as 1081, this estate had been held by Warin the bald, Reginald's predecessor as sheriff of Shropshire; see Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35); and SHR {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}.
	WESTON[-UNDER-LIZARD]. This was an Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The estate, including Beigherton and Brockton Grange, descended with the majority of Reginald's other estates (most of which he held under Earl Roger of Shrewsbury) to his successor as sheriff of Shropshire, Alan Fitz Flaad, ancestor of the Fitz Alans; see Book of Fees, p. 544 (Weston juxta Brewde); Book of Fees, p. 969 (Weston' sub Keveremont); Feudal Aids, v. p. 2 (Weston Houwe); VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 171. Weston subtus Brewod is held of the Fitz Alan barony of Oswestry in Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114, and it is Weston' held with Neuton' [Newton, 14,2] as a Fitz Alan fee in Book of Fees, p. 975.
		The tithes of the estate had been given to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult (to which Earl Roger had given two estates, 8,8-9) before 1081: Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35); Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 770-73, no. 1081.
	BEIGHTERTON. The Domesday form is Bertone and the development to Beighterton is unexpected; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 181. The Domesday form appears at least to be abbreviated. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Weston-under-Lizard; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 18. Like Weston-under-Lizard itself, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086. For the identification, see Bridgeman, Bridgeman and Bridgeman, 'History of Weston under Lizard', p. 3.
	BROCKTON [GRANGE]. This lay in the Ancient Parish of Sheriffhales, itself named from an estate (8,5) held in 1086 by Reginald of Bailleul, sheriff of Shropshire, under Earl Roger. That estate was transferred to Shropshire at an early date, probably before 1102. However, part of the parish, including Brockton Grange, remained in Staffordshire until 1895, when it was moved to Shropshire. A 1965 boundary change has returned Brockton Grange itself to Staffordshire, and placed it in Blymhill Civil (formerly Ancient) Parish there; see {Introduction: County Boundary}.
	NINE THANES. The main scribe of Great Domesday wrote Nouē ('nine') over erasure and in darker ink than the one he had used for the rest of this entry; he also overwrote the teini in this darker ink. Two levels of correction and addition in entries or other material that were themselves added or corrected occur on a number of occasions in Great Domesday, suggesting that both the main scribe and scribe B continued their checking.
	THERE WERE 11 PLOUGHS. See 7,1 ploughs note.
	THE WOODLAND HAS [IS] 1 LEAGUE LONG AND ½ LEAGUE WIDE. See 1,7 woodland note.
	"AMERLAND" HOLDS. He is identified with an individual who occurs in a charter relating to Saint-Martin of Sées and possibly with one found in a charter of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans: Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 150.
		The name represented by the Domesday form, Amerland, which only occurs here in Domesday, is unclear, though Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, p. 281, refers to a Johannes Amellant in the Rotuli Normanniae, i. p. 133 (recte, p. 333) (AD 1417). The Alecto edition has Amerland.
14,2	NEWTON. This was a settlement in Blithfield Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 4, 12 (where it appears as Nonton); Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		Warin, sheriff of Shropshire, Reginald's predecessor, gave the church of Newton to the Abbey of Saint-Evroult with the consent of Earl Roger, a gift confirmed by the king in 1081: Orderic Vitalis, Ecclesiastical History (Chibnall, vi. pp. 234-35); see Bates, Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, pp. 770-73, no. 1081. However, subsequently Neuton' was held with Weston' [Weston-under-Lizard, 14,1] as a Fitz Alan fee in Book of Fees, p. 969; see Feudal Aids, v. p. 4.
	GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
	1 SLAVE. The Phillimore printed edition includes the slave with the villagers and smallholders, but the Ibi before them implies they were separate. As the main scribe of Great Domesday did not put any punctuation before the mill and meadow, it would seem that he (or his source) regarded the slave as part of the manorial resources.
15	LAND OF RALPH SON OF HUBERT. He was the son of Hubert de Ryes (in the French département of Calvados, arrondissement Bayeux) and his brothers were Adam son of Hubert and Eudo Dapifer. The four had saved the life of Duke William in 1047 and were rewarded when William acquired the throne of England. Ralph was lord of Crich (Derbyshire) which became a barony under his successors, the first being his son Odo. Ralph was also probably the father of Matilda who was the second wife of Edward of Salisbury. The barony was divided c. 1187 between Henry de Stutteville and Hubert Fitz Ralph; see Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 54; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 37; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 340. On the name Ralph, see 2,22 Ralph note, and on the name Hubert, see 10,6 Hubert note.
	Both estates were subinfeudated to Robert of Bucy. They lay in a single hundred:
		15,1-2 Totmonslow Hundred.
	In his note to chapter 16 in the Phillimore printed edition JRM stated that chapters 14 and 15 were 'inserted in smaller cramped writing, with less space between words and between lines than on the rest of the page'. This is certainly true of chapter 14, but not of chapter 15 which is written in the same size letters and with the same spacing as chapters 13, 16-17 on this page (folio 250cd). The present chapter was written during the initial writing of this county and before the insertion of chapter 14 over erasure; see STS 14 chapter note.
15,1	RALPH SON OF HUBERT. The main scribe of Great Domesday had originally written RO... here, but then erased the letters after them and wrote DVLF' f. hub'ti over them at the same time as turning the O into an A by adding strokes (the resulting A is unlike the A in RAINALD' in 14,1 and elsewhere). It seems likely that he had originally written ROBERTUS de Buci ('Robert of Bucy') here: the next entry begins Isd[em] Rob[er]t[us] ('The same Robert of Bucy'), implying the same person as in the previous entry. Robert of Bucy was a tenant-in-chief in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in this circuit. This correction is probably connected with his interlineation of de Radulfo in 15,2, which turned Robert of Bucy there from a tenant-in-chief into a subtenant of Ralph son of Hubert, as he is in the present entry. The colour of ink of that interlineation looks less dark than that of this correction because of that being over erasure. In the outer margin level with it is an erasure, perhaps of a note connected with this correction. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	BRADLEY[-IN-THE-MOORS]. This was a chapelry of Rocester Ancient Parish; it was sometimes known as Bradley-le-Moors. In 1086 it lay in Totmonslow Hundred, as probably did Rocester itself (1,17).
	ROBERT OF BUCY. He probably came from Boucey in the commune of Pontorson (arrondissement Avranches) in the French département of Manche. He was lord of Great Weldon in Northamptonshire and a subtenant of Countess Judith in that county (56,25;59 as plain Robert) and in Leicestershire (40,15-21 and, as plain Robert, 40,23;25). See VCH Leicestershire, i. p. 293; VCH Rutland, ii. p. 175; the Leicestershire Survey (Slade, p. 92); Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 375.
		His lands came into the hands of Henry I by forfeiture or escheat and then went to Geva, daughter of Hugh of Avranches (Earl of Chester) then to her husband Geoffrey Ridel, and to her son-in-law, Richard Basset. Robert's holdings as a subtenant went to Robert son of Vitalis (Viel), the father of Simon de Foxton, probably by gift of Simon I de Senlis who married Matilda (Maud), daughter of Countess Judith and Earl Waltheof.
		On the name Robert, see B6 Robert note.
	LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. 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.
		Leofric also preceded Ralph son of Hubert in Kingsley (15,2) and on several of his Nottinghamshire estates as well as in Derbyshire. He was probably the brother of Leofnoth who was likewise a predecessor of Ralph son of Hubert; see NTT 13,6 Leofnoth note and DBY 10,16 brother note. The Leofric who had held 3 hides in Kingsley (16,2) is likely to have been the same man, because Leofric had held 1 hide in the same place, possibly duplicated in the 3 hides (see 16,2 entry note).
15,2	ROBERT OF BUCY. See 15,1 Robert note.
	FROM RALPH. The main scribe of Great Domesday interlined de Radulfo later, probably at the same time as his correction of the name of the tenant-in-chief in 15,1; see 15,1 Ralph note. Without this interlineation the entry would read that Kingsley was held in chief by 'the same' Robert of Bucy as 15,1. In the outer margin level with it is an erasure, possibly of a note connected with the addition. On these marginal notes, see 1,56 carucate note.
	KINGSLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, held in chief by Nigel of Stafford, the undertenant here, see 16,2. On this entry being a partial duplicate of 16,2, see 16,2 entry note.
	NIGEL [* OF STAFFORD *]. Nigel holds from Robert of Bucy who holds from Ralph son of Hubert. Two layers of named subtenants are rare in Domesday, but in 2,6 Nigel (of Stafford) also held from a tenant of the Bishop of Chester; see also 2,20 men note. On Nigel, see STS 16 Nigel note, and on his first name, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. See 15,1 Leofric note.
16	LAND OF NIGEL ^[OF STAFFORD]^. His fuller title is given in DBY 14. His origin and the source of that title are unknown. He is not attested as a son of Robert of Stafford nor was he sheriff of Staffordshire. He was ancestor of the de Gresley family (named from Gresley, Derbyshire). See Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 302.
		On the name Nigel, see 2,6 Nigel note.
	The three estates in this fief were all held in lordship (though part of 16,2 was subinfeudated) and lay in three different hundreds, though no heads are supplied in Domesday:
		16,1 [Offlow Hundred]
		16,2 [Totmonslow Hundred]
		16,3 [Pirehill Hundred].
	This fief was not added at the foot of 'page 250c, d' (pace, JRM in his note to it). The first entry was written by the main scribe of Great Domesday during the initial writing campaign within the frame-ruling (see {Introduction: Circuit and Ruling Pattern}). He later added the second and third entries; see 16,2 entry note.
16,1	[IN OFFLOW HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Thorpe Constantine (16,1).
	THORPE [CONSTANTINE]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Offlow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 9; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 280.
		In 1254-55 Thorpe Constantine was held by Geoffrey Costentin from the Earl of Lancaster (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 108); see Book of Fees, p. 545; Feudal Aids, v. p. 9.
	WULFWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.
	NICHOLAS CLAIMS. Nicholas is probably the sheriff of Staffordshire at the date of Domesday; see {Introduction: Administration of the Shire}. However, his identity is uncertain. Robert of Stafford had a son called Nicholas and it would be natural to assume that he followed his father in the office of sheriff. However, there are grounds for thinking that Nicholas the sheriff was in fact Nicholas de Bello Campo (Beauchamp) who in 1094 married Eda, the sister of Geoffrey Maleterre, Abbot of Burton. It is also unlikely that this Nicholas is to be identified with the Nicholas who in Warwickshire held Coventry in 1086 and five estates formerly held by Countess Godiva (as Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 55 and note); that man is more likely to be Nicholas Arbalistarius; see Lennard, Rural England, p. 144; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, pp. 300-301.
		The Domesday forms of this name - Nicolaus, Nicol[aus], Nicholaus, Nicol - represent the Greek name Nicolaus ('victory-people'), which became a popular medieval name after the fourth-century St Nicholas, Bishop of Myra (Lycia, in modern Turkey). See Dauzat, Dictionnaire des Noms et Prénoms de France, who records the abbreviated form Nicol. JRM chose Nicholas, the modern English form of this name, though in the printed Phillimore translation of BRK 7,22 the form Nicolas (the modern French form) occurs; this has now been altered to Nicholas. The Alecto edition has Nicholas.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
		For the claim, see Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law, p. 240 no. 1475.
	CLIFTON [CAMPVILLE]. See also DBY 1,25: 'Chilcote ... belongs to Clifton [Campville] in Stafford[shire]'. Chilcote (SK2811, two miles east of Clifton [Campville] was transferred to Leicestershire in 1888; see Place-Names of Derbyshire, iii. p. 629 (JRM). See also DBY {Introduction: County Boundary}. The spelling in DBY 1,25 is Cliftune, but in the present entry it is Clistone; the long s and the f were frequently confused.
16,2	THIS ENTRY and the next one (16,3) were written together by the main scribe of Great Domesday on folio 250d in a space left after the last chapter in the county (STS 17) at the end of folio 250d. He began both entries in the central margin, exactly adjacent to 16,1, so that it was clear that they belonged with chapter 16, Nigel's land, of which he had already written the first entry at the end of the adjacent column (folio 250c). In Farley's edition these two entries are not level with 16,1. Neither entry is rubricated, so these were late additions made after the scribe had written and rubricated Staffordshire. They were written in almost black ink at the same time as other unrubricated additions in circuit IV: for Bittesby in Leicestershire (LEC 1,12) and for three large details on Alveston and Clifton-upon-Dunsmore in Warwickshire (WAR 3,4. 6,9. 14,2). This suggests that the scribe amassed several entries for more than one county before adding them in one campaign, something that he did not do often, preferring to check and work on one county at a time. Neither of the Staffordshire entries was supplied with a hundred head (respectively for Totmonslow and Pirehill) as almost invariably was the case with entries added after rubrication; see LEC 1,12 entry note.
		This entry may initially have been omitted as part of it seems to have already been entered in 15,2 where Nigel [of Stafford] is said to hold 1 hide in Kingsley from Robert of Bucy, the tenant of Robert son of Hubert. The T.R.E. holder there is given as Leofric and a Leofric had held the 3 hides of the present entry, only 1 hide of which Nigel himself held. Entries were often duplicated because of confusion over whether someone, like Nigel here, held in chief or as a subtenant of another. The fact that the scribe briefly omitted the place-name in this entry and then interlined it (using the same pen and ink as for the rest of the entry) may also explain its late addition.
		For other entries (though they were probably in fact fiefs) added by the main scribe, see 12,30 entry note and 12,31 entry note, and for his added chapter, see STS 14 chapter note. For an entry added by scribe B, see 7,11 entry note.
	[* IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED *]. This head is supplied from the later location of Kingsley (15,2. 16,2). See 16,2 entry note on its omission.
	KINGSLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, held by Nigel of Stafford from Robert of Bucy, see 15,2.
	LEOFRIC [* BROTHER OF LEOFNOTH *] HELD IT. See 15,1 Leofric note. He had also held the hide in Kingsley in 15,2, which is probably a duplicate of part of this entry.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin una ac[ra] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after cum; see 11,27 meadow note.
	"LIGULF" HOLDS. Various suggestions were made by von Feilitzen (Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 319-20) on what names were represented by the Domesday form Ligulf(us), and also the forms Ligul, and Liolf(us). It has been thought best in the present edition to retain the Domesday form, accepting that the form Liolf' here is linked with the more frequently-occurring form Ligulf. Fellows Jensen, Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire, p. 188, is also unsure. The Alecto edition has Ligulf.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	VALUE OF THE WHOLE. That is, of the 2 hides held by "Ligulf" from Nigel and the 1 hide not subinfeudated. If, as suggested (16,2 entry note), the entry for 1 hide in Kingsley in 15,2 is a duplicate of Nigel's hide here, its value was there given as 6s in 1086, making the value of "Ligulf"'s 2 hides 11s.
16,3	THIS ENTRY and the previous one (16,2) were added by the main scribe of Great Domesday after Staffordshire had been rubricated and at the same time as an entry in Leicestershire and three large details in Warwickshire; see 16,2 entry note.
	[* IN PIREHILL HUNDRED *]. This head is supplied from the later location of Moreton (2,18. 16,1). See 16,2 entry note on its omission.
	MORETON. Like Coley (2,17) and Haywood (2,5), this was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish and probably, like them, lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 6; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277. For another part, where Nigel [of Stafford] is a subtenant of the Bishop of Chester, see 2,18. The Domesday name is represented by Moreton (SK0223) and Upper Moreton (SK0222).
	WULFRIC HELD IT. On the name Wulfric, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
17	LAND OF THE KING'S THANES. This chapter, like other similar ones elsewhere in Domesday, gathers together estates held by Englishmen. Some of these had held the same estates in 1066 and been allowed to retain them. Others may have been allowed to inherit estates held by relatives before 1066, though Domesday rarely records kinship. A further group may have been granted land after 1066 or been allowed to expand their holdings. In some cases an individual may have lost some or all of his 1066 estates, but been granted a smaller number of others; for example, Gamal seems to have lost one (17,2) and gained three (17,12-14)
	Lands in this chapter are entered both by holder and by hundred. It appears that the main scribe of Great Domesday began with three holdings (17,1-3) distinguished by a particular render, but then intended to enter the lands of each individual holder together, before passing on to another holder. When he had finished with one tenant, he appears to have sought the lands of a fresh tenant in the same hundred. However, he also checked his material for names not so far entered and this led him to revisit hundreds more than once. No tenant holds in more than one hundred.
		17,1 Seisdon Hundred
		17,2-3 [Cuttlestone Hundred]
		(From these three estates payment is made to the sheriff (17,4)).
		________________________________
		17,5 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Aelfric
		17,6-15 [Pirehill Hundred]. Almer (17,6); Dunning (17,7); Leofing (17,8-9); Wulfwin
				(17,10-11); Gamal (17,12-14); Sperri (17,15). The correct hundred heading is
				given at 17,7.
		________________________________
		17,16 [Cuttlestone Hundred]. Richard
		17,17-19 [Totmonslow Hundred]. Alric (17,17); Alwold (17,18); Otto (17,19)
		________________________________
		17,20 Cuttlestone Hundred. Leofhild
		17,21 [Pirehill Hundred]. Alward.
17,1	CYNEWIN HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, Chenuin, which only occurs in WIL 24,23 and STS 17,1 as that of both a T.R.E. and 1086 holder, represents Old English Cynewine: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 221. JRM preferred the second element -win for the Old English -wine, though in the printed Phillimore edition the form Kenwin appears; this has now been altered to Cynewin because of the occurrence of other names there with the first element Cyn(e)-. The Alecto edition has Cynewine.
		In the manuscript his name is clearly CHENVIN, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. However, in the Alecto facsimile the third letter appears as a C; on other misleading reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
		On the possibility that this is also the patronymic surname of a man called Richard the forester/ Richard the hunter, see WAR 44,1 Richard note.
	CODSALL. This was originally a chapelry of Tettenhall Ancient Parish and was later an Ancient Parish in its own right; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 408. In 1086 it lay in Seisdon Hundred as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 283.
		There is no known descent for this manor from the 1086 holder Cynewin. An early thirteenth-century holder was probably William of Codsall, but by 1248, most or all of the manor was held by the collegiate church of Wolverhampton; see VCH Staffordshire, xx. p. 81.
17,2	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Great Saredon and Little Saredon (11,61. 17,2).
	"UDI" HOLDS. The name represented by the Domesday form Udi, which only occurs here in Domesday, is unknown; it does not appear in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England. It has therefore been decided to retain the Domesday spelling. The Alecto edition has Udi.
	[LITTLE] SAREDON. Saredon, represented by Great Saredon and Little Saredon, was originally a township in Shareshill chapelry of Penkridge Ancient Parish; it was a separate Ancient Parish by 1151; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 421. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. pp. 1, 3, 16; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. For another part, Great Saredon held by Robert of Stafford, see 11,61.
		The estate was later held by the priory of Wenlock (Shropshire): Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114; Feudal Aids, v. p. 1.
	GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Gamel, Game - represent Old Norse Gamall, Old Danish Gamal: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 257-58. In some of the Phillimore printed translations this name appears as Gamal, and in others as Gamall; these have now been standardized as the Old Danish form. The Alecto edition has Gamal.
		Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 203, under plain Gamel, has three references to folio 250d, which presumably correspond to only three of the four entries for Gamal in 17,2;12-14. She cites Pipe Roll 31 Henry I , p. 75 (1129-30), to show that Liulf of Audley, who was apparently named from Gamal's estate there (17,13), 'accounted a large sum for Gamel's death'.
		On the identification of Gamal as the son of Gruffydd, see CHS 24,3 Gamal note (JP).
	BUT HIS JURISDICTION WAS THE KING'S. The Latin is soca eius. As eius could be masculine, feminine or neuter, it is not immediately obvious whether the jurisdiction was over a person or a place. However, in a parallel instance the jurisdiction is over people; see 12,17 jurisdiction note. That is to say, the king had jurisdiction over him. Gamal did not therefore have Little Saredon as a manor, but paid suit of court to a royal manor which Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, p. 73, thought was Penkridge (1,7), but which may have been Kinver (1,27) by which it was subsequently reabsorbed; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 176. The Phillimore printed translation has 'its jurisdiction' referring to Little Saredon or the 1 hide. The Alecto edition has 'his soke'.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin una ac[ra] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after cum; see 11,27 meadow note.
17,3	ALRIC HOLDS. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.
	BICKFORD. This was a settlement in Whiston township of Penkridge Ancient Parish Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 103. Like Whiston (4,9) and Penkridge (1,7. 7,17) themselves, it probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086.
		By 1274, this estate was joined with Whiston (4,9), held by Burton Abbey; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 114 (where the name is misprinted as Lukeford); VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 111.
17,4	THESE 3 MEN. They are Cynewin, "Udi" and Alric, the holders of 17,1-3. This statement was written at the end of the account of Bickford, albeit on a new line, and does not really justify being made a separate entry in the Phillimore printed edition.
	SHERIFF. Payment to the sheriff here replaces the normal term valet ('value'). The amount, 12s on land for 6 ploughs, matches the later entries. Throughout the southwestern counties, valet is replaced by reddit, pays, with the addition of per annum in the Liber Exoniensis (Exon). In Staffordshire, at Kingswinford (1,1 Kingswinford note), the Sheriff 'receives and pays the revenue of the manor' (recipit et reddit firmam huius manerii): WOR 1,5. In 1136 Arnold, son of Vitalis of Hilderstone (11,27), granted part of his land, free of dues that concerned him (exceptis communibus geldis regis et communibus auxiliis vicecomitis et praepositorum hundredi et dominorum de quorum feudo ego teneo: 'except for the King's common tax[es], and the common aids to the Sheriff and the hundred-reeves and to the lords from whose Holding I hold'): Stone Cartulary, cited in VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 33 (JRM).
		JRM's note implies that valet in Domesday is replaced by reddit in the Liber Exoniensis, but this should not be taken to mean that the latter text is later than Domesday; in fact it is the immediate predecessor of Great Domesday. Moreover, although reddit per annum regularly occurs in the Liber Exoniensis and was usually altered to valet by the main scribe of Great Domesday during his editing of the south-western counties from that circuit volume, there are many cases where he did not alter it and where he put reddit for the valet of his source; see DEV 2,2 value note.
	12s EACH YEAR. It is not clear whether each tenant in 17,1-3 pays 12s or whether this is the total of their payments, which may not have been in equal portions. JRM's note suggests the latter.
17,5	AELFRIC <OF FLECKNOE> HOLDS. On the name Aelfric, see 11,26 Aelfric note.
		The estates and identity of this Aelfric, an uncle of Thorkil of Warwick, have been plausibly identified by Ann Williams, 'Vice-Comital Family in Pre-Conquest Warwickshire', Anglo-Norman Studies, xi. (1989), pp. 279-95. Three of these holdings (WAR 17,32. 22,20,27) are attributed to an 'Aelric', almost certainly a scribal error for 'Aelfric'. The clearest case is that of the holding at Flecknoe itself, a vill in which three other relatives of Aelfric held land and 'Aelric' held in 1086, a distinctive characteristic of the majority of Aelfric of Fleckoe's holdings and of those of several of his relatives and a characteristic shared with the other two holdings attributed to 'Aelric' (JP).
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. It is possible that this land had been waste and its hidation forgotten; see 1,5 carucate note and 1,25 Cannock note.
	CANNOCK. This was an Ancient Parish, perhaps only from the time of the Dissolution; earlier it was probably in Penkridge Ancient Parish as a dependency of Penkridge collegiate church; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 407; and 7,17 Penkridge note. It probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281.
		This estate presumably originated as a grant from the royal manor of Cannock (1,25), and probably returned to it, for there is no known separate descent for this piece of land; see VCH Staffordshire, v. p. 55.
17,6	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. The heading is entered after instead of before the first place named in the Hundred (JRM). On the other hand, there was space to enter the hundred head above this entry, at the end of the previous entry (17,5), which is the norm in Staffordshire (11,34 Totmonslow note). As the main scribe of Great Domesday was entering material by holders rather than by hundreds, it is possible that the Pirehill hundred head came attached to Dunning's holding of Knighton (17,7). The present heading is supplied from the location of Bishton (17,6). Compare 2,4 Pirehill note, 11,34 Totmonslow note and {Introduction: Identifying and Reconstructing the Hundreds}.
	ALMER HOLDS. On the name-form Almer, see 1,40 Almer note.
	1 CARUCATE OF LAND. See 17,5 carucate note and 1,5 carucate note.
	BISHTON. This was a settlement in Colwich Ancient Parish. Colwich itself is not named in Domesday, but several members of the later Ancient Parish appear there. Bishton probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
		The name means bishop's tun and it probably originated as a part of Haywood (2,5), but had been alienated before 1086.
	ERNWY HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Ernui, Ernuin(us), Arnui, Erneuui, Arnuinus, Ernu, Ernuit etc. - represent Old English Earnwig: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 243-44. JRM preferred Ern- for Old English Earn-, as it reflected the majority of the Domesday spellings. Von Feilitzen pointed out the frequent confusion between the elements -wig and -wine (in this case Earnwig and Earnwine), making it impossible to classify the Domesday forms Ernui and Ernuin correctly: ibidem and §148. The Alecto edition has Earnwig.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
17,7	IN PIREHILL HUNDRED. On this heading, see 17,6 Pirehill note.
	DUNNING HOLDS. On this name, see 1,61 Dunning note.
	KNIGHTON. This was a township of Mucklestone Ancient Parish. In 1086 it lay in Pirehill Hundred as probably did Mucklestone itself (17,8).
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line, almost certainly for the later insertion of the hidage of Knighton; see 2,3 hides note.
17,8	LEOFING HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Leuing(us), Leuinc(us), Liuing(us), Louincus etc. - represent Old English Leofing, Lyfing: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 312. The Alecto edition has Lyfing.
	MUCKLESTONE. This was an Ancient Parish; it extended into Shropshire where it included the township of Woore (SHR 4,15,2). Mucklestone probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 5; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278.
		It was probably resumed by the Crown after 1086 and in 1284-85 (Feudal Aids, v. p. 5) it was held by Theobald de Verdun, a frequent tenant of royal lands.
	ALRIC. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.
	EDRIC. On this name, see 11,23 Edric note.
17,9	LEOFING ALSO HOLDS. On this name, see 17,8 Leofing note.
	WINNINGTON. This was a settlement in Mucklestone Ancient Parish. Like Mucklestone itself (17,8), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
17,10	WULFWIN HOLDS. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.
	BETLEY. This was a township and later a borough in Audley Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		The settlement of Betley is at SJ7548. Betley Old Hall and Betley Hall House are at SJ7549.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
	WULFGEAT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
17,11	WULFWIN ALSO HOLDS. On this name, see 11,47 Wulfwin note.
	BALTERLEY. This was a township divided between Eccleshall Ancient Parish in Staffordshire and Barthomley Ancient Parish in Cheshire. On the creation of the Civil Parish of Balterley in 1866, it was placed entirely in Staffordshire; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 402.
		Land at Baltrytheleage was given by Wulfric Spot to his servant Wulfgar in his will (1002 x 1004) 'just as his father had acquired it for him': Early Charters of Northern England, p. 98 no. 39 (= Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1536 = Whitelock, Anglo-Saxon Wills, no. 17, pp. 46-51, 151-60 = Sawyer, Charters of Burton Abbey, pp. 53-56 no. 29; see p. xxvi no. 14).
		Balterley is represented by Balterley and Balterley Green at SJ7650. Balterley Hall is at SJ764499.
	GODWIN HELD IT. On this name, see 8,19 Godwin note.
17,12	GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.
	BALTERLEY. See 17,11 Balterley note.
	WULFRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	[***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after the T.R.E. holder. It is not clear what he thought might later be added there, as the assessment and plough estimate are on the next line and it could not be for a hundred head as he would have left space for that in the previous entry for this place (17,11).
17,13	GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] ALSO HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.
	AUDLEY. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 11; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 279.
		After 1086, this manor appears to have been resumed by the Crown. In 1274-75 (Wrottesley, 'Staffordshire Hundred Rolls', p. 117) Aldithelee was held with Endone [Endon, 1,61] by Henry de Audley from the king. It was then said to be a member of the manor of Alton (1,54).
	WULFRIC. On this name, see 1,44 Wulfric note.
	GODRIC. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
17,14	GAMAL [* SON OF GRUFFYDD *] ALSO HOLDS. See 17,2 Gamal note.
	TALKE. This was a settlement in Audley Ancient Parish. Like Audley itself (17,13), it probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086.
	GODRIC HELD IT. On this name, see 5,2 Godric note.
	MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The Latin una ac[ra] could be either nominative singular or ablative singular after cum; see 11,27 meadow note. However, the details of the woodland form a new sentence.
17,15	SPERRI HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, Sperri, represents Old Norse Sperrir: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 369. As there is not a final -r in the Domesday form, JRM preferred the form Sperri. The Alecto edition has Sperrir.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	WESTON [-UPON-TRENT]. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 277.
	WULFHELM HELD IT. The Domesday forms of this name - Vlfel, Vlfelm, Vlfelm[us] - represent Old English Wulfhelm: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 421. The Alecto edition has Wulfhelm.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	OF LAND. In the manuscript this is clearly t'rê, as it is in the Ordnance Survey facsimile. In the Alecto facsimile, however, the reproduction is poor, as it also is two lines below, on the car' of the plough estimate in the next entry (17,16). There is a partially-blotted ink blot on the solid' in the value statement of the present entry, but no other imperfections in the parchment here, though the skin is discoloured now on the inner edge of this folio. On other poor reproductions in that facsimile, see 1,59 "Lufamesleg" note.
17,16	[IN CUTTLESTONE HUNDRED]. This heading is deduced from the probable location of Little Onn.
	RICHARD [* THE FORESTER *] HOLDS. On the name Richard, see 7,2 Richard note.
	[LITTLE] ONN. The Domesday form (Anne) is an aberration and contrasts with Otne for High Onn (8,8), which is also erratic. Later forms regularly show Onne; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, p. 141.
		Little Onn and High Onn (8,8) were settlements in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 141. Like Church Eaton itself (11,65) they probably lay in Cuttlestone Hundred in 1086 as they did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 17; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 282.
		The immediate descent of this estate after Domesday is uncertain, but by 1233 it was a member of Penkridge (1,7), held by the Archbishop of Dublin; see Calendar of Close Rolls (Record Commission), p. 218; VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 95. It seems probable that Little Onn had originated as a grant out of Penkridge by some king to a servant or thane, and that, in effect, it was reabsorbed by it.
	AELRIC. On this name-form, see 11,53 Aelric note.
	LAND FOR 2 PLOUGHS. Following this detail, population, resources and value are missing.
17,17	[IN TOTMONSLOW HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Stramshall (17,17).
	ALRIC HOLDS. On the name-form Alric, see 2,22 Alric note.
	STRAMSHALL. This was a settlement in Uttoxeter Ancient Parish. Like Uttoxeter itself (1,19), it probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
	2 CARUCATES AND 1 VIRGATE OF LAND. On this unusual combination of carucates and virgates, see 1,47 carucate note. On carucates, see 1,5 carucate note.
	PERCHES. See 13,4 perches note.
17,18	ALWOLD HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Aluuold(us), Alwaldus, Aeluuold(us), Aluuol, Alnold (a scribal error for Aluold), Aluoldus, Aluolt, Aluol, Aluort, Eluuold, Eluolt - could represent Old English Ælfweald or Old English Æthelweald: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, pp. 154-55, under Al-weald, and see also p. 142, under Al-. JRM followed von Feilitzen in keeping to the base form, but preferred the second element -wold for Old English -weald as it reflected the spelling in Domesday. Some of the people called Alwold in the present edition appear under Alfwold in the Phillimore printed translations. The Alecto edition has Alweald.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	CROXDEN. This was an Ancient Parish, though perhaps only after the Dissolution; see Youngs, Local Administrative Units, ii. p. 409. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086.
17,19	OTTO HOLDS. The Domesday forms of this name - Otto, Otho, Otha, Odo - represent the Old High German Otto: Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names in England, pp. 198-99, who discussed it together with the forms Odo, Oda and Oddo, though he admitted that in many cases they were of different origins. The Alecto edition has Otto.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	CHEADLE?. The Domesday form is Cedla. This was an Ancient Parish. It probably lay in Totmonslow Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Feudal Aids, v. p. 13; Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 281. Eyton, Domesday Studies: Staffordshire, table viii facing p. 96, identified this Cedla and that at 1,57 with Checkley. The royal manor (1,57) was identified with Cheadle by Bridgeman, 'Unidentified Domesday Vills', pp. 35-41. He retained Checkley as the identity of the present estate and was followed in this by VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 58 (see note 99), and by the Phillimore printed edition. On philological and other grounds the present entry should also represent a part of Cheadle. The later forms cited for Checkley in Ekwall, Dictionary of English Place-Names (Checkeleg and Checkelee both 1196), do not appear to derive even from a mangled form of Cedla. Moreover, Bridgeman was unable to find anything that would connect the later estate of Checkley with the Domesday manor of Cedla. If this change of identification is accepted, it means that the Ancient Parish of Checkley does not appear by name in Domesday. In this, it would be similar to other Ancient Parishes such as Stone, but like them is represented by its later constituents: Tean (11,2) and Madeley (11,37). This present estate, if it is part of Cheadle, probably originated as a grant to a thane from the royal manor of Cheadle (1,57) at a time when it was not waste, or both holdings originated in some larger royal estate of Cheadle (1,57).
	WULFGEAT HELD IT. On this name, see 1,58 Wulfgeat note.
	VILLAGERS [***]. The main scribe of Great Domesday left blank the rest of the line after uill'i, which does not have a punctus after it; this was almost certainly for the later inclusion of their ploughs, as in 4,6;10.
17,20	LEOFHILD HOLDS. The Domesday form of this name, Levild, represents the hypothetical Old English feminine name Leofhild: von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 312. The Alecto edition has Leofhild.
		This is the only occurrence of this name in Domesday Staffordshire.
	SHUSHIONS. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Church Eaton; see Place-Names of Staffordshire, i. p. 141. In 1086 it lay in Cuttlestone Hundred. The grid reference is to Shushions Manor (SJ842143).
		The immediate descent of this land after 1086 is unclear, but by 1255 it was held by Wenlock Priory; see Rotuli Hundredorum, ii. p. 115 (where 'barony' is an error for 'priory' and Stuston' a mistranscription of Shuston'); VCH Staffordshire, iv. p. 97.
17,21	[IN PIREHILL HUNDRED]. This head is supplied from the later location of Fenton (17,21).
	ALWARD HOLDS. On this name-form, see 1,36 Alward note.
	FENTON. This was a settlement in the Ancient Parish of Stoke-upon-Trent. It probably lay in Pirehill Hundred in 1086 as it did later: Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 278. The land appears to have reverted to the Crown after 1086 and the 1 virgate here was presumably among the 3 virgates held of the Crown in 1212 as part of the manor of Newcastle-under-Lyme; see Book of Fees, pp. 143, 594. In the Middle Ages there were two estates here, know as 'Fenton Vivian' and 'Fenton Culvert'; see VCH Staffordshire, viii. p. 211.