NOTES
(version 1a)

L6-11	ABBOT. Or 'Abbey'. In the text, chapter 12 has 'Abbey', for 'Abbess' in the List of Landholders; chapters 6-8 have 'Abbey', chapters 9-11 'Abbot' (JRM).
L33	REGINALD. He is actually a subtenant.
1,1b	RANULF [* FLAMBARD *] THE CLERIC. Probably Ranulf Flambard (JRM).
1,1d	OF THE VILLAGE. Probably meaning Bramley (JRM).
1,1e	OF THAT VILLAGE. Probably meaning Bramley (JRM).
1,2	IN LORDSHIP 1. Grammatically, persons as well as ploughs might be 'in lordship'. That is sometimes meant (see 33,1), but not normally. The punctuation draws attention to the ambiguity of the Latin (JRM).
	A CHURCH. Churches, priests and slaves are sometimes grouped with people, sometimes with resources, sometimes elsewhere; a full stop here translates Ibi ('there'); a stop is also inserted between people and resources (JRM).
	WOODLAND AT 133 PIGS. In Surrey, the number paid for the right of pasturage. The payment was sometimes one pig in ten (1,6 and 19,11); sometimes, as in Sussex (for example, SUS 1,5), one pig in seven (19,23 and 30,1). Here, the figure 133 suggests the Middlesex rate of one pig in three (JRM).
	OSBERN [* OF EU *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
1,3	WOODLAND, 40 PIGS; IT IS ... . Farley prints 7 (et, 'and'). The manuscript sign is probably a badly formed ampersand (&), but might be intended for autem or tamen ('but') (JRM).
1,4	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	THEN IT ANSWERED. In Surrey, many hide assessments were reduced, often drastically. Some reductions may be due to damage done in the campaign of 1066; but the values are rarely reduced on a corresponding scale, and in some instances (for example, in 1,9) a different reason is explicitly stated. In some districts, the 1066 assessment seems over large, at 120 acres to the hide. (JRM)
	A NEW AND BEAUTIFUL CHURCH. Probably the Cluniac Church of St Saviour's, founded by Alwin Cilt of London in 1082 as the church of Bermondsey Priory; see the Bermondsey Chronicle (JRM).
	THE COUNT OF MORTAIN HOLDS 1 HIDE. See 17,2 (JRM).
1,5	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	2 SULUNGS IN KENT. The solin is the Kentish equivalent of the 'hide' (JRM).
1,8	DEATH-DUTY. Releua ('relief'), payable by the heir, normally to the king (JRM).
1,9	2 HIDES AND 1 VIRGATE. The difference between the 1066 and 1086 assessments (JRM).
1,12	RECENTLY IT HAS NOT PAID TAX. The Latin is modo n[on] ded[it] geld[um]. JRM translated 'now it does not pay tax', which is not accurate as dedit is a past tense. In an additional note published in the Hertfordshire volume he wrote: '(Tunc et) modo non dedit ['then and now it did not pay tax'] was perhaps intended'. However, 'then it answered for 9 hides', shows that it did pay tax T.R.E. and the modo non dedit seems parallel to other phrases (for example, modo pro nichilo in 1,13). Dedit can also mean 'has paid' and modo 'recently'.
1,13	EDRIC. Possibly Edric of Elham; see KEN 5,129 Edric note (JP).
	THE THREE MANORS WHICH QUEEN EDITH HAD IN SURREY. Four are listed (1,7;10;12-13); Reigate (1,7), held 'now for the king's work', was perhaps excluded (JRM).
1,14	RANULF [* FLAMBARD *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
1,16	ALDGYTH <OF ELMBRIDGE>. The name Aldgyth occurs eighteen times in Domesday Book, probably representing a dozen individuals. As no other Aldgyth held property near this tiny holding, it is likely to have been the only possession of its tenant (JP)
2,1	CROYDON. For the Domesday Monachorum entry, see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}.
2,3	MORTLAKE. For the Domesday Monachorum entry, see {Introduction: Related or 'Satellite' Texts}.
	8 OF THESE HIDES. Presumably at Barnes; see 13,1 (JRM).
	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
3,1	WITH 1 HIDE WHICH IT HAS IN HAMPSHIRE. At Bentley (SU7844) four miles from Farnham; see HAM 2,25 (JRM).
4	BISHOP OSBERN [* OF EXETER *]. Of Exeter (JRM).
5,1a	YOUNG ALNOTH [* OF KENT *]. Young Alnoth, or Alnoth of Kent, was a major landholder in 1066, with several very large holdings in Kent, Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire and Oxfordshire. Apart from the scale of his individual manors he is nearly always distinguished by the title cilt (Young) and by the fact that every one of his holdings devolved upon the Bishop of Bayeux apart from the huge manor of Bramley (SUS 8,1) used to endow Battle Abbey, and a small property in Buckinghamshire (BUK 17,25) where an Alnoth the Kentishman was lord of the pre-Conquest holder, Edstan. It was probably the modest scale of this holding and its acquisition by a tenant-in-chief other than Odo which caused Peter Clarke to omit this Alnoth from his list: English Nobility, pp. 237-38. However, this is almost certainly Alnoth of Kent. Apart from the description, 'Kentishman', his man Edstan did occur elsewhere on the fief of the Bishop of Bayeux (ESS 18,43), and the name is rare enough to make it likely that this is the same individual, despite the distance between the properties (JP).
	100 PIGS. The figure might be read as ci (101), but probably intends c (100) (JRM).
	£ 40. sol' ('shillings') underlined for deletion, corrected to lib' ('pounds') (JRM).
5,1c	2 FURTHER HIDES. Probably at [East] Clandon, see 8,29. (JRM).
5,3	IN WALES. In 1081(JRM).
	TO KENT. Probably in 1082 (JRM).
5,6	ANSGOT [* OF ROCHESTER *]. Tenant of the Bishop of Bayeux, principally in Kent but also in Bedfordshire and Surrey, and possibly also in Buckinghamshire (4,35) where he is named Ansgot of Rots. As the only Ansgot in that county, his tenure from the Bishop makes the identification a probable one. No Ansgots other than tenants of the Bishop are recorded either in Kent or Bedfordshire, and only one unidentified Ansgot in Surrey, so the tenurial argument for identification is compelling. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 157 (JP).
5,7	'WHITFORD' [IN MITCHAM] . Evidently reached by Whitford Lane, Mitcham (Place-Names of Surrey, p. 52); compare Whitford Gardens, London Road, Mitcham. The ford presumably crossed the River Wandle (JRM)
5,8	ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
5,9	CHALDON. Farley has Salvedone, the manuscript Calvedone, the initial being a long S imperfectly corrected to a C; see Place-Names of Surrey, p. 42 (JRM).
5,10	[* YOUNG *] BRICTSI. Young Bricsti held full jurisdiction in western Kent (KEN D25) and is named as the predecessor as Bishop Odo of Bayeux on three occasions. Greenwich (KEN 5,29) and Hatcham (5,10), acquired by Bishop Odo in western Kent from a Brictsi, were granted to the Bishop of Lisieux; these and the nearby Plumstead (KEN 5,21), probably belonged to the same individual who is unlikely to have been a second Brictsi. Elsewhere in Surrey, Young Bricsti is named as the predecessor of Richard of Tonbridge at Stoke d'Abernon and was probably the Brictsi who held two substantial manors to which Walter son of Other succeeded, the closest a little over five miles away from Stoke. Young Brictsi is not named in Sussex; but the Brictsi who held two valuable manors in south Sussex (SUS 11,67 and 13,49) may well be the same individual, and possibly he at Itford (SUS 10,11) also. The only other Brictsis holding manors valued at £10 or more were the predecessors of Arnulf of Hesdin in Wiltshire (WIL 25,1), of William of Falaise in Somerset (SOM 27,1), and of Aiulf the chamberlain in Dorset (DOR 49,12), all or each of whom might have been Young Brictsi; but there are no tenurial or other associations to support an identification. See Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 265-66, who attributes the Sussex holdings to Young Brictsi but not those further afield; Williams, 'Lost Worlds: Kentish Society in the Eleventh Century' (JP).
5,12	ANSGOT [* OF ROCHESTER *]. See 5,6 Ansgot note (JP).
5,13	^[EARL]^ HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	BATTERSEA. See 6,1 (JRM).
5,14	ANSGOT [* OF ROCHESTER *]. See 5,6 Ansgot note (JP).
	STREATHAM. Domesday Estreha[m], the initial e being prosthetic to enable French speakers to manage the -str- group; see Place-Names of Surrey, p. 33. For other actual or possible parts of Streatham, see 8,15. 17,4. 19,11.
5,15	2 HALF MILLS. See 5,17 and 5,22 (JRM).
5,16	[* EARL *] HAROLD. The name Harold is one of the most common in Domesday Book, occurring over 700 times; but it probably represents fewer than 20 individuals, of whom Earl Harold Godwinson is overwhelmingly the most significant, Harold son of Earl Ralph of Hereford being the only other individual of any consequence. In a large number of cases, unfortunately, the scribe has not given Harold his title. In Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk, for instance, he is described as earl only once in each county (ESS B3k. NFK 3,2. SUF 68,1) though he undoubtedly held a large number of estates in all three, possibly all but two of those recorded in the three counties. In the Godwinson territory of Surrey, there is little doubt about the identity of the earl where his title is omitted, either the status of the holdings (6,5 and 11,1), his lordship over men, or his association with Waltham Abbey (17,1;4) confirming his identity. Elsewhere, too, there are surprisingly few cases where there is real cause for uncertainty about identifying the earl: the royal estates, the larger manors, the lordship over men, his territorial predominance in some areas, association with members of his family, and relationships between estates, serve to distinguish him in the majority of cases; but see BUK 17,22 Harold note. Ann Williams, 'Land and Power', discusses Harold's estates and those of his men; and Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 164-91, lists them. Clarke tends to omit the dependencies where Harold is not explicitly named, or holdings named only in satellite texts (CON 4,2. KEN 2,5;41;43). He has also omitted the following: BUK 3a,5. 26,11. 30,1. CHS 8,41. ESS 1,23. HEF 1,56. 17,2. HRT 1,15. 5,5. HUN 13,1-3. NFK 8,33. 9,178; 233. 20,8;19;24;31. 21,16;22;33-34. 22,2-8. 26,3. NTT 3,1-3. OXF 58,30. SUF 1,119. 36,3;5-7;15. 38,21. 39,17. 67,12;17. 76,6;20;23. SUR 26,1. WIL 18,2. 41,1; and the entries for GLS 30,1 and 50,3 have been confused (JP).
5,17	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
5,19	THE BISHOP HOLDS THEM. Latin hoc, understanding manerium; in English, referring to the hides (JRM).
	ILBERT [* OF LACY *]. Probably Ilbert of Lacy, a large holder in Yorkshire and elsewhere (JRM).
5,22	THE SIXTH PART OF A MILL. The manuscript has vi; Farley, in error, v (JRM).
5,24	HUGH HOLDS THESE 4 MANORS AS ONE MANOR. Presumably the lands of the 3 free men of Burgh (5,24) with the hide in Esher (5,25) (JRM).
5,26	THEY DID NOT HAVE A DELIVERER. habuer[at] ('he had not had') is possible, but unusual and improbable; the normal expansion should be habuer[unt], as in tenuer[unt] etc. The probable meaning is that the sisters could not prove lawful possession (JRM).
5,27	WADARD <OF COGGES>. The name Wadard occurs on over forty holdings in Domesday Book, all probably held by one individual. All but a couple of properties in Kent were held as a tenant of the Bishop of Bayeux, the exceptions being held from St Augustine's Abbey which accommodated other of Odo's tenants. This singular distribution proves Wadard's identity, confirmed by the descent of his holdings to form the core of the barony of Cogges: Sanders, English baronies, pp. 36-37; Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 444 (JP).
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
5,28	ON THE SHORE OR ON THE WATERFRONT. In Strande vel in vico Aquae. The basic meaning of vicus is a group of houses, small town or urban district; the mediterranean meaning of 'street' was rare in England before the thirteenth century (JRM).
5,30	THESE ARE ENUMERATED AND ASSESSED. The interlined b and a correct and reverse the word order (JRM).
		This note is a correction by JRM to his original note in the Surrey printed volume, included at the end of the Hertfordshire volume. However, his head words there were 'IT IS', although H[aec] app[re]ciata 7 annumerata sunt is plural and refers to the 2 ½ hides in the previous sentence (in 5,29), though the main scribe of Great Domesday should have written appreciatae 7 annumeratae as hidae is feminine plural. JRM had originally thought that the interlined b abbreviated berewica ('outlier') and that was probably why he made this sentence into a new entry. It is, however, all part of the entry for Sutton-by-Shere: the scribe did not start a new line for H[aec] or highlight the word in red.
6,1	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	THE BISHOP OF LISIEUX, 2 HIDES ... BISHOP OF BAYEUX ... LATER. Evidently at Peckam, see 5,13.
6,4	SWEIN [* OF ESSEX *]. Possibly Swein of Essex; 'kinsman of King Edward': Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, no. 846 (= Sawyer Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 1136 = Harmer, Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 92 pp. 357-57; see pp. 311-12, 357, 512, 573 (JRM).
6,5	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
7,1	21 VILLAGERS. Vill[anu]s (singular) for vill[an]i (plural). The grammatical eccentricity also occurs in 8,3 and 22,1, in each case after the figure xxi (JRM).
8,3	21 VILLAGERS. See 7,1 villagers note (JRM).
8,5	IN THIS HUNDRED THE ABBEY HOLDS 3 VIRGATES OF LAND ITSELF. This marginal insertion is placed between columns c and d of folio 32, leaving a clear space in the manuscript on the left, opposite 8,4, and intruding into the alignment of 8,16 (Esher, in 'Elmbridge' Hundred), on the right. Farley's printed layout rightly connects with the left hand column, and the entry for Tandridge Hundred (8,4), where no place is named (JRM).
8,15	STREATHAM[?]. Estreham, the same spelling as for Streatham in Brixton Hundred (5,14). The only 'Ham' known in Kingston Hundred is Ham by Richmond; estre may here mean eowestre ('sheep fold', or 'ewe fold'), see English Place-Name Elements, i. pp. 155, 160. A possible alternative is Ham, west of the mouth of the Wey, TQ0664, Chertsey land, but in 'Godley' Hundred (JRM).
		However, Ham in Kingston Hundred only came to the abbey later (Lay Subsidy Roll (1334), p. 301), and the Ham in 'Godley' Hundred would almost certainly have been an integral part of Chertsey itself; see Place-Names of Surrey, p. 109.
8,18	IN 'GODLEY' HUNDRED. Here and in 8,19, written in the middle of the first line of the entry, not as a separate heading. The entries are placed between Effingham Hundred entries. Here, the omission of 8,20 was perhaps not observed until after the first words of 8,18 had been written; see also in SUR 5 where two entries for places in Brixton Hundred are misplaced (5,13-14) (JRM)
	RICHARD STURMY. Sturmid, also Esturmid, probably from Old French estormi, Modern French étourdi ('heedless', 'reckless'); see Tengvik, Old English Bynames, p. 345. Since the unusual name was also used by Radulfus (S)turmit (NFK 31,38;41), possibly a relative, it had perhaps already become a family name (JRM).
8,19	IN 'GODLEY' HUNDRED. See 8,18 'Godley' note (JRM).
8,20	OSWALD [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFWOLD *]. Perhaps the thane Oswald, brother of Abbot Wulfwold (36,1), who may also be the Oswald of 19,13 and 19,19. The entry may in part be duplicated in Oswald's Effingham holding in 19,44 (JRM).
8,22	ODIN. So the manuscript. Farley, wrongly, Odm[us]; see 19,2 Odin note (JRM).
	VALUE ... 60s. The entry is carried on from the end of col. 32 d to the beginning of 34 a, interrupted by the insertion of folio 33 (JRM).
8,23	THIS ENTRY and the three following (8,24-27) were written across both columns of the first page of a folio (folio 33), inserted between folio 32 and folio 34. In the manuscript, about half an inch was left between the first six lines (8,23-26) and the last two (8,27). Farley and the Ordnance Survey facsimile place these entries at the top of the page; the modern rebinding sets them about the middle of the page (JRM).
8,24	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 8,23 entry note.
8,25	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 8,23 entry note.
	TOOTING. Perhaps Lower Tooting (JRM).
8,26	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 8,23 entry note.
	TOOTING. Perhaps Tooting Graveney (JRM).
	OSWARD [* OF NORTON *]. Osward, probably the sheriff of Kent (KEN 1,1), is named as having full jurisdiction in western Kent (KEN D25); he was the predecessor of the Bishop of Bayeux in Kent and Essex and probably also of the only two other holdings of an Osward in Kent, the two substantial manors of Crayford and Sellindge, the former held from the archbishop of Canterbury according to the Domesday Monachorum, and the latter acquired by Hugh de Montfort. Crayford was adjacent to the royal manor of Dartford where Osward the sheriff was active, and Sellindge was in western Kent. Moreover, two wealthy landowners with an uncommon name in one county is unlikely, three very improbable (JP).
		It has been observed that in the absence of documentation - almost always the case with Anglo-Saxon landowners - the search for connections which may indicate a identification 'starts with a scattering of dots across the map of England': Lewis, 'Joining the Dots', p. 80. In the case of Osward, the dots are highly indicative: two concentrations, one in Kent, Sussex and Surrey, the other in western England. Otherwise the map is blank apart from a solitary dot in Nottinghamshire. In the south-east, this pattern offers indications of identification where the usual clues - tenurial associations - fail, due the manner in which the Conqueror carved up Kent and Sussex in particular, and they point to a limited number of individuals, possibly only one. The wealthy manor at Walkingstead (15,2), and the substantial ones at Addington (34,1), Pangdean and Ratton (SUS 10,35. 12,32), point in the same direction. Additionally, two tenant-in-chief acquired a holding from an Osward in Claverham, and each had one other holding in the neighbourhood from an Osward. Finally, there are three holdings along the south coast of Sussex held by an Osward at both dates (SUS 12,24;27) or in 1086 (SUS 9,14): more than one survivor with an uncommon name in a limited area is improbable. These three holdings are interspersed with those already discussed, forming a line across southern Sussex and Kent between Muntham (SUS 13,15) in the west and Sellindge in the east. It seems more likely than not that the bulk of these holdings, possibly all of them, had belonged to the same individual, allowed to survive on a fraction of his former holdings by his supplanters, as was often the case elsewhere. See also Clarke, English Nobility, whose list omits the holding recorded in the Domesday Monachorum and also SUS 9,4 and 12,24;27;32 (JP).
8,27	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 8,23 entry note.
8,29	2 HIDES IN [EAST] CLANDON. They are probably the 2 hides said to be in Bramley (5,1c), put there by the Bishop of Bayeux.
8,30	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. Azur was one of the wealthiest thanes in southern England, his large estate centred in Sussex but spread as far afield as Gloucestershire. The bulk had been held directly from King Edward though several holdings were held from Earls Godwin and Harold. The division of Sussex into Rapes which cut across Anglo-Saxon tenurial arrangements make it impossible to be certain that every one of the Sussex holdings belonged to the same Azur; but the fact that he held from both the King and the earls in the three Rapes where most of his holdings lay, and that he had large manors in all of them, indicate the majority if not all of these holdings were his. The key to his identification in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and Surrey, and the link between these counties and his Sussex manors, is provided by a Gloucestershire entry (GLS 1,63) which reveals that Azur sold this manor to the Godwinsons and that it was held illegally in 1086 by Edward of Salisbury, on whom Azur's estates in Wiltshire and some in Surrey devolved. With one exception, the remaining holdings in Surrey, all substantial, were acquired by Richard of Tonbridge; they all lay between Edward of Salisbury's two manors and it is likely they had belonged to same individual. This one remaining manor, valued at £6, had been granted by Azur to Chertsey Abbey for his soul's sake, the act of a wealthy man. Finally, the three Hampshire properties acquired by Hugh of Port were freehold properties of substance, as was the Berkshire manor of Eddington (BRK 1,28), retained by King William. It may be coincidental but it is apparent that all the tenants-in-chief who shared Azur's holdings held official positions, as sheriffs or lords of liberties. See also Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest, pp. 105-106 (who argues that Edward's predecessor may have been a relative of his); Clarke, English Nobility, p. 255-57; and OXF 18,1 Azur note. (JP).
11,1	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	BRANSHILL?. Possibly a lost Surrey name. Either 'shelter (geselle) where broom grew', or, in Kentish dialect, 'Bramble Hill'. Branshill (Brembelshulle), at TQ7615, now restricted to a farm name, is the English name for all or part of Battle Hill; see Place-Names of Sussex, p. 496. Since one Surrey holding (18,1) was attached to a Sussex manor 25 or more miles distant before 1066, the site of Battle may have been attached to Limpsfield. If so, the grant of this single Surrey manor to the abbey is readily explained (JRM).
13,1	MORTLAKE. See 2,3 (JRM).
	10 VILLAGERS. Farley has ix vill[an]i, the manuscript x, with a long initial looped tail, probably intending '10', but possibly an imperfect correction of x to ix (JRM).
14,1	COUNTESS GODA. Countess of Boulogne; died 1056 (JRM).
	ONE FIELD. Cultura; see, for example, CHS R2,2: metebant in culturis regis ('they reaped in the King's fields'). (JRM).
15,1	[* COUNTESS *] GYTHA, [* EARL *] HAROLD'S MOTHER. Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin and mother of Earl Harold Godwinson, easily confused with Gytha, wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford and mother of another Earl Harold; but in Surrey there is no doubt as to which Gytha is intended. In a number of manors where she is not identified by her title or as the wife or mother of earls, she can be confidently identified by the status of the holdings concerned. The four royal manors held by a Gytha in Somerset and Wiltshire, for instance, were collectively valued at over £150, and the huge manor of Frampton in Dorset held by St Stephens of Caen and evidently once a royal manor, was worth £40. The modest Cornish holdings had been detached from her son's manor of Lanow: see CON 5,7,6 Gytha note. All these manors were in Godwinson territory so Gytha was the Countess of Wessex not the Countess of Hereford. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 204-205, who list omits Little Puddle in Dorset (DOR 1,14). See also 5,16 Harold note. (JP).
15,2	'WALKINGSTEAD'. Corresponding to modern Godstone; see Place-Names of Surrey, pp. 317, 320 (JRM).
	OSWARD [* OF NORTON *]. See 8,26 Osward note (JP).
16	COUNTESS OF BOULOGNE. Ida of Lorraine, second wife of Count Eustace (JRM).
17,1	LAMBETH. Probably Stockwell and South Lambeth; see the boundaries in Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus, p. 158 no. 813 (JRM).
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
17,2	1 HIDE OF THE KING'S LAND IN BERMONDSEY. William I appears to have given this hide (part of the royal manor of Bermondsey, 1,4) to his half brother; it was later reunited with the main manor; see VCH Surrey, iv. p. 19.
17,4	STREATHAM[?]. Identified by JRM in the Phillimore printed edition as Ham with the accompanying note: 'The only known Ham in Wallington Hundred is Ham in Croydon: Place-Names of Surrey, p. 51'. However, Estreham is the same spelling as for Streatham in Brixton Hundred (5,14. 19,11; see 8,15 Streatham note), while Ham in Croydon was most probably counted silently as part of the large manor of Croydon itself (2,1) in 1086. Moreover, as Baring, Domesday Tables p. 1, pointed out, the mention of smallholders is not appropriate to a place in Wallington Hundred where cottagers are the norm.
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
18,1	COMPTON IN SUSSEX. See SUS 11,36 (JRM).
	ESBIORN. Possibly Esbiorn Big, an important landowner in Kent; see KEN 5,42 Esbiorn note (JP).
18,2	OSMUND <OF EATON>. Osmund, a predecessor of Earl Roger of Shrewsbury and his tenant Turold, was 'positively' identified by Round, VCH Surrey, p. 283; see also Clarke, English nobility, p. 329 (JP).
	IN WHICH WAS THE HALL WHICH BELONGED TO THIS MANOR BEFORE 1066. Or 'in which was the hall before 1066. It belongs to this manor' (JRM).
18,3	OSMUND <OF EATON>. See 18,2 Osmund note (JP).
18,4	OSMUND <OF EATON>. See 18,2 Osmund note (JP).
19,1	ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
19,2	ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
	ODIN. The manuscript might here be read as Odm[us], but no such name is known; see 8,22 Odin note (JRM).
	"LEMEI". JRM's note read 'Manuscript Lemei, in error for Lemer; Le[o]dmer (21,2) is a possible alternative'. Although Lemei may be a scribal error, the name represented by the Domesday form Lemar' in 21,2 is unsure (21,2 "Lemar" note) and he held before 1066, whereas Lemei was a 1086 subtenant. As the form Lemei, which only occurs here in Domesday, does not relate to any of the names in Forssner, Continental-Germanic Personal Names, it has been decided for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Lemei.
19,5	ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
19,6	ONE MANOR. Possibly Warlingham in Tandridge Hundred; see VCH Surrey, i. p. 315 (JRM).
	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
19,10	SAINTE-MARIE OF LE BEC-HELLOUIN. The Abbey of Le Bec-Hellouin in the French département of Eure, 20 miles north-west of Evreux (JRM).
	1 HIDE. Inserted above the line as a correction, the long downward stroke intended as a deletion mark against similiter (JRM).
19,11	1 HIDE AND 1 VIRGATE OF LAND. Correction and deletion as in 19,10 (JRM).
19,13	WORTH[?]. Probably in Sussex, just across the modern county boundary; but possibly a lost 'Worth' in Surrey (JRM).
19,14	ALNOTH [* OF LONDON *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
19,15	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
19,16	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
19,19	OSWALD [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFWOLD *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
19,20	THEN IT ANSWERED FOR 5 HIDES. Followed by a gap, sufficient for the 1086 assessment; left blank because 19,21 gives a combined assessment for both places (JRM).
	½ ROD. Possibly v[irga] rather than v[irgata] (JRM).
19,22	A LAND CALLED 'EMBER'. Terram, not classified as a manor. Limeurde is Ember (Court) in Thames Ditton (Place-Names of Surrey, p. 91) on the borders of Kingston Hundred and 'Elmbridge' Hundred, to which it later belonged. (JRM). The Phillimore printed edition has 'Immerworth' as the head word.
19,25	TO RICHARD OF TONBRIDGE . Rather than 'against Richard', as VCH Surrey, i. p. 317 (JRM).
19,27	6 COTTAGERS WITH 4 [PLOUGHS].The manuscript has vi cot' cu[m] iiii cot', in error for vi cot' cu[m] iiii car' (JRM).
	6 PIGS. The v of vi is written over a previous figure, perhaps i (JRM).
19,34	'DIRTHAM'. It is represented by Dirtham Lane in Effingham: Place-Names of Surrey, p. 102.
19,35	'DIRTHAM' . See 19,34 'Dirtham' note.
	RICHARD CLAIMS IT. Farley has calūniattt, with an abbreviation sign over the first two letters t; so the manuscript, but with overwriting, which extends into the space before the following word, and perhaps mistakenly alters calumniat to calumniant (JRM).
	NOW 3 HIDES PAY TAX. The hides of 19,34-35 (JRM).
19,36	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
	[HE HAS] 1 ½ PLOUGHS ... 1 VILLAGER AND 1 SLAVE. MEADOW, 1 ACRE. The villager and the slave are in the accusative case, so presumably are the 1 ½ ploughs, and habet ('he has') should be understood; the acre, however, is in the nominative (JRM).
19,37	ROBERT [* OF VATTEVILLE *]. Probably of Vatteville (JRM).
19,39	MEREWIN <OF THORNCROFT>. The name Merewin occurs seven times in Domesday Book. The tenant of the modest 1 hide holding in Surrey is unlikely to have held any of the other distant properties of a Merewin (JP).
	THE 2 HIDES. Those of Alric and Almer, and of Merewin; Merewin's holding is given first as 1 hide and 1 virgate, later as 1 hide (JRM).
19,40	THIS ENTRY and the following three (19,41-43) were added at the foot of the column, and were not Richard's lands (JRM).
19,41	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 19,40 entry note.
	"MIDEHAM". Either a lost place, or a misreading of Micleham (Mickleham) in the return copied (JRM).
19,42	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 19,40 entry note.
19,43	FOR THIS ENTRY, see 19,40 entry note.
	2 HIDES. William son of Ansculf held Milton in Wotton Hundred (21,4) to which belonged 2 hides in 'Copthorne' Hundred, no doubt the present two.
19,44	OSWALD [* BROTHER OF ABBOT WULFWOLD *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
19,46	[IN WOTTON HUNDRED]. The hundred heading is misplaced, after instead of before, Ockley (JRM)
	THEN FOR ½ HIDE. JRM's note read 'hida for hida[m], the abbreviation sign omitted'. However, the Latin T[un]c p[ro] dim[idia] hida is correct as the preposition pro takes the ablative case; the verb se defendebat ('it answered for') should be understood.
20,1	EARL HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
21,1	'WHITFORD'. See 5,7 'Whitford' note (JRM).
	LANK HELD IT. Tenuit is repeated in error (JRM).
21,2	"LEMAR". In the printed Phillimore edition this name was rendered Ledmer and JRM's note read: 'Or possibly Leofmer, see 19,2'. As von Feilitzen, Pre-Conquest Personal Names of Domesday Book, p. 309, was unsure as to whether the Domesday form Lemar' represented Old English Leofmær or Old English Leodmær, and left his headword as Lemar, it has been thought safest for the present edition to keep to the Domesday form. The Alecto edition has Lemar.
21,3	ANSCULF [* THE SHERIFF *]. Note to be supplied (JP).
	HELDRED. Perhaps for Aldred (JRM).
	THEY DID NOT PAY TAX. Possibly, but not probably, 'He (Walter) did not pay' (JRM).
21,4	BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. 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 Chris Lewis, 'The French in England before the Norman Conquest', Anglo-Norman studies, vol. 17 (1995), pages 123-44, and Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 257-58; both lists include only Baldwin's pre-Conquest holdings (JP).
	2 HIDES WHICH BELONG TO THIS MANOR. Probably the hides of 19,43 (JRM).
21,5	BALDWIN [* SON OF HERLEWIN *]. See 21,4 Baldwin note (JP).
	ORDWY <OF ANSTIE>. The name Ordwy occurs on thirteen holdings in Domesday Book. The tiny holding in Anstie, remote from all others, is likely to have been the only property of Ordwy of Anstie (JP).
21,6	HUSCARL. King's Household Guard, not uncommon as a personal name (JRM). In the Phillimore printed edition Huscarle is rendered 'Guard'.
21,7	HUSCARL. See 21,6 Huscarl note.
22,1	21 VILLAGERS. xxi villan[u]s; see 7,1 villagers note (JRM).
22,5	THIS MISPLACED ENTRY is assigned to its proper place by transposition marks, in the right margin at its proper place, the left margin at its actual place. Farley's printed rosettes represent a simple circle with a vertical line running through and below it in the manuscript (JRM).
23	THIS CHAPTER and the following (SUR 24) are in small lettering, squeezed into a space too small for them; see also SUR 26. The misplaced entry (22,5) is transcribed in normal lettering (JRM).
24	FOR THIS CHAPTER, see SUR 23 chapter note (JRM).
24,1	[IN GODALMING HUNDRED]. Farley's print gives the misleading impression that space was left for the missing hundred heading. In the manuscript, the chapter title is written in that space, not above it (JRM).
25,1	DOES NOT BELONG. P[er]tinet, not pertinuit, meaning that it does not belong to the land which was Esger's. Two oblique strokes in the left margin of the manuscript, running down from left to right, may be intended to mark disputed tenure (JRM).
	ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. The name Esger occurs on over 130 holdings but may represent only six individuals. Of these, by far the most important was Esger the constable, predecessor of Geoffrey de Mandeville on the bulk of his holdings. So pronounced was the descent of Esger's holdings to Geoffrey that one way the Domesday scribe had of casting doubt on the legality of Geoffrey's tenure of any property was to state 'it was not of Esger's Holding' or words to that effect (ESS 30,2. SUF 32,1. SUR 25,1;3). Where not explicitly identified as the constable, therefore, Geoffrey's succession to the holdings of an Esger, or frequently of his men, plausibly identifies Esger as the constable. On two other holdings where Esger is not explicitly identified as the constable, his man is identified elsewhere as a man of the constable (HRT 17,10. 33,13;18-19), or another of his men held land in the vill concerned (CAM 22,8. 32,16), making the identification more likely than not, particularly as no other Esger can be identified as a lord of other men. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 243-49, who omits holdings at CAM 32,11. ESS 90,28. NTH 45,8 and SUF 32,4-5 (JP).
25,2	27 HIDES. The figures detailed total 26 hides (JRM).
25,3	ESGER [* THE CONSTABLE *]. See 25,1 Esger note (JP).
	BROTHERS. Possibly Harold's brothers (JRM).
26	THIS CHAPTER is entered in small lettering, as chapters 23 and 24 (JRM).
27,1	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
27,2	AZUR <OF SLINDON>. See 8,30 Azur note (JP).
27,3	FOR 5 HIDES ...5 PIGS. Written as one line across the bottom of the whole page at the foot of folio 36ab (JRM).
	THE VALUE ...60s. Written at the foot of folio 36b, to the right of the column (JRM).
29,1	FROM THIS MANOR. Farley prints a blank space; in the manuscript, four or five letters are erased (JRM).
29,2	CHESSINGTON. It was in Kingston Hundred in 1086, later in 'Copthorne' Hundred (JRM).
	WIGOT [* OF WALLINGFORD *]. Father-in-law of Miles Crispin (JRM).
30,1	GODTOVI. The manuscript has Goltoui, for Godtoui, see 20,1-2 (JRM).
	THE VILLAGERS' SEVENTH PIG. See 1,2 pigs note (JRM).
30,2	NORTHMANN <OF MEREWORTH>. The name Northmann is not common in the south-east, where all references have been identified as the magnate who had significant legal privileges in eastern Kent (KEN D17). All the holdings of Northmann in Kent, Surrey and Sussex were held directly from the Crown, and several were of a status appropriate to a magnate of regional importance. Although they devolved upon a number of tenants-in-chief, the substantial manors of Nettlestead, Mereworth, Blean, Annington and Camberwell are more likely to have been held by one man rather a number of different wealthy individuals with an uncommon name. There can be less confidence with the smaller properties; but if Peter Clarke is correct in his identification, Northmann was one of the many Anglo-Saxon magnates permitted to survive on a fragment of their previous estates, holding a small part of the manor of Frankwell he had previously held in its entirety, serving moreover as one of a number of men-at-arms in the entourage of the Norman who had supplanted him: Clarke, Domesday nobility, p. 325 (JP).
31,1	KING [EDWARD]. Read de rege [E] (JRM).
32,2	ABBOT ALSI. Of Ramsey, perhaps also of St Augustine's, Canterbury; 'Aethelsige' in older spelling (JRM).
33	ALFRED OF MARLBOROUGH. In the List of Landholders Reginald's name is entered (JRM).
33,1	KARLI <OF NORTON>. Karli was an Anglo-Saxon magnate with estates valued at almost £150, which would place him among the twenty wealthiest landowners after the earls. Most of his estates were granted to Alfred of Marlborough, who succeeded him in five counties. Elsewhere, the Karli who held estates from King Edward in Sussex and Berkshire may well be the same man since these are the only other holdings in the south of England held by a Karli and three of them were of sufficient status for a magnate. In Kent, two sons of Karli, Godric and Godwin, had held valuable manors which were acquired by Bishop Odo. It seems likely that Karli of Norton was their father. See also Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 5, 317-18, who also attributes all the holdings in the south of England to this individual (JP).
	8 SLAVES. Here, and in the land held from Alfred by Walter, slaves are entered between lordship ploughs and villagers, instead of in the position normal in Surrey, with the church, before the mills and meadows. As normally, the Latin does not distinguish between what is and is not in lordship; the word order suggests that in this entry the slaves were regarded as in lordship, with the ploughs, in contrast with the villagers (JRM).
34,1	OSWARD [* OF NORTON *]. See 8,26 Osward note (JP).
35	LAND OF ODARD ^[THE BOWMAN]^. Balistarius in 35,1. The term ballista comprehended all kinds of missile-throwing weapons, from the crossbow to the large artillery piece. The English word 'gun' was used of such weapons before the introduction of 'gun-powder' (JRM). Hence JRM preferred 'gunner'.
		The name Odard occurs on one fief and eight other holdings in Domesday Book, probably representing six individuals. The fief of Odard the bowman has no discernible connections to the holdings of any other Odard in Domesday Book, all of which are remote from his two Surrey manors. See also Keats-Rohan, Domesday People, p. 307 (JP).
36,1	2 MARKS OF GOLD. Normally valued at £6; marks of silver, normally at 13s 4d (JRM).
	THE ABBOT [* WULFWOLD OF CHERTSEY *], OSWALD'S BROTHER. Abbot Wulfwold of Chertsey, died 1084; see 8,20 Oswald note (JRM).
	COMBAT. Bellum, meaning judicial combat (JRM).
	GEOFFREY. Gaufridus, an occasional variant of the more usual Goisfridus; This Geoffrey is not otherwise known (JRM).
36,4	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
	[* EARL *] HAROLD. See 5,16 Harold note (JP).
36,9	LOLLESWORTH[?]. Lodesorde. Possibly Lodsworth near Midhurst (Place-Names of Sussex, p. 26); but perhaps a misspelling of Lollesworth in West Horsley in Woking Hundred (Place-Names of Surrey, p. 141); compare Lowleth (Lolleworth) in Chertsey, in Godley Hundred (Place-Names of Surrey, p. 381). For confusion between Lod- and Lol-, see, for example, HUN 19,19 (JRM).
36,10	IN GODALMING HUNDRED is entered on folio 36c, opposite the last line of 36,9. The first line of the entry is written across both columns in a single line at the foot of the page; the second line is at the foot of folio 36c (JRM).